and whether it can hereafter be made conformable to existing weight of numbers, as in the civil line by the federal constitution of 1788, must be left to time to determine. The difficulty now contemplated is of a different nature, is an immense aggravation of the other, and requires the bringing of the following circumstances under view.

The establishment of the General Seminary recognized the possible instituting of seminaries supported by local interest. It was well that this matter should be distinctly understood, although there was no absolute necessity for any declaration to the effect; for it is a good civil maxim, that liberty is to be presumed where restraint cannot be shown; and it is an unerring maxim of scripture, that "where there is no law, there is no transgression." Besides, can it be supposed that the General Convention, possessing an authority as it were of yesterday, and under the necessity of considering its proceedings with the utmost caution, and with tenderness to the habits and the prejudices of a people not long accustomed to look up to them for rules of conduct, would have wished to assume an authority, not yet exercised by any large communion over its whole range of country? The Church of England, conceives of herself as deeply interested in the two universities of that kingdom; but when did she affect the government of them? In this country, certain societies have recently given the weight of aggregate sanctions, to seminaries of their immediate creation: but although much longer exercised and obeyed in ecclesiastical legislation, they have not ventured on the strong measure of disallowing seminaries partially instituted and patronized.

Accordingly, there must have been left room for local seminaries within our communion. Let there, then, be remarked the effect of this on our concerns: an effect, disproportioned to any obtaining in other societies, which have both species of seminary within their bounds.

At the time of instituting our General Seminary, there were avowed the designs of two local seminaries; and how many more of them may become instituted, we know not. It is to be expected, that they will principally engross the pecuniary aids of the districts in which they are respectively seated. Considering the consequent rivalship, and perhaps hostility, is it reasonable, that such districts should have an equal share of control over the General Seminary, with other districts by which it will be supported? Certainly, it is not, independently on the inequality of our representa

tion. How great then will be the disparity, from the two causes in combination!

4thly. It has been not uncommon, that a young man within our communion, directing his views to the ministry, has been supported under the paternal roof, when it would have been difficult, or even impossible, to provide for him in a distant part of the union, and to pay the expenses of the many journeys which it would have required.

5thly. There may be perceived a difficulty, in the mass of property necessary to sustain a seminary on the contemplated plan; a difficulty consisting not only in raising it, but in rendering it so productive, and at the same time so secure, as to ensure the support of a collegiate body of professors. In England, no provision for literary purposes is thought stable, unless vested in real property, let out from time to time, on leases for years. The circumstances of this country are so different, that no one thinks of getting from land, rent bearing a tolerable ratio to its capital, or of guarding the premises from deterioration, unless by a strictness of personal oversight, not to be expected of a corporation. To pecuniary capital, there are two objections-the ease with which any portion of it may be called in, because of some pressing exigency, or some favourite object, and-the being liable to be reduced or annihilated by any of the national events, which are thought to justify the issuing of an abundance of paper currency, occasioning its depreciation.

Perhaps it may seem, that these possible evils are not confined to the general school, and must even be increased by there being several of the local. To obviate the suggestion, there shall be drawn an outline of the plan proposed for the latter.

Although no diocese would be debarred from instituting a seminary under its own ecclesiastical superintendence; it is not probable, that the privilege would be exercised in more than in three or four instances. In each, a single professor would be sufficient; an acquaintance with every branch of theology not being too much to be found in one man of talents. In each of the two universities of England, there are only two professors of divinity, and each of the professors has his distinct pupils. It is here understood, that the principal labour of the professor would be the daily examination of the pupils, in the books of which he would enjoin the reading. If there should be occasional lectures, they may be few, and for the purpose of inviting general attention. In or near any of our cities, extraneous provision may

be made for the study of Hebrew, and for other coincident purposes.

Such a school would call forth all the energies of the diocese in which it would be seated, and probably of any neighbouring dioceses, having no prospects of seminaries of their own. A fund for its support would the more easily be created, and the more vigilantly managed; and, until the obtaining of a sufficiency, a partial support might be annexed to a parochial cure. If the idea should occur of there being rival and even hostile seminaries, the answer is, that simple rivalship is attended by advantages, as in the instances of Oxford and Cambridge, in England. Hostility would be an evil; but may as easily happen between professors in the same seminary: in which case the evil would be more extensive, and productive of more passion and provocation.

It may be pleaded in favour of a general seminary, that the different departments will produce a greater mass of learning in the different professors, in consequence of the devotion of each professor to his proper branch. But this has the counterbalancing disadvantage, in the danger of each professor's extending of the claims of his department too far to be consistent with the necessary limits of a theological course. Doubtless, as well in a theological as in a philosophical lectureship, the principles of the professed branch should be fully taught: but it becomes a matter of prudence, to draw the line between this object, and the knowledge which it should be left to subsequent reading to acquire. Besides, if a professor should possess a special aptitude for a particular subdivision of the whole subject to be taught, it does not appear that he may not improve his talent and gratify his taste, consistently with due attention to the other subdivisions, in which he ought not, even if he were no professor, to be imperfectly informed.

It has been supposed an advantage in a single seminary, that the pupils will be sent out with similar views, on points concerning which some shades of difference are found among Episcopalians. This is problematical; and, on the contrary, it may easily happen, that diversity shall be gendered by shades of difference among the professors. If, for the avoiding of this, there should be a strict and jealous scrutiny into the faith of those proposed for professorships, there will be an outcry against the favourers of the dominant opinion; and it will be well, if there be not some colour of the charge of persecution. In seminaries of other religious

societies, the differences subsisting among them have in truded into their theological seminaries, although, on the litigated points, the professors have been of one mind.

There may be apprehended the rise of a local seminary, in which the instruction shall be such, as we may suppose not the best calculated to make the most of the natural talents of the students. May there not be the same disadvantage to them, under the guidance of clergymen not appointed to the employment of preparing young men for the ministry, yet not forbidden to be so occupied by any existing regulation, or by any that can reasonably be made? The only remedy for both of these evils, must be in the reputation of our authorized schools; which should be such, as that young men shall feel it to be a privation, not to have been students in them; an effect to be produced, not by any possible regulation, but by the influence of opinion.

Of all the business which has come before our General Conventions, the branch of it which related to a missionary. society, was the most mismanaged. That in the hurry of the last day of the session, there should have been oversights, was not so wonderful, as that the most palpable should be made by gentlemen, with whom the subject had been contemplated for some months before, and who have unfortunately brought the whole scheme under what the author thinks a mistaken suspicion; of its being an intended engine against the institutions of our Church. There were these two supposed grounds of the suspicion. Although the constitution provided, that the trustees should be chosen by the convention, it was so managed, that the bishops had no share in the choice. They were also made the president and the vice-presidents of a society existing in idea only, and composed of all the contributors, who could never be constitutionally assembled; while in the efficient body, that of the trustees, there was no provision for the presidency or even the membership of a bishop; and no such person, if permitted to be present, could claim a right to vote or to speak in their proceedings.

When the trustees, so imperfectly appointed, assembled on the business, they saw the difficulties with which they were clogged; and that a society so constituted, would not receive the support of the Church generally. Nevertheless, being aware of the responsibility attached to the fall of the design, they devised ways in which, with the advice of the major number of the bishops, they consented to give a beginning to the enterprize; looking to the next convention.

For the sanctioning of their doings, and for the supply of the manifest defects. This sanction was not obtained, and accordingly there has been a suspension of the scheme. The author attended all the meetings of the trustees, and bears witness at once to their zeal for the object, and to their concern for the order and good government of the Church.

U. Page 48. Of the Convention in 1821.

The thanks of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies were voted to Bishop Kemp for his sermon: but this was afterward reconsidered, and the thanks withdrawn. No objection to the sermon was offered; but it was recollected, that at the last General Convention there had been a resolve against such a notice of any conventional sermon. The matter was considerably agitated, but the former resolve was persevered in. In the House of Bishops the thanks were voted, and a copy of the sermon was requested for publication.

W. Page 49.

The opposition to the scheme was principally from the gentlemen of Virginia: and it was thought extraordinary, that having heretofore avoided the taking of any interest in the General Seminary, they should now manifest so much zeal on the question of its final location. They avowed their motive, which was, the apprehension of an undue ascendency of the diocese of New-York. But it was properly argued on the other side, that this was guarded against by the provisions made, relative to the future increase of the number of trustees. At present, the diocese of NewYork will have nearly half the number: but this is owing partly to the legacy, and the earlier date of measures begun in that quarter for the endowing of a seminary. In addition it is notorious, that solicitations for the General Seminary in the other states have been suspended by the circumstance of the bequest, and by the great variety of opinion which has existed, as to the measures to be pursued in consequence. The proper preventive of the undue ascendency of New-York, if it be supposed to be fraught with danger to the Church, will be the bestowing of plentiful contribu