2l8 LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE [1785 



ters also reducing that Church to a Methodist level ; and the other 

 by a disregard of the rubrics just as blameworthy as that prac- 

 tised by the Methodistical party in our Church, and by constrained 

 and unjustifiable interpretations of our present prayer book, or by 

 a professed adherence to the usages of the Church of England, as 

 set forth in some of her earlier service books,* betraying her chil- 

 dren by every insidious way into the hands of that " Bishop of 

 Rome," whose unscriptural observances our Church departed from 

 at the Reformation, and from whose "tyranny," and whose " detest- 

 able enormities," the litanies of those same earlier service books 

 prayed that the good Lord would deliver us. 



Speaking of the Convention of 17S5, Bishop White saysif 



When the members of the Convention first came together very few, 

 or rather it is believed none of them, entertained thoughts of altering 

 the liturgy any further than to accommodate it to the Revolution. | 



And Bishop White assigned a reason, which, with his nice 

 sense of honor, would have been potential why none should be 

 made, a reason which applied to delegates from all the States 

 except Virginia. It is thus expressed by him: 



* The books of King Edward VI. 



f Memoirs, pnge I02. 



J Dr. Stevens Perry, after quoting not quite fully the passage from Bishop White's 

 Memoirs, to which I refer, and after giving some proofs which he thinks sufficient, has 

 concluded that this idea of the Bishop was unfounded. I have the greatest respect for 

 the judgments, as also for the historical learning of the present Bishop of Iowa. 

 Nevertheless, I must think that Bishop White was likely to know from their own mouths 

 and from other testimonies, what thoughts the members of the Convention of 1785 

 entertained about altering the old liturgy; more likely even than Dr. Stevens Perry or 

 any man whatever now living is upon the same topics. Are not Dr. Perry's evidences 

 after all but letters addressed chiefly to Bishop White himself, and letters from persons 

 in States not represented in the Convention of 1785 at all ? At any rate Bishop White 

 knew what thoughts he himself entertained on the matter, and when he says that it is 

 believed that "none" of the members "entertained thoughts of altering the liturgy 

 any further than to accommodate it to the Revolution," it would seem certain that he 

 did not. I am quite aware that at a later date, as is shown by the journals of the Con- 

 ventions of 1826, and by his own memoirs, Bishop White, yielding, perhaps, to the 

 views of Bishop Hobart, did desire that the Morning Service might be shortened by 

 making the use of the Litany optional except in seasons or on days specially peniten- 

 tial. But even here, I am not certain that so far as his own particular views were con- 

 cerned he would have so had it. (See " Bishop White's Memoirs," pages 52, 53, 251, 

 259.) It is absolutely certain that he never varied from the observance of what was 

 prescribed by rubrics; those, with his honoralile integrity, he would have observed, 

 however little he might have either liked or approved what they enjoined. 



