the committee, that in doing this they would exceed the power vested in them by the convention. They determined, therefore, to report their proceedings as far as they had gone, and to ask for the appointment of a new committee, with special power to receive whatever sums the pious and liberal members of our Church may think proper to bestow, for the better support of a clergyman at Cambridge, and to pay over the sum to the treasurer of the trustees of donations, that they may be for ever applied to the use aforesaid, and according to the true intent and purpose of the donors.

SAMUEL F. JARVIS, ASA EATON, THOMAS PERKINS, SAMUEL D. PARKER, FRANCIS WILBY, JAMES C. MERRILL. This report was accepted, and the following gentlemen were chosen as a committee (with power to fill vacancies in said committee) for the purpose recommended in the above report.

Rev. S. F. Jarvis, Rev. A. Eaton, J. C. Merrill, esq., G. Brinley, esq., J. Foster, esq., George Bethune, esq., F. Wilby, esq.

Rev. Mr. Cutler was appointed to be first, Rev. Mr. Baury to be second preacher for the next convention.

The next meeting of the convention is to be held at St. Paul's church, Bos

ton.

The convention agreed, by vote, to attend the annual meeting of the Episcopal Missionary Society, to be held in the afternoon, and was then closed by prayers from the president.

For the Christian Journal.

THE receipt of the following communication from a valued distant correspondent, first directed our notice to the very objectionable paragraph on which it comments. We had long been accustomed to hear the railing accusations in which many appear to delight, who yet profess attachment to that Bible cause, which should sanctify every

affection, and chasten every feeling of the heart. We had almost ceased to wonder at the strange want of Christian and honourable principle, which can again and again renew the often disavowed charge of indifference to the Bible cause, against men, the evangelical correctness of whose doctrines and lives, and the faithful, disinterested, and laborious devotion of whose talents and services to that very cause, declare shame against the authours and abettors of such calumny. We had heard them denounced as blinded Christians, and as in league with popery, with infidelity, and with the great enemy of all righteousness himself. This evil speaking had become so common, that it was almost considered a matter of course, when Bible Societies were either to be extolled or vindicated. We had known it, however, as proceeding only from warmth of controversial feeling on the part of individuals, or of meetings in which a proportioned degree of excitement might easily be produced. We were not backward in making all charitable allowance for the natural (however unsanctified) effect of strong emotions on a subject of deep interest; especially as much dependence must be placed on excitement, where it cannot be on cool substantial reasoning.

We confess, however, that we were little prepared for what is now before

us.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a body which, in justice, must be esteemed learned and grave, and the representative of no small proportion of the learning and piety of our country; and whose proceedings must be supposed to be governed by reflection and serious deliberation; thinks it not inconsistent with its character to stoop to the low ranks of party, and drink into the spirit of uncharitableness and bitterness which party feeling is so wont to excite. That this body should deem it its duty to record, from time to time, its solemn declarations in favour of the American Bible Society, and of similar institutions, and to urge upon those of whose spiritual interests it is the constituted guardian, the patronage of such institutions, can be matter of no surprise, and would be all

right. But when, not content with this, it assumes the office of general censor, and fulminates its wrathful expressions of displeasure against the great and good men who have preferred their consciences to the popular side, and ventured to examine for themselves whether all is of course right which has high authority, and furious vindication, in its support, we confess we feel a complication of widely different emotions. It is charged upon the great majority of Protestant bishops in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America, and a very respectable proportion of their clergy and laity, that they "fight against God;" that they are "half reformed Protestants;" and that, strengthened by an unholy league with "infidels," they are" uniting with the papal hierarchy in opposing the circulation of the word of life." We are induced to smile at the egregious folly of attempting thus to play off the arts by which that 66 very papal hierarchy" sometimes succeeded, and often has attempted, to lord it over the consciences of men, and to break them into compliance with the designs for which its awful anathemas were thundered. The spirit of Victor has not yet taken its departure from our miserably wicked world. But, thank God! it is divested of the power of execution. Even the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is not therefore to be feared and obeyed, because it raves and anathematises.

But, upon a moment's reflection, more serious thoughts on this subject are awakened in our mind. We are not very conversant with the acts of the General Assembly. We think so well of it, however, as to presume that the one now noticed, and given to the world under the official signature of its "stated clerk," has not been, and cannot be expected to be, often paralleled. It hurts us, as Christians, to see so grave a body, comprising a representation of a large number of the Christians of our country, and met with the professed object of promoting the interests of the pure and holy religion of the Gospel, suffer itself to be overcome, not merely in its individual members, when in the warmth of animated dis

cussion, but in its solemn, deliberate, and recorded acts, by a spirit so foreign from the Bible cause which it professed to have at heart. This, however, it may be said, is no concern of ours. We confess that it has ever been our disposition and rule to preserve a delicate silence on all matters relating to other denominations of Christians. But when we see several of the bishops of our Church, and especially our own revered diocesan, and some of the most devoted of its clergy, and of the best of its laity, thus drawn before a tribunal officiously set up in the council of another denomination, and there denounced as faithless to the religion which they profess and adorn, and fighting against that God whom, in sincerity of heart, they worship; it is right for us, for every churchman, and for every Christian, to enter a protest against such unhallowed proceedings; and to express our surprise and deep regret that our common Christianity should be so sorely wounded even in the house of its friends.

For the cause which it has been thus attempted to overawe, we have no fears; although it were even reduced to the sad extremity which erst led to the proverb, The world on one side, and Athanasius on the other. But, thank God! that is not yet the case. There is still among Christians a spirit which can even face the world. There is still that genuine Protestant feeling which will dare to inquire whether these things are so, before implicit acquiescence is yielded to the authority of the many and the powerful, and to the denunciations of the angry. We feel most sincerely thankful for the disinterested and noble avowal, and the able defence, of such principles, which, in a distant portion of our Zion, have called forth the talents of the excellent prelate in whose recent accession to the number of our fathers in God our whole Church rejoiced. It has increased our confidence-if that confidence admitted of increase—that TRUTH IS MIGHTY, AND WILL YET PRE

VAIL.

We now invite the attention of our readers to the subjoined communica tion on the same subject.

naging party, which evaporates as soon as it ceases to favour their particular interests? If not, why are we constrained to notice the present uncalledfor and wholly gratuitous aspersions, so ungenerously cast by those who have hitherto been the loudest in their demands for charity, and upon those whose only apparent crime consists in their dissenting from the "American Bible Society?" Even suppose them in this thing guilty of error, is it Christian, is it charitable, thus to denounce them? Is it agreeable to that charity which "suffereth long and is kind" which " never faileth?"

However, should it be said, by way of an attempt at palliation, that none are here denounced save "infidels, half-reformed Protestants, and the papal hierarchy," and that no person has a right to complain, save such as acknowledge their alliance to one of these; let it be remembered that all are placed by the "General Assembly" in an attitude of open hostility to the Almighty, who in any way oppose the "American Bible Society." So that among these opposers, whoever was not considered a Papist or an infidel, must have been classed, by our judges, with half-reformed Protestants -an appellation with which those Episcopalians in this country and England, who have been bold enough to prefer a Bible and Common Prayer Book Society to any other for the dissemination of truth, are grown quite familiar-indeed, it must be obvious to any one at all conversant with the charges hitherto made in the controversies upon this subject, who are intended by that charitable clause," half-reformed Protestants." So that Episcopalians are still doomed to hear that oft repeated, and as oft refuted charge, "of opposing the circulation of the word of life-as though it could not with safety be committed to the hands of men." Is it ingenuous, is it strictly honest, is it doing as we would be done by," thus repeatedly and intentionally to charge upon Christians sentiments which they have long totally disavowed? We by no means deny to the abettors of "Bible Societies" the right of advocating and eulogizing their cause on every occas

our

sion they may choose--but we dispute their right, on any occasion, to denounce or vilify those who dissent from them. Must we, because of choosing a different mode from the popular one, be considered as hostile to every mode of circulating the Scriptures? When "words and actions" evince this to be the fact, then, and not till then, let our opposers charge us with that, which is now so ungenerous and so false. What could warrant the assertion, that Episcopalians think it unsafe to intrust the Bible to any man? Where, among their writings, can this expression, or one equivalent to it, be found? Íf F mistake not, a sentiment nearer a-kin to it than any other expressed, though by no means disapproved, is to be seen in the "minutes of the General Assembly" of a former year: The expression is this "The General Assembly cannot but believe the precious immortals under their care, to be MORE SAFE in receiving the truth of God's word, as exhibited in the standards of our Church, &c;" where evidently great importance is justly given to that mode of religious instruction which contemplates the assistance of "summaries of divine truth," as exhibited in creeds and the like. In this sentiment we fully agree; and we only ask the privilege of acting upon it, without being denounced as the " opposers of God, and of the circulation of his word.”

PHILOS.

To the Editors of the Christian Journal.

THE practice of advertising clergymen who are to preach in certain places, and on particular occasions, has always appeared to me indelicate and ostentatious. The remarks in the piece I send you, are from the Elizabeth-Town (N. J.) Gazette. They were occasioned by a newspaper notice that a young man lately, as I understand, from the Theological Seminary at Princeton, would preach on a certain day in one of the Presbyterian churches in that village, and inviting the youth of the place generally, to attend. Though the remarks are somewhat local in their reference, yet they apply to a custom, which, I am sorry to find, is gaining

GENTLEMEN,

I hope I shall not be considered as overstepping the boundary of decorum, in the few remarks I wish to address to your readers on the subject of a notice for divine service in your last paper. Among the vast variety of modern methods for attracting attention, and fostering the prurient taste of the age for novelty, it has appeared to me a serious evil that it should be indulged in the sacred concerns of religion. In a community where religious instruc tion and the rites of public worship are regularly and constantly enjoyed, it has struck me as going too far, to call the public attention to services, which, however good in themselves, and pure ly designed, would seem to savour of ostentation. I never see the name of a preacher of the Gospel announced in a public paper, proposing to preach upon a certain time and topic, that I do not immediately feel as if some violence had been done to that humility, which is one of the most engaging ornaments of the Christian name. Vanity is a strong propensity of human nature, and reflecting men must see that it will be fostered by such notices as the one referred to. Should the minister of Jesus, whether "by particular request," or otherwise, be induced to put himself on a footing with a favourite performer on the stage, or an admired singer at a fashionable concert? Do not all such exhibitions rather tend to evil than to good? Is there not always sufficient notice given in every place of worship to answer the purposes of that particular congregation? and, I would ask, is it decorous to call upon other congregations-other denominations, to listen to the preacher of the day? Why this advertising those, who may not, perhaps, subscribe to what VOL. IX.

they are asked to hear, or who may have other objections, and yet be unwilling to encounter the odium occasioned by absence?

In the present case, without intending to reflect upon the young gentleman mentioned in the notice, or questioning his eloquence and learning, may it not be asked if his friends have not been premature and imprudent, in offering him as a particular instructor of the youth of this borough? With all due respect for his office, and for those able men, at whose feet he has sat, I would respectfully suggest, whether it would not have been quite as modest at least, not to have proposed him in this shape. When has it been found that the clergymen of this borough have been negligent in teaching the young? Several of them have resided here for many years; and I have never heard them censured for inattention to the youth of their respective flocks: on the contrary, they have been often remarked for very great care in this particular. For one I must say, I prefer that my own family, however they may occasionally be interested in visiting clergymen, should be instructed by the minister to whose congregation I belong. Whatever the public generally may think, for myself, I cannot approve of this mode of attracting attention. every congregation pursue its own course, as may seem best to comport with its own interests, in holiness of life, and the enjoyment of religious liberty; but, at the same time, do no thing to excite unpleasant feelings in those who honestly differ from them, or to induce the charge of an unfair endeavour to engross the attention of those portions of the public with which they are not concerned.

Let

CANDOUR.

Remarks.

We have inserted the above with much pleasure; and had indeed long designed preparing an article ourselves on the very objectionable practice of placing clergymen on a level with play actors and publick singefs, and endeavouring to secure for them a large audience, by giving publicity to their intended exhibitions. When preachers,

32