CHAPTER XVI.

A. D. 1816. Et. 41.

Death of Bishop Moore--Funeral Address-Eulogium-Essay on State of departed Spirits-Reputation as a Biblical CriticArticle on the Creed-Various Opinions-Letter to Bishop White-His Opinions-Letter of Bishop Skinner-Bishop Hobart's Views of the Church of Scotland-Letters from the Rev. Dr. Abercrombie-Archdeacon Strachan-Candidate for Confirmation instructed-Prejudice against Bishop Hobart's Views of Regeneration-Explained and Defended-Oneida Indians.

THE death of Bishop Moore, which occurred 27th February, 1816, advanced Bishop Hobart from the rank of Assistant to that of Diocesan; the change, however, was but a nominal one. From the shock of his first attack, five years previous, Bishop Moore had never fully recovered. It was a long and painful decline, one which Christian faith alone could gild, and the devotion of affection alone could comfort.

To the writer, it affords matter of painful yet pleasing remembrance, that he enjoyed frequently the privilege of a relative, and a son in the ministry, that of being admitted to the chamber of the invalid; for he never quitted it without a feeling of veneration and sorrow, which, he trusts, softened his own heart to the deeper admission of that faith which he there saw so touchingly exemplified.

On the occasion of his death, Bishop Hobart, being in the city, delivered a funeral discourse over the body. It was one full of feeling, and spoke justly the merits of that meek and holy prelate, upon whose responsibilities he was himself then entering. After a brief outline of his life, he thus sums up the career of one whom he charac

terized as, 'the finished scholar, and the well-furnished divine.'

'Love for the Church was the paramount principle that animated him. He entered on her services in the time of trouble. Steady in his principles, yet mild and prudent in advocating them, he never sacrificed consistency, he never provoked resentment. In proportion as adversity pressed upon the Church, was the affection with which he clung to her. And he lived until he saw her, in no inconsiderable degree by his counsel and exertions, raised from the dust, and putting on the garments of glory and beauty. It was this affection for the Church which animated his episcopal labours; which led him to leave that family whom he so tenderly loved, and that retirement which was so dear to him, and where he found while he conferred enjoyment, and to seek, in remote parts of the Diocese, for the sheep of CHRIST's fold a.'

The language too of his personal eulogium was just and unstrained :—

:

'A grace allied to simplicity was the meekness that adorned hima meekness that was "not easily provoked;" that never made display of talents, of learning, or of station; a meekness that condescended to the most ignorant and humble, and won their confidence. While associated with dignity, it commanded respect and excited affection in the circles of rank and influence; and it was a meekness that pursued the dictates of duty with firmness and perseverance".'

In noticing the event in his annual address to the Convention, his language is to the same point. The remembrance of his talents and his learning, his insinuating eloquence, his faithful labours, and his exemplary piety and virtue, will long be cherished by us, and by the Diocese, with affectionate veneration".'

The death of Bishop Moore having vacated the rector

Address, p. 16.

b Address, p. 14.

c Journal, 1816, p. 13.

ship of Trinity Church, to this station also Bishop Hobart was immediately advanced, while his friend Dr. How followed him as Assistant Rector.

In bidding farewell to the name of one so justly endeared to the Church, a few earlier facts deserve to be recorded. Bishop Moore was born October 5th, 1740, at Newtown, Long-Island, of a family even still looked up to as the patriarchal head of that quiet and retired village. His classical education was at King's College, New-York, where he graduated in 1768; his professional one was under the direction of the Rev. Dr. Auchmuty, Rector of Trinity Church. He went to England in May, 1774. In June, of the same year, was ordained both deacon and priest, (the successive ordinations being within the space of a week,) by Richard Terrick, Bishop of London. On his return, he was appointed an assistant in Trinity to his friend and Rector, Dr. Auchmuty, who was soon after succeeded by the Rev. Dr. Inglis, afterward Bishop of Nova Scotia. Throughout the revolutionary contest, while New-York was held by the British, he continued at his post-we will not say against his political attachments, but we will say, in the path of his Christian duty; since, even had it been otherwise, he was not one lightly to confound the questions of human allegiance with his paramount duty as the subject of a kingdom 'not of this world.'

This Funeral Address,' when published, was accompanied with a voluminous appendix, being a dissertation on a subject touched upon in the discourse, viz. The State of departed Spirits.' On this subject, so dark, and yet so attractive, Bishop Hobart maintains what is termed the doctrine of an intermediate state,' in contradistinction to the two opinions of the sleep of the soul,' until the day of judgment, or its passing at once to its final destination of happiness or misery. His argument is, that such doctrine is at the same time most scriptural and most rational, supported by the highest authorities, and implied, if not directly taught, in all the formularies of the Church.

This was one of the few occasions on which, in his writings, Bishop Hobart chose to appear as the biblical critic and scholar; and it increased greatly the wonder of those who knew his active life, how he found time for so much research and book learning.

But, should his biographer venture to pass judgment, it would be, that scholarship, whether critical or dogmatic, however here displayed, was not his stronghold; and that his mind grappled much more successfully with practical or moral, than with verbal or historical questions. His mind, neither by nature nor habit, was critically turned; he cared little for the detail of facts compared with principles, and still less for mere words apart from their moral influences. He used language, in short, as an instrument rather of power than of knowledge, and, consequently, paid little attention to those nicer gradations of meaning with which the critic is mainly concerned. The result of all this, combined with his busy life, was, that his knowledge of opinions never attained that profoundness, nor his speculations upon them that metaphysical precision which is essential to the higher ranks of biblical criticism. He had, however, one trait of a more practical character, and the work before us strikingly illustrates it,--the talent of rapid acquisition, on the spur of the moment, of whatever knowledge the circumstances of the case demanded.

The bearing given by Bishop Hobart to this doctrinal discussion was the fuller establishment of the article in the Creed, of CHRIST's descent into hell. This article, as already mentioned, was originally omitted in the 'Proposed Book' of the American Liturgy, in 1785, and was that alteration which most excited the fears of the English Bishops of a tendency to Socinianism in the new Church of the colonies. They had objected, therefore, most pointedly to the omission of it, and were at length hardly satisfied with its doubtful restoration, as it now stands in the rubric, with an alias, or discretionary rejection. So dubious, indeed, was their approval, that Bishop White,

in the official report he sent home of his consecration, expresses his great pleasure, if not surprise, at seeing among his consecrators the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had most strenuously insisted on its restoration. On this point Bishop Hobart was fully in accordance with them, and never exercised the discretion (as who now does?) of its omission or rubrical substitute. The feeling that thus restrained him was not only the sanctity of that primitive formulary, and pass-word of our baptismal faith, as too venerable to be tampered with; there was a higher motive, it was the barrier against error. The article in question was a clear confutation, as he regarded it, of the Materialist, who would make death a total extinction of being; of the Socinian, who would convert it into a sleep of the soul; and of the erring Christian, who would prejudge the judgment of the last day, by following the blest at once to their happy abodes in heaven. But this is a point in which it certainly becomes us not to be too dogmatic; and if the author might here venture an expression, it would be of his desire to leave the whole subject in that twilight, as it were, of faith, where Scripture has placed it, and our Church, in its wisdom, has been content to leave it-a fountain inexhaustible of spiritual contemplation and comfort, but a doctrine (if doctrine it must be termed) of contemplative rather than systematic theology. On one point, however, the heart speaks, and that, where Scripture is silent, we may well deem no light evidence. It is, that the spirits of the departed just, whether as yet made perfect or not, lose not their hold, either in affection or influence, on those whom in sorrow they leave behind; that under the providential economy of GOD, which employs for good all the creatures of his will, they become ministering spirits, to guide and to guard, as with a purer love, so with a higher power, those to whom on earth they were dearest. The analogies of GOD's providence, so far as our vision reaches, mark and make probable such unbroken chain of spiritual influence; the glimpses afforded by Scripture of that better state