1803] REV. WILLIAM SMITH, D. D. 457 



anywhere on the particular class of topics which now disturbs us ; 

 not novelties, any of them, except in the degree to which they are 

 carried. The same class of topics, indeed, agitated the Church of 

 England in different degrees during the reigns of Elizabeth, Ed- 

 ward VI., James I., and Charles I. So they did in the days of 

 Charles II., William HI., and Anne. We may even say that they 

 were questions which embarrassed the Reformers themselves. 

 They are, some of them, questions of essential difficulty, and about 

 which those who think most, talk little, and dogmatize not at all. 

 But in the days of the first and second and third Georges, the agi- 

 tation had ceased. The first two were stolid Germans, and the 

 third, though a good man and a far better king than those who 

 believe in Byron think — not a schoolman or casuist. The theo- 

 logical writings of the day were of another complexion. The old 

 questions have now in the periodicity of things of course come 

 back. We have had the anabasis. We are now at the acme. The 

 decline will begin to-mcrrow. 



But still I am asked by one, "Was not Dr. Smith a high-church- 

 man? " and by another, " Was not Dr. Smith a low-churchman? " 

 A^pov ! I am tempted to exclaim in response to one inquirer as to 

 the other. Tell me, first, what is " a low-churchman ? " What is 

 " a high-churchman ? " 



In the days succeeding the English Revolution of 1688 the 

 matter was half a political question If a man adhered to the 

 Stuarts, he was a high-churchman. If to the House of Orange, a 

 low-cliurchman. 



At a later day, with us. Dr. Seabury was opposed to having the 

 laity take any part in the governm.ent of the church, had a mitre, 

 wrote himself " .Samuel Connecticut," " Samuel, Bishop of Con- 

 necticut," and in every form, I believe, but that one which the 

 churches in the Southern and Middle States recommended bishops 

 to write themselves, in which the minutes of conventions in which 

 he sat described Jiivi, and in which he described the only bishop, 

 if I remember, that he assisted to consecrate. In popular idea 

 this made him a very high-churchman. Bishop White and Bishop 

 Provoost insisted on the admission of the laity, wrote their own 

 names more humbly, did not use mitres. This made them in 

 popular idea /c?r£/-churchmen ; not that between Bishop Seabury 

 and both the other bishops, so far as I know the views of Bishop 



