'A J. E T T E R LSHOP OF NORTH CAROLINA »N THE SUBJECT O? HIS I?ATE PASTORAL THE YaLISB.UEY convention : H.\Ill3r;VN OF THE COIDJITTEE ON THE STATE OP TEE- CHURCH. / NEW- YORK: sTANFORiJ AND Words, 137, Broadway. 1850. f A LETTER ^ ^ . BISHOP OF NORTH CAROLINA ON THE SUBJECT OF HIS LATE PASTORAL OX THE SALISBURY CONVENTION; I BY THE CHmMAX OP THE COilAnTTEE ON THE STATE OF THE CHURCH. NEW- YORK: STANFORD AND SWORDS. 137, BROADWAY. 1850. HOBART FRES3V 57, Ann-Street, J. R. m'gOWN, PRINT*36^ Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir : With extreme reluctance, and after long, perhaps too long delay, I have determined on laying before you the following reply to your late Pastoral on the Salisbury Convention. Most gladly indeed would I have avoided this undertaking of a public defence against him who has the charge over me ; but duty to myself and others with whom I am connected in this matter, forbids that we should not exculpate ourselves from the charges which, with the full force of your authority, and with so much earnestness, you have urged against us. From the accidental circumstance of being Chairman of the Committee whose acts are reproved, the unpleasant office of reply appears to devolve on me, and I must endeavor to fulfil the duty to the best of my ability. Beside this defence, how^ever, there are many points of your Pastoral and other writings, to which I would beg leave to call your attention as of more importance to us even, than our personal defence. In your late Pastoral especially, we find too many things calculated to excite again, and which have excited again, that agitation and alarm which it was hoped the proceed^ ings of the SaUsbury Convention had effectually allayed ; and I write in the hope you may relieve our minds from the difficulties with which they are yet embarrassed. 1. I begin with your charges against the Com- mittee on the State of the Church. 1. You accuse the Committee, (pp. 7, 8,) of viola- ting a Canon ; by bringing an implied charge of guilt against the minority of the clergy, embracing the bishop. 2. You say, (p. 10,) "The bishop finds himself virtually arraigned for his teaching by a convention assembled in a remote part of his diocese — called with no general knowledge of the intention of a few alarmists." By which I can understand nothing else but that these few alarmists have entertained secretly and insidiously, and therefore dishonestly, the deliber- ate purpose of arraigning you at an imperfectly repre- sented Convention. 3. Again (pp. 10, 11,) you declare, "The conclu- sion, in justice to them, is inevitable, that they believed these things either to have no real existence, or to come within that class of views and practices, about which clergymen may differ and still be faithful to the Church." Now, as you have declared that the Committee " passed an implied," but not on that account less oppressive censure upon that portion "of the clergy [the minority] with the bishop at their head," (p. 9 :) and again, (p. 23,) as you say, in reference to the report of the Committe : — " The charge upon a portion of our self-denying ministry is, that through carelessness or wantonness, or some other cause, doc- trines have been preached not in accordance with the Liturgy and Articles of the Church, &c ; " if we take these passages in connection with the one quoted above from page eleven, it must follow that you de- clare that the clergymen composing the Committee, have uttered against their brethren an accusation which they did not themselves believe, or in other words, that they have been guilty of a deliberate and injurious falsehood. 4. On page 23 you say, " But this beam of light which God hath sent down to cheer our hard labors, is sought to be intercepted by the clouds of human passion." Thus with human ire, unchristian passion of some sort, you charge us. 5. P. 24. You charge four of your clergy with preaching false doctrine, two of them with heresy, according to your own definition. The clergy- man who is charged with preaching against baptis- mal regeneration was, I understand, not a member of the Committee ; whether any of the others are members of the Committee you have not told us ; if they are not, I would respectfully ask, if you think it quite just to cast abroad an accusation which may be fastened on the perfectly innocent, or perfectly un- conscious ? If the accused do belong to the Com- mittee, here is a most serious charge against two of them at least, of heresy, according to your own definition of the term. 6. In the end of the 21st page, and on the 22nd, with the note at the bottom of the latter, you charge us with combinations against you ; of exciting against you the popular mind ; of aiding and abetting unau- thorized, oppressive and irresponsible conventional acts; of conspiracy , of banding together; of course, of criminal banding, for none other would be censura- ble ; and for these acts, you tell us that by " the 18th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, we should have been deposed ; " thus giving us plain intimation that you think we deserve so severe a punishment. I have said you charged us with these offences ; for not only the connection in which you have introduced them, point them to us, but a private letter to myself, in which you directly charge me and others with many of them, show for whom the enumeration of them was intended. 7. In page 55 you say that " it is easy to vociferate and insinuate general charges for effect ; plainly alluding to the Committee, and thus imputing to us noisy clamor for popular applause or favor. 8. In page 59 you cite a number of rubrics, and by the inquiry you make to each, — What clergyman and what priest does so and so, plainly intimate that no priest observes any of these rubrics ; calling on each of us to declare, before God, whether we do observe them. Now, Sir, these accusations against the Committee, of violating a canon of the diocese to insinuate charges against their brethren, although they dis- avow doing so ; of not believing the truth of what they are said to insinuate ; of being influenced in this matter by human passions ; of vociferating and insinuating general charges for effect ; of violating numerous rubrics; of conspiring and banding to- gether against their bishop ; and meriting for this, if 7 they had their just deserts, according to the Council of Chalcedon, deposition, are grave accusations. Beside, you accuse four of the clergy of falsa doctrine, and two of these of plain heresy, while three of the four, including those accused of heresy, may be of the Committee. These are serious charges. All these accusations are made by their bishop against clergy- men whose reputation has been hitherto unsullied, who have never before been accused of heresy, of fac- tion, or of falsehood. Most of them havinsr served the Church for many years, v>'ilh honor and acceptance at least ; one of them, more advanced in life, and of longer standing in the ministry than yourself Surely, Sir, if you thought reproof, severe reproof necessary for a supposed attack upon your doctrine ; your re- proof has been severe indeed. I am very unwilling. Sir, to believe that when you penned these charges you saw the full force of your expressions, the plain inferences which are to be drawn from the words you employ. The terms of kind intercourse on which you have lived with your clergy make me hope other- wise, but the charges are abroad to the world with the weight of your authority, and extension of your Pastoral ; and unless encountered, are likely to affect the character of the clergy, and produce a false im- pression of the condition of the diocese. Who will sa}^ then, we are not bound by every consideration of duty to vindicate ourselves from these accusations ; to call on you. for the proof of them, and to convince you that they must be the offspring of false information, of groundless suspicion, or of both. Before proceeding to this defence, it wili be ne- cessary, however, to point out some mistakes into which you have fallen, and to guard against some expressions in your Pastoral, likely, I think, to mis- lead your readers, and which at the same time have a decided bearing on the question. 1. In speaking of the Convention at Salisbury, you say, (p. 1.) "lam aware had you been duly repre- sented;" — and again (p. 10.) you designate it as a "Convention assembled in a remote part of his dio- cese — called with no general knowledge of the intention of a few alarmists, representing only thir- teen or fourteen parishes out of about fifty," &c. By which any one not acquainted with the usual repre- sentations of the diocese, might suppose the Salisbury Convention different in character from any others, I have here subjoined a synopsis of the different Con- ventions since 1841, from which it will easily appear, that the Salisbury Convention was as well repre- sented as our Conventions usually are; and that the Jay representation indeed, was fuller than that either of Newbern or Wilmington. Salisbury was appointed as the place of the meeting of the Convention just as other places generally are, and I would ask you, Sir, whether you wo^ld have preferred any other place to Salisbury, and especially whether you would have preferred Kaleigh, where most probably, from its central and accessible position, the Convention would have been best attended ; and whether you seriously believe, the result, in case of the Convention having been assembled at Raleigh, would have been at all more favorable to your supposed views than it was at Salisbury ? 9 Clergv. Parishe.s. 0 «.i .^'^ a . -p J. » o Z "c tltlft seats. vent i on resei onve Year. Place of holding Convention. g| O J; r' ^ as = j 29 24 21 31 17 15 28 1842 Oxford. 30 29 20 31 15 10 21 l«43 F:dentoa. 28 28 15 33 19 14 ou 1844j Washington. 34 25 11 33 18 12 25 1845 Favetteville. 3i 32 24 36 26 20 33 1846 Raleigh. 29 28 20 40 20 12 24 1847 N^ewbern. 38 37 24 49 29 12 22 18481 Wilmington. 41 38 23 49 27 15 25 l849!Salisbin-y. I have stated the number of parishes represented at Salisbury as 15, instead of 13, the recorded num- ber ; since both the parishes of the Church of the Re- demption, Lexington, and of St. Phihp's, Mocksville, were represented ; the first by Dr. Wm. R. Holt, and the latter by Mr. J. A. Lillington. Dr. Holt's name appears on page 8 of the Journal of the Convention ; and Mr. Lillington, although his name does not appear on the journal, was well known to have taken great part in the debates. In addition to this, I must state, that in a communication I have received from Mr. Mordecai, a member of this parish, of a conversation he had held with you on the subject of the troubles of the diocese, he states : That he, and others who had been elected delegates to the Salisbury Convention, had designed to attend that Convention, but in conse- quence of the conversation with you, and especially from your own assurance that you would put all things right, he, as well as the other delegates, changed their purpose, and declined going to the Convention. His words are : " I observed I would see Mr. Badger 10 next day, and inform him of what had taken place, and I had no doubt he would be glad to get off. I saw Mr. Badger, and we all declined going to the Convention, relying on the bishop's assurance that he would set all things right." Thus, Sir, but for your interposition, (I do not mean improper interposition, for such I do not suppose it,) there would have been a full representation from this parish, making in all, 16 parishes represented, and 29 lay persons, who would, in that case, have been present at the Con- vention. You say, (p. 9.) " The Church, at large, have a right to suppose, that this was an extreme measure, resorted to after every canonical means had failed ; while the truth is, no canonical means had been tried. No expostulation with the Bishop by the clerical members of the standing committee, nor by any other body of the clergy. No charges laid before him against any priest or deacon, as teaching heretical doctrines, or practising forbidden things. No com- plaint by any rector, that he had been annoyed by the practices of any neighboring priest, nor from any layman, against those of his pastor : no word, save in one solitary instance, of friendly counsel on the sub- ject, except as sought by the Bishop himself, from any clergyman, or layman, in the diocese. But, after a quiet and apparently profitable visitation throughout the low country, in v/hich all his sermons, which are now said to have produced excitement, were preach- ed, with the almost universally avowed approbation of clergy and laity, the Bishop finds himself virtually arraigned for his teaching. " I must suppose that in 11 these words, " no canonical means had been tried/^ you lay great stress on this idea; and mean that whatever else may have been done, it was not done according to the requisitions of one or more canons, for otherwise I must suppose that in some at least of the instances enumerated, you had forgotten what had actually occurred ; and that in others you re- garded indirect information of the difficulties occur- ing in the diocese, as of little consequence. When you say, "no canonical means had been tried," this must imply either that the means resorted to had been in opposition to a canon, or that the means re- quired by a canon had been neglected. But what canon has any bearing on the subject unless it be the 4th of 1832, of Standing Committees ; in the second section of which we find these words ? "And they may meet of their own accord, and agreeably to their own rules, when they may be disposed to advise the bishop." Where in this canon, is any restriction which has been broken through; any injunction neglected ? Yon say, " the clerical members of the Standing Committee, nor by any other body of the clergy." Why the clerical mem.bers of the Standing Committee, and what other body of the clergy is there, to which any canon assigns or even intimates any such duty ? When you say then, No expostulation with the Bishop by the clerical members of the Standing Com- mittee," if you speak of them individually, I must beg leave to say your memory has not been faithful to you in this instance. The clerical members of the Standing Committee are the Rev. Messrs. Buxton, 12 Smedes and myself. What Mr. Buxton may have done, I know not, but Mr. Smedes has once or twice in my hearing, and often, as he assures me, declared to you his disapprobation of points of your teaching ; and for myself, I can truly say that I have on many occasions, expressed my decided dissent from several of your opinions, as not in accordance with the teach- ings of this Church ; and especially in regard to the doctrine of private confession and private absolution. In which, among other things, 1 have observed to you, that unless the General Convention should pass a canon affixing the severest penalties to betraying the secrets of the confessional, the attempt to carry out the system would probably be attended with very injurious consequences, in the occasionally unguarded betrayal of those secrets, and the scandal resulting from it. Again, you say, "no other body of clergy yet at least one other clergyman had remonstrated, if not expostulated with you. The Rev. Mr. Cheshire, in a letter, assures me that he asked you, when you were in Scotland Neck, in the parish of Trinity Church, not to preach the sermon on confession which you had preached in Tarborough. That you seemed quite indignant at his presumption, said he had no right to dictate to you what you were to preach. He declares he protested against the doc- trine of your sermon. You say, "no charge laid before you against any Priest, or Deacon, as teaching heretical doctrine or practising forbidden things." If a charge of this sort w^as not made to you directly, it was so made that you arrived at the knowledge of it, for you say (p. 24, IS in a note,) " some expressions in a little manual, at Valle Crucis, were objected to ;" now these expres-- sions as you term them, were an address to the Virgin in the form used in books of Romish devotion, and a prayer to guardian angels. Whether, sir, you would term the putting such kind of devotions in the hands of boys who had been placed under the guardianship of the Church, heretical teaching, I can-^ not say, but most certainly it is opposed to the teach- ing of our Church, and is a practising of forbidden things. Again: "No complaint by any layman against the practices of his pastor." If a complaint were not made tc you formally, as I believe it was not, you yet knew, before the Convention, that the practices of a rector in St. Peter's Church, Washing- ton, had been complained of; that great agitation had existed in that parish, and that you had taken notice of the disturbances by addressing a public let" ter, through the ' Banner of the Cross,' to a prominent member of the congregation. By this remark, I hope it will be clearly understood, that I do not undertake to pass any opinion on the merits of the case ; to say whether the rector or those of the congregation who complained of his proceedings, were right. I speak Sir. but of facts, as known to you. Again : " No word, save in one solitary instance, of friendly counsel on the subject, except as sought by the Bishop himself, from any clergyman or layman in the diocese." When you say " on the subject," I suppose you mean the subject of agitation. Now, in Raleigh you had full notice of this subject from the Rev. Mr. Smedes, a clergyman, and from Mr. Mordecai, a layman, for 14 the latter has communicated to me iPx writing, a con- versation he had with you on the very subject of the difficulties of the diocese, as I have before remarked. In this communication he spoke to you on the subject of your Pastoral on the Priestly Office, of one of your sermons he had heard, and of the difficulties at Wash- ington, and informed you it was the intention of the lay delegates from Raleigh to bring the subject before the Convention. That you had further notice of the existing diffi- culties, appears from the following communication from a brother clergyman of the highest reputation « The name of the clergyman is not given for reasons which your correct feelings will cause you to appre- ciate. You will know to w^hom I allude, when I state, that the conversation between you and him, took place on the Saturday preceding the Convention, and on your way to Pittsborough. I may further state the clergyman is ready to give his name if it be required. The conversation was in the following wwds as nearly as the clergyman can remember it : "After I had set before him, in the miost serious and feeling manner, the dissatisfaction and alarm perva- ding the diocese on account of his new and peculiar views of Church doctrine and practice, and had warned him of the determination on the part of some of the mem.bers elect of the approaching Convention, to make it a subject of inquiry as soon as they got together, he replied with something of a smile at my unnecessary earnestness and uneasiness : — Brother — I believe you are an honest and clever fellow, (or words very similar,) but do you know that you are 15 the sixth or seventh person that has told me the same thing ? I do not fear any such results as present themselves to your mind. Whatever agitation and alarm may now exist in the diocese will soon pass away, and in six months you will be all of my way of thinking.' " You speak of your sermons " being preached with the almost universal approbation of the clergy and laity." You certainly were deceived in thinking so ; for most certainly this was not the case in Raleigh ; most certainly not the case at Tarborough or Scot- land Neck ; most certainly not the case at Wash- ington, so far as the laity were concerned. You speak in a note to page 10, of there being but one, and that a sufficiently notorious exception. Here are three plain exceptions, which of the three, Sir, is the sufficiently notorious exception ? and why should it alone be sufficiently notorious ? Per- mit me to add, it was hardly possible for you to judge accurately of the effects of your preaching ; you remain but a short time in each parish and neither clergyman nor layman would be eager to r^ake known to you the beginnings of difficulties. And here, sir, I must seriously, though respectfully, except to the manner of your introducing persons either for cen- sure, or in claiming them as approving of your doctrine and practices. You tell us in the second note to page 10, that " the lay delegates from all the old parishes, who had heard the sermons, and were accustomed to represent the Convention, were, except in two instances, utterly opposed to the whole Salisbury proceeding." Who 16 Wei'e these lay delegates ? From what parishes ? Were they present at the Convention ? If present, their action at Convention showed no such opposition. If not present, why do you cite them ? and how have you learned their opposition ? In like manner, when you say, " I doubt not, the greater part (i. e. of the clergy,) are now united with me." On what evidence are you so persuaded ? and what are the ' merely no- minal' points of differences in which they dissent from you ? I believe, sir, it is generally thought you are too sanguine in supposing persons judge favorably of your opinions, because from respect to your person and office, they may not like to express strongly in your presence their dissent. On the other hand, your accusations are — excuse me for saying so — too vague in regard to the individuals against whom they are directed. They thus may be applied according to the impression, or notion, or caprice, or inclination of the person reading your Pastoral ; causing, very pro- bably, those who are even in your own opinion en- tirely free from censure, liable to have it fixed on them ; and preventing even the censured, through entire unconsciousness of deserving that censure, from making their defence. Thus you tell us of four clergymen who have preached false doctrine, but so far as your manner of expressing yourself is concerned, no one by reading the Pastoral can certainly discover whether you have yourself heard these sermons, or whether you received your information from others ? from mere hearsay perhaps ? Can it. Sir, be right, thus by such an undirected accusation against four of your presbyters, liable to be affixed to the innocent 17 as much as to those by you supposed guilty, to brand two of them ^vith accusations of heresy, thus ex- posing them to all the obloquy belonging to such false teaching, and giving them no opportunity of defending themselves? Surely, Sir, if the committee had even fully designed that which you attribute to them, to in- sinuate charges against you ; do you think their action more unkind, more injurious, to say the least of it, than yours ? Possibly I may be one of these preachers of false doctrine, one of these heretics. If so, do me the justice to state what the heresy is ? On w^hat authority you make the accusation ; the time and the circumstances. " Accusatio crimen desiderat, rem ut definiat, hominem ut notet, argumento jprohet ; teste confirmet." But you are so far from coming up to this requisition of Cicero, that you do not even mention the guilty person. In pages 58 and 59, you tell us ; I hesitate not to affirm "that no clergyman in this diocese is free from such a charge — the violation of the rubricks — and none less than the members of the Committee them- selves." You thus become the accuser of every pres- byter of your diocese ; but how ? You do not mark in what particulars we are each delinquent ; but you cite a number of rubrics, with the demand, "What priest does so and so ? " leaving it to be inferred, that every clergyman breaks every one of these rubrics. But to this particular, I shall have occasion to refer more fully hereafter. In page 72, occurs another general accusation, coupled with an imputation of bad motives. " Many," you say, " who had seemed to be quickened to a m.ore 18 earnest self-discipline, and aroused to efforts for higher spiritual life, were found to have gradually re- lapsed to their former state, and to be more anxious for ease and favor among men, than to gain, through mucJi tribulation, the eternal rest which remaineth for the people of God." Who, Sir, are these many ? and why should you think they were more anxious for ease and favor among men, than to gain through much tribulation the eternal rest ? II. I come now to those parts of your pastoral which contain your censure of the jeport of the Committee on the State of the Church. Three sub- jects for inquiry here naturally present themselves. 1. Was the act of the Committee uncanonical ? 2. What authority have the Committee for de- claring there was agitation and alarm. 3. Did the Committee by their report intend to pass any censure on yourself or others ? 1. Was the act of the Committee uncanonical ? You tell us, (page 8,) " According to our canon law, they (the parochial reports) contain all the testimony in respect to the state of the Church, in the diocese, or in any part of it, which is either legal or trust- worthy ; " and in proof of this you refer us to the 5th canon of the diocese. I must here express my surprise, not only that you should have thought this canon violated by the action of the Committee, but that you should have supposed it had any reference to such action. The title of the canon is, "Con- cerning Parochial Registers and Reports ; " and the object is declared to be to give effect to the 40th canon of the General Convention of 1808, repealed 19 by the 29th of 1882, "Of the duty of Ministers to keep a Register." Now in neither of these canons is one word said of a Committee on the state of the Church. The canon therefore confers on it no powers, assigns to it no duties, restricts it within no limits. How then, Sir, have you arrived at the conclusion, that the only testimony which the diocese in her canons allows in such a case, is a written account of the state of each parish, given by its minister in his pa- rochial report ? Why is it the only testimony ? Because, as you urge, the 5th canon says, that it shall be the duty of each minister to report annually to the Bishop, among other things, a written account of the state of the parish, which reports shall be by the bishop communicated to the Convention, and read in their presence, in order to promote a general know- ledge of the state of the Church. Therefore, you argue, that the Committe on the State of the Church could use no other source of information ; from which the inference must be drawn that the word ' promote* does not mean to forward or advance, but to be the sole source. Nay, as not one word is said in the whole canon, of the Committee on the State of the Church, not one hint given of the existence of such a body ; and the Convention is the body before whom these reports are laid; it follows, from your reasoning, that the parochial reports are the sole means of informa- tion, the sole testimony which the Convention can canonically have of the state of the Church, and that your own journal is a most uncanonical act. So are the reports of the Missionary and Standing Commit- tees, and, indeed, so are all the other sources of in- 20 formation which have usually been presented to the Convention, in order to promote a general knowledge of the state of the Church. But, Sir, how can this inference be possibly cor- rect ? Your own journal is always referred to the Committee on the State of the Church. According to you, how uncanonical an act is this ! Pardon me for saying you appear to have had some doubts on this point yourself ; you do not appear to have been perfectly satisfied with your own reasoning ; for after declaring that the parochial reports are the only legal and trustworthy testimony, you add your own testi- mony to that of the parochial reports, and say, " the only persons allowed by canon to testify, viz : the pa- rochial clergy and the bishop." Before it was the parochial reports solely, now it is the parochial clergy and the bishop. But let it be observed, that not one syllable is said in the canon respecting the bishop; and if every thing except what is mentioned by the canon be excluded, then the bishop's journal, and all sources of information which he can impart, are ex- cluded, not merely from the committee, but from the Convention itself Are you prepared for this con- clusion ? But, secondly, so far from being correct is your opinion that the Committee on the State of the Church are restricted to the parochial reports, or even to them and your journal, or even to these and documentary evidence, that we find this Committee, on other occasions stating it as an implied part of their duty, to resort to other sources of information. In the Convention of 1839, the Rev. J. Singletary, til Chairman of the Committee, says, " They have exam* ined the documents referred to them, and all other in- formation within their reach." And again, in 1840, the Rev. Thos. Davis, as Chairman, reports, " The Committee have carefully examined into the state of the Church, as far as they have been enabled to do so from the documents referred to them, and other sources within their reach." But these clergymen were held in no ordinary esteem in the diocese ; sad for the diocese, that one has been lost to us by death, the other by removal. According to this principle have committees on the State of the Church frequently acted. In 1839 there is notice of an action of the General Conven- tion not mentioned in the parochial reports. In 1840 regret is expressed at the thin attendance of lay delegates, mentioned neither by the parochial clergy nor the Bishop. And again, it will be found on various occasions, the Committee on the State of the Church have carried out this principle. The report of 1848 speaks of an infidel theory pre- vailing. Where do the parochial reports speak of such a theory in a single parish ? In the same report we learn that it is understood that the religious house at Valle Crucis will henceforth devote its energies to the instruction of candidates. Where do the paro- chial reports state this? In the report of 1840 we find these words : "Finally, throughout the Church generally, and in this Convention especially, we are greeted with the cheering spectacle of unity of faith, harmony of love, the spirit of zeal and of a sound mind." If the Committe may not testify of agitation 22 and alarm, why should they testify of an opposite state, of harmony and peace ? 2. What authority had the Committee for stating there was agitation and alarm in the Diocese ? From your manner of speaking on the point, it might be difficult at first to determine, whether you meant to deny the fact of agitation and alarm, or only the legality, the sufficiency, or propriety of the testi- mony upon which it is asserted. In the whole of your first head there is this obscurity, and at page 10 you speak of there being a few alarmists ; while on the other hand, in your charge to the clergy at the Con- vention, you acknowledge the existence both of ex- citement and agitation, on account of doctrines and practices. You not only do not deny the truth of the Committee's assertion, but yourself state that the Diocese has been agitated of late on a particular question. On page 25, of your late Pastoral, you speak of the doctrine of the necessity of priestly absolution, hav- ing, "it is said called up around your Bishop, so many palefaces and fainting hearts." And again, page 69, you speak of the charge now in busy circulation, of a concealed purpose on your part of bringing any foreign system or influence upon the diocese." Now as it can by no possibility of construction, be alleged that the Committee meant to charge or insinuate, that the doctrine of priestly absolution had called up around you pale faces and fainting hearts ; or that you had a concealed purpose of bringing in any foreign influence, it follows, without doubt, that you do recognize the existence of agitation and alarm ; 23 and that what you have said on this head, on page ? and 8, was not designed to assail the truth of the as- sertion, but only the legality, or sufficiency, or pro- priety of the Committee's testimony. To this point 1 shall presently come. The fact of agitation and alarm, indeed, was so certain, so manifest, as to be undeniable by any one^ nor has it been denied. The report of the Committee was on that point received without hesitation, with- out one word of opposition, or even of comment. You inquire, page 7, ''But upon what testi- mony I would ask is this assertion made, i. e., of agi- tation and alarm ? " I answer upon the testimony of the members of the Committe, speaking of facts too notorious to be denied, and therefore by no one denied, and assented to by yourself But you argue, page 8, that to say that there is such agitation and alarm, when the parochial clergy, to a man, are silent on the subject, is to say that they have been culpably negligent in a canonically prescribed and commanded duty. To which I answer, that if your mference be true, then without any sort of question, some at least of the parochial clergy were culpably negligent ; for there was agitation and alarm, at least in some parishes; there was in Christ's Church, Raleigh, as Mr. Mordecai's communication shows. There was in St. Peter's Church, Washington, as the difficulties existing between the rector and the con- gregation, known throughout the State, shows. There was agitation and alarm in the parishes of Calvary Church, Tarborough, and Trinity Church, Scotland Neck, as the Rev. Mr. Cheshire in his letter to me 24 shows ; there was agitation at least, if not alarm, in Wilksborough, your own Journal shows, (p» 10 of Jour- nal,) and in the same Journal, you yourself show that some minds had been disturbed by " unfoundedvnmoxs," as you consider them, " of doctrines taught and prac- tice existing, not in accordance with the principles and usages of the Church." In none of the reports from these parishes, however, is there any notice of agita- tion and alarm. But did all these clergymen violate their duty, by not taking notice of this agitation and alarm ? In making up the parochial reports is no discretion to be used ? Suppose a slanderous story were afloat in the parish, which deeply affected the character of some eminent person in the community, perhaps the Bishop himself, and which produced at the time very great agitation and alarm ; do you think it would be decent or proper, in a clergyman, to make such a story part of his parochial report ? I know not how other clergymen may have viewed the subject, but I confess it did not once occur to my mind, that it would be a proper subject to introduce into my parochial report ; I should have thought it very ill-advised to do so, lest I might thereby increase the agitation and alarm which already existed, and which, as will presently be seen, it was the object of the Committee to allay. 3, Did the Committee in their report intend to pass any censure on yourself or others ? As soon as I thought of replying to your Pastoral, I proposed to the other members of the Committee the following inquiries. 1, Was it the intention of the Committee to make §5 or insinuate any charge in their report against the bishop or any one of the cleray ? 2. During the sittings of the Convention, was the Bishop's name introduced in any act, or debate, with any disparaging reflections on himseif or his doc- trines ? Was it introduced at all during his absence, till the delivery of his Charge ? 3. Was the Bishop spoken of disparagingly in respect to his person or doctrine during the meetings of the Committee ? Was he spoken of at all ? 4. What did you understand to be the object of the Committee in making the report ? — Answer to these Inquiries by the Rev, Mr. McCrae : 1. "It was not my intention as a member of the Committee on the state of the Church, (nor was it, I believe, the intention of any member thereof,) to make or insinuate any charge against the Bishop or any of the clergy, in their report to the Convention. 2. I did not hear, during the sittings of the Con- vention, the Bishop's name introduced jn any shape or way, with any disparaging reflections either on himself or his doctrine. Nor was it introduced at all till the delivery of his Charge. 3. The Bishop was not spoken of disparagingly either as regards his person or doctrines during the meetings of the Committee. I have no recollection that he was spoken of at all.'' 4. I understood the intention of the Committee in making their report to be this, — to assure the Church at large of the adherence of the greater part of the clergy in the diocese to the doctrine and worship of the Church as it exists. 2 m 1 showed the Bishop the report of the Comrmttee on the state of the Church ; and he expressed not the slightest disapprobation of its contents. (Dr. Drane was also present.) I might go on to say that when the Bishop de- livered me his Charge to read to the Convention, it was upon this condition, av,d this alone, (the itahcs are Mr. McCrae's,) that the report of the Committee on the state of the Church should remain unaltered — - and that no debate should be suffered to take place in regard to his Charge. If the report had been altered, or had any debate arisen on the Charge, then I was instructed to withdraw it ; not without. To this Mr, Smedes will also testify." * The answer of the Rev,- Mr. Huske, Morganton. 1. As far as I know it was not. In regard to myself, personally, I can say, that if I had thought such was the intention of the report, I should have dissented from it. 2. I do not remember that the Bishop's name was introduced at all before his Charge. Cer- tainly not as I heard with any disparaging reflections on himself or his doctrine. 3. I do not remember that the Bishop wag spoken of at all in the Committee. I will state my recollection of what occurred. After settling the statistical portion of the report, the question was asked by yourself, I think, whether the matters which were discussed privately among the members of the Convention, relating to alleged departures from the * The Rev. Mr. Smedes, on showing him Mn McCrae's letter, has assented to the truth of the above statement. 27 doctrines of the Church, should be spoken of in the report. Upon this, the members of the Committee severally assented to the propriety of making some allusion to those matters. This is all that occurred so far as I recollect. 4. I supposed that their object was, inas- much as they were a Committee on the State of the Church, to state facts of deep interest to the Church at large, and to give assurance of general fidelity to the Church among the clergy, in order to quiet ex- citement ; instead of throwing odium upon the Bishop or any of their brethren. I wish it to be distinctly understood, that at that time, so far from intending by assent to that report, to sit in judgment upon the doctrine of the Bishop, or the doctrine or character of any of the clergy, I was not willing to express even a private opinion ; I wanted to hear facts, if there were any. But I do not see why a general affirmation, accompanied with an ex- press disclaimer of intention to judge any one, such as that in the report, should be considered improper. The truth is, knowing the strong feeling among cer- tain members of the Convention, I was afraid there would be intemperate resolutions introduced, and was therefore much in hopes, if the Committee on the State of the Church should notice the subject in a proper spirit, it might prevent hasty action in Con- vention. Answer hy the Rev. Dr. Drane, To Question 1. — No. The Committee were, I believe, unanimous in the opinion that this was not 33 our business, and the report itself sliows that it was studiously avoided. To Question 2. — It was not so far as I heard or believed. To Question 3. — No. It was not. To Question 4. — It was believed by the Committee that an impression was extensively prevalent in the diocese, that many of the clergy were inclined to favor the introduction of Puseyitish or Popish doc- trines and practices ; and that this impression, if suffered to go uncorrected, would injure the influence of the clergy and prove disastrous to the best inter* estsof the Church. Acting as a Committee on the state of the Church, and with indubitable evidence before us of agitation and alarm among the members, we felt it to be our duty to note this state of things ; and with the view of allaying excitement and restor- ing tranquillity, we felt ourselves imperiously called upon to assure the diocese, that in our *belief, the clergy as a body, were totally opposed to the intro- duction of any doctrines or practices not sanctioned by the standards of the Church. This, at least, was my own view of the object of the report, and I believe it was substantially the view of every other member of the Committee. Answer hy the Rev. Mr. Forbes, To Question 1. — The intention of the Committee was to assure the members of the Church, that although there might be some in the diocese, who were teaching and practising these customs ; yet the far greater part of the clergy were opposed, &c.," as 29 the report expresses it. When I say ** might be,'* I mean that the determining of this point was not within the province of the Committee. To Question 2. — To this I answer, No! not so far as I can recollect, nor was it introduced at all before the delivery of his Charge, to be the subject of remark or discussion, even if it were mentioned at all, and I do not remember hearing it. To Question 3. — I think it was ; for it would have been strange, if in speaking of the affairs of the Church, the name of the Bishop, whose report we had of his duties, should not have been even men- tioned : but as to the main point of the question, " Was he spoken disparagingly of as regards his per- son or doctrine, &c.'' No, not in my opinion. To Question 4. — I understood it to be the sole object of the Committee to produce quietness and peace by assuring the diocese at large that there was no danger that the Church would be united or even assimilated to the Romish Communion. With respect to the Rev. Mr. Forbes, candor requires me here to state that his notion of the report, as far as I have understood and been able to condense the substance of his communication to me, in explanation of his answer to the first question, is much stronger than that of the other members of the Committee. His view is, that although the object of the Com- mittee was not to accuse any one of practices or doc- trines contrary to the teaching of the Church, but to allay agitation, yet, as far as he was concerned, he wished that from the report of the Committee, the 90 inference should be drawn that such doctrines had been taught and such practices had existed. From these answers, the following conclusions, must, it appears to me, be most certainly drawn. First, that there was no set, deliberate purpose on the part of the Committee as a body, to bring forward or insinuate charges against any one. Mr. Forbes differs indeed from the rest of the Committee on two points, the mention of your name during the meetings of the Committee, and his own peculiar views on the bearing which he wished the report to have on the aberrations in doctrine and practice, supposed by many in the diocese to exist, and occasioning agitation and alarm. But the men- tion of your name is connected by Mr. Forbes with your Journal, and not with the report of the Com- mittee. This may have been the case, though I have no recollection of even such mention of your name. But certainly, most contrary to fact was the informa- tion you must have received, and on which doubtless you rested your assertion, (p. 9,) " that both in Con- vention and in the Committee, you were named as the chief offender." For who could know any thing of what was done during the meetings of the Com- mittee, but a member of the Committee. Now it is most certain no member of the Committee could have told you so ; judge therefore yourself. Sir, what little foundation your informer could have had for what he told you. It also appears that there could have been no regular, formed plan discussed and agreed upon by the Committee, of charging any one, or even insinuating a charg3 against any one. That 31 unless Mr. Forbes be an exception, it was not the purpose of any one individually to do so. For I fully agree with the rest of the Committee on this point. Secondly, It is also most manifest that you were not spoken of in the Convention as the chief offender ; and that whoever told you so, did not tell you the truth. Indeed, how should you have been spoken of? what was there to call up the mention of your name, previous to the delivery cf your Charge? That Charge was received without one word of dissent. Why then should you have been spoken of as the chief offender ? It is therefore so far from being no- torious that you were nam>ed as the chief offender in Convention and Committee, that there is (if the word of such men as constituted the Committee can be relied on) most unquestionable evidence to the direct contrarv- But what then was the object of the Committee ? It is easily stated. Great agitation and alarm existed in the diocese. Some of the Com.mittee had wit- nessed this in their own parishes ; and had heard of it in others. The apprehension also began to be entertained, and was expressed, that many of the clergy were fast inclining towards Romanizing views. To allay this excitement, to remove this impression, was the object of the Committee. Was it not a lawful object ? Was it not a proper object ? Was it not a necessary duty ? And how could this object be accomplished, this duty be performed, so vrell or indeed at all, unless by such a report ? I have heard the report censured, but assuredly not for crimina- 32 tion direct or implied, not for severity, not for illegality, not for injustice — (t/ou are the first person I have heard to do this) — but for unnecesvsary modera- tion. Perhaps there may have been something of this unnecessary moderation, for perhaps the Committee might have declared the character of the supposed erroneous doctrine and irregular practices, but so studious were they to avoid any thing like crimina- tion, that they mentioned these things, in the most general terms possible. Let me add one occurrence to show what was the feeling of the Committee on this subject. After the report was acted on and passed by the Committee, but before it was presented to the Convention, the Rev. Mr. Huske came to me and observed, he thought there was one expression . which might appear to reflect on the Society of the Holy Cross, The concluding part of the report was originally wwded in the following manner : The Committee are happy to say they have assurance, &LC. He observed that he thought the words " happy to say/' seemed to imply condemnation of the Society, and might be so construed. I answered, they might be so construed ; that I would therefore call the Com- mittee together and propose to them their omission. This was done, and with unanimous consent the words were stricken out. Mr. Huske, in a letter to me, thus states [n's remembrance of the transaction. His words are : " I thought this (the expression are happy) implied opposition to the Society, which althougli I have ahvays felt it, I did not think should be expressed on that occasion." Considering what ^ you represent the Society to have been, the Com- 33 mittee, if not with propriety, might at least with truths have declared that they were happy to be assured of its dissolution. But you ask, by what authority do they touch them, (i.e. these errors in doctrine, and irregularities in practice,) at all ? By what authority do they in- directly define them and assert their existence in an atteaipted exculpation of the far greater part ; and hence in an implied charge of guilt against the mi- nority of the clergy, em_bracing the Bishop of the diocese ? To these questions the answer is very easy. The object of the Committee was not to accuse any one, nor to charge, nor to insinuate a charge against any one. As a Committee on the state of the Church, they considered it their bounden duty to take notice of the difficulties, the agitation, and the alarm, exist- ing in the diocese, for the purpose, if possible, of allaying that agitation and alarm, on sufficient and just grounds, namely, the adherence of the clergy generally to the doctrines and practices of the Church. But why, it may be asked, did not the Committee mclude all the clergy ? They did not, because they could not. It was generally believed by most of the members of the Committee, I do not suppose I am going too far in saying, by all the mem.bers of the Committee, that the doctrines and practices of the Church had been departed from. Whether this belief was well founded, is another matter, but un- questionably it did exist, and if in doing their duty by taking notice of the alarm, and endeavoring to 2* 34 allay it, the minds of the community were directed to certain persons, this could not be avoided. What they were bound to do, they were bound to do truth- fully ; and if such consequences resulted, it was not the fault of the Committee. The distinction ought clearly to be observed between the intention of the Committee and the consequences resulting from their action. If it was the duty of the Committee to take notice of the agitation and alarm in the diocese, and of the supposed causes thereof, for the purpose of allaying this agitation and alarm ; if in the man- ner of discharging their duty they acted with all proper reserve ; if they violated no law of the Church ; no justly required respect towards yourself, or courtesy towards their brethren ; but if at the same time, owing to circumstances which the Com- mittee could not control, inferences unfavorable to any persons were drawn by others, surely this ought not to be imputed to the Committee as their fault. Suppose the teachings of your Pastoral of the Priestly Office, and your sermons, to have not been in accordance with the teachings of the Church ; the Committee could not say they were ; or suppose your teaching to have been misunderstood — (and if not opposed to the teaching of the Church, how liable it is to be misunderstood, will appear from the answers already made to it by clear and strong-minded men.) Suppose the Committee, or even a portion of the Com- mittee, to have believed your teaching erroneous, though it were in reality not so ; while they are bound studiously to avoid pronouncing an opinion against, could they pronounce in favor of such teaching ? 35 But let it be observed, this agitation and alarm had been excited by other causes than the preaching of your sermons, or the publication of your Pastoral. Remarks have been made by you in public and pri- vate, misunderstood, if you please, but so understood as to create unfavorable impressions of your attach- ment to this Church, our branch of the Catholic Church — 'impressions were abroad of teachings and practices at Valle Crucis, by no means in accordance with the doctrines and requirements of the Church — (subsequent disclosures have proved that these im- pressions were too well founded) — reports were afloat of practices and teaching in other quar- ters, of the same faulty character, which may have been misunderstood. All these had produced their effects on the public mind. To what extent there was adequate cause for these effects — whether the apprehensions entertained of Romanizing tenden- cies in some of the clergy, were justly entertained, or to what degree justly entertained, I do not here un- dertake to determine. But the effects were produced ; the apprehensions were entertained ; and the Commit- tee, as a Committee on the State of the Church, be- lieving it to be their duty, wished to allay this appre- hension, so far as in truth they could. I ask what law did they violate ? What ties of fellowship did they break ? What lawful authority did they resist ? None : they did but their duty, and for the dis- charge of this duty, why should they be so censured ? The Committee could not declare that there was no ground for this agitation and alarm, for the conviction on the minds of many, as far as I know of all of them, was strong, that there was ground for agitation and 36 alarm. They could not declare that there was no clergyman in the diocese who had never preached doctrines not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church, had never introduced ceremonies unauthor- ized by this Church, or, in plain violation of its ru- brics. But with respect to the far greater part of the clergy, they could not discover in a free conversation with their brethren at the Convention, that there was any reason to suspect them of a departure from the doctrines and practices of the Church ; and the Con- mittee, therefore, in coming together, had very little else to do, but to propose what they thought would be sufficient to allay excitement and remove false im- pressions ; and I have no recollection that during the meetings of the Committee, there was any discussion of the merits or demerits of any of the brethren. You ask, (p. 10,) "what evidence had the greater part of the clergy given of their peculiar and exemplary fidelity ? Peculiar and exemplary fidelity are words entirely your own, and pardon me for saying, have the appearance of sarcasm. But the Committee have claimed for their brethren no such peculiar and ex- emplary fidelity, but only such adherence to the doc- trines of the Church to which they belong, as was to be expected from them. Hov/ truly the Committee have represented their brethren, your own acts will show. " You have cast your thoughts back," you say, "over the last year, and you found four sermons objected to." Whether justly objected to ; whether by mere rumor ; whether the preachers of the sermons objected to, had any opportunity of defending them- selves ; whether you believed the objections well 37 founded ; whether yourself had heard any of the ser^ mons ; whether, after all, these objections were any - thing more than f^fst Trrs^oevTu, to which no sort of credit was to be given, you do not tell us. But let us admit the charge to be most indubitably well-founded. Then to these four let us suppose there might possibly be three or four more whose teachings and practices have been of a Romanizing character ; and still you have the far greater part ol' the clergy, against whom no imputation of false doctrine lies. You tell us (p. 10) the Convention at Salisbury " was called with no general knowledge of the inten^ tion of a few alarmists." Who, may I ask, are these alarmists ? Do you mean the members of the Com- mittee, and do you attribute to them a set purpose, a long formed and deliberate intention, entertained at least a year before the Salisbury Convention, of in- sinuating charges against you ? If so, this is a heavy accusation, but I confidently say you have no proof of it. What combined intention could be formed, at so remote a period, by any body of alarmists, but espe- cially by the Committee ? Did not i/ou appoint the Committee ? Those alarmists live remote from each other ; what evidence is there that they ever corres- ponded on any subject, much less on the disturbances in the diocese ; and as to any bandings or conspira- cies among us, every member of the Committee Yiot only denies being engaged in any such, but denies any knowledge of any such. And now Sir, I beseech you, either to exculpate us from these heavy charges, or to show which of us, and in what aspect any one of us, and especially 38 which one, if any, of the Committee on the State of the Church, has endeavored to thwart your views illegally ; to embarrass your official labors by any combination among ourselves or with the clergy ; or to intimidate or coerce you, by exciting against you the popular mind — lending a willing ear to ex- aggerated statements, and giving publicity to confi- dential, desultory, and unguarded conversations, and by aiding and abetting unauthorized, oppressive, and irresponsible conventional acts. Which of us, and in what aspect, especially which of the Committee on the State of the Church, have banded together, or conspired, or framed any evil designs against you ? And, as unfortunately I have been accidentally far more prominent on this occasion than was at all my desire, I call upon you to say whether, from your knowledge, or from any sort of credible testimony, I have ever been factiously or illegally opposed to you ; whether I have by any act or words, in any way, or at any time, endeavored to combine at all with others against you, or been privy to any combina- tions against you ? Whether I have ever shown any hostility to your person, or uncanonical or unclerical opposition to your authority ? III. I come now to that portion of your Pastoral which relates to the preamble to the resolution for pub- lishing the Report of the Committee and your Charge. 1. For myself, I must observe, that I do not think a Diocesan Convention the proper body to de- termine what is the faith of the Church, nor do I undertake to defend entirely the preamble to which you so strongly object ; not, however, I must say, generaiJy speaking, for the reasons you assign. 39 Not to enter into the inquiry of what were orig* inally and justly the powers of diocesan conventions in regard to declaring what is the faith of this Church, the following remarks may deserve consideration. The strictness with which our Church in the United States has, in the Vlllth Article of the Constitution, guarded against any haste in changing, adding to, or what in principle is the same, interpreting the doc- trines of the Church, and the total absence of any such restrictions from any articles or canons of any diocese (so far as I am aware) where, clearly, such restrictions would be most needed, show, I think, in- dubitably, that every diocese has virtually, if not expressly, either disclaimed the having ever possessed such powers, or renounced them if ever possessed. But while I am bound to give this my opinion of the powers of a diocesan convention respecting the faith of the Church, I must at the same time observe, that it is very doubtful whether the Convention at Salis- bury, can in that preamble be said to have declared what was the faith of the Church. The preamble consists of three parts. In the first, it is declared to be the opinion of this Convention, that the Church nowhere requires the practice of auricular confession and private absolution. In the second, the language of Bishop Hobart is adopted by the Convention as the expression of its own opinion. In the third, the satisfaction of the Convention is expressed with the Charge which you sent to the Convention. Certainly no fault can be found with the last part. In the first there is no opinion declared of a point of faith, but of a point of discipline. She (the Church) nowhere 40 requires the practice of auricular confession and private absolution. The first clause of the quotation from Bishop Hobart relates to the Church of Rome, and it can only be in the following words adopted by the Convention, from that eminent Bishop, that any declaration of what is the faith of the Church can be supposed to be advanced. " The Churchman justly deems auricular confess sion and absolution, an encroachment on the rights of conscience — -an invasion of the prerogatives of the Searcher of hearts ; and with some exceptions, hos- tile to domestic and social happiness, and licentiou s and corrupting in its tendency." Now unless this quotation, adopted by the Con» vention as their own, must be considered as having reference to doctrine, and not to discipline, the Con« vention have in nowise "published their authorita- tive judgment of what the Bishop and his clergy are to teach," as the doctrine of the Church. I do not undertake to advocate even what the Convention has done, but it must, at the least, be acknowledged that the preamble is expressed with very great modera* tion. A great part of it is a quotation from a prelate whose character is deeply reverenced, and whose memory is cherished in the Church, and by none, it is to be presumed, more than by yourself. Great sat- isfaction is in the preamble expressed at the delivery of your charge. Nor is this all to be alleged. A preamble had been passed by the Convention, to which it was understood you seriously objected. With the full consent of the mover of the preamble and resolution, as I have 41 learned, one of your friends waited on you with this preamble and resolution, and they were modified at your bed-side to meet your views, and you expressed your satisfaction." The modified preamble and resolution were wil- lingly adopted by the Convention in place of the original one. I do not adduce this transaction, Sir, to show that you approved of the action of the Convention ; I do not adduce it to show any inconsistency between this assent and the condemnation of the action of the Convention contained in your Pastoral. I do not sup- pose that you did approve of the action of the Con- vention, but assented to the modified preamble and resolution as being least opposed to your wishes ; and I do not think that acts performed during serious indis- position, with its concomitant depressioti, should be judged of with the same strictness as acts performed during health ; but I adduce it to show that there was no hostility to you personally, but on the contrary, that there was a desire to obtain, as far as possible, your sanction for what was done, from personal as well as official respect towards you. The next point relates to the violation of rubrics. I must here confess my surprise at the extent of your charge and the manner of making it. It is first against every clergyman. You declare (p. 58) that after mature deliberation, you hesitate not to affirm, that no clergyman in this diocese is free from such a charge, and none less than tho members of the Com- mittee themselves ; and then you proceed : What clergyman does so and so ? What priest does so and 42 so ? adding, " when each member of the Committee, and each clergyman in the diocese can declare before God, that in none of these respects he has failed to come up to the letter or spirit of the rubrical law of the Church, then, and not till then, may he consistent- ly be intolerant of such as violate the rubrics." Allow me. Sir, to ask, what can be the purport of these questions ? Do you actually mean to charge upon every clergyman in the diocese, the breach of every one of these rubrics ? From your selecting these rubrics and taking no notice of others, it might appear so. And yet 1 can hardly think it was your meaning, even with respect to any one clergyman, for what clergy man can there be in this diocese, who ministers in such neglect of his solemn promise of obedience ? I beg that you will state it plainly, that we may know what answer to return to your charge. I certainly have not the same opportunity of judging of these matters as yourself The clergy of North Carolina have, however, ever been supposed observers, and not breakers of rubrics, and if the contrary has, in any instance, to anythmg like the extent here implied, been the case, does no blame at- tach to you for having permitted such breaches ? As to some of those rubrics — for instance, those which relate to clergyman's intercourse with the rich, it is hardly probable you should know whether they were or were not observed. I must then suppose your object was to have us give evidence against ourselves ; or was it, to call on us to exculpate ourselves not from those violations of the rubrics of which you knew us to be guilty, but of those of which you suspected we 43 might be guilty. But if so, is it reasonable, Sir, that you should make, and we should answer such an ap- peal ? How are we to answer it ? By what means ? In what way ? And that you may not think I wish to evade your appeal, I beg the favor of you to say in what respects you know me to violate the rubrics. 1 neither mean to affirm or deny that such is the case, but as I full well am conscious that I have no ends to answer in violating the rubrics, no desire to do so, I promise you, by the grace of God, to amend as soon as you have pointed out my delinquencies. One thing is certain, those delinquencies could not have been very great ; since I do not recollect your having pointed out to me but one irregularity, and that one was corrected as soon as pointed out. I do not speak of occasional acts of forgetfulness — of undesigned inadvertencies ; unhappily 1 am but too subject to these things ; but of purposed and especially of habitual violations. You do indeed, exculpate us in a certain way from any blame, in the charge you have made against us, for you declare, " While, however, I say that all my clergy, more or less, violate the rubrics, I am bound to add my belief that no one either does, or has done it, needlessly, or with a view to depart from the faith or worship of the Churc!.." Now, if none of us have violated the rubrics needlessly, then are we acquitted of any sort of blame, for need or necessity is an imperious master that will be obeyed. But I am afraid, Sir, your " needlessly " has not this rigid signification ; for you state it as your convic- tion, " that the Church intended the rubrics rather as 44 general directions than as inflexible laws ; to be strict- ly followed when circumstances will admit of it, but to be departed from where, in the candid and filial judgment of the priest, her leading purposes demand it, as sometimes they unquestionably do.'' I do not deny but that there may be occasions on which the Church requires a necessary act to be done, which, if done, cannot from circumstances be done in its full- ness, rubrically. In which case, who can doubt that it would be better to regard the spirit than the letter of the rubric? As for instance, suppose a minister called on to baptise a child in a remote part of the country, where no regular congregation existed, nor Was likely soon to exist, which would be preferable, to use the form of public or private baptism ? If by cir- cumstances, you mean isolated cases of this sort, they, I conceive, are so far from a violation, that they can barely be called a departure from the rubric. But cases of this sort can rarely if ever occur in regular congregations. What circum- stances can possibly require, " that in the baptism of an infant, the water should not be poured on it ? " What circumstances can ever require "that the sea- son of Lent should not be observed ? " What circum- stances can ever require that the "remaining conse- crated bread and wine should not be reverently eaten and drunk immediately after the blessing?" and I am much afraid, Sir, that what you say on this head is calculated to open the door at once to the wildest license. According as each clergyman may deem that circumstances warrant his departure from the rubric ; caprice, convenience, peculiarity of opinion ; 45 a variety of causes will influence his practice, and produce the greatest disorder and confusion. But, Sir, let it be observed, that the Committee do not speak of such departure from rubrical observance as imply mere neglect, or such as are of minor im- portance, they speak of such as violate the rubrics ; that is, as the whole passage shows, they speak of the introduction of such ceremonies as violate the ru- brics. That such a distinction is of importance, will appear from a single example. The first rubric under the ministration of" Private Baptism," requires that " The minister shall often admonish the people, that they defer not the baptism of their children longer than the first or second Sunday next after their birth, or other holy day following between, un- less upon a great wid reasonable cause." Suppose the minister often admonish his people not to defer the baptism of their children any longer than is necessary, but seldom if ever mention the exact time specified in the rubric. He may be said to depart from the strict letter of the rubric, but he could not be said to violate it, much less to introduce a cere- mony which violates it. But suppose a clergyman were to have a pix placed on the *' Holy table," and in that pix should reserve the consecrated element for daily receiving; surely this, if any thing, must be called a violation of the rubrics : yes, the introduc- tion of a ceremony in violation of the rubrics. Now this was done at Valle Crycis, and done with your sanction, if not with your advice. I must here express my surprise at a question yon have put in the 55th page of your Pastoral. The 46 Committee had spoken of ceremonies unauthorized by the custom of this Church. You ask of what Church? You will find the answer, Sir, in the pre* face to the Prayer Book, in the second question to the deacon, in " The Ordering of Deacons in the first in that of Priest, and first in that of Bishops. I would beg leave also to refer you to the 35th Article* IV. As intimately connected with the report of the Committee, I proceed to notice your remarks on the subject of the " Society of the Holy Cross." Here, I must confess, that if the Committee could not with propriety, they might with great truth, have de* Glared they were happy to learn that no such society was then in existence. I hope that if I express my opinion somewhat plainly on this subject, I shall be pardoned, as I trust in doing so I^all not transgress the bounds of that respect justly due to you. Your address to the clergymen who came to you in New- York in 1847, shows that these young clergy- men were by you suspected of not being very strongly attached to " our branch of the Church." But in your address to them, and your reception of them, no one can find, as I think, just cause of censure ; surely it was the duty of a bishop to take charge of those who might be wavering in the faith; and endeavor to confirm them therein. But that the means you took for this purpose were not merely injudicious, but wrong, I am constrained to believe; and I thank God, that in the dissolution of the Society of the Holy Cross, which you have assured us of, the evil has been so far remedied. It seems these "young men wished to devote themselves soul and body to 47 Christ, according to the evangelical counsels," or in other words, if I understand it, they vv^ished to take a vow of chastity, poverty, and obedience ; and as there were to be perpetual nnenabers, so in the case of these perpetual mennbers, avow of perpetual chastity, pov- erty, and obedience. Now, Sir, with all deference for your higher authority, I nnust be allowed to say that I consider any such vow as fraught with the most serious evils. In the last particular of obedience, as decidedly contrary to Christian duty. What evils have resulted to the cause of good n^iorals, not only from the enforced celibacy of the clergy as existing in the Church of Rome, but also from voluntary vows of celibacy, (which indeed amount to the same thing,) the history of the Church has sadly showed in all ages« I look upon the enforced or vowed celibacy of the clergy, with the enforced confessional, as one of the sorest moral evils with which Christendom was ever afflicted. And if any one wishes to see the truth of this position, let him examine the authorities quoted by Jewell in his Defence of his Apology for the Church of England, (vol. IV, p. 565. et seq., p. 612. et seq. Jelfs edit.,) and by Bishop Hall in his first book of the Honor of the Married Clergy, (section 20.) Let it be understood, I do not here speak of a life of celibacy simply, for if any one, and especially a clergyman, believes that he can thereby best serve God, save his own soul, and advance the welfare, especially the spiritual welfare of his fellow men ; who shall undertake to censure such conduct ? It is of the vow I speak, and not of the life. Of a vow, by which young persons ignorant of the world, ignorant of 4S themselves, ignorant of the peculiar relations in which they may be placed, and temptations to which they may be subjected, in a moment of excited feeling of ardent, but ill-directed zeal, shall irremediably devote themselves to a course of life which they may after- wards, and soon find, on many accounts, prejudicial to the true interests of religion, most ensnaring, most dangerous; but which they dare neither keep nor depart from without sin, without great peril to their souls, peril on the one hand by the temptations to which they may be subjected, or peculiar duties to which they may be called, and on the other of sin in violation of the vow. Where, indeed, is the neces- sity of a vow? If the person desiring to enter on a life of celibacy, believe it the best, why not perse- vere as long as it is thus viewed to be best, without a vow ? If circumstances change, if there be no longer a conviction of the necessity or duty of a single life, but the contrary, why not be free to change the con- dition, instead of being bound by a vow, which can neither be kept or broken without sin. The same remarks will be applicable, though not perhaps with the same degree of force, in regard to a life of pov- erty. Let the condition be assumed if requisite, but without a vow, lest by a vow the soul be ensnared. Who has not experienced the truth of the poet's maxim — " nitimur in vetita." Temptations are not always lessened by prohibition, nor is the desire of the forbidden object enfeebled because the prohibi- tion has unnecessarily come from ourselves. With respect to the vow of obedience, the objec- tion in my mind is still stronger, for what is this vow 49 of obedience, taken ? is it for the purpose of enforcing the dutiful submission which the ordinal and canons require from the inferior clergy to their bishop? Then is it unnecessary ; and net only unnecessary, but wrong ; for it substitutes in place of the Church's authority, the authority of a self-constituted and limited society ; or, at the very least, disparages such Church authority as if it were insufficient. Is this vow of obedience for the purpose of creating new obligations ? new acts of submission towards you as bishop ? then such vow of obedience declares the in- sufficiency of the Church's requisitions, and makes requisitions and exacts duties which she has nowhere made or exacted or countenanced. Was this vow of obedience made to you or any one else as the head of the institution ? Suppose then a member of the Holy Cross had removed to another diocese, would he there- by have been absolved from his vow? or would his vow- ed obligation to obey the head of his society have still continued ? If it would, would it not have confficted seriously with his obligations to obey the bishop of the diocese to which he might have removed ? But what was the extent of that vow ? As the society, accord- ing to the account you have given of it, resembled, it appears to me, in many respects, the Society of the Jesuits ; was it a vow not only to submit implicitly the actions 'to the command of a superior,' the *go and he goeth,' the ' come and he cometh,' the ' do this and he doeth it,' (one of the most serious objections, in my opinion, to the military life,) but along with this, was there the submission of even the dictates of the un- derstanding and the freedom of the will ? If so, high 3 m time, indeed, were it that the society should be, and happy may we be that it is dissolved ; may we never have a renewal of it in any kind or degree. But I must further maintain. Sir, that the rules of order of the so- ciety, manifest much that is to be censured. Why are the members of the society required to " inculcate on the minds of all within their reach the Sacramental sys- tem of the Church, particularly Baptismal Regenera- ation, the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eu- charist, and Sacerdotal Absolution ? " Why should such teaching be given such peculiar prominence ? Either these are doctrines of the Church or they are not. If they are, then the Church insists on their being inculcated in their proper order, time and degree. And I must contend that it is not only inexpedient but wrong to institute a society for doing that unduly which the Church requires to be done duly. If they are not, then they ought not to be inculcated at all. I have frequently heard you speak in terms of reproba- tion of self-constituted societies out of the Church, for the purpose of effecting any object of morals, be- cause they thrust themselves into the place of an in-- stitution of God's appointment — the Church- — and at- tempt to influence their members by inferior motives than those of duty to God and our eternal interests. But, Sir, do you think societies out of the Church, foF the purpose of affecting moral objects, are a greater usurpation of her rights than societies in the Church for effecting similar objects, besides giving undue pro- minence to such objects ? But what is meant by the Sacramental system ? What by Baptismal Regene-- ration ? By Sacerdotal Absolution ? By the Real 61 Presence ? These expressions maij mean nothing more than what our Church teaches, but they may mean a great deal more, and according to what is supposed to be your views, may in our opinion teach much more ; the last expression especially — The Real Presence" — is liable to be much misunderstood. It is a term not employed in the offices of the Church, although it has been employed by many of her emi- nent Divines. It may mean the Spiritual presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, taught in the Catechism, the Litany, and the 20th and 29th Articles, or it may mean Transubstantiation, Consubstantion, or some nice distinction of a corporal presence, distinct, if such can be, from either of these, but still most certainly not in accordance with the teachings of our Church. And thus the undue prominence given to these parts of what you term the sacramental system, may really not be the true sacramental system, and may be opposed to the teachings of our Church. In connection with this subject of the Society of the Holy Cross, there naturally arises the considera- tion of that which you have introduced on the 70th page of your Pastoral, the manual of devotion placed in the hands of boys at Valle Crucis. Without resort- ing to amj otJm^ evidence to show the light, the too favorable light, excuse me for saying, in which you appear to me to have viewed this most serious, this most censurable proceeding, I am truly distressed to find you mentioning it in such terms as your Pastoral exhibits. In page 24, you say, "some expressions were objected to;" and again, "there had been no designed violations of our standards, nor disobedience of my directions." 62 " Expressions ! no designed violations ? No disobedience to your directions? Alas! Sir, is this the mode in which a Bishop of this Church should speak of the introduction into a manual of devotions, put into the hands of boys intrusted to the care of those supposed faithful to the Church, of the following prayers : 1. "The Hail Mary," so common in books of Romish devotion, and which, though salutations of mere honor from the angel and Elizabeth to the ever blessed and most honored Virgin, mother of our Lord while on earth, become acts of religious homage and adoration, when addressed to her in the other world. 2. The following prayer to the guardian angel : — • " Oh ! blessed angel, to whose care I am committed by God's mercy, enUghten, defend and govern me through all my life, and to the hour of my death. Amen." O, Sir, are these to be characterized as " expressions," and " no designed violations of our standards ? " If there is any part of the corrupt system of the Church of Rome that I hold in deepest abhorrence, it is her poly- theistic and idolatrous worship, as a violation of the two first commandments, the very foundation of all duty to God, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." In the manual, then, was there no " worshipping of angels," (Col. ii. 18.) was there no violation of the standards of the Church ? 3. There was also in that manual the following prayer for the dead : " Bless the dead in Christ, grant them remission of sins, and a peaceful rest in Thee." I am truly alarmed to hear what you say on this 53 head. Can it be possible, that in page 56th of your Pastoral, you show your favorable inclinations towards this practice so strongly, as even to accuse those who "fail to remember in their prayers and oblations the faithful departed," of virtually denying the Com- munion of Saints, and consequently, of being, virtu- ally, heretics ; inasmuch the Communion of Saints is an article of the Apostles' Creed ; could you have meant this for the Church herself ; for unless you sup- pose the Church has somewhere remembered the faithful departed, in her prayers and oblations, she must come under your censure ? Oh ! Sir, let me hope that these words escaped you in an unguarded moment and that you did not see the force of your expressions. The history of this manual, so far as I am ac- quainted with it, is not calculated to impress the Church favorably, as regards the condition of the institution at Valle Crucis. I find from your state- ment that you had corrected the manual of devotion a year before issuing your late Pastoral. And yet another copy, containing the very same passages, is discovered in the possession of another youth return- ing home from Valle Crucis after the Convention. And these two copies are the only two publicly known. Surely this indicates, to speak in mild terms, great negligence and indifference with respect to these unscriptural practices on the part of him or those who had charge of the education of these boys. Here, I think, is most serious cause of alarm, and pardon me for saying, I think you have far too easily borne with these practices. With respect to this institution at Valle Crucis, 54 you tell us, " For years I have sought to induce you to take the responsibility of this institution, and par- ticularly by a public proposal at the Convention in Newbern, 1847." But I would respectfully ask, Sir, what kind of responsibility did you wish the Convention to assume ? none certainly but a pecu- niary responsibility ; and what obligation, what pro- priety was there for the Convention to assunne a responsibility of which, from past experience, they had learned the danger and the evils. The Convention at Washington, in 1844, through the report of the Missionary Committee, declined entering into the measure before any pecuniary embarrassment had arisen,why should theyassume the responsibility of that undertaking after such embarrassment had ensued ? You call on us, Sir, in the conclusion of your Pas- toral, in eloquent and moving terms, to " stand firm with you once more against the enemy of truth, of God and righteousness, in this evil day." When did we fail to stand up for the truth, that you call on us to do it once more ? When, and in what respect have we altered ? Wherein have we deserted the truth and turned aside to error ? If for " nearly twenty years " the diocese has proceeded in harmony with you, from whence comes the change ? Have you retained your original position, and have the clergy and laity gone from you — or any considerable portion of them ? Have you brought no strange things to our ears — whether true or false, still strange ; and can you ex- pect us to adopt them, contrary as we believe them to be to the teachings we have always received ? You declare (p. 73) that you " boldly aver you have §5 gone beyond no doctrine of the Church: sought to introduce no new practice." if by the Church,'* you mean what you fitly characterize as " our branch of the Catholic Church," then I must contend that your judgment of your own teaching differs from the judgment of almost all, if not all those of any weight of opinion, who have expressed a public opinion on this subject, unless perhaps the excellent Bishop of South Carolina be an exception. ^ If your doctrine be really in accordance with the doctrine of our Church, then has your doctrine been most grievously misunderstood, or the Church's doc- trine has been misunderstood. For who has not supposed that you have intended to inculcate the general if not absolute necessity of a private confes- sion to a priest, of all mortal sins, and the eminent propriety, if not necessity, of private absolution to the penitent ? Who has not been under the impres- sion that when you insisted on the necessity of priest- ly absolution for the remission of sins, it was on the necessity of private priestly absolution you insisted, inasmuch as the public absolution is always to be obtained by the penitent in the public offices of the Church ? Who has not supposed that you taught the necessity of the judgment of the priest upon our sins, our mortal sins, at least before such absolution could be granted ; and that for such judgment the private confession of all mortal sins that could be remem- bered must be made ? V/ho has not supposed that in your teaching on these points, you approached near- ly, if you did not entirely agree with the teaching of the Church of Rome, as exhibited in the 14th Session of the Council of Trent ? 65 I would then, Sir, respectfully but earnestly be- seech you to remove our doubts, and explain dis- tinctly and fully, what is really your doctrine on these subjects. Permit me then, for the resolution of our doubts, to propose to you the following questions. When in page 25 of your late Pastoral, you speak of "the necessity of priestly absolution ; to remit all sin after baptism, &c." do you mean such absolution as is conveyed in the Lord's Supper, to the penitent and worthy receiver? If so, there can be no difficulty; for the Church, in conformity with Holy Scriptures, teaches us that this sacrament, as well as Baptism, is generally necessary to salvation. No one, therefore, can expect the remission of sins after baptism, who is wilfully not a partaker of the Holy Eucharist, for such person shuts himself out from the chief means of grace, under the Christian covenant. Or do you mean. The declaration of absolution to God's people, being pen- itent, to all those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel? Now without inquiring into the exact nature and degree of the efficacy of this absolution, or of its necessity ; as a practical question, we need not dispute about it ; there need be little or no difficulty. For every sincere penitent, every true worshipper of God, receives such absolu- tion every time he worships God in public ; and no one can expect such beviefit from such absolution, who for his sm? is justly excommunicate ; or Vv^hose gross, though secret and unrepented sins, render him incapable of partaking of Christ, though he be a par- taker of the sacramental bread and wine ; or who, through worldly-mindedness, or neglect, or indiffer- 57 ence, or conscious guilt, shuts himself out from the Communion of Saints, in the Lord's Supper. Or do you mean that there must also be a private absolution, granted separately to each penitent after a knowl- edge of, and judgment on his case by the priest ; and that this absolution conveys to him the actual remis^ sion of his sins ? If this be your meaning, then Sir, I must contend that the Protestant Episcopal Church, our branch of the Catholic Church, has no such doc- trine. Every true branch of the Church must have the power through her priesthood, of absolving from eccle- siastical censures; the power of admitting to Holy Communion, those who had been excluded therefrom ; and this absolution may be performed by the priest, according to the discipline of the Church, either pub- licly or privately, either without or with a form ; but any private absolution of sins other than this inci- dental and necessary one, arising from the nature of the case, it is plain our Church does not recognize, for there is novv^here in her offices, the least hint of the necessity of such absolution, or of permission to em- ploy it, except in the single case of a criminal con- demned to death. Nor does the Church of England recognize any such necessity, for whatever may be the force of the form of absolution in the visitation of the sick, it is to be used only when the sick person ''shall humbly and heartily desire it." And this, or some other declaration or pronouncing of absolution, is likewise allowed to the person who, not being able to quiet his own conscience, is exhorted to resort to some minister of God's word, "that he may receive 68 the benefit of absolution together with ghostly coun- sel and advice." Again, with respect to private confession, you tell us in your charge to the clergy at the Salisbury Con- vention, " that the only confession which the Church authorizes, is the voluntary confession of the peni- tent in accordance with the exhortation in the Office of the Holy Communion," and in the end of your late Pastoral, you assure us of your continued ad- herence to the opinion expressed in that Charge. On the other hand, from various passages in your recent publications, as for instance, at page 24, of your Pas- toral on the Priestly Office, p. 114, in your "Obedi- ence of Faith," (sermon on self-examination;) page 51 and 52, of your late Pastoral ; it has been generally thought that you designed to inculcate the necessity of private confession of all our mortal sins to a priest, that he might properly judge of our state, and grant us absolution. Let me, then, beseech you, Sir, to inform us distinctly what is your exact opinion on the subject of private confession. Do you hold and teach that it is a practice recommended merely by the Church, to be performed occasionally under certain circumstances, in certain exigencies, and to be enga- ged in, or omitted, according to the discretion or con- science of each person ? Or, secondly, do you hold and teach, that private confession is a part of the Church's discipline, the frequent practice of which she requires, and requires to be performed, not merely in regard to such sins as, after all the means we have ourselves employed, leave our conscience unquiet, but of our sins in general, and especially of the 59 weightier sins, of all the deadly or mortal sins we may commit : — which sort of private confession we are therefore bound to perform in dutiful submission to to the Church's authority ? Or, lastly, do you hold and teach, that private confession to a priest, and that, of all mortal sins which we can by recollection remember, is a necessary duty arising from the doc- trine of sacerdotal absolution, in order that the priest may form a right judgment of our spiritual condition, and grant us absolution accordingly ? That further, we cannot omit this duty but at the peril of our souls ? If the first of these is your opinion, then can we most heartily agree with you, and join in the desire and prayer that greater attention were paid to the exhortation in the Holy Communion, and that the duty recommended were more frequently practiced. But if, as is generally, I might perhaps say, univer- sally supposed, you have gone far beyond this, gone even beyond the second opinion ; and hold and teach the third, then I, and I believe I speak the sentiments of my brethren in general, cannot go with you, believing that you hold not the doctrine of our Church, but of the Church of Rome. " The Holy Scripture," says Barrow, (Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, p. 475,) " under condition of repentance and amendment of life, upon recourse to God and trust in his mercy, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, doth offer and promise remission of sins, acceptance with God, justification and salvation ; this is the tenor of the Evangelical Covenant, nor did the primitive Church know other terms/' " But the Pope doth preach another doctrine, and 60 requires other terms, as necessary for remission of sins and salvation, for he hath decreed the confession of all, and each mortal sin, which a man by recol- lection can remember, to a priest, to be necessary thereto; although the fathers (particularly St Chrys- ostom) frequently have affirmed the contrary." Again, Sir, on page 51, you say, "priestly abso- lution from all deadly sin after baptism, is regarded as necessary." In this distinction of deadly from other sins, will you inform us whether you con- sider the same sins as deadly to all persons, under all circumstances ? and whether they are or are not^ how, in either case, are we to distinguish those sins^ which, being deadly, require the absolution of the priest for their remission, from those which are not deadly ? And as you insist on the necessity of absolution for mortal or deadly sins only, I would ask, whether other sins, not deadly, need any remis- sion, need any forgiveness, and if so, by what instru-- mentality ? in what manner are they forgiven ? Another difficulty in the way of our obeying the call you have made arises from our not distinctly perceiving for what we are to stand ! what enemy we are to encounter ? Or, in other words, what you would have us reject as error, what receive as truth ! So lately, as in your sermon preached before the General Convention of 1844, I find you (page 18) asserting that " Papal Rome has incurred the anathema of the Catholic Church ; — that she has unlawfully and wickedly essayed to force her definition of the Eucharist upon the consciences of her adherents ; — 61 that under the same vain-glorious spirit, she has ai^ro^ gated to herself the power to annul the command of Jesus, and withhold the cup of blessing from his thirsting children." But in your late Pastoral, note to page 69, you thus express yourself : " It is said . the Bishop never speaks or writes against the Ro- manists. Answer. (1.) There are enough who do it, without him. (2.) It does no good to our own Church. (3.) They who speak against others are very likely to speak falsely. (4.) It is against that prayer for Catholic unity which we are taught to make every time we join in our service. (5 ) How- ever great may be their errors, Romanists belong to the body of Christ, and hence to the same family with us. And it is neither lawful to speak against the members of Christ's body, nor in good taste to speak against members of our own family." Now, Sir, I think it manifest that these two passages present a very striking difference of opinion. That the latter shows a much more favorable estimation of the fol- lowers of the Church of Rome than the former ; — ■ it certainly indicates no such strong disapprobation. How much more favorable your estimation may become, we cannot tell ;— hitherto it has been pro- gressive. How far you may wish us to proceed in this favorable estimation w^e know not. Now, as I am bound by my vows at ordination to be ready with all diligence, to banish and drive away all erro- neous and strange doctrines, and as I believe the Church of Rome to have many such, and most grievous, I entertain no such sympathies with the followers of Rome, as those expressed by you in the 63 note just now quoted. Tell us, then, Sir, I beseech you, whether you now consider the Church of Rome to hold any grievous errors ? What they are ? And whether you think they are, either by you, or by us, to be, at any time, noted, disclaimed, censured? Another difficulty in answering your call is to be found in the dissatisfaction you evidently manifest to- wards our branch of the Church ; the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States ; not merely on account of its practical working, but also on ac- count of the omission of those parts of the liturgical services of the Church of England, which have not been retained by our Church. You show, it appears to me, evidently great dissatisfaction at the omission of the private absolution in the office of the visitation of the sick, and of the Athanasian Creed. Still further, you are not satisfied even with the Church of England, as she at present exists. Thus, page 62, you tell us, " The once harmonious system, gathered by our Anglican forefathers, v/ith so much toil and suffering from the Creeds and Liturgies of truly Catholic antiquity, was gradually deprived of its one- ness and strength, and greatly diluted in some of its essential iY\xi\\s. One feature after another disappeared in the various attempts to adapt to it what was really another gospel.'' Now, Sir, have the goodness to tell us in what this dilution of the truth consisted ? What features disappeared from the oneness of the system ; what essential truth was omitted ? In what respects we have another gospel ? What restorations you de- sire to make ? You have stated one of them, in the last paragraph of the same page, but vv^hen the change 63 was effected of which you speak, I know not. An*- other of these features, which in your opinion has dis- appeared, is the " faihng to remember in prayers and oblations, the faithful departed and this you consider a virtual denial of the Communion of Saints ; (p. 56.) this remembrance of the faithful departed being re- tained, as you tell us, in the Prayer book of Edward the VI. You speak (p. 55) in terms of very high commendation of this Church " as established by the English Reformers," but I must confess myself totally at a loss to determine what period of the Reformation was so distinguished — was it during the reign of Edward VL, of Henry VlII ? — and where is your authority to be found for this alleged superiority ? But even with this or any period of the Reformation, you do not appear perfectly satisfied, for (pp. 61, 62,) you say: "The Reformation in England, however loudly called for, by the corruptions of the time, was not wholly exempt from the evils to which I have adverted. The political, and indeed personal questions which obtruded themselves into the ecclesiastical struggle with Rome, so averted and warped the mind of the nation, as in the settlement of religious truth, to allow of a decided infusion of leaven from a foreign source, into the Anglican formularies of doctrine." And again : " The struggle between these antagonist principles — the Lutheran and Sacramental — soon re- sulted in demands for change in the Book of Common Prayer ; " after which follows the passage already quoted. Now as it is notorious that the influence of the Lutheran Divines, especially of Melancthon, on the Divines of the Church of England, and through 64 them on the doctrines and formularies of the Church, was exerted at the very commencement of the Re- ormation, much of your censure must be referred to the earliest period. We pray then, Sir, in order that we may know what you would propose to us, and how far you wish us to go, to tell us clearly and dis- tinctly in what respects, and to what extent the sys- tem of our Church differs from the true Sacramental system ; how far the Lutheran leaven has been in- fused into it ?- — what changes^ — what retrocessions you desiie to see effected in doctrines, in ceremonies, in formularies of worship ? For myself, I believe the true sacramental system does exist in our Church — ' the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper being the covenanted means of opening and convey- ing to all those who have not by impenitence and un- belief, rendered themselves incapable of receiving them, all the benefits of Christ's death and passion. Do you then, desire and propose any change in the present sacramental system of our Church ? and if so, what is that change ? In the note to page 22, you speak of the canon of Chalcedon as a warning to those clergymen who band themselves together as clergymen ; and on page 17, you say : " There is no canonical right except we go beyond the canon law of the Church, to which some desire to restrict us, even to repel them from the Holy Communion." Now, without entering on the inquiry whether Socinians, Universalists, or anything else you can name," may not rightfully by the principles of the Church, be excluded from the communion, as I certainly think they may ; I would ask to what canons, 66 besides those which this Church has set forth, would you, Sir, subject either the clergy or laity ? — canons of the existence, but certainly of the character of which, the greater part of us are ignorant ? That the discipline of our Church may be improved, I have no doubt ; so, I dare say, may the discipline of every Church in Christendom ; but neither in the case of our Church generally, nor in the particular dioceses, or, at least, in the diocese of North Carolina, do we de- sire to see this effected, but by the legitimate action of such laws as already exist, or by the regular en- actment either in general or diocesan conventions of such as are necessary for effecting this object. You speak in very disparaging terms, indeed, of our discipline (p. 53 ;) but you have not done the Church justice in this respect ; whatever other de- ficiencies there may be, there are none in regard to her clergy. She watches with the greatest vigilance over the morals of those whom she admits to minister at her altars. She exacts a probation for three years of sound faith and spotless morals ; she suffers no offences to be committed that can dishonor the cha- racter of her priesthood ; and if offence be committed of such a nature as to degrade from her ministry, a return is hopeless ; she never opens the door of re-ad- mission. As long as the faith and morals of the clergy are thus guarded with a strictness hardly known in the same degree among any other body of Christians, and known at no other period except in the primitive and purest ages of the Church, we have one of the surest, if not the surest safeguards for the Christian character of the laity ; for as is the pastor, 66 so, in a great degree will be the people. His minis- trations enforced by his example, will always exert their corresponding and proportionate influence. In your Pastoral on the Priestly Office, there are twopassEiges to which I would beg leave to call your attention, for I either greatly misunderstand you, as is most probable, or else, if 1 understand you aright, they convey to my mind a most strange doctrine. In page 8 of that Pastoral you say, " The head of the Church is God manifest in the flesh." By which, I presume, you mean, of course, that the Lord Jesus Christ, as God and Man, the incarnate God; — the two natures in one person is head of the Church. A truth not to be disputed. But you go on to say, " The body, surely, cannot, in nature, be different from the head. If the Head be both human and divine, so must the body." If I understand this right, the body, that is the Church, must be then, God incarnate. For the sense in which the Head is human and divine, is that of the Head being God incarnate ; and if the body is human and divine, the body must be God incarnate. Now the body is neither more nor less than the members of the body ; that is the per- sons, the individuals, who compose the Church. And if the body is the incarnate God, each individual must be God incarnate. Can it be possible. Sir, this is your meaning ? If it is not, I pray you explain what is ; for I confess, the proposition, if I do not misunderstand it, is, to say the least, very startling. You say, indeed, further on, "that, where one is divine and human, the other in a certain sense and to a certain degree, must be divine and human also." 67 The certain sense, and the certain degree, may, if explained by you, remove that which is now a great difficulty to my mind. You quote the well-known passage from St. Peter, (2 Peter i. 4.) " We are made partakers of the Divine Nature," but the apostle there speaks of the Divine (pva-K; or qualities, and not of the Divine Ovtix or substance, which latter, if I do not misunderstand you, would be the meaning of the passage according to your Pastoral. A meaning assigned to it by no theologian that I am aware of, unless perhaps by some German meta- physical Roman Divines, as Moehler in his Symbol- ism. In page 9, you have these words : " The reconcili- ation, therefore, of man to God by Jesus Christ, is a much more exalted and vital union, than is sometimes supposed. A union implying not only that the sacri- fice of the incarnate Son, avails to our justification ; but also, that the gracious communication of His nature puts us into a justified state, makes us again one with Himself ; not so much covers us with His righteousness, as fills us with His righteousness ; not declares us just on the ground of His own justice merely,- but makes us just by the infused power of that justice ; not stands without us an ideal holiness, but is formed within us a real holiness." As far as I am able to understand this passage, it teaches neither the Calvinistic doctrine of imputed righteousness, nor the doctrine entertained by most of the great divines of the Church of England, and by our own divines generally, that we are justified by the merits of Christ as the procuring cause of our justification, when 68 through faith, accompanied by repentance and love, we are in a state to receive or obtain remission of our sins or justification. But you appear to teach that we are justified in consequence of that peculiar union with Christ, from which, if I do not misunderstand your meaning, as I hope I do, we are justified hy His holiness becoming not by imputation, but actually ours. Can this, Sir, be possibly your meaning ? If so, it is neither, I must venture to say, the doctrine of our Church, nor as a consequence, of the divines of our Church. If it be not your meaning, I pray you, explain to us what is ? I must candidly confess to you, these two passages have caused me much uneasiness. On what you say of the Oxford Tracts, it is neces- sary for me to make one or two observations. Your own remarks will serve to show how many, who had at first been favorable to the Oxford movement, might well indeed have become alarmed, when they witnessed the attempts in the British Critic to vilify the Re- formers, and to laud the so-called Saints of the Church of Rome ; when they witnessed the treachery of Mr. Faber, and the duplicity of Mr. Newman ; when they witnessed so many lapses through the influence of the Oxford Tracts, from the pure Church of England, pure in doctrine, whatever her defects in discipline or practice may be, to the corrupt Church of Rome ; from true Christian liberty on the one hand, to spiritual despotism on the other ; a despotism pro- ducing but too commonly its natural result, spiritual licentiousness, that is, infidelity. For myself, I can truly say, I never was a follower of the Oxford movement. I was always opposed to 69 any action of the General Convention on the subject of the Tracts, because I thought it of dangerous pre-' cedent, impolitic and undignified, even if it were not as I supposed it was, wrong in principle. But this arose from no favor towards these productions considered as a whole. They contained many excellent things, no doubt, much spirituality ; but were not these things to be found in other Church wTitings without the extravagancies, and dangerous tendencies with which they were incumbered ? You have warned us in the concluding part of your Pastoral, against time-serving policy and time-' serving conciliation. I trust your warning, Sir, will not be unheeded by us, for how liable are we all to be led astray ; and these are certainly principles which operate, and are likely to operate, but too powerfully. But there may be principles opposite to these, which may likewise lead us astray. All opposition to pre- vailing opinion or practice is not necessarily correct, and for the truth ; there may certainly be such a thing as error, even though sincere and self-sacrificing. I am well aware. Sir, how great is the toil and privation^ and labor, both of body and mind, great the anxiety and care required in such a diocese as this, but these may be unnecessarily, imprudently, or wrongfully increased, and if so, there surely would be no un* christian prudence in avoiding being implicated in such increase of labor and care. It is less than thirty years, that your predecessor, whom you speak of in such generous terms of praise, became the bishop of this diocese. " Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus tarn chari capitis.'* 10 Small was our band, and great the difRculties we had to encounter; severe the struggles against the prejudices and opposition, not only of the community without, but of some who considered themselves as within the Church. Of that small band, the present writer is the only one remaining ; by death or removal all others have gone. You will pardon me for sayings I feel confident your Christian character will consider it no disparagement for me to say, that the bold and fearless, and full declaration of what he believed, was as great in your predecessor as it can be in you. Sorry was I to find you say, " that he was compelled to begin somewhat nearer the alphabet of the faith in his teaching." What faith? what alphabet? He sup- posed he had declared the whole counsel of God. But to whatever extent he may have gone, did you ever hear that his clergy in those days of trial and rebuke, refused to sustain him ? Why should your clergy not sustain you, in all they can consientiously ? I have too high an opinion of my brethren not to be- lieve they would do so, but then it must be for what they hold to be truth and right. In penning this reply, I trust I have acted from a sense of duty. Most certainly it has given me pain, very great pain to be even necessarily opposed to him, who ' has the rule over over me/ and for whose person, as well as office, I have so great a regard. I hope I am sensible of the proper subordination of a presbyter to his bishop ; I know that as a general rule, a bishop's opinions have more authority and influence than a presbyter's, still a bishop, when they differ, may be in error, and a presbyter may hold the truth. If I have 71 expressed my dissent from your opinions, or supposed opinions plainly, I hope I have done it with that respect which is due to you, and which I entertain for your person and your office ; if I have not, pardon me, for the fault is unintentional. In conclusion, Sir, let me beseech you to remove^ if possible, our doubts and difficulties ; to speak so clearly and fully, that hereafter we cannot mistake you. God grant, that * for the faith once delivered to the Saints,' we may again stand witk you, against the enemy of truth, of God, and of righteousness. With the greatest respect, and personal regard, I remain, Rt. Rev. and Dear Siy, Your presbyter, ^ R. S. MASON. Date Due - . _____ . _ L. B. Cat. No. 1137