1789] REV. WILLIAM SMITH, D. D. 261 



Ghost to sanctify and bless them. The Consecration is made to consist 

 merely in the priest's laying his hands on the elements and pronouncing, 

 '■'■This is my body,'''' etc., which words are not consecration at all, nor 

 were they addressed by Christ to the Father, but were declarative to 

 the Apostles. This is so exactly symbolizing with the Church of Rome 

 in an error ; an error, too, on which the absurdity of transubstantiation 

 is built, that nothing but having fallen into the same error themselves, 

 could have prevented the enemies of the Church from casting it in her 

 teeth. The efificacy of Baptism, of Confirmation, of Orders, is ascribed 

 to the Holy Ghost, and His energy is implored for that purpose; and 

 why He should not be invoked in the consecration of the Eucharist, 

 especially as all the old liturgies are full to the point, I cannot conceive. 

 It is much easier to account for the alterations of the first liturgy of 

 Edward the VL, than to justify them; and as I have been told there is 

 a vote on the minutes of your Convention, anno. 1786, I believe, for 

 the revision of this matter, I hope it will be taken up, and that God 

 will raise up some able and worthy advocate for this primitive practice, 

 and make you and the Convention the instruments of restoring it to 

 His Church in America. It would do you more honor in the world, 

 and contribute more to the union of the Churches than any other alter- 

 ations you can make, and would restore the Holy Eucharist to its an- 

 cient dignity and efficacy. 



In addition, one of the "fundamental principles " set forth in the 

 Convention of 1784, inviting a General Convention of the Episcopal 

 Church ni the United States of America, was: 



IV. That the said Church shall maintain the doctrines of the Gospel 

 as now held by the Church of England, and sliall adliere to the Liturgy 

 of the said Church as far as shall he consistent with the American Revolu- 

 tion and the Constitutions of the respective States. 



It could therefore fairly be argued that the alterations suggested 

 in the Proposed Book were an implied violation of the call by 

 which the Convention of 1785 which suggested them was assembled; 

 and as made ultra vires of the Body making them, were absolutely 

 of no authority. 



But with all this, the opposition with some was more perhaps of 

 a personal kind than from considerations better entitled to weight. 

 In the Church as in the Congress and country the fault and cor- 

 ruption of the nature of every State engendered of its supposed 

 original independence — an independence which never existed in 

 fact — by the extremes of the doctrine of " State Rights " — a doc- 

 trine wholesome within proper limits — was of its. nature inclined to 



