mean time a majority of members stood ready to force the way if Mr. Hobart did not recede, and at any hazard to make Dr. Mason President.

Agitated by these contending evils, Mr. Hobart was driven almost to despair: the day of election approached, and no remedy was found. Lying sleepless and restless, as he himself stated to the writer, the greater part of the night preceding that eventful day, as he revolved within himself how the evil might yet be avoided, or which was the least to choose, suddenly the idea came into his mind of the creation of a new and temporary office in the government of the College, to be termed the 'Provostship,' into which Dr. Mason might be elected, with whatever salary and measure of power his friends might see fit to give. This, he thought, would probably satisfy both them and him, and permit the experiment to be tried of his government of the College, while it would leave the charter and property untouched, the condition being complied with, by means of a nominal President of the Episcopal communion.

The plans of Mr. Hobart, once matured, never slept. He accordingly arose before day, and crossing the river to Long-Island, drove twelve miles to the seat of Mr. Rufus King, at Jamaica, whose influence in the Board was among the first; satisfied him during breakfast, of the

S

feasibleness and prudence of the scheme, returned instantly to the city, called upon Mr. Oliver Wolcott, before he had left his house in the morning, and having convinced this gentleman also, whose opinions had the same weight with the Presbyterian, as Mr. King's had with the Episcopal members of the Board, before the hour of meeting had succeeded in further uniting so many leading voices in its favor, that, upon the opening of the business, when the Board met, the matter assumed that shape, and was carried in that form by an almost unanimous vote. Dr. Mason being elected Provost,' with an ample salary, and still ampler powers, and the Rev. Dr. Harris elected President, with but little provision for either. The result of this experiment we shall have occasion to notice hereafter.

CHAPTER IX..

A. D. 1810. Et. 35.

Canonical Condition of the Diocese-Bishop Provoost-Character and Policy-Resignation-Decision of the House of Bishops-Examination of that Decision-Bishop Moore-Character-Influence-Election of Bishop Hobart--Difficulties attending the ConsecrationBishop White's Feelings toward him.

BUT the period was now fast approaching when the voice of the Church called Mr. Hobart to higher duties, and more anxious cares. The episcopate of the Diocese of New-York was at this time (1810) in a condition perhaps not canonical, certainly not favorable to Christian peace. It had within it two bishops, both consecrated to the government of the same Church, and both physically capable of exercising the duties of their office. The explanation of this anomaly requires a short review of preceding

events.

The Church in New-York received its first bishop, as already stated, on Easter-Sunday, April 8, 1787. The individual who had been selected by the clergy and laity for this high station was the Rev. Dr. Samuel Provoost, who, both before and subsequently to the Revolution, had been connected with Trinity parish, at first as assistant minister, but after the war

as its rector. Upon the archbishops and bishops of England consenting to confer episcopal consecration on such as might be recommended by the Church at large, in the now independent States, Dr. Provoost became the choice of NewYork, and Dr. White of Pennsylvania, and both received episcopal consecration on the same day, (4th of February, 1787,) in the archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth.

Bishop Provoost possessed many fitting qualifications for the high office on which he now entered: he was learned, benevolent, and pious. He had, too, peculiar claims on public, or rather, perhaps, on popular confidence. His political attachments had, from the first, been with the 'Whigs,' and his conduct during the revolutionary contest, in refusing all church living under British or Tory influence, preferring to live retired on his small farm in Dutchess county, which he did for fourteen years, from 1770 to 1784, in straitened circumstances, if not in actual poverty, had given to him the reputation, with the dominant party, of a patriot clergyman, and almost of a martyr.

He

But there were other traits which were less fitted for rule, at least in troublous times. loved not labor for labor's sake, and perhaps sometimes avoided it at the sacrifice of his rightful influence. Whether from nature or

education, for he was of an English university, he had about him a certain aristocratic love of ease which was far removed from that working talent which the condition of the Church demanded, and which was most congenial to the habits of the rising republic.

Added to this, he was not a popular preacher, either in manner or in doctrine; both might be termed cold: his delivery was in that monotonous and unimpassioned tone which English preachers of the last age studiously sought, as separating them most widely from all suspicion of fanaticism; and his teaching dwelt so much on Christian morals, under the sanction of the same models, as more than once to have required on his part the vindication of his scriptural faith.

This we find to have been the case as early as (1770) the year of his retirement to the country, and doubtless was an operating cause in leading him to take that injudicious step. Writing, about that period, to his Cambridge tutor, Dr. John Jebb, he says:

I made it a point to preach the doctrines of morality in the manner I found them enforced by the most eminent divines of the Church of England. This brought an accusation against me by the people that I was endeavoring to sap the foundations of Christianity, which they imagined to consist in the doctrines of absolute