I7S9] KEV. WILLIAM SMITH, D. D. 297 



when we begin to change it who shall say where the changes shall end ? 

 Sound wisdom has therefore adopted it as a maxim tha^ it is better to 

 endure some small defects in a good system, than to endanger the sys- 

 tem by throwing it open to change. If it could be practically required 

 that every point upon which a change was desired should be acknowl- 

 edged by a majority of the people to be an evil, and a concurrence of 

 the same majority in establishing a remedy, there would be no great 

 danger in attempting the alteration. But the danger is this: One man 

 is dissatisfied with a particular provision in the constitution. A second 

 is content with that, but dislikes another. A third person approves 

 both those provisions; but thinks some other very objectionable, and so 

 on to a great extent. Each prefers the constitution to stand as it is, 

 with the exception of only the particular part which he objects to. 

 Passions are excited, prejudices are strengthened: and eventually all 

 make common cause, and each to obtain his own alteration, unites with 

 the others to obtain theirs: And thus a majority is obtained for many 

 alterations, when the judgment of the same majority is opposed to the 

 adoption of any one, and, of course, of every one of them. 



Still, the eye of hopeful anticipation cannot but sometimes fancy 

 that it sees a pleasing sight in future days. The Church of Great 

 Britain and the Church in America have come of late years into an 

 intercourse both close and frequent. Our Bishops will soon out- 

 number the English Bishops. Perhaps they do so now. In the 

 writings of such men as Seabury, White, Dehon, Hobart, H. U. 

 Onderdonk, Ravenscroft, Hopkins, Doane, DeLancey, Whitting- 

 ham and Odenheimer among the Bishops, and of Dr. Chandler, 

 Dr. Smith, Dr. S. F. Jarvis, Dr. S. H. Turner, Dr. Coit, Dr. Bow- 

 den, Dr. Chapman, Dr. Dorr, and many others, probably, not 

 known to me, in the lower orders of the ministry, we have made 

 contributions to a common theology which recall the days of Sher- 

 lock and Horseley and Seeker and Porteus. Our Bishops are con- 

 stantly visiting England and deriving new inspirations from what 

 they see in that ancient land. The mitred lords of England are 

 coming often here, and, seated in honor in our Conventions, are 

 gaining for themselves and their Church hardly less than we hav^e 

 got from England. 



I look forward to the day when the Church in England shall be 

 disestablished and relieved from that onerous tribute which she 

 now pays to the State. When that occurs — and each church is an 

 ecclesiastical body alone — we shall surely come more closely 

 together. Even as things are, we could perhaps dp so ; and pos- 



