/u>Ho 
 
 r 
 
 
 O ■ ^ <»V’‘ 
 
 f 
 
 LETTER 
 
 %■ 
 
 TO A FRIEND, IN REPLY TO 
 
 A EECENT PAMPHLET, 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE MISSIONARIES OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF 
 COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS, 
 
 AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REVEREND HORATIO SOUTHGATE. 
 
 NEW-YORK ; 
 
 D. APPLETON & CO. 200 BROADWAA". 
 
 PHILADELPHIA; 
 
 GEORGE S. APPLETON. 
 
 MDCCCXLV. 
 

 V "a—' 
 
 
 
 ‘•..V ^i,- 
 
 v ■ . I 
 
 ' ■^'' 1* •'“ „■ 
 
 rt 
 
 » ' * / ■ 
 
 ,4. 
 
 4^' 
 
 t 
 
 A;- 
 
 .V®f 
 
 1?7^* 
 
 ■§‘ 
 
 } 
 
 4' 
 
 -. vi' '"4 ■’ 
 
 
 
 - -^ ’ 't 
 
 I 
 
PREFATOEY REMARKS. 
 
 In the Introduction to the pamphlet to which the following let¬ 
 ter is a reply, it is stated that the first occasion of the controversy 
 was a remark in the Annual Report of the American Board of Com¬ 
 missioners for Foreign Missions, in 1843,—which remark was to the 
 effect, that the Mission of that Board at Constantinople had been 
 embarrassed by the interference of individuals who had imbibed 
 errors which now threaten the peace and unity of the Episcopal 
 Churches of England and America.” Dr. Anderson, the Secretary, 
 was called upon for information upon this point, and referred to me 
 as the principal one of the individuals alluded to. Now, it may be 
 asked, whence Dr. Anderson had his information with regard to my 
 theological views ; and it must be answered—from the missionaries at 
 Constantinople. And if it is farther asked—whence had they any 
 knowledge on the subject, I unhesitatingly answer—^ they depended 
 upon their imagination for their facts.’ The whole story is one 
 used, if not devised, for no other purpose than to give edge and 
 effect to their criminations. Charges of interference appear more 
 plausible if sustained by the antecedent fact that the person alluded 
 to is in a state of mind from which such interference might be expect¬ 
 ed. This is the whole reason for the assault in the Annual Report. 
 Individuals who had imbibed such errors, would be likely to exert 
 such an influence ; and if the influence can be attributed to the er¬ 
 rors, the missionaries of the Board are more sure to escape uncen¬ 
 sured. But if the errors do not exist, what becomes of the inference ? 
 And that they do not exist—that the position which I have uni- 
 
4 
 
 « 
 
 formly assumed among all who know my views, utterly precludes 
 the supposition of their existence, is a most certain truth. Yet it is 
 one which I do not feel called upon to discuss here. This is not a 
 theological essay. I have, therefore, forborne to speak of such mat¬ 
 ters, farther than to set aside certain items in the missionaries’ 
 pamphlet, which might be supposed to have reference to them. 
 And I will here say, that it appears to me one of the most excep¬ 
 tionable things in the whole course of their proceedings, that they 
 have endeavored to put the questions between us on a false issue, 
 and to make the force of their testimony greater by resorting to 
 the unworthy expedient of imputing to me errors of belief, without 
 the faintest shadow of evidence, nay, contrary to every certain indi¬ 
 cation of truth. 
 
 H. S, 
 
 
I 
 
 LETTER. 
 
 My dear Friend:— 
 
 You think it incumbent on me to answer the pamphlet which ha§ 
 lately appeared from the missionaries of the American Board at Con¬ 
 stantinople, entitled, “ a Letter in Reply to Charges by Rev. Horalio 
 Southgate.” You believe that an answer, such as you think the case 
 admits of, will be sufficient to settle, at least in every candid man’s 
 mind, the questions that have arisen between us. I address myself, 
 therefore, to the task, and while I mean to speak with the utmost 
 plainness, I hope to speak with perfect charity and kindness. I would 
 not indulge in a single harsh expression, nor entertain a single vindic¬ 
 tive feeling. I have no taste for controversy in any shape, and my 
 deepest principles and convictions are averse to the uncharitable and 
 • denunciatory language which marks so much of modern controversial 
 writings. Towards these brethren I entertain no feelings but those 
 of kindness and love. Would that we could see eye to eye in those 
 things which concern the Redeemer’s kingdom! Would that peace 
 and harmony could ever have prevailed among us, and no differences 
 but those of a generous emulation in well-doing, ever have arisen! 
 
 But to my work. I mean to show that unhappy as these differ¬ 
 ences are, considered in themselves, unhappy as are all differences 
 between Christian men, when so considered, yet in the present in¬ 
 stance we have nothing to blame ourselves for in our own Church, 
 and may rightly claim to possess a conscience void of offence toward 
 God and toward man. 
 
 The missionaries allude to my former intercourse with them during 
 my first visit to Turkey, in the years 1836-38, and contrast it with 
 what it has been during my second sojourn of the last four years. I 
 went to Turkey in ’36 and returned in ’38. I went again in 1840, 
 and remained till May 1844. These are the two periods which are 
 contrasted. Now I cheerfully add my testimony to theirs, as to the 
 friendly nature of our intercourse during the first of these periods. 
 It is not in my nature to forget it, nor do my feelings incline me to 
 do so. It was indeed very pleasant—a cordial to my spirit in aweary 
 land. But the matter is a little overstated in their pamphlet. They 
 say (p. 6) that I “ sat down to the communion table with them, re¬ 
 ceiving the sacrament from their hands, and also taking part with 
 
G 
 
 them in the administration of it.’’ This is incorrect. Never so much 
 as once did 1 receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion from the 
 inissionaries at Constantinople; never so much as once take any part 
 with them in the administration of it. They may, perhaps, refer to a 
 single instance in which I did receive it, from other Congregational 
 missionaries, in another place. If so, why do they speak of sitting 
 down* “ with W5,” “ receiving from our hands,” and “ taking part 
 with us ?” Those who write are the missionaries at Constantinople, 
 and they say expressly, in two different places in their pamphlet, 
 (pp. 5 and 30,) that they speak throughout only of what concerns 
 themselves and their station. But again, they speak of this intercom¬ 
 munion as if it had been a habit with me; whereas I never but once 
 partook of the Communion in connection with Congregational mis¬ 
 sionaries in Turkey,—and then, as I have just said, not at Constanti¬ 
 nople. It was at Broosa, in the spring of 1838, after I had just re¬ 
 turned from my long tour in Persia. I had then been two years with¬ 
 out the Sacrament, and was suffering inexpressibly from the priva¬ 
 tion. I, therefore, communed with my brethren at Broosa. But I 
 did it at the moment with considerable hesitation, and regretted it as 
 soon as it was done. I resolved, moreover, never to do it again. 
 Now, I have not the slightest objection to acknowledge that I have 
 communed with the missionaries at Constantinople, if 1 have done so. 
 But the truth is, the only intercourse which I ever had with them on 
 the subject of the Sacrament, was in the spring or summer of 1838, 
 after my visit to Broosa, and after my resolution formed there. I w^as 
 one Sunday morning, through Mr. Schauffler, one of their number, 
 invited to a similar participation, and declined,—the invitation and 
 declining both being done, I believe, in the kindest manner. 
 
 Yet now they would fain charge me with an “ entire metamor¬ 
 phosis,” (p. 8,) because, during the last four years, I have not done 
 that which I never did. But even supposing that I had formerly 
 communed with them, I was then a Deacon, and could not consecrate 
 myself; whereas, during my last sojourn,! was a Priest, and, therefore, 
 under no necessity of going to others. Moreover, during ihe first 
 period, there was no Church of my own, where I could receive; while, 
 during the last period, there has been an English Church, where I 
 have regularly received. I say this, to show how unjust is their 
 broad inference, even supposing their assertion of former intercom¬ 
 munion to be true. Would they have me leave my own Church to com¬ 
 mune with them 1 
 
 The truth, I fear, is, they are too earnest in making out a WTong 
 point. They wish to place the present attitude of our Missions, on 
 
 ’ The missionaries object to my use of this term on the ground that some of 
 their number are not Congregationalists, but Presbyterians. I use the term only 
 for convenience, and not invidiously. The major part are Congregationalists, 
 and therefore I use that term rather than the other. Both would be an encum¬ 
 brance. 
 
the ground of a change in rny views. Now, as I said before with 
 regard to communion, so 1 say of all,—I have not the slightest objec¬ 
 tion to acknowledge a change in my views on any subject on which 
 it has taken place. I own myself capable of new degrees of know¬ 
 ledge, and of new knowledge on old subjects, and if there is one 
 prayer which I breathe, day by day, with the intensest ardor of my 
 soul, it is that I may be “ guided into all truth.” But on the subject 
 of the Christian ministry and intercommunion, my views are substan¬ 
 tially now what they w^ere in 1838. True, I then attended their 
 preaching, and, as they say, united with them in private prayer. But 
 I did not thereby regard myself as recognizing their ministerial com¬ 
 mission. There was no other service which 1 could attend; whereas, 
 during the last four years, I have had the service of my own Church, 
 and been called, for a considerable portion of the time, to officiate at 
 it. As to private prayer, I told the missionaries, on my return to 
 Constantinople in 1840, that I should have no objection to uniting 
 with them as formerly, if I were in the same circumstances. Then I 
 was a passing stranger; now I had come to establish a Mission and 
 to be a permanent resident. I thought, therefore, a formal united 
 prayer-meeting, which they proposed, inexpedient. No such custom 
 was known at home, and it seemed to me best to follow the practice 
 which prevailed there. I assured them that my feelings towards them 
 were the same as formerly, and that whenever I found myself in one 
 of their houses at the time of prayer, I should be most happy to unite 
 with them. Formerly I had attended their meetings for prayer, as a 
 msitor; now it was proposed to have a united prayer-meeting of the 
 two missions. The two cases seemed to me essentially different. As 
 an individual, without a Mission in the city, I could informally attend 
 their meetings; but being now engaged in a Mission there, the rule, 
 it seemed to me, should be that which prevailed at home. Now% all 
 this statement they pass over, and, in the place of it, say, that the 
 reason of my not consenting to such a prayer-meeting, on my return 
 in 1840, was, ‘‘lest it should be supposed by others,that I recognized 
 them as true ministers of Christ, equally with myself.” {Reply, p. 8.) 
 All this is a pure invention of their own. They (that is, those of them 
 who were present when I made the statement above given, Messrs, 
 (loodell, Dwight, and Hamlin,) know that no allusion was made to 
 any such reason. They have framed it entirely out of their own ima¬ 
 ginations. 
 
 I come now to the matter of concealment. When I was with the 
 missionaries, during my first visit, nothing was ever said by them to 
 the native Christians around us, of my being of a different communion 
 from themselves, although the most natural mode of introduction to an 
 Eastern Christian, would be, to say that I belonged to a Church gov¬ 
 erned by Bishops. But so carefully was allusion to this subject avoid¬ 
 ed, that even an Armenian associated in their labors, and living in one 
 of their houses, was never informed of the fact, and never so much as 
 
8 
 
 heard that there was a Church in this country constituted like his own, 
 until he himself tame hither and discovered it. In my occasional in¬ 
 terviews with this individual in Constantinople, I took it for granted 
 that he had learned from the missionaries who I was, and never 
 thought that he needed any information upon the subject. In all my 
 conversations with him, I spoke as a clergyman of my Church might 
 be expected to speak, of the Eastern ministry and Church institu¬ 
 tions ; but when I afterwards met him in this country, in 1839, he in¬ 
 formed me that he had lately learned of the distinctive existence of 
 ray Church, which he had never known before. When I expressed 
 my surprise at his not having recognized me at Constantinople, and 
 alluded to my having repeatedly performed service when he was pres¬ 
 ent, and to my having, on such occasions, used a clerical dress and 
 Prayer Book, he replied that the missionaries sometimes did the same 
 thing, and, therefore, he saw in this no difference between us. This 
 is one instance in which the use of the gown and Prayer Book has 
 tended to conceal the real character of the missionaries from the know¬ 
 ledge of Armenians, and even of men most intimate with them. Of 
 the motive for this use, I do not now speak. I have not said, nor do 
 I now say, that they have adopted it for the purpose of appearing to 
 be members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country. In 
 my former pamphlet, (styled unfortunately by the friend who super¬ 
 vised the publication, a “ Vindication,”—as if it were the defence of 
 a man on trial,) I simply stated the fact of the use and the effect of it, 
 without at all alluding to motives. Of them, I shall have occasion to 
 speak hereafter. 
 
 From Constantinople, I went to Persia in the summer of 1837, 
 and here again I met wuth missionaries of the American Board at 
 Oormiah. I spent a w^eek with them in their houses, and every atten¬ 
 tion that kindness or hospitality could prompt, was shown to me. 
 Here I was struck with the fact that nothing was said of my owm 
 Church character to the Nestorian ecclesiastics around me, one of 
 whom was Mar Yohanna, since well knowm in this country. I at¬ 
 tributed this, however, to a reluctance to declare the existence of an 
 Episcopal Church in the United States, lest it might operate disadvan- 
 tageously to the Mission;—and a feeling of delicacy, natural to a 
 guest, prevented me from alluding to the subject. I was, however, 
 well pleased with what I saw there, for the Mission was eminently 
 conservative, though entirely Congregational, and the missionaries, 
 using no extraneous devices, were knowm for what they really were. 
 If it has become less conservative of late, as the reports w^hich have 
 reached this country would lead us to believe, I deeply regret it. May 
 it not arise from the extreme improbability of Congregationalists’ act¬ 
 ing long among the Eastern Churches, without exerting an influence 
 tending to their subversion, and this even wUen they have begun with 
 earnest professions of desiring no such issue, and are continuing to put 
 forth the same professions before the Eastern Christians? 
 
9 
 
 But to proceed. The missionaries achnowledge their use of the 
 gown, Prayer Book, and the sign of the Cross; for their mode of state¬ 
 ment respecting the latter, (“ and if the sign of the cross has been 
 made according to this [the English] form, it has been rarely done,” 
 &c.. Reply, p. 15,) will be regarded as an acknowledgment of the use 
 of it.* They say, however, that the gown has been used at burials 
 because ‘ the people of the country suppose no clergyman to be present 
 when no clerical dress is seen,’ (p. 15.) Now, this is what I have my¬ 
 self asserted. The missionaries feel the necessity of appearing to 
 have the external badges of a clerical character, because such badges 
 are in the East uniformly associated with the character. The people 
 of that country have never been accustomed to see clergymen without 
 them. What I meant to say in my pamphlet, of the use of these 
 signs by the missionaries, was, not that they wish to appear to be cler¬ 
 gymen of OUT Church distinctively, for our Church is not in general 
 distinctively known, but that they wish to appear as possessing the 
 primd facie marks of a clerical character, as they are understood in the 
 East. Now when an Eastern Christian draws the inference that a 
 man is a clergyman because he is wearing a clerical dress, what does 
 this inference amount to ? Why, that he is an Episcopal clergyman,— 
 a clergyman of an Episcopal Church,—for they know of no other 
 kind of clergymen or Churches. They infer, from a clerical dress, a 
 clerical character as they understand it. Thus, I say, the use of such 
 a dress by the missionaries tends to deceive, because they do not pos¬ 
 sess the clerical character inferred from it. They are not ordained by 
 Bishops ; they are not clergymen of an Episcopal Church. If they 
 are willing to be known as Congregationalists or Presbyterians, they 
 ought not to appear in a manner which w ill make a contrary infer¬ 
 ence certain. Being without Episcopal ordination, they ought not to 
 assume a garb and Prayer Book w’hich imply, in the eyes of Eastern 
 people, such an ordination. Appearing as they w^ould in this country, 
 they wdll certainly be known as not Episcopalians; and if, in conse¬ 
 quence of this, their clerical character is questioned, they can defend 
 it as it is. 
 
 But they say, they have not used such badges in their private 
 meetings for the Armenians. I believe it, and so stated in my pam¬ 
 phlet, (p. 26.) The use of them there w^ould make those meetings 
 to appear to be of a formal, ecclesiastical character, which the mis¬ 
 sionaries most wish to avoid, as it would at once create the impression 
 that they designed to form a sect. Those meetings are already sus¬ 
 pected, and the adoption of clerical badges in them would much 
 
 * When my former pamphlet was brought to the notice of the American 
 Board, at their late meeting at Worcester, the Rev. Dr. Anderson declared it, 
 “so far as affecting the missionaries or the Board unfavorably, to be untrue 
 THROUGHOUT.” Now, the most obnoxious part of all, and that which most unfa¬ 
 vorably affected the missionaries, was this use of the dress. Prayer Book, and 
 sign of the cross,—which they now acknowledge. What, then, becomes of Dr 
 Anderson’s charge of falsehood ? Does it not turn upon himself? 
 
10 
 
 increase the suspicion. But when such badges are used abroad, 
 before the world, where not the twenty or thirty or fifty Armenians, 
 gathered in a private house, can alone see them, but the whole 
 Christian community of Constantinople, the impression referred to is 
 conveyed to a much greater extent than if they were used in a pri¬ 
 vate meeting. For example, when at the burial of our late Minister, 
 Commodore Porter, Messrs. Goodell and Dwight appeared in gowns 
 and bands, and one or both carrying Prayer Books, was not the im¬ 
 pression conveyed to the two or three hundred Eastern Christians 
 present, something more decided, more extensive and more influential 
 in its character, than if the same had been done in an assembly of a 
 few intimate friends within doors ? I do not, therefore, see the force 
 of the argument which the missionaries would draw from the fact 
 that they do not use these badges in their Armenian meeting. The 
 impression alluded to, is more distinctly and strongly conveyed by 
 using them elsewhere. And let me say that it makes no difference 
 whether the gown be Lutheran or Episcopal, or the Prayer Book be 
 used as it is, or in a garbled manner.^ It is the badge which is sig¬ 
 nificant, and not the particular cut or use of it. It is the using of what 
 will at once be recognized as a clerical dress and Church Book, which 
 produces a false impression; the impression, namely, that they are cler¬ 
 gymen in the Oriental sense of the term, that is. Episcopal clergymen. 
 I suppose, however, that the two gowns worn on the occasion just 
 alluded to, were not both of them the one ‘ Lutheran gown belonging 
 to the Mission.’ What reason was there for w’earing either, or using 
 the'Prayer Book? The missionaries say (p. 16) that it has “ always” 
 been used “ in a spirit of accommodation to the feelings of their 
 English Episcopal friends.” But in this instance the person deceased 
 was an American^ and of a Presbyterian family, and so, I believe, 
 were all the relatives present. The reason evidently was to produce 
 a certain impression,—the impression before alluded to. It could not 
 have been desired by the family, for though the Prayer Book was 
 there, and apparently used, it was not the Episcopal service, but a 
 certain garbling of it which essentially destroyed the solemnity of the 
 occasion.^ First, on coming to the grave, were read the impressive 
 words, “Man that is born of a woman,” &c., and then, us if in the 
 
 service, the extemporaneous remark, “ It is calculated that - 
 
 thousand die every day, and -thousand every hour.” ^ Then 
 
 followed the next sentence, then another extemporaneous remark, and 
 so on. The succeeding paragraph, on committing the body to the 
 earth, was read with essential alterations; the Lord’s Prayer was 
 
 *' The missionaries say that, among other denominations, the Lutheran is 
 represented in their Missions. I know of no Lutheran among them. Mr. Schaufl- 
 ler, the only one, I believe, originally a Lutheran, is a minister by Congregational 
 ordination, and, therefore, I take it, a Congregational minister. 
 
 ^ Besides, if it had been desired, there was an Episcopal clergyman there 
 ready to perform it. 
 
 ^ I have forgotten the exact number mentioned. 
 
11 
 
 omitted ; and in place of the last Collects, an extemporaneous prayer, 
 with the book still in hand, was repeated. All this was painful in 
 the extreme, to every English or American Episcopalian present, and 
 showed but too clearly that the Book was not used for the sake of 
 the service. 
 
 Now they are these things which seem to me to show the desire 
 of the missionaries to appear to the Eastern Christians as possessing 
 a certain ecclesiastical character,—a ministry which they, without 
 inquiry, will acknowledge real and valid. And when I said that the 
 missionaries would heartily concur in the sentiment of another of 
 their number, that ‘ he often wished he w^ere an Episcopalian,’ I in¬ 
 tended it in this sense, that they would be glad to have a recognized 
 clerical character, w^hich involves, in an Eastern man’s conception, 
 something Episcopal in being or origin. I did not mean to say that 
 they have any particular desire to be clergymen of the English or 
 ^imerican Episcopal Church.* I fully acquit them of any excessive 
 affection for either. But I did mean to say,—and now repeat from 
 their own acknowledgment,—that they see and feel the importance 
 of an acknowledged clerical character, and that they are unwulling 
 to take the course w^hich will inevitably lead to the discovery of what 
 their present clerical character consists in. 
 
 The testimony which they adduce of an English Episcopal mis¬ 
 sionary, that he acknowledged their superior advantages as Congre- 
 gationalists, does not bear upon the subject. He acknowledged, 
 according to their own showing, not the advantage of non-Episco- 
 pacy, but the advantage of being subjected to no “ canons or rules,” 
 which is quite another matter. The missionaries will not deny that, 
 ceieris paribus, an Episcopally ordained missionary has an advantage 
 among Episcopally constituted Churches. If they do deny it, the 
 common sense of mankind is enough to appeal to for the contrary. 
 Of this advantage I am not disposed to boast. I view it with deep 
 humility and with deep sorrow of heart that my own Church has 
 hitherto so little felt the obligation resulting from it. Let us all use 
 our gifts as the Lord has given to us, with no vain-glorying, but with 
 a fearful sense of our account ableness for them. But I must say, as 
 bearing upon the argument in hand, that since my pamphlet W'as 
 written, I have had the testimony of another Congregational mission¬ 
 ary to the same effect as before,—namely, that the Episcopal Church 
 has, in its Episcopacy, a decided advantage for effort among the 
 Oriental*Churches,—which, I hope, may settle the matter. 
 
 I have been much amused with an argument inserted in the An- 
 
 ^ I did say, and do say, however, that the use of the gown. Prayer Book, sign 
 of the cross, and such like practices, have caused them to be taken for clergymen 
 of one of these Churches; and of this I have given at least two examples in the 
 course of this letter. Two others, at this moment, occur to me, but, for the sake 
 of brevity, I omit them. [ will say, however, that the mistake has been a com¬ 
 mon one, and I could certainly recall, by a slight effort of recollection, many par¬ 
 ticular instances of it. 
 
12 
 
 nual Report of the American Board for 1844, (p. 93,) in which Dr. 
 King, a missionary of that Board in Athens, maintains that, inasmuch 
 as he and, he presumes, his other brethren of the Board hold, with 
 the Eastern Churches, that the Procession of the Holy Ghost is from 
 the Father, while we of the Episcopal Church hold it to be from the 
 Father and the Son, therefore, he and his brethren have the advan¬ 
 tage over us. Suppose an Eastern Christian should inquire of him, 
 ‘ As you accept our dogma on this point, 1 presume you accept the 
 Nicene Creed which contains it V of what particular advantage 
 would it be to acknowledge that he accepted no creeds whatever ? 
 
 I wdll here say, that the lines in my former pamphlet which were 
 printed in staring capitals,” as the missionaries are pleased to call 
 them, were so printed without my knowledge or consent. On the 
 contrary, I was sorry to see it, for it had the effect to draw away at¬ 
 tention from the main argument, and fix it upon a mere incident, 
 which was very casually introduced, and which, I believe, was not in 
 my mind five minutes before I wrote it. I did not intend to draw 
 particular attention to the use of the clerical dress. Prayer Book, &c. 
 by the missionaries; but the good friend to whom I sent the manu¬ 
 script, undertook to make it more conspicuous by doubly underscoring 
 the lines which spoke of it. This has .occasioned a great expenditure 
 of words on what might otherwise have been a very subordinate part 
 of the argument. Let the pamphlet be read without this change, and 
 the whole scope of the argument will be much better understood. 1 
 assure my brethren, that it was none of my doing that they were so 
 unpleasantly affected by these “ staring capitals,” standing out in bold 
 relief, the very “ head and front of my offending.” 
 
 The missionaries talk (p. 16) of “pouring absolute contempt 
 on all formal religions by conforming to all forms, so far as they inno¬ 
 cently can.” But to my humble conception it appears to be doing 
 honor to all, and is so understood, 1 fear, by the formal “ Episcopa¬ 
 lians, Lutherans and French” who observe it. 1 could well understand 
 that the Episcopal dress was contemned, if it were not used ; but it 
 is hard to conceive of its being used out of contempt for it. 1 cannot 
 well imagine what must be the feelings of the missionaries when thus 
 adorned with what they so much despise, nor can 1 conceive what re¬ 
 lief they can have from the oppressive sense of being decked out in 
 “ the littleness of mere forms,” unless it is in the consoling assurance, 
 which they allude to, that they are thus “ gaining the more.” If they 
 “ had been as uncompromising and unaccommodating in regard tc 
 their simplicity of forms as others are in regard to their exuberance,”' 
 they might have lost the satisfaction of such extra “ gains,” but it 
 would have been with the advantage of showung forth their “ sim¬ 
 plicity,” and thus protesting against the formalism which they seem so 
 zealous to overthrow. But I see not with what consistency they adopt 
 forms to cure formalism, unless it is upon some homoeopathic principle 
 of missionary labor; nor how they are going to relieve the “ poor 
 
13 
 
 Eastern Christians” of the enormous weiprht of their forms and 
 ceremonies,” [Reply, p. 8,) if they show themselves so anxious to 
 “ conform to all forms.” A “ missionary whose conscience will permit 
 him to pursue this course, may, indeed, acquire a greater influence over 
 the Bishops and other ecclesiastics of these Churches than a Presby¬ 
 terian and Congregational missionary” (appearing in his ‘‘ simplicity”) 
 can expect to do,” “ but it will obviously be an influence for evil 
 and not for good,” since those Bishops and other ecclesiastics, and 
 laymen too, will be prone to imagine there is some greater virtue in 
 forms than they ever supposed, when they thus see men recommending 
 them to their attention by being willing to adopt any that come to 
 hand, and especially if they know that of themselves they have none 
 at all. “ If these things be done in the green tree, what will be done 
 in the dry ?” If the Presbyterian and Congregational missionaries 
 thus sanction the “ weakness,” as they call it, of our Eastern brethren, 
 what can they expect of me, but that I should so far sanction it as to 
 retain the forms which I use at home ? I do not go beyond the lim¬ 
 its of my Church, to ‘‘ accommodate myself to the great weakness of 
 tnen,” [Reply, p. 16,) while they adopt what their brethren at home 
 preach against and w^rite against without cessation. I use no habit, 
 prayer book, or ceremony, w^hich is not recognized by my own Church, 
 while they exceed all Congregational and Presbyterian bounds, “ by 
 conforming to all forms,” using a Prayer Book which Presbyterians 
 and Congregationalists here will never, I fear, so far “ make themselves 
 our servants” that they may gain us,” as to adopt the use of, and 
 wearing a dress which, in this western world, is often held as no better 
 than a “ rag of Popery.” My brethren have spoken severely, very 
 severely, of me in this pamphlet, as addicted to forms, and they even 
 use the awful language, (p. 44,) that, “ in my mind Episcopacy and 
 a liturgy are far more important than any thing else, even than the 
 precious doctrine of Christ and Him crucified but let me say to 
 thetn, that, in these thin 2 i;s, I stop short of themselves, since I use only 
 what I have, and they adopt what they have not. Let no more, then, 
 be said of my addiction to forms. My use of the characteristics of my 
 Church, as a means of influence and usefulness, finds its highest recom¬ 
 mendation in their example. 
 
 But it seems I not only spoke of their use of the dress and Prayer 
 Book and sign of the cross, but added, “ and other such like practices 
 unknown to Congregationalists at home.” The missionaries are of¬ 
 fended with this, {Reply p. 17.) They say that if I had known of 
 any thing else, I should doubtless have mentioned it, and because I 
 did not mention it, they call in question my “justice, truth, and hon¬ 
 esty.” Now, I am not in the habit of using words wuthout meaning. 
 I think I may safely say this, as the missionaries themselves give me 
 credit for it. They say, (p. 33,) that “ Mr. Southgate is not a hasty 
 man. He acts, usually, with thought and deliberation.” I might 
 have thanked them for the compliment, if it were not introduced to 
 
14 
 
 prove a “ malice prepense.” But, as it is, it may go to show that 
 even in their estimation, I am not likely to engage in wholesale 
 charges,” or to say what I cannot prove. By “such like practices ” 
 I mean, (to take an example,) such things as the observance of our 
 Feasts and Fasts. They are in the habit of keeping, and that by 
 public services for the occasion, Christmas, Good Friday and Easter. 
 There might be some apology for this before the English Church was 
 established in Pera, and when a few English residents attended their 
 worship and could not attend their own. But the same thing has 
 continued since, and an Eastern Christian has once said to me on one 
 of these days, seeing that I was observing it according to our custom 
 at home, “ You have, then, the same holydays with the other mis¬ 
 sionaries, for I have just come from one of their houses,” [Mr. 
 Dwight’s, I believe he said,] “ and they are keeping it also.” This 
 may be counted a second instance in which an Eastern Christian has 
 mistaken their character from their adoption of usages unknown to 
 their people in this country. I call this one of the “ such like prac¬ 
 tices unknown to Congregationalists at home,” and others can be 
 added if this does not suffice. But I have said enough to prove that 1 
 do not speak without knowing what lam about to say, and do not 
 leave things written without considering their nature and their import. 
 I wish to utter no innuendoes, nor to bring “ odium ” upon others by 
 “ indefinite accusations.” 
 
 But let us turn to a more serious the nature of my mission 
 
 and its relations to the operations of the American Board. The mis¬ 
 sionaries have gone into a mass of evidence to prove that my designs 
 and my practice have been hostile to them, and that my views are 
 such as militate against all evangelical efforts for the reviving and pu¬ 
 rifying of the Eastern Churches. Now, of all this I wish to say, that 
 their alleged facts are, in every instance., incorrect, or that they consist 
 of forced and wrong constructions put upon the truth. Let me show it. 
 
 When they talk (p. 8) of my going out in 1840, “ determined to 
 act on the most exclusive high church principles,” they say that of 
 which there is not only no evidence whatever, but which is entirely 
 contrary to truth. Such an idea never entered my mind. During my 
 first visit tc Turkey, and when 1 was on the most kindly terms with 
 them, 1 conceived the idea of using the character of our Church as a 
 means and instrument of usefulness among the Oriental Communions. 
 It never entered my thoughts to oppose others. The plan was 
 formed wffiile I was still in that country and cordially intimate 
 w’ith them, and I viewed it simply as the use of an instrumen¬ 
 tality for the religious welfare of our Eastern brethren,—an instru¬ 
 mentality which the good Providence of God had placed in our hands, 
 and for the use of which we were plainly accountable. My own idea 
 is well expressed in a recent number of the “ Episcopal Protestant,” a 
 journal which cannot be supposed to take “ exclusive ” or peculiarly 
 “ high church ” views on the subject. In its number for December 
 
15 
 
 5th, a correspondent, with whom the Editor seems entirely to concur, 
 thus writes: “ Our own opinion is that the Episcopal Church, from 
 similar organization, does possess peculiar advantages in her efforts 
 among Oriental Christian Bodies, and that if a Missionary Bishop and 
 his Presbyters, understanding and appreciating the Gospel and imbued 
 with its spirit, should approach with trust in and prayer to Christ these 
 benighted souls, they might be, with the divine blessing, most of all, 
 likely to enlist the sympathies of dignitaries, obtain a favorable hear¬ 
 ing, win them to the truth, and ensure a co-operation in the work.” I 
 do not know that my earliest and my present idea could be, on the 
 whole, better stated than in this short paragraph.* • It was with a 
 sim-ple, single desire of henefting spiritually our Eastern brethren, 
 that I conceived and still maintain the necessity and duty of acting 
 honestly and openly in our real character. I believed that it would 
 prove a source of influence, a means of grace, an aid in well-doing. 
 This was the whole of my plan. I made it known to our Foreign 
 Committee, immediately upon my return to the United States in 
 1838, as you may see one evidence in a communication from me, 
 written a few days after my arrival, and published in the “ Spirit of 
 Missions” for February, 1839. I then said, that “ my own observa¬ 
 tions had satisfied me that this was the only plan upon which Missions 
 from the Church of England or of America, to the Churches of the 
 East, should be formed.” The ‘ metamorphosis,’ then, of which the 
 missionaries speak, took place in me in the short space of a few months, 
 while I was coming from Constantinople to America. But the truth is, 
 the idea was entertained, the plan was formed, long before I left Turkey, 
 and while I was still in friendly intercourse with them. When I re¬ 
 turned to Turkey, they objected to it, they have done so ever since, 
 until, going from suspicion to suspicion, from surmise to surmise, from 
 hostility to hostility, they have, at length, brought me into this open 
 controversy with them. 
 
 But now it is begun, the truth must be known. They acknow¬ 
 ledge (p. 6) their objecting to our making known the ‘ forms and cere¬ 
 monies, the church order and government ’ of our Communion. They 
 think it ‘ undesirable.’ But let me ask them, how it can possibly be 
 avoided. An Eastern Christian—let us say, an ecclesiastic—inquires 
 of me, who 1 am, to w'hat Church I belong, and goes on to ask sundry 
 
 ^ I object only to the word “benighted.” Twilight, not midnight, is the 
 metaphor which most justly describes the state of the Eastern Churches, when 
 spoken of collectively. Where I see souls eager for knowledge, holding the faith 
 as it is in Jesus with entire sincerity, though but partially instructed ; where I see 
 men (as I have seen two in Constantinople alone) giving themselves to horrible 
 torture and to an awful death rather than deny that faith ) where I see thousands 
 and tens of thousands holding it in profession, though persecuted, cast down, 
 peeled, and scattered therefor, I cannot say, in strict accuracy of speech, that the 
 darkness of night is justly descriptive of tlieir condition. Oh, when shall we 
 feel that love, and nothing hut love, will prevail to win from error and to build up 
 our brethren in their most holy faith ? 
 
16 
 
 other questions concerning it. Shall I answer him ? If I do, I bring 
 to his view, ‘ forms and ceremonies, church order and government.’ 
 If I do not, he fairly suspects my character and my purpose. But 
 more than this, I find that by announcing myself as of an Episcopal 
 Church, by describing to him its order, its ministry, its ritual, its faith, 
 I gain an important advantage with him, I establish a character, I se¬ 
 cure a degree of confidence, 1 awaken respect, and thus obtain a 
 better opportunity for speaking with him of the interests and duties of 
 religion. One of their brethren says, he thinks he has an advantage 
 in being able to say to an Eastern Christian, that he believes in the 
 Procession from the Father. He thinks that it is a recommendation, 
 a passport to confidence, a means of usefulness. I acknowledge it to 
 be so, so far as it goes, though, in his case, nullified entirely by his 
 rejection of the Creed. And is there no advantage in being able to 
 speak of the Three Orders, the early Creeds, a Liturgy, and fifty other 
 things, as ours ? And if so, am I not to use them for the purpose ? 
 Dr. King actually uses, as I have long since heard, his belief in the 
 Single Procession, as a means of influence; and am 1 not to use the 
 other things mentioned ? This is the w'hole question, and beyond this 
 I intend nothing. 
 
 Again, the missionaries say (p. 18) that we Protestants are all 
 called by the Easterns, without discrimination, ‘ Lutherans, Freema¬ 
 sons and followers of Voltaire,’ the second term (Freemasons) meaning 
 ‘ Infidels,’ in the mouth of an Oriental. Now I acknowledge that such 
 is the case. Our whole Western Christianity is looked upon by those 
 of the Eastern Christians who know nothing about it, that is, by the 
 great mass of them, as a mongrel institution, half Christianity and 
 half Infidelity. But am I to be content with this state of things, so far 
 as I am concerned 1 Am I to have no influence, for evidently I can 
 have none while lying under this imputation? Or am I to show' its 
 untruth by showing who I am ? And if I do this, w’hat is it but to 
 make knowm my Church ? I thank my God, that, wherever I have 
 done it, it has at once given me an influence, and that influence I have 
 endeavored faithfully to use for the present and eternal w^elfare of iny 
 brethren. 
 
 And now, must I forego this ? If not, (and I believe that even 
 these my estranged brethren at Constantinople cannot, with a fair 
 and open conscience, say I ought to forego it,) they at once acknow¬ 
 ledge all that I claim, all that I have ever claimed, all that I desire. 
 Still it is obnoxious to them. Let 'us see why. They say (p. 6) they 
 “ have no hostility to Episcopal missionaries as such.” But they have 
 hostility to them, if they set forth their ‘ forms and ceremonies, church 
 order and government,’ as such. And why this? Because (and this 
 is the beginning and end of our offence) it sets them forth also, inci¬ 
 dentally, as not such, and hence places them at a disadvantage. It 
 makes them known*eventually as non-Episcopalians, as destitute of 
 those things by which we declare ourselves. I am sorry for it: I wish 
 
17 
 
 they were not Congregationalists; I wish they were Episcopalians. 
 But as it is, I see not how the difficulty is to be gotten over, unless 
 they become so, “imitate my example,” as they say, (p. 1*2,) and 
 “ come into the Episcopal fold.” I assure them they shallhe “ readily 
 received,” ‘ as readily as I was,’ if they come with the same convic¬ 
 tions, and nothing will afford me greater pleasure than to aid them in 
 so laudable ‘ a metamorphosis.’ 
 
 But they will say that I have acted in hostility to them. To this 
 point I shall now speak, and I humbly pray that I may have grace to 
 speak with that plainness and sincerity which becomes me. I hope 
 I have said enough already, to show that my Mission in 184G began 
 with no hostility to them. But they refer (p. 19) to the instructior s 
 which I received from the Presiding Bishop, and especially to this 
 passage : “ You may further state to them, [the clergy and people of 
 the Eastern Churches,] that many of those called Protestants, have 
 rejected, and are still so opposed to. Episcopacy and Confirmation and 
 the use of Liturgies, that an intimate fellowship and connection with 
 them is at present impracticable.” Now the missionaries, in arguing 
 upon this, through three whole pages, (pp. 19, 20, 21,) argue upon a 
 palpable misinterpretation.* They take the “ intimate fellowship and 
 connection” alluded to, as referring to a union between them, the mis¬ 
 sionaries of the American Board, and the Oriental Churches, and that 
 we are to instruct the.latter that such a “ connection ” is “ impractica¬ 
 ble,” that is, we are to warn the Eastern Christians against any “ fel¬ 
 lowship or connection” with non-Episcopal missionaries. But the 
 true sense of the passage is entirely different. The Bishop means to 
 say, as is evident on the very face of his language, that an “ intimate 
 fellowship and connection” between ourselves, the American Episco¬ 
 pal Church, and the other Protestants alluded to, is impracticable. 
 The same is plain also from the context; for he goes on to say, after 
 alluding to a fellowship with Rome, as impracticable for other reasons, 
 “ Under such circumstances, our thoughts and affections are particular¬ 
 ly directed and strongly drawn to our brethren of the Eastern Church¬ 
 es,” &c. Now, what is all this but to say that, inasmuch as we can¬ 
 not have “ intimate fellowship and connection” with non-Episcopal, 
 non-Liturgical Protestants on the one hand, nor with Rome on the oth¬ 
 er, our “ thoughts and affections” are ‘ strongly directed’ towards the 
 Eastern Churches ? But the missionaries, by putting another, and en¬ 
 tirely different, construction upon it, and supposing it to refer to a 
 connection between themselves and the Eastern Churches, and far¬ 
 ther taking it for granted, (in that very liberal way of allowing me 
 good qualities for a bad purpose, which I have before alluded 
 to,) that I am obedient to instructions, infer that I Jjiave con- 
 
 ‘ And not only in three whole pages consecutively, but they allude to it in 
 other parts, and in fact the main strength of their pamphletc onsists in arguments 
 based upon their erroneous interpretation of this single passage. All the rest, so 
 far as the proof of hostility is concerned, is rumor and hearsay, taken from natives. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 sequently warned the Eastern Christians to have nothing: to do 
 with them. By removing the false construction, the super¬ 
 structure of their argument falls to the ground ; and although they 
 do mention, by way of hypothesis, on pp. 20,21, a variety of cases, in 
 which the Instructions, according to their interpretation of them, might 
 have been, or may have been, carried out, yet, as they mention them 
 only as hypothetical cases, I will say no more of them than that they 
 are as visionary as their interpretation of the Instructions themselves. 
 If they mean to specify actual cases of such warning given by me to 
 Oriental ecclesiastics or laymen, they must specify them as facts, not 
 as suppositions, I give no innuendoes; I can take none. 
 
 The missionaries, while putting this false interpretation on one 
 passage, entirely omit another in which specif c instructions are given, 
 as to our conduct towards other missionaries. The Presiding Bishop 
 says, “ You will not, we trust, neglect, on all suitable occasions, to 
 urge the vast importance of brotherly kindness and charity. To the 
 standards and institutions of your own Church it will be your duty stead¬ 
 fastly to adhere. Those standards require that you maintain and set 
 forward, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and love among all 
 Christian people f and they do not require that .... or that 
 you should appear in hostile array against Christians of any name ;—• 
 rejoice rather in whatever good they do. Divisions among Protest¬ 
 ants is what, more perhaps than any other thing, has disgraced their 
 cause and obstructed their increase.” This passage was referred to 
 and partly quoted in my “ Vindication,” (p. 20.) The missionaries, 
 in replying to that very pamphlet, omit all allusion to it, and, to make 
 out a proof of hostile design in the Instructions, quote another passage, 
 having no reference to my intercourse with other missionaries, and on 
 that put a false construction. 
 
 The missionaries say, (p. 19,) that when these Instructions were 
 first published, they expressed to Dr. Robertson and myself their dis¬ 
 satisfaction with the passage above quoted, and that we then replied 
 that they‘ must not understand the Bishop literally, that he was an old 
 man and not much acquainted with the business of giving instructions 
 to missionaries,’ &c. Now I am not near enough, at this present writ¬ 
 ing, to my reverend brother Robertson, to consult his memory upon 
 the subject, but I most distinctly recollect that^/m passage was never 
 alluded to between us.‘ There was one passage, in the Instructions 
 of the Foreign Secretary, referred to, and to that we gave what ap¬ 
 peared to be a satisfactory explanation. The only passage in the. 
 Presiding Bishop’s Instructions, which was brought under discussion, 
 was near the commencement, where he says, There is good reason 
 to hope and to believe that the cultivation of Christian fellowship with 
 
 ' Since writing this, I have had the unexpected pleasure of an interwiew with 
 iny respected brother, and find that his recollection accords entirely with mine on 
 this and every other point in the pamphlet, in “which we were mutually con¬ 
 cerned. 
 
19 
 
 our brethren of the Greek and Armenian Churches,” &c. The word 
 Jlrmenian seemed to have startled the missionaries, and they wished 
 to know whether we intended to direct our labors to them also. We 
 replied that we had no such intention at present, and when they refer¬ 
 red to the word in the Instructions, as seeming to include them with 
 the Greeks, we said that the Bishop doubtless was not minutely ac¬ 
 quainted with the designation of our fields, and had used the term in a 
 general way, without any particular thought about it. The Bishop, I 
 may further add, both “ saw” and ‘‘ WTote” the Instructions, every 
 word of them, as his own original draft, now before me, testifies. I 
 believe, too, he was a man who was, of all men, least likely to ‘ pen a 
 passage wuthout a full knowledge of its true import,’ though, doubtless 
 he had not a full knowledge of the imports that others might put upon it. 
 
 I pass now to other matters. The missionaries evidently did not 
 like the principle of our making known our Church, and objected to 
 it on my arrival in Constantinople in 1840. Others also objected to 
 it, among whom were the Secretary of the American Board, (the 
 Rev. Dr. Anderson,) and a missionary of that Board, as stated in my 
 Vindication,” (pp. 18 and 21.) No unpleasant differences, however, 
 followed. Our intercourse was still friendly, though wanting that 
 earnest cordiality which existed when I was a stranger in the land, 
 and engaged in no distinctively Episcopal Mission. No complaint of 
 interference” or “ hostility” was heard until the fall of 1842, when 
 Dr. Robertson had left the Mission, and I was there alone.* Then 
 came the beginning of troubles. I read one day an article in the * 
 Missionary Herald, (the monthly publication of the American Board,) 
 to an Armenian, whom I had supposed friendly to the labors of the 
 missionaries, although I knew that he disapproved of certain of their 
 inodes of effort on the ground of expediency. He had always spoken 
 kindly of them and of their work, and had been much under their 
 instruction. The article excited him intensely, because it spoke of 
 the desirableness of a schism in the Armenian Church, to which he, 
 it seems^ was much opposed. I read it to him merely for the sake of 
 learning his opinion as to the designs of the missionaries in this re¬ 
 spect, and strictly forbad its going farther than to another Armenian, 
 now in’this country, and who was then, and had long been, a fellow- 
 worker and most intimate friend of the missionaries. To him I allow¬ 
 ed it to be mentioned, for the sake of gaining farther information, and 
 particularly because I knew that he would speak of it to the mission¬ 
 aries, and receive doubtless some explanation upon the subject, i 
 evidently could not question them as to their designs and operations. 
 
 ^ Early in 1842, and after I had been, since my return frem America, a year 
 and a half in the field, it was announced to Dr. Robertson and myself, by letters 
 from the United States^ that complaints were ^/lerc made of our interfering with the 
 missionaries of the American Board. We immediately requested a conference 
 with them, and inquired whether they had any such complaints to make. They 
 (Messrs. Goodell and Dwight being present) replied that they had not, but ob¬ 
 jected, as they had formerly done, to the Episcopal features of our mission. 
 
20 
 
 But the article went farther, and, without my knowledge and entirely 
 against my wish, w^as made known among the few Armenians who 
 had been, or were, immediately connected with the missionaries. A 
 considerable excitement was the consequence. I told the missionaries, 
 w^hen they brought the matter to my attention, that I had no thought 
 of doing injury to them in reading the article, that it had gone abroad 
 much to my regret; and I cheerfully consented to do all in my power 
 to arrest its evil effects.^ This I did by seeing the Armenians who 
 were excited by it, conveying to them the explanation of the mission¬ 
 aries, as it was given to me, and earnestly and sincerely entreating 
 them to let the whole matter pass by. This I persuaded them to do, 
 but they insisted upon the suspension of a certain meeting held by the 
 missionaries in one of their houses, for the Armenians; saying that 
 they had long feared its tendencies, lest it might lead to schism.^ I 
 ascertained, however, from them, that their objections to this meeting 
 were of long standing, and had nothing to do with the article in the 
 Herald, that they had existed months before that article was made 
 known to them. I declined, therefore, to enter into any questions 
 relating to the meeting, as that was a matter between themselves and 
 the missionaries. I merely insisted that no action with reference to 
 it, should be based upon the article in the Herald ; to which they all 
 agreed, and promised accordingly that the article should he as though 
 it never had been written. Here I supposed my agency ceased. I 
 had read an article in the Herald to an Armenian; it had, much to 
 my regret, gone abroad; when informed by the missionaries that it 
 was doing them injury, I acted at once upon my principle of not in¬ 
 terfering with their work, and promptly repaired the injury. The 
 meeting referred to, I afterwards heard, had been suspended, and, after 
 the lapse of two or three weeks, opened again. But with this I had 
 nothing to do. I supposed that every thing between me and the 
 missionaries had been fully settled. No allusion was ever afterward 
 made to the matter among us. I believed it to be entirely past, 
 arranged, and done Avith, and my thoughts recurred to other things. 
 
 ^ I expressly told the missionaries, that if I had wished to injure them by the 
 article, 1 should not have shown it to a private person, and forbidden him to men¬ 
 tion it to otliers, but should have exhibited it in a very diflererit quarter : meaning 
 to the Patriarch, How can they suppose that I had any design of opposing them 
 by it, when it would be perfectly easy, by laying the Herald before the Heads of 
 the Armenian Church, most seriously to injure, if not to overthrow, their mis¬ 
 sion ? 
 
 2 This was the first allusion ever made to the meeting, between me and the 
 Armenians themselves. There was not a word in the article concerning it, but 
 they took occasion of the excitement arising upon that article, to bring forward a 
 matter to which they had long objected. I did not approve the meeting. 1 
 thought its tendency dangerous, and that other modes of effort might be better 
 adopted. I told the Armenians, therefore, upon their first mention of it, that it 
 was a question between them and the missionaries, and I could have nothing to 
 do with it. I said, however, not one word against the meeting. Could I carry 
 the principle of non-interference farther than this.^ If I had approved the meet¬ 
 ing, I would have defended it. Not approving, I remained silent. 
 
21 
 
 At the close of the conference, when I promised to see the Armenians 
 and repair the evil done, we parted with the utmost cordiality. One 
 remarked, I remember, how much better it was thus to have a free 
 explanation, than to suffer things to rankle in secret,—to which ap¬ 
 parently all assented. I understood them at that time to say that 
 they did not think my reasons for reading the article were sufficient, 
 but that they believed my word that I had no hostile intentions to¬ 
 wards them in reading it, and all appeared to be satisfied with iny 
 prompt agreement to repair the injury. So the matter ended. I 
 walked home with two of the missionaries, conversing on other topics, 
 in the most friendly manner. The next day I saw the Armenians, as 
 I have related, and thereafter, excepting a slight allusion to it by one 
 of them, not a word passed betw’een me and the missionaries on the 
 subject. I thought and believed fully that it was a dead matter. 
 
 All this occurred in the fall of 1842. The next spring, an Eng¬ 
 lish friend told me that he had heard another missionary of the Amer¬ 
 ican Board, in another place, mention my having shown an article 
 in the Herald to an Armenian. I expressed my surprise to my friend, 
 that the missionary had not also related how the matter was settled. 
 It never crossed my mind to imagine that the missionary, or any body 
 else, still regarded it as unsettled. 
 
 In the summer of 1843, the Rev. Mr. Purdy, a clergyman of our 
 Church, visited Constantinople. Having been a classmate of one of 
 the missionaries, he was much with them. In this way, he heard of 
 many things, and I learned from him that the missionaries W’ere not 
 very cordial towards my Mission. This I knew very well. They did 
 not like ray work. They had expressed their aversion to it on its first 
 commencement, in 1840, and I had never seen reason since to suppose 
 that their feelings or opinions had changed. 1 also did not approve 
 all their operations, and I had freely told them, in the conference of 
 the preceding fall, wffiat I regarded as deleterious and dangerous in 
 their wmrk. But Mr. Purdy did not allude to any matters of com¬ 
 plaint ‘as existing among them, on account of any hostility or interfe¬ 
 rence on my part wdth their labors. He barely referred, (and that I 
 believe in answer to a question from myself whether any allusion 
 had been made to the affair of last fall,) to the fact of one of them 
 having mentioned it; but I did not understand from Mr. P., that they 
 did not regard it as entirely settled. In the full confidence of such a 
 result, I continued until the winter of that year, more than one year 
 after the event occurred. There then arrived at Constantinople an 
 account of the Annual Meeting of the American Board, at Rochester, 
 in September 1843. In that account appeared a statement, made at 
 the meeting by Dr. Anderson, a Secretary of the Board, in W'hich, 
 after alluding to another individual, he referred to me as ‘ co-operating 
 with—or rather perhaps using—that individual to bring round .that 
 state of things which resulted in shutting up Mr. DwdghPs church, 
 and in driving Hohannes, his devoted Christian assistant, to this coun- 
 
22 
 
 try,’ and subsequently he added, in reply to a question, that I, calling 
 me by name, ‘ had co-operated with that individual in all the opposi¬ 
 tion made to the missionary operations of the Board, and had, as far 
 as my influence had gone, coincided with the Papal missionaries.’ 
 The extract containing this, was copied for me by Mr. Homes, one 
 of the missionaries at Constantinople, and handed to me by him, with 
 the remark, that he ‘ did not know where Dr. Anderson could have got 
 his information.’ This was the first account that I received of it, 
 excepting that Mr. Homes had informed me, a few days previously, 
 that such a thing had appeared, and kindly promised to copy it for 
 me from the ‘‘ Evangelist,” as his copy of the paper belonged to 
 another. 
 
 Immediately after the appearance of the article in America, the 
 Rev. Mr. Irving, Secretary to our Foreign Committee, addressed a 
 letter to Dr. Anderson, under date of Oct. 5,1843, requesting to know 
 whether it was a correct report, and if so, upon what grounds Dr. A. 
 had felt it his duty to bring so grave an accusation.’ Dr. A. replied, 
 under date of Oct. 7, giving his own report of his remarks at the 
 meeting of the Board, which accorded substantially with the newspa¬ 
 per report, with the exception that he ‘ did not think he made any 
 reference to Papal missionaries while speaking of me.’ The whole 
 correspondence appears in the Preface to the missionaries’ Letter, to 
 which I am now replying. In answer to the question concerning his 
 authority for the accusation. Dr. A. replied, that ‘ mere newspaper 
 reports could not make it proper for his Society to go into a formal 
 inculpation of me.’ Is not this most extraordinary language ? He had 
 publicly said things of the most serious character against me. When 
 asked if they were correctly reported, he gives a report which contains, 
 in the main, the same charges. And when asked for his authority, 
 evades the question by referring back to the newspaper report. Is 
 not this, to say the least of it, extraordinary indeed ? 
 
 A copy of this correspondence was sent to me by Mr. Irving, who 
 referred it to my own judgment to decide whether any farther mea¬ 
 sures were called for. The whole matter had filled me wfith astonish¬ 
 ment. I knew not what to think. I could not imagine from what 
 source Dr. Anderson had derived his information, upon what authority 
 he made the charges. My mind turned to the missionaries, but it 
 seemed to me utterly impossible that they could have written any¬ 
 thing upon which Dr. A. could base such a statement; and the re¬ 
 mark of Mr. Homes to me, made it clear that nothing of the kind had 
 gone from them. I finally settled down into the impression that as 
 Hohannes, the person referred to in the statement, had gone to Ame¬ 
 rica, he must have made some report to Dr. Anderson, which he, Dr. 
 A., had incautiously used in public. Here also there was a difficulty, 
 for Dr. A. must also have had reports of the whole matter from the 
 missionaries, and if those reports spoke the truth, and the whole truth, 
 Dr. A. could never have based his statements on them, nor could he, 
 
23 
 
 unless most inexcusably, have taken and made public a different 
 report from another individual. I was indeed sorely perplexed, but 
 eventually thought it most probable that Dr. Anderson had allowed 
 himself to adopt some story of Hohannes, and throw it upon the world. 
 When Mr. Irving’s letter arrived, and I saw that Dr. Anderson re¬ 
 fused to give his authority, I determined to sift the matter to the bot¬ 
 tom, and for this purpose I began by addressing the following letter 
 to the missionaries, hoping, by their answer, to get some clue to the 
 mystery. 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 Pera, Dec. 4, 1843. 
 
 To the Rev. Wm. Goodell, (for]tIie Mission of the A. B. C, F. M., Constantinople.) 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir:— 
 
 You have doubtless seen a report of the proceedings of the A. B. 
 C. F. M., (under which you and your associates in, this city are acting,) 
 at their late Annual Meeting in Rochester, N. Y., which report is 
 contained in the N. Y. Evangelist of Sept. 21, and you have doubt¬ 
 less read the remarks of Dr. Anderson, the Secretary of the Board, at 
 that meeting, in which (as reported by the Evangelist) he said, men¬ 
 tioning me by name, that I had ‘ co-operated with the Rev. Mr. Badger 
 in all the opposition made to the missionary operations of the Board, 
 and had, as far as my influence has gone, coincided with the Papal 
 missionaries.’ 
 
 Upon the appearance of this report in the Evangelist, the Rev. 
 Pierre P. Irving, Secretary of the Foreign Committee of the Protest¬ 
 ant Episcopal Church, under which I am acting, wrote to Dr. Ander¬ 
 son,'asking him whether the report was correct, and if so, upon what 
 authority the charges were made. 
 
 Dr. Anderson replied on the 7th Oct., in a letter of which Mr. 
 Irving has sent me a copy. In this letter. Dr. Anderson says: 
 
 “ In my remarks concerning Mr. Badger, wh»;ch were made in 
 reply to a call for information with respect to his proceedings, I in¬ 
 timated an opinion that in the interference with our labors at Constan¬ 
 tinople, he was not the principal agent. 
 
 “Dr. Tappan of Maine desired to know to what other adverse 
 influence I referred. 
 
 “To this, as nearly as I can recollect, I replied, that as no harm 
 could come from the truth, I would frankly say, that I referred to the 
 Rev. Mr. Southgate, a missionary from the Episcopal Church of this 
 country. Mr. Southgate had unhappily adopted such views of his 
 duty, that he felt himself at liberty to co-operate with Mr. Badger 
 while Mr. B. was at Constantinople, and had acted in opposition to 
 our missionaries, and, as we had reason to believe, was the chief 
 cause of the hostile movement which had constrained Mr. Dwight to 
 
24 
 
 suspend for a season his meeting for preaching, and had led Mr. Ho- 
 hannes, (then present,) to come to this country.” 
 
 Dr. Anderson adds, that he does not think he made any reference 
 to Papal missionaries when speaking of me. 
 
 This report of Dr. Anderson’s remarks from his own hand, renders 
 it unnecessary to make any farther allusion to the report contained in 
 the Evangelist. 
 
 Referring, then, to Dr. Anderson’s remarks as reported by himself, 
 the question arises, “ Whence had he the information upon which he 
 based them It must, of course, have come originally from Constan¬ 
 tinople, since the statement made refers wholly to this place, and to 
 myself as resident here, and you—the members of the mission—are 
 the missionaries of the Board in this city and the persons concerned 
 in the remarks that were made. I have been at a loss, however, to 
 imagine how the information could come from you, because I had 
 supposed that the result of our conference more than a year ago was 
 such as to preclude such a charge being made by any of you at that 
 time, and I have since had no intimation of opposition, from you. 
 
 It is necessary, however, for the clearing up of the matter, that I 
 should ascertain distinctly whether the charges contained in those 
 remarks come from any member of your Mission. These charges are 
 three: 1. That I have co-operated with Mr. Badger, meaning, of 
 course, in opposition to your operations, since no other co-operation 
 could be a subject of complaint with the Board. 2. That I have 
 acted in opposition to you—the missionaries of the Board. 3. That 
 I was the chief cause of the hostile movement which led to the sus¬ 
 pension of Mr. Dwight’s meeting. 
 
 ^I ask now, whether these charges have been or are preferred by 
 your Mission or members of your Mission in this city—and if so, upon 
 what grounds they are based. 
 
 I make this request for information in the formal performance of 
 duty, and not because I any way doubt that the answer will be such 
 as will allow, what I sincerely desire and pray for, the maintenance 
 of peace between myself and missionaries of other denominations. 
 
 I am, Rev. and dear Sir, yours very sincerely, 
 
 (Signed,) Horatio Southgate. 
 
 After a week’s delay, the following answer was returned. 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 Pera, Constantinople, Dec. 12, 1843. 
 
 Rev. Horatio Southgate, 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 At the meeting of the members of this station of the A. B. C. F. 
 M., appointed to be held this afternoon, your letter dated Dec. 4, 
 addressed to us through the Rev. Mr. Goodell, was read. In this 
 
25 
 
 letter, after having referred us to charges concerning yourself made 
 by Rev. Dr. Anderson, Sec. of the A. B. C. F. M., at the last annual 
 meeting of that Board, you add that you wish “ to ascertain distinctly 
 whether the charges contained in those remarks were from any mem¬ 
 ber of our Mission.” 
 
 As Scribe of the station, I have been instructed to communicate to 
 you, that w’e see no propriety in its being implied or supposed, that we 
 are responsible for the charges made, or opinions expressed by others, 
 neither do we feel at liberty to enter into any explanation upon the 
 subject ,—until we are referred to by them as one of the sources of any 
 part of their information;—and that, in that event, w’e would freely 
 and willingly make all the exposition that the necessities of the case 
 might require. 
 
 It must be obvious that in every thing that concerns the relations 
 of missionaries in these days, the means that the officers of the Boards 
 of Missions possess, for both written and verbal communications with 
 individuals in various situations, are numerous. We think, therefore, 
 that as the Secretary of our Board has been requested by the Secretary 
 of the Episcopal Board, to say “ upon what authority the charges 
 were made,” we are justified in leaving it to him to answer the same, 
 if he has not already done so. 
 
 I have been requested also to add farther, that as regards what you 
 say “you had supposed as the results of our conference,” held a year 
 since, that several of our number expressly stated to you at the time, 
 that we w^ere not satisfied with the explanations which you then made 
 as to your course. 
 
 Praying for the maintenance of peace between ourselves and mis¬ 
 sionaries of other denominations, and also for Christian fellowship in 
 our aims and labors, 
 
 I am. Rev. and dear Sir, (in behalf of the Station,) 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 (Signed,) H. A. Homes, Scribe. 
 
 I can truly say that I was more grieved than vexed at this answer. 
 It betrayed a wmnt of ingenuousness which I was sorry to see. I had 
 not believed that the report on which the charges were based, had 
 gone from these missionaries. It did not seem possible. But if not 
 from them, why had they not plainly cltnied it? On the other hand, 
 by declining to be held responsible for them, and intimating that they 
 could come from other sources, it still appeared very doubtful whether 
 they w’ere indeed the authors of them. 
 
 I answered this letter ; they replied ; and I answered again ; and 
 there the correspondence terminated. As it is not material to the 
 course of my narrative, I have thrown these last three letters together 
 into an Appendix, to which I beg to refer you. You will there see 
 that no satisfaction was offered me as to the authorship of the charges, 
 and that the correspondence turned mainly upon the results of our for- 
 
26 
 
 mer conference. Thus I remained in the dark, as to the source of the 
 accusations, until a few weeks ago, when, on looking over the reply 
 of the missionaries to my Vindication,” which reply I am now an¬ 
 swering, I found, in the Appendix, a letter from the missionaries to 
 their Secretary, dated Dec. 1, 1842, nearly two months after our con¬ 
 ference, after every thing had been, to my fullest conviction, perfectly 
 settled, and Mr. Dwight’s meeting had been closed and opened again. 
 In this letter, so far from expressing any satisfaction, they blacken my 
 character in every possible way, by doubting my word, misrepresent¬ 
 ing my actions, impeaching my motives, and imputing to me doings 
 which I now hear of for the first time. And how has^this letter come 
 out ? Why, it seems from the Preface to the missionaries’ Reply, that 
 when my Vindication was sent to them, the copy was deficient in the 
 latter part, in which I give a full account of the article in the Her¬ 
 ald, the reading of it, and the settlement of the whole matter. As this 
 part was wanting when the missionaries replied, they could not an¬ 
 swer it. An answer is, therefore, furnished by the Editor, who ob¬ 
 tains, from the Secretary of the American Board, this letter, written 
 by the missionaries after the events occurred, and inserts it in the Ap¬ 
 pendix as the reply to that portion of my pamphlet which was want¬ 
 ing. Thus the whole comes out, and it now appears whence Dr. An¬ 
 derson had his information when he assailed me in September, 1843, 
 at the meeting of the Board. It was the missionaries themselves who 
 gave this utterly distorted, erroneous, and deeply prejudiced account of 
 the reading of the article in the Herald, our conference, and my own 
 proceedings thereupon. And when they wrote to me, as above-quot¬ 
 ed, a year afterwards, declining to be held responsible for any thing 
 for which they were not referred to as authors, and indicating that in 
 other modes such information might reach the Secretary, they knew 
 at the moment that the accusations came altogether from them. And 
 here they are,—the first certain intimation that I have had, whence 
 they came,—contained in a letter written by the missionaries them¬ 
 selves, shortly after the events transpired. If it had been declared to 
 me at the time, that such a letter had been written, I should have been 
 almost as ready to believe that the sun were shining at midnight, as 
 to credit the declaration, unless confirmed by them. It is one of the 
 most astonishing things in the whole history of my intercourse with 
 men.—But I forbear. I do not wish to speak harshly or unkindly. 
 But henceforth I forsake controversy, and retire into the quietness of 
 my own labors in the service of God. Did I dream, has it entered my 
 mind to imagine, during the kind and courteous intercourse that I 
 had with the missionaries in the year following Dec. 1, 1842, that 
 such a letter had ever been written ? I would not have believed it 
 possible. But I forgive them, from my heart I forgive them : only let 
 us cease from controversy. 
 
 But to return to the letter—the letter of Dec. 1, 1842—the letter 
 containing that sad perversion of the whole truth relating to the affair 
 
27 
 
 with the Armenians. Mark the results which have flowed from it. 
 What are they 1 The missionaries write it to Dr. Anderson. The 
 next year, Sept. 1843, he bases upon it an open assault upon me. 
 This is published in the papers. Immediately the whole Tso called) 
 religious press is alive with it. A common onset is made upon the 
 Episcopal Church and its Missions. Old Instructions are raked up, 
 and made to live again in new meanings. The story of theNestorian 
 massacre, as brought about by us, is invented. It is preached about in 
 pulpits, and told through the land. I am instructed to reply to these 
 things. I do it in my recent “ Vindication.” And now the mission¬ 
 aries appear with a ‘ Reply to my Charges !’ If this is not the most 
 remarkable instance of jumping out of the name of accuser into that 
 of defendant, I know not where we shall look for its parallel. 
 
 But to the letter itself, {Reply, pp. 31 et seq.) It would seem 
 that after my promise to acquaint the Armenians with the missionaries’ 
 explanation of the article in the Herald, and to prevent any evil arising 
 from it, they (the missionaries) were led to suspect that I was playing 
 false. And on what ground did they suspect it ? Why, they heard 
 that I was ^ commending the spirit ’ of the men who had most violent¬ 
 ly opposed them on the ground of that article, that I was ‘ in frequent 
 intercourse’ with them, and that I conveyed to them a false report of 
 what was said at our conference. {Reply, p. 33.) Now if the mis¬ 
 sionaries, instead of entertaining these suspicions upon mere native 
 hearsay, had come again to me, I could at once have satisfied them 
 on all these points. I did not commend the violent spirit of those Ar¬ 
 menians, but rebuked it plainly, in my interview with them, the next 
 day after the conference with the missionaries, and endeavored most 
 earnestly to soothe and quiet them. I commended only one thing, 
 and that was their general views with regard to the evils of schism in 
 their Church, but at the same time made known to them, in the fullest 
 and plainest manner, the declaration of the missionaries, that they had 
 no intention of creating a schism, and entreated them to believe it. I 
 was not ‘ in frequent intercourse’ with them afterwards, but on the con¬ 
 trary, when the matter was once settled, my intercourse ceased entirely 
 with all but one of them, and with him I made it a settled rule not to 
 converse upon the past or the doings of the missionaries at all, so much 
 so, that I do not believe the subject was talked upon once for a whole 
 year afterwards. Whenever he referred to the missionaries, and be¬ 
 gan to speak severely of them, I uniformly checked him at once, and 
 told him plainly that I would have nothing to do with any hostilities to 
 them. By pursuing this course with the other of the two referred to 
 by the missionaries as the most bitter against them, I estranged him 
 from me entirely, so that, excepting one or two formal and cold visits 
 from him, I saw nothing of him for a year afterwards, and then only 
 because Dr. Anderson’s attack upon me made it necessary forme to go 
 to him to learn his recollection of the settlement of the matter about 
 the article in the Herald. Since that time, my acquaintance with him 
 
28 
 
 has been perfectly free, and probably will so remain. Dr. Anderson’s 
 attack has brought me to the determination to have no reference what¬ 
 ever to the missionaries, in my intercourse with Armenians. I mean 
 to say, that I will not avoid a man’s acquaintance merely because he 
 is hostile to the missionaries. 
 
 This, however, I did, for the whole year following the amicable 
 settlement of our affairs in the conference of October, 1842. I actu¬ 
 ally declined forming acquaintance with Armenians who requested 
 an introduction to me,—on the ground of their being hostile to the 
 missionaries of the American Board. Soon after the conference, I 
 was informed by an Armenian, that copies of the Herald were in the 
 hands of another, who had for a long time had them in possession, and 
 that he intended to show them to the Patriarch. I interposed to pre¬ 
 vent it, and, through my informant, who refused to give me the name 
 of the individual, succeeded in preventing it. Who the person was, 
 or where he obtained those copies of the Herald, I know no more 
 than the missionaries themselves. They, however, know that such 
 copies are to be found in Constantinople, for the Roman Catholics 
 have lately quoted largely from the Herald, in two or three pam¬ 
 phlets which they have issued against the missionaries. Certainly 
 no copy nor part of a copy has ever gone from my hands or 
 from my possession, into the hands of any man in those countries. 
 Furthermore, not long after our conference, it came to my know¬ 
 ledge that a conspiracy of a very formidable character was form¬ 
 ing against the missionaries, among influential Armenians. I took 
 occasion immediately to say to one of them, that if it was not at 
 once abandoned, I would appear in open opposition to it, and that 
 I felt sure that my influence with the ecclesiastics was sufficient to 
 crush it. I finally succeeded in dissuading this person from it, and 
 in inducing him to use his efforts to prevent it, in which I believe 
 he succeeded, for I heard no more of the conspiracy. On another 
 occasion, I was in need of a translator, and it was intimated to me 
 that one in the service of the missionaries wished to leave them. I 
 not only refused to employ him, but forbad my informant to men¬ 
 tion to him that I was in want of a translator, lest this might 
 induce him to leave with the hope of entering my service.* So 
 scrupulous was I to avoid even the appearance of interfering with 
 the affairs of the missionaries. On another occasion, another trans¬ 
 lator of theirs, (Panayotes,) not only came to me and desired to 
 enter my service, but for weeks continued to importune me. I de- 
 
 ^ I afterwards engaged his services, and he was with me three days in a 
 week, for six months before Dr. Anderson’s attack reached Constantinople. 
 During all this time, though we were most familiarly together, and conversing on 
 every variety of topic, he did not hear me utter a single word against the mission¬ 
 aries ; while he did hear me speak of them, again and again, in terms of sincere 
 kindness and affection. I engaged his services after he had left the employment 
 of the missionaries, (which he did on account of some inconveniences in the ar¬ 
 rangement of his work,) and when he was seeking for other business. 
 
29 
 
 dined his offer, in part on the express ground, as stated to him, that 
 the missionaries might think 1 had enticed him away ; and I did not 
 wish even the suspicion of such a thing to exist. I advised him, 
 therefore, to remain with them. And now this same individual 
 is brought forward as having reported to them various things as said 
 by me, indicative of opposition to them. The truth is, that after my 
 repeated rejection of his services, he ceased almost entirely to visit 
 me,—an event for w^hich I was sincerely glad, as it relieved me of 
 his importunities. Is it possible that he has requited me by bearing 
 to the missionaries tales, which they unhappily w’ere but too ready 
 to receive ? Every one of them is a gross misstatement, and only 
 one appears to me w’orthy of notice. It seems [Reply, p. 38,) that 
 this Greek friend reported to them that I had pronounced ‘ some of 
 their books very pernicious,’ and one in particular, on justification by 
 faith. 'Now this last was the only one of their books which 1 ever 
 objected to, in conversation with this Greek ; and concerning this, I 
 found no objection to any thing in it on justification by faith, but 
 only to a single passage relating to works, in which passage the duty 
 of good works seemed to be positively denied. I told the Greek that, 
 while faith alone saves, it must be a living faith, producing good 
 fruits to the glory of God. If he made any other representation of 
 my remark, he misrepresented it. The tract, I am now informed, has 
 been altered in a subsequent edition, so as to avoid the very excep¬ 
 tionable mode of statement in the first. 
 
 It wmuld be worse than in vain, to go through all the surmises and 
 rumors and false constructions, on which the missionaries, in the two 
 or three letters in their Appendix, which have been introduced by the 
 Editor, from the files of the American Board, endeavor to make out 
 a case of hostility. They are all as easily explained and set aside as 
 that just given, in which, by the way, the missionaries pretend to find 
 a design of turning the Greek away from them, whereas, I had not 
 only refused to take him out of their employment, but had advised him 
 to remain in it, and in mentioning to him the passage just referred to, 
 did it for the express purpose of inducing him to use his influence with 
 the missionaries to prevent such statements. And that same Greek 
 can, if he will, testify wdth how much kindness and tenderness I ever 
 spoke to him of the missionaries themselves. 
 
 The missionaries farther doubted, whether I had been sincere with 
 them in the promise made at the conference, because one of the Ar¬ 
 menians subsequently told them, that in excusing the article in the 
 Herald, I stated that the missionaries ‘were sorry for it, and had 
 written it under excitement and passion.’ Now, Mr. Dwight, the 
 author of the article, did say to me, at the conference, that the article 
 was written ‘ under exciting circumstances,’ and added, ‘ I would not 
 write such an article now;’ and Mr. Goodell said that, ‘ if strictly 
 weighed, there were some things in it that looked objectionable.’ 
 This I said to the Armenians, and urged it sincerely as a reason for 
 
30 
 
 not judging the article severely. Furthermore, the Armenian, it seems, 
 said that certain portions of the article, which appeared contrary to the 
 idea of a schism by the missionaries themselves, 1 did not read ; and 
 the missionaries, hearing this subsequently to the conference, went 
 back to their Ibrmer impression, that I had read it for the purpose of 
 injuring them. Now, again, if the Armenian said this, he told a false¬ 
 hood, for I did read those portions of the article distinctly, and 
 remember it well to this day, particularly from the circumstance of 
 our stopping and conversing about them. Besides, this Armenian 
 who is reported as saying that I did not read those pans, must have 
 been the one to whom the article was read. Now this same individ¬ 
 ual came to me after the interview with one of the missionaries in 
 which these parts were pointed out to him, and, instead of telling me 
 that any such portions were shown him, informed me that the mission¬ 
 ary (Mr. D.) declared that there was nothing about schism in the ar¬ 
 ticle, that he then proposed to Mr. D. to have the whole translated 
 into Armenian, and Mr. D. demurred. What now does all this show, 
 but the injustice of taking native reports, to contradict my pledged 
 W'ord 1 I told the missionaries that I w^ould do my best to prevent any 
 injury from the article. Accordingly I did go to the excited Arme¬ 
 nians, and did most sincerely, solemnly and faithfully urge them to 
 regard it as if it had never been written, and to believe the word of 
 the missionaries, that they did not intend a schism. I succeeded with 
 them entirely, as it appeared to me. I supposed the whole matter 
 settled and the missionaries satisfied. But they, taking up these false 
 reports from natives, deemed them sufficient to overthrow my word, 
 and wrote this letter to their secretary, misinterpreting every thing, 
 and throwing every blame that a perverted construction could devise, 
 upon me. He, the secretary, thought this sufficient ground to assail 
 me upon, at the next annual meeting of the Board, and from that 
 followed all this controversy. 
 
 And now, am I to be blamed for it ? He who knoweth all things 
 knows with wffiat sincerity I labored to efface from the minds of the 
 Armenians, every evil impression that had arisen from the article, and 
 how thereafter I kept myself, with the most diligent caution, aloof 
 from every thing that might, in any w-ay, be interpreted as interfe¬ 
 rence with the missionaries of the Board. Oh, they have utterly 
 misread my heart when they wrote that letter to the Secretary. But 
 it was written; and now the consequence is, that since the attack of 
 Dr. Anderson, they have placed me in a position which otherwise I 
 might never have occupied.^ It is not a position of hostility, but of 
 indifference. My work will go on, as if their owm did not exist. No 
 one is to be avoided because he is their enemy, nor wfill his acquaint¬ 
 ance be received for any such reason. The full agency of my Church 
 
 * Various things said by the missionaries in their pamphlet, refer to a date 
 later than thatofDr. A.’s attack. But let me remind them, that nothing subsequent 
 to that date can be allowed to enter into the accounts that we are now settling. 
 
 C 
 
31 
 
 will be carried out, as if they were not in the field. Controversy 
 must cease here. My appointed work must be done, without any 
 reference to theirs. 1 have hitherto worked in chains, from an over¬ 
 sensitive desire to avoid even the appearance of oflfence. I have 
 now’ no such desire, nor do I desire to give offence. Past experience 
 has taught me that it may be taken without being given. For such 
 taking 1 give myself no uneasiness. My work will go steadily for¬ 
 ward without regard to evil surmises or evil reports. They cannot 
 affect it in my own Church ; and beyond that, I must cease to give 
 myself any concern. Kindness and gentleness, forbearance and love, 
 wull, I hope, mark its course. Sure I am, it shall not be disgraced by 
 unfair dealings or by evil speaking. It shall not be engaged in any 
 warfare with the Missions of the American Board. It shall do its 
 ow’n w’ork, wdth its owm means, and in its own w^ay; and others, 
 doubtless, will do the same with theirs. 
 
 I am, my dear friend, yours most sincerely, 
 
 Horatio Southgate. 
 
 JVeW’York, Jan. 1, 1845. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I have already said that I would not go into the explanation of all 
 the minute particulars, in the way of surmises, wrong constructions 
 and false inferences, with which the Reply of the missionaries, and 
 still more their private letters to their Secretary, now first brought to 
 light in the shape of an Appendix to that Reply, abound. They 
 serve to show" in how sensitive and suspicious a state of mind, they 
 have viewed my acts and interpreted my motives. I cannot think that 
 such things call for a reply. I have explained enough of them in my 
 Letter, to show’ how unfounded they are, and farther than this I can 
 hardly make up my mind to give them serious attention. They are 
 swept aw’ay and disproved by the whole scope of the argument; for 
 if what I have said be true, they are necessarily false. Yet you think 
 that there remain a few, that it may be worth while to notice, rather 
 because other w"rong inferences may be made from my silence, than 
 because they are of any real weight in themselves. I w"ill, therefore, 
 set aside tw’o or three more of them, and there wull then remain, I be¬ 
 lieve, nothing which any candid person can think deserving of an an¬ 
 swer. 
 
 The first which I notice, is on p. 11. The missionaries there say, 
 that I ‘ told a pious native friend of theirs, that I sometimes go to the 
 Greek Church, and make the sign of the cross, and perform the other 
 ceremonies as the Greeks do .’—The Italics belong to the mission¬ 
 aries.—Again, on the same page, they say that ‘they have been in- * 
 formed more than once, by the individuals to whom I gave the advice, 
 that_I have instructed the people to obey their bishops in every thing, 
 
32 
 
 even when coinmanded to bow down before 'pictures^ and pray through 
 the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the Saints.’ Here, again, 
 the italics belong to the missionaries, unless they are the work of 
 some friendly editor, who omitted to put them into “ staring capitals,” 
 and so to make a “ clinching argument” of jt, as the missionaries say 
 mine were intended to be.—But what is it to “ perform the ceremonies 
 just as the Greeks do?” It is, when you, enter a Church, to buy a 
 taper at the door, and light it, and attach it before some picture. It 
 is to bow down before the picture, cross yourself before it, and kiss it, 
 —and this you may continue to do, bowing, crossing, and kissing, for 
 five minutes, or a quarter of an hour. I do not say that all the Greeks 
 do this, but the mass of uninstructed Greeks undoubtedly do. I have 
 seen hundreds, however, who do it not at all, and I seldom or never 
 saw a Greek clergyman do it. However, this, speaking in general, 
 is ‘ performing the ceremonies as the Greeks do.’ Now, of course, 
 the missionaries believe that I do this. True, I am a clergyman of a 
 Protestant Church. True, I receive the Thirty Nine Articles, and the 
 tw'enty-secoiid among the rest. True, I glory in the English Reform¬ 
 ation. But what is all this against the testimony of “ a pious native 
 friend V’ True, they never saw me do it; nor do they pretend that 
 any body else ever saw me do it, not even their “ pious native friend.” 
 But they heard him say that he heard me say that I do so “ some¬ 
 times.” True, 1 am under most solemn ordination vows, which utter¬ 
 ly forbid my doing any such thing. But what are they against the 
 word of “a pious native friend V’ Of course, the missionaries believe 
 it. And why should they not ? It is a common infirmity of our hu¬ 
 man nature, to make ourselves a standard for judging others. And if 
 the missionaries can so far “ accommodate themselves to the sfreat 
 
 o 
 
 weakness of men,” as to use “ an Episcopal gown” or an Episcopal 
 liturgy,” why may not I also “ show myself immeasurably exalted,” 
 as they say, above all the littleness of mere form and ceremony,” by 
 bowing down be^re a picture or lighting a taper before it 1 “ By thus 
 conforming to all forms,” “ I pour absolute contempt upon them.”— 
 But, no. Men who have forms, love them, and are disposed to cling 
 to them. It is men who have none, who are in the'fairest way to be¬ 
 come latitudinarians in this particular. The missionaries might, ac¬ 
 cording to their principles, run into almost any extreme. They have 
 only to satisfy their private judgments that they “innocently can” 
 bow down before a picture; and this also might be done upon the 
 principle that they are not worshipping it, but only “ pouring con¬ 
 tempt” upon it. But I am bound, by positive rules, within certain 
 limits, and it is as unlawful for me to transgress on the one side as on 
 the other. I need not add, that the story of the “ pious native friend” 
 of the missionaries, (who, as he speaks of the Greek Church, is doubt¬ 
 less the same Panayotes before mentioned,) is a fiction. I remember 
 once telling him that I had no objection to the sign of the cross, if 
 used with solemnity and devotion, inasmuch as it was recognized and 
 
33 
 
 practiced by my own Church, in one of her Sacraments; and I thought 
 that it was in itself an impressive confession of the Christian faith, 
 especially in the midst of Mussulmans who despise it. Out of this, it 
 would seem, he fabricated, or the missionaries, misunderstanding him, 
 constructed for him, the story in the pamphlet. 
 
 So of the other; only a little worse ; for this story of the advice 
 to ‘ bow down before pictures,’ &c., if a Bishop commands it, was 
 once brought to my notice by the missionaries themselves. I then, 
 plainly enough, rectified it. And now they bring it out, without a 
 word of my denial, and call it, with the other, '•^painful evidence” of 
 my “ pleading for” and “practicing” the“ errors of those Churches.” 
 Doubtless it was “painful” for them to say such things, to take the 
 word of a native or two, and not only allow it to set mine aside, but 
 also to lead them to withhold my own and put the “ native” testimo¬ 
 ny forth in undisputed prominence. Very indeed. Well, 
 
 one would think that such operations must be “ painful.”—I would af¬ 
 fectionately remind the missionaries of a process of their own com¬ 
 mending, which, I believe, they will find an easier one. When I cor¬ 
 rected this last statement, Mr. Dwight said, “ Well, now you see how 
 erroneous things may be said, and you ought to be careful how you 
 credit evil reports about W5.” 
 
 The missionaries say again, (p. 9,) that ‘ if Episcopal missiona¬ 
 ries preach justification hy faith alone without the deeds of the law, 
 and regeneration properly explained, they will as surely and speedily 
 be spurned by the Eastern Churches as any of their Presbyterian or 
 Congregational brethren.’ They also say, (p. 10,) that the ‘ tests of 
 orthodoxy ’ in those Churches are such things as ‘ one or two natures 
 in Christ,’ ‘ leavened or unleavened bread in the Sacrament,’ ‘ the 
 sign of the cross with two fingers, three fingers, or one finger,’ the 
 ‘ intercession of Saints,’ ‘worship of pictures,’ &c. Now I must say of 
 this whole category of ‘ tests,’ that never, in my intercourse with the 
 Eastern Churches, have I met with it, excepting the first point, which 
 is matter of high and important doctrine. The Syrian, Armenian, and 
 Abyssinian Churches are in full communion with each other. Yet 
 they differ in some of these tests. I have never seen an Eastern clergy¬ 
 man or an Eastern layman of respectable intelligence, who did not 
 regard matters of faith alone as tests of orthodoxy. The statement 
 of the missionaries is, I must be allowed to say, a caricature,—true 
 only, if true at all, of the lowest and most unenlightened of the laity. 
 Of the Heads of those Churches, I positively know, that it is wholly 
 false ; and they, not the most ignorant of the laity, are to be regarded 
 as uttering the voice of the Church. Why should we speak of those 
 Churches in any other than terms of strict accurateness ? Why should 
 we say of them here, what we should never say there 7 
 
 And so, again, of ‘ justification by faith.’ If I ask the missionaries, 
 which is the most corrupt of the Eastern Churches, they will undoubt¬ 
 edly say, the Greek. And now, if they can show me a clearer or 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 more accurate statement of this precious and ever blessed doctrine—a 
 doctrine which, with my whole heart and soul, I cling to,-as the life 
 of the Christian, the very basis and foundation stone of all sound the¬ 
 ology—if they can show me, in any Protestant standard, a more full 
 and accurate exposition of it than 1 can show them in the most ap¬ 
 proved theology of the Greek Church, I have yet to learn where 
 that standard is.^ True, this doctrine is overlaid, in practice, by 
 numerous inventions of man. True, it is seldom taught, nor is 
 any other branch of theology generally taught, with clearness and 
 fidelity. But I haVe never yet seen the Eastern Christian who 
 would not willingly abide by the standards of his Church, when 
 pointed out to him ; and how^ever this is a mode of impressing 
 truth which the missionaries, from their indifference to the testi¬ 
 monies of truth in the Eastern Churches themselves, little care for 
 or wot of, yet I know, in my humble experience, that nothing is so 
 efficacious to carry home the truth to the heart and mind and 
 thence into the life of an Eastern Christian, as this same appeal, 
 where it can be made, to the teaching of his owm Church. I never 
 stated, I cannot state, the great doctrine of justification by faith more 
 clearly or more strongly than I have stated it to Oriental ecclesias¬ 
 tics, and I never yet saw the man who would not at least acknow’- 
 ledge it theoretically^ how’ever little he seemed to lay its searching 
 test to heart. It is not as in the Church of Rome, where this doctrine 
 has been, authoritatively and by Council, set aside, for so I consider 
 the Decrees of Trent, taken as a whole, each acting upon the other, 
 -to have done. In the Eastern Churches it has never been contro¬ 
 verted, and thus their standards bear a glorious testimony to it, a tes¬ 
 timony w-hich I trust one day wall be light and life to them. 
 
 The missionaries do not understand the power of a formal ecclesi¬ 
 astical recognition. They know not what it is to be able to go to 
 the Heads of the Eastern Churches, and show^ themselves possessing 
 the great features of a Christian Church, as those communions judge 
 of them, and must judge of them at first sight, viz., the outward signs 
 and tokens of a Christian community. They know not the power for 
 good which there is in such an introduction. They know' not how it en¬ 
 ables one to be received in something like an authoritative character, and 
 in that character to speak of the true faith and holy living. They know’ 
 not how it strengthens him to protest against error, nor how he can 
 
 * The missionaries, (p. 38, Note,) quote, with no dissent, apparently with ap¬ 
 proval, the remark of their Creek friend, in which he asserted the doctrine of 
 justification by faith to be the doctrine of his Cliurch. They will not say it is 
 more so than of the other Eastern Churches. I said, in the conversation alluded 
 to, “'riie doctrine of a dead faith is no doctrine of your Church or of mine.” 
 “But,” he replied, “ the doctrine of justification by faith is a doctrine both of 
 your Cliurch and mine.” “Certainly,” I.said, “but it must be a Iivhig faith 
 bringing forth good fruits to the glory of God.” “Undoubtedly,” he replied; 
 and 60 the conversation ended. Did he, indeed, so grossly misreport me as the 
 missionaries say ? 
 
35 
 
 claim to be heard as having a right so to protest. But I will 
 say, that, with Eastern ecclesiastics every where, I have found 
 that by such an introduction, and by that alone, I could effectually 
 take my stand against errors in teaching or errors in practice; 
 and the discussions which I have had upon those very points 
 which the missionaries would fain show me as patronizing, have 
 been most plain, decided and faithful. No, I stand by my Church 
 as she is. I glory in her as Reformed; I rejoice in her as Primitive. 
 I recede not from any principle of the Reformation. I mourn 
 over such retrocessions. It had its frailties; as what work in human 
 hands has not its frailties ? Did not the work of the blessed 
 Apostles, as their own Epistles testify, have its frailties also?* 
 But who can derogate from such an undertaking because every 
 human act in it was not impeccable ? Let us wonder rather, and 
 adore the goodness of God to His Church, that it exhibited so 
 little of what was blameworthy, so far as the Church was con¬ 
 cerned. And let every thought of depreciation and disparagement 
 be put to shame by the glorious results—the Church purified, the 
 ancient faith re-established, the Sacraments restored in their purity, 
 and faith in Christ, and love working from faith, made again, as most 
 certainly they were in olden times, the acknowledged source of life 
 in the Church, and of life to every individual believer. 
 
 I see nothing more that needs a notice, unless it may be the ex¬ 
 traordinary declaration, on the 28th page of the missionaries’ pam¬ 
 phlet, that ‘ there is no very material difference between the Eastern 
 Churches and the Papal Church.’ What can they mean ? Is the 
 non-recognition of the Papal supremacy no material difference, nor 
 the rejection of Purgatory, of Communion in one kind, of Clerical 
 celibacy, of the Apocrypha, of judicial Absolution, of the Worship of 
 Images, and even, by some of the Eastern Churches, of Pictures,—are 
 these not ‘ material V And yet, these are, by no means, all the dif¬ 
 ferences. The Eastern Churches have not committed themselves, on 
 the doctrine of Justification, nor on the opere operato efficacy of the 
 Sacraments, nor on Transubstantiation, as the Church of Rome has 
 done. And is this “ no material difference ?” Let us say there is no 
 life, or but little life; let us say that the truth as it is in Jesus, is very 
 imperfectly taught; let us say that formalism has crept in and eaten 
 out the heart of piety; let us say that the Sacraments are often, or 
 generally, very perfunctorily administered and received; let us say 
 that the blessed doctrines of the Gospel, in their spirit and power and 
 life-giving efficacy, are not always, nor widely preached j let us say 
 that various corruptions and superstitions have supervened upon the 
 original structure of Christianity ; but let us not, in charity and truth, 
 let us not, say that there is still ‘ no material difference between the Ori¬ 
 ental Churches and the Communion of Rome.’ Let justice prevail, truth 
 
 * See, for example, such passages as Acts xv. 37-39, and Gal. ii. ll-l-l. 
 
36 
 
 $ 
 
 be spoken, faithfulness be shown, and love be exercised. Let us think 
 of our brethren as they are, speak of them as they are, and treat them 
 as they are, remembering ourselves the ‘ hole of the pit whence we have 
 been digged,’ and the tender mercies of our God towards us, that as ‘ He 
 has loved us and laid down His life for us,’ so we should love and ‘ lay 
 down our lives for our brethren.’ Let us approach them with fidelity, 
 yet with gentleness ; with truth, yet with compassion ; with fearless¬ 
 ness, yet with meekness; and the Lord will bless and ‘ establish the 
 work of our hands upon us, yea, the work of our hands He will estab¬ 
 lish it.’ 
 
 But I have done. There are several minor points, such as ‘ turn¬ 
 ing away Armenians from them,’ (p. 25,) using my influence against 
 them with the Patriarchs, (p. 21, note,) &c., which are virtually dis¬ 
 proved in the body of my letter. There is an allusion to a ‘ Frank’ 
 who spoke against them in the bazars, (p. 32,) and it looks as if they 
 supposed it was I. I can only say, it was not I. They speak (p. 33) 
 of the article in the Herald having been known to me long before it 
 was read to an Armenian, of its having been brought forward in our 
 first conference in 1842, by Dr. Robertson, and ‘ explained apparently 
 to our satisfaction.’ But they forget to add, that 1 said I did not be¬ 
 lieve that this was the article brought forward by Dr. R., or if it had 
 been referred to by him, it was without any concert with me; that it 
 might have been so alluded to by him, at our first conference in ’42, 
 but if it was, I w^as giving no attention at the moment to what was 
 going on, and did not know of it; that when I saw it, a few days 
 before reading it to the Armenian, it was entirely new to me, and 
 I firmly believe and am perfectly certain that I never saw it before. 
 Now the missionaries omit all this in their letter to their Secretary, 
 of Dec. 1, 1842. What wonder, then, he thought he had sufficient 
 ground to attack me upon ? 
 
 But enough. When the missionaries, at my conference with them, 
 Oct. 1842, seemed at first disposed to regard me with distrust, I said 
 to them, “You appear to be in a suspicious state of mind towards me. 
 W^hy is this?” Mr, Dwight replied,that ‘ my church had been getting 
 so high and exclusive of late, that they did not know but that 1 might 
 have imbibed the same feelings.’ I replied, that ‘ I wished to be 
 judged by what I am, and by what I profess.’ And so it is now. 
 When 1 declare myself \ios\S\e. to them and determined to oppose them, 
 they will know it to be so. Until then, they may deal in vague con¬ 
 jectures, but I cannot answer them; they may suspect, but their sus¬ 
 picions will be groundless; they may misinterpret, but I cannot turn 
 aside to correct every misinterpretation; they may send home una- 
 miable reports, but I cannot reply to them. My work must be in 
 peace, not in strife. My mind and my body must be occupied in 
 higher duties than controversy. I find my time short enough for more 
 serious concerns, and my spirit worldly and weak enough to need a 
 more spiritual aliment. I have no heart for strife; nor do I think it 
 
37 
 
 becomes the office to which my Church, and, I trust, my God has 
 called me. That office I have solemnly vowed to exercise in the 
 maintaining and setting forward, as much as shall lie in me, quiet¬ 
 ness, love, and peace among all menand ray earnest desire, my 
 daily prayer is, that I may be faithful to the vows that I have taken 
 upon me, and seriously, soberly, and righteously do my appointed 
 work. 
 
 Again, adieu, 
 
 H. S. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 
 CONTINUATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE CITED ON PP. 93, 24. 
 
 Rev. H. A. Homes, Scribe of the Mission of the A. B. C. F. M. at Constantinople. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 In answer to your note of yesterday, I beg to say, that of no past event 
 is my recollection more distinct and complete, than of the satisfaction which 
 was expressed by several members of the Mission of the A. B. C. F. M.. 
 (during my conference with them a year ago,) as to the point which was the 
 subject matter of that conference, viz., my motive and intention in showing 
 an Article in the Missionary Herald to an Armenian. This satisfaction was 
 apparently concurred in by all, and a/few days after, you yourself declared 
 to me, in my house, that “ the brethren were gratified with the results of the 
 conference.” From that time to the present, I have had no intimation to the 
 contrary from any member of the Mission, unless the expression in your note 
 of last evening is to be so interpreted. 
 
 If there is any doubt remaining on this point, I will, upon its being made 
 known to me, undertake to make the matter clear in a manner that will place 
 my motive beyond question. For this purpose, however, it will be neces¬ 
 sary to revive the subject among the Armenians. 
 
 As to my general views and course, (which were made, farther perhaps 
 than propriety warranted, the subject of a desultory conversation at the con¬ 
 ference,) it could never enter my mind to seek for them, the approbation of 
 any others on earth than the Committee or the Church to which I am re¬ 
 sponsible. 
 
 The only overt act alleged by Dr. Anderson, in his remarks at the meet¬ 
 ing of the Board, was the suspension of Mr. Dwight’s services, and the only 
 agency imputed to me in that matter, was the showing the article alluded to. 
 Upon this point, (the question being whether I did it from any evil or hos¬ 
 tile motive,) I distinctly understood the members^ of the Mission present at 
 the conference, to express their entire satisfaction. It was with this under¬ 
 standing alone, that I consented to act as a mediator between your Mission 
 and the Armenians, which I evidently could not have done, if I had not been 
 assured that you were yourselves satisfied upon the question of my inten¬ 
 tions. It was, indeed, in answer to an assurance of this kind from Mr. 
 Dwight, that I undertook the office. Mr. D. said, “I believe you, I am 
 satisfied that you had no intention to injure us, and, therefore, I think that you 
 ought to do all in your power to prevent the evil consequences.” I declared 
 my readiness to do so, and the mode of acting was then pointed out, to which 
 I assented. If there are any other charges of hostility or interference, I will 
 undertake to meet them when they are specified, and I farther pledge myself 
 to show repeated instances, in the course of the past year, in which, unknown 
 
 ^ [Messrs. Goodell, Schauffler, Dwight, and Homes.—H. S.] 
 
39 
 
 to you, I have saveJ your Mission from disasters far more serious than 
 the suspension of a meeting for a few weeks. 
 
 As to Hohannes being “led” or “driven” to America, I am surprised 
 that the Report of the Board (Abstract) should speak of that as a “perse¬ 
 cution” which was lo him a consummation most earnestly desired, in which 
 he had repeatedly begged me to assist him. 
 
 Permit me to add, that the only motive of my former communication to 
 Mr. Goodell, was, to take a step towards bringing out clearly my position, 
 which is to represent my own Church, and do the work committed to me, 
 without assuming hostility towards, or speaking evil of. the missionaries of 
 other denominations. I have taken this position solely from the conviction, 
 (to which I have been led by earnest prayer and reflection,) that it can only 
 be, under common circumstances, a detriment to the cause of our Blessed 
 Saviour, to present to the Eastern Christians, a spectacle of strife and con- 
 tenlion. 
 
 Having assumed this position, I shall not abandon it for any less cause 
 than that which induced me to take it. When the interests of the Redeem¬ 
 er’s kingdom appear to me to be receiving injury from any act of yours or 
 of others, I trust that I shall not hesitate to use my utmost influence to avmrt 
 the evil, and, in such case, I would know no diflerence, unless it might be in 
 the particular mode of proceeding, between a missionary of my own Church 
 and another. But that I do pot mean to be drawn inio any opposition by 
 merely personal motives, is, I think, sufliciently apparent from the fact that I 
 have already passed over in silence many things concerning myself and my 
 Church, reported to me as coming from members of the Missions of the A. 
 B. C. F. M. in this city and in other places. Out of the things thus report¬ 
 ed, I could, were it consistent with decent self-respect, not to say with the 
 principle that 1 have adopted, frame a series of charges, as severe, perhaps, 
 as any that were ever presented to a Missionary Society. 
 
 A more direct, may I not justly say, a more frank and open answer to my 
 communication, might have enabled me to show my position more distinctly. 
 I cannot countit my loss alone that it has not been shown, but it may be a 
 loss to the cause of Christ, and so far it is a loss both to you and me. 
 
 Your answer precludes the necessity of farther communication upon the 
 subject of the charges, and I can see no propriety or utility in repealing a 
 request to Dr. Anderson which has once been made to him in vain.^ Such 
 other measures as the case seems to me to demand, I shall, of course, adopt, 
 and while I believe that you will find them, if they should ever come to 
 your knowledge, in strict conformity with the principle that I have avowed, 
 1 would now repeat my earnest desire, not for myself, but for Christ’s sake, 
 that peace, charity, and kindly speaking, (of all things most conducive lo 
 “ Christian fellowship,”) may characterize both our personal intercourse and 
 our private conduct towards each other. 
 
 Believe me, with sincerest regards, yours, dear sir, very truly, 
 
 (Signed) HORATIO SOUTHGATE. 
 
 Wednesday evening, December 1.3, 1843. 
 
 P. S. In saying above, that “your answer precludes the necessity of 
 farther communication upon the subject of the charges,” I wish to be under¬ 
 stood as speaking of the question of their origin. So far as I am personally 
 
 * [The missionaries, in a letter to their Secretary, dated Feb 7,1844, and given 
 in the Appendix to their pamphlet, say, as a reason for not informing me wliether 
 Dr. Anderson’s charges came from them, that “for aught they knew to the con¬ 
 trary, he (Dr. A ) had made known the grounds on whicli the charges had been 
 made.” It is liere implied (and in my next letter, of Dec. 18th, it is distinct 
 ly stated) that Dr. A. had not complied with the demand made upon him for his 
 authority.—H. S] 
 
40 
 
 concerned, my object is virtually as much answered by no one’s taking upon 
 himself the responsibility of their parentage, as it would have been by a fair 
 and open assumption of it. But as far as relates to the satisfaction or dis¬ 
 satisfaction of the members of your Mission upon the point which was the 
 occasion of our conference a year ago, I do expect a plain and unequivocal 
 answer. This is the only point open between us, and the only point on 
 which your Secretary has based a specific charge. Upon this point, there¬ 
 fore, I ask, whether the members of your Mission were satisfied or dissatis¬ 
 fied with my explanation, and 1 make this request on the ground that the de¬ 
 claration in your letter may be interpreted as throwing a doubt upon it. If 
 there are any other charges, (which must, of course, be confined to acts of 
 ■hostility or interference with you.) I ask, either to know them, or that they 
 cease hereafter to be preferred in any manner, secret or open. All this, I 
 think you will see at once to be a fair Christian right, and as such you will 
 cheerfully grant it. 
 
 Constantinople^ December 16, 1843. 
 
 Rev. Horatio Southgate— 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 I am directed by the members of the station, to acknowledge the receipt 
 of your letter of December 13, in answer to theirs of December 12. 
 
 We wonder that you should have had any “ doubt” as to what “ interpre¬ 
 tation” to put upon our expressions in that letter, of dissatisfaction with your 
 previous explanations. The assertion we there made, and which we now 
 repeat, “that we were not satisfied with the explanations which you then 
 made as to your course,” is, we think, as plain as language can make it. 
 This want of satisfaction refers in general to the whole range of topics upon 
 which we then conversed. We did indeed at the time (and as you also say) 
 express a satisfaction, but it was with one of the results of that conference, 
 inasmuch as you then promised to do what you could to disabuse the minds 
 of certain Armenians, that had been prejudiced by hearing the disjointed ex¬ 
 tracts which you had read to them from the Missionary Herald. It was not 
 understood, however, in this agreement of yours, that you was to become a 
 “mediator,” as you term it, between us and them, but that you consented to 
 perform an act of reparation for an injury which had resulted from your own 
 act, and which we hoped also you might regard as a Christian duty. 
 
 We feel constrained in addition to the above, to make several distinct de¬ 
 clarations in reference to sentiments found in your letter. And the first is, 
 that we have never imagined or implied that you were hostile to us person¬ 
 ally; nor have we cherished any feelings of hostility to you personally, al¬ 
 though much in your letter seems to have been written under that impres¬ 
 sion. And we may add, we have not given in any quarter even an ^inti¬ 
 mation of opposition” to your own labors, unless they unfortunately seemed 
 (even if without cause) to be hindering the labors of Evangelical Mission¬ 
 aries or other evangelical Christians in these lands. 
 
 Our second declaration is, that we do not wish to impugn or judge your 
 “ motives'’’ in any line of conduct you may have marked out for yourself, or 
 have actually followed. Nor do we deny that you conscientiously adhere in 
 that line of conduct, to what you may consider as your duty to the Church 
 of Christ, or to your “position” in your own Church. We do and shall only 
 take notice of such events as affect our sphere of labors, according as they 
 come within our knowledge ; and must leave it to others, who may also be¬ 
 come acquainted with the same events, to judge of the motives whence they 
 had their rise. 
 
 And lastly, we must remark, that should the principles you avow, of hold- 
 
41 
 
 jng yourself always ready to “use your utmost influence to avert” any evil 
 which you may fancy our doings may threaten to the “ interests of the Re¬ 
 deemer’s kingdom,” lead you any time to any acts of interference with our 
 labors, we shall feel fully authorized to report to our Society all such pro¬ 
 ceedings. Nor do we feel that in such a case, any “fair Christian right,” 
 calls upon us to communicate to you our intention of doing so; or justifies 
 you in demanding of us “ to cease to prefer” “ such charges” “in any man¬ 
 ner, secret or open.” You could not fairly impeach our conduct in making 
 such reports; for we are fully as willing to have this rule applied to us, as 
 we are to apply it to others. 
 
 In conclusion, we confidently and fearlessly appeal to you to communi¬ 
 cate to us, or to the public, any of the “many things concerning your church 
 or 3 'ourself, reported to you as coming from members of the Mission of the 
 A. B. C. F. M. in this city,'^’ and which you have any evidence to believe 
 were indeed uttered by us. And we trust that from the answer we should 
 make, all would be satisfied, that we have said nothing of which you could 
 not speak with “ decent self-respect,” or which you could reasonably con¬ 
 demn. 
 
 It seems to us, that if, as is the fact, Mr. Hohannes through a threatened 
 “persecution” obtained the “consummation earnestly desired” by him of 
 going to America, it is not surprising that the thing should be spoken of by 
 its right name. Paul had for a long lime earnestly, but in vain, desired to 
 see Rome, and at last his desire was accomplished. Yet no one conceals 
 the fact under any softer language, than to say that he went a prisoner in 
 bonds. 
 
 We see no occasion for continuing this correspondence farther. Our 
 only reason for writing as much as the above has been to give the “plain 
 and unequivocal” answer which you requested, “ as to the satisfaction or 
 dissatisfaction of the members of our station on the point which was the oc¬ 
 casion of our conference a year ago:” and then, for our own sakes, briefly 
 to throw otf as far as our simple denial can avail, the imputations contained 
 in your letter of personal hostility to you, or of inisjudgmentof your motives. 
 
 Praying that we may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 
 I remain, my dear sir. 
 
 In behalf of our Station, 
 
 Very cordially yours, 
 
 (Signed) HENRY A. HOMES, 
 
 Scribe of the Station. 
 
 P. S. I would add here in my own behalf, in reference to the use you 
 make of a sentiment which you allege that I expressed in your own house, 
 that the explicit object of my visit to you at that time was that I might ob¬ 
 tain better satisfaction as to how you came to show the copy of the Herald, 
 and that I told you, that after all that had been said, it seemed to me to be 
 an inexplicable thing. 
 
 Mr. Dwight requests me also to add for him, that whatever he may have 
 said at that conference conditionally or directly expressing satisfaction on 
 any point, yet still he expressly stated his c/issatisfaction with the reasons 
 you offered for showing the Herald. H. A. H. 
 
 Pern, December 18, 1843. 
 
 Rev. H. A. Homes, Scribe of the Mission of the A. B. C. F. M., Constanti¬ 
 nople. 
 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 I have thought much upon the subject of our correspondence since I re¬ 
 ceived your letter of the 16th, and particularly upon the point whether I 
 
42 
 
 should desire a conference with the members of your Mission.^ It seems to 
 me, however, that I ou^ht, injustice both to you and to myself, to put down 
 in writing the foliowiny statement: 
 
 1. That nothing is farther from my thoughts than to believe that you are 
 influenced by feelings of “ personal hostility” to me. I do not believe it. I 
 believe that whatever you have done or may do, has arisen, or will arise, 
 from a conviction of duty to interests far higher than “personal,” the inter¬ 
 ests of Christ’s kingdom ; and that to me personally and privately your feel¬ 
 ings are perfectly kind and Christian. Such are also my feelings towards 
 you. as all who hear me speak of you in my most private conversations, can 
 testify. 
 
 2. That I did not mean to ask, whether you were satisfied with my ^•rea¬ 
 sons’'' for reading the article in the Herald to an .Armenian, (by the way, I 
 read the whole, and not “disjointed extracts,”) but whether you were satis¬ 
 fied that my motive—my feeling towards you therein, was not to injure or 
 oppose you. 1 remember very well Mr. Dwight’s saying in our conference, 
 that he did not think the reasons which I gave, sufficient to warrant my 
 reading the article; but he also said, in so many words, apparently concur¬ 
 red in by all, that he believed my solemn declaration that I had no hostile 
 motive towards you in doing it. The reasons stated for my reading the ar¬ 
 ticle, may not have seemed to you such as ought to have induced me to read 
 it, and yet you might acquit me of any hostile intention therein ; which was 
 actually the course the matter took at the conference. I also believed Mr. 
 Dwight’s declaration, when he said, that he had no intention of creating a 
 schism in the Armenian Church, but I did not thereby say that I thought the 
 reasons which he gave for writing that article sufficient to warrant its being 
 written. 
 
 3. I did not mean to ask, that before reports concerning me or my work 
 are sent home, they should first be communicated to me. What I asked 
 was this—that all charges, (if any existed,) relating to the past, should now 
 be brought forward and settled, or if you should not think it worth while to 
 do this, that they should “cease to be preferred.” I wished merely to settle 
 every thing that had past. 
 
 N 4. I do not think that we are bound, in reporting home with regard to the 
 doings of others, to institute first an inquiry concerning motives, but I am 
 sure you will agree with me, that when we happen to have received a solemn 
 and express declaration of innocence of motive, it is but fair to mention it in 
 our reports, and if there has been an effort to prevent or repair injury aris¬ 
 ing from an act, we ought also to mention that. This is but obeying the 
 Saviour’s golden rule. 
 
 5. I have always supposed that your Mission reported to the Committee 
 the suspension of Mr. Dwight’s meeting and the cause. This would be a 
 matter of course. But I also supposed that the report must have contained 
 a fair statement of my declaration and of my effort to prevent injury. I 
 never doubted that it did contain such a statement. If so, how could Dr. 
 Anderson make a public charge against me, of being the chief cause of the 
 suspension of the meeting, without alluding to these qualifying circumstan¬ 
 ces I could only account for it by supposing that he had heard other re- 
 
 ' [Th is allusion to a conference arises from the fact, that, after sending his 
 letter of Dec. 16th, Mr. Hornes called upon me, and in a friendly conversation 
 which occurred, suggested that, instead of continuing the correspondence farther, 
 we should have a conference. It was happy that we did not, for the result of 
 the other now appears to have been a little worse than nothing.—H. S.] 
 
 2 [In their letter to their secretary, of Feb. 7, 1844, before alluded to, the mis¬ 
 sionaries remark, upon this passage of my letter, “ Mr. S. cannot conceive upon 
 what you based your public charge against him of being the chief cause of the 
 suspension of our meeting, if our report of the affair contained a fair statement of 
 
43 
 
 ports from other quarters, of not so fair a character, and that he had based 
 his charge on them. When, therefore, I wrote my note to Mr. Goodell, I 
 fully expected that you would answer it by denying that such a bare charge, 
 without the attending qualifications, had gone Irom your Mission, and that 
 this would be one step towards tracing it to the source whence it did come, 
 which I conjectured to be an individual not connected with your Mission. 
 This was the cause of my writing. I had not the remotest thought of en¬ 
 tering into controversy with you, nor did I anticipate so protracted a corres¬ 
 pondence. 
 
 6. It is unnecessary to trace the matter farther. Dr. Anderson did not 
 judge it best to give his authority, and your first letter forbids me to assume 
 that you are responsible. To search farther would only be for my private 
 satisfaction, and this might cost me more trouble than I have time to spare. 
 
 7. The “plain and unequivocal” answer which I'desired, was to the 
 question whether you were satisfied that / had no intention of injuring or 
 opposing you., in reading the article in the Herald to an Armenian. Upon 
 this point I had your plain declaration at the conference, but some general 
 expressions in your first letter of last week seemed to me capable of an in¬ 
 terpretation which might throw a doubt upon it, and, therefore, I asked the 
 question again. Your last letter assures me that there is no design of “ im¬ 
 pugning my motive,” which is all that 1 asked. 
 
 8. There seems, therefore, no occasion for pursuing the subject farther. 
 If there were, I would not hesitate to ask for a conference, as the best mode 
 of making ourselves fully understood. 
 
 9. Let me, then, in conclusion, say, that 1 sincerely believe your great object 
 to be the salvation of souls. This also is my aim and my highest ambition. 
 Our end, then, is one, and if we differ, it is in the means and modes of at¬ 
 taining it. What I do, I do for this end, and I would not take a step or 
 adopt a measure which I did not think adapted to promote it. We may dif¬ 
 fer in judgment as to our measures, but I hope it will ever be with Christian 
 charity for each other, and with the sincere conviction that each is laboring 
 for the'great end in the way that seems to him conscientiously best. When 
 we speak of each other, may it be with fair allowance for each other’s ends 
 and aims. I regret, I grieve, that we do not in all things see eye to eye, 
 even on earth. I wish that we might; I pray that we may. But if not, I 
 humbly hope, that we may all, in God’s good lime and by His unmerited 
 mercy, reach that blessed world where we shall be one, under Christ our 
 Head, who shall be all in all. 
 
 Believe me, my dear sir. 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) HORATIO SOUTHGATE. 
 
 his declaration of innocent intention and of his effort to repair injury. The fact 
 is, that his subsequent conduct did not increase our confidence in the honesty of 
 his desire to counteract the evil he had done ” Ah, this fatal suspicion, founded 
 on native report, ruined every thing, and has occasioned us this long controversy. 
 But it is done. I return to it no more —H. S.] 
 

 ■ ^''W''*-.,?*..•■ ’’‘'''''..'..- ‘ • • ■■' 
 
 .■»- ■,> 
 
 iv ^ j( i l^ ii ^^,i./|eji. J<,U »-«aii t/ijV i 4 *v^' 
 
 . . ♦!}«-< 7ik4iM^*t AKwVi .i.ki 6; ,^# ,,?>»4; 4 , 
 
 r ^ •T’-ntr »»» '*f‘**^ '>:rr --*tr, f i iyP'n!T-SB/» 
 
 ' ^'' - ' - ’ '^ • -■ ■ ■ ••;;■ /(-, Mt*'- 1 > 
 
 ^ ‘ ' V '*'!»»/'"• v^* ‘.M'S •• ‘ 'I'’ - ■ 
 
 it 
 
 ^ ' * -^ f ^ 7 * /'• • % . ' k^ •- . I • ‘ . 
 
 • 
 
 IW 
 
 
 '"r#^r’ 
 
 . »p \ 
 
 » \\ .-■ '7 *•’ 
 
 ■W: 
 
 t “ 
 
 ^ [H' ' "f"'’-^V'-,-'" - ■'« • r . ,’ f-^,p 
 
 J ■ * *’ -’' ■"''A • ? V'-S' ■ " *'’ 
 
 .•^''.^i*r‘»- >*’' ■■ '■■ ■ '>6^.:‘'‘*' ■"■ '■ -V • ■ ■••• • '" '"V 
 
 <t . .■-?'■ :, V '■ ^ — 17 ^ 7 '; ». ... ; '• ' 
 
 ,'• .. >.-.,^*1 ,••’ , ^ ’•■' *; ^ ^•<‘' », ■ i' 
 
 '■'' •' '’*!'’*■ ■^ ■' ■* •' • .••'^•' ,, .1 • -•► ■ 
 
 
 ( 
 
 "SP 
 
 1^'- .,:-* 
 
 .JL 
 
 
 i,,t 
 
 k 
 
 \ 
 
 m n 
 
 V* 
 
 .. ■■•■ V 4 -i '- /• r f >7fl 
 
 .•i.. 
 
 . ■ - »v jT’ y^ 
 
 * ">• r ' • V " f ' »--vt'^ 
 
 ‘ I^.X/Y4)y|^ ,^v.if*, ' 
 
 
U. APPLh. I UN UU. HAVL LA 1 EL I 
 
 THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF ] PISCOPACY 
 
 ASSERTED AND MAINTAINED; 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 CLERUS DOMINI, 
 
 A DISCOURSE ON THE OFFICE MINISTERIAL. 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REV. JEREMY TAYLOR, D. D. 
 
 One elegant volume, 16mo.—362 pages. Price $1. 
 
 A 
 
 ft 
 
 Contents of the Sacred Order and Offices of Episcopacy, 
 fiy Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholic practice, together with their Titles oi 
 Honour, Secular Employment, Manner of Election, Delegation of their Power, and other appendant 
 questions, asserted against the Aerians and Acephali, new and old. 
 
 Section I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church.—II. This Government was first 
 committed to the Apostles hy Christ.—HI. With a Power of joining others, and appointing Successors 
 inthe Apostolate.—IV. The Succession into the ordinary Office of Apostolate is made by Bishops.— 
 V. And Office.—VI. AVhich Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters.—VH. Giving to Apos¬ 
 tles a Power to do some Office perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not.—VIII. And 
 Confirmation.—IX. And Superiority of Jurisdiction.—X. So that Bishops are Successors in the 
 Office of Apostleship, according to the general Tenentof Antiquity.—XI. And particularly of St 
 Peter.—XII. And the Institution of Episcopacy, as well as the Apostolate, expressed to be Divine, 
 hy primitive Authority.—XHI. In pursuance of the Divine Institution, the Apostles did ordain 
 Bishops in several Churches—XIV. St. Timothy at Ephesus.—XV. St. Titus at Crete.—XVI. 
 St. Mark at Alexandria.—XVII. St. Linus and St. Clement at Rome.—XVIH. St. Polycarp at 
 Smyrna, and divers others.—XIX. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance, of the 
 same authority with many other Points generally believed.—XX. And was an Office of Power 
 and great authority.—XXI. Not lessened bv the Assistance and Counsel of Presbyters.—XXH. 
 And all this hath been the Faith and Practice of Christendom.—XXHI. Who first distinguished 
 Names, used before in common.—XXIV. Appropriating the word “ Episcopus” or Bishop to the 
 Supreme Church officer.—XXV. Calling the Bishop, and him only, the Pastor of the Church.— 
 XXVI. And Doctor.—XXVII. And Pontifex.—XXVHI. And these were a distinct Order from 
 the rest.—XXIX. J’o which the Prcsbyterate was but a Degree.—XXX. There being a peculiar 
 Manner of Ordination to a Bishopric.—XXXI. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing 
 hands.—XXXH. For Bishops had a Power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters. As of Or¬ 
 dination.—XXXIII. And Confirmation.—XXXIV. And Jurisdiction. Which they expressed rn 
 Attributes of Authority and great Power.—XXXV. Requiring universal Obedience to be given to 
 Bishops by Clergy aud Laity.—XXXVI. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergy, and Spirit¬ 
 ual Causes of the Laity.—XXXVH. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal License. 
 —XXXVIH. Reserving Church-Goods to Episcopal Dispensation.—XXXIX. Forbidding Presby¬ 
 ters to leave their own Diocess, or to travel, without Leave of the Bishop.—XL. And the Bishop 
 had Power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased.—XLI. Bishops only did vote in Councils, 
 and neither Presbyters nor People.—XLII. And the Bishop had a Propriety in the Persons of his 
 Clerks.—XLHI. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes.—XLIV. And was 
 aided by Presbyters, but not impaired.—XLV. So that the Government of the Church by 
 Bishops was believed necessary.—XLVI. For they are Schismatics that separate from their Bishop.— 
 XLVII. And Heretics.—XLVIIT. AndBishops were always, in the Church, Men of great Honour.— 
 XLIX. And trusted with Affairs of Secular Interest.—L. And therefore were enforced to delegate 
 the Power and put others in substitution.—LI. But they were ever Clergymen, for there never were 
 any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in ^he Church. 
 
 I CLERUS DOMINI: 
 
 Or, a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, Sacredness, and Separation, of the Office Minis 
 terial; together with the Nature and Manner of its Power and Operation : written by the special 
 command of King Charles I. 
 
 Section I. Ministers of Religion have, in all Ages, been distinguished by peculiar Honours.—II. 
 The Ministers of Christ receive the Power of remitting or retaining Sins.—III. The Ministers of 
 Christ are commissioned to preach the Gospel.—IV. The Ministers of Christ are commissioned to 
 baptize.—V. The Ministers of Christ stand between God and the People, in administering the Eu¬ 
 charist.—VI. The Ministers of Christ derive their power from God.—VH. The Ministry of the 
 Gospel sanctifies the Person of the Minister.—VHI. No Man, in these days of Ordinary Ministry, 
 must look for, or pretend to, an Extraordinary Calling. 
 
 The reprint in a portable form of this eminent divine’s masterly defence of Episcopacy cannot 
 fail of being welcomed by every Churchman. 
 
 “With the imagination of a poet, and the fervor of an apostle, Jeremy Taylor cannot be republished in any shape that he 
 will not have leaders. More especially, just now will this treatise of his be read, when, by feebler hands and far less well 
 furnished minds, attempts are making to depreciate that sacred order and those sacred offices which are here with triumphant 
 eloquence maintained. 
 
 “The publishers have presented this jewel in a fitting casket.”—JV. Y. American. Feb. 17, 1841 
 
 Receirtly Published uniform with the above. 
 
 THE GOLD &N GROVE: 
 
 A choice Manual, containing what is to be believed, practiced and desired, or prayed for ; the prayers 
 being fitted for the several days of the week. To which is added, a Guide for the Penitent, or a 
 Model drawn up for the help of devout souls wounded with sin. Also, Festival Hymns, &c By 
 
 --.—^ 1. T. T.- 1 T - ^ ..,1 la, — 
 
xj. j^iypicion fjo. Have recently published 
 
 THE CHBiSTIA^ INSTRUCTED 
 
 IN THE WAYS OF THE GOSPEL AND THE CHURCH: 
 
 A SERIES OF DISCOURSES DELIVERED AT ST. JAMES’S CHURCH, GOSHEN, NEW YORK 
 . By the Rev. J. A. SPENCER, A. M. late Rector. 
 
 One elegant volume^ 16mo. 25. 
 
 This is the first volume of Sermons by an American Divine which has appeared for some years. 
 Their style is characterized by clearness, directness, and force—and they combine, in a happy de¬ 
 gree, solid good sense and animation. The great truths of the gospel are presented in a familiar and 
 plain manner, as the Church Catholic has always held them, and as they are held by the reformed 
 branches in England and America. 
 
 The Introduction contains a brief notice of what the Church is, how she is to be distinguished 
 from the various surrounding sects, &c. ; of the great value and advantages of the Liturgy, and also 
 a succinct account of various Festivals and Fasts, and Holy Seasons ; and to the Sermons are ap¬ 
 pended notes from the writings of Hooher, Barrow, Taylor, Pearson, Chillingworth, Leslie, Hors¬ 
 ley, Hobart, and other standard divines. Illustrating and enforcing the doctrines contained in them. 
 The book is well adapted to the present distracted state of the public mind, to lead the honest 
 inquirer to a full knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, and to give a correct view of the position 
 occupied by the Church. 
 
 The following is the copy of a letter of recommendation, by the Right Rev. Bishop Onderdonk, 
 of the Diocese of New York :— 
 
 “ Having great confidence in the qualifications of the Rev. Jesse A. Spencer for pastoral instruction in the Church of God, 
 from a personal acquaintance with him as an alumnus of the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, and as a Deacon and Presbyter of my Diocese, it gives me pleasure to learn, that in his present physical inability to 
 discharge the active duties of the ministry, he purposes publishing a select number of his sermons. Nothing doubting that 
 they Avill be found instructive and edifying to those who sincerely desire to grow in the knowledge and practice of the gospel, 
 recommend them to the patronage of the Diocese ; and this the more earnestly, as their publication may be hoped to be a 
 source of temporal comfort and support to a very worthy servant of the altar, afflicted, at an early period of his ministry, with 
 loss of bodily power to be devoted to its functions.” 
 
 OATHOLIG CHURCH IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA; 
 
 THREE LECTURES. 
 
 1. The Church in England and America Apostolic and Catholic. 
 
 2. The Causes of the English Reformation. 
 
 3. Its Character and Results. 
 
 BY JOHN D. OGILBY, D. D. 
 
 (St. Mark’s Church, Bowery,)—Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the General Theological 
 
 Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 “ I believe One Catholic and Apostolic Church .”—JVicene Creed. 
 
 One elegant Volume, 16mo. 75 cents 
 
 Author’s Preface. —The following Lectures were prepared for delivery to a popular audience 
 in a Course of Lectures upon the distinctive principles of the Church. It was incumbent upon the 
 writer, therefore, not to presume upon more information on the part of his hearers, than generally 
 obtains among well-informed persons; while at the same time his narrow limits forbade his entering 
 into detail, whether in narrative or argument. In preparing this little volume for the Press, the 
 same reference has still been had to the wants of the general reader; the references in the notes have, 
 therefore, been made to the most accessible, rather than the original authorities. 
 
 The Lectures were written, and are now printed, without any polemical view. A general agree¬ 
 ment in position and principle between the hearer and speaker was originally presupposed, as the 
 Lectures were delivered in Episcopal Churches. A similar agreement between the reader and 
 writer is still presumed. Many points are therefore left open to the attack of adversaries, which 
 might have been guarded, had the author being writing a polemical treatise. 
 
 The running title, “ The Catholic Church in England and America,” may give some occasion 
 to fear, and others opportunity to assert, that the Author is disposed to abandon the position which 
 the English Church and our own have been obliged to assume and maintain, of express opposition 
 to the errors and pretensions of the Papal Communion. It is apprehended that none will cherish 
 such fear, or venture upon such assertion, who will candidly read the Lectures. Why, then, it may 
 be asked, use a title which may give a handle to the fault-finder.^ Because the avowed object of 
 the Lectures is to vindicate the claim of the Church in England and our own, to those characters of 
 Catholicity and Apostolicity, which the Creeds ascribe to the One Church of Christ; and which 
 must therefore pertain to every particular Church in union with that one Body. 
 
 Indeed, no man can deny that our Church is both “Protestant” and “Episcopal;” whatever 
 may be alleged, truly or falsely, against individual Churchmen. The fact is manifest to the eyes o'* 
 all men; and the most competent witnesses attest it; Rome allows that we are “ Protestant,” and 
 sectarians that we are “Episcopal;” nay, each in turn casts these attributes in our teeth as a 
 reproach. But neither Romanist nor sectarian recognizes our Apostolicity and Catholicity. Henci 
 the necessity of insisting upon and vindicating our claim. For, if we cannot maintain it, neither our 
 Protestantism nor our Episcopalianism will the least avail us; since, in that case, the definition 
 of our own creeds excludes us from the fellowship of Christ. Most important is it, then, that we 
 should both assert and defend, especially against Rome, the true character and lawful inheritance 
 of our Spiritual Mother; lest, through ignorance of her claim upon their love and allegiance, some 
 of her ov/n children be tempted to stray from her fold ; and lest in the searcL beginning to be made 
 by the wanderers in sectarian bye-roads for the “ old paths,” many mistake the name of Catholic 
 Apostolic for the substance^ and enter the wrong door of Christ’s temple, through our omission 
 to inscribe the titles Catholic and AootV'jw” over the nortnls of Hi« Hnlv Son/»tnnrw 
 
.. t*^ :* I : 'f ./Si-*■• r-''-' s’’ ^ 
 
 ,.|. a .. ..*^..ir-r;HB»:-’-V ^ Y •; ,,’■ -'• » Wfili 
 
 ♦ j*'''iijv'*,. (.’■ ♦ ifftr: —■ V ».;: ; * * ■ ■ •* ■ 04 
 
 U ';4** „r : 'ju !j*f »Jf»->v-TT^ IR •*v4w^ " . ^ ./'. '^ *'• 
 
 7 "™" * ,, "^ • 'v "• p . .-* . ^ 1^ -iT a 
 
 ‘.r?;f .4^/ -- * 
 
 f. ,1 i/'/**i* V. 
 
 ‘ -K t* *F '.v, - Ar' 
 
 
 K ..' 1 
 
 
 
 . f*' i -' V, ■■ LjFj 
 
 • rE-r" .Ff? ■ -' 
 
 ,'f*r _ ., -« 
 
 i' t.k-t-• *- • "i-r?. '■ % 
 
 ^«r*^t.;-r v: ' '* 
 
 I' ' 
 
 i: !• V , *. '-■ ' 
 
 E - * 4 .' • *^ 
 
 ■n^ ^ I* i. - ; ;« .. * j • _ 'k : ■»' 'V;J*ir * ^ -. 
 
 V’*' .>• 
 
 :»* 
 
 4)' 
 
 i!•'i- -I 
 fi\'.: 1,,.^ 
 
 tl 
 
 * 
 
 Zv r I" 
 
 .. t 
 
 •}' V'*• ■• ■' 
 
 ^rr -=^: :Cafe«i5?t' 
 
 jf-. . I . 
 i r'** ■ ^ 
 
 Il r 1 > 
 
 ,. I *,>y i . -V J 
 
 I I ‘5t.^ - M 11 .-i»—* 
 
 
 . •' - 
 
 ' 
 
 
 r 
 
 V 5 
 
 11 
 
 '■ V ’ 
 
 • \. 
 
 ‘J- 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 ijPil • 
 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 
 ■"'• 1 
 
 
 'm 
 
 .V 
 
 \ i^ ‘ 
 
 ’ " k. 
 
 i- 
 
 
 :^i - 
 
 ‘|r<-»v^jr* vtf' >,K < i, ,'* !• • ^ 
 
 ' f. ■ ^ - ' 
 
 •Ji ';»'t • .xvl. ;■ 
 
 \i 
 
 . I > ' 
 
 ;l 
 
 > ^ Ii* « 1 
 
 ‘ w ^ f -r' •• ' .‘i 
 
 1 * •>'>.“ "■' ' 
 
 V ^ ^L.ai % >v . k ' ' 
 
 'I' 
 
 •<1 
 
 •-n 
 
 L ?^i5l - ■■>^;' [ ■ ■ *-1^' 'iliTi l^'.C ^ 
 
 ;«'^';i«r^>*H-M ‘s-Vj J' i 'r 
 
 - •'.*^l^-.--i*;- '4 ’*4 ■ ■■■f'i " * '^*''' 
 
 ' -I. ii. • IV > • n 4 ^ i S'V . -sii 
 
 I’ fAi. • ’^■^.■']'' I-- ■ 
 
 i^ljJ r* ^ 1 ’b •■ V 
 
 & 
 
 - * 'V 
 
 r' 
 
 r V ^ ‘ .;;,'JV 
 
 ^ Ai, ’* u*- 
 
 4 4*rr-f¥;-I *•■•'/•: A 
 
 fkL4^^. «>»■ s' ;.. ’ 
 
 -> *»X*i 
 
 
 iTj” ' 
 
 ■•^■?' ■ *" " ♦‘■“*“^ * '»• 
 
 •; , 5 ; 'fe ■'•■» P ■•# . *rpij 
 
 ‘ .'f " ■ . ♦ ° flKl‘ . t*. '-f .JN|[-S- ' ' '%:•■ 
 
 r$ 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 ■.'^/->^ vC* «’ %» ’ 'D 
 
 -k., V 
 
 i r 
 
INTERUBRARY LOAN REQUEST 
 
 According to the A.L.A. Interlibrary Loan Code 
 
 -jj. Appimn 15 ' uw. mm i 
 
 MnTCTQ rtKt TUCT irDIQr>r^DAI D<^l ITV 
 
u. jijjpietun ty ^u. nuvt / vLKniiy puuiisntu, 
 
 NOTES ON THE EPISOOPAL POLITY 
 
 OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH; 
 
 WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS OF MODERN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS, 
 
 BY THOMAS WILLIAM MARSHALL, B. A* 
 
 OF THE DIOCESE OF SALISBURT. 
 
 EDITED BY JONATHAN M. WAINWRIGHT, D. D. 
 
 One elegantly printed volume. 12mo. Price 25. 
 
 CONTENTS.—Chapter 1. Introduction. Chapter II. Scripture Evidence—Sec. 1. Case of St. James—2. Case of St 
 Timothy—3. Case of St. Titus—4. Case of tlie Asian Angels—5. Notice of Objections. Chapter III. Evidence of Antiquity 
 —Sec. 1. Nature of this Evidence—2. St. Clement of Rome—3. St. Ignatius of Antioch—4. St. Justin Martyr—5. Pope Piul 
 1. —6. Hegesippus—7. Polycrates—8. St. Irenaeus—9. St. Clement of Alexandria—10. Tertullian—11. The Apostolical Can¬ 
 ons ; Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans, &,c. &.c.—12. St. Cyprian—13. St. Jerome—14. St. Augustine—15. St. Ambrose, St. 
 Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Athanasius—16. Summary. Chapter IV. Admissions of Adversaries—Sec. 1. On the Genera 
 Q.ue8tion—2. Calvin, J. Sturmius—8. Beza, Farel, Rivet, N. Vedelius, P. Viret, Zuirigle—4. Melancthon, Luther, Confess 
 Augustan—5. Bucer, Gualter, Peter Martyr, Jerome Zanchy, Seckendorff—6. Dr. Peter Du Moulin—7. H. Grotius, J. Casaul>o- 
 —8. Blondel, Salmasius—9. Bochart, Amyraut, Drelincourt, Langlet, Daille, Turretin, University of Geneva; Baxter, Calamy. 
 Stephen Marshal, Cartwright, Dr. Cornelius Burges, Henderson, Lord Pembroke, John Hales, Sir Edward Dcering—1^ 
 Summary. Chapter V. Development of Modern Systems.—Sec. 1. Nature of this Argument—2. Development in Germany— 
 
 3. Switzerland—4. France—5. England, Channel Islands—6. Scotland—7. Ireland—8. Holland, Belgium, Hungary, the Vau- 
 dois—9. Sweden and Denmark—10. Prussia—11. Russia—12. United States of America—13. General Summary. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT.—The appearance of another work, however insignificant, upon a subject 
 so fully exhausted as the Government of the Church, may seem to require some explanation. The 
 learned and distinguished persons, who, in past times, have gone over this ground, were not accus¬ 
 tomed, as is w'ell known, to leave much behind them for gleaners. Some variety of arrangement, 
 or a different selection of evidence from the same originals which they so diligently explored,— this is 
 the sum of what can now be done by those who have come after them. Had it been intended, 
 therefore, merely to repeat what they have already so well said, the present attempt would have 
 savored of superfluity, and might have deserved only censure. 
 
 There is, however, one argument, from the use of which the earlier writers on Church-polity 
 were either wholly precluded, or which they could employ only at a disadvantage, but which, ic 
 consequence of certain recent events to be noticed in these page.s, becomes, in the hands of their 
 successors, a weapon of untried but admirable efficacy. The Anglican divines of the 16th and 17th 
 centuries might refer—as they did—in enforcing allegiance to the Successors of the Apostles, to the 
 history of earlier times, and point to the uniform progress from schism to heresy which that history 
 records. So far they occupied the same position with ourselves. But when they went on to pre¬ 
 dict a like declension for the principles against which their own writings were directed, and to warn 
 men, from the analogies of the past, that innovation in discipline would infallibly lead to corn’.plion 
 in doctrine,—it is obvious that their adversaries w'ould be no way embarrassed in dealing with a 
 prophecy whose force depended almost entirely upon its fulfilment. That fulfilment, once so little 
 dreaded, it has been reserved to us to witness ; and the development of the modern religious sys¬ 
 tems, though even now imperfect, is at length so far complete as to enable us to determine with 
 accuracy their true character. 
 
 The present condition of the various Protestant communities of Christendom, of which the 
 original organization was a human device, and therefore defective,—is perhaps the most extraordi¬ 
 nary and appalling subject of contemplation to the thoughtful mind, which our own or any other 
 age of the Church supplies. To call attention to this actual condition is the main object with which 
 these pages have been written ; and as this portion of their contents i.s, from the nature of the case, 
 almost entirely novel, it may perhaps be relied upon as an adequate apology for their appearance. 
 
 The course of argument pursued, which it may be convenient to state here, is as follows :— 
 
 I. The a priori objection to the truth of the Catholic System of Polity founded on the indetei- 
 minateness of the Sacred Records, and the antecedent probabilities in its favor derived from Pro¬ 
 phecy and prescription, are briefly discussed. 
 
 II. The positive evidence of Holy Scripture in recognition of the Episcopate isnext adduced ;and 
 
 III. The testimony of Antiquity—as well that which has been-supplied by the enemies as by 
 the servants of the Church—including the first four ages of Christianity, is then cited. 
 
 IV. The adversary is next referred to the witness of his own masters and teachers, who, even in 
 the first setting up of their new schemes, acknowledged openly the divine origin of that primitive 
 government which they loudly declared their reluctance to subvert, and for the restoration of which 
 they professed, in the most animated terms, their sincere and unfeigned desire. The catalogue of 
 witnesses of this class might have been considerably enlarged ; but it will be found to be sufficiently 
 ample. The remarkable admissions of Knox and his confederates, together with many others, have 
 been, for the sake of brevity, wholly omitted ;—though it has been justly said, that “ the views 
 entertained by the Scottish reformer on the subject of Episcopal superintendence—views which he 
 frequently and emphatically avow'ed—might be studied with advantage in modern times.” But it 
 was necessary to prescribe a limit in adducing confessions which are themselves almost unlimited. 
 
 V. The final argument is that which is supplied by the actual history of those religious bodies 
 which have \>oon severed from the Apostolical Succession, and which were originally founded either 
 upon the deliberate rejection of the divine office of the Episcopate, or the supposed sufficiency of 
 other modes of ecclesiastical discipline for preserving in its integrity “ the faith once delivered to the 
 Saints.” 
 
 And although hitherto many have been able tilT resist the combined testimony of Prophecy, 
 Scripture, and Antiquity, and even to justify their adherence to the modern systems in spite of the 
 explicit confessions of the very men by whom they were first framed ; we may perhaps hope, that 
 the present aspect of those systems, and their uniform development—without so much as a single 
 exception—into nurseries of heresy and unbelief, may constrain some few at least to reconsider 
 ffieir hazardous position, and to relinquish, while yet they may, the unhappy inventions,^on^which^^ 
 
^0V s 711 
 
 . PRE 
 
 This volume c 
 
 The End of 
 Hour.—The Bull' 
 Prayer of Moses j 
 Lord.—The Fum 
 Nain.—The Wid- 
 by God.—The C 
 Message sent to 
 gins.—The Rock. 
 Stream from Hor 
 the Wilderness.—' 
 —The Complaint 
 Gourd.—The Ris 
 The Peace of Go- 
 —The Plague in 
 for His Church.- 
 Sinner a Temple, 
 of God to the Isra 
 
 “ Bradley’s Disc' 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 lY. 
 
 ■t the Eleventh 
 lan Life.—The 
 ' the Samaritan 
 the Widow ol 
 Sins Blotted out 
 Sinner.—The 
 he Foolish Vir- 
 
 ■ Flowing of the 
 le Christian in 
 Drought Home, 
 tory of Jonah’s 
 ght to Pray.— 
 
 ■ East to Christ 
 
 • 
 
 ayer of Christ 
 ’he Redeemed 
 —The Promis3 
 
 s’s British Libra¬ 
 
 rian. 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 PRINTED IN U^.A. 
 
 “ Very able and 
 “ Bradley’s style, 
 almost holds convei 
 Eclectic Review. 
 
 “We earnestly desire that every pulpit in the kingdom may ever be the vehicle of discourses as judi¬ 
 cious and practical, as Scriptural and devout, as these.”— Christian Observer. " 
 
 ; quaint; and he 
 sacred chair.”— 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE AMERICAN PRESS. 
 
 “ The style is so simple, that the most unlearned can understand them ; the matter is so instructive 
 that the best informed can learn something; the spirit so fervent, that the most engaged Christian can 
 be animated and warned by their perusal.”— Christian Witness. 
 
 “ They are rich in Scriptural truth, and imbued throughout with the spirit of deep and earnest piety 
 Members of every Evangelical Communion may read them with pleasure and profit.”— Alb. Even. Jour. 
 
 “We cordially recommend these discourses to all persons who are anxious to possess a variety o 
 Sunday reading, equally adapted to gratify a cultivated taste, a devout heart, and the solicitude for the 
 best species of practical instruction.”— Philad. Enquirer. 
 
 “ There is a charming simplicity in these Sermons, which render them peculiarly appropriate for 
 family use, as well as for all persons who love truth in its clearness and direct application.”— Com. Adv. 
 
 “ The subjects are among the most interesting that could be chosen, and they are handled with a 
 mastery, both of method and style, and expressed with fervor and unction, which appeals at once to the 
 hearts as well as to the common sense of mankind.”— U. S. Gazette. 
 
 The above Volume may also be had bound with “ PRACTICAL 
 for every Sunday and principal Holiday in the Year j by the same Author. 
 
 3 
 
 SERMONS” 
 Price $2 50.