which are strictly appropriate to the pulpit,) and some of the opinions which he advanced were so opposed to the predilections of many of his warmest admirers and devoted friends, that I well remember to have listened to the discourse with agitation, anxiety, and fear. But though the sermon was the occasion of some surprise and remark, it was followed, however, by no harsh censures, nor any degree of unkindness and ill will. The well-known sincerity of the Bishop, his elevation of sentiment and freedom from vulgar prejudices, were a sufficient assurance to his hearers that he had expressed the honest and settled convictions of his mind; and if there were any among us who doubted the expediency of the measure, there were none who questioned the purity of his motives. The object of the discourse was to institute a comparison between the United States of America and some of the countries in Europe through which he had travelled, and to show that the people of this infant nation, so inferior in the arts which adorn and embellish life, in the munificent foundations of learning, in the venerable monuments of glory and power, in the refinements of polished society, were still favoured in many respects with such distinguishing advantages as ought to make them grateful, contented, and happy. I am persuaded, from my own observation, after a journey through these very countries, where I travelled with a delight which softened down the prejudices of education and habit, and the recollection of which has thrown a reflected charm over the rest of my life, that no one could return to our own without strong feelings of complacency and pride.

The Bishop takes only a rapid glance of the points of comparison between some of the countries on the Continent of Europe and our own; and had his observations been confined to these, they would have excited but little interest, and led to no animadversion. But he entered into a discussion of the most delicate nature, where it was much more easy to arouse a jealous sensibility than to secure a sober attention to reason and truth. He ventured to compare this country with England, and to dispute her pre-eminence in some of those very respects in which she places her chief glory and pride. Though not withholding the acknowledgment, that as from the first of European nations we have drawn our origin, so we have also derived from it our admirable principles of civil freedom; yet he contends that we have carried them to a higher point, elevated the character and condition of the great mass of the people, and increased incalculably their peace, their comfort, and happiness. But, much as he values our civil liberty, it is the religious freedom of our country which, in his view, constitutes our highest boast. Protected in her privileges, without the slightest degree of control and restraint, religion is suffered to make her own way to the hearts and consciences of men, and the cause of truth, unembarrassed by political arrangements of popular prejudices, proceeds without obstruction to that triumph which it must eventually obtain. Here the connexion between the pastor and his flock is voluntary on the part of both. The former is brought into this relation entirely from esteem for his talents, piety, and worth, and the latter are dis

posed to be pleased with the object of their choice. But there the livings, being in the gift of individuals, corporations, or the government, are liable to be made subservient to the private views of individuals or families, and to present an inducement very often to enter into the holy ministry with a great admixture of worldly motives.

Besides, there is no easy or practicable mode in which this connexion, that is entirely independent of the choice or wishes of the congregation, can be dissolved. For "such are the gross and lamentable obstructions to the exercise of discipline, from the complicated provisions and forms of the ecclesiastical law, that common and even serious clerical irregularities are not noticed.”

The Bishop proceeds to observe, not in a spirit of censoriousness, but of unfeigned regret, that "the mode of support by tythes, though part of the original tenure of property, is still calculated to prevent, in many cases, that cordial and affectionate intercourse between the minister and people" which is so common and endearing among ourselves. He then attempts to show that the arrangements of our own Church are decidedly preferable, both for the maintenance of the clergy and the exercise of discipline.

He afterwards adverts to the extraordinary and inappropriate prerogative of the king, through his ministry, to designate the persons who shall be chosen for the Episcopal office, whose authority is entirely divine, and the absolute incapacity of the clergy to exercise their ecclesiastical power independently of the state. But here no secular au

thority can interfere with our high ecclesiastical assembly, nor control her legitimate powers.

And finally, he contends that the theological requisitions for the ministry, and the provisions for theological education in the Episcopal Church in America, are much superior to those in the Church of England.

These several positions are illustrated with as much clearness, and supported with as much force of argument as could reasonably be expected within the brief compass of an ordinary discourse. The treatment of the whole subject is kind, respectful, and decorous, without the slightest infusion of bitterness, malevolence, or scorn. Though, therefore, to those who were brought up in loyal attachment to the civil institutions of England, and in habitual reverence for the Church, these pretensions might have seemed high and unwarrantable, yet there was nothing in them to provoke the indignation of a generous mind. They should have been answered in the frank and liberal spirit with which they were made; but the first notice of them was steeped in wormwood and gall. There never was any thing from the British press which was more unworthy of it, and never any thing which called forth, in England itself, a more noble and generous vindication.* A few instances of this magnanimity on each side of the Atlantic would put away all bitterness and wrath, and make us no longer feel like aliens, but brethren.

It has been ascertained that the critique on the

From the Rev. J. H. Rose.

sermon, which appeared in the Quarterly Theological Review, was written by a Mr. Croley, from Ireland, residing in London-who had previously published one or two poems, which gave the promise, in any future productions, of a better style and taste; for the review is a tissue of vulgarity, ignorance, presumption, and folly. He represents the Bishop as "signalizing his first appearance in the American pulpit on his return from the hospitality and marked attentions of the British clergy, by a laboured, unmeasured, and most unfounded attack on the Church of England," as "sacrificing the conventional honour of society, and the still more delicate honour of his cloth, to the sovereign mandate of his majesty the mob;" as " thinking only of a vulgar flourish to announce his arrival in America;" as "laying upon his cushion for a sermon a political pamphlet, and calling upon his congregation to rejoice in the superiority of their obscure Church over the fallen and decrepid grandeur of the mighty Church of England." He looks upon the sermon as a painful proof that every public man in America "is under mental duress," and that the high road to authority is to please the populace. "Popularity is there the supreme good, the twenty thousand of the wheel, that richest and golden merchandise' that justifies every man's venture and submission to all the capricious fluctuations of the wave and wind. It is this that has compelled so respectable a man as Dr. Hobart to consult its will, even in his absence, by gleaning up abuses palatable to the popular taste, and by employing the first moments of his return to assure his countrymen that neither