against a mixed court. They wanted a Bishop for discipline as the only legitimate and effective

means.

And yet one of the first acts finally passed upon in 1788, entitled "Additional constitutions or rules respecting the discipline and government of the Protestant Episcopal church in Maryland,” sets out with the statement that the "General Convention of this church (in Maryland) consisting of the different orders of the clergy and laity duly represented, shall have the general cognizance of all affairs necessary to the discipline and good government of the church, including particularly the power and authority necessary for reclaiming or excluding from church privileges scandalous members, whether lay or clerical, and all jurisdiction with regard to offenders, the power of suspending or dismissing clergymen of all orders from the exercise of their ministry in the church."

Also by the second of these constitutions it was appointed, that "Future conventions shall frame and establish rules or canons for receiving complaints, and shall annually appoint a committee consisting of an equal number of clergy and laity, (including the Bishop when there shall be one duly consecrated among the number of the clergy) which committee shall have standing authority, government, and jurisdiction (agreeable to such rules as may be given for that purpose) in all matters respecting the discipline and government of the church that may arise or be necessary to be proceeded upon during the recess or adjournment of general conventions." This term "general convention" is probably used as in

contradistinction from the meetings of the superintending and outstanding committees, each of which was composed, but especially the latter, of a large number of persons.

For agreeably to the above provision, by the fourth of the rules of 1788, there was ordered "A standing committee consisting of five clergymen and the like number of laymen, of each shore, the clerical members to be chosen by the clergy and the lay members by the laity, in annual convention. Their duty shall be to correspond with like committees throughout the states and execute the authority given them by the second additional constitution as above inserted." By the ninth and tenth rules also, we have the method of proceeding: "Disorderly, scandalous and immoral conduct, neglect of duty or a disregard to the canons or rules of the church, are offences for which a clergyman may be brought to trial; to which end application shall be made by the accuser to the president for the time being, who shall without delay call together the standing committee to meet at a convenient place on the shore where the accused person resides; a majority of whom, both as to clerical and lay members, shall have authority to inquire into the charge or charges in the presence of both parties, and having heard the evidence, shall proceed to state and report the facts to the next convention, who having heard whatever may be offered by either of the parties in further evidence, shall proceed to pronounce such sentence as they may think the offence deserves; provided that no sentence exceed reproof, suspension or dismission; and that if any accusation is brought

against the president, application may be made by the accuser to one clerical and lay member of the standing committee, who shall have the same powers of calling the committee which are hereby given to the president in other cases."

"No vestryman shall sit on the examination or trial of a minister belonging to the parish where such vestryman resides. Complaints against a clergyman shall be received from the vestry of the parish where he officiates, and from no other person or persons whatsoever. They shall be signed by a majority of the vestry and church wardens, without which no complaints shall be received, &c., &c."

Into such loose views of the true relations of the church and her clergy had Maryland at that time come. What was the cause we do not know, how far the clergy had become derelict, how far there were crying evils abroad, how far they were merely bowing to the jealousies of the laity who dreaded an exercise of inherent prerogative in any class, or how far they were providing for a state of things that did not exist. Certainly however, the law was not found to work well. It did not bring the clergy to trial, so that Bishop Claggett had bitterly to bewail the condition of things in some instances where the vestry would not institute proceedings. Vestrymen were known to refuse to complain against their pastors, whatever grievance they thought they were enduring. The law was erroneous in fact also, for it will be found that the clergy are more jealous for the uprightness of their order than the laity are. These will gossip about clerical delinquences, but go no further; while the clergy feel every delin

quency a stain on their holy order that ought to be removed, however long suffering they may feel disposed to be.

A superintending committee was at the same time appointed, five mcmhers for each shore, to whom the general duty of supervision of the church in the diocese was committed. They were to visit the parishes, dividing them amongst themselves. Also they had charge of candidates for orders, to ascertain their fitness. Also to them was assigned the duty of receiving clergymen entering the diocese, and no vestry or congregation could receive any minister unless he was able to present the testimonial from the superintending committee of their shore, that he had conformed to the law.

This was the provisional arrangement of things in Maryland as finally instituted in 1788, and with all its faultiness it was effective to tide the "society" over its then depressed condition. There was not a great deal of backbone then displayed in various quarters; the sturdiness of Bishop Seabury was not a general property, as is seen in the provisional arrangement suggested by Doctor, afterwards Bishop White. This arrangement which he advanced in his pamphlet of 1782, "The case of the Episcopal Church considered" in which an episcopal Church without episcopacy was thought for the time being available, was something that found reponse in various quarters. "Ordainers for the ministry,' were proposed in Maryland, and South Carolina wanted the Episcopal Church without a Bishop. Nowhere did the church thoroughly understand herself or know her true position, save maybe in

New England and New York where the clergy had hold on more vigorous ideas. Everywhere, however, she was working towards a knowledge of her true self which was reached clearly after many days. May the Almighty, her Lord, ever preserve her in this knowlege.

Turning now briefly to parochial affairs, there are a few things to note before we close our pages. One of these is the fact that this is the time when the fine parish libraries of Maryland, not always extensive in numbers, but excellent in quality, began to be scattered. Efforts were made to recover them, but failed, and they were lost one by one by falling into hands that could not appreciate them, and were allowed to be destroyed. The vestry no longer performed its function of "visiting" them, and possibly the the rectors no longer stood in dread of suit if they neglected the charge. There are many volumes in existence, and every now and then an old book comes to light from its hiding place in some out of the way garret. Some are still safe in the library of St. John's College, Annapolis, but in all other places, the folios, quartoes, and octavos are things of the past with but little superior to them to take their place.

The world has been a good deal disturbed within the last twenty five years upon the subject of altar cloths, they being regarded as emblematical of false and strange doctrine, just like the surplice was regarded as a "rag of popery." But like as in the matter of the surplice, the church in adopting altar cloths only went back