*
*
w
sº
º; L E T T E R S Jºë
§2) A 2' 3. sº
T H E L A IT Y ^- o:
§
OF THE
/
AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH, º
3X&
BY A &\º)3]3)
º
PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN. *
S
s
s
2.
º
SECOND EDITION.
º
º
r
O (. -
-. e has laid his hand upon the Drum Ecclesiastic, and is beatiug such a
^
revellie as may wake up our drowsy laymen, and then —!”
1]lyiladelphia:
JAMES M. CAMPBELL & CO., 98 CHESTNUT ST.
SAXTON & MILES, 205 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
SAxTon, PIERCE & Co., Boston ;-N. HICKMAN, Baltimore;—R. G. BERFORD,
@@ Pittsburgh;—Robinson & Jon Es, Cincinnati;-SMITH, DRINKER &
- oRRIs, Richmond;-W. T. WILLIAMs, Savannah ;
T ( @@ AND THE PRINCIPAL BookSELLERs, ETC., THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
O) rN 1 S 4 3.
(93.93 C(2. C GY2 CGS(C) gèg
* < ..., § ~S ** S.2%
*::: § U &S º GF § O O §
º
º Oć)\S)0 2},\, \! Ö)(Sº © O O (DC)
*



















NEANDER'S GHURGH HISTORY,
JAIMIES IMI. CAIMIPBELL & CO.
HAVE PUBLISHED,
IN ON E VOLUM E O CTAV O IN CLOTH, PRI C E $1.50,
A BEAUTIFUL EDITION OF
WEA/WDEF's #/370&y 0A 7% ch/s/A/V AF//g/0/w
DURING THE FIRST THREE C E N T U R |ES.
This is a work of established and high reputation. Neander has been termed the great
ecclesiastical historian of the age.—Christian Intelligencer.
We are gratified to find that this valuable and cheap publication is presented to the public on
good paper and legible type; thus proving that convenience and cheapness may be combined.
We commend this work to our readers of all ages: it is a subject of which none should
be ignorant. Who does not wish for accurate knowledge of the history of the Christian re-
ligion and church, during the first three centuries? The grain of mustard-seed, planted in
the apostolic age, has become a mighty tree, on whose fruit the nations live, and by whose
branches they are sheltered. The reader will find, in the recital of the early history of the
Christian church, an argument in support of the divinity of its origin. It was introduced
into the world without the attractions of pomp, or the support of power; and did not con-
strain the judgment of men by offering them “the tribute or the sword.” Wrapped at first in
swaddling-clothes and laid in a manger, it gradually developed the vigour of manhood, and
the purity of heaven.
The worshippers of the late false gods of Greece and Rome opposed the progress of the
new religion. But the results of every succeeding persecution, armed with imperial power,
affording additional proof that the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church, the
religion of Greece and Rome were buried beneath the ruins of their civil and political insti-
tutions. The religion of Jesus of Nazareth survived; and when the sign appeared in
Heaven, “By this thou shalt conquer,” it ascended the throne of the Caesars. Genius and
learning have conspired for its overthrow ; and the rock remains unshaken. The insidious
pen of the historian has seemed to praise while it aimed to destroy; but the simple histories of
the “Fishermen of Galilee” will be received by the world, after existing empires shall have
declined and fallen, and new dynasties shall have arisen. In vain did Voltaire proclaim to
the world, “Crush the wretch.” Every opposer of this Divine Teacher shall be brought to
acknowledge, with the dying apostate Julian, “O Galilean thou hast conquered.”
The work of Dr. Neander, which is translated from the German, has never before been repub-
lished in the United States, and is very rare. Its character may be inferred from a general
view of its contents, viz.: the introduction; the history of the persecution of Christianity;
the history of church discipline and of Christian life and worship; the history of Christian
sects and doctrines, and an account of the chief fathers of the church. Dr. Neander has
attained high reputation as a scholar; and the discussion of such subjects by an eminent
writer cannot fail to possess high interest, and to contain valuable information.—Balt. Amer.
This is a book of great merit, and gives to the reader a view of the first three centuries,
which is not to be found in any of our church histories in common use.-Presbyterian of the
West. -
This is the first republication of this work in this country. We commend it to our read-
ers.-Baptist Record.
This is a most valuable work, and one, especially, which should be in the hands of every
clergyman. The enterprising publishers will doubtless receive that patronage from the reli-
gious public to which they are so justly entitled.—Weekly Messenger.
Dr. Neander is a German theologian of great eminence, and his writings are considered the
best that country produces. The English translation is a very correct one. No intelligent Chris-
tian should fail to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the history of primitive Chris-
tianity, and we know of no way to do it more effectually than by buying the above-named
work.-Danville Democrat.
Neander stands unrivalled as an historian, and his Church History is one of the very best
extant in any language. None can hope for a better opportunity of obtaining a sterling work
for a mere trifle, and therefore all should at once embrace it.—Lutheran Standard.
A learned and valuable work, that will be found of great service to ecclesiastical students,
and extremely interesting to even general readers.-Banner of the Cross.
LETTERS TO THE LAITY
OF THE
AMERI[AN EPIS ( ) PM I) (HUR ( H.
BY A.
PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN.
SECOND EDITION.
“He has laid his hand upon the Drum Ecclesiastic, and is beating
such a revellie as may wake up our drowsy Laymen, and then—!”
PHILADELPHIA :
JAMES M. CAMPBELL & CO., 98 CHESTNUT STREET.
NEw York: SAXTON & MILES, 205 BROADwAY.
1843.
Entered according to the Act of Congress,
In the Year 1843,
By JAMEs M. CAMPBELL & Co.,
In the Clerk's Office of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Jº X
& a 7°
, A-45
/ & 7.3
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
SoME who are opposed to the principles advocated in this
pamphlet, finding it more convenient to denounce than to
refute them, have not hesitated to proclaim it the work of an
incendiary;-and have visited the author with quite a little
hurricane of obloquy. This is precisely what he expected,
and indeed has no objection to. If they are satisfied with their
course, he certainly has no reason to be otherwise. One
misrepresentation, however, is so gross as to demand notice;
and he avails himself of the opportunity afforded by this
second edition to repel it. It has been asserted with more
vehemence than discretion, that this is a studied attack upon
our Bishops, charging them with worldliness and ambition.
Nothing can be further from the truth. There is, indeed,
to be found upon these pages some plain speaking respect-
ing the public acts of two or three members of the Episco-
pate; such, however, as I deem to be in perfect keeping
with the importance of the measures, and the proper eccle-
siastical responsibilities of the men. From these acts the
world of course will draw their own conclusions. But as
to the great body of our Episcopate it is my opinion that no
equal number of men, surrounded by circumstances that are
at all similar, will be found to have given less ground for
such a charge as the one referred to. It is nevertheless true,
as is stated in these letters, that there has been a constant
tendency in the Church, I do not say in the Bishops, to
increase the prerogatives of our ecclesiastical Executive.
“Extravagant claims,” (says a late writer,) “are made by
some in behalf of our Bishops; for it must be said, I think,
that the Bishops have not often made extravagant claims
for themselves.”
When it is stated, as it recently has been to me, that the
veto power in their respective dioceses was offered both to
* Doctor Tyng's Letter in the Recorder of September 30.
4
Bishop Ravenscroft and Bishop Hobart, and DECLINED by
thern, it is precisely what we might expect from the vivid im-
pressions of the Gospel which had been made upon the
character of the one, and the generous love of the Church
which marked the career of the other. But does it prove
nothing more? Does it not evince that reckless disposition
to accumulate prerogative, which has ever marked our his-
tory as a Christian denomination ?
It is said, on page 8th, that according to “all” the ac-
counts of Mr. Carey’s Examination he stated in reply to
the first question, that if rejected he “might possibly”
apply for admission into the Romish ministry. This has
been loudly denied. I subjoin Dr. Seabury’s account, it
being the most copious and in accordance with all the rest.
“He said that the case would be a painful one: that he
did not know what he should do; that certainly he should
come to no hasty decision on so grave a matter; that he
should spend two or three years at least in deliberating on
the subject; that at the expiration of that time he possibly
might seek admission to the ministry of the Church of
Rome; but that he thought it MoRE probable he should
remain a layman in his own Church, since he was satisfied
with it, was attached to it, and had no disposition to leave
it. The two Doctors, however, insisting on a categorical
answer, or the nearest to it that might be, Mr. Carey replied:
“Possibly Z might, after due deliberation, but think that I
should more likely remain a layman in our own commu-
mon, as I have no special leaning towards theirs at present.’”
How far this sustains the declaration upon which the argu-
ment of my first Letter is based, the readers of this commu-
nication have now the means of judging for themselves.
The first impression of this little work was given to the
public without the author having an opportunity to inspect
the proof. Hence some serious typographical errors. These
are here corrected.
ANTE-INITIAL PARAGRAPHS.
“Letters to the Laity, and on Church matters. To the
LAITY || Well, this is certainly something new under the
sun. In these days of official self-exaltation, it is quite a
novelty to find one who supposes that the Laity have any-
thing to do in ecclesiastical affairs, but quietly to follow
(like any other herd) their leaders.” Sir, you are mistaken;
Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun; and
that which now excites your surprise, was in other and
some think better ages of the church, frequently done.
“Pshaw l’’ exclaims Dr. Blunderbus, “here is something
against Puseyism again; I am heartly tired of the subject.
(You have reason to be, perhaps, sir.) And is not such an
appeal to the Laity most abominable radicalism? We shall
have the whole pack of political editors out upon us in full
cry again.”
The Interest which the newspapers of the day have taken
In the controversy to which you have referred, is certainly
a phenomenon. It has no parallel in our history. It would
be a curious subject of investigation. That class of writers
have hitherto been Judiciously restricted, by the law of
public opinion, to secular concerns. But in this discussion
they seem to have been allowed by common consent to take
an active, and certainly most effective part. I have heard
no one complain of it, except indeed there has been here
and there a little outcry when “the galled jade” winced.
It at least cannot be denied, that these gentlemen have
made daylight shine through a subject, which some who
ought to be (and perhaps are now) ashamed of their attempts
at concealment, were desirous to “keep dark.” I, for one,
6
feel under obligations to them, and think the whole Church
has reason to do so. It is a maxim of primary importance
in our times, “Veritas nihil vereturnisi abscondi.”
The examiners of Mr. Carey announced in their “Card,”
that it was their intention to preserve a dignified silence on
the occasion. Doubtless this was in accordance with Cice-
ro’s celebrated advice to his pupil, “If your adversary
advances an unanswerable argument, be sure that you do
not answer it.” These editors, however, thumped so hard
upon the shell into which they had withdrawn themselves,
that they have been obliged to come out of it. One wrote
some half a dozen columns of explanation and defence in a
Newspaper. One wrote a pamphlet. Two others threaten
us with more pamphlets. And a fifth cried in public on the
subject, which surely might be regarded as equal to a whole
duodecimo of apologies any day.
The fact is, that Doctors Anthon and Smith might have
printed “statements,” &c. until doomsday, and welcome;
but these naughty secular journals made such a hubbub as
to disturb the laymen in our congregations, “Hinc ille
Lachrymae.”
As to “Puseyism,” I assure you, Doctor B., I do not
recollect that that word appears in all that I have written.
Any gentleman of your experience, however, will under-
stand by a single glance, the practical connection which
exists between the principles that I have discussed, and the
doctrinal heresies of Oxford.
My Lay brother, if you feel an interest in ecclesiastical
affairs, let me recommend you to obtain a copy of these
letters. They may perhaps increase your knowledge of
the Church. The postage is not heavy.
$
LETTERS TO THE LAITY.
LETTER I.
Brethren—Bishop Griswold is said to have remarked,
that the time is coming when our Laity must be depended
upon to rescue the Church from ruin. Venerable, far-
sighted man! A sentiment of more practical importance
to the American Episcopacy has not been uttered during
the last quarter of a century. Such a time is indeed coming
—has it not already arrived 2–when we must look to that
quarter for power to stem the tide of ecclesiastical fanati-
cism, by which some of our most distinguished clergymen
have been swept away; and which threatens to unsettle
our chief institution of Theological learning from its pro-
testant moorings. The man who should at this crisis”
clearly define the position of that class of Churchmen, not
as private members only, but especially as rulers—aye, as
rulers of the Church (its voters and its legislators;) and at
the same time arouse them to a sense of the great responsi-
bilities which the Head of the Church has devolved upon
them; the man who should successfully execute such a
task would be a benefactor to the Protestant world. It is
not one which I shall venture to attempt at present. It is
an important and most inviting theme, and may tempt
my pen hereafter.
The Church has recently been startled from a dangerous
and deceitful tranquillity by the ordination of Mr. Carey; an
event, which in 1ts effects may be compared to a clap of
thunder in a clear sky. The candor and honesty which the
young man exhibits are worthy of all praise.f Some of his
clerical apologists would do well to imitate his example in
these respects. But that any man who is properly alive
* “The time has evidently come when the rights of the Laity, and
the place which they legitimately hold in the Church of God, ought to
be re-discussed.”—Ep. Recorder, June 24, 1843.
# See note on page 36.
8
to the differences between the popish and the protestant
faith, should for a moment doubt that he is essentially a
Romanist, is a matter of astonishment. His answer to the
very first question that was asked him, seems to me decisive
that he is, and that he so considers himself. All the glosses
and explanations of the most “subtle polemic” upon earth
can make nothing better of it. You may take Dr. An-
thon’s, or Dr. Seabury’s, or Mr. Haight’s account of it, and
you must arrive at the same result. I presume none of
these gentlemen will deny the following proposition, viz.:
that it is not possible for any honest man to enter the min-
istry of a denomination whose essential principles he does
not hold, and cannot, therefore, conscientiously teach. But,
according to all the accounts of this examination, Mr. Carey
did, in reply to the first interrogatory propounded to him,
state, that if denied admission into the ministry of the Pro-
testant Episcopal Church, he “might” seek admission into
that of Rome. The thing would be possible—possible, of
course, with his present views; for those were the only
subject of investigation. “Not without two or three years
previous inquiry, and great pain,” exclaims Doctor Seabury.
“And most probably he would remain a Layman in our
own Church,” adds Mr. Haight. Very well, gentlemen,
be it so; and yet, after all your explanatory addenda, the
thing remains as broad as it was long : He “might,”
without any change of opinion, at the end of that, or a
much longer time, if you choose, (the time is immaterial,)
and with any amount of pain you like, (that, also, is imma-
terial,) enter the Romish ministry. And this is his own
statement, as offered to the examining committee, and
placed in the most favorable light by his friends! Is not
the young man essentially a Romanist 2
We happen, however, to have a still more unexceptiona-
ble testimony as to his views upon this point. It is that of
Mr. Carey himself. Dr. Smith, from whom, alone, the pre-
paratory certificate which he needed could canonically ema-
nate,” being alarmed by certain reports respecting him, very
* It seems that Mr. Carey has been ordained upon testimonials fur-
nished by the Rector of Trinity Church, N.Y.; Dr. Smith having re-
fused to furnish them. Rev. Mr. Higbee, also one of the most active
in sustaining Mr. Carey, and the Bishop who ordained him, are all un-
derstood to be supported out of the funds of that church. Has it occur-
red to any one to examine how far the rendering them subservient in
9
properly examined him in private, and took a memorandum
of his answers. This memorandum was submitted to Mr.
C. for correction, and, as thus corrected, brings out the fol-
lowing declaration: “If union with the ministry of the
Protestant Episcopal Church of this country were not open
to him, he might, possibly, have recourse to the ministry of
Rome—not without pain or difficulty ; but still that he did
not see anything to prevent, or forbid such an alternative.”
Not see anything to prevent, Mr. Carey ! Why, sir, do you
not call yourself a Protestant Episcopalian, and as such
are you not bound to protest against many doctrines
which, if you were in the ministry of that corrupt denomi-
nation, you would be obliged, with all your powers, to
defend ? Rest assured, young man, that in taking that
ground you have assumed a position from which you never
can be extricated. No 1 not although you should summon
to your aid as “Counsel” the most disingenuous “Pole-
mic” that ever assumed the name of “Churchman.”
Brethren of the Laity, I hold up this single point in the case
before you, because it is one which requires no theological
erudition for its decision, and which no sophistry can possi-
bly explain away. It is one which the intelligent mechanic
in his workshop. or the sagacious merchant in his counting
room can determine as readily as any Doctor of Divinity, or
any “subtle” disputant in the universe. The unanimous
and most reasonable verdict of all such would be at once,
that the man who should avow that in case he were unable
to obtain orders in the one denomination, “he sees nothing
to prevent” his seeking orders in the other, is unworthy the
ministry of either, and if he were to receive his deserts,
would be treated with contempt by both.
In speaking of this important transaction, I have made no
reference to the detail of his theological opinions which was
given by the candidate, for I conceive that the case will well
bear such an omission. What he says about the Council of
this way, and some other ways which might be pointed out, to the main-
tenance of such principles as those avowed by Mr. C. before the recent
ordination, is in accordance with the object of that trust; viz.: the sup-
port of the doctrines of the Episcopal Church in New York. A little
Judicious (I will not say judicial) investigation of this point by you, my
Lay brethren, would, I suspect, have quite a magical effect upon the
orthodoxy of some who are connected with the Congregation of the
Holy Trinity.
* Dr. Smith's statement.
10
Trent, and the creed of Pope Pius IV., about the Reforma-
tion being unjustifiable, about the doctrine of Purgatory, and
other matters of equal importance, is indeed bad enough,
but need not be introduced here. The single declaration to
which I have referred, is quite enough to prove that Mr. C.
is essentially a Romanist; and that he so regards himself;
else how could he possibly under any circumstances, (with-
out a change of opinions) enter their ministry and preach
their doctrines? One apologist for this transaction has sug-
gested, that perhaps the question proposed was intended
and understood to mean merely this, “might you not, sir,
in case you do not obtain orders with us, change your
opinions, and become a Romanist P” which would be just
tantamount to asking the young man whether he is immu-
table or not! If such a man as Doctor Anthon, or Dr. Smith,
could be supposed to have proposed such an interrogatory
gravely, I feel sure the candidate and all the rest of his
examiners put together, could not have mustered gravity
enough amongst them, to allow the answer. The dignity
of the Board would certainly have been placed in imminent
peril of cachination. Mr. Carey will not pretend that he so
understood the question; and yet this is the only hypothesis
upon which he can be acquitted of being essentially a
Romanist.
The two Rev. gentlemen to whose self-sacrificing bold-
ness” we are so greatly indebted for the open and manly
publication of these proceedings, which so many efforts were
made to cover up and conceal, have stated truly “that a
great issue has been joined.” “ ” “It covers the whole
ground, shall virtual conformity with Rome, form or not
form an impediment to ordination ?”
And is it possible that a candidate with such sentiments
and declarations upon his lips has actually been ordained to
the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal Church 2 And
shall the persons by whom the proceeding has been con-
*How many humble and retired country clergymen have I, since the
publication of Doctors Anthon and Smith's pamphlet, heard say, that
they had thought seriously of writing a letter of thanks to these gentle-
men, for their faithfulness to the Protestant cause, and the Church we
love. Let them not doubt that their memorial is in the hearts of their
brethren. The hearts of many whom they never saw, and never will
see, on earth, have warmed towards them. Are they not entitled to
expect from such, some public testimonial of sympathy and fraternal ap-
probation?
11
ducted, be allowed to go unimpeached? Clergymen! speak
out on the subject from your pulpits and through the press,
for rest assured of it a “great issue has been Joined.” Ye
are watchmen on the walls of Zion; and woe to that senti-
nel who shall see the enemy approaching, aye, entering the
very citadel, and yet be too prudent to sound the alarm.
One of the veterans of the Revolution once said, (it was in
an hour of his country’s danger) “Prudence is often a ras-
cally virtue.” It is often selfish cowardice in disguise. In
a case hke this, such prudence is treason to the Gospel and
the Church; and, brethren of the clergy, you who can be
contented to remain at your posts without uttering one note
of warning, will find it to be so, and extremest folly too,
when you get as far onward in your journey as the judg-
ment seat. Laymen! it becomes you in your respective
spheres of duty, and through the legislatures in which you
are represented, to speak out, until the entire denomination
utter its voice, and call for some public vindication of prin-
ciples which you hold dearer than life. As to the officer who
in the discharge of his sacred functions, has forgotten him-
self and her so far, as to consummate this dangerous and
disreputable proceeding—let the offended majesty of the
Church rebuke him. According to a canon passed at the
last General Convention, a member of the Episcopate can
only be presented for trial by the Convention to which he
belongs, or by three Bishops.
Protestants every where and of every name are now
awaiting the issue of this matter. A loud and many-voiced
burst of indignation has come up from all quarters of the
country, and from all divisions of the Church—high church
and low church, clergy and laity, bishops, priests, and dea-
cons—proclaiming to all who feel an interest in the gospel,
that a strange and horrible thing has been transacted within
our borders; the ordination of a man who tells the rector of
the parish to which he belongs, and upon whose certificate
alone he could be lawfully ordained, that “he sees nothing
to prevent” his receiving orders in the Church of Rome! a
declaration more than sustained by subsequent examina-
tion. Men are every where asking, can such a thing take
place with impunity in a denomination calling itself Protes-
tant? If a bishop may do this without so much as having
his conduct inquired into, and that, too, when charged upon
the evidence of some of the most respectable presbyters in
12
the Church, in the name of common sense, what may he not
do without danger of having his proceedings judicially called
in question.” Laymen of the Church 1 it is you that must
take this thing in hand, aye, and handle it boldly, or no-
thing will be done. Speak out, then, your indignant re-
monstrance in a voice that must be heard by those whose
prerogative it is to act in a case like this. There are
many reasons why it is unjust to expect the clergy to be
foremost in such a business. You have as great respon-
sibility in the matter as they, for your share in the legisla-
tion of the Church is co-ordinate with theirs. It is time
that you were awake to this fact.
–0–
LETTER II.
THE subject of my next communication to you, brethren
of the laity, will be introduced by a few extracts from a
private letter, giving some account of transactions which I
think you will agree with me in considering of more than
ordinary importance to the Church; and which, although
they took place in open convention, have certainly not at-
tracted the notice to which they are entitled. And thus it
has been too generally with us. Occurrences of the most
startling character take place, and errors of the most perilous
bearing are brought forward, and if they happen to be coun-
tenanced by those who sit in any of the high places of autho-
rity, they are received with a sort of stupid amazement;
and while many hearts are secretly burning with indigna-
tion, the lips that they should prompt to bold remonstrance
are sealed in misguided deference to official station, or by
considerations of prudence, “falsely so called.” If some
honest-hearted lover of the Gospel and the Church, after
*“From what is said of us touching our indifference in sending abroad
publications conservative of the truth, and the late developments wr, one
of our chief citzes, there is a prevailing opinion that the whole body of
Episcopalians are about to fall into the embraces of the Romish Harlot.
God grant that there may be evidence to the contrary in action. * * *
“May God save his people, and bless that branch of his primitive Ca-
tholic Church which translated the Scriptures for their use. So prays
“Your faithful and humble servant,
“ PHILANDER CHASE.”
13
duly waiting for others to speak out, finds himself constrain-
ed by the spirit that is within him to break the ominous
silence, it is an easy thing to denounce and discredit him as
an alarmist and an agitator. Should what he says excite
inconvenient inquiry, or be likely to create a tumult, a few
well directed thunderbolts from the nearest vatican, will
readily drown the rising uproar, and reduce our Episcopal
world again to silence and submission.
Such has been the experience of the past; there are signs
of another, and I hope a better state of things. Our laity
are becoming awake to the interest and importance of the
public transactions of the Church. Too many, indeed, are
still disposed to plead their daily business, one his farm,
another his merchandise, a third his profession, as an excuse
for delinquency in this matter. A sinner had just as well
make the same excuse for not becoming a Christian; it is
as valid in the one case as the other. But it is a hopeful
indication that some of our more intelligent laymen are be-
ginning to recognise the importance of the fact, that Provi-
dence has devolved a large share of the support and gov-
ernment of the Church in this country on them; and that
in this very thing they find proof that a solemn duty has
been laid upon them to acquaint themselves with the ques-
tions, some of them of new and surpassing interest, that are
mooted at such a time as this amongst us.
A doctrine has recently been broached, that the wri-
tings, speeches, and public acts of our Bishops, are not
to be discussed by inferior mortals;–it is not consistent
with the respect which is due to the sacred office. I sup-
pose that upon this hypothesis you laymen would have to
receive implicitly whatever is taught by your minister,
“asking no questions for conscience’ sake.”
As far as my observation has extendede the advocates of
this principle adopt it only when it works well; that is,
favourably to their views; in all other cases it is religiously
rejected.
I need not tell you that the ground which they assume
presents them in opposition alike to the spirit of their coun-
try, and the principles of their Church. Doctor Seabury
shall reprove them; nay, their Magnus Apollo, Dr. Pusey
himself, shall administer to them a merited rebuke. Says
“The Churchman,” while ridiculing the idea that “a living
Bishop at Gambier is better than a dead Lion at Lambeth;”
14
“we hold, that the published works of a Bishop are as fair
objects of review, criticism, and censure, as those of any other
man. We know of no peculiar pre-eminence to be accorded
to Episcopal authorship.” Such was the doctrine taught
in 1841. We are some steps in advance of that now. “The
True Catholic” denies the right not only to discuss, but even
to praise, the official productions and proceedings of a
Bishop, on the ground that a right to praise implies the right
to censure; which, of course, is unlawful. Aye, in this the
year of grace, eighteen hundred and forty-three, the official
organ of the diocese of Maryland, publishes to the world—
that it is unlawful even to praise a Bishop! Rome ! beat
that if you can. Hughes, Wiseman, and thou of Arath,
“in partibus infidelium,” yield the palm, if you please, to
this Board of Protestant Editors in Baltimore. But this
Baltimore doctrine does not seem to take in Philadelphia.
An editor of that city quotes the sentiment, and seems to be
thrown quite into trepidation by it. Not to be allowed to
praise the Bishop !—Terrible!—What a fruitful theme for
our hebdomadal eloquence will thus be taken away. What
a frightful hiatus would this monstrous heresy create in our
columns. No, it will never do. Anything but that.
Although the Philadelphia editor seems evidently to
consider this idea as the suggestion of the Devil, he reasons
against it with praiseworthy moderation. His argument is
excellent. He insists upon it that we have a right to PRAISE
the Bishops, because (modest reason 1) the right to praise
does not imply the right to censure! Some will sneer per-
versely at this specimen of dialectics, but I have no doubt
the writer, when he was spreading it on paper, was really
in earnest.
Brethren of the Laity, do not smile, I pray you. Alas,
you do not know how much harm your silent reception,
and therefore apparent approbation, of such sentiments as
those that I have quoted, and the journals through which
they are expressed, is now doing. Did ever the vile man-
worshipping spirit, by which religion has been corrupted
in all ages, always prone to substitute the Priest for the
Divinity, reach a higher point of extravagance, than that
to which it has arrived at present amongst us? And if
multitudes were not in the habit of feeding, aye, feasting,
upon materials of the kind, as the very pabulum of spiritual
life, would not such mawkish editorial “clishmaclaver” as
15
that which I have quoted, sink at once to its proper place,—
far beneath the dignity of any honest man’s contempt 2
But I intimated that a noted English divine had spoken
out on this subject. Hear him:—“It is of course a sad
state of things in any Church, that they who should be
overseers, should need remonstrance from those who are in
inferior office; but not to go back to more ancient prece-
dents, one of the most important controversies in our Church
was carried on by a Presbyter against a Bishop; and suc-
ceeding Bishops could not but approve of the strong vindi-
cation of the principles of the Church by Law, against
Hoadley.” Thus speaks Dr. Pusey. What will the Balti-
more “True Catholic,” “et id omne genus,” say now?
I referred just now to a private letter; the following is
extracted from it:—
“On the 1st day of June, 1843, I found myself seated in the
venerable Church at Burlington, at which the constitution of
that Diocese requires that its convention should assemble.
That body was then in session. I know you take an inte-
rest in such matters; I will therefore give you some account
of what I conceive to be one of the most extraordinary pro-
ceedings that ever took place in the American Church.
Nothing of much interest had transpired in the way of
business during the morning, and as I was a traveller on
my way home, and only waiting for the steamboat, I began
to think of taking my departure. The Bishop’s address
had been delivered in the early part of the session; and
certainly a more interesting performance of the kind I never
listened to. It is truly wonderful, how those dry statistical
details of official duties, which are elsewhere heard, if heard
at all, with indifference and ennui, become instinct with life,
and clothed with beauty, as they pass beneath the magic
touch of this eloquent diocesan. It is true, that some of the
sentiments expressed in it sounded strangely in my ears,
(especially those in which Sunday-schools are spoken of as
an evil,) but the prevalent sentiment of my mind, as I heard
the interesting narrative, was, ‘Happy the Diocese whose
spiritual head exhibits such zeal and energy in driving for-
ward the Church.” I became convinced before the day'
was over, however, that there is such a thing as driving too
fast, so fast as may upset the carriage; and that, as in the
Olympic, so in the ecclesiastical curriculum, the most spirited
charioteer must be content to confine himself to the course
16
marked out, if he hopes to win the race, or wear the crown
of victory.
A member moved that the House take up certain resolu-
tions, which had been laid over from the previous Conven-
tion. It would seem that there was doubt on the minds of
some, whether several persons who had been returned by the
bishop, on the list of clerical members, which (as is usual)
he is required to lay on the Clerk’s table on the first day of
the session, were, according to the canon, entitled to seats.
A motion was made, accordingly, that this be inquired into.
After some discussion, the whole matter was referred to this
Convention.
When the resolution was first read, I felt quite curious
to know what objection could possibly be urged to the pro-
ceeding which had been proposed. It is one, you know, of
frequent occurrence in other states. It so happened, that
of some four or five clergymen then casually present from
Pennsylvania, there were two whose right to seats had
been questioned there. In the case of one, the bishop re-
turned his name on the list upon which the Convention was
organized, when his right to be there was questioned. The
matter was referred to a committee, and the decision of the
bishop was sustained. In the other case, the bishop had
stricken off the name of the clergyman, before the roll was
laid upon the clerk’s table. In half an hour after, the Con-
vention, differing from their presiding officer, ordered it to be
restored, by an almost unanimous vote. The right of that
body to decide in the premises, no person ever so much as
thought of questioning. I am convinced, that any grave
doubt suggested then on the subject, would have been
laughed out of their Convention by the High Churchmen of
Pennsylvania. The honor of originating and sustaining such
a doubt is, I suspect, the exclusive property of New Jersey.
The interest of the debate which followed, and the im-
portance of the principles involved, absolutely chained me
to my seat, and made me forget my engagements elsewhere.
The opposition to the right of the Convention to examine
into the correctness of the list of members prepared by the
bishop, was headed by the bishop himself, and one of the pro-
fessors of the General Theological Seminary, who is connec-
ted with the Diocese of New Jersey. What chair the learned
gentleman fills, I do not know, only I fancy that it can hardly
be that of logic. His chief argument was this—viz: That to
17
interrogate the bishop’s list of clergy, is necessarily to ques-
tion his veracity!!! A sentinent which all who were present
will bear witness, was reiterated again and again upon the
floor; and which, if I am not mistaken, was more than echoed
by the Chair itself. Now, it is certain, that such an argument
is good for nothing, except with those who hold the doc-
trine that a bishop cannot err; for if he can, then it is no
impeachment of his veracity to question the correctness of
any official act; especially if, as in this case, it involve the
Interpretation of the canons—respecting some of which, not
only doctors, but lawyers, might reasonably be expected to
differ. Yes, I assure you that this argument was actually
brought forward, and urged with much warmth and appa-
rent sincerity, by a professor in the Seminary at New York.”
You will agree with me that, if this unprotestant dogma of
infallibility be taught in the Institution from which this gen-
tleman comes, it is high time that its patrons were apprized
of it. Of one thing I am certain; that if some unfledged
gosling in the Church were to cackle such a tune as that
one, about the ears of our cool-headed bishop, he would
stand a chance to be sent back to the nest where he was
hatched, and made to stay there until his feathers grew.
You areaaware that in argument, as in war, there are
some positions which must be carried at all hazards, and
then defended to desperation. The Diocesan of New Jersey
evidently seemed to consider this as one. He spoke long
and earnestly. He addressed the understanding and the af-
fections of his audience; especially the clergy. He adroitly
touched the fears of some; spoke strongly to the church
principles of others, and agreeably ventilated the diocesan
pride of all, as Episcopalians of New Jersey. He quoted
Ignatius in one of his strangely extravagant expressions,
and as if conscious that it would sound to his hearers very
like blasphemy, he intimated his hesitation in applying such
strong language to himself, but one of the Fathers had used
it. The passage is that in which Ignatius says that the
bishop amongst his presbyters, is to be looked upon as Je-
sus Christ / or words to that effect. He finally took the
* If I mistake not the time is at hand, when the voice of the Church
will call loudly for a revision of the prinóples upon which this Seminary
has been organised. They are such as to give one or two Dioceses a
complete control over the Board of Trustees; such in fact as to make it
a New York Institution.
2
18
bold stand that his authority in the premises was above all
Constitution and Canons. That he claimed to do what he
had done by divine right, and refused to have the proceed-
ing inquired into by the Convention, because it was above
human legislation.
You would have been amused to see the impression that
this unlooked for application of the Jus Divinum, made
upon some of the laity. It seemed to stagger them prodi-
giously. Several had evinced some little disposition to
think for themselves, and actually opposed the bishop. So
far as canons and things connected with this world were
concerned, they seemed as if they were inclined to make
free to have an opinion of their own ; but as to this indefi-
nite something which they were told came down from hea-
ven, as if on purpose to settle their disputes for them in the
convention, it was altogether out of their line—it belonged
to the clergy. They did not muster resolution even to treat
it as the man in the play did Hamlet’s Ghost,--to “speak
to it.” Some few of the clergy, indeed, opposed the claim
manfully; and attempts were made to brow-beat and to
frown them down to an extent that was quite new to me.
The bishop said that when he accepted the Episcopate
of New Jersey, there were certain restrictions upon it; and
as he agreed to accept the office with these appended to it,
he was bound to regard them ; but he would not consent to
have these restrictions increased.
I understood him also to intimate, in the course of his re-
marks, that he considered (as you know many others do)
the introduction of the laity into the counsels of the church
as an American peculiarity. As to the expediency of hav-
1ng done so, he would express no opinion. We have them
now and must submit to the innovation with the best grace
we may. But he suggested that they should beware of a
disposition to interfere with matters that are too high for
them, and which belong peculiarly to the province of the
Clergy. It was in this connection I think, also, that he re-
ferred to a conversation which he had with the Bishop of
London, or some other great man in the Church of England,
in which fears were expressed of difficulty from the inter-
ference of our Laity in Church matters; and he had
assured his lordship that ſh practice we found no difficulty.
I am bound to say, my dear sir, that these are but imper-
fect reminiscences of the Bishop’s speech. Of course I do
19
not pretend to be precisely accurate. The authenticity of
the main points, however, will, I think, not be questioned.
I have compared notes since, with several others who were
present, and find that they received about the same im-
pressions.
But the most extraordinary part of the proceeding was
that by which it was brought to a close. Will you believe
it, that the Convention actually sustained these lofty claims
Yes, they decided that they had no right to inquire into the
correctness of any roll of members which the Bishop chose
to lay on the Clerk’s table. If he should say that a particu-
lar clergyman is entitled to a seat, he is, and the house has
not authority to question it. If he pronounces another des-
titute of such a right, although the Convention should dis-
sent from the opinion, it would avail him nothing. The
decision is final. I asked one of the leading clerical mem-
bers, what he considered to be the upshot of the whole
affair. “Sir, said he, I understand it to be this, that the
Convention of New Jersey have decided by a vote of nearly
three to one that their Bishop has by divine right the preroga-
tive of making out a list of its members, which shall be con-
clusive, and not afterwards to be called in question by any one
but himself.” This is just what I understood myself. You
will say, “Well ! they are carrying things with a high hand
in New Jersey now.” Alas, my friend, are not such prin-
ciples likely to spread beyond the limits of that diocese ?
Are there not certain predisposing causes in the atmosphere
of the Church just now, that may impart to them, when
once they take air amongst us, an epidemic character?”
Such, my brethren of the laity, is the information that I
have respecting the proceedings of the late important Con-
vention at Burlington. It comes from a source in which I
have implicit confidence; and the statements have since
been confirmed by others who were present. I entertain
no doubt whatever that they are substantially correct. I
had expected to have seen the proceedings referred to,
arraigned before the bar of public opinion long ago. It
seems not likely to be done. I am determined, however,
that there shall be at least one protest against them. Epis-
copalians of New Jersey I hereby offer you a fraternal
remonstrance. It is intended to be in the nature of an
appeal from the representatives to their constituents—from
the convention to the diocese at large. If these doctrines
20
were applicable only to your section of the Church, while
I should still reject them with unqualified disapprobation, I
might perhaps hardly feel myself entitled to discuss them.
But the fact is otherwise. In their application they are
broad as the Church catholic, and in their results boundless
as eternity. Besides, as the communication Just referred to
intimates, there is danger of their becoming epidemic.
Laymen of New Jersey your convention has bound itself
hand and foot, and then laid down a voluntary self immo-
lated victim on the altar of, what some, I am sorry to say,
have not hesitated to call Prelatical ambition. It has well
nigh committed suicide. A body, any one, and of course
all of whose members may be rejected by an authority supe-
rior to itself, can scarcely be regarded as a living legisla-
ture. It may be galvanized into mimic vitality for a mo-
ment, but the soul has departed. The spirit of independence
which is the life of all real legislation is no longer there.
It is, therefore, that I, a churchman like yourselves,
appeal to you the constituents, to correct the errors of your
representatives. Send them back I pray you, on their next
annual occasion of assembling, instructed to take the knife
from the throat of your convention. Do not submit tamely
to the disgrace of allowing the law-making authority of
your diocese to become a felo de se! As you value the
interests of religion amongst you, and the honour of the
Church, arrest promptly and decidedly this process of igno-
ble and insane self murder.
The principle which was opposed to this strange proceed-
ing, I have been accustomed to regard as invested, if any
can be said to be so, with a recommendation which seems
now to sanctify every thing to which it can by any possi-
bility be attached: I mean the “semper, ubique, et ab om-
nibus,” of which our ecclesiastical philosophers have of late
been accustomed to say such surprising things. And the
New Jersey convention has, if I mistake not, become dis-
tinguished in the annals of the Church by having, after
grave discussion, repudiated one of its most sacred privi-
leges, which is clearly vital in its character, and never was be-
fore questioned in any free deliberative assembly upon earth!
I mean a right to decide upon the qualifications of its own
members. Brethren, I affectionately entreat you, by all
that is valuable in that deposit of catholic principles which
the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls has confided to you
21
as an independent branch of the church universal—by the
immutability of justice, the sacredness of honour, and the
dignity of truth—if you have any regard for your own
rights, or entertain any reverence for the rights of others,
who will come after you—I entreat you reverse this incon-
siderate and dangerous procedure.
I revere as sincerely as you can the real “jure divino”
authority of your Bishop. He has heaven-derived author-
ity, and so have your Presbyters in their stations, and your
Deacons, too, aye, and (laugh at it who will) so have the
Laity also. Yes, strange as such language may sound in
New Jersey, Laymen have their jure divino powers in the
Church, as truly as their Bishop has; and they are bound
to protect and exercise them. He who authorized the first
council which ever was convened, chose to constitute it of
“the Apostles, Elders, and BRETHREN.—(Acts 15.) And
in sending out their decision as a decree of “The Church,”
he gave us his model of all ecclesiastical legislatures until
the end of time. The doctrine is occasionally muttered
from high places, in under-tones of muffled discontent, that
the Laity have no business in the councils of the Church.*
* “There is no Christian man, who has watched the progress and de-
velopments of a controversy, to which by name I need not allude, but
must perceive that one of its direct aims is, to bring the laity down into
supine, sluggish, inactive subjection to the clergy.”—Rev Hugh Slowell.
“My lay friends, these your spiritual liberties are in danger. I speak
not now of the enemies from without.”—“Letany man read Mr. Goode's
“Case as vi we,” if he has the least doubt that there is a large body in
the Church of England banded together to bring the Laity into subjec-
tion to the Hierarchy, and to set up over us, if not the Pope of Rome, an
Anglican Pope in his stead.”—“Let me only add, be not supine. Events
which used to take a generation are now developed in a year. They
hasten after one another like shadows in autumn, over the waving corn-
fields, and there is no time to be lost It may be now or never.”—Ib.
“Tractarianism is a system which, if carried out, will change the po-
sition and relations of every member of the Church. It not only in-
fringes upon the rights of the inferior orders of the clergy, but totally
annihilates the rights of the Laity in all ecclesiastical affairs” “The
converts to the Tractarian system in this country have in several In-
stances lately that have come to our knowledge, manifested great 1m-
patience respecting the influence of the Laity in our Ecclesiastical
Councils; and some of them have avowed that all ecclesiastical autho-
rity is vested in the Bishops; that the laity are allowed to sit in our
Conventions merely by a concession of courtesy, and that the Bishops
have a right to recall this grant whenever they choose.”
“We warn the Laity to be on their guard; to maintain and exercise their
rights in the Church of God.”—Episcopal Recorder for June 24th, 1843.
22
This sentiment, if I mistake not, is beginning to take air
amongst some of our younger clergy. There are minds
grievously smitten by that malady, which the Bishop
of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, on a late public occasion,
called “the passion for Catholicity,” which, dreading “in-
novation” above all things, is itself the most extravagant
innovation of the age. Amongst these, this anti-American
exclusion finds especial favor. Laymen of the American
Church, ascertain your rights, and stand by them. And
rest assured that any claim to authority derived from
heaven, that places itself above Canons and Constitutions,
is as bold a deception as ever was played off by any spiri-
tual Cagliostro upon the credulity of mankind. The visions
of the Koran, the fables of the Shaster, the phantasies of
the Zend-Avesta, are not more unreal. There are no
legends, Rabinnical or Braminical, which are not as well
sustained by proof. Dr. Hawkes, who is certainly one of
the most accomplished canonists who have appeared amongst
us, thus expresses himself upon the subject: Speaking of
our Bishops, he says—“Their spiritual office, with its ap-
propriate spiritual functions, is conferred by divine commis-
sion, and we hold it in dutiful filial reverence. At the same
time, it is to be remembered, that there are many rights and
functions held and exercised by Bishops that are conferred
by the Church. Besides, it is a faced and settled thing in
the organization of our Church, that even in the exercise
of their appropriate spiritual functions, the Bishops are to
act within certain limits, and in certain prescribed modes.”
Even the spiritual and heaven-derived authority of a min-
1ster of the Gospel, whether presbyter or bishop, is subject
to certain restrictions. Restrictions prescribed by whom 3
By himself! That were indeed preposterous. All such
must be enacted by the Convention. The law-making
power must, from the very nature of things, be the con-
trolling power in every community; and the man who
places himself, or allows himself to be placed above that,
is, in prerogative and authority, (however far from it he
may be in disposition,) essentially a despot—call him by
what other name you please; and that whether a kingdom
or a diocese be the theatre on which he plays his part—
whether he be clothed in white or purple robes, and wear
a Iſlli Te Or a CTOW n. *
There are many persons amongst us well-informed on
23
other subjects, who look with a favourable eye upon any
extension whatever of the Episcopal prerogative. They
have seen so much of division and contention in other deno-
minations, and have heard so much of the conservative cha-
racter of our institutions, of which they seem to think that
the episcopacy is the only one worth remembering, that they
fancy themselves doing the Church good service, when they
can in any way strengthen the sinews of executive autho-.
rity. A similar delusion prevailed until lately upon the
field of politics. Many an accomplished jurist on the other
side of the Atlantic, having read the American Constitution,
has shaken his head as he laid down the noble document,
and with oracular gravity, uttered the prediction, that a
nation so constituted could not outlive a century, because
the executive is too feeble; and yet, events have proved
that there are times of party excitement, when the Chief
Magistrate of the United States may boldly plant his foot
on high grounds of authority, which no potentate in Europe
would dare to assume. Our statesmen, compelled by cir-
cumstances to look beyond the paper constitution, the mere
title-deeds of office, to see their system working out its re-
sults in practice, have learned the following important
lesson—viz: that in all countries, but especially in one
situated as ours is, patronage is power. And so, my bre-
thren, it is in the Church.
Imagine to yourself a diocese, whose congregations are
feeble, its clergy few, and its resources undeveloped. They
call to their highest position some man of ardent tempera-
ment, overpowering energy, and vigorous talent, and not en-
tirely destitute of that too frequent concomitant of superior
talent, ambition.
The first movement in the tactics of such a man, will
probably be to get hold of the purse-strings of the diocese.
Its resources must be developed, and then paid into the
hands of some committee or irresponsible society, of which
he is himself the regulator and main-spring. Then let the
Church be pushed in all directions. Let missionaries be
multiplied; and each missionary be appointed by the bishop,
and entitled to a seat in the councils of the Church. If we
must have a convention, let as many of the members be
held in the bishop’s pay as possible. It is a humiliating,
and yet notorious fact, that there are many important ques-
tions, respecting which even honest men, before they decide,
24
will take time to consider on which side those persons stand
whose favour it is well to propitiate.” An admirable stroke
of policy will also be to breathe into the susceptible minds
of the younger clergy, the before-mentioned “passion for
catholicity.”f It will teach men to despise every thing
* “A peculiarity attaches to the working of those motives which
spring from the natural desire of worldly comfort and competency; and
it is this, that while these motives are generally more steady and effi-
cient than any others, they are the least obtrusive or noticeable of any.
It is on this ground that we are liable to be impelled, and yet with the
least consciousness of Impulsion. Especially when the conduct of bodies
of men is in question, is it true, that the motive which in the long run
actually draws all others in its wake, is the one concerning which the
individuals (or most of them) might honestly declare that it was not up-
permost in their minds. Many, through the entire course of their lives,
have followed a leading, which has never spoken aloud or stood in the
light.” “Nothing, however, can be more illiberal than to make those
feelings a matter of reproach to any order of men, which are common to
our nature. There is good room to affirm that the Clerical Body, take
it in what age we please, has exhibited a fair superiority in disinterest-
edness and purity of conduct.”—“Spiritual Despotism,” by Isaac
Taylor. A work in which the higher forms of philosophical analysis
are as splendidly exhibited, as in any of modern times.
f Since the above was written, the following admirable exhibition of
sound common sense on this subject, attracted my attention in the Ban.
ner of the Cross. The Editor of that paper states that it is from “high
authority,” which, when taken in connection with the well known sig-
nature, was doubtless intended to refer us to the Diocesan of Pennsylva-
Ilić, -
“But let not the objector go too fast: for it has never been settled
what is Catholic truth, beyond our two creeds. The Church of Rome
declares her body of dogmas to be it; the Greek Church declares against
some of them; the Church of England, and ours, against so many that we
are rightly considered as rejecting them all. Well: this applies only
to Romanism, not to Catholicism. Of course; but where is the standard of
Catholicism to be found " We, as a church, (no other church being thereto
bound, must find it in our Liturgy, Offices, and Articles, and in the Homi-
lies, sofar as they agree with these; in these documents are all the Catho-
licism recognised by our Church. That some few other matters had that
character in the primitive ages, I shall not question; and that may be some
apology, though an insufficient one, for those of us who indulge a han-
kering after such things; though it is no apology whatever for those
who disturb the Church with these morbid longings. But of these (to
us extraneous points of Catholicism, there is no standard; they are in-
vestigated only on individual responsibility. Then, there are other
points called Catholic, which have no honest claim to that distinction,
but which have a full share of the sickly affection referred to. And as
It is only the Catholicism, real or pretended, which is extraneous to our
standards, which has caused the recent troubles here and in England, I
repeat the assertion, that in avowing any of these dogmas, there is only
the authority of the individual, not that of an ecclesiastical body: and if
25
modern, and to venerate every thing that can be made to
loom largely upon their vision through the mist and smoke
of antiquity. It will dispose them to look above and be-
yond those most inconvenient of all impediments in the road
of an aspiring ecclesiastic, “the constitution and canons;”
and to substitute in their stead, any mutilated fragment of
early ecclesiastical jurisprudence, which may be picked up
for them out of that grotesque pile of shreds, and patches,
and malleable rubbish, which “History, with her huge drag-
net,” has succeeded in fishing up out of the gulf of Time.
Give to any bishop who may be capable of using them,
such instrumentalities as these for the expansion of his pre-
rogative, and then, instead of a plain Protestant diocesan,
who, in common with his brethren, acknowledges the
supremacy of the laws, we shall soon have some lordly
hierarch, who feels himself raised above all law; and whose
authority, vague and coming down from remote antiquity
through title deeds which he alone may interpret, is equally
unfounded, unlimited and intolerable.
There are persons, doubtless, who honestly believe that
the only tendency of these times, both in Church and State,
is to radicalism, and the ultimate overthrow of all sound
executive authority. Now, I ask, has it been so in politics?
Let any independent and intelligent inquirer make himself
acquainted with the cabinet history of this country for the
last fourteen years, and then give us the answer. He will
tell you that the powers of the American executive have
been expanded (by the introdution every now and then of
some new trick in the trade of governing) into dimensions
of which Washington and Jefferson could have never
dreamed. And has it actually been so in ecclesiastical
affairs? Let any individual who would reply to this ques-
tion, first study the history of the American church. Let
the individual choose to avow them in words, appropriated to himself,
from the Council of Trent, he has but his own authority, and that of other
individuals who agree with him, for calling them Catholic.” + “ *
“I take for granted that no one will consider the foregoing remarks
as aimed at the theological critics or controvertists who fault the Church
of Rome for announcing her dogmas in language which, in its literal or
obvious"meaning, does not contain them. It is a base dissimulation, and
often carried out in her proselyting manoeuvres to put her decrees in
plausible words, and then tell us they are to be understood in all the
length and breadth of the folly and impiety she wills them to express:
but so it is, and we have no remedy for the artifice.” O.
26
him remember the early and excessive fear that prevailed,
even amongst churchmen, of Episcopal domination, so
that there was at first absolutely a vigorous opposition to
having any bishops established on this side of the water.
Let him remember the time when the bishops were not
allowed to constitute a co-ordinate branch of the general
legislature of the Church at all. They were only private
members of the General Convention ; and even after the
“House of Bishops” was established, it was by slow de-
grees, and in the face of wakeful opposition, that they at-
tained a legislative equality with what has since then been
called the “Lower House.” An arrangement by which
three men could counterbalance at any time the assembled
representation of the Church at large.”
At the last General Convention, the powers of the epis-
copacy were vastly increased by conferring upon it judicial
functions also. This was accomplished, I believe, by the
exertions.of the diocesan of Vermont; a prelate who cer-
tainly cannot, with any justice, be charged with indifference
to the grandeur and dignities of the office which he sustains.
It provides that a bishop can be tried enly by the Bishops;
so that they are now only responsible to—themselves. It
was urged by some, voted for by others, and has been ap-
proved by almost all, on the ground of what I conceive to
be a very absurd perversion of a plain honest principle of
English law; which has been adopted, and if rightly under-
stood, wisely adopted into the jurisprudence of this country.
It is that which provides that every citizen shall be “tried
by his peers.” But whoever heard before that official dis-
tinctions create civil inequality in America! If a Governor
robs the public treasury, or accepts a bribe, is he to escape
with impunity, unless you can contrive to empannel a jury
of Governors, who shall condemn him 2 If a President
commits murder, must he be tried by a jury of Presidents?
No. Every free man in the United States is “peer” to
every other, no matter how lofty his station or great his
influence.
My object, however, at present, is not to discuss the wis-
dom and propriety of this constitution of affairs. I only
wish to prove by my reference to it, that episcopal prero-
* By the way, I do not find any evidence that Bishop James, Bishop
Paul, and Bishop Barnabas, constituted a House of Bishops at the above-
mentioned Council of Jerusalem. (See Acts, 15.)
27
gative has been constantly on the increase amongst us.
There is a uniform tendency in this country to give to the
executive an ascendency over the legislative and judicial
powers. Bishops are certainly not, in this respect, (at least
in some dioceses,) what they were in the early days of
White and Griswold; and Presidents are not what they
were when Washington and Jefferson filled the highest
offices of the State.
What reflecting churchman has failed to notice the ear-
pressions of opinion which the House of Bishops have
occasionally given, concerning points of order and discip-
line which have been mooted amongst us; and the strenuous
efforts which have been made in certain quarters to relieve
the House of Deputies from the responsibilities of conjoint
legislation, by giving to these opinions the force of law;-a
law enacted by one branch of the legislature.
One of the strongest indications of the fact to which I have
referred, will be found in a comparison of the humble pre-
tensions, plain republican simplicity, and modest bearing of
such men as White and Griswold, with the bold assump-
tions and lofty claims of some of their younger and more
active successors in the Episcopate. Above all, let any
man at all desirous of forming a correct opinion, compare
(contrast I should rather say) the simple ecclesiastical con-
stitutions of their day, with the protuberant embodyments
of prerogative which are called by that name in some quar-
ters of the Church at present. That of Vermont for exam-
ple; and that which until lately existed in Kentucky. There
are several others almost equally worthy to be held up to
public view. They present, however, a subject, whose
importance demands a separate communication.
—º-
LETTER III.
IN my last letter I endeavoured to attract your noticé, my
brethren of the laity, to the ominous and remarkable accu-
mulation of prerogative in certain quarters of the Church;
tending evidently to the practical annihilation of all orders
of ecclesiastical authority, but the highest. Do not tell me
that this is a question of Church politics merely. I assure
you (and each coming year will prove the declaration true)
28
that it is intimately connected with the doctrinal purity of
the denomination to which we belong.
I wish I could hold up some of the prominent features of
that remarkable production, the Constitution of Vermont, to
the grave and candid examination of the laymen of our Pro-
testant Church. You may imagine what must be its charac-
ter when so true-hearted a churchman and intelligent a
canonist as the gentleman above referred to (Dr. Hawkes)
could consent to speak of it in language like the following.
“But we have another objection to this Constitution. In the
8th article the Bishop is made the judge in all ecclesiastical
trials. Not HING BUT THIs w As wanTING To MAKE HIM
ABsolute.” And again, “With no interests in view except
those of the Church at large, contributing with the uncalcula-
ting honesty of devoted affection, our humble aid in fixing
principles which may promote the peace and happiness of
the Church long after we are in our graves, we have spoken
with plainness of the legislation of the Diocese of Vermont.
We are not afraid to say that she has given too much power
to the Bishop.” He again expresses himself thus—“We
say it with all imaginable respect, Bishops were made for the
Church ; the Church was not made for Bishops. We can-
not but speak, therefore, and utter our humble voice of
warning, when we behold Standing Committees trimmed
down to be mere advisers of the Bishop, when in the legis-
lation of the Church we see the Bishop “expected” to in-
form the Convention what his opinion is on “every” sub-
ject ; and when they and he have voted on the question,
and the decision does not please him, to find him empowered
to exercise a right of veto, thereby virtually depriving both
clergy and laity of their constitutional right to legislate.
We will speak, and speak out, when we see all power,
legislative, judicial, and eacecutive, centered in one mun, in
such ample plenitude, that he may even dictate to the fashion
of a surplice, or the shape of a gown,” &c. &c.”
It is certainly not the least edifying particular in the
history of this unique specimen of religious legislation,
that it was prepared by the Bishop himself. He tells the
Convention, to whose compliant sagacity the world is in-
debted for its final ratification, that “to the preparation of a
code such as seems most likely to stand the test of Episco-
pal principles” he had “devoted much time, and his best
* New York Review, October 1835.
29
faculties.” This mountainous accumulation of prerogative,
then, (Pelion piled on Ossa,) was actually constructed by
the hands of the very individual who expected to be seated
on its pinnacle. And it was at the particular request of the
Convention (independent, high-souled legislators') that he
thus graciously condescended to make himself omnipotent!
Let any man read that Constitution, and then say whether,
if the individual who has been thus extravagantly exalted,
had dared to brave the public sentiment of the country in
which he lives so far as to carry out into practice the au-
thority which has been thus lavishly bestowed on him, we
should not have to look to the mountains of Vermont for
the mightiest spiritual autocrat at present inhabiting the
globe—with, perhaps, one doubtful exception, the man
who wears the tiara, and builds his habitation upon the
seven hills. Have not the legislative, judicial, and execu-
tive powers been there virtually united in one person; and
have not the ablest political writers in America, together
with some of the most distinguished of foreign countries,
pronounced this the very definition of tyranny ? “Nothing
but this was wanting to make him ABsolute l’’ was the
exclamation of a profound jurist, and a high churchman.
A subject of surpassing interest, and closely connected
with the above, has, if I am correctly informed, been seve-
ral times, of late, brought before the Convention of New
Jersey. It came in the shape of a proposition to confer
upon the Bishop of that Diocese, also, the veto power. For
my own part, I am convinced that, if it be once finally set-
tled that he has a right to create that body, by determining
who shall constitute it, no other prerogative on which he
chooses to insist can long be successfully withheld. Let
the veto be once attained, and the Diocesan of New Jersey
may then take his seat on the same platform with his bro-
ther, the Diocesan of Vermont; and they certainly will
enjoy together a most peculiar notoriety in the history of
the Protestant world.
Let it not be supposed that the veto, when thus exercised
by one who acts and speaks, and votes as a member of the
legislative assembly whose enactment is vetged, is the same
thing as when conferred upon a distinct and co-ordinate
branch of the government; the President or Governor, for
instance. In the former case, it is a corrupt and dangerous
combination of legislative and executive powers. In the
30
latter, although exceedingly liable to be abused, it is only
designed to create a salutary delay—to authorize the Execu-
tive to insist that the Legislative shall act deliberately; and
a bill vetoed may always become a law by a majority of
two-thirds, which is not the fact in the Convention of Ver-
mont. There, the Bishop's veto is final.
The first step in a series of movements which were cal-
culated to prepare the minds of the churchmen of New
Jersey to follow the example of Vermont, was taken in an
article which appeared, several years ago, in one of the
Church periodicals of Pennsylvania, on the “ veto power.”
as essential to the dignity of the episcopate. Its paternity
was referred at the time, I remember, to the eastern side of
the Delaware. If I am correctly informed, attempts have
been several times made, since, in the Convention of that
Diocese, to carry out these views; but, as yet, without suc-
cess. I wish that we had any reason to hope that this, to
me, I confess, unlooked-for, resistance to ecclesiastical ac-
cretion were likely to be persevered in. Alas, how can we
expect it from a legislature which, (unmindful of the first
principles both of civil and ecclesiastical jurisprudence,) has,
with profound self-abasement, consented to lie down in the
dust at the feet of the executive
The article just referred to, was so evidently “presided
over by the Muses,” that it would, perhaps, be hardly fair
to judge it by the strict rules of logic. It is not my inten-
tion to do so. I will content myself with simply showing
you this system as it has been working itself out to its re-
sults in another quarter of the Church.
I think it was Berkley who said, “Westward the star of
empire moves;” and it is as true in our day as it was in
his. This cumulative species of episcopacy long ago reached
Kentucky; a country where it is about as little likely to
prosper as in any upon earth. There has been an influence,
I believe, poured into the atmosphere there, by which the
God of Nature imparts a bold freedom to the spirits of men,
that renders it next to impossible that they should become
slaves; which constantly impels each man to think on every
subject for himself, and with manly independence to speak
what he thinks. I never yet knew a Kentuckian to be
gagged by authority; nor to allow himself to become a
pipe, through which some other man’s sentiments are whis-
tled. A false system of ecclesiastical administration may be
31
brought in unawares upon them, but as soon as its charac-
ter is understood, the intruder is certain to be expelled again.
By the time that the year 1837 (whose journal is before
me) arrived, the bishop had already become sick, “usque
ad nauseam,” of the too highly concentrated sweets of
power. That eminent person appeared to be “in ex-
tremis,” suffering under the severe effects of a surfeit;
as you know is often the case, when the appetite has been
stronger than the powers of digestion. The “head?’ being
disordered, of course all the members suffered with it;-and
in the third year of its episcopate, the little Diocese of
Kentucky was in imminent peril of death by apopleary.
Here I would offer a brother’s faithful warning to the
Episcopalians, and especially the Laity, of New Jersey and
Vermont. The Episcopate of each gives unequivocal signs
of plethora, which makes it evident to all who are familiar
with such cases, that they require speedy depletion. Let
these brethren guard against a too great upward tendency
of the vital energies. Let them avoid vertigo. Above all,
let them beware of that thirst after the stimulants of power,
which is sure, if indulged to excess, to produce giddi-
ness in the head, and paralysis in the members. Sooner
or later, also, it must bring on what may be called the
“mania-a-potu ?” of ecclesiastical ebriety; and that terrible
“delirium tremens’’ which is produced by incesant spi-
ritual intoxication.
The Kentucky patient was happily relieved by a remedy
prescribed, it is supposed, by a distinguished professor in the
medical University of Kentucky, Dr. John Esten Cooke; an
individual who has certainly made his mark upon the age
in which he lives; and who having become distinguished in
both medical and ecclesiastical literature, has been for a
long time quietly reposing on his laurels in the church. If
the remedy was prescribed by him, it was, nevertheless, ad-
ministered by his distinguished compeer in churchmanship
and erudition, Dr. Coit, then President of Transylvania. He
applied it in the shape of a Report in favor of remodelling
the entire Constitution, and Canons of the Diocese. Allow me
to present, for your serious meditation, a few extracts from
that report, which taking into account the source whence
it comes, appears to me entitled to more consideration than
it has yet received. It is certainly replete with the wisdom
and the warnings of experience. May they be listened to.
32
“The third subject is the extent of the Episcopal preroga-
tive. Your Committee were happy to listen to the opinions
of the Bishop himself upon this important topic, before the
Convention at Danville. His disclaimer of all wish to re-
tain the prerogatives at present accorded to the Episcopate,
and his earnest desire to have them abridged, are worthy
the imitation of all who sustain his elevated office. The
spirit of the government under which we live, of the “free
and equal” people of which we form a part, of the age in
which we are, is altogether contrary to the accumulation of
power in individuals. This spirit appears to us to speak
eminently the voice of propriety and wisdom. And unless
we have read ecclesiastical history wrong, the same princi-
ple had full ahd honoured sway in the councils of the pri-
mitive Christian Church. The ecclesiastical constitution of
that Church seems to have been founded upon the clear and
ever memorable principle of putting Bishops, Presbyters,
and Lay members, upon a footing of legislative equality.
The records of the first council ever held, as seen in the
15th chapter of the Acts, exhibit the recognition and ope-
ration of this principle in the most unequivocal manner.
Now it is notorious that we profess to be closer imitators
than any of our fellow Christians, of primitive ecclesiastical
customs. It is equally notorious that we boast of having
an ecclesiastical organization approaching with happy near-
ness to the political government of our country. Perhaps
these professions and boasts are not sufficiently well founded.
Perhaps the tendency of past events has been, throughout
these states, to concentrate too much power in “Bishops
and other chief Ministers,” to the disparagement of the
rights and interests of those who have, or rather should
have, (Scripture, reason, and republican love of liberty and
equality, are the authority to which we appeal) as much
weight in sanctioning the laws and measures of the Church.
If so wrong has been done, wrong is still doing, and danger
and detriment must be the issue. The spirit of the Gospel
countenances any thing but ecclesiastical lordliness. “The
chiefest of all should be the servant of all”—the last to
lord it over God’s heritage, or as the Roman Catholic ver-
sion has it (a high authority on this point) to “domineer
over the Clergy”;-the last to accept any perogatives which
may stimulate ambition, or provoke that love which is am-
ply strong in most men, and which Churchmen are bound
33
to prove, cannot in this land of freedom be imputed to them
with scornful emphasis—the love of power. It behoves us,
therefore, to show our decided dislike, not to say abhorrence
of man-worship, of irresponsible hierarchies, of any thing
which has even the faintest savor of pontifical supremacy.”
With these views, the Committee recommend the re-
moval from our Constitution of the veTo now possessed by
our Bishop. They are glad to believe that our present
Diocesan, in accordance with the sentiments already alluded
to, will adopt this suggestion cheerfully. Any wise Bishop,
as it seems to them, must do so; for the true secret of Epis-
copal ascendency is, and ever must be, not naked official
consequence, but personal influence. The former is what
the people of this country will not bear; is that which our
forefathers contended against even unto death. He who
relies upon it will find friends and esteem forsake him, and
will gain all that he ever does gain by dint of irresistible
force. He may govern bodies, but will control no hearts.
The views which lead your Committee to recommend
the abolition of the episcopal veto, lead them, further, to
recommend that the prerogatives of the Episcopate be dimin-
ished in certain other respects.
It can neither be good policy nor sound justice to asso-
ciate too many offices in one individual; and these remarks
are emphatically and ominously true when those offices are
of a contrary character. What civil government, for exam-
ple, would endure to have the offices of States’ attorney,
grand-juror, petit-juror, judge, and sheriff, combined in a
single individual. Yet these offices are represented in a
Bishop. He is the accuser of delinquent clergymen, and
the sustainer of charges preferred against them. He forms,
and can guide, the court of inquiry, which is to determine
their fitness for farther trial. He sits on the ultimate trial
as a member, and as the president of the court; in many
cases the sentence is altogether in his hands, and of that
sentence, be it what it may, he is the public executioner.
Surely, if laws were made, as Lord Bacon says they were,
for the preservation, not the destruction of persons, goods,
and good names, these things, that are dis-sociated in the
world, ought not to be associated in the Church. The good
name of a clergyman is his dearest possession on earth;
Surely he ought to have as strong a safeguard for its protec-
tion, as the felon to keep him from the penitentiary.
3
34
Your Committee would, therefore, recommend that the
Episcopate in this Diocese be forever relieved of the dis-
tasteful and odious task of public accuser, and that trials
of clergymen be brought on by three of their own order,
by their vestries, or by the standing committee. . They
would also recommend that the Bishop, instead of being
the States’ Attorney, in cases of clerical trial, sustain to the
accused the relation of an advocate.
The fourth topic is the call of a special convention. Your
Committee understand the true theory of a standing com-
mittee to be, that it represents the clerical and lay members
of the Convention, during recess of Convention. Upon the
principles they have already recognised, and after the
avowal of the Bishop concerning the too great eactent of
Episcopal power in the United States, that, as the Bishop
now possesses the sole power of calling a special Conven-
tion, the same power be conferred upon the standing com-
mittee.”
This Report was adopted, and its suggestions carried into
effect.
Such is the voice of Kentucky. Let New Jersey and
Vermont, under the influence of the same spirit of noble
independence follow her example. Let them retrace their
steps, before it be too late, if not for the safety, at least for
the honor and reputation of the Diocese. Such proceed-
ings as those which produced the Constitution of the one,
and controlled the late Convention of the other, are not
likely, hereafter, to be done in a corner. The spirit that
pervades them has shown itself in its native alliance with
the doctrinal errors of the day. It will, hereafter, be vigi-
lantly watched. It has attracted to itself the concentrated
gaze of many eyes: let it beware of the public observation.
In Vermont it has attempted to avoid such scrutiny by the
ecclesiastical enormity of a secret session! but it is utterly
a vain attempt. The day has gone by when Error, either
in Church or State, will be permitted long to hide itself from
public view. It may retire for a season, to concoct its
venom (adder-like) in the dark, but when it becomes active,
and is doing its work in practice, it must crawl forth from
its hiding place; and then all men will be able to look at it
by broad daylight.”
* In Canon XVI. it is declared that the proceedings of that Conven-
tion shall not be open to the public.
35
Laymen of Vermont, tear the 16th canon from your
statute book. It is a stain upon the escutcheon of your
Diocese. A secret legislature is an anomaly which neither
the country nor the Church are likely to tolerate. Your
clergy will not take the lead, and yet I suspect that by this
time they are prepared to follow. But alas, the veto ! For
the moment I forgot that. Brethren, I am sorry for you.
You can do nothing. Your case is hopeless. Let church-
men beware of an unqualified Episcopal veto. It is the
collar mark of ecclesiastical serfdom. Beware of secret
church legislatures. Especially set the brand of Cain upon
all authority that undertakes to place itself above the Con-
stitution and the laws.
Brethren of the Laity, ascertain the work which God has
given you to do. Live up to the measure of your respon-
sibilities as Laymen in America; the citizens of a free
country, and the members of a sound church. Make your-
selves acquainted with the current history of the denomina-
tion to which you belong. Prepare yourselves to take an
intelligent and active interest in its affairs. Have a watch-
ful eye upon the prevalent errors of the day.” Stand by
those who stand by the truth, and no others, be they whom
they may. Be especially on your guard against the long-
tried and favourite fallacy of the father of lies, Popery; the
old heresy of Rome, and the new heresy of Oxford. Do
you ask what is the difference between them. I answer,
just about the same, certainly no greater than that which
distinguishes the old fashioned small-pox from that mod-
ern malady the varioloid. The one has a more eupho-
nous name than the other, and Some of its harsher features
have been softened, but it is propagated by the same virus,
must be treated with the same remedies, and is constantly
* That Popery developed itself according to circumstances is a fact.
But it began with a fixed aim, Gregory the 1st was the founder of its
power. And his aim was the same with that of the Puseyites. It was
the correction of the real or imaginary evils of the times, by the eleva-
tion of a direct and unconditional Church authority. This is the Pusey-
ism of all ages. It was that of Gregory. It is that of the Oxford tract
writers—not to mention their precursors, Laud and others, who strove to
do by the sceptre what they are striving to do by the pen. This is the
Puseyism of all ages, whether the times be feudal or whether they be
radical, there has ever been a disposition to meet the dangers of the
times by means of an Hierarchical Supremacy; and this disposition,
working itself into a system, may universally he called Puseyism.—Rev.
C. J. York, Rector of Shinford.
36
tending to the same issue—DEATH. It is, in a word, only a
modification of the same disease.” Remember, also, that
it is a contagious malady. Let a sanatary cordon be drawn
around your congregatious and the Church at large. This
may be considered a severe policy, but the public health
requires it. If the destroyer once get in amongst us, thou-
sands will be blasted by his presence, and perish for ever.
Brethren, for the present I tender you the fraternal vale-
diction of
A PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN.
* If you were to take the great mass of the people of England, you
would find a burst of righteous indignation against them, (the Tracta,
rians). They would say “if we are to have Popery let us have honest old
Popery at once; if you are right, you do not go far enough, and if you are
wrong, you go too far.—Rev. Mr. Stowell.
NOTE TO PAGE 7.
I have been informed that Mr. C. has since submitted to a private
examination, conducted by Rev. Mr. Higbee, one of the assistant Rec-
tors of Trinity Church. I have not seen the particulars of it, and there-
fore cannot say whether there be any thing elicited in it to qualify the
above expressions. It is of a course what surgeons call a post-mortem
examination, and can have no other effect, than to show the skill of the
operator. If there be any thing at variance with what the young man
asserted when he was examined for orders, and what he had previously
asserted to Dr. Smith, (Dr. Smith's record of the conversation being
submitted to his own deliberate inspection and correction,) it will only
show that he has been alarmed by the excitement which his folly has
created, and is capable of contradicting himself. It can have no effect
to justify those who ordained him, or recommended his ordination. The
statement of doctrine upon which that event was based, is before the
world in a shape as authentic as any subsequent ones can ever be ; and
the world will judge respecting it for itself. How easy it would be
for Mr. Carey, if he chose, to explain away to-day before Mr. Higbee,
the statements that he made yesterday to the Examining Committee,
and then to-morrow, i. e. after he obtains Priest's orders, (which no
Bishop would brave public sentiment so far as to give him without some-
thing of the kind,) to explain away, his explanations.
JAMES MI, C A M P B E L L & C 0,
No. 98 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,
Have recently published a beautiful and cheap edition, complete in one large octavo
volume—432 pages—Price $1, full cloth, 75 cents, boards, of
ſ
D’AUBIGNE'S HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION
IN GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND.
NEANDER'S HISTORY.
Neander’s History of the Christian Religion, during the first three centuries—
bound in cloth, price $1.50.
LLORENTE'S HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION.
Llorente’s History of the Inquisition, complete, in paper 37; cents, in half cloth
50 cents.
THE BIBLE IN SPAIN,
Or, the Journeys, Adventures, and Imprisonments of an Englishman, in an attempt
to circulate the Scriptures in the Peninsula, by George Borrow, author of “The
Gypsies of Spain”—232 pages octavo—price 374 cents.
THE GYPSIES OF SPAIN,
With an Original Collection of their Songs and Poetry, by George Borrow. Price
314 cents.
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST DELINEATED,
In two Essays, by Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin— 1 volume,
octavo.—Price 25 cents.
THE ERRORS OF ROMANISM,
Traced to their Origin in Human Nature, by Richard Whately, D, D., Archbishop of
Dublin—in uniform edition with his Kingdom of Christ--price 25 cents.
THE HUGUENOT CAPTAIN,
Or the Life of Theodore Agrippa D'Aubigne, during the Civil Wars of France, in the
Reigns of Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and the minority of Lewis XIII. One
volume—price 25 cents.
T) EFENCE OF THE COVENANTERS.
A Defence of the Presbyterians of Scotland against the misrepresentations of Sir
Walter Scott, being a review of the Tales of my Landlord. by Thomas McCrie,
D.D., author of the Reformation in Spain and Italy, &c. Price 25 cents.
FATHER CLEMENT.
A Roman Catholic Story, by Grace Kenneday, Author of the Decision, Philip
Colville, &c., with a Sketch of the Author—A new and beautiful edition—price
25 cents.
FOX’S BOOK OF MARTYRS
Price in cloth $1.50.
LIEBIG’S AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY.
JUST PUBLISHED — Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry, a beautiful octavo
edition, at 25 cents.
LIEBIG'S ANIMAL CHEMISTRY.
In uniform edition with the Agricultural Chemistry—Price 25 cents.
THE NEIGHBOURS.
By Frederika Bremer, translated by Mary Howitt, 184 cents.
Orders for the above publications, Post PAID, and accompanied by remittances,
will receive prompt attention.
© A ºf P : E \, ,? §
FoREIGN SEMI MONTHLY MAGAZINE,
OR
SELECT MISCELLANY OF EUROPEAN LITERATURE AND ART.
—º-
THIS work furnishes the choicest literary contents of the Reviews, Magazines, and weekly
publications of Great Britain, together with elaborate ENGRAVINGs on STEEL of the most excellent
productions of Modern Art, PortRAITs of DISTINGUISHED INDIVIDUALs, and other embellish-
Iſlent S.
It is the aim of the proprietor of this Magazine. that it shall combine every species of excellence
In periodical literature. The contents consist of Criticism, History, Biography, Voyages and
Travels, Tales, Poetry, Notices of the Productions of Art, the Practical Results of Scientific
Inquiry throughout Europe. Obituary Notices of persons eminent for rank or talent, or other-
wise remarkable, and choice Miscellaneous Selections. Politics, in the strict sense of the word,
is not a feature of this publication, though selections from Parliamentary Debates will occasion-
ally be given, when of a highly interesting nature ; and much political and other information on
the affairs of the day, in the Old World, cannot fail to be incidental to matter of so varied a
character as is embraced in its plan.
The design will be more clearly understood, when it is stated that the contributions will be
drawn from such writers as Brougham, Macaulay, Wilson, Lockhart, Carlyle, Landor, Milnes,
Sterling, Tennyson, Mrs. Hall, Miss Martineau, Foster, Warren, Lever, Hood, and, in short,
all the most distinguished writers of Great Britain. The greatest care is exercised in the selec-
tions. No subject is admitted which may have a tendency to injure, and none rejected which
shall be likely to entertain and improve the American public.
Commencing with September, 1843, the embellishments chiefly consist of a popular selection
from the best works of the most eminent masters of the Modern Schools of Art, that of Eng-
land embracing many American artists, who are among its most distinguished ornaments.
These will be accompanied by critical notices of a familiar character, calculated to the forma-
tion of a more enlightened and liberal judgment on the nature and merits of the higher depart-
ments of Art. The series of PortRAITs of distinguished individuals, which have heretofore
enriched the work, will still be continued.
By an adherence to this design, the proprietor feels confident that he shall be enabled to furnish
a FAMILY Book emphatically of the highest value, and worthy of the widest patronage.
TER M. S.
This work is PROMPTLy issueD on the first and sixteenth day of every month, in super-royal
octavo form. Each number contains seventy-two pages, printed on a very superior sized paper,
with good type, and embellished with a highly finished engraving, from some picture of marked
excellence—forming annually three richly embellished volumes of nearly six hundred pages
each. Price, FIVE DOLLARS A YEAR, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE; single numbers
Twenty-Five CENTs. New subscribers remitting eight dollars will be entitled to the work from
its commencement in September, 1842, to August, 1844, inclusive. The work will be con-
ducted upon the cash system, and the publisher deems it proper to state distinctly that orders, in
all cases, must be post-paid and accompanied by a remattance.
JAMES M. CAMPBELL,
98 Chestnut street, Philadelphia.
ºf Postmasters are authorized to frank all letters containing remittances for periodicals.