« AnteriorContinuar »
ment of the Directory in France, which had hoped to have prevented a successor, by augmenting the army in Italy. In case of failure, the government had provided two or three candidates, with a view to upset the chance. But the revolution of 19th Brumaire, which took place on the 9th November, dissipated the ridiculous reveries of the theophilanthropy. Bausset says, he had heard Napoleon express himself distinctly on the point, saying, that his first care in attaining the consulate, should be to favour the election of Pius VII. who was accordingly elevated on the 9th March, 1806. A courier was shortly after sent to Rome, desiring M. de Cacault, the French ambassador, to demand his passports and quit Rome, because the Pope did not seem desirous of facilitating the views of France. The Romans took fright, and the Pope determined to agree in those views. M, de Cacault advised the Pope to send to Paris, Cardinal Gonsalvi, whose rank flattered Napoleon, and whose powers were unlimited. Thus the concordat was signed, and religion was re-established in France ; and some years after, the Pope, from gratitude, was willing to consecrate and crown the Emperor. One day the Cardinal met M. de
S as he was taking leave of Mde. de Brignole. “ Can you imagine,” says Madame de Brignolé, “ what the subject of my conversation with the Cardinal was? We were speaking of the marriage of the Priests.” In fact, the Cardinal, overjoyed at the signature of the concordat, had said, if France demanded it, the Pope would concede the point, as it was only a point of discipline. M. de
S h astened to tell the First Consul, who replied that he did not doubt that the proposition, if made, would be accepted, but that he abstained from giving the “ faubourg St. Germain" an opportunity of calling the Holy Father a heretic : he added, that he wished to have a Pope whose character was not weakened; a true, catholic, apostolic, Roman Pope. And this was not the first occasion the Emperor had of proving his respect for the wishes of good society (which he expressed, by the “faubourg Saint-Germain.") So much, for the present, of Gallican independence and inconsistency.
Bishop Hobart and Dr. Milnor. The following speech of the Rev. respecting the lessons which were used, Dr. Milnor, of this city, at the anni- by having a smaller portion read than at versary meeting of the Prayer Book present; and this proposal was no less and Homily Society," in London,
ihan three years before the Conference, taken from an English paper, has
and was discussed by those who had been appeared in
sent to the Conference from the different several of the public
states. Upon its coming on for a decision, prints :
he was gratified in saying that there was The Rev. Dr. Milnor, of New York, not a single person in favour of the prowho, after adverting to the benefit which posed alteration of the venerable prelate would result from the present institution, who brought forward the measure; and he observed, that in America it was proposed rejoiced in saying, that throughout America by one of the prelates of the American they now used the same Prayer-book and Episcopal Church, to make an alteration Homilies which were used by the Church
of England, with the exception of some city of London, on the 5th of May slight alterations that took place upon the last, at the meeting of the Prayerdeclaration of independence in the United Book and Homily Society, has been States. He certainly considered it was published in several of our newspapers. dangerous to tuuch and alter that which
In that speech, as reported, the followcontained such sacred writings. Was not the Prayer-book deserving their most seri
ing paragraph occurs :
The Rev. Dr. Milnor, of New York, ous attention, especially as it had produced
who, after adverting to the benefit which such an essential alteration in the opinions
would result from the present institution, of the people, who formerly, and before
observed, that in America it was proposed they read the beautiful Homilies of the
by one of the prelates of the American Episcopalian Church, looked upon it more
Episcopal Church to make an alteration like a Roman Catholic Missal ? Since then
respecting the lessons which were used, by mankind had become more candid in their
having a smaller portion read than at inquiries, and they found that the Prayer
present, and this proposal was no less than book contained what the Bible contains, all
three years before the Conference, and was which was pure and sacred. He, moreover, felt proud in saying it
discussed by those who had been sent to
the Conference from the different states. was a work against the introduction of
Upon its coming on for a decision, he was heresy; and in proof of his assertiou he was prepared to say, that only one man
gratified in saying that there was not a had been able to introduce any thing like
single person in favour of the proposed heresy into the United States, and that
alteration of the venerable prelate who
brought forward the measure; and he was in Boston, and he by some means did
rejoiced in saying, that throughout America manage to convert his congregation from
they now used the same Prayer-book and Christianity to Unitarianism ; but it was a
Homilies which were used by the Church triumphant reply, when he stated that it
of England, with the exception of some was the only instance which had occurred
slight alterations that took place upon the in the United States. They, however, had
declaration of independence in the United learned that lesson from London. They
States. He certainly considered it was had intercepted a correspondence from
dangerous to touch and alter that which thence, in which the Unitarians here begged of those in America not to be too
contained such sacred writings. fast, lest by so doing they exposed them This paragraph, and indeed the enselves. The intercepted correspondence tire speech, are calculated to produce desired them to preach morality, and to the impression that “one of the prelates keep the Redeemer out of their view; by of the American Episcopal Church” so doing, the congregation would praise (I am the individual meant) stood the beauty of their sermons; and not to
alone in a rash and presumptuous atlet them appear practical, but to talk of
tempt to “touch and alter” the Liturgy; the Saviour as a martyr, who came to
and that you, and the entire American teach a purer system of morality than the world befure contained, and in defence of
bishops and clergy, actuated by a sinthat system he had laid down his life.
cere and devoted reverence for this Thus they might go on until the congre
hallowed ritual, marshalled yourselves gation was prepared to reject the divinity against this daring innovator, and of the Saviour, and strip Christianity of all saved this “ delightful service” from that was spiritual and pure. This was the rude hand that would have marred the doctrine of those who rejected the its beauty. Prayer-book and its Homilies; such their I am unwilling to believe that it was endeavours, though a more delightful ser
your deliberate design to produce these vice did not exist to carry their aspirations
impressions; for they are not warto the throne of mercy. In conclusion he
ranted by facts known to you. You would say, that if any circumstance existed
and I, too, under all variety of circumto establish the Church of England upon an imperishable foundation, it was by
stances, and under no very unimporpreserving the Homilies and the Prayer
tant differences in matters of policy, book.
and, I am afraid, of principle, have
been friends from early life. On your Bishop Hobart's Letter TO DR. recent departure for England, I took MILNOR.
leave of you as a friend : and our New York, June 22, 1830. mutual expressions of feeling on this Rev. AND DEAR SIR,--A Report of occasion were, I am satisfied, perfectly a speech which you delivered in the sincere. I was not prepared, there
fore, to find that, on one of your first public appearances in England, you held up your bishop and your friend in a light certainly not calculated to raise him in the good opinion of those whom you addressed.
I have reason to thank God that I have never been much tempted to consider, in the determination of duty, what might or might not be popular; and the older I become, the more convinced am I that “it is a small matter to be judged of man's judgment.” But I am not indifferent to that “good report” which, both from personal and official considerations, it is my duty to endeavour to preserve. My visit to England made me somewhat known there, and I am willing to think that I enjoy the good opinion of some distinguished individuals, whose friendship is as honourable as it is gratifying. Å principal claim to that good opinion arises from the conviction of my consistent attachment to the Church, and especially its Liturgy. It is the tendency of your remarks to deprive me of this claim. I must be permitted to prove that they are not warranted by facts.
In the Journal of the General Convention of our Church, of 1826, at page 76, is the following record on the proceedings of the House of Bishops:
On motion of the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, resolved, that the House of Bishops propose the following preambles and resolutions to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies :
The House of Bishops, deeply solicitous to preserve unimpaired the Liturgy of the Church, and yet desirous to remove the reasons alleged, from the supposed length of the service, for the omission of some of its parts, and particularly for the omission of that part of the communion office, which is commonly called the ante-communion, do UNANIMOUSLY propose to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the following resolutions, to be submitted to the several state conventions, in order to be acted upon at the next General Convention, agreeably to the eighth article of the constitution.
Then follow the resolutions.
It appears from page 65 of the same journal, in the proceedings of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, that this house, thirty-nine ayes, nineteen noes, concurred in the resolutions of the House of Bishops.
T hus then the propositions which I am represented by you as alone sustaining, were unanimously adopted by the House of Bishops, and by a very large majority of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General Convention of 1826.
It is true, the motion which introduced these propositions was made by me—but not until I had consulted all my brethren of the House of Bishops, several members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and others not members, and among them yourself, and received their and your approbation of them.
You observe that these " propositions were no less than three years before the Convention, and were discussed there; and on their coming to a decision, you are gratified in saying, that there was not a single person in favour of the proposed alteration of the venerable prelate' (meaning me). I am confident, that individuals not acquainted with the real state of the case, would suppose, from the above statement, that I was, after the lapse of three years, the advocate of the adoption of the proposed alterations, and in this sentiment stood alone. What is the fact? In the Journal of the General Convention of 1829, in the proceedings of the House of Bishops, page 79, is the following record :page 19, is the
On motion of the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, seconded by the Right Rev. Bishop Brownell, resolved, that, under existing circumstances, it is not expedient to adopt the proposed resolutions relative to the Liturgy and Office of Confirmation, and they are therefore hereby dismissed from the consideration of the Convention. And the resolution was sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies for concurrence.
A message was afterwards received from that house, with information that they concurred in that resolution.
Thus, then, there was, in fact, no “ decision” on the abstract propriety of the proposed alterations. Under “ existing circumstances," it was judged not expedient to adopt them, and they were dismissed from consideration, in consequence of a motion made by me to this effect. What circumstances led to this determination, and what reasons induced the measure of bringing forward these propositions, may be inferred from the following extract from
an address made by me to the NewYork Diocesan Convention of 1827: • What are the alterations proposed? On this subject I would adopt the language of a Right Rev. Brother, and say, that, strictly speaking, there are no alterations of the Liturgy contemplated; that is, there are to be no omissions of any parts of the Liturgy, nor a different arrangement of them. As a whole, the Liturgy remains as it now is There is no omission, or alteration, or different arrangement of the Prayers of the Morning and Evening Service: they are to remain as they now are. The alterations respect merely the Psalms, and the Lessons, and the proportions of them which are to be read.
There is no accounting for the different views which individuals of equally sound judgment and honest minds will take of the same subject; but, really the objects to be accomplished by the proposed alterations appear to me to be so desirable, and the alterations so reasonable and judicious, that I have felt great and increasing surprise at the opposition to them. I hope and pray that this opposition may in no respect be influenced by a desire to retain the plea of necessity for altering the Liturgy in consequence of its length, that thus “individual license may have no bounds.” But, without doubt, the opposition is dictated in many by considerations entitled to the highest respect-their attachment to the Liturgy, and their fears of innovation. Of my devoted attachment to that Liturgy. I think I have given the fullest evidence; and so far from desiring, for my own gratification, to shorten it, I rarely avail myself of the discretionary rubrics. To secure it from hasty and injudicious alterations, unless my memory deceives me, I proposed the present article of the constitution, which requires that no alterations shall be made in it, which have not been adopted in one General Convention, made known to the different Diocesan Conventions, and finally adopted in a subsequent General Convention. Here, surely, is full security for our invaluable Liturgy. This provision of the constitution cannot be altered but by the same process. The alteration must be proposed in one General Convention, made known to the Diocesan Conventions, and adopted in a subsequent General Convention. Without such a provision, the Liturgy might be endangered by hasty and injudicious alterations. With this provision, its most solicitous friends need not fear for it. There will be, with such a provision, extreme difficulty in altering the Liturgy under any circumstances. Their fears, I humbly conceive, should arise from a different source-from the unlicensed altera
VOL. XII. NO. XI.
tions in the Liturgy which are now practised; which mar its beauty and effect; which must diminish the sacred veneration with which it should be cherished; and which thus most seriously endangers it.
How are these alarming innovations to be arrested? By remonstrance and admonition ? These have been tried in vain. By the strong arm of authority? But is this an easy or a wise course? When the service is felt and admitted by so many persons to be too long, public sentiment and general practice will, more or less, sanction abbreviations in it. Under such circumstances the exercise of discipline, if not imprudent, would at least be difficult. Would it not be wiser to remove, as far as possible, the reasons, real or feigned, for these violations of law, and then to enforce it? Would not such a course be pursued in a civil government? Is it not eminently proper in an ecclesiastical one?
It may be said, that they who now alter the service will continue to do it, even after the proposed abbreviations are adopted—if they do not respect law at one time, they will not at another. But let it be remembered, law can be enforced with more salutary effect, and with less odium, when it has been accommodated, as far as possible, without departure from essential principles, to those circumstances which are urged as a plea for violating it. Those who now omit parts of the service, on account of its length, will have no reason to do so when it is by law abbreviated. And those who will still be lawless, may then be most reasonably subjected to ecclesiastical discipline.
Will it be said, that the proposed abbreviations are so short that they will not satisfy those who now object to the length of the service? In many cases, doubtless, the Lessons are short; but in many others they are so long, that by judiciously abridging them and the Psalms, a portion of time will be gained nearly equal to that which would be occupied in the use of the Ante-Communion Service. By the abbreviations now allowed, by the omission of the Gloria Patri in certain cases, and of a part of the Lessons, but little time is saved; and yet it seems generally to be deemed of importance to save that time.
It ought to be a strong recommendation of these proposed alterations, as far as the Morning and Evening Prayer are concerned, that these services will not appear to our congregations in a different form from what they now do. The Psalms will still be read, but the portion need not be só long--the Lessons will still be read, but in some cases abbreviated, and on week days changed from those appointed in the calendar--a circumstance which will not be apt
to be noticed by the congregation. And allments in your published speech. In this is discretional; for those who prefer that speech you appear, I think at my using the whole portion of Psalms, and the expense, the high panegyrist of the entire Lessons, may do so.
Liturgy. I doubt not your attachment Is this discretion objected to, as destroy
to it. But who most consistently dising the uniformity of the service ? But who
plays a sacred regard for this invalualleges that the discretion which now exists,
able ritual? The use of the Book of as to the omission, in certain cases, of the Gloria Patri, and a part of the Litany, se
Common Prayer, and of nothing but riously destroys the uniformity of the Li
that book, is bound upon us by our turgy? And yet these variations are more
ordination vows and by the canons. striking than those in the contemplated
You use this Liturgy, as it is prescribed, alterations.
in your church edifice; but when you Uniformity is, indeed, most seriously assemble your congregation in what is destroyed in the present state of things. called your lecture-room, you abbreThe liberty is taken, in many cases, to alter viate the Liturgy ad libitum, and use the Liturgy, to omit parts of it, and espe
extemporaneous prayer. I judge not cially the Ante-Communion Service. Such
your conscience in this matter. But a state of things must endanger not only
the individual who addresses you uses the Liturgy, but the authority and integrity
the Liturgy, the whole Liturgy, and of the Church. It is not one of its least evils, that it increases the causes of disunion,
nothing but the Liturgy. May I not and leads to criminations and recriminations
ask, who evidences the most consistent of a most painful description. The evil
attachment to it? The length of the of this state of things was deeply felt by service with you is no difficulty, for those who, in the last General Convention, you think yourself at liberty, when advocated the proposed alterations in the you judge proper, to abridge it. Liturgy, as the best mode of remedying it. I think you have not done me justice
before the English public, and that The address from which the above portion of the American community extract is taken, was delivered in your who may not be in possession of all hearing, and, as well as the Journals the facts of the case. But, Reverend from which the other extracts are and dear Sir, it will require stronger made, printed and published. I now acts than these, and often repeated, to beg leave to call your attention to extinguish the feelings of esteem and these documents, because I think, if regard with which I am your friend they had not escaped your recollection, and brother, J. H. HOBART. you would not have made the state To Dr. Milnor.
wawano DOMESTIC.— The fine weather at the exposed to a superabundance of water, conclusion of the preceding, and during which cannot be carried off, will rethe present month, has afforded the ceive the seed of their intended haragricultural interest the twofold oppor- vests. We believe the breadth already tunity of gathering in the remainder of sown to be very extensive, and if the the harvest, and in a far better state dry weather lasts a fortnight longer, than the most sanguine expectations probably the extent of the wheat and could have anticipated, and of sowing 'winter-sown crops will be greater than the seed of the future wheat crop at any former corresponding period, under the most favourable circum- and commenced with the most prostances. The continued moisture of mising hope of future success. the summer had reduced all, except Of the result of the last harvest, we the sandy soils, to that deplorably wet cannot speak with the same satisfaccondition, that the farmer was com- tion. The moisture of the spring and pletely stationary. This change of summer on the rich and well-drained weather has dried the stiff and tena- soils, produced an abundance of straw; cious soils sufficiently to enable him to on the cold, and poor, and ill-drained act; and all, except such as are locally ones, a starvation of growth: each