Page images
PDF
EPUB

determined enemies of Christianity. We are well aware that this is a point which strongly moves the sensibilities of our opponents. It gives us no pleasure thus to identify the cause in which they are contending, with the cause of infidel scoffers, and the "Man of Sin." Nor is the charge gratuitous; it has been repeatedly shown, that the armour they bring against us, has been forged in the camp of the Philistines; and they have been entreated as brethren, not to strengthen, by their apparent cooperation. the hands of those who avowedly obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." To point out to them the ground on which they stand, is not to impeach their motives; yet we have to lament that, in whatever spirit this has been done, it has too generally produced irritation rather than a wise suspicion of their cause.

Having bestowed our commendation on Mr. Jay, for "the spirit" which he has generally maintained, we regret that we cannot say as much for the spirit evinced by his opponent. We subscribe to the sentiment that, before the publication of the Pamphlets now before us, Bishop Hobart had "conducted the controversy with the forbearance of a Christian, and the urbanity of a Gentleman." But he has here most strangely forgotten himself. There is indeed, throughout these productions, such an utter relinquishinent of the spirit" which he formerly maintained on this subject, that it is with difficulty we have become persuaded that he is really their author. Whether it has arisen from finding himself pressed by Mr. Jay with arguments which he could not answer, or from some other cause, he has certainly indulged himself in feelings which can neither add to his own peace of mind, nor promote his cause. It is very far from "the urbanity" and "the forbearance" we had expected from Bishop Hobart, that he should say to Mr. Jay, ask pardon of myself for descending

[ocr errors]

66

to the style of your letter."(d) "Now Sir, what am I to think? Are you "in the possession of your faculties?" or are they, on the subject of Bible Societies, which really seems to intoxicate wiser and stronger heads than yours, approaching to a state of dementation ?" (e) After what we have seen of the tenour and style of your letter, is it not sickening, absolutely "nauseous," to hear you indulging in a fine episode on the power and the triumphs of Christian faith, in the hour of dissolving nature-and lecturing your diocesan on the virtues of "long-suf fering, charity and patience."(f) "Elated by an adventitious circumstance, (no man has any merit in being born with a particular name,) and inordinately vain of some readiness, flippancy, and command of language, and (to do you justice,) of no common industry in any cause that excites your passions, you seem to think yourself privileged to say any thing of "your Bishop" that comes into your mind, or answers your purpose; and, as an oracle, to pronounce, in all church matters, your decision, and to expect your Bishop" and his clergy to bow to it."(g)

Nor does the spirit of urbanity and forbearance seem to increase in the progress of the controversy. In his second reply, the Bishop declares, "Really, Sir, you must pardon me for saying that there is something which urges me to have done as soon as possible with such an antagonist as yourself."(h) Again he exclaims, "Ŏ what a pure and perfect man!”(i) and, "Wonderfully severe, and appropriate, and correct, you no doubt thought was this passage, when you penned it; and yet it happens, (though this, when you wish to assail" "your Bishop," is a matter of little moment,) that the pert and insulting charge in this passage is utterly false.(k)

There is, in all this, something (d) Page 9, Corrector. (f) p. 96. (1) p. 8.

(g) p. 97 and 98.

(k) p. 19.

[ocr errors]

(e) p. 72. (h) p. 3,

most exceedingly opposite to the "frank," the "earnest," the "mild," and the "dignified," for which the Bishop takes credit to himself, as the spirit in which he had avowed his sentiments on a previous occasion; (c) and in view of the feelings here displayed, we are not surprised at the unfortunate mistake which he has committed in quoting the Bible itself. In justification of himself he says, "An apostolic bishop was commanded to reprove, rebuke, exhort with all authority."(d) Now it happens that the words of Paul are, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." But in the spirit in which the Bishop wrote, it is not surprising that he should have committed the error.

Equally unhappy do we think him, in another effort to justify himself by a quotation from Scripture. He tells us that Mr. Jay's letter is "marked by pertness, arrogance and rudeness,"(e) and would vindicate" the spirit" with which he has replied, by the counsel of Solomon:" Answer a fool according to his folly." Had he read the words immediately preceding, he would have found the precept, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him;" and thus he would have seen how wisely Solomon qualifies the one command by the other. Perhaps it was owing to this oversight, that, proceeding to reason on the maxim which he has quoted, he tells us, "it undoubtedly enforces what common sense and universal feeling dictate that a public assailant is to be dealt with according to his deserts, -to the spirit and manner in which he treats others. The measure which he metes to them, is to be measured to him again."(ƒ) Alas! how completely does this sentiment betray a forgetfulness of something more important than courtesy towards an opponent-forgetfulness of the express command of our Divine Master. He has told us, "Bless them that curse (c) Corrector's first Reply, p. 8. (d) Second Reply, p. 21. (e) p. 24. (ƒ) p. 25.

you;" and in his own example has showed how far he would have his command applied-" When he was reviled, he reviled not again.”

The same want of urbanity and respect which is evinced towards Mr. Jay, is evinced towards the society of which he is a defender; and indeed there is something so much bordering on bitterness of spirit in the following quotations, that our readers will say they are something worse than discourteous. After quoting part of a speech delivered at the late anniver sary of the American Bible Society, the Bishop adds, "I thank "the Rev. Mr. Henshaw, from the Episcopal church at Baltimore," for his manliness in delivering a little sober truth at a Bible anniversary; for all the truth delivered on such occasions is certainly not sober."(g)

Of the anniversaries of Bible Soci ities, as now, and indeed from the first, conducted, he tells us, "This system of parade and flattery; this substitution of the base alloy of human tame for the pure gold of christian benevolence, has a silent, but powerful and most vitiating effect on the religious taste and feelings of the community, not to be over-balanced by the increased popularity which it may give to any Institution, however commendable."(h)

We confess that we were not prepared for such hard sayings from the Right Reverend gentleman, who, on a previous occasion, had declared concerning the British and Foreign Bible Society, that its "stupendous efforts have astonished and called forth the homage of the world ;(i) and who, in the very address which gave rise to this controversy, speaks of the men who preside in the councils and proceedings of the American Bible Society, as "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 mem

(g) Corrector, p. 78. (h) p.89. (i) Pas-` toral Letter, p. 16.

bers."(k)

But while all these things excite our surprise and regret, there is another instance of impropriety and indelicacy, which has surprised us still more. It is the allusion which Bishop Hobart makes, not only to Mr. Jay's venerable father, but to ladies of Mr. Jay's family; and the indirect, but not the less painful censure, which he passes on them, as having culpably neglect ed the wants of their own pastor, and as being culpably indifferent to the welfare of their own Church.()

We have looked again and again to find some apology for this violation of the sanctuary belonging to old age and to sex; but we have looked in vain. We can discover no possible connection between the question in discussion and the conduct of these excellent individuals; and we have alluded to the subject not for the purpose of vindicating them from blame or expressing our opinion of their worth for we are well aware that the delicacy of their feelings would be pained by our praise; but we allude to it, for the purpose of protesting against thesegratuitous and inexcusable personalities, in public controversy; and of showing how far Bishop Hobart ceases to be what he usually is, when he becomes a polemic against Bible Societies. If we have conceived of him aright, he is a man habitually courteous and delicate in his manners and language; and in cool and dispassionate moments, we trust he would condemn himself for any departure from the rules of propriety and delicacy.

And to what then can we impute such a violation as this ;-a violation which amid all the heat of transatlantic warfare, has not been paralleled, (always excepting Norris) but to the bewildering influence of his cause? The cause is bad, and its influence on him is felt when he tries

(k) Journal of Convention, p. 33.

(See Bishop Hobart's first reply, page 94. Jay's second Letter, p. 5. Bishop Hobart's second reply, p. 25. Jay's third Letter, p. 5.

to maintain it; and most sincerely can we express it as our wish, that for his own sake, he would not again venture on ground where he loses the very excellencies, which we hope will continue to be characteristic of him as a christian and a man.

"The disingenuousness" which the Bishop charges on M. Jay, we regret to find so apparent with himself. He has made a use of the marks of quotation which is not justifiable in controversy. He defines Mr. Jay's terms; and then charges Mr. Jay with having used them in the same sense, which he has thus put upon them; which is also an offence against fairness between dispu

tants.

The same want of ingenuousness shews itself on points more immediately connected with the merits of the main question. He complains of Mr. Jay for having charged him with "attacking Bible Societies." But with what possible reason? For we appeal to the history which we have already given to our readers, whether it is not true, that he has attacked these institutions in the only way in which they are susceptible of attack. He has from the press and from the pulpit charged them with being "erroneous in principle, and injurious in their tendency"(m)— with "separating the Word from the Church of God”(n)—with attempting to evangelize the world by a method different from that "which the scriptures point out and to which common sense and the natural course of things lead us."(o) Now, if this is not "attacking Bible Societies," the public have never yet understood the meaning of the word.

An evasion equally unworthy of the Bishop is his statement concerning the sentiments which he had avowed respecting Norris.-In his second reply to Mr. Jay he tells us that Mr. Norris has "conveyed the

(7.) Journal of Convention, p. 31.
(n) do.

(e) Address before the Auxiliary Bible and Common Prayer Book Society, p. 9.

opinion that Bible Societies use the same arts to accomplish their purposes, which the illuminati had successfully employed. And he is not deficient in the statement of facts to support his assertion."(p) Mr. Jay in his reply tells the Bishop, "your declaration is in substance therefore that the facts adduced by Mr. Norris' prove" his assertion. (q) But what is the interpretation which the Bishop would put on his own words? "In this sentence" he says, "I do not advance the opinion that Mr. Norris' statement of facts proves his assertion. I only say he is not deficient in the statement of facts to support it; expressing no opinion as to whether this statement is conclusive to the purpose for which it is adduced."(r) And as if there was really some great difference between saying that a man has proved his assertion; and saying that he is not deficient in his statement of facts to support it, Bishop Hobart goes on to ask "what must we think of the consistency of the Churchman, and the honesty of the man who would found a charge of this description against his Bishop, on a glaring perversion of language."(s)

The truth is, if there is any difference between the two expressions, the Bishop's is the stronger. Mr. Jay represents the Bishop as simply declaring that Mr. Norris has proved his assertion. Whereas the Bishop bas, according to his own construction, declared him to have established it by the strongest of all possible proofs a statement of facts.

And

if Bishop Hobart felt that he had been too basty, in his declaration, he owed it to himself, frankly to acknowledge it. He cannot say, Mr. Jay bad not set him an example.

We are aware, however, that if the Bishop had begun with such acknowledgements, he might have found that he had many to make.

[blocks in formation]

For nothing is more obvious than that he has written from first to last with great haste, and under much irritation; and he is startled and confused at the review of what he has said and written when it is fairly presented to him.

Such is "the spirit" with which the disputants have conducted themselves in their several publications.Our readers must judge for themselves, how far it furnishes an apology to the Bishop for retiring from the controversy. Still farther light will be thrown on this subject, when we consider the success with which the gentlemen have managed their respective sides of the question.

A primary point with both is, the amount of Episcopal influence and patronage, that has been enlisted for and against Bible Societies. The Bishop has given this a very conspicuous place in his charge. He there says "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;"(t) and in a note to this sentence, he tells us the names of those Bishops of the Church of England and Ireland, who support the British and Foreign Society, and enumerates ten. Next he adds the names of those which do not appear among the supporters of that Society and enumerates fortyfive. But is it really so that Bishop Hobart acts with these forty-five Bishops on the subject of Bible Societies? Very far from it and accordingly observe the cautious, we do not say artful, manner in which the sentence is framed. "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."

Now we have to tell Bishop Hobart, that if he had simply withheld

(4) Journal of Convention, p. 31.

his support from Bible Societies and thus entitled himself in fairness to say he was acting with these numerous dignitaries, we should never have been troubled with the present controversy. With the exception however, of a very few, none of these forty-five whom he here specifies, are known either to have written or spoken a word against Bible Societies. Whereas he, as we have shown, has with most persevering efforts condemned them, and warned his church against them as unsound and injurious. Neither he, or any other man is justified in saying, that the simple fact of their names "not appearing" as supporters of Bible Societies is any proof that they are opposed to these institutions.

For

on this principle, he would make the great majority of the Bishops opposed to most of the charitable societies in the kingdom; a conclusion which, we are sure, no true friend to Bishops would be willing to have drawn. But as this is a subject on which Mr. Jay has acquitted himself with success, it is proper we should hear him. Having alluded to "the imposing exhibition of forty-fiveRight Reverend Bishops drawn up in battle array against the British and Foreign Bible Society, while only ten are seen in the opposite ranks," he proceeds :

near

stitution. On this I began to take courage. I recollected that it could not be a necessary consequence, that all who did not belong to a religious society were op posed to it; for in that case, it would seem that the great body of Episcopalians in this city are opposed to the Bible and Prayer Book Society; as their late report informs us, their patronage is extremely limited. I recollected also that the English Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; a Society of ancient date, peculiarly connected with the Established Church, and to which it is not known, that any opposition whatever exists, so late as 1812, numbered only 32 Episcopal patrons of the 49 Bishops of the Established Church; and that com

paratively, only a few bishops at this moment belong to the Prayer Book and Homily Society; the Church Missionary Society; the Church of England Tract Society; or the Society for Converting the Jews although they are all under the exclusive control of members of the Established Church. It is believed that of the American Bishops, the names of Bishops White and Kemp, are alone to be found among the "supporters" of the American Colonization Society, and yet I presume that neither you, nor the rest of your brethren would be willing to admit that this circumstance afforded any proof of the hostility of the American Bishops to that institution." p. 33.

"But although, then, there is no evidence that the forty five bishops you have named, are opposed to Bible Societies; yet it is a lamentable truth, that a few of the Bishops of the Established Church, have arrayed themselves against the British and Foreign Bible Society. But here again my apprehensions have been wonderfully relieved by a close examination of the nature and extent of their hostil.

1804, and after the most diligent researches in its history, I cannot find that a single Bishop in the United kingdoms uttered a syllable against it, till 1810." p. 24.

"I was taught, sir, in my childhood, that many objects which when indistinctity. This lastitution was established in ly seen at a distance, and through the medium of an alarmed imagination, assume most terrific shapes, prove on inspection to be perfectly harmless. The truth of this precept of the nursery, has been fully exemplified in the present instance; for on reconnoitering my supposed foes, my fears have gradually subsided, till at last they have been exchanged for confidence; and I have discovered in the English and Irish episcopate, my firmest and most efficient friends and allies. On taking a nearer view of these

forty five Prelates, I observed, that they were not, as to a superficial reader of your Charge, they would undoubtedly appear, opponents of the British and Foreign Bible Society: but that you had merely stated, with a cautious selection of language, that their names "do not appear among the supporters' of that in

Mr. Jay then proceeds to enumerate the following as the only English Bishops, who from that time to this, have appeared in opposition to Bible Societies.-The Bishop of London, the Bishop of Gloucester, the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Bishop of Ely, and the Bishop of Landaff, now Peterborough. There was a different case however to be stated; and Mr. Jay has certainly presented it with much candour, and with no disadvantage to his cause.

« PreviousContinue »