Church a free election would not be tolerable." He then points out an error into which the Bishop has fallen in regard to the general causes of the elevation of clergymen in the Church of England to the Episcopal office; and he mentions the names of several by whom it is now most honourably filled, who rose to this exalted station without any influence either from interest or noble alliance. "One of these, it is true, was a tutor in a noble family; but where a man receives five or six pupils he is very highly paid; and as he does not devote himself to one family, he is never considered as having any claim to patronage. As another minor error," he remarks, that "there are three professors of divinity at Cambridge, who all lecture either regularly or occasionally.")

"The part of your sermon from which I most dissent, is the statement that the abject condition of the poor here, is the necessary consequence of our having privileged orders, or at least men far exalted above others. I am unable to trace any necessary connexion between the two things. In my mind, the low state of our poor arises from the poor laws, which make the rich the slaves of the poor, and the poor the slaves of the parish officers. As they have the parish relief to rely on, they lose all provident habits; and their masters, for the same reason, do not pay them sufficient wages. On the other hand, the parish gives them a mere and bare sufficiency, so that they suffer in all ways. But this is too long a topic for a letter. ***. I must conclude, though I do so reluctantly. Cut off as I am from all hopes of personal intercourse with

you, I enjoy the more keenly this imperfect communication, with one whom I view with so much respect and affection. I shall depend on hearing from you.

"Believe me ever,

"Most truly and affectionately yours,

"H. J. ROSE."

In a different letter Mr. Rose observes to the Bishop, that if another edition of the sermon were called for, he would do well to correct one or two inaccuracies. He had asked whether a portion of the immense wealth of the universities should not be appropriated to the increase of the accommodations for students, as many were now excluded who applied for admission. Mr. Rose replies, that it would only be just in regard to Cambridge to state, that this had very recently been done to a great extent. The new Observatory had been built, costing nearly £25,000 (sterling); the new court at Trinity, which contains one hundred and twenty persons, costing £40,000; the splendid new building at King's, costing £80,000; and the college of Benet, near £40,000. A new court was just com mencing at St. John's, Downing, had been ha built within five years, besides, many new edifice had been erected at other colleges.

The following letter, which appears to have be written subsequently, is without a date.

"MY DEAR FRIEND,

"I have received from you your report to the convention, and your charge, which show

UD you

wearied in labour and unshaken in principle; but I have not received, what I wished for excessively, a letter from you; pray let me have the satisfaction of seeing, under your own hand, that you are as well as I wish you may be.

"With the report there came also two answers to the attack on you in the Quarterly Theological Journal. I was sorry that any of your friends in America took the trouble of replying to it."

He then adds, with regard to his own notice of the sermon, that he should not have thought any answer necessary, had the Bishop been half as well known in England as he was in his own country.

"I must tell you that I was sorry to see one thing in the Christian Guardian, and that was a general attack on the beneficed clergy of England, and a statement that curates are the only persons who have any spiritual influence over the people. This I am sure is not your opinion. I can conscientiously say, that it is wholly founded in error; for though it is certainly true, that, in theory, tithes are most objectionable, yet, in practice, a conscientious and Christian clergyman, by not insisting on his full rights, avoids dispute, and lives on terms of peace with his parishioners as much as if tithes were not in existence. You told me, I remember, that, practically, the payment of your clergy by voluntary contributions does not diminish the freedom of speech which they ought to have, but which theory would make it probable that, under such a system, they had not. And so it is with us-practice and theory, in short, do not coincide more accurately in this than in other matters. Believe me, therefore, VOL. I.

45

that a conscientious and pious incumbent with us, has as much spiritual influence as a priest can have; and, from his superior power of doing good, far more influence than any curate can possibly enjoy. I notice this at some length, because general reflections on a body always excite irritation, and it is, I am sure, most desirable that the Church of this country and yours should entertain a sincere and genuine affection for each other. In some points they differ, indeed, from external circumstances, but in spirit they are one. * * *.

"We talk of you, think of you, and wish for you every week of our lives. Alas! how vainly. How improbable is it that I shall ever have the happiness of seeing you again! Yet, to the last hour of my life, unless I am strongly deceived in myself, I shall think of you with affection, and be grateful to Providence for giving me the advantage of knowing one whose advice, whose energy, and whose example will, I trust, not be lost on me. * * *.

"Most truly and affectionately yours,

"H. J. ROSE."

There are likewise some general allusions to the sermon of Bishop Hobart in a letter from the Rev. Dr. Walker, professor of divinity, and now Bishop of Edinburgh, who, being a clergyman of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, which has no connexion with the state, and who, standing in a similar relation to the Church of England as ourselves, was enabled to view this subject with the utmost impartiality.

"When I was in London I of course saw Mr. Norris; while I was with him he showed me your

sermon, preached on your return to New-York. I met at Cambridge your friend Mr. Rose, with whom also I had some conversation on the same subject. The dedication and the introduction to that sermon are indeed admirable, both in conception and in expression. I am as much disposed as any man can be to lament certain circumstances and numerous legislative restraints in the Church of England, in the enactment of which the Church, as a body, was never consulted; nor do I at all wonder that you should prefer the arrangements of your own Church and country with which you are accustomed, and the good effects of which you have experienced, to the different arrangements observed in England. I entirely despise the prejudices which would confine all good to England, and deny all participation to other lands. With these feelings in full operation, and blessing God, as I do daily, for the happy progress of genuine religion in America, which is so much indebted to your zeal and labours, I am still of opinion that some of the remarks in your sermon have been rashly hazarded, and without a sufficient knowledge of the circumstances of the case. But these are errors into which all travellers are apt to fall, while, with respect to your country, it has too frequently happened that malignity has been mixed up with the errors of hasty observation. Every man who knows you, or who, without knowing you, reads your sermon in a Christian spirit, will at once acquit you of intentional error, and of unfriendly remark. I therefore was exceedingly shocked with the shameless madignity which, in the shape of a review in the Quar