"A strict adherence to these principles and views, stated with so much interest, must indeed be considered as required by the exigences, and even the existence of our Church.' The spirit of them seems to me applicable to all associations for religious purposes where Episcopalians unite with those 'severed from them by diversity of worship, discipline, or by contrariety in points of doctrine.' We ought indeed to treat every denomination in their character as a body with respect, and the individuals composing it with degrees of respect or esteem, or of affection, in proportion to the ideas entertained of their respective merits.' But a due regard both to principle and sound policy, and even Christian harmony, requires, in the judgment of him who addresses you, that we avoid intermixture with them in efforts for religious purposes; and that for the propagation of the Christian faith, by whatsoever particular mode, we associate only among ourselves, and act exclusively under the guardianship and authority of our own Church.

"The views founded on this opinion, the propriety of which seems to me so obvious, which originally influenced me with respect to the union of Episcopalians with other denominations in Bible societies, have gained strength by subsequent reflection and observation. These societies seem to me erroneous in the principle on which, in order to secure general co-operation, they are founded-the separation of the Church from the word of Godof the sacred volume from the ministry, the worship, and the ordinances which it enjoins as of divine institution, and the instruments of the propagation

and preservation of gospel truth. As it respects Churchmen, the tendency of these societies has appeared to me not less injurious than the principle on which they are founded is erroneous. They inculcate that general liberality which considers the differences among Christians as non-essential; and they thus tend to weaken the zeal of Episcopalians in favour of those distinguishing principles of their Church which eminently entitle her to the appellation of apostolical and primitive.

"The success of institutions which are erroneous in the principle on which they are founded, or in the measures which they adopt, cannot vindicate them, except on the maxim, that the end justifies the means.' Nor is this success to be considered as evidence of the favour of heaven; for then, divine sanction would be obtained for many heretical and schismatical sects, which, at various times, have obtained great popularity, and corrupted and rent the Christian Church.

"It is a satisfaction to me, that in withholding my support from Bible societies, I act with those in the highest stations in the Church from which we are descended, and with the great body of its clergy. But it is a source of painful regret to find myself differing on this subject from many of the clergy and members of our own communion whom I greatly esteem and respect. I would wish to guard against the supposition of any design on my part to censure those Episcopalians who deem these societies worthy of their support, and the proper channels of their pious munificence. Among the Episcopalians of this description, I recognise, in the president and

acting vice-president of the American Bible Society, individuals who are not for a moment to be suspected of acting from any other principle than a sense of duty, and whose pure and elevated characters adorn the Church of which they are members. My object is not to censure others, but, in the discharge of my official duty, to state and defend the principles on which I think Churchinen should act in their efforts for the propagation of the Gospel; and to ask for those who do act on these principles, the credit of an adherence to the dictates of conscience, and an exemption from the imputation of being unfriendly to the distribution of the oracles of truth. No imputation can be more unjust, injurious, or unkind. It is not to the distribution of the Bible, but to the mode of distribution, that our objections apply. We deem ourselves not warranted in sanctioning what appears to us a departure from the apostolic mode of propagating Christianity-in the separation of the sacred volume from the ministry, the ordinances, and the worship of that mystical body which its Divine Founder has constituted the mean and the pledge of salvation to the world. And we think that Episcopalians will best preserve their attachment to the distinctive principles of their Apostolic Church, and thus best advance the cause of primitive Christianity, and most effectually avoid all collision with their fellow Christians who differ from them, by associating for all religious purposes only among themselves."

Nothing can be more decorous and becoming than the language of this address. The sentiments were such as any individual had a right to express,

without any reasonable ground of offence to those who might entertain different views, and such as a Bishop who attached great importance to them, was in his official character bound to express. The personal allusions were so kind, and delicate, and respectful, that it might well have been supposed not even the parties themselves would be hurt by them, and of course that no pain would be given to others.

But it was otherwise. The address was made the occasion of an attack on the part of an anonymous writer, under the signature of a Churchman of the diocese of New-York, in a temper and style which were altogether unsuitable to his own character and pretensions, to the subject itself, and to the sacredness and dignity of the person assailed. It is this spirit which, provoking recrimination, often renders religious controversy so odious as to indispose men to inquiries after the truth, and to make them prefer ignorance and error to discord and strife. The time we hope will come, when these discussions will be conducted in a better spirit, and when the defence of truth may be reconciled with charity and peace.

But though no circumstances can altogether justify the harsh tone which too commonly prevails in controversial writings, yet if the misrepresentations, the fallacies, the disingenuousness, the indelicacy, discourtesy, and intolerance with which Bishop Hobart charged "a Churchman of the diocese of New-York," in those masterly pieces signed "Corrector," were, in the main, fairly made out; and such, so far as I have learned, though not the

universal, was the very general opinion of those who had read the controversy; then it is not surprising that, under the peculiar provocations, he felt a degree of honest indignation at this unprovoked attack, and that he treated his assailant with severity and scorn.*

His constitution was now so much impaired that there seemed to be no prospect of the renovation of his health, except from a thorough change of scene, and a long and complete recreation from his laborious duties and distracting cares. Arrangements were immediately made for his departure, and no one perhaps ever left his home with so many public and private testimonials of affection and concern, or with more devout and earnest prayers for his happy return.

He set sail on the 24th of September, in the ship Meteor, Captain Gardiner, and arrived at Liverpool on the 29th of October.

The Bishop kept a very minute journal of all those particulars, in regard to the passage, which tend to relieve the dulness and ennui of the sea, but which, when unaccompanied by dangers or calamities, are in general not very entertaining to the reader. The following letter, which he wrote to me a few days after his arrival, contains a brief account of his voyage.

* In the heat of controversy, and with a view of strengthening his argument, the Bishop made some personal allusions to the family of "A Churchman of the diocese of New-York," which I have always regretted, and of which it seems proper to state, I entirely disapprove. VOL. I.

34