228 LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE [1785 



the alteration into essential points of doctrine.* Reviewed it will un- 

 questionably be in some places, and the only way to prevent its being 

 done by men of the above description is the taking it up as a general 

 business. f I have been informed that you, sir, and our brethren in 

 Connecticut think a review expedient, although you wish not to be in 

 haste in the matter. Our brethren in Massachusetts have already done 

 it. The Churches in the States southward of you have sufficiently de- 

 clared their sentiments; for even those which have delayed permitting 



* This sort of alteiation is exactly the sort which the authors of the so-called " Re- 

 formed Episcopal Church" who vouch Bishop White as authority for their liturgy, 

 have made in their service-book as last adopted. Of what pertinence to their case, 

 then, would it be — were it true, which it is not — that the Proposed Book was the 

 work of Bishop White solely or chiefly; that book, by universal concession, never hav- 

 ing carried the alterations into any such points; and, on that account, having been 

 abandoned by the so-called " Reformed Episcopal Church." 



What Bishop White would have thought of the Episcopate of the said "Church" 

 may be inferred from a passage in that great charge of his, " On the Sustaining of the 

 Unity of the Church, in Contrariety to Disorder, Disunion and Division," page 13. It 

 was delivered in 1 83 1, in his sunset of life, when mystical lore enabled him fully to 

 see those coming events which, even then, cast their shadows before. He says : 



" There is sometimes, in conversation, proposed the question whether in the event 

 of a consecration performed by one bishop only, the act would be valid ? That with 

 us, such a bishop would do what is contrary to the obligations under which he has 

 placed himself in a solemn appeal to God for his sincerity and in a pledge given for 

 the same publicly to the Church, and that the recipient of what is stipposed to be of the 

 character conveyed is a partaker of the crime, is obvious. 



" Still there may be thought to remain the question of validity, and may be antici- 

 pated with apprehension as what, at some future time, may be found an easy expedient 

 for the introducing of division into the Church. 



"Although the enormity has not been practised by any bishop of this Church, yet 

 there cannot be denied the possibility that it may occur hereafter, either with the 

 avowed abandonment of religious and moral principle or by the operation of that sort 

 of professed piety wJdch, in pursuance of zvhat is stipposed to be a righteous end, con- 

 siders it as siipcrsediiig the claims of integrity and truth. What would be the effect, 

 then, of the form of consecration? In answer, the opinion is confidently expressed 

 that it would be A NULLITY. 



. ..." In certain supposable circumstances, the act of consecration by a single 

 bishop, disengaged from provisions not in themselves essential, is valitl. But if a 

 bishop of our Church, wliich requires the concurrence of two of his brethren, should 

 set the requisition at defiance, in violation of his promise, pledged with an invocation 

 of the notice of the all-seeing eye of God, there is no hesitation in expressing the 

 opinion that the only effect would be the guilt attached to it." 



f Exactly the same views were expressed by the Bishop forty-five years later. (See 

 his charge of 1831, "On the Sustaming of the Unity of the Church in Contrariety to 

 Disorder, Disunion and Division," p. 18.) 



" It is also probable that extreme tenaciousness and reluctance to moderate alteration 

 will give vigor to the opposite extreme of ill-digested projects for reform without 

 measure and without end. We may foresee that if such a spirit should be dominant 

 in our Church it will be promotive of confusion and of every evil work. It should, 



