MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-81125-15 MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Titie 17, United States Code - concerns the malcing of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR : HOBART, JOHN HENRY TITLE: LETTER TO THE VESTRY OF TRINITY CHURCH PLACE: NEW YORK DA TE : 1811 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative # BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record Restrictions on Use: 37.78 V, ' f.t'f f ii.U " ■g gV« ' f!*'^j f W>"^ » *^ 1^ %mm I J712 ^Hobart, John Henry bp Vl775-1830j'^- ^ >. ^ Letter to the vestry of Trinity church in answer to a pamphlet entitled "A solemn appeal to the church** by the Rev.Cave Jones; jLo which is added an ai>- •pendix by the Rev* T^Y^How I N Y ISlij 146 + clj + 24 p Title-page wan/ A I I f -^ TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: 2J/tr^ _^^_ REDUCTION RATIO: //y IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (^ IB IIB "' DATE FILMED:: ?-/-?> INITIALS _MC: HLMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT ' c Association for information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 11 mi I I I I I i I 5 6 7 8 iiilim hiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii Inches I 2 3 9 .1. 10 iiiiliii 11 12 13 14 15 mm TTT HlMnlimlmm^^ [}\ 1.0 I.I 1.25 1^ III 2.8 |5.0 '"^ 2.5 1^ ||3.2 2.2 !f 1^ ^ m 2.0 ift t& u tUmu. 1.8 1.4 1.6 1^ MflNUFflCTURED TO fillM STRNDflRDS BY PPPLIED IMflGEp INC. # ^-^' A u 9 r ..^ i ~w. < i-5 <:-: j:^ - i» -<-'aj■■^, Vv >^^€^^ ":>. H^ Vk^V > .» ?^^ .«fe. ^ il..'? r>2»»V" :;J^"%' ..-^ ^^y /.> I n '^ > . :^ /■ 'lW '*^*^. 3 31.1Q J1I2. in the ®{t» **f gl«n» Uork gxlrrarg aiVEN BY X^T-. GarodEield ■• V ' I ^ To the Vestry of Trinity Church, New-York. Letter to the vestry of Tn.-»,4+ . by Bishop Hobart. in anXr t! ^ "^'^ entitled "A soT^L T ° ^ P^P^et. DendiT Vi'o^ +k r^ wnich is added an ao- penaix by the Rev.T.Y.How ^ 4 GENTLEMEN, In the opinion of many judicions friends with whom I most heartily concurred, any public notice of the « Appeal" of my colleague, the Rev. Mr. Jones, on the subject of my character in general, and my conduct to him and others, has hitherto appeared highly inexpedient. The tribunal to which that gentleman has cited me having no specific cognizance of the matters brought before it, there seemed a propriety in my declining to stand at its bar. The ecclesiastical authority having provided for the investigation and decision of all complaints against ecclesiastical persons, I have felt unwilling, even in self-defence, to pursue the course of conduct which, in my colleague, has been consi- dered as a violation of that order and discipline so essential to the prosperity of the Church ; and which all its members, and tiie Clejrgy in particular, are therefore bound to respect and to support The introduction of the matters contained in that gentleman's ♦< Appeal" to public notice, has also been deemed so subversive of the harmony of society; so repugnant to public decorum and private feeling; and so injurious to the reputation of the Clergy, the cause of re- ligion, and the interests of the Church; that it was judged highly inexpedient to prolong a discussion productive of such evils. ,.. 1 X The hope too was cherished, that the character which I had established would be my security against meriting the imputation of the unwort% dispositions, conduct, and de- signs attributed to me in Mr. Jones's performance ; diat the community, duly appreciating the motives of delicacy and jlf regard to the peace and honour of the Chureh, which oceasioned my silence, would not consider it as an acknow- ledgment of the truth of the charges urged against me ; and that no individuals would think it consistent with justice to lorm an opinion from an ex parte statement, or be induced, by the representations of a person who was the historian of his own wrongs, to relinquish, in any degree, their confi- dence ^li those who had hiUierto enjoyed it It has been also represented to me; that the Uonourable i '•^ f. » 4 To the Vestry of Trinity Churchy New-York. hv R-^r'°'' "° ^-'^ ^""^^^ °f ^^i'-^ity church r,pnriiv V,-, +1 „ w'-J-c.i i^ addea an ap- ponaix b/ the Rev.T.Y.liow GENTLEMEN, In the opinion of many judicious friends with whom I most heartily concurred, any public notice of the « Appeal" of my colleague, the Rev. Mr. Jones, on the subject of my character in general, and my eonduct to him and others, has hitherto appeared highly inexpedient. The tribunal to which that gendeman has cited me having no specific cognizance of the matters brought before it, there seeiricd a propriety in my decUning to stand at its bar. 1 he ecclesiastical authority having provided for the investigation and decision of all complaints against ecclesiastical persons, I have felt unwilling, even in self-defence, to pursue the course of conduct which, in my colleague, has been consi- dered as a violation of that oi-der and discipbne so essential to the prosperity of the Church ; and which aU its membei-s, »nrt t'le Clergy in particular, are therefore bound to respect and to support. The introduction of the matters contained in that gentleman's « Appeal" to public notice, nas also been deemed so subversive of the harmony of society ; so repugnant to public decorum and private feeling; and so injurious to the reputation of the Clergy, the cause of re- ligion, and the interests of tiie Church ; that it was judged highly inexpedient to prolong a discussion productive of such The hope too was cherished, that the character which I had cstabUshed would be my security against nienUng the imputation of the unworthy dispositions, conduct, and de- signs attributed to me in Mr. Jones's performance; that .he. community, duly appreciating the motives of delicacy and «f regard to the peace and honour of the Chui-eh, which occasioned my silence, would not consider it as an acknow-- ledgmcnt of the truth of the charges urged against me; and that no individuals would tliink it consistent with justice to iorm an opinion from an «c parte statement, or be induced, bv the representations of a person who was the historian ol his own wrongs, to relinquish, in any degree, tiieir confi- dcnce ;ii thoscwho had hitherto enjoyed it. It has been also lepresented to me. that the UonouraWe 1 f L ( '{ -V ■/A (l /t- li \" \ I V- I I ( 2 ) whIi'Ti '" '"'' ''!''"?'^te''' and the marks of confidence '^^-s^^r^ d"« Horn the heads of the ChurHi hnt ft*^,^ i gentlemen of (he „,ost respectable LnZg in tt ™^m? «UJ, >vere (he best refutadon of the eharys eontaTned ^: iniiit.> were I (o declare that, under the assaults which ml ■«^ n I *"■ V * . "''"SU'shed lay gentlemen of our Church Da lli«"««. ean1,ot be suspected of that pailialUj Tvhich might, however erroneousl/, be imDuted to my brethren in the ministry Yet ertif ifv^L #• ""P"**" sonal considerations, as is £ir Sal^uTfe r^'^'e ate transactions, I can, with the utmost sineeritt make the declaration, that the part which they have acted is stiM .nore gratifying to me when viewed as a S Tf the S terest wJuch they feel in the concerns of the ChuiS, tid « Pjedge that in times of difficulty she will not wanT the^or d.»l support of those to whom Providence has giten X talents and the influence eflfeetually to advance S ca^sf which they „,ay deem it their duty to defend. ^ ""* weLhTwr^S'.'"'!rH"'- *^^"*>^""'»' h^^* bad the g«,atest wej^nt with me 5 and, in consequence, I have uniformly rp «s ed the importunities of man^ respectable persons to sut mit an expos. ,on of my conduct to the public eye I eoS «ot be mduced to go further than to read to a fewTndivJduds pnncii.ally members of the Vestry, or gentlemen morhn mediately engaged in the concerns of the Chui^rTverC brief statement drawn up immediately on tK^salof Mr. Jones's « Appc-al,-/ in reply t<. some of its Sj'ar But the considcratfons in fevoup of a more complete and publie vinduatmn of my conduct have been gradually as suming more importance in the minds of my friends^ ft seems too much to itHjuirc implicit confidence from those individuals whose esteem for me. notwithstandiL Mr Jones's performance, continues unabated; whenitihnmV power to present to then, the fullest evidence of the perf^l eon-cc ncss of my eonduct. Perhaps among those whomYh^t pamphlet has affected in any degree unfev^i^bly to me, thl most prevalent impression is, not that violence, intolei^nee wes of my character J but that probably in my treatment of bim and others there have been faults which, though n"t very Misa that I had avoided. It is natural for a man aUve to the ( O delicacy of cliaraeter, to wish to repel every injurious impu- tation, however trivial, which he is conscious he does not merit. Much more then does it appear natural and proper that those persons, however few in number, who, by the repre- sentations of Mr. Jones or his friends have been led decidedly to condemn me, should receive from me ike evidence Avhicii will prompt them, as honest men, to do me justice. These are the considerations which would authorize a pri- vate individual, from the rights of character, in vindicating it as publicly as it has b?.en impeached. But, Gentlemen, were my station a private one, tliis personal Controversy, as far as I am concerned, should cease for ever. I have felt it one of my most painful trials, that the vows of duty which bind me to the Church, have not permitted me to descend to those private walks of life, where, enjoying hap- piness in the bosom of my family and friends, I could sub- mit, if not with indifference, at least in silence, to the suspi- cions and censures of the world, rather than agitate a per- sonal discussion, revolting to the delicate mind, and inex- T»ressibly painful to the friends of virtue and religion. It is rarely that in situations of difficulty, we have the alternative of pursuing a course which would certainly lead to a favourable result in preference to one manifestly and decidedly wrong. In almost all cases we must make an election of evils. And, in the judgment of the friends whom I have uniformly consulted, and to whom I am bound to pay the greatest deference, to be silent under existing circumstances would be productive of much greater evil than to proclaim my defence. The office of a Minister of the Gospel, which I hold in common with my brethren, ren- ders it desirable that I should not only be free from just re- proach, but from the suspicion of it. And were I to sub- mit to encounter distrust in those important ministrations which, on the most extensive scale, it will be hereafter my tluty to perform, when, by a developement of facts, I might justly claim the highest confidence, I should become ac- cessary to a diminution of my usefulness ; and should involve the interests of religion and the Church in the reproaches which might be cast upon myself. Unparalleled assiduity is used by Mr. Jones and his friends to give weight to the charges contained in his " Appeal." Representations are per- sonaUy made by him to almost every individual of the con- gregations, calculated to excite sympathy for himself as a persecuted man, and indignation against me as his impla- cable oppressor. From the constitution of human nature such arts cannot wholly fail of success. From the nature '»j ' 360772 r^BS \ ( * ) of things, a cause however weak in itself, thus advocated, cannot fail to gather strength. Apart then from what is due to m.y own character, to my family, and to mv friends, it seems due to religion and the Church, that I should be no longer silent under unmerited reproaches. In the opi- nion of those most doubtful as to the propriety of any ge- neral answer to Mr. Jones's "Appeal," those parts Avhich re- spect the behaviour imputed to me towards the Rev. Dr. Beach and the Rev. Mr. Feltus, require notice. But to ex- plain them alone would be construed into an acknowledg- ment of the truth of the general charges. The replication therefore which circumstances thus force upon me, must extend to every matter of impeachment. Still, reluctant to adopt a mode of defence the use of which necessity only can justify, and desirous to avoid the sanction of an appeal to the public on matters which ought never to be agitated liefore it, I have concluded to address a letter to you, to %¥hom, however in some points of view I am independent of your control, I am still in some degree amenable, as an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church. I have determined also to print some copies with a view to their circulation among those only whose connection with the Episcopal Church renders them interested in its concerns. Gentlemen, in this business, as in many other matters in which I have l)een recently called to act, my private feelings would urge to a vei^^ different course from that which duty to the Church appears to dictate. I repeat it— were mv station a private one, this discussion, so humiliating to private and t« public feeling, w ould on my part be closed for ever. The general chaiges adduced against mc bv Mr. Jones are the following. I take them as they occur in his « Appeal." In page 2 of his " Appeal," he introduces the names of the Kev. Mr. Harris, Dr. Moore, and Mr. Feltus ; in the en- sumg paragraph, he ranks himself with all the clergy who have hitherto been named ; and then goes on, in the name of others and himself, to make the following very serious de- claration respecting me: " We do believe, (and we solemnlv appeal to the heart-searching God for the sincerity of our conviction,) that his advancement will be promotive of a system of t>Tanny and intolerance, utterly incompatible with the state of things in this country; that it wUl be productive of great dissatisfaction and disunion in the Church ; and that It will subject the clergy to a state of servile submission, which would be highly disgraceful, and incompatible with the sacredness and religious responsibility of their character. ( 5 ) We say nothing of his abilities. These we are ready to allow in their due extent. But we do think that he has par- ticular traits of character, that he has qualities of mind and of heart, which far more than counterbalance whatever claim he may have to abilities, in disqualifying him for that high and momentous trust." He asserts that he believes ^< the attainment of power and influence, that self-exaltation is my ruling motive of action." Page 5. He repeats the same opinion in page 25. It is the direct and almost sole object of his " Appeal," to prove that I have pursued a systematic course of persecution against him ; that I have " marked his steps with eagle eyed, aiuxnous 8crutiny^-4ind even with male- volenceJ^ Page 73. Previously to following Mr. Jones through the particulars by which he attempts to support these charges, I must beg to be indulged in one or two remarks. These charges are of a nature so serious that I should hope that I might appeal for their fallacy to my general character, unless they are supported by incontrovertible proof. This proof ought to be — not the surmises of suspicion ; not trifling circumstances of a private nature, which, if ad- mitted, no way seriously or publicly affect my character; not the discoloured record of conversations between our- selves, which, from their private and confidential nature, ought never to be adduced, and can never be received as cor- rect evidence ; not exaggerated statements of the ebullitions of momentary warmth of temper, which, had they taken place, were more than repaired by those expressions of regret so soothing to wounded friendship, and which, with every ingenuous man, would seat the penitent offender more deeply in his heart. No, Gentlemen, I think you will admit with me, that these are not the grounds on which one friend should expel another from his bosom ; on which even an honourable enemy would seek the downfal of his rival ; still less, on which one Clergyman should denounce a brother for whom he professed once to feel <• the most ardent affection;* and appealing to the " heart-searcliing God,"f hold him up to the world, as capable of pufsuing a " system of tyranny " and intolerance," exacting " servile submission,":!^ de- voted to " the attainment of power and influence, to self ex- altation ;••§ a persecutor, watching the object of his vindictive passions " with eagle-eyed, anxious scrutiny," and even with " malevolence,"|| and « decrying and treating with cruelty, ^^^ all who would not be <• subservient to his views." * Mr. Jones's Appeal, p. 5. fp.S. * p. 3. § p. 5. !| p. 73. IT p- 85. \ 1/ l! ii i f L \ c ( 6 ) An individual whose station entitles him to confidence^ whose general character and conduct have proved that he was not unworthy of that confidence, certainly ought not, but on the evidence of a series of incontrovertible facts, to be con- demned as capable of motives and designs which should not only deprive him of power and influence in the Church, but consign him to the execration of society. It is my object dispassionately to examine, by what induc- tion of particulars Mr. Jones would establish his charges against me. In an investigation of my conduct to Mr. Jones smce our settlement in this city, I wish you to consider two distinct periods— the one prior, and the other subsequent to the meet- ing of the Convention of the Church in this State in the au- tnmn of 1808. At that Convention I discovered, with asto- nishment and regret, not merely the dereliction of one whom I had cherished as a friend, and whose interest as a brother I had uniformly sought to advance ; but his marked hostility. I shall be able to prove that, prior to this discovery in the au- tumn of 1808, my conduct to Mr. Jones was more than he could require from me as a brother in the ministry, and all that the warmest friendship could dictate ; and that subsequent to that period I have borne his unmerited hostility with a mildness and forbearance, I trust I may say equally honour- able to me as a man, a Christian, and a Clergyman. I shall be able to show that all the proofs by wliich he would esta- blish his general charges are utterly unfounded. You will then, ( tentlemen, be able to determine who is the injured or who the persecuted man. I trust it is unnecessary for me to remark that, I presume, it cannot be considered as indelicate or indecorous to dis- prove the accusations of Mr. Jones by the statements of per- sons who are acquainted with facts, or who were witnesses of our mutual behaviour. When the character of an indivi- dual is assailed by ^eciiic charges, this is always deemed a lawful, an honourable, and the most effectual mode of de- fence. Justice to character is also an obligation of para- mount force; and gives me a claim on all persons acquainted with facts, for the disclosure of the whole tnitlh however circumstances of delicacy or of private friendship might otherwise restrain them. The first charge which Mr. Jones adduces in support of his general charges against me, is in substance-— That the affections of tlie young men who have lately taken orders, have been alienated from him. ( 7 > 1 cannot avoid remarking that, with every considerate person, the stress, laid upon this fact that the young men preparing for Holy Orders preferred, as their confidential friends and the directors of their studies, other persons than Mr. Jones, is an evidence of that suspicious temper which unfortunately for himself, for others, and for the Church, has led him to view things through a perverted medium. This remark derives additional force from the circumstance, as stated by himself, that in the month of June, 1809, it was made a condition of his restoring his confidence to me " that while we should behave to'* ^< the young men study- ing for the ministry,'* " with afi*ection to be sure, yet we ought not to court flieir attachment by undue attentions."* To this general alienation of the young men from him, he states two exceptions ; the Rev. David Moore, and the Rev. Mr. Powell. The « former," he asserts, " has met with no countenance." Mr. Moore never asked, nor needed any countenance from me. Soon after his ordination as Deacon, Lc was settled in one of the first livings in the State, that of Staten-Island, which his father, the Rev. Dr. R. C. Moore, liad a short time previously resigned. And it is a fact, that during the short period that cure was vacant, no one Clergyman, that might be supposed would be in- duced to accept of it, ofiiciated there. When trivial cir- cumstances are urged against an individual, he may be ex- cused for adverting to circumstances confessedly equally tri- vial, which would involve his accusers in the same offence which they attribute to him. The Rev. Mr. Feltus, in his statement,! has adduced as a proof of my pursuing a " shame- ful system of favouritism and proscription," that <* some of the most respectable situations" « in city and country,'* " requiring age and experience, were instantly filled up with young gentlemen just entering the ministry ; while learning, and talents, and long services are kept in the back ground, and their influence ci*amped and lessened by the narrowness of their situations."^: The parish of Staten-Island, to which the Rev. Dr. Moore had devoted a large portion of his mi- nisterial labours, is one of the most respectable, and one of the most lucrative livings in the State ; and (to use the lan- guage of Mr. Feltus) it was " instantly seized on," « as soon" as it was a " vacancy," by a " young gentleman jnst enter- ing the ministry," « so that the people can scarcely be said to have a choice." I beg pardon. Gentlemen, for calling * Page 16 of Mr. Jones's Appeal. t \i.".Feltus's statement, " uuder his own ' Al'peal, p. 104. hand," p. 104 of Mr. Jone?'s Appeal* V' (I ( 8 ) your attention to cipcunistanccs so trivial. And I should be ashamed to dwell upon them for a moment, if they had not been urged as proofs of a charge against me no less serious than that of prosecuting a " shameful system of favouritism and proscription."* But had Mr» Moore asked or needed <^ my countenance,'' I was not without some reasons for declining to extend it. I was one of his examining Presbyters. His father attended his examination ; and from delicacy I abstained from taking part in it. Such was my desire to do nothing offensive to the feelings of Dr. Moore, that, notwithstanding some cir- cumstances which occurred during the examination of his son which would have authorized me, I made no objection to his ordination. He recently applied for Priest's orders under a deficiency in the requisite age ; though the canons expressly enjoin a certain qualification as to age, from which they aUow no dispensation; though the rubric before the oi^dination offices enjoins this qualification ; and though every person ordained Deacon or Priest solemnly declares to the Bishop, that he believes he is called to the ministry of the Church " according to the will of God, and the canons of the same." I should not have adverted to this last circum- stance, but in consequence of Dr. M.'s censure of my op- position, when I was a member of the Standing Committee, to his son's last application ; and I have reluctantly intro- duced the name of his son, solely in explanation of the charge brought against me by Mr. Jones, that this gentle- man " received no countenance" from me and my friends. I now declare, that shall consider it my duty not to permit any of the particulars which I have mentioned to influence my future conduct to Mr. Mooi'e. The Rev. Mr. Powell, soon after his arrival in this eoun- trj, was introduced to me as a young gentleman who wished to prepare for the ministry. I am confident he will bear me testimony that I discovered the greatest solicitude that his views in this most important business should be correct; and that no pi-ecipitancy should mark his entrance on the sacred office. He pursued his studies with me ; and sought at all times for my counsel. I am satisfied that he will tes- tify that I pursued a frank and undisguised conduct to him ; indicative indeed of an earnest desire to reconcile my duty to the Church with the'gratification of his wishes, but no way calculated to procure his attachment by those arts which an unprincipled aim at popularity would dictate. Under the • Mr. Feltus's statement, p. lOi of Mr. Jones's Appeal. ( » ) same impressions, I spoke to him fi'eely concerning the vacancy at Bloomingdale, and frankly stated to him my reasons for the opinion that his present situation ought to be preferred by him. The same reasons I stated only to a few gentlemen, one of whom, a leading member of the congregation, earnestly and confidentially pressed me for jny opinion. I should certainly, however, have stated them to any persons, whenever circumstances seemed to require. No sentiment can be more incorrect than that, after the admission of a person into the ministry, he should be left to seek his advancement without the intrusion of the counsel or the opinions of his bi^thren. Such a sentiment would sanction the opinion so erroneous in fact, that all persons have « gifts" in no wise " differ- ing;" it would confound entirely the talents and merits of individuals; it might produce essential injury to the Church ; and it would condemn the practice of all vestries and all congregations, who, with great propriety, seek full information as to the character and qualifications of the Clergyman whom they may contemplate to choose. Thus, from a sense of duty, I incurred the risk of losing the good opinion of a young man, who has always appeared sincerely attached to me. A disrespectful sentiment of Mr. Jones I never uttered to him ; nor did it ever occur to me to inquire in what relation he stood to Mr. Jones. TThe assertion, that the part which I acted towards him was dictated by resent- ment at his " behaving with decency" to this gentleman, has no foundation but surmise. These particulars, as well as the sentiments of Mr. P. in regard to my conduct, will ap- pear from the following statement. The distance of Mr. P.'s residence from a post town, and the consequent uncer- tainty when I should be able to hear from him, have prevent- ed my application to him. The testimony, however, is of a nature to preclude aU cavil ; and I am confident Mr. P. has not hesitated frequently and genei*ally to express the senti- ments contained in it. <^ I certify^ that the Rev. Mr. Powell and myself have been on terms of confidential intercourse ever since his arrival in this country ; during the greater part of which time he was an inmate of my family^ After Mr. Jones'i^ hostility to Dr. Hobart began to be generally known, Mr. Powell uniformly bore testimony to Dr. Hobart*s friendly style of conversation with respect to Mr. Jones, particu- larly in one instance in which Mr. Jones was censured. Ife never heard Mr. Jones's name mentioned by Dr. He- • 2 i t k ( w ) liart, but in terms of respect While he was a candidate for the ministry he attended Dr. Hobart's instruction once or twice a week; and during all that time Dr. Hobart never spoke a disrespectful word of Mr. Jones— Dr. Ho- bart never once introduced any subject of misunderstand- ing that existed between him and Mr. Jones. " I also certify, that I have frequently heard Mr. Powell converse about the manner in which Mr. Jones brought his name before the public. He could not speak unfavourdMe terms of a rex^ent publication of mine, and lamented the injurious effects which it was calculated to produce. My reply instantly was, that I did not and would not believe Mr. Jones unfriendly to me ; diat I never had felt the least reserve in the affectionate m- tercourse which subsisted between us ; that certainly 1 had no right to find fault with Mr. Jones for any opinion which he chose to entertain of any publication of mine ; that I was indeed surprised at hearing at his disajiprobation of the performance in question, as I had submitted a copy to his inspection, and he returned it to me, saying, that he thought it calculated to do good ;^ tliat I was persuaded if he had reflected, he would have been sensible that, considering the friendship which subsisted between us, candour required that he should not have expressed these sentiments to others, without previously acquainting me with them ; but that I should not permit myself to feel in the least degree unplea- sanllv towards him, until I had seen him and had an expla- nation from him. This explan-ition I accordingly sought. He acknowledged the fact, but disclaimed all intention ot acting uncandidlv towards me. I was gratified with his de- clarations. I gave him tlie full confidence which under the same circumstances I felt I should expect from him ; and from that moment until three or four years afterwards, when I discovered that he had indeed been pursuing a systematic course of hostility against me, I do not recollect that the circumstance passed once through my mind. Had I felt any lealousv of Mr, Jones, or any unfriendli- ness to him, there were not wantuig other circumstances during this period, calculated to cherish the one disposition, and in a degree to authorize the other. I almost daily heard • I believe 1 still have in my ppsses.jon tlij.' popy v/ilh his cdlT-ctions in the Diargin. ( 1^ ) individuals express themselves of Mr. Jones, as a man of a con- tracted, selfish, self-important, envious temper. 1 disi-egarded these representations, made indeed in most cases without any direct intention of prejudic ing me against him. 1 uniformly defended him. 1 net cnlv clt ftrdtd him : I was his warm pa- negyrist. All this will appear from the statements which I sh all exhibit to you. Mr. Joneses conduct also would have afforded just cause for suspicion. He speaks indeed* of his " taking the first steps to place me in the fore-ground; while he was content to remain out of view.'' 1 o what steps he alludes, I know not. I was once informed indeed by ]Mr. Harris, that he took to himself some credit, with what degi'ee of justice I do not know, for a gi*atuily which several ^ears ago, had been granted me by the Vestry, in consideration of some pe- culiar expenses to which I had been exposed ; and that he defended the propriety of this grant against the complaint of one of my colleagues. Satisfied however, I am, that on this occasion the Vestrj could not have needed his influence or sanction to this act 'of kindness to me. And 1 recollect that on one occasion, in the institution of the Theological S ociety, he acknowledged the fact of my being a resident minister in the cit\ before he was, and gave me the prece- dence. But most certainly his general conduct did not look as if he was " content to remain out of view.'* 1 was an older assistant minister in Trinity Church, and of course entitled to the precedence. 1 liis on all occasions I offered to him ; and he almost invariably accepted it ; thus holding himself out to public view, as next in standing to Dr. Bea*-h» This retiring behaviour on my part was ceniured In several of my brethren; but so inconsistent with delicacy and dignity appeared to me such contests for superiority, and no incompati- ble in particular with the clerical character, that I persevered in my yielding course of conduct. Mr. Jones and myself had not been settled here but a few months, when a most influen- tial Clergyman of the Church, who appeared aware of his particular'cast of mind, advised me to request of the Vestry to settle the point of seniority between us. Averse, as 1 have before mentioned, to the appearance even of contests for pre- eminence among Clergymen, and reposing fully in the honour of Mr. Jores, and in his affection for me, I took no steps whatsoever in the business ; and so little concern did it give jme, that I did not even know till within this year past, that soon after our Bettlement here, a vote had passed your body, Appeal, p. 5. ( 20 ) establishing my seniority as an assistan minister. These trifles are not urged as complaints against him, or as proofs of merit in myself. But to certain minds, " trifles" are '< confirmations strong." Towards Mr. Jones, I declare I felt no suspicion. Until the autumn of 1808, (I repeat it) I was his cordial, unsuspecting, and tried friend. The statements to which I shall call your attention will show how honourable, how correct, how disinterested and how zealous was my friendship for him. I alw ays indeed lamented the absence in Mr. Jones of that warmth and frankness which bind kindred minds to each other, and so much augment their enjoyments. Still, what appeared to me constitutional imperfections of charac- ter, no way diminished the sincerity of my regard. So en- tirely did I repose in his friendship, that the " two unplea- sant occurrences," which I have already explained, and which he has placed in the front of his charges against me, had entirely passed from my mind ; and when I was informed by Mr. Harris, in the summer of 1809, that Mr. Jones had di*awn up a statement to be presented to the Bishop com- plaining of my injurious treatment of him, I was perfectly astonished, and was wholly unconscious to what he could re- fer. You may judge, Gentlemen, what were my feelings, when I incidentally discovered that while I supposed Mr. Jones and myself were sincerely united in sentiments of friendship, which commencing with our connection as col- leagues in Trinity Church, had been strengthened by the intercourse of years, he had been engaged in a secret and violent attack upon my character; that he had repre- sented me as a man of unprincipled ambition, the calum- niator of my brethren; and by these and other odious re- presentations had endeavoured to blast my character and entirely to destroy my influence in the Church. The cir- cumstances attending this discovery, would still further sa- tisfy you of my unsuspecting friendship for Mr. Jones, and of the difficulty w ith which I could be brought to believe that lie entertained any hostile designs against me. But the na- ture of his " Appetd" compels me so frequently to dwell on mi- laite circumstances, that 1 am unwilling to detain you with ihem in the present instance. The truth of all these representations, with respect to the relative behaviour of myself and Mr. Jones, will appear from the following statements, which I now submit to your atten- tive and candid perusal. And I confidently trust that when you have perused them, so far from condemning me for ex- hibiting them, you will give me credit for that forbearance ( 2i ) Iwhich so long withheld this full justification of my charac* ter from the attacks which it has sustained. It is necessary for me to premise that some of these [statements were procured in April last, at the suggestion of Iseveral friends who deemed it proper that I should prepare Jmyself with the means of repelling the accusations of Mr. IJones ; and some of these statements have been more re- Icently obtained. Part of them also relate to points which I shall subsequently consider. « J^eW'Fork, •Apil 1, 1811. ^< I do liereby certify, that at the Convention of the Church in 1808, Dr. Hobart informed me that he had rea- son to believe that Mr. Jones entertained unfriendly senti- ments to him, and that it was Mr. Jones's intention, and that of some other persons, to endeavour to put Dr. Hobart out of the office he held of Secretary of the Convention ; that Dr. Hobart expressed to me his wish, in order to pre- serve peace, to resign that and other offices which he held; from which I dissuaded him ; that previously to this period I never heard Dr. Hobart express himself concerning Mr. Jones but in the most friendly, aflbotionate, and respect- ful terms ; that he always discovered a solicitude to pre- vent Mr. Jones from supposing that he was neglected in the concerns of the Church ; that he (Dr. Hobart) fre- quently declined public duties, which I requested him to perform, in favour of Mr. Jones and others ; that, though as an older Assistant Minister in Trinity Church he ranked before Mr. Jones, he often relinquished his pre- cedence to Mr. Jones, and when I expressed to him my opinion that he was incorrect in so doling, he stated, as his reason, his wish to preserve peace and to prevent un- pleasant collision with Mr. Jones ; and when, on^ any oc- casion of the meeting of the Clergy on the business of the Church, I omitted to mention the name of Mr. Jones, from the circumstance of its being inconvenient to notify him, on account of his residing out of town. Dr. Hobart suggested the propriety of inviting Mr. Jones, and took on himself the trouble of giving him notice. And further, I deem myself in justice bound to Dr. Hobart to declare, that as far as I have had an opportunity of observing, his conduct in the afi'airs of the Church has been conciliating, honourable, and correct. « BENJAMIN MOORE, • BUhop of the ProU Episc. Church in the State of JS*€w-Fork^ « By his son CUEMENT C. MOORE." !!!■ ii' HU 1 1 ( a« ) " As it is the duty of every man to do justice to the character of others, especially of those whose office it is to fiponiote vii'tue and religion, I do hereby certify, that the K<»v. Dr. llobart has, on all occasions, when I have been present, spoken of the Rev. Mr. Jones with tender- nens, and in terms in no degree indicating a hostile dispo- sition ; and this, when he knew that Mr. Jones had long been in the habit of speaking disrespectfully and bitterly of him. And I do further declare, that I myself have heard Dr. Hobart, and that others on whose veracity I can di'pend have assured me, that they have heard him defend the character of jVIi*. Jones, when it was treated with disres|)ect ; and on no occasion discover the least malevolence towards hi in. In short, i have always been astonished at the forbearance and mildness of Dr. llobart, considering the cruel persecution, which, for a long time he has suffered. « JOHN BOWDEN. « Columbia College, April 10, 1811." " I hereby ceiliiy, that at various times I have heard the Rev. Mr. Jones's name mentioned, when allusions Vfere made to his character, talents, and other qualifica- tions, in the presence of the Rev. Dr. Hobart ; that, on every such occasion, Dr. llobart never spoke of Mr. Jones but with the utmost respect, and even affection. Whenever the misunderstanding between him and Mr. Jones was mentioned, he represented lum as mistaken al- together, in regard to his. Dr. llobart's, sentiments to- wards him; that, however conscientious a Clergyman, and worthy a man Mr. Jones was, he had taken up cer- tain notions, and drawn conclusions from them altogether unwarranted by his. Dr. Hobart's, conduct towards him. , 1 also certify, that even within a few weeks I was present in a large company, when a direct charge was made against Mr. Jones for neglecting his duty on some recent occasion ; that Dv, Hobart entered warmly on the vindica- tion of Mr. Jones, and showed satisfactorily tnat he was altogether blameless. I further certify, that Dr. Hobart has often conlldentially si)oken to me respecting the dif- ference existing between himself and Mr. Jones : that then also he spoke of Mr. Jones with respect and tender- ness ; and mentioned to me the substance of several con- versations which he. Dr. Jlobart, had with him, to con- Yince him that his; Mr. Jones's^ conduct towards him was ( «3 ) incorrect ; and that he. Dr. Hobart, cherished no un- friendly sentiment towards him. « EDM. D. BARRY. ^' Xeiv-ForTi, April ist, 1811." « JVew-Forfc, April Sth, 1811. « Rev. Sir, <^ Though I can hardly think it necessary, yet at your request I do most cheerfully declare, to all whom it may concern, that yoU have, as far as has come within my knowledge, acted towards, and vith many of the people of our congregations. I know that he has made at least one person his enemy by his readiness to defend a measure in which Mr. Jones was particularly concerned. And Dr. Beach has been, several times, almost offended with him for vindicating Mr. Jones in cases in which Dr. Beach eonsidered his condujet as reprehensible. <* I can also state that I know Dr. Hobart has been con- sidered by the Bishop, Dr. Bowden, Dr. Beach, and others, as yielding the precedence to Mr. Jones in cases in which he ought not to have yielded it ; and that they have thought his forbearing and conciliatory temper has carried \n\j^ further tban the principles of strict propriety would permit. In this opinion I have most fully concur- red. In short, I can most conscientiously declare, from an attentive observance of the conduct of Dr. Hobart to- ward Mr. Jones, that it has exhibited an example of no- bleness, of forbearance, of tenderness, and tljis under circumstances calculated to excite feelings of high indig- nation, that has filled me with the sincerest admiration, and that, I am persuaded, needs only to be known to com- mand universal respect and praise. «* When, in the autumn of 1808, Dr. Hobart dis- covered that Mr. Jones had been engaged in denouncing him as a man of unprincipled ambition, and in forming a combination to turn him out of office. Dr. Hobart was disposed to make every allowance. When the baseness of Mr. Jones's conduct was pointed out, he ex- cused and palliated. And I know that he preserved si- lence on the subject of the injuries which he was receiv- ing from Mr. Jones, except among a few of his confiden- tial friends. Tlius he continued to act, endeavouring to ( 25 ) soothe Mr. Jones by the most friendly and respectful de^ portment* « THOMAS Y. HOW/^ Mr. Jones, in his *• Appeal,'^ states that Dr. Beach, Mr. Harris, and Dr. Moore, have received injurious treatment from me. As my intercourse with the two former gentle- men has been intimate and unreserved, it seemed proper that I should obtain their testimony, in order, to avoid any suspicions injurious to myself which might arise from the want of it. I accordingly addressed three questions to Dr. Beaeh« The third question and its answer shall appear ia its proper place. The two first, with the answers which I received from him, here follow. " isi (luestion. At the Convention in the fall of 1808, did I not state to you my regret at having discovered that Mr. Jones entertained hostile sentiments towards me; and express to you my intention, with a view of soothing him, and preserving peace, of declining a re-election to the offices which I then held in the Church ; and did you not dissuade me from this determination ?'' " Answer. You did state to me your regret^ and ex- pressed your determination to decline a re-election^ as I had never heard of any combination against you, I did earn«stly dissuade you from your determination." " 2d Question. Previously to this period, was I not, as far as you know, the friend and advocate of Mr. Jones ; and have you not heard me, on many occasions, defend him, when he was criminated V* ^* Answer. I cannot recollect any particular crimina- tion of Mr. Jones, on occasion of which you became his advocate and defender,* but that you were on friendly terms with each other, at the time you mention, I have every reason to believe.'* I was absent in the country when Dr. Beach's note, en- closing his answers were sent to my house. On my retura to the city I addressed to him a note containing the follow- ing: *' Your answer to my second question, owing perhaps to the mode of expression employed by me, does not ap- pear to me to present a full and just view of my behaviour , to Mr. Jones as far as it has come within your knowledge. I presume you distinctly recollect that prior to the Con- - 4 • • * I ilj ir It k I' . III '( 26 ) veiitioii in 1808, you never heard me use disrespeetfuT language of Mr. Jones : but that, on the contrary, you always heard me speak of him in a friendly manner ; and tliat fi-equently when an unfavoui*able style of remark was used with respect to him, I expressed myself in favoura- ble terms concerning him. It appears to me that a state- ment of this kind ftom you is a very moderate represen- tation of facts. I wish to obtain these, but not in a way implicating yourself. I therefore subjoin another ques- tion which, with the answer you may be so good as to furnish me, I will annex to the other questions and an- swers, or substitute instead of the second inquiry and reply, as you may direct. " Prior to tlie Convention in the fall of 1808, did you ever hear me use disrespectful language of Mr. Jones ; ' on the contrary, did you not hear me uniformly speak of him in a friemlly manner; and frequently when an unfa- vourable style of remark was used with respect to him, did you not hear me express myself concerning him in favoui*ablc terms V^ Dr. Beach, the next day (July 12) transmitted the fol- lowing ; remarking, that it " gave him pleasure to comply with any refjuest of mine." ^^ With respect to my answer to youi* second question'—^ 9 I have no hesitation in adding, what you intimate is your wish, viz. that, < prior to the Convention in the fall of ' 1808, I*never heai^ you use disrespectful language of Mr. Jones ; on th*^ contrary, I have heard you uniformly speak of him in a friendly manner:' in justice to Mr. Jones, I must also add, that prior to the period alluded to, I ne- ver heard him use disrespectful language respecting you : on the contrary, I have heard him uniformly speak of you in a friendly manner. As the above contained no reply ta the latter part of the inquirj' which I had addressed to him, I immediately sent a letter to him, containing the following remarks. <* The latter part of the question contained in my letter of yesterday, appears to have escaped your notice, as you make no reply to it. The part to which I refer is — < and ^frequently when an unfavourable style of remark was used with respect to him (Mr. Jones) did you not hear * mc express myself concerning him in favourable terms ? ( 2^ ) I am satisfied your recollection wiil enable you to answer this question in the aflSirmative ; as you did in the state- ment with which on a former occasion you thought of furnishing me. I have frequently defended Mr. Jones ^rom your own censures ; though this I do not wish to . appear in your answer; and hence the question I propose does not implicate yourself, as the unfavourable style of ]remark may have been used by others. The circum- stance however to which I wish you to testify is a fact which I cannot think you have forgotten, and to which indeed you gave your testimony in the statement above V alluded to. In this statement also you gave, as I con- ceive, a move correct view of your knowledge of Mr. Jones's behaviour to me than that which is contained in .your letter of this day. You then testified that in one instance (at your farm in the year 1804 or 1806) you heard Mr. Jones defend me when I was criminated. Your present testimony states that you heard him unU fomihj speak of me in a friendly manner ; the same terms which you apply to my behaviour to him ; and of course leading to the conclusion, that you had the same evidence of the mutual correctness of our behaviour to each other. This I presume you will recollect cannot have been the case ; for you had very little intercourse with Mr. Jones ; and I imagine do not recollect but owe instance in which you heard him speak of me in a friendly manner: while your intercourse with me was frequent and unreserved, and on various occasions you heard me express friendly opinions concerning him. I only wish to ascertain facts on this subject ; and this must be my ex- cuse for remarks calculated to call your attention to them." . Tlie following was the part of the inquiry to which I had called Dr. Beach's attention — " and frequently when an unfa- vourable style of remark was used with respectt to him (Mr. Jones) did you not hear me express myself in favourable terms concerning him ?" To this he replied in a note which I received the Monday ensuing — ♦ ** That I should be able to recollect every thing that hath passed between us inafiiendly and unreserved intercourse of ten or a dozen years, resj)ecting any part of Mr. Jones's conduct, you can scarcely think possible. I am fuUy per- suaded, however, that during our acquaintance with Mr. Jones^ especially in the early part of it, something like t It /- i..i I! ( 28 ) ^hat is expressed in the question^ may have frequently oeeurred, though I cannot call to mind the particulars; it is, however, certain they were not of such importance as to leave any lasting impression on my mind.'^ • From respect to Dr. Beach, my inquii4es were designedly so mild and moderate, that had the answers heen explicit, they would not have furnished me with the full means of de- fence with which it was in his power to supply me. I trust 1 shall not he suspected therefore of disresi)ect to him when 1 ohsei^ve, what I think must occur to every candid mind, that his answers are remarkably reserved and guarded. In order to elucidate the testimony of Dr. Beach, it is there- fore necessary for me to remark, that he frequently expressed himself in unfavourable terms concerning Mr. Jones, not only to me in " friendly and unreserved intercourse,*' but ^to others ; and often complained of particular acts of unkindness to himself. Tliis style of remark commenced in the « early part of our acquaintance with Mr. Jones," and has con- tinued to the pi-esent day. I uniformly and warmly defended }iim, and endeavoured to bring into view the good traits of iiis character. Injustice to myself I make these observa- tions ; and hot with the most remote intention of implicating I>r. Beach. The same unfavourable style of remark con- cerning Mr. Jones was used by others as well as by him; and 1 haVe unfortunately now reason to believe that their opinion of Mr. Jones was much more correctthan my own. Yet cautious and guarded as is the testimony, it still, I conceive, fully establishes the fact, that " in a friendly and unreserved intercourse of ten or a dozen years" with Dr. Beach, not" one word ever escaped my lips disrespectful or unfriendly to Mr. Jones, but on the contrary, that I uni- formly acted the part of his friend and advocate. Is it pos- «ble then that I could have been secretly pursuing against him a system of persecution ? After I had determined to apply to the Rev. Mr. Harris for his testimony, I deemed it most respectful and friendly to have an interview with him on the subject. Accordingly, in a conversation with him of some lengtli, I called his at- tention to the points on which I should wish his testimony ; and I found that his recollection of all the material facts was in substance the same with my own. I then mentioned, that, if he chose, I would address to him a number of in- quiries, to which I would beg the favour of a written reply. He assented to this course, and discovered a readiness to do ( 39 ) me justice, which called forth my acknowledgments, and led me to express to others my sensibility to this honourable dis- position on his part. In the afternoon of the day on which this conversation took place, I hastily drafted a number of questions, and delivered them to him personally, after read- iag them to him, explaining their purport, and assuring him that my simple aim was to obtain a statement of the facts which were within his knowledge. He promised that in a day or two he would furnish me with his replies. On the 3d instant, he addressed the following note to me, to which I returned the annexed answer. « Right Rev. Sir, «' I did say to you that I would answer the questions you proposed, but alter having given them an attentive peru- sal I think it necessary to request Bishop Hobart to in- form me whether, in his contemplated publication, it is his intention, either directly or indirectly, to implicate my character, or in any manner injurious to my reputa- tion to draw into public view my conduct relative to ex- isting differences. Bishop Hobart will readily perceive the propriety of my asking this information. " With respect, I am, « Right Rev. Sir, "Yours, &e. " WM. HARRIS. f^ Right Rev. Dr. Hobart. ** July 3, 1811.'*' ^ « July 4f, 181i. « Rev. Sir, " I did not see, until the evening, your note of yester- day, or 1 should have immediately returned an answer to it. « The promptitude with which, in the two interviews witli you on Monday, you expressed your readiness to an- swer any inquiries which I nught address to you with a view to the vindication of myself from the charges con- tained in the pamphlet of Mr. Jones, made the most fa- vourable impression on my feelings, and I assured you of my sensibility to this prompt and honourable determina- tion on your part to do me justice. Your repeated decla- rations, after 1 had read to you my inquiries, that you would answer them; the undisguised manner in which at these interviews, as indeed in all former ones, I con- versed with you ; the assurance which I gave you that the M III.:!: i'lir :|fe i ' ( 1111 M i:: ( ao ) ittquiiues were hastily drafted, without any artful or si- nister design, but with the single one of Obtaining from you a statement of faets necessaiy to my vindication ; all these consi or given in whole or in part. •^ <^ I am. Rev. Sir, respectfully yours,* "J. H. HOBART* « Rev. Mr. Harris.'^ In a few days afterwards I received a note, enclosing xe- plies to all my inquiries. As these replies did not appeal ta me to accord entirely with the testimony as to the same points which he gave to me in our conversation on the sub- ject, and with my recollection of facts, I waited upon him, and stated these impressions. I found that my inquiries and his answers, previously to their being sent to me, had been exhibited to Mr. Jones; at which I expressed my surprise, observing to him, that he had not consulted me on a state- ment affecting myself with which he furnished Mr. Jones, and which appears in the « Appeal.*' He i:emarked, that Mr. Jones did not like his answers, that I did not like them, and that he did not know how to please us both. I replied,, that I had expressed no dislike to his answers ; my only wish was that they should strictly accord with his recollec- tion of facts ; and that I was confident he would think, that what might be the sentiments of either Mf. Jones or myself in regard to his testimony ought to be no consideration with him ; his only object should be to state the truth, regardless of consequences. Some few alterations were made by him in his testimony. I haVe premised these circumstances, in order to furnish you with an idea of the impressions under which Mr. Harri* delivered his testimony, and to enable you to determine how far it is probable that it does full justice to myself. I havfr no wish to be guilty of direspect to Mr. Harris, who really appeared desirous to act conscientiously. In the course of this address I shall publish, in its proper place, the whole of his testimony, as originally given, and as altered after- wards. At present I subjoin the following extracts from it. (imsL " Prior to the Convention in the fall i^ 180^, did you at any time hear me speak disrespectfully of the Rev. 1 ili'. I h ( *e ) Mr. Jones ; or did you discover in me any hostile dispo ^tion^ qr acts towards him? On the contrary, as far as came within your knowledge, did not my behaviour indicate the . most friendly sentiments to him ?" Ans. " I had fi*equently heard you speak of Mr. Jones as a man of great worth. I recollect in particular that you frequently commended him for the correctness of his piin- ciples, for his great sincerity, his strict regard to truth, and also for his zeal and faithfulness in the discharge of his professional duties. I must also do Mr. Jones the justice to say, that he has frequently spoken to me of you in terms of the highest commendation. I have no recol- -^ lection of any hostile acts or dispositions that you disco- vered towards him, and I know of none that Mr. Jones discovered towards you previous to the period alluded to, unless the letter addressed to Mr. Prentice be considered in that light." ^uest, <* While such was my behaviour to Mr. Jones, did not he frequently complain to you that my dispositions were uitfriendly to him; and did you not express your persua- sion to him that his views of me were erroneous ?" Jins. " In some instances I believe I did say that Mr.. Jones's views of you were erroneous, and I cannot deny that I then thought them to be so ; but I am now convinced that he had better grounds for his opinions than I had then imagined. He did at times, but I cannot precisely recol- lect when, speak to me of your unfriendly dispositions towards him.'' ^(uest. " Was I not during this period in habits of fre- quent, affectionate, and confidential intercourse with you ? The original answer of Mr. Harris to this third question tvas as follows : <0 ^ J My object in the last inquiry was to obtain a state- ment from Mr. Han is of what was undoubtedly the fact, that during the whole of this period I was his* most inti- mate and confidenfial friend; and lie acknowledged to me. though he expressed his reluctance at its appearing in his state- inent, as it might hurt the feelings of Mr. Jones, that his inter- course with me was much more affectionate and confidential than with this gentleman. And the use which I w ould make of this declaration is, that if according to Mr. Harris's state- ment, cautious as it is, my language to him with whom I never felt any reserve, coneerniug Mr. Jones, was uniformly that not only of cold stppiobation, but even of warm pane- gyric, it affords the strongest pfesusiption^that . Ei^sefiti. ments could not have been of tiie hostile nature attributed to me by this gentleman. Mr. Harris indeed has sometimes expressed his surprise at the change in my sentiments w ith respect to my colleague. But surely when I aset^rtained that wliile I was thus singular among my bretlu'cn in my high encomiums of Mr. Jones, he was secretly deiiouncing me, as the subsequent statements will evince, in terms tlie most severe and opprobrious, there was cause for this change of opinion. I can truly say, that the period in which the resistless evidence of facts forced contiary sentiments on my mind, Avas among the most painful of those through which it has been recently my lot to pass. The Rev. Dr. Moore, to wlioin I addressed some inqui- ries, readily answered thqui; prefacing his reply with the dex'laration^that " to the questions offered to his consider- ation, lie should not have hesitated to reply without reserve^ although I had omitted the assurance, * that 1 have no in- tention to implicate him in his answers, and pledge myself that they shall not he employed to his disadvantage." The first question and answer here follow; the rest shall be hereafter inserted. " ^msL 1. Until some short time after the Genei'al Con- vention at Baltimore, in 1808, were we not on terms of friendly inteiH-ourse ; and during that period, when, ac- cording to my recollcetiom there was no particular inti- macy between yourself and Mr. Jones, did I ever attempt to prejudice your mind against liiin, or speak of him in your liearing in other than respectful and affectionate terms; or did my conduct give you any reason taconiider that my views in respect to him, were unfriendlv ov hos- tile?" " B I) JM |r W i' ! i! ( 5i ) •< .ilns^ As there was no particular intimJicy between Mr. Jones and myself at that period, I do not recollect that our conversation ever embraced that gentleman or his concerns, co>nsequently you could not have dropped any expression of an unfriendly op hostile nature respecting him." Thus then it appears, that during a period when Dr. Moore frequently made my house his home ; when, as he was unacquainted with Mr. Jones, it would have been na- tural for him to receive impressions concerning this gentle- man from myself; and when it would have been easy for me te^inti'oducea-eQnversation relative to Mr. Jones, with a view to prejudice Dr. Moore against him, " not one ex- pression of an unfriendly or hostile nature respecting him dropped from me." I distinctly recollect, though the fact has escaped Dr. Moore's recollection, that more than once we conversed of Mr. Jones, and my language was that of regard and friendship. From the foregoing testimony, I trust, Gentlemen, I have established my assertion, that my uniform conduct to Mr. Jonc^, prior to the autumn of 1808, was that of disinter- ested and zealous friendshi]) ; and since that period, of ten- derness and forbeai-ance. This fact will still further appear from the subsequent statements, which will also exhibit the system of inveterate hostility which he was prosecuting to- wards me, at a time when I was his active advocate and friend. » , -r* t*« t*_ Before I exhibit to you the statement of the Rev. Mr. Pren- tice of Athens, I must beg leave to observe, that the cha- racter of this gentleman precludes the suspicion of his being influenced by other than the most honourable views ; that in the part which he has acted, he has uniformly displayed the most lively solicitude to reconcile his friendship for Mr. Jones with justice to me and duty to the Church; and that so far from having been officious in the introduction of hii testimony, he always gave it with considerable reluctance ; and only very recendy exliibited to me, at my particular re quest, some of its most important details. « I'his may certify, that some time in the summer or falj of 1808, tlie Rev. Mr. Jones called on me at Athens, on his way up the country, and after spending some days, . and preaching in the churches in the neighbourhood, 1 accompanied him to Albany. During the nde, a letter ( 3^ ) which Mr. Jones had written shortly previous^ and which Is now published in his ^^ Appeal," was mentioned, and particularly that part of it which seemed to impeach the character of Dr. Hobart. Mr. Jones took occasion, while on this subject, to enlarge on what he deemed the imper- fections and vices of Dr. Hobart ; and his remarks were calculated to induce a belief that Dr. H. was a hasty^ ambitious, and ill-bred man, not worthy of the ministe- lial character, and by no means deserving of the confidence of his brethren. Connecting Mr. Jones's conversation with the remarks in his letter of a prior date, strong sus- picions were excited that Dr. Hobart had either embez- zled the monies of a certain society, with the application of which he had been intrusted, or had purchased there- with, for distribution, his own controversial writings. This last impression was never entirely removed until the ap- pearing of Mr. Jones's " Appeal," in which a different statement was given. . " At the time above alluded to, much censure was be- stowed on Dr. Hobart, for the opposition which he had made to the wishes of a Mr. George Macklin, and for his backwardness in accrediting Mr. Macklin's papers and representations. Dr. Hobart's conduct was imputed to an unwarrantable suspiciousness and jealousy of temper, f lest any man should be admitted a Clergyman in this State, who would not be his humble servant.' " Other accusations were made against Dr. Hobart, relative to the discharge of his office as a member of the Standing Committee, and other committees ; but as they related to transactions not very important, and already past, they are not distinctly recollected. " JOSEPH PRENTICE. « MtitjiSy July 2, 1811." In the letter from Mr. Prentice, enclosing this statement. he repeats certain parts of it. " During* our ride to Albany almost his (Mr. Jones's) whole conversation was calculated to impress me with the belief, that you were a hasty, ambitious, and ill-bred man ; not wortliy of tlie ministerial character, and unworthy of the confidence of your brethren." The Mr. Macklin named in the above statement is the Sii- George Augustus Macklin, who afterwards distinguished liimself by an account, which he inserted in the papers, of a fictitious duel, in defence of the character of the Prince of Wales ; and who, it appears from the English papers, has sinee been indict^ f^r theft. He first introduced hirapelf to me ; liili' I* lii I ri^ mi ( 36 ) and satisfied at the time that he was an impostor, I was averse to his being received as a Clergyman among us. After it was found that I was opposed to him, Mr, Jones zealously patron- ized him. The event has shown how far my " suspicious- ness and jealousy" were " unwarrantable.'* The letter referred to in the above statement is that which appears in the 20th and 31st pages of Mr. Jones's " Appeal." The part which relates to myself is the following. Extract cf a Letter from the Rev. Mr. Jones to the Rev. Mr. Prenticey dated Xew-Yorky Aug. 9, 1808. *^ When I last wrote to you, and recommended the dis- semination of Fowler's Exposition of the Liturgy, I was not acquainted with the intention of the Corporation of Trinity Cliurch to purchase a parcel to be distributed among the parishes. I rejoice at this an^angement, and think that it will be productive of good. The disseminat- ing of such books, adapted to the capacity and to the in- structing of plain readers, will do more good than all the controversial writings that ambition and self-gratulation can multiply. It was my expectation to be able to for- ward you before this, some parcels of Jones's Churchman's Catechism, and Wall's small tract on infant baptism. We had made an appropriation for this purpose, and ap- pointed Dr. Hobart to get them printed. But I have waited in constant expectation of seeing them come out ; though have heard nothing of them since ; till the other day I inquired of the printer, and found that Mr. Hobart had applied the money another way, as suited his own wishes and views. This, 1 am sorry to say to you, is the way in which too much of the public business of the Church is transacted. It is time that some inquiry should he made." ' On the subject of the above letter, the following state- ment from Mr. Ritter, a leading gentleman in the congre- gation at Athens, has been forwarded to me. " This may certify, that previous to the settlement of the Rev. Mr. Prentice in this place, I was in the habit of corresponding with the Rev. Cave Jones ; that after the settlement of Mr. Prentice this correspondence continued, embracing little else than what related to the interests of this particular parish. My letters from Mr. Jones were generally seen by Mr. Prentice,- as they contained nothini; (37 ) of a private or confidential nature. I also frequently read letters addressed by Mr. Jones to Mr. Prentice, in none of which did I ever see any thing of a private or personal na- ture—they being wholly occupied by inquiries, councils, and directions concerning our Church — until about Au- gust, 1808, when I saw one which was brought by my bro- ther Peter Ritter, in which are some remarks on the con- duct and views of Dr. Hobart. This letter was not shown me by Mr. Prentice, but I believe accident brought it un- der my view. I felt myself at liberty to peruse it from the nature of the correspondence which I knew had been car- ried on (relating to the concerns of our Church) and from the intimacy which subsisted between Mr. Prentice and myself. Some things contained in that letter were fre- quently made the subject of conversation between my bro- ther and myself during liis stay in the country— ^rticu- larly as to what related about Dr. Hobart; I observed they were serious charges, and Dr. Hobart ought to be made acquainted with them. And some remarks which I have heard arc reported to have been made by me on perusing that letter, as near as I recollect are correct; they were insensibly drawn forth at seeing what I could not believe to be true. " HENRY RITTER. ^^AthenSf July 2, 1811." The above certificate shows how unfounded is the asser- tion of Mr. Jones')^ ^< that Mr. I.yell was the instrument for bringing the matter to light." Mr. Lyell was never at Athens mtil long after I was informed that this letter was written )y Mr. Jones ; nor did Mr. Lyell ever see the original letter, )r a copy of it, or any part of it, until he saw it printed in \Ir. Jones's " Appeal." I must also declare, in justice to VIr. Lyell, that the information which I received relative to his letter was not from him; and to free Mr. Prentice from the suspicion of furnishing me with a copy of it, I ought also to state, that though I was acquainted with the principal part ^f its contents, I never saw the letter or a copy of it, or of any lart of it ; and I read it, for the first time, in Mr. Jones's " Appeal." The expressions which Mr. Ritter acknowledges that he lade on iierusing that letter, were those of the strongest indignation, at what he considered a base attempt of Mr. pones secretly to injure my character. They were sen- * Appeal, p. 22. ■' # -i! II Ml «.i < 99 ; timeiit!» wliieli I think every honest man would feel iu such circumstances ; but the expression of them I always considered as highly honourable to Mr. Ritter; because he had been the <^ particular friend of Mr. Jones from early youth ;'* while, as I believe, he knew me only from general character. He certainly vfus not in habics of intimacy with me. In the beginning of August, this letter to Mr. Prentice, '* defamatory of me," was written by Mr. Jones. From the conclusion of this letter, as Mr. Jones observes,* << it ap- pears he contemplated a little tour up the country ; where he had never been, though born in the state." And ^* the beginning of the ensuing month," (September, 1808,) " an opportunity offered, of which he gladly availed himself." During this journey, the conversation took place with Mr. Prentice, some of the particulars of which are detailed in the preceding statement of this gentle :nan. And during the same journey, another conversation with n*S;>ect to myself took place, the particulars of which are exhibited in the following statement The Rev. Mr. Bulkley i^ now Rector of St George's Church, Flushing. " Flushing, July 1, 1811. ** Some little time previous to the Convention of 1808, the Rev. Mr. Jones paid me a' visit at PoUghkeepsie, of the Church in which place I was then Rectop-— the conver- sation turned iipon Dr. Hobart He inquired of me whe- ther I had received certain religious tracts. At first I . thought I hdd not received them, and told him so. He . then said that it was Dr. Hobart's duty to send them ; and seemed inclined to blame Dr. Hobart for this deficiency of duty as Secretary of the Convention. Afterwards, . upon the name of the tracts being mentioned, I recol- lected that they had been sent. He also said that Dr. llolmrt was pursuing a system of favouritism, particularly ' in respect to a certain Clergyman whom he was endea- . vouring to get into Trinity Church. And I also distinctly recttllect his asserting that Dr. Hobart had drawn up a number of charges against the Rev. Mr. Feltus, which he (Mr. Jones) was persuaded Dr. Hobart could not substan- tiate. Besides these particulars, the whole course of Mr. Jones's observations and remarks, when Dr. Hobail's name was introduced, impressed me with a belief, that he entertained an unfavourable opinion of Dr. Hobart and C 59 ) his manner of proceeding ; and the persuasion arose in my mind that this was owing to Mr. Jones's envy and jea- lousy of Dr. Hobart " The meeting of the Convention soon took place. I came down to New-York, and put up at Dr. Hobart^s house. I hinted to Mr. How, who was there also, tho observations of Mr. Jones respecting Dr. Hobart Mr. How thought that in justice to Dr. Hobart, he ought to bft made acquainted with them. I at first declined ; but af- terwards consented, and he communicated them. Dr. Hobart soon, I remember, came to me with surprise and i^g^et, that Mr. Jones should manifest such a disposition, and hold such language towards him, as he was consci- ous of never having intentionally given him cause for it. He manifested a willingness and disposition to pacify and ease Mr. Jones's feelings ; and even talked strongly of de- clining a reelection to the office of Secretary of the Con- vention, and of endeavouring to have Mr. Jones elected, in order to soothe him if possible. Previous to this I ne- ver heard Dr. Hobart speak of Mr. Jones otherwise than in respectful terms ; and even since that time, I have ne- ver heard him speak in any way that manifested a dispo- sition to injure Mr. Jones in any manner whatever; but I have often heard Dr. Hobart lament the circumstance of Mr. Jones's feelings towards him, and complain of the cruelty of his conduct in consequence thereof." « BAR/ILLAI BULKLEY." It would appear as if on this journey Mr. Jones omitted no opportunity of displaying an hostility to me, wliich was as wholly unsuspected as it was unmerited by me. It was certainly an object with him, if not to form a combination for the purpose, at least to sound tlie Clergy on the subject of turning me out of office ; and to put in circulation suspicions against me, which would ultimately lead to this issue. And indeed, if the Clergy had believed his representations, I was " utterly unworthy of their confidence," it was their duty to disgrace me. That I do not here indulge conjec- ture, is evident from Mr, Jones's own statement of his eon- f ersation with Mr. Prentice.* ** On the road he (Mr. Prentice) observed in conversa- tion, that he had learned with regret, from a gentieman in the neighbourhood, that there was a system of favour- I '■ ill y 10 ) 4 m 1' I itism puiMied iu the city. I remarked, that it was to he lamented that such was too much the case. And that, on the other hand, there was too much of a system of denun- ciation. Of this I mentioned as instances the opposition made to Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus. As a consequence of these measures I remarked, that much uneasiness was . created in the minds of the Clergy, and that some hegan . to think it was time to endeavour to put a stop to this sys- . iesRf and hsid thoughts of endeavouring to turn out Dj% Hohsat from the. office of Secretary, which gave him a great <^portunity of promoting his private views. Mr. . Prentice, as far as I recollect, expressed his disapproba- - tion (tf the measures mentioned, and acquiesced in the propriety of the step which was said to be likely to be taken." ^ If the above facts stated by Mr. Jones, and his acknow- ledgment that .« indiviiluals did talk among themselves on the propriety of such a measure,"^ turning me out of the office of Secretary, lie compared with the remarks which he made to Mr. Bulkley relative to my " deficiency of duty'- in the Jiffice, and with the^fact which will not be denied, that he anasome others did vote against me at that Convention; I think the evidence will appear pretty strong that a plan or eoiuMnation was formed against me. But I will not dispute about words. Certainly, the above facts, if not indicative of a " plan" on the part of Mr. Jones, prove that he thought I *^ ought to be turned out of office," and that he wished others to think so too, by giving them the most inju- noiis representations .of me. Let me not be misunderstood. Far be it from me to dis- pute the right of the Convention to eiOi?cise unrestrained the power of election ; or to suppose that any individual with- holding his sufiVage from another is in itself cause of oifencc. But tliat Mr. Jones should have accompanied his declaration, that he and others thought I ought to be turned out of office, with representations of me calculated to destroy my reputa- tion, and to induce the Clergy- to condemn my character and conduct, to " put a stop to the ^ysttm of favouritism aid daumemtion wMth I ivas purming,^^ by withholding from me their suffrage ; that he should have thus acted, without ever having lisped a word to me that I no longer enjoyed that <« affection" which I supposed he still cherislied for me in undiminished force 5 without aYOwjng an honourable oppo^i * Appeal, p. C8. ( 41 ) iion to wiiat he conceived my unjustifiable and dahgerouji conduct ; that he shouhl have acted thus while I was his unsuspecting friend and advocate, appears to me, I am Con- strained to say, an astonisliing dereliction of all the dietates of justice, generosity, and candour. That there wi:s an attempt to turn mc out of office, and thus to fix upon me a stigma of disgrace, I have further evi- dence. I perfectly recollect the time, the pliu^, and the sub- stance of a conversation with the Rev. Dr. Moore on this very point. It took place on the evening of tlie last day of the Convention, or the one succeeding, in 1808, during a walk be- fore Mr. Lyell's house in Warren-street, where Dr. Moore lodged. He then stated to me, that it was his intention, and that of some others, to turn me out of office ; that they had no idea of succeeding, but thought they might occasion me some moi'tification; but that he had spoken to a friend of his immediately before the Convention, and that they had con-, eluded to use no means to influence others, but only to vote' against me themselves. I was not displeased with the can- dour of Dr. Moore ; and we conversed on this occasion, as we had done on others, relative to many delicate points, with mutual frankness and good humour. The following certificate frem Mr. Lyell further corrobo- rates this point. « I hereby certify, that from several conversations held with the Rev. Dr. Moore, in the summer of 1808, I had every reason to believe that an attempt would be made, at the ensuing convention, to remove Dr. Hobart from office^ and that the Rev. Mr. Jones would aid in the business. And I do further certify, that I understood Dr. Moore in these conversations, as wishing to engage my aid also. "THO. LYELL." The fact is, however, placed beyond all cavil by the fol- lowing statement. Mr. Read is the Clergyman of Pough- keepsie. " This may certify, that on Friday, May 11, ISll, I (tailed on the Rev. Mr. Jones, in company with the Rev. Mr. Prentice, when a conversation took place relative to some things contained in a pamphlet, entitled « A Solemn Appeal to the Chureh,' &c. In this conversation Mr. Jones admitted that he had, on some former occasion, ^Id Mi,\ Prentice thid he (Mr. Jone«), Dr. R C. Moore, the Key. Mr. Feltus, and the Rer. Mr. Harris^ • hud talked 6 .J] 4 ! '' il i) .1 ( ^ ) together on the subject of turning Dr. Hobart out of the office of Secretary to the Convention, and that thej had determined not to vote for Dr. Hobart ; but that the three former gentlemen had determined to vote for Mr. Harris.* «* Mr. Prentice stated to Mr. Jones, that his pamphlet was incorrect in representing him (Mr. Frentice) as com- mencing the conversation relative to Dr. Hobart, and as conclu£ng with Mr. Jones, from a mutual comparison of ideas, that Dr. Hobart ought to be turned out of the offic© of Secretary ; whereas Mr. Jones commenced the conver- sation ; or rather it was introduced by a reference to Mr. Jones's previous letter ; and Mr. Prentice assented to the turning out of Dr. Hobart only in case that what Mr. .Tones had stated in his letter and conversation concerning Dr. Hobart was correct. The justness of this view of the conversation Mr. Jones did not deny ; but by his eva- ' siVeness seemed to admit it. "JOHN READ." The conclusion of the above statement gives a very differ- mi view of the part which Mr. Prentice took in the con- versation with Mr. Jones from that exhibited by this latter gentleman. It was natural that Mr. Prentice should make the conditional remarks with respect to me ; for Mr. Jones had taken particular pains to court his friendship, while I was only in habits of respectful intimacy with him. His sense of justice, however, led him to liiake inquiry ; and his course of conduct to me was very opposite to that which Mr. Jones must have expected. . The representation of the injurious behaviour of Mr, Jones towards me, and of the correctness and forbearance of my conduct towards him, contained in the above state- nients will appear in a stronger light from the following, whicli I submit, without comment, to your perusal. . I cannot refrain from presenting entire a letter of the Rev. Mr. Wilkins, though I shall have occasion to refer more particularly to certain portions of it in subsequent parts oi* (Ills address. The same remark will apply to the state jQiebt of tlie Rev. Mr. Cooper. « f rest- C/ie^fer, Juh/ 3, 1811. •• My Dear Sib, . " I am happy to (bid by your letter of yesterday, thai . you hare taken the resolution to repel the imputationf cast upon your conduct and character by Messrs. Jone^ and Feftus, in Mr. Jones's pamphlet. I have, ever since ( *3 ) Its publication, had it in my mind, that you would at last be under the necessity of making a reply — that you would ultimately find it a measure unavoidable, both on your own account, and on account of your friends ; and more particularly of the Church. I think I know you so well, that it will be done as it becomes a Christian Bishop, with, meekness and firmness, and with a mind invariably atten- tive to the peace and advancement of the kingdom of oiu* Lord and Master. <« I have often wondered in relation to this offensive pamphlet, how the public could have been led away by it. It appears to me that one of the most obvious questions to be asked by every one who reads, or hears of it, must be— Why is this application to the ptiblic ? Are there no tribu- nals before which matters of this nature ought in decency at least to have been brought ? Why have these been de- clined ? And why is this attempt made to throw the Church into confusion, by insidiously appealing to us, who have no right to judge, and have no authority to decide ? In this Wew the j)amphlet carries with it its own confuta- tion ; and openly and loudly condemns its author, and its abettors. But I will not detain you, who, I know, at this time, have business enough upon your hands. " Your first question to me is, Did you ever discover in me any unfriendly and hostile disposition towards Mr. Jones ? And did I ever even endeavour to infiuetice you against Mm, in consequence of his very unfriendly beha- viour to me, or make any representations to you on the subject? ^' I have once or twice, in some of oijr unrestrained con- versations, heard you mention Mr. Jones's unfriendly and unbrotherly conduct towards you, as you seemed to think it, in one or two instances : but the only one, of the sub- ject of which I have any recollection, alluded to a letter, you mentioned to me, as written by him, either to a Lay- man or a Clergyman of the Church, in some country pa- rish, speaking slightly and invidiously of you, and of your writings and exertions in favour of the Church : but your manner and expressions were ever indicative of sorrow and I'Cgrct; and by no means of enmity and ill-will. " Your second question is, Did not Mr. Jones, Dr. Moore, and Mr. Harris wait on you a sher it related to voting for you, or only a general recon- ciliation of the parties. I should indeed have forgotten the whole transaction, if your question had not replaced it (though somewhat confusedlv) in my mind. " I pray God direct and bless you, and deliver the Church out of all her troubles, and from« the power *Bnd devices of her enemies. " Believe me with the hi^^hest esteem and regard - " Your afi*ectionate " ISAAC WffiEINS. : « Right Rev. Dr. Hobart.*' « I do hereby certify, that my acquaintance with Dr. Hobart commenced shortly after his settlement at New- York ; that a strict friendship has ever subsisted between us; and that in the most unreserved conversations, af vari- ous times, on the state of the Church, and the characters of the Clergy, I can, and do most candidly and solemnly de- clare, I never heard him utter a disrespectful sentence against Mr. Jones; but, on the contrary, have frequently heard him speak in the most respectful terms of that gen- tieman. Nay, even after the appeai*ance of Mr. Jones's pamphlet, when it might reasonably have been exj>ected that in defence of his injui'ed character, he would have shown his <* irritable and violent temper" at such indecor- ous and unchristian conduct, he said little, but sincerely lamented such an un-ireeedented procedure. This, as it re- spects a man, whom I highly esteem, I am in duty bound to declare. With i*espeet tn Mr. Jones — ^there has been a friendly intercourse of long standing between us ; conse- quently the unfavourable sentiments of that gentleman, re - spectini^ Dr. Hobart^ have been known to me for some time. \h\\ %. !..' ; jl! I ' I .(i C 46 ) Previous to the meeting of the Special CJonvention, I had a visit from Mr. Jones, and two other Clergymen, for the purpose, as I soon discovered, of ccJhversing on the sub- ject of that Convention, and of obtaining my opinion re» specting it. Mr. Jones informed me, that a Special Con- vention would soon be called ; that the object in calling it, was to elect an Assistant Bishop ; that Dr. Beach and Dr. Hobart were the candidates for that office. He then proceeded to relate the circumstances that had led to an open I'upture between himself and Dr. Hobart, nearly a» they are detailed in his pamphlet ; adding, that Dr. Hobart was totally unfit for that high office, being a man of an irritable and overbearing temper or disposition, and that, if he should succeed, the ruin of the Church in this State was inevitable. This I believe was also the sentiments of the other two gentlemen. On my telling them, that as many of the circumstances then related were new to me, I should duly weigh them, and act accordingly, they ad- ded, that it was not their intention to bias my mind, but merely to give a true statement of stubborn facts. < and to render him happy in that intercourse which their situation, as ministers of the same parish, obliged them io maintain with each other. Although Dr. Hobart was entitled to the precedence, I saw him several times cheerfully yield it to Mr. Jones on conspicuous occasions. With reference to what Dr. Hobart said of Mr. Jones w mv hearing, I affirm, tliat he did umformly speak of him in terms of respect and high esteem. He even went far bevond all this. He often stood forth as the apologist of Mr. Jones, at the risk of incurring the displeasure of se- veral of his friends. When Mr. Jones was censured and i-eproached, Dr. Hobart was foremost in the vindication of his character. When unworthy motives were assigned for any part of his conduct. Dr. Hobart was always ready to offer a favourable construction. And when it is ^ considered that the writer of these remarks, during the ^ i^hole time of his residence in New-York, was on the strictest and most intimate terms of friendship and confi denee with Dr. Hobart, it is hoped that this circumstancj? will add some weight to what is above asserted. Had Dr. Hobart been in the practice of reviling Mr. Jones, or had he been endeavouring in the least degree to undermine his reputation, or to prejudice his clerical brethren and other persons against Mr. Jones, such conduct could not have escaped the observation of any one who was particularly intimate with Dr. Hobart— surely had such been the case, Dr. Hobart would have endeavoured to impl^ss me with the same sentiments. And when, moreover, it is consi- dered that Dr. Hobart and myself had conversed together several times i«especting Mr. Jones ; when, if he had been so disposed, he might, with the utmost safety, have re- presented Mr. Jones to me in an unfavourable light ; but that so far from this being the fact, I wai led, among other considerations, to regard Mr. Joues as a respecta- ble and worthy Clergyman, from the high term» of com- mendation in which Dr. Flobart had repeatedly mentioned ym^-.l think that I am warranted in tlius explicitly de- claring to all whom it may concern, that I saw Dr. Hobart uniformly treat Mr. Jones with respect, and that I fre- quently heard him speak of this gentleman with affecdonatc '^^''^' - J. CHAPMAN, « Minister of St. Peter's Church in Perth-Amboy. New-Jersey. <* June 8, 1811." ( *^ ) I am satisfied that there is not a Clergyman, or any other person in this State, or elsewhere, who has had an oppor- tunity of judiring, who cannot testify to the terms of esteem and friendship in which I always spoke of Mr. Jones. The distance of most of the other Clergy from the city has pi*evented my obtaining their testimony, which, I con-- fidently ai^ert, would further confirm the above statements. So scrupuldusly correct, indeed, has been my behaviour^ in res|>ect to Mr. Jones, that a Clergyman of our Church, who lives in a remote part of the State, and who frequently has been an inmate in my family, mentioned to me in the'Con- vention of October last, that he had long perceived the se- cret unfriendliness of Mr. Jones to me ; that he was satisfied it could not have escaped my observation ,• and that I had pre- served, in my intercourse with him, so strict a silence as to I Mr. Jones's conduct, that he was sometimes almost induced to refer it to a want of cojifidence in him. Unfortunately, Gentlemen, suspicion seems very early to I have obtained a seat in the mind of my colleague. I am jautliorized by Bishop Moore to state, that he thinks so long a.i^o as the tinfe when I was elected a Trustee of Columbia I College, which was soon after my settlement in the city, Mr. Jones, in a conversation with him, seemed, in a st>le of complaint, to attribute this to Dr. Beach's influence. I Bishop Moore, however, very distinctly recollects, that ab©ut this period Mr. Jones came to him in a state of considera- ble agitation, and complained of Dr. Beach's endeavours I to depress him; applying to him (Dr. Beach) the same ^epithets of assumingf tyrannicaU and overbearm^, which he afterwards transferred to me; and Observing' that he (Mr. Jones) did not possess those arts, which others conld I exercise, of flattery and obsequiousness, to ingratiate him- self into the good opinion of Dr. Beach. In regard to all those points on which I adduce Bishop Moore's' testimony, I would, once for all, observe, that he is on the spot, and ' you can obtain satisfaction for yourselves. Did I not feel a repugnance, even in self-defence, to enter into the retirement of families, and bring to view the conver- sation and events that passed during tiie period of confidential and affectionate intercourse, I could still further corroboi-ate this testimony, which I trust you will already deem suffi- ciently decisive. I must be permitted, however, to present the testimony of two gentlemen, whose names, if they had not been introduced into Mr. Jones's pamphlet, would not l)ave appeared in this address. ml ' 1 HI' It i lint ■ WT ( ^0 ) « The affairs of the Chureli have frequently been the subject of unreserved conversation between Dr. Hobart and myself. I can say with truth, that until recently, I never heard Dr. Hobart express a sentiment unfavourable to Mr. Jones ; but that long subsequent to my having heard the report that a coolness subsisted between Mr. Jones and himself, I perceived no alteration of the re- spectful manner in which he, Dr. Hobart, hkd been accus- tomed to mention Mr. Jones's name ; and was not only induced to disbelieve the report, but actually at several times denied the truth of it. ♦' In the summer, or early in the fall of 1808, Mr. Jones, ia company with the Rev. Joab G. Cooper, called at the store, and inquired after some pamphlets that had been printed for the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Religion and Learning. After giving Mr. Jones as accurate a statement of the disposition of the pamphlets as my recollection served, he requested to see the account in the ledger. On a little examination, he asked by whose order the articles were delivered. 1 told him those which formed tlie first item were certainly de- livered by oi*der of Dr. Hobart, and probably some others -were delivei-ed by the same order; and some, I added, were delivered by oixler of other gentlemen. He then asked me to give him a copy of the account to a certain extent, pointing to the line. I took up a scrap of paper and began writing, when he turned to Mr. Cooper with this remark — Aye, all Dr. Hobart, all Dr. Hobart; you see hoxv it is — it must all be done as Dr. Hobart directs. These, I think, were his express words, and they were said in such a manner as convinced me there was some truth in the rumour which then began to prevail, that a misunderstanding or disaffection subsisted between Mr. Jones and Dr. Hobart. <> Thi'ee or four weeks previous to the appearance of the ' Appeal,' Mr. Jones called at the store, and asked if I would be good enough to give him a certified copy of the account I had formerly given him, at the same time taking it from his pocket and handing it to me. Yes, Mr. Jones, with pleasure, said 1. — Well, you can say they were all delivered \sy order of Dr. Hobart, can't you ?— No, Mr. Jones, I can say no such thing ; for I am pretty certain a part of them was delivered by order of the Bishop, and I believe his written orders for them are now in the house : but the gentlemen who received them will soon be in town, and you can ascertain from thfm by ( 51 ) Whose order they Were delivered. [This was said by me in refei-ence to the Special Convention, then shortly to be convened.]— Well, said Mr. Jones, you will i::ive me such a certified copy as yon can ?^Yes^ Sir,, with pleasure ^ To be candid, he added, I will tell you for what purpose I want it. An order passed the Society for printing two tracts, and Dr. Hobart was to see it done ; but it has never been done ; the moiiey was misapplied. Mr. How and Dr. Hobart have combined together, and every thing must be done as they please to direct. This ambitious young man is aiming at the top of the ladder, and we must do what we can to pull him down— we must show him in his true colours. A crisis is approaching at which it becomes our duty to stop him in hi» career. If he is elected to the Episcopate, we shall have such a scene of tyranny exercised in the Church, as has not been seen since the days of Archbishop Laud.^ Some further con- versation ensued, which it is not necessarv to relate. " With respect to Mr. Jones's understanding that all the articles in the account were delivei^d by order of Dr. Hobart, I have only ^o say, that he must have very much misconceived me, for I solemnly declare I never said any thing to him, or to any other person, that could have in- duced such a belief. And in regard to the insinuation that my mind was put upon a certain train of thought, I must observe, that 1 never mentioned to Dr. Hobart the fact of Mr. Jones's inquiry after the pamphlets, or of his get- ting the account, until the Monday subsequent to the con- versation last mentioned, when, at my request, Dr. Ho- bart called upon me, and I explained to him the chief part of what is related above. I was equally the friend of Mr. Jones and Dr. Hobart, and as I expected Mr. Jones would call in a day or two to get such a certified copy of tlie account as my recollection, or the documents I might find, would enable me to give, and as I knew not what use was intended to be made of it, I did think it ray duty to put Dr. Hobart on his guai-d, and for that purpose alone I requested him to call, and made the explanation already mentioned. " JAMES SWORDS. '^ J>rew-rork, July 25, 1811." I think there is the greatest presumption, from the above statement, that the Rev. Joab G. Cooper, of Hudson, was also the depositau> of Mr. Jones's injurious representations in regard to myself. I am in possession of manv cii-cum- ; i lift ( 5^ ) stances eOrroborative of this presumption ; but as the aseer- talHinef it to be a fact is not ver^ material, I have taken no trouble in the business, and am unwilling to detain you with the recital of those circumstances which incidentallj came to mj knowledge. <* In a conversation with Dp. Hobart, during the latter part of the last winter, or oommencement of the spring, he made some general remarks on the injurious treatment be had received from Mr. Jones, in answer to some in- quiries from myself and another person. During the whole of Dr. Hobart's intercourse with my family, he always expressed himself, previous to this conversation, in terms friendlj^tow ards Mr. Jones ; and I never hesird Dr. Hobart utter a word disrespectful of him. " About two years ago, in a conversation with the Rev. Mr. Harris, he spoke to me concerning the state of things between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones, and observed, that Dr. Hobart discovered the greatest Christian forbearance under the treatment which he received from Mr. Jones. Mr. Harris expressed himself exceedingly desirous to preserve peace, and spoke in terms of the warmest affec- tion for Dr. Hobart. Until Mr. Harris mentioned these circumstances, I was ignorant that* there was any misun- derstanding between any of the Clergy. " PETER MACKIE. <^ July 22, 1811.'* Thus is appears that the family of a person whom Miv Jones is pleased to represent as " my bosom friend," never in my most unguarded moments heard me utter any thing disrespectful concerning him. And even the injurious treat- ment which I had received from him, I never mentioned to them until very i-ecently, when Mr. Jones and his friends were engaged in circulating pnvately complaints of persecution from myself and others ; and then my ivmarks were called forth by " inquiries,'' and were only of a « general" nature. TVhat then. Gentlemen, does it appear from the above recited testimony was my conduct to Mr. Jones? I was always solicitous to prevent Mr. Jones from sup- posing that he was neglected in the affaix:^ of the Church.* * Blsliop Mooie's statement, p. 21 of this address?. Through my instrumentality he was often invited ta meetings of the Clergy, when these affairs were trans- ax? ted.* • I frequently declined public duties in his favour, and re- linquished to him a precedence to which I was justly entitled.! , , . , I always defended his character when it was treated with disi*espect, and discovered dissatisfaction whenever he WHS spoken of in unfavourable tenns.i On the mind of my most intimate friend, when he be- came the colleague of myself and Mr. Jones, and in whom, if I had been adverse to Mr. Jones, it would have been easy to have excited unpleasant feelings to- w ards him, I made expressions concerning him only of a " favourable kind."§ In line, without detaining you with more details, I trust it appears that I was uniformly his zealous friend, ad- vocate, and panegyrist.|| But perhaps while I was thus uniformly the open friend, advocate, and panegjrist of Mr. Jones, I was secretly in- dulging a jealous enmity against him, and forming plots for his downfal ; to remove every obstacle in the career of my inordinate ambition. This would attribute to me a malig- nity and hypocrisy to be found only in the basest of men. But is it morally possible? Could such an uniform sys- tem of malignant duplicity for so long a time be prosecuted, without detection, by an individual whom his accusers re- present as impetumis and violent in his temper, hasty an^ unguarded in his language ? He must indeed be a prodigy, uniting in himself exiit.nes never before united in the hu- man character. On the subject of my behaviour to Mr. Jones during the period alluded to, I can defy scrutiny. Not one disrespectful act has been, can be, proved upon me. I have exhibited the testimony of persons, all of whom were frequently the witnesses of my conduct; with many of whom I was intimately connected in the transaction of the aftairs of the Church ; many of whom were frequently the inmates of my house, and privy to all the secrets of my heart. With them 1 daily mingled, not only in the guarded hours of pub- lic converse, but in those unreserved, those delightful, yet, • Bishop Moore's statement, p. 21 of this address, f Ibid. Mr. How's statement, p. 23; and Mr. Chapman's, p. I See the prece * Appeal, p. 9. t Mr. Prentice's letter, p. 20 of the Appeal. -^ Mr. Prentice's statement, p. 34 of Ihia addreis. ' Appeal, p. 24. C w ) I shall prove to be wholly unfounded, was urged by Mr. Jones 5 without his ever mentioning to me that he entertained such a charge, or demanding of me an ex- planation ; though we were then in habits of daily, and, as I supposed, of the most unreserved and friendly in- tercourse. On a journey which he undertook through the State a few weeks after this letter was written, he acknowledges,^*^ that he stated to the Clergyman to whom the letter was addressed, that a ** system of favouritism and of denunciation was pursued in the city^' — and that in con- sequence, " some of the Clergy thought it was time to endeavour to put a stop to this system, and had thoughts of endeavouring to turn out Dr. Hobart from the office of Secretary, which gave him a great opportunity of promoting his private views :" and in a recent conver- sation with two of the Clergy, he acknowledged, that he and some others had ^' determined not to vote for Dr. Hobart.)" On this same journey, evidently with a view of rendering me odious and unpopular, in conversation with this same Clergyman, he " enlarged on what he deemed my imiierfeetions and vices ;" and *' almost his whole con- versation was calculated to induce a belief, that I was a hasty, ambitious, ill-bred man ; not worthy of the minis- terial character, and by no means deserving of the confi- dence of my brethren :":j: and in a conversation with ano- ther Clergyman he introduced this same subject of the " tracts;" repeated the same charge of my ** pursuing a system of favouritism ;" appeared " inclined to blame me for deficiency of duty as Secret aiy of the Conven- tion ;" and " the whole course of his observations and remarks, impressed" this Clergyman " with the belief that he (Mr. Jones) entertained an unfavoui'?.ble opi- nion of mc and my manner of proceeding."^ This last named Clergyman " distinctly recollects Mr. Jones's asserting," and Mr. Jones acknowledged to me the fact, " that I had drawn up a number of charges against the Rev. Mr. Feltus, which he was persuaded I could not substantiate" — ^thus representing me as a ca- • Appeal, p. 27. t Statement of Mr. Read, p. 41 of this^aiWress. t Mr. Prentice's ststetnent, p. 34. \ Mr. Bnlkley, in his statement, p. 38. A remark Irere obviously occurs, that while the drift of Mr. Jones's conversation was the same, he used expressions more or less strong, according to what he supposed Ava»the con&deuce he could place in tlie particular Clergyman whom he addressed. W %. v^ '!(. I ( 66 ) luttiniator ,• though he had never s6en the aecu9fttions of which he speaks, having been absent from the city when they were signed by all the Clergy; and had never inquired of me, as common justice would have dictated, what they wete, and what were my authori- ties for them. The injurious behaviour of Mr. Jones to me above de- tailed took place while I considered him as my friend, was on all occasions his advocate and defender, indulged in un- reserved communications with him, and unsuspicious of any t*hange in his sentiments towards me, reposed eonlidentlj oh his friendship and affection. I must beg leave here incidentally to remark, that Mr. Jones had charged me with having ma^ accusations against Mr. Fdtus which I could not suhstantiate, although he had Bever seen the accusations, nor knew what proofs of them I possessed. The Rev. Mr. Feltus, in his statement, (p. 98 and 100) apparently with the view of shielding Mr. Jones from cen- sure, considers the assertion of my having charged liim with « forging his tesiimonials" as the " base calumny" which I atti'ibuted to Mr. Jones. But Mr. Jones, in his conversa- tion with Mr. Bulk ley, speaks of ** a number of charges drawn up by me against Mr. Felfus ;"* evidently meaning « the sheet of false accusations" of which this gentleman speaks in his statement.! Now, in this sheet of false accu- sations, there is not a word concerning Mr. Feltus's testi- tnonials — it was not possible — ^the former was written in June 12, 1807, and the latter Sej>tembcr 21, of the same year.:|: Mr. Jones, therefore, as he evidently alluded to the *< sheet of false accusations," could not have referred to the charge of foi'gery ; unless he supposed this charge was con- tained in the written accusations against Mr. Feltus ; and then he proves his ignorance of the real state of the ease. Before these gentlemen ventured to adduce such serious charges against my character, they should surely have made themselves fully acquainted with facts. On the contrary, they appear to have had very imperfect and erroneous ideas on a subject in which accuracy and certainty alone could have authorized their charge. It is with pain and reluctance that I entered on the exhi- bition of this detail. It renews those poignant feelings which the discovery of the secret but violent hostility * Mp. Bulkle/s state laent^ p. 38. > Appeal, p. 97. t P. 94 of the Appesl .C 57 ) of a brother and a friend first excited in my bosom. To a mind of common sensibility it is always a disgusting task to display the dark features of the human character. I cannot be insensible that the ministry suffers in every exposure of the unworthy tempers or conduct of those who exercise its holy functions. And I trust you will believe me sincere in the declaration, that, deeply as I feel myself injured by Mr. Jones, it is not without a pang that I exhibit state- ments which are calculated to sink him in the estimation of the world. I have forborne for years under his secret and systematic attempts to destroy me in the confidence of my brethren—*! have forborne under his recent public attack^ when, by success, he hoped to humble me for eveiv— I have forborne, until my own reputation and usefulness are en- dangered by the unwearied and uncontradicted misrepresen- tations of himself and his friends. I solemnly declare^ that, were my station a private one^ I should still forbear. But I owe it to the Church, to the religion of him whose com- mission I sustain, to vindicate my character— -and, unfor- tunately, this cannot be done, without displaying the un- worthy conduct of him who has assailed it, I am persuaded, you are not disposed to doubt my since-^ rity when I declare that at the period when Mr. Jones de» noimced me, I was unconscious of an unfriendly sentiment to him ; that, on the contrary, I entertained the sincerest re- gard for him ; that from the influence of this sentiment, as well as from an earnest desire to live in entire harn^ony with a brother and a colleague, I had shut my eyes to faults of character, which others discerned in him, and which unfor- tunately subsequent experienoe has proved he possesses; that I refused to hear insinuations to his disadvantage, and particularly of his unfriendly sentiments to me ; that on all occasions I sought to pi'omote his consequence, to soothe and gratify him by yielding to him my just claims. When thus. Gentlemen, in the exercise of the most disinterested friendship for him, I discovered . that he was pursuing the system of hostility towards me detailed in the foregoing state- ments, what was my conduct ? Did I renounce all inter- course with a man thus treacherous to the vows of friendship ? Impelled by the rights of character, and the claims of public justice, did I impeach, at the tribunals of the Church, an individual who was seeking to destroy the reputation of a bi*other, and to interrupt her peace ? Or did I, instead of this frank and jusiijiahit appeal, proclaim hit conduct to the world, and endeavour to hold him up to its re» sentment? No, instead of injuring Mr* Jones I proposed to 8 h i ; ' I ,' tl m ( 58 ) veth'e and to place Jiim in consequence and power. My wrongs reposed almost entirely in my own bosom. I com- mitted them — not with tears of resentment called forth by wounded pride, but of sorrow at the view of the ties of fiiendship broken, and the peace and honour of the Church endangered — I committed them to the sacred confidence of a few friends. I restrained their resentment, roused not so much by my private injuries as by the wounds inflicted on the peace and honour of the Church. Neither by them nor by me was the unfortunate state of things proclaimed to the world — so guarded and restrained -were we, that Mr. Jones's representations and *• ApiieaF' first announced, except to a few individuals, the discord and the disgrace of our Zion. Was this, let me be permitted to ask, the conduct of an Jiasty, impetuous, overbearing, ill-bred, ambitious, perse- cuting man, a« Mr. Jones has chosen to represent me I So grossly improper was the conduct of Mr. Jones prior to the fall of 1808, that every mark of displeasure, admit- ting liis representation correct, which he subsequently re- ceived, was sanctioned by justice ; and even required by a re- 43fard to the peace and honour of the Church and by that scnsi- hility to th«? dignity of the clerical character which guards it from violation, by marking with disgrace the unworthy acts of those who liear it. But I do not avail myself of this idea. I deny the accuracy of Mr. Jones's representations. My conduct to him subsequently to the autumn of 1808 has been mild, forbearing and correct. The statements of my brethren and others which I have already exhibited to you, establish in general the truth of this assertion. Its accuracy in detail will appear from a -statement of particular facts, and from an investigation of Mr. Jones's paiticular charges against me. The charge of applying the money of a Society appropri- ated to particular objects to << suit my own wishes and contained in Mr. Jones's letter to the Rev. Mr. Prentice, in August, 1808, it is necessajpy I should particularly consi- der. In this business 1 really think that 1 huve been ti'cated by my colleague with great injustice and crudty. He stated a charge against me in general terms, the misapplication of money to " suit my own wishes and views ;^^ and accompa- nied the charge with such insinuations of my being influenc- ed by <^ ambition/' and with such a pointed remark that ( 59 ) this was ** the way in which too much of the public busi- ness of the Church is transacted ;" as to authorize the con- clusion that I was guilty of a shameful malversation in^- fice of frequent and gross " misapplication of my trust.*" This was a charge which (without seeking any explanation) secretly " to one or two particular friends," evidently ex- pecting that it would privately cii'culate and thus elude de- tection, he brought against a man whom he almost daily met at the sanctuary or at the altar, as a friend and brother* It is a charge without foundation. In the first place, the tracts stated by Mr. Jones were not ordered to be published. The " Churchman's Catechism" by Jones was not ordered, in consequence of a suggestion by me that I intended to publish it with considerable altera- tions and additions. No engagement however was absolutely made ; no money was appropriated for it ; and its non-ap- pearance arising from other occupations was therefore no vio- lation of engagement or breach of trust. Here Mr. Jones is incorrect. • In the next place, an appropriation was made for the pub- lication of the Bishop's sermon, in case he should consent to it. Mr. Joues is incorrect in the insinuation that som^ « mention" only ♦* was made of getting him to publish itf'f as if there was no order on the subject. " ' I m^ht reasonably discover some surprize at the question of Mr. Jones concerning the publication of tracts not orr dered to be published ; and the stammering manner in which I replied, " why, the Bishop's sermon was published," was perfectly natural. Mr. Jones evidently consU*ues this as a proof of my consciousness of having " misapplied my trust." He had permitted this dark suspicion of his friend to enter into his mind. He demanded no explanation. He secretly went to the printer in order to establish it. He mentions it to « one or two particular friends ;" and when their minds were poisoned against me, they doubtless might mention it to as many more as they pleased. The sermon was pub- lished, and this part of my trust was fulfilled. In the third place, « Wall's tract on Infant Baptism" was not ordered to be published ; but the Bishop was to annex to one of his sermons, a concise view of the argument upoft this point. This was done by him. Here also was no " misapplication of trust." . Fourthly, I recollect that at the appropriation of the an- nual sum con^'^atted by tliis society to the disposJil of the * Appeal, p. C5. i\ Ill n ■ k m H ( «50 ) Bishop and the clerical members of that institution, some portion was frequently allotted to the distribution of " Prayer Books and Catechisms." Here then also was no misapplica< tion of trust. Whether in all the above cas#s all the mone^ appropriated to a cei-tain o!)jeet was strictly expended upon that object, I have no means of proving ; for rarely keeping any accounts of my own, I have not kept any in this case, where I was fuUy eoniident I could trust with the utmost safety to the fidelity of the printers. The above, according to the best of my recollection, is a true statement of this business. It was generaUy very in- formally transacted ; sometimes when one or two, and some- times when more of the Clergy were present with the Bi- shop; Mr. Jones, however, was never absent that I did not suggest his being consulted. It is possible, therefore, 1 may not be strictly correct in my recollection of it. Admitting, however, Mr. Jones's representation ; to what does it amount ? " Prayer Books and Cateehisms" were dis- tributed, instead of « the Churchman's Catechism," and « Wall on Infant Baptism." And this was his authority for charging me >^ith a particular « misapplication of uvoney to suit my own wishes and views ;" directly insinuating that those " wishes and views" were dictated by ** ambition and self-gratulation ;" and that this was the way in which " too much of the public business of the Church was transacted." But, Gentlemen, though Mr. Jones has failed to support his charges, 1 believe that in one or two cases not referred to by him, tracts that wei^ ordered, were not published ; the Bishop having directed Prayer Books and Catechisms to be given to certain Clergymen, and ordered them to be charged to this society; and no money was left for the tracts. In one or two instances in which Clergymen -wanted Prayer Books and Catechisms, and pi-eferred them to tracts, at their request I obtained the Bishop's permis- sion, and then ordered the printers to furnish them. In most cases, however, the Bishop himself ordered these appropri- ations, which, though not strictly regular, certainly af- forded no ground of comprint. Indeed, I have a faint re- collection, that part of this annual sum the Committee placed at the disposal of the Bishop exclusively. Certainly, how- ever, none of us would have opposed his wishes on the sub- jcct. I declare, that in no instance did I order any book but by the direction of the Committee, or of the Bishop. I have tlie authority of Bishop Moore for saying, that these tstatements^ as far as he is concerned, are strictly correct. m ( 6i ) Thus, Gentlemen, a charge made by Mr. J\ This gen- tleman was originally nominated without my knowledge, and without any influence direct or indirect on my part, by an old and respectable member of the Vestry, previously to his resigning his seat in that board. And when the name of « an excellent man, and member of the Church," was *>rought forward, I did feel a solicitude that he should be * Page 50 of this Btatemcnt. fo l/ . ( «2 ) elected. But that I used any undue influence to effect it I must deny. The crime, however, had I been guilty of it, of inducing a person to solicit votes for this gentleman, is certainly not very heinous, and, I trust, not unpardonable. What wonderful schemes of « self-exaltation" I could have accomplished by getting this gentleman into the Vestry, mj colleague has n^t thought proper to explain. . The first charge which Mr. Jones brings against me sub- sequently to the autumn of 1808, is My treatment of him in the case of Mr. GiUet. This occurrence, you will notice, took place three years after the last of the two " extraordinary facts,'' as he styles them,* and near a year after the Convention of 1808. I must beg you to bear in mind what was the state of things at this period. I had then discovered that, notwithstanding the zealous and disinterested friendship which I had dis- played to Mr. Jones, he was secretly making the injurious attacks upon my character, which I liave unfolded in the preceding statements. I wish you also to bear in mind what these statements also establish, that, justified as I should then have been in calling Mr. Jones to an account for his injurious conduct to me, and in making it generallj known, I was remarkably I'cstrained and guarded ; convers- ing on the subject only with a few friends ; continuing to speak of Mr. Jones in terms of tenderness ; and willing, in order to soothe him and preserve peace, to withdraw from all the stations in the discharge of the duties of which I had been so unfortunate as to excite his enmity.f This course of conduct I continued to pursue. But a short time afterwards, on occasion of the visiting at the New Year, I addressed a note to Mr. Jones, stating that it would give Mr. How and myself great pleasure if he would accompany lis. We visited in company ; and I sought, by every mean in my power, to testify to him my desire to remain on friendly terms with him. It was my wish, as far as possible, to forget his injurious behaviour to me. I still yielded to him the precedence ; and was often instrumental in saving his feelings from being wounded by supposed neglect. Tliis was my conduct, and these were my dispositions towainls him when the affair of Mr. Gillet occurred. This gentleman was particularly intimate with me. It was the opinion of the Clergy and others who were best ac- • Appeal, p. 5. -- See slMtcracflls of Bishop Moore, Dr. BoMclen, Mr. Bany, ami others. ( 63 > quaintcd with him, that there was no prospect of his use- fulness in the ministry. This was my own opinion. Ho- nestly entertaining it, it was our duty to act accordingly. I was requested, on account of my particular acquaintance with him, to intimate to him that it would be best for him to relinquish his design. From a principle of duty I agi^ed to undertake the unpleasant task. My communications to Mr. Gillet were made with all the delicacy and tenderness. I could possibly assume. Did it display a selfish view of popularity or unprincipled ambition thus to hazard the loss of the friendship of this gentleman ; and to discourage from entering the ministry one who already might consider him- self as under some obligatitms to me for the attentions which he had received ? The opinion of Mr. G. entertained by myself and others was previously communicated to Mr. Jones ; and I certainly understood, that as far as he had been able to judge, he had formed the same opinion. I found, however, that after I had made this communi- cation, in the propriety of which I really thought Mr. Jones coincided, an intercourse not before subsisting commenced between him and Mr. Gillet ; and the latter continued his views to the ministry. It is admitted by him that he vi- sited Mr. Jones, though he states this was of " his own ac- cord."* And Mr. Jones acknowledges that he thought " he (Mr. G.) might be useful in certain situations.'' During the absence of Dr. Beach and myself, who were known to be dis- inclined to the views of Mr. Gillet, the Standing Committee were convened, and recommended him for orders. Know- ing, as Mr. Jones did, my sentiments, and I believe the sen- timents also of Dr. Beach, relative to Mr. G. I think decency and propriety required that when he found we were both absent, he should have recommended the postponement of Mr. Gillet's case until we had an opportunity of expressing our opinion, and acting upon it. At least it would have l)een correct in him to have mentioned to the Commit- tee the circumstance of our probable disapprobation of Mr. Gillet's views ; and left them to judge of the propriety of prosecuting the business during our absence. Perhaps I felt more sensibility on this occasion, from being conscious that such would have been the course pursued by me with respect to Mr. Jones in similar circumstances. I enter^ tained, however, no tentiments which I did not resolve to communicate to him with perfect frankness. This led to the conversation between us. * CertifiaBte of Mr. Gillet, p. 17 cf Mr. Jones's Appeal* !i /.• n J ■ m fl4 ( ^ ; Discoloured as is this conyersation ; detailed at full length as is Mr. Jones's part of it, while mine is abridged and con- densed^ clothed as are my sentiments in his own style instead of my own ,• exaggerated as is every expression that could pssiblj be construed unfavourably to me ; and softened as is every expression of a similar nature employed by Mr. Jones ; even this conversation, as recorded by him, affordsi I humbly presume, full evidence of the frankness of my eonduct, and the correctness of my views; and of the stately and jealous independence of Mr. Jones, to which is to be attri- buted much of the uneasiness that now agitates the Church. The points on which I principally insisted were— Mr* Gillet'g want of intellectual qualifications ; and the impropriety of Mr. Jones's pi-oceeding in this business without some friendlj communication with me. , That I was correct in regard to the first point, is fully proved by the unanimous rejection of Mr. GiUet on his ex- amination, as incompetent, by the Bishop, and, I believe, all the Presb^ ters that were in the city, except myself, who was purposely absent. But Mr. Jones's plea was, that the Standing Committee were the judges only of the pious and moral qualifications of the candidates. Certainly, these are the principal points which they are to determine. But as the testimonial which they are to sign requires them to de- clare that *« moreover^ they believe the candidate worthy to be admitted to the holy order of Deacon or Finest,*^ it ii evident that they are also the judges of his general fitness ; though the requisite degree of his qualifications in litera- ture and theology, is more exclusively the subject of the examinations of the Bishop and his Presbyters. If the li- mitation of the powers of the Standing Committee con- tended for on tliis occasion by Mr. Jones be correct, they would be compelled to recommend every pious Christian who might appl^ for orders, however deficient in intellee- tual sti-ength. Nor did Mi\ Jones's plea, admitting it to be correct, that the Bishop was favourable to Mr. Gillet's ap- plication, and that he had got his " assent," rest on any better foundation. For certainly, the spirit of the canons evidently implies, that the Standing Committee, in their re- commendation for orders, are presumed not to know any thing of the opinion of the Bishop. Were they to be swayed by his judgment, the principal object of their agency would be rendered nugatory. I further complained to Mr. Jones of the impropriety of his proceeding in tliis business without ^ome friendly com- munication with me. Not that I felt disposed in the least ( «« ) t^ question his perfect riglit to an independent judgnicnt, uncontrolled by me or any other person — a point on which he has unhappily discovei'ed so much unfounded suspicion. But I did think, as I then urged upon him, that " it would be very useful to consult together on the measures to be pur- sued."* And I did also think, that, as " I had freely ex- pressed to him my sentiments concerning Mr. Gillet ;" can- dour, as well as the dictates of friendship, required from Mr. Jones, that « he should communicate his intention to me before he gave Mr. G. any countenance."! Both these principles, so manifestly correct, Mr. Jones disclaimed. ' I had hitherto kept silence with him on the painful discovery which I had made of his injurious representations of my character, in the hope that by condliation and forbearance his impressions would be corrected, and his unfriendly tem- per restrained, if not totally subdued. But when I found that he haughtily disclaimed principles of intercourse be- tween us so essential to mutual harmony, and so conducive to the interests of the Church ; that he" construed my wish to act upon these principles as an insolent attack on his in- dependence-^n attempt to <* lay him under an obligation to act agreeably to my views, and to consult my wishes before he should acfij: — a demand that he should " ask permission of me — ^before he should venture to proceed"^-— when he thus, as it were, threw in my face the ties of friendship, which I knew he had long before secretly broken, I confess I felt impelled to bring to his view the subjects which I had hitherto hoped it would not be necessary to discuss between us. By his own statement, however, my introduction of them was not only decorous, but conciliating. I commenced with the avowal of the high opinion which I had entertained of him, as *< a man of correct principles and upright conduct ;"(| and proceeded to inform him of the cause of the change in my sentiments and language." (My using difterent hui- guage concerning him, respected a few of my confidential friends only; the statements before exhibited show how fon lined and moderate I was in my representations.) On my alluding to <* the plan laid for turning me out of the oflice of Secretary," instead of proceeding, as I think a spirit of conciliation as well as honour and candour re- quired, to that temperate and frank explanation upon the subject which my remarks had invited, he peremptorily i% • Appeal, p. 14. § ih\A.: p. 14. f Ihid. p. l.S. M IbM. p. 15. 9 i Tbiil. p. 1.' )h\ ^ ifii I m \^ I! ( ^ ) plied, *• That i deny, and put you to the ppooi*:"* thus more than insinuating that I had brought a charge against him utterly destitute of foundation. And on my attempting to reply, he constantly interrupted me by the same angry and haughty demand, « Yes, Sir, I hesitate not to call upon you to produce the proof."f On my seeking in vain his own ex- planation of a charge, in regard to which I could produce the proofs which, in a preceding part of this address, I have exhibited to you, I closed this part of our conversation by observing, «< it is not worth while for us to say any more on that subject." Under considerable provocation, my ob- servations, as stated by Mr. Jones himself, indicated, as I humbly conceive, moderation and forbearance : and yet he seems to think that he always had " the advantage over me, arising from my quickness of temper, and his cool- ness of deportment ;":): advantages which I most certainly never acknowledged he possessed 5 for whatever may be my faults in these points, I have none to acknowledge in my behaviour to Mr. Jones. I then adverted to the charge which he had made to Mr. Bulkley, of my having falsely accused Mr. Fcltus. But when, instead of receiving, as I hoped and expected, some explanation or palliation of the injurious charge, he bol^y admitted it in its full extent, i confess, when all the circumstances under which he had made it, rushed upon my mind, I no longer felt it a duty to restrain my sensibility at an accusation as cruel as it was unfounded — I assei'ted it " to be a base calumny ,'' and closed our conversation by declaring, « I have no further intercourse with you." I should despise myself as a man if feelings of indignation at a most unmented and cruel as- sault upon my character, by an individual whom I had re- garded and vindicated as my friend and brother, had not been excited. And I humbly trust I manifested no sensibi- lity which the occasion did not justify, and which may not be sanctioned by tlic Apostolic injunction — ^" Be ye angry, and sin not." I have said, Gentlemen, that the peculiar circumstances under which Mr. Jones had made this charge principally excited my feelings. I put aside, for the present, its fals- ho(Kl, which I shall hereafter fully prove. Its truth would wot have afFoi-ded him a jusdrication. He was absent from I lie city when the statement relative to Mr. Feltus was sigped by all the Clergy, and presented to the Bishop. This statement is dated June 12, 1807. And lifteen months after- * Appeal, p. IJ. t Hjid p. 15. Ibid. p. 1j. ( ey ) wards, in September, 1808, Mr. Jones asserted to Mr. Bulk- ley, that I " had drawn up a number of charges against the Rev. Mr. Feltus which he (Mr. Jones) was persuaded I could not substantiate." It should be recollected, that dur- ing all this period I had not the most distant suspicion of his unfriendliness to me, and was in habits of unreserved and intimate intercourse with him. As he never saw the state- ment relative to Mr. Feltus, he must have drawn his con- clusions concerning it only from rumour. But surely before he formed a persuasion so injurious to me, as that I had falsely accused one of my brethren ; and still more before he uttered this persuasion to others ; common justice, com- mon humanity, not to say friendship, required that he should have mentioned the injurious report to me, and given me aii opportunity of explanation and defence. It appears to me, that it should have been his earnest wish, that a report so injurious to the character of a man who lived with him as a friend should be proved false. But without one word of ex planation from me, this persuasion, that I was a slanderer and calumniator^ was formed in his mind, and was commu- nicated, not in the face of day to myself, but secretly to a brother Clergyman, with a view to injure my reputation. Tlie interview with Mr. Jones at the house of Mr. Harris^ was immediately subsequent to this conversation with Mr. Gillet. The account which Mr. Jones has given of the cir- cumstances of this interview, is in many respects discoloured and erroneous. It is represented as the result of earnest so- licitation on my part, evidenced particularly by extreme " agi- tation and unhappiness," as if I was conscious of guilt and fearful of consequences ; and it is stated that we " agreed to bury in oblivion whatever had passed,"* on my " express and urgent proposition."! The correctness of this repre- sentation I am compelled entirely to deny. I shall exhibit in the first instance, the following inqui- ries on these points which I addressed to Mr. Harris, with his answers ; and shall then beg leave to state my own recol- lection of all these particulars, which is cleur and strong. I must beg you again to bear in mind the ciicum stances which I have in the former part of this address explained, under which Mr. Harris gave Ills testimony. Appen!, p. !0. f A])pe;«!, [) r I. ) » I- 1 I'r i ■ I ' \7 . «[ ( 68 ) ((iiest. " When I found that Mr. Jones concieved that I had given him cause of offence, did I not discover the deepest regret, and express to you, at various times, mv earnest de^sire tp conciliate him, disclaiming all intention to injure him, and all consciousness of having done so- and did you not consider my conduct in these respects as coiTcct and Christian ?" Ans. " Both yourself and Mr. Jones, in my conversa- tions with you, respectively disclaimed all idea of any in- tention to injure each other, and each appeared to consi- der himself as the person aggrieved. As to the misun- derstanding between you I well remember that you often said that it was to you a subject of deep regret. Wlien you consented to settle all differences upon the plan that was afterwards adopted, I did say, that in so doing, you discovered a Christian disposition." quest. « Did not the agitation and uneasiness which on this occasion Mr. Jones states that you informed him X discovered, proceed as you conceived from the know- ledge of unpleasant feelings towai-ds me, cherished by an individual whom I had always supposed my friend, and not Irom any consciousness of misconduct towai-ds him ?" *Am.'^ I eannot say to what cause the apparent agita- Uon which was discoverable both in yourself and Mr Jones was to be attributed." The above was the answer originally given by Mr. Harris. He alierwards added the following : " I have never said that it was to be imputed to a con-" seiousness of guilt in either, or that 1 ever thought it." (iiiest. " Did the reluctance which I discovered at any time that Mr. Jones should require a formal investiga- tion of any complaints which he conceived he had against nie proceed, in your opinion, from any apprehension in me that the issue of such an investigation would be unfa- vourable to myself; or from a wish that he should not consider in so serious a light matters \vhich in my iudc- ment were so triiling and unworthy of notice?^* *^ J ^ .Ins. " According to my best recollection what Mr. Jones staters m his pamphlet, p. 15, is the most correct an- swer that I can give to this question, viz. * If Mr. Jones insisted on bringing ^h|-affair before the Bishop, you should not refuse —thg^ou considered the matter too nil ( 69 ) trifling to be worthy of such notice you might have said, but I have no recollection of your having said it." quest. '* Did I not express to you various reasons why I conceived such a serious step on Mr. Jones's part would be injurious only to himself and not to me ?" Ans. " You did I believe mention that you had good reason to suppose the Bishop would at least be as favoura- bly inclined towards you as towards Mr. Jones, or some- thing to that effect." quest. "Was not the meeting of Mr. Jones and myself at your house on the 13th of June accidental ? When he accidentally, at this time, visited you, w as I not engaged in requesting you to represent to him that if he entertained any serious intention of presenting charges against me to the Bishop, he must not be deterred from so doing by any offers of conciliation which I had made ?" Ans. « The meeting of yourself and Mr. Jones at my house was in one respect accidental. While you and I were conversing on the subject of the proposed reconci- liation, which, if I mistake not, was also the subject of our conversation the day before, Mr. Jones came to my house, and being informed that you were present, he im- mediately retired. I instantly observed that the present opportunity must be improved, that a more convenient one would perhaps never occur ; following Mr. Jones, I overtook him soon after he had passed the Church : I then stated to him, as I had also done the day before, the con- ditions on which you were to meet." quest. '' Was there any express agreement entered into at this interview between myself and Mr. Jones ? Was the affair of Mr. Prentice and that of Mr. Gillet mentioned ? And was not your understanding of this in- terview rather the result of inference and construction than of any thing express on my pait." ^ Jhis. « When you and Mr. Jones met at my house there was nothing that I recollect said of the affair of Mr. Prentice and of Mr. Gillet; but in a previous conversation with you, I distinctly recollect that we conversed of the Jdlair of Mr. Prentice, and I certainly understood from the general tenor of our conversation that all things of a disagreeable nature K^tween yourself and Mr. Jones were to be buried in oblivion. That this was not the result of mterence and construction, I am not prepared to say, but only this, I can with truth aifirm, that such was then, and such is now, the distinct impression on my mind." ; (*< T: *N' I i llf C ra ) Soon al^ep the conversation with Mr. Jones on the subject of Mr. GiUet, an opportunity oceumd in which I gave Mr Harns an account of what had passed ; and wished him to' inform Mr Jones, that deeply as I felt my self aggrieved bv him, I had no intention of breaking off that intercourse which our official stations demanded, but was even desirou, that this intercourse should be, as it formerly was, of the Zlr. W'"^- ^ ^^' ^"- J^"^«'^ repre^ntations are correct, that I made the first advances in this business ; and considering the treatment which I had received from him this conduct was surely honourable to myself, and affords an additional evidence of the forbearance^ which I had dh FKVi,^'-^^^' distinctly states, that "I often said,'' that « the misunderstanding between us,'' "was to me a subject of deep regret."# The feelings of hostility manifest cd by a man who was my colleague and whom I had esteem- ed my tnend ; the most unwarrantable attacks which in the indulgence of these feelings he had made upon my character when I was confiding in his friendship ; the unpleasanTcl sequences which the indulgence of these dispositions on Ws part would produce both in regard to myself and the Church, were indeed considerations calculated to fill me with - deep regret From these, and not from the timidity of consci ous gui t, as msinuated by Mr. Jones, proceeded « the agita- tion and unhappiness" which I discovered, and « the %\L which I contemplated of leaving the city ;" that I might no longer be exposed to these mortifying coUisions, and by re- tirement might escape the effect of dispositions in my^col Mr. Harris was at this period, according to his own declara- tion,t in habits of intercourse with me much more affection- ate and conf dential than with Mr. Jones, I recollect Z fectly well that I made him the depositary of feelings wWch iTi'.n^r' a'^T/^^" n ' sought to vcut iuto the bosom of alriend. And I recollect perfectly well that he cordially ffiSn T-^'IT,^ ^»d«/*^ commended the Christian lorbearance which I discovered. ^.v^*"* 1^^"*"'; ""* ""^ request, communicated to Mr. Jones ni.> feelings of regret at the state of things between us, and my desire for conciliation. Mr. Harris veiy soon infomcd me (nearly the words which he used are fresh in myTe Jiiory, for they made a deep impression upon me) that Mr. Jones would not hear of conciliation until he had Yaid my conduct before the Bishop ; and that with this view he h^d ( n ) drawn up a statement of several insulting acts of mine to- wards him. I expressed with astonishment to Mr. Harris my entire ignorance of what Mr. Jones could mean ; that I was indeed acquainted with the injurious attacks he had se- cretly made upon my character, but was utterly unconscious of having cherished any dispositions towards him but those of sincere friendship. I racked my memory in vain for in- stances of any behaviour in me towards Mr. Jones, which he could construe as insulting. And at length I found from Mr. Harris that he had read the statement of Mr. Jones 5 and I learnt, with astonishment, that he (Mr. Jones) had recorded, as insults to him, the " two occurrences" which had taken place years before, and which he has placed in the front of his <* Appeal." I could not help smiling at the idea, that Mr. Jones should record incidents so triflino*, and make them so serious as to decline conciliation with me until he had laid them before the Bishop. I recol- lect distinctly that Mr. Harris agreed with me, that Mr. Jones's conduct was unreasonable, and undignified^* and that the course he contemplated was not calculated to pro- duce conciliation. On this account we both wished it to be avoided. And the tenor of my remarks to Mr. Harris was—that perfectly conscious of the rectitude of my conduct, and well acquainted with the Bishop's senti- ments, I could have nothing to fear from an investigation —on the contrary, that if I wished to injure Mr. Jones, I should court it-^for I had (not as stated by Mr. Jones,=t(= •* some pleas to offer which would tend to prevent a cordial reconciliation," but) serious charges to present against him, of most injurious attacks upon my character, which I pos- sessed the means of fully proving— but that if this course were pursued, matters would become more serious between us than I wished them to be; mutual recriminations would take place, which would increase instead of diminishing the difficulties to a coi'dial harmony between us; and per- liaps too these differences would then become public, a con- sequence greatly to be deprecated. While, therefore, (Mr. Jones acknowledges tliis fact in his Appeal) I desired Mr. Ifarns to iriform Mr. Jones, that if " he insisted on bring- ing the matter before the Bishop, I would not refuse;"! I thought it much preferable that without the formality of an express agreement, there should be a mutual understanding to resume our friendly intercourse, and to treat one another as if nothing had happened. What was thci-c in all this * Mr. Harris's statement Page 53 of this address. Appeal, p. 15 j TbiJ. /' ( 7:2 ) conduct of mine, may I not ask, which was not as dignified and prudent, as it was mild and conciliating? Of any other plan or agreement assented to by me, I have not the most distant recollection. On the contrary, I dis- tinctly recollect, that the plan of meeting and discussing differences, of « preliminaries and conditions,'' &c. &c. ap- peared to me, as it does now, to he as incompatible with true dignity, as unfavourable to conciliation. The day following this conversation with Mr. Harris, an interview took place between Mr. Jones and myself. But this interview was entirely accidental, and in no respect the result of premeditation or preconcert. Mr. Harris acknow- ledges* that this meeting was " in one respect accidental.'* In what respect it was not accidental, does not appear. After Mr. Harris left me, I reflected that the solicitude which I had discovered, to prevent this business becoming so serious as to be laid before the Bishop, might flatter that stateliness of character which it appeared to me Mr. Jones assumed, and might be i*eferred by him to a timidity in me, inspired by a consciousness that my conduct would not bear investigation. I resolved therefore to prevent such inisconstruction. The next morning I waited on Mr. Har- ris. I recollect the place (the piazza back of his house) where our conversation took place ; so strong and clear is my recollection of it, and of all the circumstances con- nected with it. I stated to him my apprehensions that my conciliatory overtures would be misconstrued by Mr. Jones. I requested him immediately to see Mr. Jones ; to renew to him my earnest wishes for conciliation; but at the same time distinctly and strongly to state to him, that if he had ever entertained a serious thought of calling me to an account before the Bishop, he must not be deterred by any overtures that had come from me. At this moment, we discovered Mr. Jones retiring from the house. He had called without knowing of my being there. Mr. Harris instantly proposed bringing him back, and improving an opportunity which might not again occur. 1 ineftectually entreated him not to go; as I wished Mr. Jones to be seriously informed of my views, in regard to his bringing any complaints which he mii^ht have against me before the Bishop. Mr. Harris how- ever left me and overtook Mr. Jones near the Church. A conversation ensued between them. If Mr. Harris then stated to Mr. Jones any conditions on which we were to meet, he did it without authority from me. I had never • Pa-'c 3Z of tl.Js atidress. -— Ar iUJ < ( 7S ) 4 agreed to meet Mr. Jones. Our being on the point of meet- ing together at this time, was entirch accidental; and I was averse to Mr. Harris's bringing him back when he was retir- mg. lam mchned to believe tliat the representations, what- ever they were, which Mr. Harris then made on the subiect oV conditions and preliminaries, arose from his desire to abate the stately pretensions of Mr. Jones ; in order to effect that concihation, to which it appears, by his account, he was not much disposed. Mr. Harris finally brought Mr. Jones to me, and proposed that we should shake hands, and treat one another as if no unpleasant occurrences had taken place To this I instantly assented. Mr. Jones then began to enter on a vmdication of his conduct. I observed, that I ceHainlv ouiiht to suppose he was conscious of the rectitude of his be'ha viour, and I presumed he might reasonably impute the same consciousness to ine—and that I thoisght it would not answer any good purpose to say any thing on the subject. He then began with stating rules and conditions that were in future to be observed between us. To tliese I clearly recollect I never assented. Some of them were ridiculous, and some of them would have been disgraceful. Expressly to have rejected them all would have interrupted the conciliation .which was just eftected— I therefore evaded them. 4.nd I weU remember that my impression, in regard to them all, was the same as that which I expressed to Mr. Jones concerning one of them, the treatment of the young men-, that " each of us must be left to the exercise of his own discretion."* I never " entered," as Mr. Jones asserts, "into a solemn pledge to cancel all that was past."t Mr. Harris does not assert in his statcinent, that at this in- terview any mention was made of conditions previously to Mr. Jones's joining us, or afterwards. He expressly ad- mits, that " nothing was said of the affair of Mr. Prentice and of Mr. GiUet."^ He expressly admits that the idea of conditions being assented to by me, on the precedin-: day, he understood from " the general tenor of our conversation"-, and " IS not prepared to say that it was not the result of in- ference and construction." Anxious, doubtless, to effect conciliation, he must have construed my agreement jto treat Mr. Jones as if no unpleasant occurrences had happened, into an agreement that I would bury in oblivion whatever iiau taken place, and never, however necessary to self-de- fence, bring it again into view. Tliis construction was not * ->'(•• Hams s statement, p. 69 ot this addres?. 10 /I w iiiTautecl by uie, and it would have been in the highest de- ;*;i-cc absurd for me to have admitted it. I declare, that the iirst idea of its being supposed that at this interview I had entered into such an agree rrieot with Mr. Jones, arose m my mind on m^ i>erusal of his " Appeal.'* But admitting that we had agreed in the unlimited sense contended for bj Mr. Jones to bury all past occurrences in oblivion, what was his conduct ? He went immediately home, and, June i3, 1809, the very day this interview took place be- tween us, penned a record of it.=* And very soon after this interview, in a conversation with the Rev. Mr. Cooper, of Yonkers, he .gave him the same representation of my cha- i'acter as is contained in his pamphlet.f How injurious tm me that representation is, it is unnecessary to state. I have been thus minute in the detail of the circumstances of this interview, because Mr. Jones, as if sensible how un justiiiable were his attacks upon my character, is unusually anxious to prove that " whatever might have been the na- ture of these measures, and however culpable their ten- dency, it was all cancelled by the solemn engagement into which we entered on the 13th of June, 1809, by my express proposition ;"| and thus he hopes to fix upon me the charge of a breach of a solemn contract. . Admitting this contract to have taken place, it surely never was designed to preclude either of the parties from the developement of facts necessary to his own defence. Besides, Mr. Jones's injurious treatment of me Avas known to several of the Clergy, and they never entered into any engagement with him to bury it in obli- vion. The extraordinary solicitude which Mr. Jones disco- vers on this subject, proves that he is sensible how import- ant these facts are to my defence, and how forcibly they must operate to his own crimination. But I trust the pre- ceding detail has satisfactorily proved that his representa- tions on this point are erroneous. I solemnly disclaim bar- ing ever entered into any such engagement I keep ne journal. But really, in so formal and solemn a business as this is represented to have been, it is not possible that it should wholly have escaped my memory. Ever- according to Mr. Joneses representation of this in^ teleview, what is the contrast which it exhibits between us ? He states, " that I expressed my regret at what had takeii , r }^J ^**V* ""^r^ '^'''K ^/^"^ I? 75?»-^/P- »C ^ ''« Appeal) b«.rs dnte June J3, 1809; and suUstquently (p. 28 of his Appeal) he iclcrs to this hs tlie ii.v when the interview took place. t See Mr. Coopei*s statement, p. *i5 of tlus Jidurcss. ? Appeal, p. 1^8. » ( 7.5 ) place,"* was ^^ much a^itated,'^ ^^ very unhappy, and had It very much m contemplation to retire from the Vity ;" and in order to obtain a reconciliation, agreed to enter into en- gagements to « bury in oblivion whatever had taken place '' It appears, on the contrary, that there were no advances on his part; he is very careful to state that he made *< no per- sonal acknowledgments or concessions;" and at length with considerable stateliness, he agreed to the preliminaries and conditions expressly proposed and urged by me. It is remarkable, that in the only three occm-renees, durine a period of eight years, adduced by Mr. Jones, as prooff of my iiyurious treatment of him, I made advances and dis- played tempers (if his statements are correct) the most ho nourable to me as a man and a Christian. But observe Gentlemen, 1 do not acknowledge faults which I never com' mitted, m order to merit the praise of ingenuous acknow- ledgments after the commission of them. ^u^T" ^^'''' ^' *^^^' *^ ^P"^ '^^ *«*«' i* •Joes not appear that Mr. Jones recorded any grievances received from me 1 thmk the mference is fair, that none were committed by me. On April r, 1810, he recordsf a conversation which took place at Dr. Beach's, " on the 20th of last month " And even then it seems Mr. Jones's sensibility to his own character is transferred to Dr. Moore— for his record re- lates only to that gentleman's wrongs. I feel it also some- what a respite to be able to turn over several of the subse- quent leaves of the « Appeal" without finding any accusa- tions against myself. And the charge which Sien occurs i«: what Mr. Jones styles .1 ''dictation'^ to him on the subject of his exchanging ■^th the B^. Br. Moore and the Rev. Mr. Felhis. It is with great pain that, in self-defence, I am compelled to animadvert upon the conduct, not only of my accusers, iyili r.V^Ii ^"""T ^""^ ^^^ ^^' Mr- Feltus, but also on m! ^ u "" ^'''': ^'*- M^^'*^- T^« accusations of the Rev. J^r. J^ eltus against me must form a subject of distinct con- eSrofThV ^"^^^ ^''; ""'' ^"^''^ and' myself, until the Close 01 the summer of 1808, were on terms of very friendly mtercourse. During this period allusions, in our frank Apppa?, p. 15. t IbiH. p. SfJ. M' im^i.cw' ( 76 ) conversations, were soinefimes made relative to modes of ppoct-eding on h,s part, which, by the Clergy in general, were deemed irregular. But there was no interruption of our harmony. And ,f this was owing, in some degree, to the discretion and mildness of Dr. Moore, I must also elaim tlie merit of some portion of the same virtues. In the sum- mer oi^lSOS our usual friendly intercourse ceased. On this point I addressed the following inquiry to Dr. Moore, to which he returned the annexed reply. « QjfMf. Soon after that Convention (the General Con- vention at Baltimore, in 1S08) did not our former friendly intercourse cease, and did you not state to me in an ac- cidental conversation on the sulyect, that you were in- formed by a friend, that I had been opposed to your an- pointment to St. John's Church, and that I was openly your iriend, but covertly your enemy? « .am. Soon after that Convention our former friendly intercourse did cease, but from a cause very remote from any circumstances involved in the present "disagreement. 1 perfectly recollect a free conversation in which we were engaged, but whether it was accidental or not you must be the best judge, as it was commenced by yourself. The circumstance of St. John's Cliureh was, I'b^lieve, brought into view, together with the paHiculur dfcumstanet which had produced a cessation of friendly intereourse between us ; and I think I honestly told you, that I was grieved to my heart, that amidst all the professions of civility with which you had favoured me, there should have existed, on your part, a want of sincerity." A short time previously to the General Convention at Baltimore, June. 1808, air. Jones (b-tween whom and Dr. Moore no previous intimacy subsisted) paid a visit to him at Staten-Island. At the Convention, which soon ensued, the course pursued by me on many points of discussion was deemed by Dr. Moore and others so " moderate and concili- ating, as to obtain their particular approbation. The first day on which Dr. Moore, on his return, came to the city, he visited D-.c ; and appeared more than usually friendly in his manBcr. That night he visited, for the first time I believe, Mr. Jones at his own house; and from that period to the pre- sent Dr. Moore has never, to my knowledge or recollection, c^ed on me. A few days afterwards I met him accident- ally m the street, and then he stated to me, that the cause ot his discontinuing his friendly intereourse was the insin- ( 7r ) eerity of my profession of civilities, manifested partieu- lariy by my oppositmn to his appointment to St. JoE Chureh; information of wUch he had received from I friend, who had assured him that I was covertly his eTemy whde I professed to be friendly to him. In reply, I con "e„dJd for my right to speak of men and things, restrained nnKK thedictatesoftruth,ofeharity,andofpKecTKu^ that I had opposed his appointment to St. John's. SC in consequence of his assurance to Dr. Beach, that if calkd |o the city he would discontinue some irregularities which gave us aU concern, I agreed to speak favourably of hTm on this occasion; which I did when opportunities offered. One of your own body must recollect a very particular^oiversa tion which I had with him, in which I advocated Dr?M«ore 1 hese eireums ances are no otherwise important, tC, as they prove the incorrectness of the conclus on pla nly to be Tncc'lf f •"^..**'"-/"""^'^ statements,* that thLTcont^nS^ ance of friendly intereourse between Dr. Moore and myself ^ not take place until his settlement in this city, and then ongmated with me. On the contrary, it took n ace mnr. than a year previously to this event, L was an'ict Tm. lariti?s%IS5 T ^'"'^\** discountenance all irregu- lanties. Some ot these may be very serious and iniurious in their tendency, against which it would not b^ prudent to tlZ «: „T "*^^ "''''""'^- ^"^ f-"^ «« temEer of the times, or other cireumstances, even the exereise of disd feVtTh^?,""-''^' "^"^ impracticable, exeeldJnSy difficult, or highly inexpedient. Pointed opposition to irre gularity, which is at all times a duty incumtent on the Clergy, is sometimes, therefore, the only secSwhich tte By these considerations has my conduct been reeulated to Dr. Moore. That he was guilty of irregiEties Is cl„ fessed throughout the whole s'tatement of SS Zk that this gentleman considered them as serious and hirfi"y njunous^is evident from his repeatedly speaking of 2S to Dr. Moore « in terms of disapprobation." He S S • * ^** ^^ (^'■- ♦^••"*'*) should « break ofi' aU of- « b^in?liiw i^PP**'' *"•'"•"''* ^^ '^^' of Dr.Moore'I t)tm% supposed to possess a tendencu to irregularity" on hi* coming to this city ; while, in another part,K?iares! • App«.l, p. 75, rg. t Ibid p. 31 .„„ 39. tP,g<,4r. ( 7H ) "that whalererirregjilarity has been justly op professedly chap-ed to him (Dr. Moore) since his residence in the cit/ j»ras. dunng all the above period" (the period previously to his .•es.denco in the city) « practised in a ten-fold degree."* Thus, uregulanties practised in a ten-fold degree previ- ously to a certain event were, at the time of this event, only mjrposeJ tendenaes to irregtilarity. Mr. Jones also attri^ butes the continuance of these irregularities after Dr Moore's removal to New-York to the circumstance of his brethren not assuming towards him « a mild and friendlv deportment;"! whereas it is susceptible of proof, that im- mediately on his removal into the city, contrary to his « im- plied promise to Mr. Jones4 he commenced his irregular proceedings. ° i)r. Moore also had long indulged in railing against his brethren, and particularly against myself. I am Authorized by Bishop Moore to state that Dr. Moore spoke to him of ™ J *1,^1 '»'"'»*i<»"S' presuming, overbearing young man. and addcU." we shall take ca4 to put him down.'' That he and others did « talk among themselves" of the means of doing It IS acknowledged by Mr. Jones.$ And I think, that, in a lormer part of this address I have shown that a plan for this purpose was formed, and, as far as depended upon themselves, earned into execution. But under all these circumstances of pubUe irreeularitr and personal hostility to myself, my conduct to Dr. Moored so tar from being marked with violence, was mild and for- bearing. As I believed that he honestly thought me an « am- bitious, presuming, and overbearing young man," I could not feel so displeased at the manly attitude of opposition wWch he assumed, as at the more cautious and secret, but more Jw fn'!*" 1 '1-'^ of another person. Mr. LyeU will testify that for a long time after Dr. Moore discontinued all private mI,?. *t,f"^"%.«»»t'"S on which he stood with Dr. ?Sa*^?"^"'"v.'*'"'^JI' reference to the opportunity wWch 5rZ„ffh?rr f Tr'""S with Drl Moore on the affairs of the Church. I threw no obstacles in the way of the di charge of his official duties. 1 sought in no degr^ to dimmish his parochial influence. I never opened mS in unfavourable terms concerning him to any of his eoneT &;hp"!.fK""f ?"*'*'?'»» '^ho had left it, and who intro- n.eTiJJi^-lft**'*^ n' !"*F''*""^* *» •"«• Whenever I met him I paid him all the deference and eiviUty to which v^ * Appeal, p. 76. I Ibid. p. 47. * Ibid. p. 32. § Ibid. p. 28 ( 79 j from his age and standing, he could think himself entitled. I only exercised the right, possessed by evevy Clergyman, and in itself no cause of offence, of withholding an interchange of official duties. I even repeatedly discountenanced a proposi- tion that the Clergy should enter into an agreement on this subject. From Mr. Jones's own statement,* it appears that I opposed a suggestion by Dr. Beach to Mr. Harris, Mr. Jones and myself, which seemed to contemplate an agreement that " he (Dr. Moore) should be left to himself, and that we should have nothing to do with him;" and I expressly contended that " in that respect every one ought to be left to his own discretion." I resisted taking the ground against Dr. Moore deemed so obnoxious by Mr. Jones, until an ^« ex- treme case" occurred ; and this I must beg leave to state. The Church had suffered severe imputations of laxity of discipline, and of permitting unworthy Clergymen to officiate within her pale ; and Dr. Moore himself had fre- quently indulged in a very free style of remark upon this subject. Besides, the exercise of discipline is a sacred duty enjoined by the head of the Church, and essential to her pu- rity and prosperity. <^ To put from us that unworthy per- son," is a duty, the neglect of which can only be excused by the impracticability of successfully and usefully discharg- ing it. The very first act of discipline exercised upon a Clergyman in this State met with Dr. Moore's decided op- position; and he united with the Rev. Mr. Feltus, in zealous efforts to aid this Clergyman in his attempts to sub- vert the discipline of the Church. And yet no person had spoken in more severe terms of the Rev. Mr. Ireland than Dr. Moore. The pretence of Mr. Ireland for a re-hearing, that a witness had acknowledged, after the trial, that his testimony was incorrect, was absurd in the extreme. This witness declared to me that the only part of his testimony which he discovered was incorrect, was an unimportant par- ticular, founded oti Jiearsay. The principal charges against Mr. Ireland, viz. the habitual practice of usurij^ and a vio» lent assault upon one of his Vestry, he acknowledged in his defence before the Board of Clergy who sat upon his trial.; but he endeavoured completely to justify the former act, and to palliate the latter. Dr. Moore and Mr, Feltus cannot be supposed to be ignorant that ecclesiastical usage knows no instancy of a reversal of a sentence of degradation. And still less, could they have been ignorant, tbat the canons of their own Church declare, that after the Board of Clergy * Appeal, p. SO. ( «o ) have presented the result of the trial to the Bishop, with the sentence which in their opinion slioiild be pronounced, his " judgment in the case is to be linal."* The success there- fore, of Mr. Ireland's attempts, in which Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus zealously aided him, would have been the com- plete prostration of the authority of the Church. Under such circumstances, any longer to have hesitated to take the ground with Mr. Jones on the subject of exchanging with these gentlemen, which had been often before proposed by others, would have been in me a shameful dereliction of my duty to the Church when her authority and discipline were threatened. In my interview with him, it was sincere- ly my endeavour to use a manner and style of remark as conciliating as possible ; aware as I perfectly was of the ex- treme sensibility of Mr. Jones to any thing which he consi- dered as an invasion of his independence. This solicitude on my part is evident from his own account of the conversa- tion discoloured as it is. I reminded him of my past forbear- ance, notwitlistanding Dr. Moore's disrespectful style of conversation concerning myself, as well as his public irregu- larities ; and stated expressly, as the sole reason for changing my ground, the " extreme case'* which had recently occur- red, the zealous co-operation of Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus with Mr. Ireland. Their conduct in thus paralizing instead of strengthenin.:j; the arm of discipline, called, I thought, for the decided condemnation of all their brethren. I stated to him, that associated as we were in the same collegiate charge, delicacy would dictate to him not to introduce into our pulpits Clergymen known to be disagreeable to all his col- leagues ; but that, waving these considerations, so impro* per was the conduct of Dr. Moore and Mr. Feltus in the bu- siness of Mr. Ireland, that exchanges with them would countenance attempts to subvert discipline; and he must thei'efore expect, that duty to the Church would, in this case, prevent us from continuing our usual friendly intercourse with him. I repeatedly disclaimed all idea of dictating to him in the softest tone, language and manner that I could assume ; assuring him that this communication was made to him solely from motives of candour, i)erfectly aware that he would exercise his own judgment and pursue his own course of conduct ; adding hually, in a style of compliment which was really sincere — •* I know you too well Mr. Jones, to suppose that you are to be driven from your purpose.*'! • Canons of the Convention of t1 » Church in Uiis State, rel'^tive to the trial of Clergymen. t Appeal, p. 45. Mr. Jooes here acknow leiljjes that I used these very wavdt. 'TK m .^% ( 8i ) On mentioning, a short time subsequently, to a friend of his, that I had made this remark, he appeared to regret that I had used an expi'ession which was calculated to flatter that idea of his owneonsequence, which api>eared to be the foible of ; Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones endeavours to M on me'* the imputation of conduct " directly contradictory" towai'ds Dr. Moore, be- fore and since his residence in the city. During the former period, when there was a friendly interchange of official duties between Dr. Mooi'e and myself, Mr. Jones asseits, that Br. Moore's « irregularities were practised in a tenfold degree" more than since his residence in the city, when this interchange was discontinued. But during the former period, when an opportunity occurred, I often made allu- sions in conversation with Dr. Moore to these irregularities, and he well kne^v my decided opposition to them. Besides) this public as well as private friendly intercourse between us was, as I have already stated, discontinued not by my- self, but by Dr. Moore several months before his settlement in the city. And, after all, is it not obvious, that irregu- larities which expediency and a desire to conciliate may pre- vent us from directly opposing, when they occur in situa- tions where tlie general injury to the Church is compara- tively small, may demand decided opposition in stations of greater* notoriety and influence, and when the injurious re- suits to the Church are likely to become much more serious ? My conduct to the Rev. Mr. Feltus is the subject of strong animadversion by Mr. Jones, and very particularly detailed by Mr. Feltus himself, in the statement « under his own hand." By Mr. Jones, I am ac- cused of treating Mr. Feltus " with injustice and cruelty ,-"f and Mr. Feltus accuses me of *< persecution and mal treat- ment" of him; of the « vilest and most slanderous impu- tations,":|: and of not having the •* honesty of a gentleman, nor the candour and piety of a Christian, to retrace my steps, and to acknowledge my mistakes."^ These very se- verc general charges, supported by speciflc accusations of the most serious nature, must be my excuse for using a plamness in my statements with respect to this eentleman. very repugnant to my feelings. • Appeal, p. 75. f iWd. p. 77. t IWd. p. 89. i Ibid. p. 1^4. 41 ( ^2 ) Mr. Jones considers the phrase, applied by myself ail4 others, " a man in rvhom no cmijidence is to be placed," as the eant phrase by i^hieh every one is cried down who is not found " yielding und submissive."* This phrase, so ob- noxious in me, is daily used with impunity in the intep- eourse of the world. No secular concern could be trans- acted with safety or success, if an analysis of the charac- ters of individuals, and fi'ce conversation concerning them among those engaged in the management of this concern^ were not permitted. There is no man who does not find it absolutely necessary to act upon this principle in the stffair^ of the world. And surely in ecclesiastical matters, where those qualities that are calculated to excite distrust of their possessor, are even more dangerous and injurious than in tentporal interests, the exercise of this principle is mor^ justifiable. Care indeed must be taken that it be exercised only for good reasons, and only to a necessary extent. That this rule was observed by me in my conduct to the ^v- Mr. Feltus, I am compelled in self-defence to show. This gentleman, though according to his own declaratioa originally a Baptist, officiated for a long time among th^ Methodists, and was considered one of their number. Hig denial that he ever was a Methodist, though he officiated among them, and is said by many respectable ministers and others of that communion, to have belonged to their society, was ceilainly not calculated to inspire me with confidence in him. Nor was this likely to be excited by my knowledge of the fact, that while a preacher among the Methodists^ he was distinguished for his violent, and sometimes abusive language concerning the Episcopal Church. The convic- tion, that he was not " to be depended on," if I may be al- lowed the phi'ase, was fui'ther confirmed by the opinions of many i*espectable persons of the Methodist communion, who had full opportunity of knowing his character. They spoke of him as *^ a man in whom no confidence was to be placed," pompous and violent often, but hollow and insin- cere in his professions. I was satisfied that this represen- tation was not owing to resentment at his having takeu orders in the Church ; because the same persons spoke in high terms of others Who had received Episcopal ordina- tion. These traits of character did not change with a change of communion. Even while a candidate for orders in the Church, I am credibly informed^ he was considered by at least som^ * Appeal, p. 1. •CI ( «3 ) Atoolig whom he Officiated in the capacity of a L^y Reader, as ready to attach himself to any communion that might suit bis purpose ,• and was in the practice of mutilating the litur- gy, and introducing extempore prayer. After his ordinatioh, the same practice continued. His conduct was thus at vari- ance with the high tone with respect to Church principles and to the order and the worship of the Church, which o^ some occasions, and with some persons he assumed ; whil^ with others he could accommodate himself to a much lower grade of Church principle. Tliough sometimes the loud advocate of oi-der and panegyrist of the liturgy ; in his own congregation in New-Jersey, he originated private meetings not sanctioned by this order, and where this liturgy was laid aside. And for some time after his settlement at Brooklyn, he could omit parts of the service required to be used, as suited his purpose. These were not solitary acts into which the most correct might be occasionally betmyed, or for which the force of some imperious circumstances could bt urged as an apology; but they were frequentlv practised by him for years; even after the highest principles as a Churoh- man were on certain occasions avowed by him. The traits of character imputed to him by many of his for^ Bier associates of being " pompous and ostentatious," were displayed by circumstances which, I think, cannot be known to any persons of delicate and correct minds, without exci tine freat disgust. At the Convention of the Church in New- 1 ^^^li at Elizabeth-Town, before his settlement at Brook. lyn, Mr. Feltus was called on to preach ;^not on occasion of the meeting of the Convention, or on any other particular occasion, but when an ordinary sermon would answer. He pretaced his discourse, containing nothing peculiar to the occasion, with an apology for the short notice, as if he had prepared the sermon after he was requested to preach, ft was not presumed that he would leave home at such a ti»ne m the expectation of visiting New-York, without being well stocked with his best discourses. The design was too apparent to impress the congregation with a high sense of tne promptness and ease with which he could prepare a ser- mon at a few hours notice. A discourse from the same text was atew days afterwards preached by him at New- York fu 4 4U 5. ^' ^"^ *^^ presumption is therefore stron*» that the discourse had been previously prepared. But -Jl mittmg the fact of its rapid preparation, to have stated tho circumstance to the congregation was an attempt to make tne altar ot the sanctuary serve the purposes of vaMty and adulaUon that cannot but excite the greatest disgust. 1 w efl ( 84 ) . recollect the disgust which was expressed to me hy a person who heard Mr. Feltus, on another occasion, inform a con- gregation that the text on which he was to address them was mentioned to him on his way to the Church, with a re- quest that he would preach from it. Vanity is afoihle when indulged in the circles of private friendship ; hut when it intrudes into the sanctuary ; when it raises its pi*etensions in the presence of God ; when it pollutes our *< sacred things f^ to palliate it with this appellation would be charity greatly misapplied. It cannot he more painful for any person to read, than it is for me to make this detail. The duty of self-defence must be my apology. A person charged with an unjustifi- able distnist of the character of another can vindicate him- self only by exhibiting the series of circumstances that ex- cited and gradually strengthened this distrust. Circum- stances, which, few and single, appear trifling, and unwor- thy of notice, when numerous and connected assume greater importance, and constitute, perhaps, the best standard by which to appreciate character. The above circumstances relative to Mr. Feltus were not hunted up by me to answer a present purpose. With the exception of one I have been long acquainted with them. Many of them were known to others of the Clergy ; and they justified us in the conclusion^ that *< confidence was not to be placed in Mr. Feltus." In secular concerns no person would hesitate to consider simi- lar circumstances as evidence that '< a man was not to be dcfiended on ;" and that he might be dangerous in propor- tion to the influence which he obtained. In the above cir- cumstances originated the distrust of Mr. Feltus^ enter- tained by myself and others. But he dates the origin of what he styles *^ my persecu- tion" of him to April, 1806; and assigns it to the unwor- thy cause of mortified pride, at his not receiving *' a re- commendation from me in favour of a candidate for oitlers, as a substitute for the personal attendance or examination of that candidate." 'I'his is mere conjecture. He does not pretend to give any proof of it. He " heard" it ; but how he " discovered" it, he does not explain. His introduction of this business may prove his great solicitude to enforce the Canons; but what it proves against me I cannot see. The idea of being ofiVnded at Mr. Feltus on the occasion which he alleges never entered into my mind. Nor did I know any thing of this charge against me until I read the << Appeal." How totally unfounded his accusation is will appear from the following statement. >^ ( 85 ) ^- One charge brought by the Rev. Mr. Feltus against Dr. Hobart is, that his unfriendly and persecuting treat- ment commenced at the time when Mr. Feltus refused to sign a testimonial in my favour; that great ofience was given to Dr. Hobart *^in not admitting his»letteF to the Standing Committee of New-Jersey in my behalf, as an excuse for not attending the Standing Committee in person, when I applied for a testimonial for Priest's orders. " That Dr. Hobart was displeased with Mr. Feltus fop the ground he took in this business is a mistake ; for I do solemnly declare, that when I communicated the result of the meeting of the Committee to Dr. Hoba^rt, as I did (if I mistake not) on the very day that I received my tes- timonial, he promptly expressed his approbation of Mr. Feltus's conduct ; declaring that he considered it cM)rrect, and that he should have acted with Mr. Feltus on the same ground. « JOHN C. RUDD, Rector of « St. John's Church, EHzabeth-Town. *^ June 10, 1811." You may now judge what authority Mr. Feltus could have had for his accusation—" That Dr. Hobart's letter was not received as all-sufficient I soon after heard and disco- covered gave serious oflcnce to the Reverend author; and from that period I have dated his incessant and increasing persecutions." But did the knowledge of these traits in the* character of Mr. Feltus induce me to oppose his call to Brooklyn ? To none of the Vestry or congregation did I mention my sus- picions concerning him. I never directly or indirectly op- posed his call to Brooklyn ; nor do I believe it was opposed by any of the Clergy. The sheet of fsdse accusations, as he styles a certain paper presented to the Bishop concern- ing him, was founded on a circumstance which took place subsequently to his caU to Brooklyn, while his acceptance of this call was uncertain. The origin of this paper of accusations, and the cause and nature of my agency in it will appear from the following statement. ** In the month of June^, 1807, the Rev. Mr. Feltus vi- sited New-York. The morning of his departure from the city I was waited upon by several gentlemen, friends of Mr. Feltus, in the congregation of Christ Church. ( *6 ) They expressed their most earnest deterihinfttion^ if pos- sible, to have the ministerial services of this gentleman; and required that for this purpose I sh6uld consent to his becoming joint Rector. The oflSce of Assistant Minister bad' been befdre offered to Mr. Feltus, which he had de- elined, declaring that no office but that of joint Rector would be accepted by him. I informed the gentlemen who waited on me, that Mr. Feltus had assured me the evening before, that he had received a call from Brook- lyn, which he thought he should accept, and that I was confident, therefore, he would not come. They repli- ed, that " they had settled that business with him, and that he had assured them he would give Christ Church the preference, if he could be joint Rector." « Immediately on their leaving me I waited on Bishop Moore, and informed liim of the above circumstance. He observed, that it seemed as if they were resolved, in some way or other,* to give me trouble. He inquired if 1 had seen Dr. Beach or Dr. Hobart— ^n my replying that Dr. Beach was not in the city, but that I was on my way to see the latter gentleman, who was confined to his house by indisposition, he agreed to accompany me. We found Dr. Hobart so unwell that he was confined to his bed. The circumstances above detailed were men- tioned. It was agreed that a statement of the particulars in Mr. Feltus's conduct which were deemed improper should be presented to the Bishop, and sent to him and to the Vestry at Brooklyn. Dr. Hobart's agency in the business arose from the above interview of the Bishop and myself with him. *' THOMAS LYELL. ^< JVfew-Forfe, July 31, 1811." ^. The above statement, Gentlemen, will show how unjust r% the impression which Mr. Feltus endeavours to produce, that in this business of bringing against him " false accu- sations" I discovered extraordinary zeal. I was confined to a sick room. The paper was, indeed, drawn up by mc, and sent by me to the rest of the Clergy. Some of them were previously acquainted with the facts', and immediately signed the paper. As far as I can recollect, I address^ a note, which Mr. Feltus styles a « circular," only to one Clergyman ; and this was carried to him by a young gentle- man, a student at College, who happened to call on me w hen I was confined to the house by indisposition. Mr. Feltus observes, that this <« young gentleman used his best persna- r^ rH ( 8^ ) sions with those who hesitated to annex their signatures." Surely no Presbyter of the Church could have been induced to sign a paper, of the truth of the contents of which h^ had any doubts, by the " persuasions of a young gentle- inan," a Junior at College. The follow ing is this " sheet of false accusations," printed from the original, with which Bishop Moore has furnished me. You will bear in mind the circumstances which gav^ rise to it, as detailed in tbe preceding statement of Mb Lyell. « THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP MOORE. " JVeic-rorfe, June 12, 1807. « RiGQT Rev. Sib, " The undersigned Presbyters of your Diocese beg leave respectfully to call your attention to the following cir- cumstances ; with which they presume, however, you are already acquainted* << At tbe election, a few years ago, of a Rector of Christ Church, in this city, the Rev. Mr. Feltus was held up for that office, and was supported by considerable influence. As the election eventuated in the choice of another per- son, it was to be presumed, that, from considerations of delieaey, Mr. F. would be remarkably circumspect in his future deportment towards that congregation, lest the influence which he possessed in it might tend to excite dissatisfaction and division. At a visit, however, to this city, a short period after the election, his conduct was not only a violation of one of the Canons of the Church, but directly tended to excite invidious comparisons be- tween himself and the Rector of Christ Church, to the disadvantage of the latter. At his recent visit he made the most solemn protestations to you. Right Rev. Sir, of his sorrow for any irregularity of which he might have been guilty, and of his disposition and determination, in every way in his pow(er, to promote the comfort and in- 4uence of the Rector of Christ Church. Towards this |;entleman his conduct was apparently frank and cordial ; and with him, as well as with you, Sir, the day before his departure, he freely conversed on the subject of aceept- ing a call which he had received from the Church at Brooklyn. On the morning of his departure, several per- sons of the congregation of Christ Church waited on their Rector, to inform him of their anxietv and deter- mination to obtain, if possible, Mr. Feltus lor their Mi- nister j and that, for tUs purpose, he (their Rector) must 4 ( 88 ) immediately consent to admit Mr. Feltus as a co-Rector. On their Rector's stating to them, that Mr. Feltus was preparing to accept the call from Brooklyn, they replied^ that Mr. Feltus would not accept the office of an Assist- ant Minister, hut that he had assured them, that, on con- dition of his hecoming eo-Rector, he would give the pre- ference to Christ Church. These gentlemen assuredly would not have made these declarations, if they had not indirectly, at least, from Mr. Feltus, or from some .one of his confidential friends, ascertained Ids sentiments and wmhcs «♦ On the above facts we deem it our duty to observe—* that it appears to us little consistent with tliat Christian humility which should ever be the attendant of extraordi- nary piety and of extraordinary zeal for the glory of God and the good of souls, in Mr. Feltus to disdam the office of Assistant Minister, which has subsisted from time im- memorial in Episcopal Churches, and has, at difterent times, and in difierent places, been cheerfully filled by persons of at least equal pretensions with Mr. Feltus. The conduct of this gentleman we deem further excep- tionable, as it is calculated to bring odium upon the office of Assistant Minister ; to excite dissatisfaction and desire of change where. that office subsists; and to introduce into this diocese an inncrcviXimi in the constitution of parochial churches, of which there is only one solitary instance (introduced under some very peculiar circumstances) in the United States, and which we believe is unnecessary, injudicious, and tending to discord and disunion. « We think also, that it was the duty of Mr. Feltus, in his /ranfe conversations with you. Right Rev. Sir, and with the Rector of Christ Church, at least to have con- sulted i/oii on the propriety and expediency of such a novel arrangement, and the Rector of Christ Church, whether it would accord with his ideas and feelings. But the total silence of Mr. Feltus with you. Sir, and with the Rector of Christ Chui-ch on this poipt; his holdinjg out the idea of accepting the call from Brooklyn ; and his repeatedly and solemnly disclaiming all wish or design to interfere with the Rector of Christ Church, while a plan was maturing, if not by his direct influence, at least with his connivance, to introduce him as a co-Rector in that Church, display, we deeply regret to say, a meanness and duplicity, connected with a cunning, and aninordinate love of power and popularity, which render it impossible for us Ho extend in future our confidence to this gentleman. We vt m ( 8» ) hesitate not to declare, that we shall greatly deplore any event which should connect him with us as a Presbyter of this diocese. We make this declaration with the less hesitation, as we understand Mr. Feltus is at present use- fully and eligibly situated in the State of Jersey. And we, therefore, cannot think any change desirable on his part, which will place him in a situation where he will not enjoy that confidence and esteem of his brethren which fliay be of importance to his happiness, if not to his re- spectability and usefulness. .1. 1. « We make no apology to you, Right Rev. Sir, for this address. We know you deem it the duty of your Prea- bvters, on all occasions of importance, fi-ankly to furnish you with their sentiments. And the conduct which we have stated is of too great importance to the interests, the peace, and harmony of this diooese, and too important, therefore, in its personal consequences to us, for us to have remained silent. , • u *u <. *< We make this communication to you, in the wish tbat a copy of it may be forwarded to Mr. Feltus, and to any oiher persons to whom you may judge it expedient so to do. {v^ r « We are. Right Rev. Sir, « Very respectfully and affectionately yours, "ABRAHAM BEACH. "JOHN BOWDEN. "JOHN HENRY HOBAJRT. "WILLIAM HARRIS. "GEORGE STREBECK. " EDMUND D. BARRY.*' ' in the conclusion of the above statement the Bishop was Tequested to transmit a copy to the Rev. Mr. Feltus. As^the Bishop concluded not to send a copy to the Vestry at Brooklyn, ind not to take any steps in the business, I suppose he con- eluded it unnecessary to send a copy to Mr. Feltus. I soon fefter went a journey, wliieh the state of my health rendered tiecessary ; and finding, on my return, that Mv. Feltus had accepted the call at Brooklyn, I gave myself no tarther trouble in the business. The turn which he gives to it, that " I suddenly desisted from my intended impeachment, withr out being able to give any reason to the Bishop, or to those .gentlemen whom I imposed on so far as to obtain their sig- jaatures to those charges," is as false as it is injurious. It was certainly the dnty of the Clergy to bear their testi- jfiouj against such traits of character as Mr. Feltus esto* ( 90 ) iitteii. llie mode was corpect. And I now proceed to show fliat the declaration* in this paper, in regard to which so ^eat an outciy has been raised by Mr. Jones and Mr. Fel, tiis, though I am satisfied they never saw it, or a copy of it, were all authorized by facts. : rOn one of his visits to New- York Mr. Feltus, did violate the canons of the Church, by preaching ** in other places than in one of the Churches thereof, without the consent of the major number of the Parochial Clergy of the said Churches ;"* and by not using the liturgy before his ser- mons and lectures.! His conduct also was calculated to ex- cite invidious comparisons between himself and the Rectoi' of Christ Church, to the disadvantage of the latter, by the ready encouragement which he gave to the society meetings, irhich Mr. Lyell, as far as was prudent, discountenanced. That he was invited by Mr. Lyell to attend them, is no justi- ficsttion of his conduct. ^He knew he had a large party in that Church clamorous for liis settlement with them. He knew that this party were all attached to these meetings. And h^ knew that at this time, headed by Mr. Warner, this party were So powerful that it would not be prudent in Mr. Lyell openly to oppose them in a measure which savoured so much of extraordinary zeal and piety. Hence he ought not to have connected hknself with that party, nor availed himself of Mr. LyelPs permission to perform an irregular act, and to violate the Canons of the Church. It is not my design ei^irdy to justify Mr. Lyell in giving this permission. It was his anxious wish to reform the irregularities which pre- vailed in his congregation. To this end, prudence and mo- deration were neeessai^ir And violent a man as I am re- garded to be, it is well known among many of my brethren, i&iat I have always in such cases been the advocate of cautious ^and moderate measures. The congregation of Mr. Lyell tiaw exHbit^ a seriousness, combined with an attachment to "order and to the worship of the Church, exceeded by no Congregation in the city. This has been efieeted in a great ^egree by his prudence, zeal, and pei*severance in combat- ^g difficulties. These were much inci^ased by the party in Tavowr of Mrl Feltus ; whose attachment was kept alive l^ ^ with the secret if not os- "tensible purpose of effecting a settlement there. He acr Iqiowledges that even in his last visit he had no view erf ieHling at Breoklyn.\ But he always declared his wish ta "Canon 53 of Geiitral Coavcation. f C»fwn 34- of do- t App«a!, ». 9i. fA « ( ■ M ). yemore frmn Swcdesborough. Where ' then did he so^ pio- hMj direct his view to a settlement, as to Christ Chun^, ivhere he knew there was a powerful party, headed by. a sentleman, his patron and friend, whose influence in the congregation, it was supposed, was not to be resisted ? It is also true, as the Clergy asserted in thoir letter to the Bishop, that Mr. Fekus had *' disdained" the office of Assist- ant Minister ; and that he sought to introduce, without t|ie apptvbation of the Bishop, the Clergy, or the Convention, the office of joint Rector, which was unknown in the Dio- cese, and only tolerated in sotne places from peculiar cir- eumstances. It was well known that Mr. Feltus refused to accept the o&ee of xissistant Minister in Christ Churchy on the express gt'ound that tlie office of joint Rector only was worthy of his acceptance. The gentlemen who waited on Mr. Lyell made declarations to this effect concerni^ Mr* Feltus's sentiments. But the matter is fully established by the following letter of Mr. Feltus. It is in answer to au official letter of Mr. Lyell, informing him of his election to the office of Assistant Minister of Christ Church.* « Swedeshorough, Tuesday Mornings June 18, 1806, « Rev. and d^ar Ser, ^ « Your favour of the 4th came to hand in due time. I Beed not inform you that my present station is the largest and most respectable congregation, and by far the best living in the State. Were it as healthy as it is in afl other respects agreeable and excellent, nothing could influence me for a moment to desire a change. <« The Vestry of Christ Church have done me oui^V honour in their affectionate attention and obliging invita^ tion. I pray you present that respectable board with the ' suranee of my sincere thanks for any good opinion they have been disposed to indulge of me. The esteem «f ^ the Lord's people is to me next to the approbation rf God. And I trust I shall always endeavoui* to deserve ' that respect they have so liberally shown. . / «< I humbly hope that my good friends will not tiiin]^ . strange if I should seem somewhat to recede from thefe* ' affectionate regaini in the matter of an Assistant. As % have written a long letter to Mr. Warner on this subject, ^ it will be the less neeessar}- to say much here, and i • The original is in the possession of Mcasr.'j. Swor'!9, :^"nd minr hf seen hy an' iicreoAs who h«>»* cnriosUy tap«rrtsc U. ' %^ *— ''■• •■■ " i 9t y kiiow that a man of your independence of mind will ra- ther approve of the sentiment than otherwise, when I say, that I should not feel myself at liberty to accept of • any thing inferior to the station of vl joint EectoVf even if decidedly offered. « With compliments to Mrs. Lyell, in which Mrs, Feltus heartily joins, I am, dear Sir, your affectionateir brother and fellow-labourer in Christ, ^ « H. J. FELTUS/' - Thus then it appears that the office of Assistant Minister was not equal to Mr. Feltus's pretensions. The acceptance of it was not to be expected from " a man of his inde-- peiidence of mind." He could not " feel himself at liberty to accept any thing inferior to the station of joint Rector ;'*^ and even •* this must be decidedly offered." The office of Assistant Minister was to be degraded ; and an innovation in the Dioc^ese to be introduced, without consulting the au- thority of the Church, because Mr. Feltus did not deem it compatible with '* his independence of mind" — *^ to accept any thing inferior to the station of joint Rector, even if de- cidedly offered." Mr. Feltus in his statement declares, that in "the close of his letter to Mr. Lyell," in which he " returned a negative'* to the offer of becoming Assistant, he observed, " in these words** — " Were it the intention of your vestry to call a joint Rector, it would be another matter ; but I could not feel myself at liberty to accept the station of an Assistant." No such wai*d8 are in the " close** of this letter to Mr. Lvell, or in any other part of it. The language there employed by Mr. Feltus is much stronger and much more reprehen- sible. . • It may be proper to obsen e that the office of associated or loint Reetor subsisted only at Baltimore, in the State of Mary- land, where it was recognized by a law of the State ; and the Creneral Convention were thus compelled very reluctantly to notice it in the Canons. The sentiment and usage of the Church were against it; and the General Convention at Balr timore, some years ago, unanimously passed a resolution strongly disapproving of the office, and recommending its being abrogated where it prevailed. In the Diocese of Kcw- "Sork, this office was unknown to the charters of any of the Cburches, and to the law of the State incorporating Epis- copal congregations. An attempt to introduce it without consulting the proper authority, was a disorderly act ; and to allege as a reason^ that an " inferior" office was not ( 9^: ) worthy the acceptance of a man of" independence of mind," was, to say the least, a very indecorous one. When these circumstances are considered ; when it is con- sidered that these sentiments of Mr. Feltus, conveyed not in a private, but in an official correspondence, were unequi- vocally known and never publicly contradicted by him ; when it is considered that be annually made visits to. New-York, which never failed to call up the subject in Mr. Lyell's con- gregation ; when further it is considered that his friends who waited on Mr. Lyell, informed this gentleman that they were satisfied Mr. Feltus would accept the orHce of joint Rector if offi^red to him ; — surely the inference would have been natural, that these gentlemen, in their demand upon Mr. Lyell, wei*e authorized by Mr. Feltus himself. But the Clergy in their paper made no such direct charge. They only remarked — " These gentlemen assuredly would not have made these declarations if they had not indirectly 2i least from Mr. Feltus or from some one of his contidenti^ friends, ascertained his sentiments and wishes." These gentlemen indeed afterwards disclaimed any authority from him. But on what authority then did they act ? Doubtless on the uncontradicted declarations of Mr. Feltus in his offi- cial letter to Mr. Lyell. And, under all these circumstances, the conclusion was a just and natural one, that the demand to admit Mr. Feltus as a joint Rector was with, at least, the " connivance" of this gentleman. His contemptuous rejection of the office of Assistant Minister; and his attempt to in- troduce another office unknown in the Diocese, were passed unnoticed by the Clergy, until they found that his frequent visits to New- York renewed the subject ; and that at length several influential gentlemen of Christ Church, and after- wards a committee of the Vestry, waited on Mr. Lyell with a demand that he should admit Mr. Feltus as joint Rector. Then they drew up a statement of facts, with their opinion thereupon, and presented it to the Bishop, with a request that he would transmit a copy to this gentleman. The mea- sure was necessary, honourable, prudent, and candid. Duty to the Church required pointed reprehension of such con- duct, and vigorous opposition at the outset to an attempt which might totally change the constitution of £pisco[rail congregations. This gentleman has connected some particulars with this business of which I have no knowledge. I knew nothing of the report which occa^oned a " note from one of the members of Trinity Church," nor of the letter which Mr. Lyell wrote to the Rev. Mr. W^ilmer, " in order to supecsede (my the Rev. Mr.Telins at Brookljnf' and wMeh Mr. ¥%hus says he discovered by " the interposition of thut divine Pp%, vidence who is the protector of innocence and the avenser of wron^." Bttt I do know, that Mr, Wilmer told me at the late General Convention in New-Haven, that one prin- cipal object of his journey was to clear Mr. Lyell's charac- ter from the imputations ai Mr. Feltas. * This ^ntleman, in his third charge declares, that « I had tablisfa the fact; with many other things or particulars in your conduct and conversation equally unchrnstian,^' . ke* &c. &e. According to the best of my recollection, the above letter first excited in my mind the idea of my being charged with accusing Mr. Feltus cf having forged his testimonials. On my waiting on Bishop Moore one morning, 1 found him reading certain papers which he said were the testimo- nials of Mr. Feltus, and which he handed to me. Among these was a testimonial from the Vestry of the Church at Swedesborough. We jointly concluded, from the phrnseo- logy of this testimonial, and from the hand- writing, which resembled that of Mr. Feltus, that it was his composition. I have Bishop Moore's authority for saying, that he fully concurred with me in this opinion. The names of the Ves- try in their different hand-writing, were annexed to this in- strument ; and the idea that Mr. Feltus had written them also, which only could make his writing the testimonial s* forgery, never entered into my mind. My conjecture that Mr. Feltus had written the testimonial, to which .^he procured the signatures of the Vestry, was afterwards men*- tioned by me as an abatement in some degree of the force of the most extraordinary terms of commendation which were applied to him. 1 will now present to you. Gentlemen, a vindication of myself from this charge, nearly as 1 drew it up immediately on reading the statement of ' Mr. Feltus, and which has been shown to some persons. <* On the accusation of charging Mr. Feltus with < forging his testimonials,' I am, and ever shall be most completelv at issue with Mr. Warner and Mr* Ii-eland^ and with all ether persons, if any such there ere, who jnak© similar de- ( ^ ) elaratious. I most solemnly ami explicitly deuy that I e?ef charged Mr. Feltus witli forging his testimonials ; 01:, that even the sentiment ever entered into my mind. The only surmise that I ever entertained or expressed was, that. Mr. Feltus had dietated, or drafted, the testimonial himself^ and procured the signatures of the Vestry. . . « This solemn and explicit denial, may be fortified by the strongest presumptive proofs ; the case admitting of proofs of tMs nature only. ' . << I think I may aver its improbability, from the high cH- mnalrty vfhx(ih it imputes to me. To have urged against •any person, and particularly a .Clergyman, a. charge of for- ^ry vhieh I had not the means of establishing ;— to have urged It, not ffom- ' haste of tenaper,' or inadvertence, but deliberately, to different persons, at ^ifi^^i'^i^t times, Kirould argue a baseness, an atrociousness of heart, of which *I did not suppose any individual thought me capable, i ,M But admitting me capable of the high criminality in- volved in the charge, could I have been guilty of the folly :whieli it displays? What must be the jmliscfKtion of the -man who w ould deliberately commit a charge which he had not the means of substantiating, to two persons, who, he had every reason to believe, were the most disposed of all men living, to employ it to his disadvantage? • ." I argue its improbability farther from the statement of Mr. Feltus himself. Had it i)een understood that my charge, -with respect to the testimonials, was that of forgery, is it «ot surprising that the communications from the Vestry and -others at Swedesborough, on the subject of the charge, express no astonishment that their * faithful, zealous, and .evangelical Pastor,' had been accused of so heinous a crime ? The letter of Mr. Warner to them on the subject, rwbich would ascertain in what light he then regarded the charge, does not appear. The letter from Mr. Tittermary states, that * Dr. James Stratton dictated the testimonial ^f respect,* ' which was cordially approved and signed, and copied by his friend ray son.' This style of i^emark is perfectly natural, on the supposition of its having been said that Mr. Feltus had drafted the testimonial. But a very different style would have been used, had it been understood that he was accused of the odious crime of forgery. " But admitting that the precise nature of the charge was mJt communicated to Mr. Feltus's friends at Swedesborough, is it not surprising that an accusation, so seriously affecting his.character, said to have been made by me in 1807, should not be noticed by him w his friends here until 1811 ? Is it *i 'i ( 97 ) not surprising that, according to his own account of an in- terview which he had with me on the subject of my treat- ment of him, he made no mention, required no expiation of this very serious charge? Or, that if his silence was owing to his forbearance, even the " warmth," the <* super- cilious manner,"=*^ which he imputes to me, could not pro- voke him to demand from me whether I had not charged him with forging his testimonials ? Is it not surprising that an interview in which my behaviour is represented to have been ** intolerant and persecuting," could not excite him to carry into effect the purpose which he previously entertained of ^< submitting my whole conduct to the Bishop and his brethren ?"f And is it not more surprising that at the close of this interview, as I solemnly declare, he expressed a sin- cere and brotherly affection for me — (a sincere and bro- therly affection for a man who had charged him with for- gery !) and that at various times since, he should have used to me and to others the most courteous terms concerning me, and earnestly pressed me to exchange with him ? "I refrain from impeaching, in any degree, the credibility of the gentlemen whose testimonies are adduced. With Mr. Ireland I never was in habits of intercourse, and havt^ no distinct recollection of any conversation with him on the subject. To Mr. Warner I did state that I had entertained and expressed the surmise, that, judging from the style of the testimonial of the Vestry of the Church at Swedesbo- rough, Mr. Feltus had written or dictated it, and thatthn Vestry whose names in their various hand writings were annexed, had signed it. The surmise was first expressed by me to the Bishop, when we were perusing the testimonial in his study. And I am satisfied it is a surmise which will naturally arise in the mind of any one who will compai'e the language of that testimonial with Mr. Feltus's style of speaking and writing. I wish not to ^impeach the credibi- lity of the gentlemen who testify on this subject, and there- fore impute their mistake to misconception, or to miscon- struction of the language, which only, I most solemnly de- clare, I ever used." ■■■IP * • ■ Since drafting the above, I have been furnished with documentis which enable me still more fully to disprove the charge. 1. Mr. Feltus himself did not believe the charge. He perfectly understood that I never asserted any thing * Appeal, II. 103. 13 t IW^. p- 102, r * I I k ( 9* ) sior^ thftB that be liad drafted the testimonial himaelfy and procured the signatures of the Vestry. Tliis will appear from the following letter, addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barry, to whom the communication was first made, by Dr. Osbom, for many y^ars a respectable Physician at Brooklyn, but who has recently removed to this city. " My Dear Sir, ** Common justice appears to demand, that the state- ment which I am about to make, should be in the hands of some person who will, as occasion may require, moke use of it in the cause of truth. As we have already had some conversation on the subject, I have taken the liberty cf addressing it to you, Sir ; in the confidence of your giving it that weight which it has to us mutually ap- peared to merit. *' In common with many others, previous to the trial of Mr. Ireland, I was disposed to defend him, or to pal- liate the offences with which he was charged ; and parti- eularly to oppose the abuse with which he was loaded, before he had been heard in his defence. To the inhabi- tants of Brooklyn, it is weU known, that I hate fre- quently endeavoured to obviate the asperity in which Mr. Feltus has indulged. To Mr. Ireland, it is well known, that in reference to his situation with the Church, I have frequently urged him to be on his guard with respect to Mr. Feltus ; and this caution I was led to give to Mi^. Ireland (and I think I expressed the same opinion to Dr. Richard C. Moore) from my knowledge of the lan- guage held by Mr. Feltus previous to Mr. Ireland's trial, which was in the highest terms of reprobation of Mr. Ireland. Indeed, I can assure you. Sir, and the world, that no one could have been more virulent against Mr. Ireland than was Mr. Feltus. And, although I do not recollect ever to have given to Mr. Ireland (as delicacy towards himself prohibited) my particular reasons for -^u^peeting the sincerity of Mr. Feltus ; yet, Mr. Ireland will recollect that I have, more than once, cautioned him ; and I did so from a full conviction that no man could honestly, at so short an interval, act so directly opposite *ko Ills late declarations, and become the warm advocate of the man whom he so vei'y recently, and so lavishly abused. ^< Among other matters of minor importance, ^s they do not concern the statement of Mr. Feltus, contained in Mr. Jones's paiu^hlet, I recollect nell Mr. Feltus having v.* { ^ ) -charged Mr. Ireland with being < the authior (f a most mllainoMS report 9* in regard to himself, and having en- deavoured to fix on him the stigma of forgery, and to have circulated the report under the pretended authority of Dr. Hobart ; than which, said Mr. Feltus, « nothing can he more base^ equally wicked as U regards Dr, Hohatt and myself; as 'he knofws it to be an absolute perversion of what took place : Dr. Hobart said the warm recommenda- tions which I produced^ were written by myself ^ but he ne- ver insimmted they were Tvot siinetioned by the signers ; and this Mr. Ireland has conjured into a dsclatation, on the part if Dr. Hobart 9 that I forged themJ f< I ought not to omit noticing to you the griei^t simi- larity of expression, and precisely the same import of language which Mr. Jones has attributed to Mr. How, relative to Mr. Ireland since his trial, and that absolutely made use of by Mr. Feltus previous to the tri^; Mr. Feltus said, < he ought to be considered an outcast wretch^ and treated as such; and although it would be a dreadful thing to Mr. Ireland^ s family 9 for whom he expressed feelings of great compassion9 yet every gentleman would he compdled to shun his company9 and indeed they ought not to speak to him.^ Thus much. Sir, as it has fallen to my lot to know, I think it my duty to communicate, that as much as in my power lies, I may subserve the 6ause of trudmnd justice. « I am. Sir, respectfully, *^ and with much esteem, ti your obedient servant, « SAMUEL O&BORN. << Re?. E. D. Barry, <^JV«r-rorfe, Jtfai/18, ISll.** 58. Mr. Warner never meant to charge »ie with accusing Mr. Feltus of writing the names to the testimonial. Hence he could never have meant to charge me with forgery in the common acceptation of the wonl. It is no forgery, and it is no Clime to write an instrument, which is signed by other persons. I accidentally heard of a conversation whi<^h passed be- tween Mr. Warner and Mr. Ephraim Clarice, of Philadel- phia, when in this city, on his return from New-Haven, where he attended the General Convention as a Lay Deputy from Pennsylvania. This gentleman is an intimate friend of Mr. Warner. Bisfat;^ White, Dr. Glentworth finother Lay Deputy from Pe^insylvania, Mr. Clarke, and my«elf, acci- / ( 100 ) aentaUv me^^ogether. In presence of the othe? gentlemen. ^': ^ w '" '"'i'T'' ^'^ ''" *"^"^^ ^^"^ i»«^ told me, that Mr. TVarner had assured him that he never meant to charge me with having accused Mr. Feltus of signine the ^^^^^ t^,^*"^ testimonial ; that he had no such idea- The lollowmg extract of a letter from Bishop White wiU Bhow what are the character and standing of Mr. Clarke : * .|| k" "^^"^ ^''i^* character of Mr. Clarke, perhaps it will be sufficient for me to sav, and to authorize you to T'u P'yj'^T' ^^'^^ ^"""^ the long course of years in which he has been known to me, I have never heard of any reproach on his character in any respect On the contrary, he stands unexceptionably well, both as a citi- zen, and as a member of the Churches of which I am the Rector; and of which he has been a vestryman for many years. '' WM. WHITE.'* In a leitcr to me, under date of June 6, 1811, in answer to one which I had addi^ssed to Wm, requesting him to pro- S ^^^""^^ ^ affidavit of the fact, Bishop wW « Mr. Clarke is unfortunately out of town ; but will be at home m a few days ; and I have left a request that he will give me as early a caU as possible. I certainly under- |rtood him, that his information by Mr. Warner, was his (Mr. IV.) not meaning that Dr. Hobart charged Mr. Feltus with torgery. Mr. Clarke can hardly have any objection to the mentiomng of it in a letter. Perhaps it may be best to ask this only of him the first instance ; as he may suppose an affidavit to carry an implication that Mr. Warner will deny his words. If there should be such a denial, eer- tainly the affidavit should follow," A letter from Bishop White dated the foUowing day, con- tarns the following : o jy « I have seen Mr. Clarke, but transiently, and when he was m haste to leave town with some of his family, fop his country seat. He confirmed Dr. Glentworth's and mv understanding of him." I ought to observe, that Dr. GlentworUi, who was present ( 101 ) at this conTersadon, authorizes me to say, that his undeGr standing of Mr. Clarke was the same with Bishop White's. The following letter Mr. Clarke authorized Bishop White to write to me : « PhilaMphia, June 13, 1811. ' ^* Right Rev. and dear Sir, « In regard to the conversation at which I was acci- dentally present, and in which Mr. Ephraim Clarke, of this city, stated what had passed between him and Mr. George Warner concerning a charge of Dr. Hobart against Mr. Feltus, I understood Mr. Clarite to state, that Mr. Warner explained himself as not alleging, that Dr. Hobart charged Mr. Feltus with signing the names to the testimonials. • « Agreeably to your desire, I have this day seen Mr. Clarke on the subject : and he is clear in the recollec- tion, that Mr. Warner distinguished between the testimo- nial from Swedesborough, and the signatures annexed to it. « In case of necessity, Mr. Clarke would not object to his name being made use of; but finding difilculty at pre- sent, declines any thing further than the above. *' I remain ^ Your affectionate brother, " WM. WHITE.*' In a letter, dated June 12, Bishop White, speaking of a conversation with Mr. Clai*e, observes— . « It may be proper to mention to you, that he (Mr. Clarke) informed me of a letter received from Mr. War- ner, in which he makes in substance the same distinction, which Mr. Clarke understood to have been made in con- versation. A similar account of this letter I had pre- viously heard from a brother of Mr. Chirke.'* rui^^^^^ Warner has thus admitted to Mr. ClaAe that he r^^' ^*^^) correctly understood him as asserting that " he (Mr. Warner) did not mean to charge me with accus- ing Mr. Feltus of signing the names to the testimonials, Mr. Uarke does not deem it necesisary to give any affidavit on the subject. It might imply that Mr. Warner woirfd deny what he expressly admitted to Mr. Clarke; an implication which, from his very particular fnendship for Mr. Warner, he would be unwilling shoidd be drawn from any act of his. , I < lOS ) ' It wwild appear from the origi«al stateuient of Mr. Wur- ner «n this subject (page 100 of the ^< Appeal"), that he de- signed, at die time of drafting it, to make this distinetioD between the testimonials and the names annexed ; and thus while he charged me with accusing Mr. Feltus of writing ihe one, not to imfdy that I accused him of signing the other. He prints the word testimomals in Italics ; as if to distinguish between them and the signatures, and thus to ihow dwU he understood my declaration of " forgery" to ex- fetid only to the former. Ag^9 he states that I said, •* Hicy are his hand- writing. I have comj^red them with liis letters, and am satisfied." Now, as the signatures to tfae testimomal are each in a different hand-writing, and all vf them diffci-ent from the testimonial itself, it follows that as I had asserted the testimonial agreed with the hand-writ- ing of Mr. Feltus, I could not possibly mean to assert that he bad written these signatures also. Tiiey were in hand- nivtiBgs totally difierent* Tiie fact, however, that Mr. Warner did not mean to charge me with accusing Mr. Feltus with " signing the •ames to the testimonials," is, I trust, evident from the foregmng documents. I humUy conceive, then, that there is no forgery in the ease. Astonished as I was at the charge against me which I have jast aaswered, I was almost equally surprised at the last accusation by Mr. Feltus,* that 1 refused to be recon- ciled ; and that with the assistance of my " compeer, Mr. How, I have continued ever since to torture, and lessen^ and misrepresent his reputation." With respect to Mr. How, he took no steps against Mr. Feltus^ until this gentleman aided Mr. Ireland in his at- tempts to subvert the discipline of the Church. Previously to that period Mr. Feltus had called on him ; and took great eare, by his conversation, to impress Mr. How with an idea that he was a high Churchman ; and he even expressed his strong apprehensions of the injurious effects of those very societies which he had originated, or at least countenanced •t Swedesborough. So far from refusing to be reconciled to Mr. Feltus, I never had disagreed with him. I treated him on all occasions when I met him with civility, and ne- rer spoke in unfavourable terms of him to any one of his congregation. A conversation which I had, within a short time, with two gentlemen on the subject of his statement, fund one which to<^ place about a year ago with one of hi« * Appeal, p. 90 fid 10(2 ^ I >«^, ( io? ) Vestry, who inquired of me the causes of my not exehang- ing with Mr. Feltus, are the only exceptions to this remark. The interview with him in which he declares I tre|ite4 him with so much incivility, took place after two or thl^e days previous engagement ; so that I could not have beea taken by surprise. During this conversation, I declaim it was my object, to touch upon the delicate point of my f treating him with reserve, on which Mr. Feltus required explanation, with as much mildness as was in my power. And really, I must thinks that it is not impossible for me to exhibit this virtue. No allusion was made, I perfectly i^- collect, to the " sheet of false accusations/' or the " clmrg^ of forgery." The conversation chiefly turned on my right to decline official intercourse with any Clergyman without giving oflfence ; and I only delicately alluded to the causes of my distrust of Mr. Feltus, when he pressed me Upon th^ subject. So far from appearing displeased, he several times ^ve me credit for my fi*ankness ; and when he left me, assured me that he " entertained a sincere and brotherly affection for me." He has often before and since this in- terview, pi'essed me to exchange with him ; spoken of m© in affectionate terms to various Clergymen ; and to one of them in particular (the Rev. Mr. Barry), whom on his way to see me he met in the street, he expressed his wish alsd to see his " good brother Hobart," and accompanied this gentleman to my house. If during tliis period, the dispon sitions which his statement discovers were rankling at his heart, he went much further than Christian meekness de- manded, and, let me add^ than Christian sincerity and can- dour would sanction. My address has ali*eady swelled to so much greater an extent than I expected, that I must be more brief in my view of the charges against me in the « Appeal" which I have not as yet examined. % •a conversation an the i5th of June, 1810, in the Vestry-room of Trinity Church, furnishes Mr. Jonc« witli a subjeet of complaint against me. This conversation was occasioned by a letter^ which, a month previously, he addressed to me ; in Which he undejN takes to counsel me on the necessity and duty of reconcilia- tion with Dr. Moore, (with whom I had never quarrelled) A i ft ( 104 ) and for this purpose ottered his serviecs as mediator. Con- ceivingy as I did, that he was the prime mover in what he styles " these unhappy differences," and able as I was to prove this fact, this letter, in which he affected to stand aloof from all these misunderstandings, and to take that high ground as a mediator, to which he was certainly the last who could make pretensions, this letter was not calculated to excite very pleasant emotions in my mind. By Mr. Jones's state- ment, however, it appears that a month elapsed before I addressed him on the subject of it ; so that I did not act with precipitance; and my manner during this period he acknowledges was " particularly courteous;" and hence common charity would infer, that I came to the subsequent interview with no unpleasant feelings towards him. I had t^eourse to a personal conversation, as in every way re- spectful, and sdfording an opportunity of more particular detail than a letter would admit, as well as less liable to misconstruction. I endeavoured to satisfy Mr. Jones, that the ground on which I thought we should decline an inter- change of duties with Dr. Moore, was not private misunder- standing, which I utterly disclaimed; but his public prin- *eiples and conduct, particularly as evidenced in his recent support of Mr. Ireland. It appears however, that I re- linquished my request of Mr. Jones, not to exchange with Dr. Moore, for reasons, which, discoloured and evidently sarcastic as is his representation of them,* were highly ho- nourable to me, and a proof of my insuperable reluctance to bring matters to an extremity with him. As Mr. Jones in his letter evidently considered me as deeply involved in these unhappy differences, and himself entirely innocent; it was necessary for me, in order to vindicate myself, to take a view of the whole i>eriod of our intercourse. It was im- possible to do this consistently with justice and truth with- out the contrast appearing strong between my "friendly deportment to Mr. Jones, and his unfriendly and insidious deportment to me."f Hence I think it will be easy, upon the principles of human nature, to account for Mr.* Jones's feelings being mortified and wounded, without supposing? that my manner was, as he represents it, violent and insulting. Earnest, indeed, I was ; but that my language or manner was either insulting op violent I absolutely deny. Mr. Jones admits that I several times disclaimed all intention of wound- ing his feelings. It happened that truth and justice were on \my side 5 that while I had acted the most candid andi&iendly '4 i I >N '9 * Appeal, p. 53. t Appeal, p. 50. 'V ( ^05 ) ^rt towards him, he had been indulging hostile sentiments towards me, and secretly endeavouring to undermine my re- putation. Expressions of mine which exhibited this con- trast, it seems, were considered by him as " tart and irri- tating ;" though they afforded no more than a simple state- ment of facts. The^ desire of inveigling IVir. Jones into dis- honourable concessions, which he ascribes to me, and which he takes so much credit to himself for disappointing, never entered into my mind. I had not, indeed, wholly relin- quished the hope which I had uniformly indulged, that Mr. Jones could be made sensible that he had cherished very unfounded sentiments of me, and in consequence had acted towards me, to say the least, very unjustly ; and that if this fact could be impressed upon his mind, an ingenuous sensibi- lity would prompt hiin hereafter to do me justice. But I spon found that this hope was entirely chimerical. He deiHended his hostility to me by imjtuting to me an overbearing as- s^uinption of " autliority which did not belong to me," with- out specifying particulars, though he said my general con- duct authorized the charge. I endeavoured to prove to him, by j)articular facts, (which in the review of my conduct I have already recited in this address) that my deportment had been yielding, conciliating and friendly. I inquired of him, how it was possible that he could give up a man, for whom he professed once to have felt an ardent affection, for such slight offences as he imputed to me ; how especially he could accept acknowledgments from me, which a desire to preserve his friendship only had forced from me, and thus lead me to believe that all unpleasant impressions were done away from his mind ; while he secretly cherished them in all their force, and as far as was in his power insiduously assail- ed my reputation. To this. Ids reply, by his own confession^ was, that he " acted according to his natural constitution."* When I thus found that he defended " insincerity and dupli- city" such as he had manifested, on the plea of " natural constitution," all my hopes of making an impression on him of the injustice of his conduct to me, appeared utterly vain. I was satisiied that it was absolutely impos^ble that sincere friendship should subsist, whei*e dispositions were avowed and defended on the plea of « natural constitution," which were directly at variance with this sacred virtue. This senti- ment 1 did express to Mr. Jones ; but at the same time agreed with him that it was pi*acticable and desirable that such an intercourse should subsist between us as our Christian obli- • Appeal, p. 52. 1* % V t .* 1 - ^**f. ( i06 ) •nations and offiejHl duties required. We parted on this foot- fng; and my conduct to Lim, on all occasions afterwards, y,-di Strictly conformable to all the rules of decorum, of Christian obligation, and of official duty. In this conversation, the subject of his accepting a prece- dence, which was my right, but which 4ie was disposed to claim, and which I yielded, was not introduced by me as a cause of complaint, but to satisfy him that his accusation of my aiming to depress him was unfounded. I never stated to ]um tliat I was opposed to certain Clergymen, whom he wished to introduce into the city ; but his active exeitions Ibr them were alluded to by me, as proofs of the very con- duct in him which he attributed to them, and still attributes m mc to " ambition and self-exaltation." It is not my design to follow Mr. Jones through the par- ticulars of his recoixl of this conversation, which occupies several pages. I should only be involved in the disgusting and painful task of perpetually contradicting him. The ob- .wei-vations which I have already made will enable every can- did person to con-ect his partial and erroneous records. Cer- tain charges, however, which he brings against me, I am compelled particularly to notice and to conti^adict. He state* as offensive in me, my *• pressing closely upon him, seemingly with an intention to prevent his leaving me." May I not be permitted to ask, whether this is not a strik- ing proof of the habitual propensity of his mind to pervert and to magnify triiles ? What more common and more harm- less than lor one person to seek to prolong a conversation with another by discovering a reluctance to let him go ? He •also states that I accused him of " cowardice f and that I used a *^ brandish of the arm." Is it not strange that these reprehensible acts in me did not occur to Mr. Jones when he first penned a record of this conversation, June 16th ; and that he did not recollect them until a subsequent record.. June 23d ? And is it net equally sti-ange that indistinct re- collection should be with him sufficient authority for bring- ing against mc these serious charges ? His language in re- spect to them is, " as it iiuw strikes me"— <* if 1 do not creatly misial;e." I never upbi-aidcd him with unmanHness or cowardice. And if the use of gesture, wiUi a view to impress what is said, is to be construed into a threatening brandish of the (n-m, I am apprehensive my colleague, if not in his private conversation, in his public addresses to his congi-egations, is often guilty of this offence. The day after this conversation took place, Mr. Jones made a record of it^ and during the whole of « the ensuing m .0 ( 107 ) Ay«ek'* it pceupied his mind ; and at " cliffei'ent times" in this period, he committed to paper " additional remarks," until the record was finally finished, « June 23d, 1810." Certainly the idea never entered into my mind that Mr. Jones was recording tliese conversations ; and still less, that he entertained the most distant idea of presenting them to the public eye. I did not, therefore, converse witli him on equal ground. And in candour and justice he was bound to caution me— Be on your guard. Dr. Hobart, for I mean to record your language and deportment, and to bring them to public view. And yet. Gentlemen, had I been thus warned, I doubt whethei' my language or deportment would have been different. F<»r I aver, after a most careful review of both, that on no occasion did I display to Mr. Jones the ir- ritation and the violence which he ascribes to me. And be- sides, I should hav^ found it difficult to restrain that frank- ness which had long led me, while I considered Mr. Jones as my friend, to observe towards him no disguise; and which, whatever may be the inconveniences to which it some- times subjects a person in his intercourse with the world, I certainly deem infinitely preferable to that self-command, which can conceal the momentary feelings of resentment, only to brood over them, till they are cherished into the settled purposes of revenge. =* With the business of Mr. Blackburn, of which Mr. Jones gives a long detail, 1 had no concern. It was transacted during my absence from the city. No complaints of Mr. Jones's conduct in this affair were ever made by Mr. How or myself. On the contrary, we approved of his conduct. And it appears from Mr. Jones's own statement, that Mr. Lyell only mentioned to him an observation of Mr. Black- burn's, that « he (Mr. Blackburn) had learnt from Mr. Fel- tus, that Mr. Jones had raised obstacles in the way of Mr. f* J"d-^?^ P ^ **'* " Appeal," Mr. Jones insinuntes that " by tlie publio^tion f \f , *""^ * report to the Convention in the Mngnzine, 1 revived the business Af rfe"^.' Mfhich was fast sinking into oblivion, and exasperated his fi-iends and ramily^ The Canons of the Church require every instiuice of the degiada- tion ot a Clergyman to he stated in the Bishop's report, which is ahvjfvs to be printed in the Journr^ls of the Convention. Ihe Bishop acconlJnglv sta'led the ease ot >J/-- Irebnd s degradation in his address; this was inserted on the Journals, and published with them: I transferred it to the Churchman's M«g«zine. Tl.is T/as m> ottcBce. I had no personal reference to Mr. Ireland. 1 intended alwavs 1^ insert the B.sbop s address in the M;.gazine as an article of ecclesiastical neu--. 1 his note wnntd have appeared in its proper iilace; but the charge in the " Ap- peal, on which It anima«iverts, escaped mv notice \ A I ( 108 ) Blackbnrn's admission to orders, not from objection to him, but from opposition to Mr. Lvell." As therefore no person eriiwinatcd him, it was very unnecessary to go into a detail of seven or eiglit pages to prove his innocence; particularly as he was compelled to violate the confidence which Mr, Lang's family had placed in him, by divulging to the public information which he confesses " he had drawd from them reluctantly, and out of a regard to truth ;" and which, as Mr. Lang declares, Mr. Jones promised should never be mention- ed except confidentially, to those concerned in the biisiness of the Church. Yet this unnecessary exposure of the par- ticulars of Mr. Blackburn's conduct; this violation of pri- vate confidence; and the consequent interruption of th« friendship between the families of Mr. Lang and Mr. Black- bum, were disregaitled by Mr. Jones, in order to make it ap- pear that myself and others had persecuted him, by remov- ing him from the Standing Committee, for conduct that was honourable and correct. But all the parties whom he re- presents as principally concerned in that measure, ai-e ready solemnly to aver, that his conduct in this afiair had no influ- ence whatsoever on their determination. He also states* that The unwarrantable opposition which he has uniformly met with from myself and others has arisen from his dis- approving of the controversy on the subject of episco- pacy. The disingenuousness and injustice of this charge I have deeply felt. So far from entertaining the roost distant idea of persecuting Mr. Jones, or any other person, on account of his opposition to this controversy, I have been seriously appre- hensive of persecution myself, and have only plead for tolera- tion in the conscientious avowal and defence of my opinions. Had an inordinate love of popularity, as my accusers repre- sent, been my ruling passion. I erred most egregiously in the course which I pursued to obtain it. Could 1 have sacrificed to this unw orthy principle my sense of duty, the Church and her ministry would never have found in me an advocate and defender. Public sentiment, I knew, was averse to every thing like controversy on religion. I was perfectly aware that many whose judgment I respected, whose friendship I valued, strongly doubted of the expediency of the public dis- cussion of these particular subjects. It was painful to act * Appeal, p. 22. ( *09 ) contrary to their judgment and advice. The edmm too, which has been heaped upon me by those who " are with- out,'* is greater than has often fallen to the lot of one indi- vidual to sustain. And some too of " my own household'^ have not failed to employ to my disadvantage my avowal and defence of Church principles ; and to paint me as so intolc" rant both in practice and in principle, that they deem me worthy of a comparison with Archbishop Laud.* I can most seriously declare, that I have sometimes felt the apprehension that my usefulness might * be afiected by the odium raised against me. It never occurred to me, therefore, to commence a system of persecution against any person for his opposi- tion to the conti'oversy. Had the idea occurred to me, I must have felt that with respect to this subject, I did not occupy ground strong enough for such ofiensive measures. I only complained once or twice to Mr. Jones of his want of frankness in speaking unfavourably to others of a book of wiiich I thought he approved ; and of endeavouring unne- cessarily to render it unpopular. How far he is correct in saying that *^ he never approved of the controversy,"! will appear from the following statement of the Rev. Mr. Rudd^ now of Elizabeth-Town, New-Jersey, but who officiated fop some time at Huntington, Long-Island. << As to the assertion of Mr. Jones in his pamphlet, tending, as I conceive, to disafiTect some minds towards Dr. Hobart, that he (Mr. Jones) had always been opposed to the controversy in which Dr. Hobart was engaged, on the subject of Church government ; I am bftund, by a convic- tion of duty, to state, that I have a distinct recollection of a conversation which I had with Mr. Jones on this subject at Huntington, on Long-Island, in the autumn of 1805^ when Dr. Hobart had resolved to collect the essays which; originally appeared in the Albany Centinel. In this con- versation, Mr. Jones did unequivocally, and expressly de- clare as his opinion, that the controversy would be of great utility. He further particularly approved of the pieces signed Cyprian, and a Layman ; and likewise of the part which Dr. Hobart was about to be engaged in, of collecting the essays, and making remarks upon them,":}: JOHN C.RUBD. * See Mr. Swordr/s statement, p. 50 and 51 of this Jidflifss. f Appe!«!, p. 'J2. :): The cUftVrent staieraents of Mr. MtuU] in this ndcJrrss, were frirnlslird in tmt sitr.temcnt. I have divitietl it for the convenience of rcfereiictf. y ( 110 ) ' The controversy, however, of which it seems Mr. Jones ©nee approved, was found to be unpopular; and how far a wish to avail himself of any advantage over me which this circumstance might give him, influenced his change of opi- nion, it is not for me to say. But I again solemnly declare^ that the thought never entered my mind of opposing Mr. Jones or any other person on account of their discounte- nancing the controversy. And until a few weeks before the ap- pearance of the " Appeal," the idea that he or any other per- son imputed to me such a design never occurred to mc. Then I found that attempts had secretly been made to turn the un- popularitv of this controversy to my injury; and to circulate the idea, that a system of persecution was organizing against all who ventured to oppose it. These ungenerous attempts (may I not call them) were not successful in one quarter, where I know they were made. In another, I have reason to believe they were exerted, and with more success. It is somewhat extraordinary that the individual whom his accusers represent as so intolerant, has generally been the advocate, in the Conventions of the Church, of moderate and conciliating measures, and adverse to enforcing, by ec- clesiastical authority, principles which he deemed correct in theory. That this has been my uniform conduct, I can ap- peal to all those with whom I have been associated in the transaction of the business of the Church. But as this «hai^ of violence and intolerance is a conspicuous one in Mr. Jones's << Appeal/' and is urged by him in the strongest, terms, I must be permitted to repel it by some particular statements. ' The Rev. Dr. Moore and myself attended the General Convention at Baltimore, as Clem*al Ileputies ; and he rea- dily answereefoi*e met '^ Mr. Jones in the city, and in conversing with him on the subject of Dr. Hobart's appointment to the Episcopate, he declared that he observed to Mr. Jones, that he could not consider Dr. Hobart as a violent and intolerant man ; that his moderate and conciliatory conduct at Baltimore was still in his mind ; that in the Convention at New-Haven he had seen him evincing no other sentiments and dispo- sitions ; and that he could see no reason for believing that Dr. Hobart would make an over-bearing Bishop. " In the preceding statement I have, as far as my me- mory will serve, employed the language madfe use of by Mr. Bull ; and have no hesitation in declaring, that it is not only substantially correct, but that it is very nearly so in expression. '' JOHN C. RUDD, Rector of • " St. John's Church, Elizabeth-Town, New-Jersey. "^ EUzaheth'Town, June 29, 1811." The following letter is from one who has certainly had I he fullest opportunity of forming a correct judgment of me. •• Dear Sir, ^« Philadelphia, July 3, 1811. " In answer to your inquiry, whether 1 have knowR V' ( 112 ) vou to manifest intolei-ance, in the conducting of tlie bu- siness of our General Conventions ; I can conscientiously declare, that no instances of such a spirit have passed under my notice ; and that, on the contrary, I have known YOU solicitous for the obtaining of an a^^reement to such a degree, as produced considerable sacrifice of individual opinion on your part. This happeneil especially at the Convention in Baltimore, in 1808, >Yhen you and Dr. Kemp induced Bishop Clagget and me to make changes in some of our communications ; which had been accept- able to the Convention generally, and to yourselves^ in particular; but were offensive to a minority. ; " What I have said in reference to Conventions applies to your conduct generally, so far as it has faUen under • my notice. ^ / "I remain " Your affectionate Brother, " WM. WHITE.'' And yet Mr. Jones fliink« proper to represent me as an Ambitious, intolerant, persecuting iniin. And that he might « pull me down," the alarm was sounded hy him, that my advaneement would be the commeneement of a « Scene ol tyranny that the Chui-ch has not witnessed smee the days ot Archbishop Laud."* I well recollect, that on my return from the General Convention at Baltimore, I did not find some of those who now accuse me of intolerance very cor- dial in their approbation of the tolerant measures I then ad- vocated. And at this period also, I well i-eeoUeet, com- menced the active exertions of Mr. Jones to introduce into &is diocese a Clergyman, whose talents and piety I have ever honoured; whose principles are the same with mine; but wHh whom, at that Convention, I considered it my mis- fortune to he compelled to differ, as to *»>« P'^^f f^/S to which these principles were to be carried, and the mode hv which they were to be enforced. Perhaps self-partiality blinds me. But I have always tliought my accuser not quite so tolerant as myself in his views of governing. As an in- stance, I this moment recollect that at a late Convention ot the Church in this State, he introduced «. P™?"?*^"" *»,•; nrescribinB a set of psalm tunes, and permitting ^themotfl^ ?rte u4d in the congregations. This proposition, which eould not have been enforced without endangering the peaee of our congregations, and which was an mfnngem^int ol » ' » Mr: SwoHT/s stttenxontj p. 51 oC-this address. .^^ f^ ( "3 ) the power vested in every minister, of regplatin^ the music of his Church, was mu^ed by him only in consequence of the decided opposition to it manifested by myself and others. The opposition to Mr. Jones, evidenced particularly by V His remiyval from the Standing ComrmtteCf . of which he so much complains, arose from no private or personal considerations, nor from any of the causes which he has stated. =^ To counteract and to discountenance the efiR>rts of any man, who aims to excite parties in the Church, • To this remark Mr. Jones's conduct, in what be says was styled a ** speculating scheme," is in some degree an exception. In this, Mr. Jones's conduct appeared to myself and others reprehensible, and to reflect disgrace on the clerictd profession. Mr. Jones admits that the adverttseraent in the newspapers, by these who were ap- Bman. But ccrtaialy this Ipu- instance would uot UaTe led to arfv measures a^ains^ him. -'5 '•I ( r' i -ami thus to disturb her peace, is a measure, of the justice and general expediency of which there can be no doubt. That this was, for years, the systematic aim of Mr. Jones cannot, I think, admit of a doubt with any who have pe- rused the documents and the detail exhibited in the preced- ing pages. To continue in office an individual who had ma- nifested such tempers and designs, would only be continuing to him the power effectually to carry them into execution. To bestow the confidence of the Church on those who had indulged, by the most unwarrantable acts, those selfish and jealous passions which are subversive of her honour and her peace, would be not less injurious to her, than incompati- ble with truth and justice. Most certainly, the great bodj of the Clergy entertained the conviction, that Mr. Jones, by iiis conduct, had justly forfeited their confidence; and, as honest and indejiendent men, they withheld from him their suffrage, and endeavoured to effect his removal from office. They exercised an indubitable right, in a way that they thought the honour and the interests of the Church de- manded. How can this act merit the appellation of a dis- honourable persecution of Mr. Jones ? If in every case ia which the Convention chooses to remove an individual from an office which is elective an outcry of persecution is to be raised, the freedom of election will be endangered, and th« intei^sts and honour of the Church may often suffer by the continuance in office of unworthy men. The notoriety of this proceeding against Mr. Jones has been owing principally to himself and to his friends. But for their representations, few persons except the members of the Convention would have kiiown of his removal, and still fewer been led to re- ganl it as of any consequence. At a Convention previous Dr. Moore was not re-elected as a Deputy to the General Convention, a station which he had filled. He and his friends were silent ; and I question whether a dozen per- sons, except those who were members of the Convention, knew of the circumstance. The peace of the Church was not endangered ; Dr. Moore's public reputation was not wounded ; and his conduct on this occasion affords a digni- fied and honourable contrast to that of Mr. Jones. Of the reasonableness, justice, and gejiet^al expediency of thia measure I was finally fully satisfied. Of its particular expediency, I doubted to the last, from its affording Mr. Jones an opportunity of raisiBg an outcry of persecution. And, such is human nature, that there is often greater sen- Mhilk^ to this outcry, than there is to the dictates of justice or the arguments of truth. TUat I did not origimate or prc*» ./ 1^ ( lis ) this measure ; that I even delayed it ; and that it was finally carried into effect without my instrumentality, wilf appear from the perusal of the statement of Mr. Lycll, alrekdy exhibited,"* and from the subsequent statement of Mr. How. -. « . • ^< In the autlimn of 1 809, some of the Clergy and Laity were of opinion that Mr. Jones should be removed from the office of member of the Standing Committee. They regai'ded him as having acted in so shameful a manner as to make it the duty of the Convention - to show all those who might be disposed to raise up par- ties in the Church, and to disturb its peace, that such conduct would not be tolerated. Mr. Jones would then have b**en removed from office but for the decided op- • position made to the measure by Dr. Hobart. And, in the fall of 1810, when Mr. Jones was removed from office. Dr. Hobart certainly did not actively co-operate in the thing. He did nothing more than silently ac- quiesce in it as correct. And it required considerable effort in the friends of the measure to bring him to such acquii^scence. In this, 1 think, he acted erroneously: for Mr. Jones's conduct had been so dishonourable, that I then thought, and do now think, it was the duty of every upright man to set upon it the stamp of his most decided condemnation. « THOMAS Y. HOW.'* it.-«j That with a view to this measure, or on the subject of Mr. Jones's conduct in general, I had not been at any pains to influence the mind of the Rev. Mr. Bowen, will appear from the following letter. " JVcTO-Forfe, July 10, 1811. " Right Rev. and dear Sir, *< In answer to your inquiry it gives me pleasure to de- clare, that I recollect no conversation had with you, prior to the removal of Mr. Jones from the Standing Committee, in October, 1810, in which it appeared to me to be your wish or design to impress my mind in a manner unfavoura- ble to that gentleman. I remember an interview with you, which occurred early after my removal into the Dieeese, in 1809, at which the unhappy want of the friendly and fraternal intercourse which I had witnessed several years before bettVeen yourseli' and Mr. Jones having been re- ferred to^by me, you declared tlnit you were uneoiifrei^c^ • Page 23 of this Rddi-ei?. t ^V , it""^ ( 116 ) fki' havingr in any manner injured Mr. Jones, either in his leelin^Sf his reputation, or interest ; that you were con*, scious, on the other hand, of having endeavoured to serve him in every possible manner, and referred me to faeta and testimonies wliich mi§;ht satisfy me that you might reasonably entertain a sense of injury done you by Mr. Jones, and not he of any done him by you, either direetly ©r indirectly. The conversation however on the subject, «n this, and on every other occasion on which I can re- member it to have taken place, prior to the period above mentioned, was cursory and desultory ; leaving on my Bund with respect to yourself, no other impression than it found, viz. that you had not done any thing to jus- tify the displeasui'e of Mr. Jones against you ; and with respect to himself, no distinct impression of any circum- stances in his behaviour which demanded the resentment of yourself or of his brethren in genei-al. I can, without the least apprehension of error, declare, that until after ^e removal of Mr. Jones from the Standing Committee, when some remarks of mine relative to that measure led you to a particw/flr exjdanation of the circumstances which, in the opinion of the Clergy, so generally both demanded and justified it, you had ever observed in conversation with me concerning that gentleman, the utmost delicacy and reserve. V "With the greatest respect and affection, " 1 am, &c. " N. BOWEN.*' My conduct to JWr. Harris at the Convention when Mr. Janes was removed from ojice^ is another subject of crimination. Until I received the fol- lowing statement from Mr. Harris, in answer to my in- quiries, 1 never su|>{>osed that he entertained the impres- sions of my conduct which Mr. Jones states, or that the events of that Convention, or any circumstances connected with them, had produced a change in the affectionate senti- ments which he once cherished for miD. Qiiest. " Did you at any time complain to me of my treating you unkindly in the Convention last fall ; and since that time have you not expressed to me your sincere and warm affection for me ?'* ( iiy ) •Ans* <^< I did not complain to you, but if t ^onld'saV that I was not hurt at some observationa of yours at the last fall Convention, I should say that which is false. I did not, however, as I soon afterwards told you, think them to be of sufficient consequence to be the occasion of a quarrel. Since the fall Convention I am not conscious of having expressed a warm affection for you ; on the contrary^ your saying as you did, that you was doubtful of the policy, but that you had no doubt as to the justice of turning Mrt Jones out of his offices at the last Convention, materially altered the opinion I had formerly entertained of yoo^ Until that time both Mr. Jones and Dr. Moore are ready to do me the justice to say that they had not considered me as taking a decided part." After delivering me the above, Mr. Harris directed what follows to be inserted immediately after the words " warm affection for you :" ^ " All intercourse between us was not however broken off. You came several times to my house, and in return 1 waS several times at yours. In one of these interviews, wheii I intimated that it was my belief that some of your partH cular friends had been ehiefly instrumental in turning Mr. Jones out of his offices, you said that you were consulted in the business, and that it was done by your consent. When I exclaimed against the injustice of the measure, you ob- served, that you was doubtful as to the pcdicy, but that you bad no doubt as to the justice of the thing. This expression of yours, together with other observations in the course of our conversations, did, I must confess, materially alter the opinion I had formerly entertained of you. Until the period alluded to, both Mr. Jones and Dr. Moore will do me the justice to say, that they had not considered me as taking a decided part.'* It certainly has been my misfortune to havB been often unsuspecting of the unfavourable sentiments of others to- wards me. I only lament that Mr. Harris should hare «' materially changed his opinion of me," without giving me the most distant intimation of this change. In the con- versation on the subject of Mr. Jones's removal from office, I frankly stated to him my views of that measure, in which I knew I differed from him. But I really thouglit I had more reason to complain of his espousing the cause of Mr. Jones, than he had to complain of my opposing a man who 1 ( lis ) h:id acted a part so dishonourable, and soinjurkms to the Church. His conduct in that business I believe vfus proHipted by conscientious lootives, and I cherished for him jny former regard. I met him after the Convention^ for the first time, with every expression of affection, which was fully reciprocated. And our intercourse continued, as I supposed, on its former friendly footing, until within a few weeks of the late Special Convention, when I indeed con- cluded from the extreme distance and reserve of Mr. Har- ris, that he had changed liis opinion of me. But the first intimation of the cause as well as of the time of the ch^ige^ is contained in the above answer to my inquiries. My offence was calling Mr. Harris to order. But the mei-e circumstance of calling a gentleman to or- der is neVer considered in any public body as unwarrantable or rude; In the ease in which I am aceused, the occasion justified it. For Mr. Harris, with a view to justify his re- signing liis office as member of the Standing Committee, was attributing unworthy and most undoubtedly erroneous mo- tives to an act of the Convention. The imputation was disorderly, and was calculated to irritate ; and to disturb the peace of that b<»dy. I fully acquitted and do still ac- quit Mr. Harris of any such intention. My manner was in every respect courteous and conciliating. For in the very next sentence which succeeded my calling that gentle- man to order, I declared << that I was satisfied there was no person present more disposed than he was to respect the motives of his brethren and of the Convention, and to pre- serve its peace; and that I was therefore confident he would on i-eflection abstain from remarks calculated to impeach the one and to disturb the otlier." Mr. Jones admits* that I was pointed at by Mr. Harris, and addressed as a disturber of the peace with whom he had ineffectually laboured. " God knows, and tliat gentleman knows that I have laboured hard to preserve the peace of the Church." Indecorous as were the manner and the remark of Mr. Harris, and quick-tem- pered as I am represented to be, I can appeal to the persons present whether I did not mildly remark that the gentleman had misunderstood me ; that so far from doubting his dispo- sition to preserve peace, I had stated my confidence in this dis- position as a reason for my hope that he would desist from his remarks. Of this circumstance Mr. Jones makes no men- tion. My conduct in this business met with the approbation of many of the members both lay and clerical^ who thanked M ( 119 ) me for th e prompt, discreet, and effectual manner in which I arrested a discussion that Mr. Harris was provoking, which would have thrown the Conventioninto a violent ferment. I could procure numerous testimonies to this effect. I con- tent myself with the following. « I attended the Episcopal Convention, which met in the City of New-York in the month of October last; and I was near to Dr. Hobart when he made the speech which interrupted Mr. Harris, and is referred to in Mr. Jones's pamphlet against Dr. Hobart. I was attentive to what passed. The speech was a short one. The matter of it appeared to me delicate and proper ; and I saw no- thing in its manner that looked like indecorum ; or that discovered any other warmth, than the earnestness and animation common to Dr. Hobart's public speaking. ,, " ROBERT TROUP. « JVew-Fork, July S, 1811." A tnjling remark which at a meeting of the Clergy I made to Mr. Harris conc€:rning Mr. JoneSf constitutes another distinct subject of complaint Mr. Har- ris had often spoken to me with great commendation, of the coolness of temper and self-command which Mr. Jones pos- sessed. An event occurred when Mr. Jones, by his own statement,* " felt indignant at Mr. Lyell for applying the appellation of « false" to what contessedly was false, and when he made^ to say the least, a remark as indecowus as any which Mr. Lyell employed. I in voluntarily, and with perfect good nature, called the attention of Mr. Harris, who sat next to me, to this conduct of Mr. Jones, as an illustration of the coolness of temper and self-command which had been so often commended. Mr. Harris, with what " truth and justice" it is unnecessary to say, but with an angry tone and manner not common to lam, replied, "You, Dr. Hobart, of all men, ought to be t,he last to make such a remark." This Mr. Jones records. But Mr. Harris forgot to mention to him, or he forgot to record, that in the same angry tone and manner, Mr; Harris proceeded — « for you of all men living are the most irritable." And ^et this most irritable of all men, replied witii a smile, « Well, well, allowing that, brother Harris, how does it excuse the spirit which Alr^ Jones manifests ?" * Appeal, p. 58. t Appeal, p. 65. )\ ! ! ! i 120 .) . 'With a yievr to ascertain what was Mr. Harris's reeoUee- tion of this matter, I made a written inquiry of him^ which, with his answer, is as follows. ^uest, ^' In a conversation between myself and you on Mr. Jones's treatment of Mr. Lyell at a convocation of the Clei^ at the Bishop's, when you observed to me, < You, Dr. Hobart, of all men, ought to be the last to make such a remark,' did you not subjoin, * for you of all men living are the most irritable ?' And did I discover any irritation at this remark ; but did I not in a pleasant way rejoin, — ^ Well, allowing this, how does it excuse Mr. Jones?' or words to this effect?" Jins* " In the treatment which Mr. Jones received fi*om Mr. Lyell, I have no recollection that I said, * you of all men living are the most irritable.' 1 however think it probable that I might have said it, and I perfectly well remember that your answer to whatever I had said, was, as you say, ' in a pleasant way." I have a distinct recollection that Mr. Harris made the remark which he acknowledges " it is probable" he did maker and which, as well as my answer in <^ a pleasant ws^," he perfectly well remembered in the conversation with him a few days preceding his giving me the above testimony. This unimportant occurrence, in which I displayed dis- positions the very reverse of those which Mr, Jones attri- butes to me, affbi*ds him an opportunity of making the fol- lowing remarks; which I present to you without«comment, only protesting against both the charges and the acknow- ledgments which he there imputes to me. << For my own part, nothing I confess, among all the multiplied insults and provocations which 1 have received from him, has led me to form so mean an opinion of Dr. Hobart, as this single remark. Because, he knows, and he has several times candidly confessed, that in this re- spect, 1 have always had the advantage of him. And I am bold to put it to his conscience to declare, that amid all the irritating circumstances in which I have been placed by him, I have never resented his almost unbear« able conduct ; and have never I'eturned him one irritating word. This is said with humility. Possessing, by nature, as I am well aware, a disposition quick and irritable, yf^t chastened 1 trust, aad in soiuc measure subdued by a ha- ^*4 » ; " 6it 6f eonsfanf watchfulness, and by the pwvehtion of ' the grace of Goaper styled by Mm " a sheet of false accusations," was presented to the Bishop after this call. And when the Bi- shop did not see proper to proceed in the business, I made tto objection to the settlement of Mr. Feltus. Nor did I feter endeavour to lessen him in the estimation of hh com- gPCgatien. ' I did not oppose, directly or indirectly, the call or settle- ment of Dr. Moore at St. Stephen's, which was zealously promoted by Mr. Jones. Nor can any of his congregation say Ibat they ever heard from me any thing to his disadvantage. In the case of a vacancy at Grace Church, when Mr. Jones insinuates I opposed the call of Mr. Dehon, I re- commended this gentleman for that situation ; and this I ifftust beg leave to confirm by the following statement of D. S. Ogden, Esq. one of the members of the Vestry. ^ In a conversation which I had with the Rev. Dr. Ho- hart, previous to the choice of a Rector for Grace Church, he recommended the Rev. Mr. Dehon as a person well ealculated for that station, and spoke to me in high terms * «tf Mr. Dehon as a man of talents and character. I mcn- **-Api>*aT/ p- 67. 16 f Appeal, p. 20,* ••7 c ( 122 ) tiuiicd at that tiuie the name of the Rev. Mr. Bowen, the pirsent Reetor of Grace Church ; when Dr. Hobart ex- lu-essed doubts whether Mr. Bowen would accept of the Rectorship if it were offered to him, as he had declined a 1 ffiven to him by Trinity Church. « DAVID B. OGDEN. JVeic-FoT-fe, July 18, 1811." I did not oppose, directly or indirectly, the settlement of the Rev. David Moore at State n- Island. And yet in all these, or in any other cases, I should not have hesitated to make opposition, had duty to the Church in my judgment required it. As to the charge of favouritism. ,Mr. Lyeirs settlement in Christ Church was certainly ef- fected without any favour, direct or indirect, of mine. On t!ie contraiy, at that time I rather favoured the settlement of Dr. Mooi-e in that situation. I did favour the settlement of Mr. How in the city ; but so well established were his character and talents, that no parti- cular favour of mine was necessary to effect his settlement. And until I made a mortifying discovery to the contrary, very soon after Mr. How's ordination, I did suppose that Mr. Jones accorded in the general gratification manifested at Mr. How's coming into the Church. I did favour the settlement of Mr. Bowen in Grace Church, so far as to bear honoui^able testimony to his talents and character. The first proposition of calling him was rather discouraged by me, on the supposition that he would not ac- cept the situation. And I wrote to him afterwardsiat the ex- press request of the Wai*dens of that Church. The above closes the short catalogue of my offences, as to the charge of favouritism. How far I *^ pursued a system of favouritism particu- larly in respect to a certain Clergyman whom I was endea- vouring to get into Trinity Church," the charge which Mr. Jones made against me to Mr. Bulkley,* will appear from the following statement of the Rev. Mr. Chapman, the Clergyman alluded to, and who is Rector of the Church in Amboy. << In page 26 of his << Appeal," Mr. Jones asserts that Dr.HQbart "had been endeavouring to get his particular • j\lr.Bulkley'a statement, p. 38 of this address; ( *23 ) subservient Clerical friends one after another, into the Church in this City." From the circumstance of my intimacy with Dr. Hobart, botli before and after ray re- sidence in New-York, there is reason to presume that Mr. Jones refers to myself in particular, when he makes the above assertion. In answer to which, I do hereby testify, that before I was in Holy Orders, Dr. Hobart ' wished, advised, and urged me to settle in New-.Tersey. where the interests of the Church were deca^^in^ for want of Clergymen. For some n^onths after I had re- ceived Orders, being without any particular charge, I of- ficiated in the City of New-York several times, without entertaining an expectation of a settlement there, but from a desire to serve my friends. I was called however to officiate in Trinity Church for a limited time. I have no reason to believe that such an arrangement was made through the particular influence of Dr. Hobart. That the testimony which he judged it proper to give in my fa- vour might have had weight, cannot be doubted. But when he was asked to give his opinion respecting myself, or any other person, it is presumed, that justice as well as the obligations of friendship, demanded that he should give it candidly. In addition to the above, I do well re collect, that during my residence in New- York, Dr. Ho- bart more than once recommended to me a settlement in a country parish, and declarcil his opinion in favour of a -residence in the country. « J. CHAPMAN." In connection with this subject I must beg leave also ^d 'exhibit the following statement; because I well recollect that in the advice which I gave to Mr. Rudd, I incurred the good natured displeasure of my Diocesan, who, at that time, was desirous that Mr. Rudd should settle in this Diocese. " From the whole tenor of Dr. Hobart's conduct to- wards me, and from all the observations I have had op- portunity to make, I never could have supposed that he was 2}lanning to get such Clergy into the City and State of JVfuj-Forfe, as might he suhservient to his views. , " As it respects myself, I can expressly declare, that on entering the ministry Dr. Hobart discouraged my settle- ment in the Diocese of New- York, stating as his reason for so doing, that other places stood in more immediate need of Clergy. The depressed state of the Church in New- Jersey, and particularly the situation of the Parish jn which I re- ;-.h / t . ( i^ ) **fisirfe, he thouglit, i^hould induce me to accept a call to Eliza- beth-Town. The prospect of my usefulness was, he said, much more extensive here, than in the State of New- York. Since my settlement in New-Jersey, when situa- tions have heeu offered to uie in the Dioecss of New- York, Dr. Ifobart has held the same langusge, and invariably dissuaded me from removing. Nor can I for a moment suppose that his advice on this subject, was not the resul£ of the sincercst friendship. His uniforYn deportment has been such as to \e«^ no lioubt of this on my mind : and I -> think 1 may add, with perfect safety, that had he been so- ' licit ous to get Clergymen settled in the State of New- York, who were disposed to pay the utmost deference to his judgment, and to be influenced by his opinions, I might have been i-egarded as one of the number. « JOHN C. RUDD, Rector of i: i* St. John's Church, EUzabeth-Town. - ^ii mi^uMJi'TGicn, Jwh/ll, 1811." Several persons whose names delicacy prevents my men- tioning I urgently advised to relinquish their intentions for orders, though they were particularly intimate with me, and disposed to place themselves under my direction, in the pro- aceution of their studies. In regard to two gentlemen -whom Mr. Feltus introduces into his note which appears in the " Appeal."* I must observe, that Mr. Jones joined in the recommendation of them. In the case of one of them I zea- lously opposed the application of the dispensing power; and through my advice he was induced not to endeavour to avail himself of it Such has been my system of favour- itism. In all my conduct relative to the settlement of Clergy- Bien in this Diocese, I counselled with the Bishop and my bre-i thi*en. My colleague, on the contrary, was pursuing the very system of favouritism and proscription which he unjustly ascribes to me ; as soon as a vacancy occurred in the City or elsewhere, writing letters to Clergy men, to come on and ofifer themselves as candidates for it ; zealous and indefatiga- ble in his efforts in favour of some Clergymen and ia oppo- sition to others, as it suited his views ; and all this without consulting with his Bishop or with his brethren in general. But this whole series of violent, persecuting and unprin- eipled conduct which Mr. Jones attributes to me, was all to *< pave the way for my elevation."! All who came in the way ji ( 18i^ ) of iiiy unprincipled ambition were to « feel the rod and to be made to bow,*'* These are the charges of the " AppeaP'*^ Unprinc^d amhUian^ eridmced^^tf a lafig series of vi- otmt, trudf and persecuting eonduet an' my part, and partkularly by shamefully intriguing for the offlce of Bishop^ •*' ^ Gentlemen, I profess to be ambitious, ardentlv ambitions topronmte the good of any cause for which I am' interested. To the Church I have devoted my time, my health, my ^irits, my puFse (small as it is), and blessings than which none of these are more precious, the enjoyments of domestic life. In the preparing and superintending the publication of jour- nals, and sermons, and prayer books, and tracts, and in other mechanical drudgfry of the Chftreh, I have consum- ed so much of my time and so muA of mental exertion, that those studies which ai'e equally my duty and my delight I have had neither the leisure nor the strength to pursue. In the general concerns of the Church, I have had a full share of mental as well as active participation. And he who ha§ heretofore been my Diocesan will testify that on no occasion was I backward in extending any solicitude or any exertions in respect to those concerns, where he honoun^d me with bis confidence. This has been my ambition, Und this has been the way in which I have displayed it. My accusers. Gentle- men, fbree me to boast. Yes, I confess, that when placed in active stations, I do feel ambitious to discharge my duty ; to prosecute plans for the advancement of the object to whict I am devoted. Biit strong as is this laudable ambition, it is often lost in the pa- ramount fondness for privacy and repose. But my accuser attributes to me ambition of a very differ- ent kind ; that base an^sordid ambiUon which terminates in self, " the attainment of power and influenee, self-exalta- tion;" the ambition of an « aspiring young man."f Mine is that ambition, unprincipled as it is cruel, which « can mis- apply money to suit its own views ;''^ which exacts " servile submission,*'^ which rules in « tyranny and in tolerance,** j} which makes all who come in its way « bow under the rod/*^ and which, in its career to power,* can watch its rivals » ^Af pe«K p. 64. ^ A^jpea}, p., 85: * Appeal, p. 78. ? Appeal, p ,V t llii<]. p. 83. !.' I Hid j>. S. i Ibid. p. 21. ^ lliid. p. 78. I ^.^ V v i ( *26 ) << with eagle-eyed anxious scrutiny, and even \nth malevo- lence,"* and pursue them with an unbending and " cruel" persecution.! Thus base, according to my accuser, in its object and its means, is the ambition which sways me. To make professions on this subject would be utterly vain. To argue with^hose who believe me capable of this unprin- cipled ambition, would be an ineffectual task ; and to lay open my private history and feelings with the view of satis- fying the candid and unprejudiced, how different have been my views and dispositions from those which are imputed to me, might be deemed indelicate and ostentatious. The af- fection and confidence of those who know me, I trust will be my best answer to a charge which would render me utterly unworthy of both. At the very time when my accuser asserts I was shame- fully intriguing for the office of Bishop, I was indulging the hope of soon realizing a plan of lit? that would have placed me beyond the operation of those passions which have prompted these base accusations. I am reluctant to swell this address with more statements ; or I could show, by the testimony of many of my confidential friends, that for years I have not only been entertaining wishes for retire- ment, but have been maturing plans for carrying them into effect. Not that I possessed a pecuniary independenee—ifor my accuser has sometimes triumphantly asked this question, as if to infer that this plan of retirement was only a pre- tence. No — my famBy would still have been dependent on the exercise of the talents which nature has given me for their support. But I did believe, that the exercise of those talents in retirement, according to the plan which I had formed, would secure to my family a competency, and would not be unproductive of good to the Church. And at least one object, for which I thought no sacrifice too great, would be secured — [ should be saved from the humiliation of a contest with Mr. Jones; and the Church from the evils eon- sequent upon it. This was my plan and object at the time when it was represented to me, that duty to the Church im- periously required that I should consent to be placed in a more responsible station. My deepest regrets have since flowed, that this plan was relinquished, and this object not in this way seeuivd. Never were there suspicions more false, misrepresenta- tions more gross, or charges more unfounded, than tliose in the " Appeal," relative to ( 127 ) The ^^ measure of calling a Special Convention, and mak- ing choice of a Bishop.''^ During the greater portion of the time that these mea- sures were in agitation, I was absent in the country ; and I can solemnly declare, that so wholly was I engrossed with enjoyments the most congenial with my feelings, that the care s of ambition never invaded me ; nor did the inquiries who was to be Rector or who was to be Bishop, scaixiely enter into my thoughts. If others took measures in my absence, they acted on their own responsibility. But there were no measures but what were perfectly honourable. The call of the Convention and the immediate choice of a Bi- shop were demanded by the peculiar exigencies of the Church; and its Heads are still of opinion that further mea- sures are yet necessary for continuing the Episcopacy ; and are urgent in their wishes on this subject.* In this busi- ness there was no intrigue. If letters were written to Cler- g;^nien, they were written by those who were in habits of eon-espondence ; and it was not to be expected that in such a critical state of the Church they would be silent on its concerns. By me none were written ; no influence direct or indirect was by me exerted. But were no letters written by my accuser ? Did he and his friends exert no influence direct or indirect against me? Were no journies under- taken, and some of them not very short ones, to Laymen as well as Clergymen, with the \iew of pre-occupying their minds? And for this end, were not the most injurious re- presentations made of my conduct, principles, and views ? This will not be denied. My accusers may have thought it their duty thus to exeii; themselves against one whom they « in their hearts believed was utterly unfit for the office."f But let them then be silent as to the active support which the object of their opposition received from thos:e who «* in their hearts believed him" fit « for this high and moment- ous trust.*' The representations contained in tlie «^ JlppeaV^ of my he- haviour to Dr. Bea^sh, I am compelled most explicitly and solemnly to declare, are false. Self-defence only, under assaults the most wan- ton, unjust, and cruel, could have forced from mc this de- claration. Towards Dr. Beach ipy conduct, I most solemnly * Appeal, p. 7Z. t Hid. p. r-5 See Pastoral Letter of the Bishops. t Appeal, p. 3. Vj^'T ( 138 ) aver, was every thmg thnt josticc^ that hoiicmr, that i^4^d- ship, that tenderness could demand. I soon «KplieitijF de- elared to him ))ersonally, and through the medium of others, that I considered the Rectory his due; that I deemed the pretensions of any others as perfectly chimeriealj and was satisfied that on this po^nt there eould be bat one sentiment in the Vestry. I nerer eonsented to think of the other office, tintil I understood from his own explicit declarations to others, that he utterly disclaimed it (doubtless under the idea of receiving the Rectory) ; and that he was even dis^ posed to take e tale had been com- mitted to my implacable opponent, and that he was spread- ing it from house to house, txcntlemen, if yon know what It is to sutler under injurious imputations, and had witnessed * That Mr. Jones's sentiments n to the fitness of Dr. B. for this office, if sin-. cere, M'cre most wonderfully changed, I couUf prove hy a document in ray pos- session, which I have sbowQ to some iudividaaU, but which delicacy prevents my exhibiting to the world. ( 129 ) then irty language and my conduct, the assertion that my passions are ungovernable would gain no credit with you^-* I sought an interview— I earnestly wished, Und confidently expected to be able to remove tliis most unaccountable mis- apprehension. At two interviews, where this was my ob- ject, my conduct, I aver, without fear of denial from those who witnessed it, was respectful, conciliating, and forbear- ing, under circumstances, to say the least, highly un propi- tious to the exercise of these virtues. The certificate which I wished to obtain, in order to arrest the progress of these injurious reports, and which, in the « Appeal," it is said, I « moulded into different forms," was, in one of those forms, proposed by a near connection of Dr. Beach, who can least of all be suspected of an intention to lure him into any un- (Jue compliance ; and was promptly accepted by me. And when, at length, all overtures and all explanations proved fruitless, 1 consented to let the tale of what I conceived my injuries remain untold. And to this, I solemnly declare, I was prompted solely by respect for the feelings and peace of my venerable colleague. Gentlemen, all this I could corroborate by minute details^ and, in some cases, by strong testimonies. But so inex- pressibly painful is this subject, that. I am almost tempted to blot out the short statement which self-defence has ex- torted from me. I wish not to invade the sanctuary of old age, and disturb its repose. The voice that once hailed me as a friend has not yet ceased to vibi'ate on my heart ^Many tender recollections rush there— And I feel I must forbear. Unfortunate was the hour when the friend was excluded^ and the alien admitted to his privileges ; when the bosom where every counsel was once welcomed, and every care and every grief found a consolation, was rudely discarded, antf the marble heart i*eposed on for sympathy and comfort. My colleague, in his « Appeal," in order to establish hiii charge of shameful intrigue on this subject of choosing a Bishop, has ventured another charge, for which I will boldly say, he has no other authority, but his own jealous fancy. He asserts,* That the pl^n of an Assistant Bishop was devised for a neighbouring Diocese in order to remove anotlwr obstacle to my ambitious projects. ■I * Appei.1, p. .83 17 I M ( «0 ) 'llie first intimation which I had^ of the contempfaterf "choice of an Assistant bishop in Connecticut was from th» very respectable individual to whom the application was made. It is not for a moment to be supposed that this gen- tleman, confessedly of high character «nV*K"t^' *"™ inanv Tears ago declined the office of Bishop m that State, offered to him under the most honourable circumstances, would consent to be the dupe of artifices and designs so base as those which Mr. Jones has surmised. The apphcation was informally and confidentially made to him, whether he would consent to accept that office; and the peculiar state of the Church induced him to return a favourable answer, -tmder the express condition, that the measure should re- ceive the cordial approbation «f «?« B^l'^P* ^''ll** *T» tion generally of the Clergy and Laity of the State. AU this win appear from the following statements. « A pamphlet, entitled A solemn Appeal, &c. by the Bev. Cave Jones, having lately fallen into our hands, we deem it our duty to state, that where the author adverts to certain transactions in th« Diocese of Connecticut, he is altogether incorrect in his statements, which are cal- culated to produce a false impression on the mind ot the reader. In our application to Dr. Bowden relative to the Episcopate, we were actuated altogether by our own mo- tives We received no previous communication, or even 80 much as a hint from any one in New-York, or else- - where ; nor was the project communicated to more than one or two Clergjmen in this State. And as to any un- easiness or jealousy the measure may have occasioned in Connecticut, we know of none, nor d» we beheve any is likely to exist. „,j,^otSON BRONSON, « Principal of the Episcopal Academy. "REUBEN IVES, « Rector of St. Peter's Church. •• Cheshire, July 4, 1811.'* .« In addition to the above certificate, I do declare, that there is aot so much as a shadow to justify Mr. Jones a representation of the transaction alluded tp. It is alto- eetfier the work of his own fancy, which, as appears trom his publication, has been very active for *f ^eral je?rs, w sugpKting in others sinister designs, and attributing *• them unworthy motives. The characters on ^h«m h« has endeavoured to fix Aw odium of acting ineottsistenUy t ( 181 ) irith IBpiseopal principles, of having disturbed the peacie of the Church in Connecticut, and of having duped nae into an improper measure, are too well known for their good sense and integrity to have contrived so foolish and base a plan. The tale is devoid of all probability, and utterly at variance with every circumstance of the trans- action. *^ JOHN BOWDEN. « MW'Farkf August 6, 1811.'^ An^ yet, Gentlemen, Mr. Jones did not hesitate to assert, ^hs^ this measure was concerted and conducted, at least y/nih the knowledge and connivance of myself or my friendil- ii this city, for the purpose of removing an obstacle from the path of my ambition. He even indulges in a highly wrought representation €>f the want of principle which this measure displays ^ and of the evils attendant on it. " Uncom- missioned individuals" originate this scheme — ^the authority af « the venerable Bishop of the Church" is invaded — ^and' this by men too " who profess a very superior veneration for the Episcopal character." ** Jealousies, distrust, divi* fiions are excited." And all this with the participation, or connivance, or even prime agency of myself or friends. For charges so serious Mr. Jones possessed no proofs what- ever. His only authority was his own conjectures. And yet, at the very page where this scheme is unfolded, he calls his readers to remember, that <* he is not dealing in -conjec- tures, proofs are ready to be adduced, and proofs whicii will produce conviction."* Another prominent charge is^ That I have uniformly refused reamciliatioih ond eoery ^oposition tending thereto. On this ground Mr. Jones, in the ^^ Appeal," and himself and his friends since, attempt to rest the justification of that publication ; and to consider it as <^ strictly a measure of self-defence."! Now, as I never accused my colleague be- fore the Church or the public, I am somewhat at a loss to see in what << light" his Appeal is to be considered as <^ a measure of self-defence." But what information does this work throw on the charge that I have uniformly refused re- conciliation ? Of the <^ reasonable pi*opasition" of Mr. Jones, * Appeal, p. ^4. t Advertisement to the " Appeal." I ( 132 ) recoi'ded in the 26 page of his Appeal ; of my " i-ash decla- ration'* eoncernin^ it ; of the <* repentance'* which I after^ vards discovered ; and of the " plan" which I suggested to the Bishop, I really have no distinct recollection. But, take it at the worst, as represented by Mr. Jones. I did, it appears, " repent ;" I did suggest to the Bishop the *' plan" proposed by him. Here then was no barrier on my part to reconciliation. But my declaration (admitting that I made it, which I really doubt) is not quite so " rash" as Mr. Jones would I'epresent it. The canons know of no such tribunal for trying Clergymen as that represented by hi.n. This gentleman insinuates that I have higher ideas •f Episcopal authority than himself. =^ And yet I hesitate Bot to aver that should a Bishop in this Diocese, convene his Clergy for the purpose of investigating the conduct of a Clergyman, he acts by an authority unknown to the Consti- tution and Canons ; and the attendance of this Clergyman on such a meeting, would be entirely a matter of courtesy. The Canons of the Church in this State prescribe a differ- ent mode for investigating the conduct of Clergymen—a re* gular presentment must be made— ^ 7 C i^^ ) plaints against me. That he made these complaints is most certain. And some years before he had made complaints against Dr. Beach. And the Bishop, in the last case as in the former, was not disposed to consider his complaints as of so very serious a nature. As a friend and father in the Church, the Bishop has at all times a right to interpose liis paternal advice and admonition. But Mr. Jones, if he knew the Canons of the Church, knew, that the Bishop had no power to institute an investigation of the conduct of any of ids Clergy but in a canonical way. And for this purpose there must be a iri'esenlmenL This, if Mr. Jones bad received serious injuries, was the legal and regular mode of redi'ess. The Canons admit of a presentment by three Presbyters. If this resource had failed ; the Canons admit of another presentment by the Vestry of the Church to which the accused minister belongs ; and fn this way Mr* Jones could have brought his complaints before your body; with a request that you would investigate them, and il* you deemed them fit subjects of complaint, would present me to the Bishop ; or, if my offences warranted the measure* you could have dismissed me from my office of Assistant Minister. And if this resource failed, there still remained another, which doubtless should always be a last and ex- treme one — ^presentment by the Convention. The Bishop, on a presentment must have instituted a board of Clergy, to investigate the truth of the presentment; and his judgment, after the report of the board to him, is final on the case. Thus, then, Mr. Jones's plea for this public attack upon my character, this casting his " Appeal" as a fire-brand into the Church — that the Bishop would not give him a hearing, is perfectly idle. Had he pursued the canonical mode; the Bisliop could not have refused him a hearing. The go- vernment of the Church is a government of laws ; and, HigU Churchman as I am, I should ever oppose every other kind of government. The Canons providing for the trial of a Clergyman, on principles, securing Episcopal supremacy and authority on the one hand, and the right of every Clergy- man to a trial by his peers on the other, I well recollect* were adopted by the Convention of this State on a proposi«> tion of my own, and were taken, with some alterations, from the Canons of the Church in Pennsylvania. This circum- stance is no otherwise of importance than as it proves the injustice of the charge against me, that I am the advocate of intolerant and arbitrary principles. The wishes of my colleague, hud they been gratified, would have established a preeedent for siich iprineiples. For he wished the jBiihop ■ ^ 18 i'> ; ( 138 ) to institute a mode of investigating my conduct by calDn^' the Clergy together, unknown to the Canons^ and therefore resting on individual authority. But this charge of refusing to be reconciled before the ap- pearance of the appeal is followed up by another, that since its appearance / have manifeskd the same indisposition to i^econciliationf and have even disjplayed a persecuting spirit towards Mr, Jones, Now Geirtlenien, without meaning disrespect to any per- sons, I must be permitted to observe, that, this subject of i-eeonciliation is talked of by many who appear to me to un- derstand very little of the Christian signitication of the word, or the terms on which Christianity prescribes it. When we r.re commanded to " love our enemies,'* it is cer- tainly no^ designed that we should love them as our friends. The recfuisition implies, that we wish them no injury ; that we render them every kindness consistent with justice, truth and duty ; and that we be ready to forgive them. But this readiness to forgive i^mplies again i-epentance and reparation oh their part. Now Gentlemen every one of these disposi- tions I pi*ofess towards my colleague. I cannot be insensible that on this subject I am to answer to a tribunal infinitely more awful than any earthly one ; and that my danger is- awful should I here deceive mysetf. But what are Mr. Jones's dispositions ? Disregarding the advice of those whom he consulted, and whose stations de- manded deference ; disregarding the rules and the order of the Church ; disregarding the harmony of society, the peace of the Church, public decorum and private feeling; he has issued a publication, in which beholds me up to the commu^ nity as a man of unprincipled ambition, an unrelenting per- secutor, capable, toansyver any sinister designs, of misapply- ing money, and of decrying and -treating with cruelty all who will not be subservient to my views. And am I requir- ed by the precepts of the Gospel to meet liim in fellowship and harmony while his serious charges remain unretracted ; while he discovei*s no regret at having made this assault upon my character ? I know no such precept. Christianity does not thus confound light aud darkness, right and wrong, nor subvert justice by inculcating this indiscriminating mer- cy. I disclaim all emotions of << vengeance.'' From my heart I feel disposed to forgiveness ; but what are the dispo- sitions displayed hj Mr. Jones that entitle him to the exer- >»» I *^ ( 139 ) mse of this forgiveness ? The following statements will throw light on this subject. The Rev. Mr. Perry is the Clergyman of the Chureh at Ballstown."^ <^ In conversation with Mr. Jones, I expressed my regret that a reconciliation had not taken place, and ask- ed him whether some mode could not be devised, whe- by it might be effected. He replied, that it was totally out of the question — ^that he was sincerely disposed liim- self to meet his opponents on middle ground, and that he had, in truth, proposed the most honourable terms of ad- justment, which were rejected, and also added, that so long as aspiring ambition reigned in the breasts of his ad- versaries, there was not the least probability of a settle- ment. The facts, says he, as alleged in my publication, are perfectly true, and they know them to be such. ^* Dr. Hobart affected to treat the publication at first with contempt ; but concluding the tide of public senti- ment was turning against him, he now finds it necessary, as I am informed, to give it a reply : I am willing he should. 1 am ready to meet him. I have facts to disclose, which will place him in a very unfavourable point of view ; . and as sure, says he, as he answers my publication, I shall rejoin. But, says I, if what you have stated witli regard to Bishop Hobart be true, how came the Clergy to give him their suffrage ? ^* He replied, that notwithstanding they had done so, yet they acted contrary to their feelings ; they did not wish him to be their Bishop ; as they were dependent, in a greiit measure, upon the Vestry of Trinity Church for their support, (which Vestry had been secured by some stratagem or other) they were obliged to do that which should merit the continuance of this support. I do not blame them, says he, for they must have a maintenance. He also stated that the Clergy of New-York, (meaning his opponents,) were resolved to drive him away ; but ad8- ed that they would find themselves much mistaken— •t•h. he replied that he £ «o7 "SrfdmtheleaM.jxnd that whatever mischief or sehlm existed m the Church was chargeable to Dr. Hobart,Z " •^^^''f ^' 1811- JAMES SWORDS." Thus, then, Mr. Jones is not sorry for his puWieation Nay he i-enews the declaration that it is all true, and S » >iolent, ambriious, persecuting man ; that I inisani,^ BMiney to answl- my own views ,- that I bring theSde famatory charges against a brother Clergyman • that i ^ZL u ^"^l '"'/"*" further-he threatens a more prions assanlt-he has facts to disclose which wiU nk^ rij conduct m a very unfavourable point of view. HcT to Jumht "" "•^''"1* r " •"*' •" ^'"•^h '' -»'^ - design ids TtS„"r.. 1 ^'f"^''' *"•' y*"* '•^ «■'"'♦»••« '« »>"t forth aU Lf^^ r/.i ^? r* "" *•* """»"» "» »»'<"* «»'an that " he has a htUe slight " disliice" to me as not « a marvellou! cKs^^n's't t ^^n «^ """»« ^'- mo'snSS Kse Tf^ U t '?•"''' ''»^*^«:' •«"' '** '**"™ " «'« ^«'' «"!' despitefuTly ^^t"'Ti' *"? " *^ •"« S*"^ *« *««» t»««t ■ j I [f > ( 1*2 ) tSoiis of prudf^nee, of justice, and of public good. If onr neigk- bour has grossly abused our confidence, and severely in- jured us, does this precept require that we give him an op- portunity of grossly abusing our confidence, and severely injuring us again ? Prudence forbids. If a man has, for a long course of years, been indulging the most unworthy passions by acts of secret hostility to an unsuspecting friend, and seeks to revenge his supposed wrongs by means entirely subversive of private decorum, of social confidence, and of public oixler ; do the precepts of Christianity require that this individual should be maintained in his former standing; should thus virtually be rewarded for his injurious acts; and that the means of indulging those jealous and envious pas- sions, which <^ mortification" may disguise, but can never laubdue, to the reiterated disturbance of public and private feeing, be continued to him ? Justice and the public good Ibrbid. Would the merchant be accused of wanting the tem- per of the Christian, who should refuse to manage a con- cern with an individual who had been watching and not- ing his words and actions in the moments of unsuspecting confidence ; and when a favourable opportunity occurred to blast his credit^ should publish him to the world as base and unprincipleil in his dealings ? Would the lawyer or phy- sician be condemn.^d as implacable and revengeful, who should renounce all professional intercourse with a man who should violate all the laws of confidence and honour by which that intercourse ought to be regelated ? Would the members of any society, literary or political, act unworthy of the Christian profession, by excluding from the privileges, of Cheir boiscopate. Little surely do they know of these ; or some portion of their ten- derness and sympathy would be extended to one who must be compelled, it appears, with no large portion of ex- perience, of age, or it would seem of temper, to sustain the cares, to conflict with the difficulties of a station/ at \. .*- c -i> ( 1** > this period, more than usually arduous, exposed fa the scru- tinizing observation, the jealous and malignant machina- tions of one whose passions are sharpened by temporary mortification and defeat. Little do they know of the num- berless opportunities in which with impunity he may plant thorns in the bosom, and place obstacles in the patlt of on© jwhom he has chosen to consider as his rival. For Mordecai, let them be assured, will not sit contented at the gate-rlie must be admitted to a portiQn at least, and a large portion too, of the counsels, and confidence, and honours of the palace. . Gentlemen, let me not be misunderstood — I stand on the defensive — I have been accused, for some tim;^very cur- rently in secret, in certain circles; and publiHy, though somewhat obliquely of late ; of still persecuting my col- league. I have been applied to by some, for whose good intentions I entertain the highest respect, to interpose with you in his behalf. In my conscience ([^rdon the term Gen- tlemen, it is sacred to me, abused as it is) — *in my conscience I could not. They loudly urged, and something within me whispered also, that it would be popular, exti*emely pojmlar to do so. But in my conscitnce I could not. The good of the Church (this is not sui'ely a phrase without meaning) and even the ultimate advancement of that « peace and quietness among Christian people" which 1 had recently vowed to promote, forbade.* All feelings towards Mr, Jones inconsistent with tlie tem- per of a Christian I utterly disclaim. On this point, I re- peat it, I consider my respons?bility to another tribunal than that of the world. Personally, I am not his opponent. Apaj;*t from considerations of justice, and honour, and public in^ terest, there are no favoui's, no emoluments, the enj ;y- ment of which by him would excite in me one emotion of repining. - 1 aloae am, in all fesj/ects, responsible for this address. Some very small portions of it only I have accidentally read to some few individu'.ds. \\hen my colleague and friend, Mr. How, left llie city, tliree weeks ago, on a melancholy journey, but a few pages of it wei'e written. He has seen ^ only one or two pai'agraphs, and some of the statements which were necessary to his omu defence. I have advised with • I deny erer having used the term " he fmist go av/ay," with the most remote intention of dictating. I forbej^r to dwell on the injustice whith ennid pervi rl a term used by me in earnest con versaiioo with an indiyidual who I btlicve l.«d commenced the cOnrersation with me, snd who had used the very term ijimscif certainly with no view but to express his strong sense of the importance of his ft^ment. ( 145 ) him or with others neither as to the matter nor the style* His distance from me, and the state of his feelings would have prevented this ; had I not purposely resolved, foi' several reasons, to act wholly independent of Ws counsel or aid. It is not mote than f(s^ or six weeks since I resolved on this address ; and the circumstances which delayed my com- mencing it were wholly unavoidable. It has been sttuck off by the printers, as it was prepared, as rapidly as was in their power. I mention these circumstances, to preclude the suspicion that its appearance at this moment is the result of some unworthy design. You must permit me earnestly and respectfully to solicit, that no act of yours, at your next meeting, ra»y furnish a pretext for imputing this design to me. Gentlemen, itiy cause I feel is a just one — I would fain believe mankind just ; and then I am confident of their sen- tence. But sometimes I ha:ve thought I saw persons pro- fessing the most refined honour, the most cultivated taste, the most correct sensibility ; and yet listening to the mut- terings of Envy planning her schemes of detraction, and Can e,¥- them the moans of Innocence, on her lonely way, flee- ing from tjie scourge of the oppressor. I saw them turn ^iver. the records of envy and suspicion discolouring facts, niagnifying trifles, registering the language and giving a dis- torted " form and substance" to the « voice, and look, and gesture," of the unsuspecting apologist and friend— I saw them turn over these records, at which delicacy revolts, and violated confidence shudders ; and dignify them with the title of *^ records of mmial suffering:' I saw them behold « the writhings of a mind lacerated" by jealousy, and weep uver them with the tenderest sympathy. I have sometimes thought I saw persons versed in legal lore, professing themselves tlie champions of the rights of the oppressed— and yet I saw them become partizan's with- out being *• intimate with either of the parties;" deciding on the merits of a cause on an exparie statement ; endea- vouring to deprive the accused of his privilege of an impar- tial hearing, and to ensure his condemnation, by prejudg- ing both his testimony and his defence. I saw them with deceitful hand and perverted eye, take the scales of justice ; *°^ ^^igWng in them the calumniator, and him who was the object of his foul calumny ; the unsuspecting friend, and him, who, under the cloak of friendship, concealed the ar- rows of detractitott and the steel of vengeance— and pronounce them equally in the tvrong. I thought I saw Laynun professing to have a commission 19 i -> ( U6 ) AB preachers of " the precepts of our Church*'— and yet I saw them contemplate the wrongs of their neighbour, the injuries which the tongue of defamation had inflicted on his character, the sorrows of his heart assailed by treacherous friendship seeking to blast his reputation, to strip him of the confidence which he enjoyed, to hold him up to scorn and odium-^I saw them contemplate these wrongs, these injuries, these sorrows, and call them « trifles/^ and make them the sport of irony ; and then turn and gravely preach the precepts of mercy, the lessons of forgiveness. I like neither the fancy nor the hearts of these philan- thropists ; neither the maxims nor decisions of these coun- sellors and judges. I like not the doctrines or the morals of these preachers of the " precepts of our Church." They were not brought up at the feet of Gamaliel ; they have not been taught by him who pronounced a woe on the envious^ hypocritical, and deceitful Pharisees ; nor in the school of the Apostle of the Gentiles have they imbibed ought of his noble, ai*dent, and generous virtue. Those who know not, or violate the rules of justice, may undertake to inculcate the duties of mei*cy— but their commission is false — ^it is ibrged by their vanity-^Thou that teachest another^ teachest thou not thyself? Thou that teachest mercy, dost thou for- get justice ? Ithought these persons were to sit in judgment upon me — and I trembled-— I like them not. But this was only a vision of my fancy. I see none such on the tribunal which I address. Gentlemen, I am no sup- pliant. Did I supplicate ; it would be for release from the ties of a station, in which the inveterate passions, that for years have assailed my peace, my feelings and my usefulness, are still to be directed against me, with the opportunities of suc- cessfully indulging them tenfold increased.— I should sup- plicate that I might no longer be compelled to behold con- gregations which were once peaceable thrown into confusion, and a Church which once Iwasted of being at unity in herself rent by discord, and her honours laid in the dustr— I should supplicate to be permitted to retire from a scene so pain- ful, to pursuits and enjoyments most gratifying to my own heart, to the wishes of my family. But for my faults— «I crave neither your pity nor your mercy— Your wonted af- fection, believe me, I shall not lose without a pang— Yet even this pang will find a solace— For I boldly claim your justice. In nought have I offended. " I will not let go my integrity.'* _ ^ J.H.HOBART. JWrc-Fark, August 7, ISll. w *t^ r ERRATA, Page 8, line la from bottom, after " that" read ** I." Page 67, line 17 fix)ra bottom, after ** with'* read"'* him conoerning.' Page 139, line 6 of note, for ** themselves" read " ourselves." Page 141, 6th line from the bottom, for " his object" read '* its otgect' .» n « im !^N^ A STATEMENT, Bii Hi^ JUv. Mr. How, in reply to those parts of the Pam'> jfhUt of the Ev. Mr. Jone», which rdatt more particular^ to himself > spoke, of him, invariably, in terms of friendship and re- spect. He even advised them to visit lum, and court his aoquaintance. To the young men who studied, with me, I said not a word about Mr. Jones until they had completed their course of theological instruction. Then^ indeed, I did make some remarks to them upon the system of con- duct ^hich Mr; Jones was pursuing; but his behaviour at that time was a subject of very general conversation. Hie young men, however, have given their statements upon this subject* And what a view d^ these statements present ! From the year 1806 Mr. Jones h^s been indulging the ut- most bitterness of feeling toward Dr. Hobart* He has not restrained himself even in those public situations in which ^ileflce was imposed upon hiin by every principle which can be supposed to influence a delicate and honourable mind. But I shall not occupy the time of the reader in comment- ing^^pon this subject. I leave the certificates to speak for themselves ; satisfied that they will present to every person of the leasj; discernment, a clear view of the origin and progress of those feelings ^nd tempers which have led to the present unhappy state of tliings.f 3. Mr. Jones charges me with very shameful conduct to him ill St. John's Church, immediately after the adminis- tration of the communion there. The account which he gives does by no means present the true state of the fact. Some time after the. affair in question, Mr. Harris men- tioned to me, in conversation, that Mr. Jones complained of my behaviour to him at the communion. He recited to me what Mr. Jones had said to him. I immediately assured Mr. Harris that the statement which he had received from Mr. Jones was^ incorrect. I gave him an account of the inatter, according to my distinct and full recollection, and begged him to present the account, in my name, to Mr. Jones, and to do it in the most polite and respectful terms; hot using a single woiil that could in the slightest degree w ound his feelings. Mr. Harris shortly after brought to me from Mr. Jones the following message :—«* Jjft/oM say * See their certificates in tlie preceding statement of Dr. Hobart. t The young men were dissatisfied, also, with the stately trWtment which ther received from Mr. Jone% He required a deference which e\c«wieU all therr Ideas ot what was proper §uch ii tbe .account they gire. > ( io ) it SO9 y(ni say what is not tnuP Mr. Jones sent me word, not that I was under a mistake, but that I was guilty of an absolute falsehood. Even this, I am almost ashamed to record it, I passed over for the sake of peace. I will not omit to mention that, upon being informed by Mr. Harris of the statement which he had received from Mr. Jones, I ex- claimed—This is utterly false. But I desired Mr. Harris to say nothing of that, and to use no language in conveying my statement to Mr. Jones that should have the slightest tendency to produce an unpleasant effect upon his mind. It is most painful to me to be under the neeessity of bringing into view the relative conduct of Mr. Jones and*, myself upon meeting each other at the sacred table. But ^/ir. Jones has presented so incorrect a view of the matter^ and one so calculated to do me injury, that I am con- strained to speak in my own defence. I will, therefore, re- late what passed between Mr. Jones and myself at the communion in St. John's Church. And I will preface it by observing, that my recollection of the circumstances of the case is distinct and clear. When we rose from the communion table, I took the bread which was left, handed it first to the Bishop, then to a Clergy man who was near me, and then turned and ad- vanced with it four or five paces to Mr. Jones, presented it to him, and bowed. He advanced two or three paces to i^eceive it, and bowed at the same time with me. He did not open his mouth. He dM not ofter me his hand. At least, if he did, it wholly escaped my view. Indeed, he says that he " sdood ready to offer me his hand."* As to the coldness of my manner to Mr. Jones, I have to i-emark that I never refused him my hand, and that if he sometimes first extended his hand to me, I sometimes first extended mine to him. As to the alleged alteration of my W)nduct upon his return from an excursion to the country, it was surely natural to be a little more particular in my address to him after a considei*able absence. Mr. Jones may rest assured that the solution which he attempts to give is a fiction of his own imagination.! And now let impartial persons ju(le;c how difficult it is to live with Mr. Jones in peace. He is perpetually imagining himself ill treated; and when he supposes an affront to be • Appeal, p. 55. f " !t was out of my pover to account for this change of conduct. The canse may perhaps he devised from what I have since learnt, that his conduct to me had begun to be talked of, and the report had got to Dr. Hobart'5 ears; and that ihs Poctor had spoken lo him on the subject.'* Appeal, p. 56. > ^^' Ar* #» I w . ( li ) intendedy instead of speaking to the individual, and thus obtaining an explanation, he puts the thing in his journal, and talks of it through the city ; thus doing whatever h« can to destroy the reputation of his colleagues, and to dis- turb the harmony of the Church. It is really vei-y unpleasant to be obliged to descend to such detail ; but, disagreeable as the task may be, it seems necessary to perform it. 4. Mr. Jones finds great fault with me for the part which I acted in the business of his removal from his office of mem- ber of the standing committee. Can it be truly said, that Mr. Jones, in this case, was treated unjustly ? Without dwelling on the right of the Convention to dis- pose of the offices within its gift as it may think most ad- viseable, I would simply observe, that Mr. Jones had pre- liously acted a part which took from him all title to com- plain. In the year 1808 he formed a plan to expel Dr. Ho- bart from office, and went as far in the attempt to execute it as the dictates of prudence would permit. How does this appear ? 1st. Mr. Jones, according to liis own statement, said to Mr. Prentis, that thoughts were entertained of turning Dr. Hobart out of the office of Se- leretary to the Convention.* And Mr. Prentis has declared to me, that Mr. Jones was occupied, for the space of two hours, in painting Dr. Hobart in the blackest colours.f But Mr. Jones declares that he did not ask Mr. Prentis to give his vote against Dr. Hobart. That, surely, was not necessary. It was quite sufficient to represent Dr. Hobart as a very unworthy man, and to mention the thoughts which were entertained of removing him from office. Thus far, even according to his own statement, Mr. Jones undoubtedly went.:|: . 2. Dr. Moore repeatedly invited Mr. Lyell to unite in the plan of expelling Dr. Hobart from office. He enumerated to Mr. Lyell the persons whose votes were secured, Mr. Jones was particularly spoken of as one who would be zeal- ous in the business. * Appeal, p. 27. t Mr. Prentis, at this time, was very little acquainted with Dr. Hohart. And when Mr. Jones had enumerated the charges against Dr. H. Mr. Prentis replied conditionally — If these things are so. Dr. H. has acted very improperly. But Mr. .lones has made Mr. Prentis speak absolutelif and unconditiQ7iaUy,—T\\^v&^i\w ,is requested to turn to the certificate of Mr. Prentis. % Appeal, p. %7. i- '« \ <% f w ' ( 12 ) <* I hereby certify, that from several conversations held with the Rev. Dr. Moore, in the summer of 1808, I had every reason to believe that an attempt would be made, at the ensuing Convention, to remove Dr. Hobart from office, and that the Rev. Mr. Jones would aid in the business. And 1 do further certify, that I understood Dr. Moore in these conversations, as wishing to engage my aid also. " THO. LYELL.'' 3. Dr. Moore, in complaining to the Bishop, shortly before the meeting of the Convention of 1808, of the conduct of Dr. Hobart, said with emphasis : — We will take measures to keep him back. 4. Dr. Moore, Mr. Jones, and one or two others, did ac- tuaUy vote against Dr. Jf obart. And they repeated this un- friendly conduct at the Convention of the ensuing year. This they admit. 5. Mr. Jones, in the month of May last, did explicitly ac- knowledge to Mr. Prentis and Mr. Read, that a plan was in agitation, in the year 1808, to remove Dr. Hobart from office.* Thus it appears, that a plan was formed by Mr. Jones^ so long ago as the summer of 1808, to expel Dr. Hobart from office, and that he actually took measures for the execution of the plan. Mr. Jones tells us he sollicited no votes. He soon discovered that the thing was impractica- ble. Dr. Hobart's continuance in office is to be ascnbed to the esteem of the Clerg;^ and Laity of the Convention ; not to the forbearance of Mr. Joncs.f The question of justice, then, is settled. Surely Mr. Jones can have no right to complain of his own removal from office, when he had laboured, during two successive years, to effect the removal of Dr. Hobart. We did conscientiously think it our duty to let Mr. Jones sec that his conduct was regarded as very incorrect. We did believe that the Convention were bound to show him that they would frown upon all attempts to raise up parties in the Church, and to disturb its peace. The hostile sentiments of Mr. Jones towards Dr. Hobart were known to many of the clergy. Their attention was called to the subject of his removal from office, and they * A'ide Air. Read's certificate. 7 Yet all this unfriendly, and, indeed, violent conduct, we passed over, and con- tinued to treat Mr. Jones with respect and kindness. The conduct in question took pbcein the fall of 1808 and 1809. And Mr. Jones acknowledges that ray Ijehaviour to him, down to Mardi, 1810, -was unexceptionable. \ide Appeal, p. .?7. -. ^\lf^ C 13 ) coi^ally approved the measure^Mr. Jones i^ceived not more than four or five clerical votes. This can be referred to no other cause than a settled conviction, in the minds of the clergy, of the extreme impropriety of his conduct. Mr. Jones states the reasons which were given, at the time, in .justification of his removal from office—But here he IS wholly in an error. His conduct, relative to the Me- chanic's Bank, I confess, had weight with me. But the other reasons, which he mentions, did not operate at all In lact, his behaviour, in the case of Mr. Blackburn, 1 have more than once spoken of in terms of approbation. Tlie propriety of his removal was placed on the broad around ot his general character and conduct. It has been made to appear, I think, that we did not treat Mr. Jones unjustly in displacing him from office. Surely he can have no right to find fault. The measure which he attempted to mete to others, has been meted to him. It is quite absurd, therefore, in him to complahi. An appeal was openly and candidly made to the judgment ot the clergy of the diocese, and that appeal met with a fa. Vourable reception. The propriety of the removal of Mr. Jones rests upon the simple principle, that, when a man displays a turbulent temper in the Church, and endeavours to raise up parties in it, and to destroy its peace, it becomes necessary to deal wiOi him in a plain and decided way. Such was the almost unanimous opinion of the clergy who may be supposed to be best acquainted with the disposition and views of a member 01 tlieir own body. 6. I proceed to notice the charge, which Mr. Jones brings agamst me, of rude and insulting behaviour to Dr. Beach. 'I his charge has done me great injury. I know that my supposed conduct to Dr. Beach has been a subject of most severe remark. It is very important to me that this matter should be placed in a just light. I will give a candid state- ment of the facts. The representation of Mr. Jones is inaccurate in all its parts. In the first place, I did not wait upon Dr. Beach for the purpose of conversing with him on the subject of the ^piscopal office. Mr. Kemper was to have assisted me in the exercises of the approaching Sunday. Dr. Beach wished mr. Kemper to be with him, and was anxious that he should make some arrangement with me, by which the object might be eftected. Mr. Kemper waited upon me for the purpose. 1 told him I would call upon Dr. Beach, and endeavour to settle the thmg m some way tliat would be agreeable to him. ■0* i I I ' 1 1 ( 1* ) I might hav^ sent word to Dr. Beaeh by Mf. Kcm^p. I really waited upon him as the most respectful way of doing the business. Thus were Dr. Beach and myself brought together. I did not wait upon him to addi^ss him upon the concerns of the Church, but simply to inform him that an arrangement could be made that would give him ease ou Sunday. And I should not have opened my lips to him upon any other point, but for the deliberate introduction of the subject of the approaching election of a Bishop by himself. After an arrangement was made for his accommodation on Sunday, he thus addressed me:— We are acting precipi- tately. This measure of calling a Convention is ill judged. We are going too fast. I immediately replied, that I was sorry to hear him say so ; that the Bishop had considered the subject maturely, and had asked the opinion of some of the most experienced and judicious members both of the clergy and laity. I then enumerated to Dr. Beach the rea- sons that might be urged for the measure; dwelling particu- larly upon the imminent danger we were in of losing the episcopal succession. He did not reply to my arguments, but said— Well, well, there does seem to be reason for thQ measure. He went on— I wish to be understood; I did think of declining the office of Bishop; but things are changed ; and if I am elected Bishop, I will serve. I re- plied. Dr. Beach, you have introduced this subject to me, and if I converse with you, I must state to you my candid opinion. 1 cannot talk with you unless I say exactly what I conscientiously think. You will receive whatever I say, as it is intended, with perfect respect. Dr. Beach immediately answered. Oh, certainly, that is what I want— I wish you to state your opinion candidly. 1 am very sorr> , then. Dr. Beach, that you have taken such ground. It is generally understood through the city, and through the diocese, that you decline all idea of being Bishop. 1 have said so to several persons. My authorities have been Mr. Lyell and Dr. fiowden. He replied— They have misrepresented me — I declined conditionally — I said, that if I should be made Rector of Trinity Church, the du- ties of that office would occupy me, and I should not be able to perform the duties of Bishop ; but as there is no prospect of my being made Rector very soon, the condition has failed, and I will sei^e in the Episcopal office if I am elected. I then observed to Dr. Beach, that his duties as Assistant Rector, or even as Assistant Minister, were, nearly, if not quite, as arduous as would be Ids duties if he should be ap- pointed to the office of Rector ; and that, therefore, the idea t'^ ( 4S ) of being Bishop was inconsistent with the very fact whiiili he had stated, that the duties of the two offices of Rector and Bishop were more than he could perform. He made light of this, and said, that he would serve as Bishop if elected. Then, Dr. Beaeh, you appear to me to take the ground that you must absolutely be either Rector or Bishop. No, he rejoined, I take no ground whatever. The Convention will do as they please. I am in their hands. If tho:^elect me, I will serve. I will not be disgraced in my old age. How can I go up to the altar with a candidate for orders, and say to a young man, Bee. FatJier in God /* But, Dr. Beach, if you are made Rector of Trinity Church, you will have to address the Bishop in that way whenever you present to him a candidate for orders.— lYes, he said ; but the case will be very diffierent.— I really. Sir, cannot see any difference. I proceeded — Dr. Beach, I regret ex- tremely that you are about to take such ground. I am per- suaded it will give a gi*eat deal of trouble to you and to the Church. I have heard several of the oldest Clergymen in the State express it as their deliberate opinion, that the cir- cumstances of the Church imperiously require the appoint- ment of a young and active man to the office of Bishop. I do not believe the Convention will unite in any old man. It would be extremely disagreeable to you to come into the Episcopal office after a strong opposition. It would be still more disagreeable to you to fail. And if the Convention should elect you. Dr. Beach, it will be, not because they will think the thing correct in itself, but because they will not be able to prevail upon themselves to wound 'your feel- ings. Tliis last is the remark which has been so misrepresented, and employed so much to my disadvantage. Dr. Beach did not appear offended at the time. On the contrary, he observed, as I was taldng my leave. Well, we cannot agree in opinion ; but there must be no state of unfriendliness between us, and we had better say nothing of what has passed. To this I cordiaUy assented. But I soon discovered that I was accused, by many persons, of having treated Dr. Beach most unworthily ;f and Mr. Jones holds me up to the community as having used language to him * It ought to be recollected, that Timothy, the fii-st Bishop of Ephesus, was a young raan; the apostle Paul expressly directing hira to let no one despise him on account of his youth. 1 Tim. iv. 12. St. Cyprian, the celebrated Bisliop of Carthage, was one of the youngest clergymen in that diocese. t There was no person present dunng the whole conversation between Ur. Beach and mvself. ^ I !} ( 16 ) %liieli would justly subject me to very severe censure* -^ If they do vote for you, it will be out of pity, not out of re- spect," I solemnly declare that I used no such language ; that I intended to present no such idea. On the contrary, the idea which I intended to present to Dr. Beach was, simply, that the Convention, if tliey should elect him Bishop, would saei'ifice their judgment of what was in itself proper to their i*espect for him. What was I to do ? Dr. Beach introduced tlie subject ttf me. He ciompelled me to speak. I declared to him tliat it would be impossible for me to converse with him unless he indulged me in the most candid expression of my opinions. Anil I did express my opinions, as I humbly apprehend^ at once honestly and decorously. ■ • '- I cannot but think that I have suflered most unjust anil cruel treatment in relation to this business. r . . 6. It will be proper to pay some attention to the charge r which Mi*. Jones brings against me, of treating Dr. Mooi'e> upon his settlement in the city, unkindly and rudely. . I will state my ti'catment of Dr. Moore, and the reasons of it. Whenever I have been in company with Dr. Moore^ t > have conformed, in my intercourse with him, to all the rules of ^ivility Avhich are applicable to our relative situa- tion. It has been my earnest wish to be able to«steem him, . and to place confidence in him. And, for tliis purpose, I certainly did pay him, as he will do me .the justice to ac- } knowledge, those attentions whicli, as a general rule, are due from one clergyman to another, and whick might have pi'cpared the way for a cordial intercowse between us. M hen he visited the city of New-Yoi'k, I wsiitcd upon him, and invited him to dine with me. And I well recollect, on one occasion, being informed by Mr- I^yell. that Dr. Mooi*c had expressed himself particularly satisiicd with the treats laent which he had received from me. And if Dr. Moore^ upon his settlement in this city, had acted a correct and regular part, he would have met with nothing, at tlie handsr * of his bivthreu, but coiilialitv and kindness. But he did not so act. On the contrary, he had been in! the city but a little tiuie, before he began to violate the rules and oi*ders of tlie Church. And here let it be recol- lected that he persevered in his irregularity, according to the statement of Mr. Jones himself, until Dr. Beach deli- berately proposed that the clergy of Trinity Church should have nothing to do >vith him, and until JMr. Harris and Mr. ( *9 ) Jones took the ground expressly that they would not ex- change with him.* The conduct of Dr. Moore himself, therefore, imposed upon me the painful necessity of treat- ing him with coolness. At the same time, I can most truly say, and I am sure Dr. Moore will be so just as not to contradict me, that I never violated, in my intercourse with him, a single rule of decorum. It was a solemn conviction of duty, as far as I know my own heart, that dictated the conduct which I adopted to- ward Dr. Moore. l£ Dr. Moore had acted a correct and regular part, no person would have been more forward, or more happy than myself, in treating him with all the respect due to his age aiMl profession. 7. Mr. Jones presents a strong charge against some indi- viduals of the city of New-York, among whom he would appear to include me, of most criminal conduct in reference to the appointment of an Assistant Bishop for the diocese of Connecticut He describes us as a set of shameful in triguers, who make no scruple of violating the plainest rules of propriety, and of destroying the peace of the Church, for the base purpose of accomplishing our own selfish views. This is a ver,^ serious charge, and ough t to be supported by very satisfactory proof. But Mr. Jones produces no proof, and has none to produce. He tells his readers that a resolution was formed to remove all obstacles from the ambitious path of Dr. Hobart ; that it was deter-^ mined, as a part of the plan, to create an Assistant Bishop for the diocese of Connecticut, in order to make provision for a man to whom the attention of tins State might other- wise have been directed ; and that the most irregular, dis« orderly, and base means were employed to secure the suc- cess of the iniquitous scheme. Mr. Jones, in all this, is certainly not relating facts. He 18 only viewing things through the medium of that suspici- ous temper, to which, in the whole of this business, he has been, unhappily, so prone. The men, upon whom Mr. Jones charges the whole leheme of providing an Assistant Bishop for the diocese of ConnectiQut, had, literaUy, nothing to do with it. Dr. Bow- den, upon receiving a letter from a respectable Clergyman of Connecticut, on the subject in question, did me the honour to ask my opinion. Such was the amoudt of my * Appeal, p. 30, 4li. C i^ h w — ^ ^ I ( f8 ) paiticipalion. But the certificate of Dr. Bowden will place Ifrt subject in its true point of light.* Aiid here an act of justice is due to Dr. Hobart, which, I should consider myself very reprehensible, if I failed to perform. Mr. Jones describes this gentleman as gOTcrned by an inordinate ambition, as fixing iiis eye steadily on the Epis- copal office, and as directing an incessant attention to the accomplishment of his views upon it. The whole of this I personally know to be entirely incorrect. When Bishop Moore was taken ill, the friends of the Church very na- turally turned their attention to the interesting subject of a successor to him in the Episcopal office^ Dr. Hobart had long enjoyed the character of a Clergyman of great zeal, talents, and piety. It was well known that he possessed, in an eminent degree, the affection both of the Clergy and Laity of the Church in this diocese. And the opinion was very strongly entertained by many, that he was the most suitable person to be appointed to the impoHant office which he now holds. This opinion was made known to him by his friends. And it is a fact, that Dr. Hobart was with great difficulty prevailed upon to consent to his name being at all mentioned. Ah ! this was all a feint, the censorious will siiy. But I know better. I have been acquainted with Dr. Hobart for the long period of seventeen years. I have seen him in a great variety of situations. I think I under- stand his character. The reluctance which he expressed was sincere. He had formed very different plans of life, arid nothing but an imperious sense of duty could have in- duced him to yield to the wishes of his friends. And I do Solemnly declare, that the source of my greatest anxiety, during the whole of the interesting scene through which we have lately passed, was the fear that Dr. Hobart would pe- i-emptorily and inflexibly decline. I know there was a great struggle in his mind — I watched the progress of that strug- gle With the deepest concern. And when he did finally re- solve upon his course of conduct, he sacrificed to a sense of duty some of the strongest wishes of his heart. . • So greatly deceived is Mr. Jones when he describes Dr. Hobart as an ambitious young man, resolved to get rid of all obstacles in his course, and, lawfully or unlawfully, to ul^ge his way to the seats of power. S. The whole account which Mr. Jones gives of the call-* • See the certificate. n)» <» ^■'i ( 19 ) ing of the late Special Convention is as remote fi*om fact as one thing can well be from another. There was no shameful system of intrigue carried on, for the purpose of promoting the selfish views of individuals, as Mr. Jones gives his readers to understand. The calling of the Convention was a voluntary and deliberate act of the Bishop, suggested by his own reflections, aided by those of some of the oldest and most experienced of the Laity, as well as of the Clergy. And there can be but one opinion now of the wisdom of the measure in question. We have seen the extreme difficulty of procuring a consecration. In fact, the whole business was literaUy suspended upon a thread. Bishop Provost, to whom the Church, on tWs oc- casion, is deeply indebted, had but just strength enough to go through the ceremony. And thus have we been on the very point of losing the Episcopal succession in this country, and of being reduced to the necessity of crossing the At- lantic in order to regain it. The Bishops, in their Pastoral Address, set forth at the last General Convention, still ear- nestly recommend " the propriety of taking measures, to- wards all reasonable security for perpetuating of the Epis- 4?opacy." — *^ For although," they observe, " two of our Reverend Brethren have been recently chosen to the Eipis- copacy; and rejoicing in this event, we intend, God wil- ling, to proceed to their consecration very soon after the rising of this Convention; yet we shall not consider the addition of them to our body, as sufficient for the exigency, or as affoi^ing the measure of security which the case requires."^ . If the choice had been postponed until the month of Oc- tober, it would have been necessary to assemble our aged Bishops a second time, and at a very unpleasant season. In the mean while, some of them might have been taken from, us by death. And if a sufficient number could not be assem- bled at the meeting of the General Convention, what pro- bability is there that such number could have been assem- bled at an extra meeting to take place in the most unfa- vourable season of the year? No ; the calling of a Special Convention of this State, so far from exhibiting a scene of shameful intrigue, was a wise and necessary act, originating in the purest motives, and has rescued the Church from a situation of great perplexity and danger. What motive was there for delay ? Bishop Mooi*e was extremely anxious fop the appointment of an assistant Bishop; and the Clergy • Pastoral Address, p. 12. i- i t and Laity were as well prepared to make a judicious choice as thev could have been at any future period. When the Convention met, the opinion was strong, and almost unani- mous, that it was indispensably necessary to proceed. The Bishops who officiated at the consecration felt strongly the importance of the crisis to which the Church was brought ; and, when the ceremony was performed, were relieved from a state of very deep anxiety. I have taken notice, I believe, of all the eharees which Mr. Jones prefers against me ; and I might now dwell in a general way, upon a variety of points, illustrative of his temper and spirit, which his pamphlet presents to view. But I wish to go no farther than may be necessary in self- defence ; and, therefore, here close what I have to say. Let me not, however, conclude without declaring, as I certainly can do, in the sincerity of my heart, that this vindication of myself is one of the most painful acts of »iy life. I did think, upon the appearance of Mr. Jones's pam]dilet, that nothing could ever induce me to say a word in reply to it from the press. But it is the opinion of many judicious friends, that an explanation is due to the Church; and I have been led to fear that a pertinacious silence might wear the appearance of a want of proper re- spect for those before whom I have been arraigned. I trust I have no wish to wound the feelings, or injure the character nf any man. I'he statements which I have made are ne- cessary to my own vindication. And if I had been disposed to prolong this unhappy discussion, I might have introduced many things which I have wholly omitted ,• and, certainly^ ^ouJd have indulged in a very difierent style of remark* July, 1811. THOMAS Y. HOW. V % ** r- * i ' POSTSCRIFl\ As great pains are taking to injure my character, I think it a duty, which I owe to the Church in which I minister, to notice, briefly, some of the charges that are put in cir- culation against me. ' It is said that I refuse to be reconciled to Mr. Jonei And this is made the subject of very severe crimination. " In his pamphlet, Mr. Jones expressly acknowledges tliat^ tty conduct towards him, for nearly two years, was alto- gether unexceptionable. And 1 have shown, I do flatter myself, that the charges which he brings against me since the thirtieth of March, 1810, are destitute of foundation. But Mr. Jones, without requesting any explanation, or even saying a single word to liie, thought proper to circulate against me verbal complaints, and to carry about a written statement^ containing heavy accusations against me, which lie rfequested a nutaiber of persons to read. And, at lengtli,, he has published a pamphlet in which he holds me up in tfie most odious point of light to the community. He repre- sents me as a persecuting tyrant, totally unfit and unworthy to minister at the Christian altar. At least such is the faff amount of what he says. Mr. Jones having thus proceeded, from verbal and private complaints, to open and public de- nunciation ; it is now asserted that he is willing to be recon- ciled, and that I refuse. This really appears to me to be a mode of proceeding not less unmanly than unjust. But what is meant here by reconciliation ? Does it simply signify that no resentment be indulged; that there be no wish to injure; but, on the contrary, a dis- position to forgive the injuries which, it may be supposed, have been reeeived? If this be what is meant, I am re- concOed already. I do humbly trust that I have no wish to wjure Mr. Jones ; that 1 harbour no purposes of resentment against him ; and that I should, be ready to render him any service, which, consistently with duty, it might be in my power to render him. Is it intended, when reconciliation is spoken of, that Mr. Jones and I should meet, and agree that the world should e^msider us as in a state of cordial intercourse, and as ohe- # 1^^ 93 y l) I J ( 22 ) risbing those scntiiftents of esteem and respect for each other, tvhieh are so becoming our relative situation as col- leagues in the ministry of the same Church ? But how can Mr. Jones, after describing me as so very unworthy, con- sent that the world should regard him as having confidence in me, and as cherishing sentiments of esteem for my cha- racter ! This is a part of the business which I confess I know not how to understand. I will use no disguise— I will frankly express my ideas and feelings. I do really think thsd Mr. Jones has acted most unworthily; that he has treated me with great injustice and cruelty ; and that he has discovered tempers and principles which are very far from entitling him to my esteem. So far, too, from expressing any sorrow for what he has done, Mr. Jones openly declares that he does not regret, in the smallest degree, the publica- tion of his pamphlet ; that he is rapidly gaining ground ; and that he shall soon obtain a complete victory over his op- ponents. Nay, he repeats his injurious charge, relative to the late election of a Bishop for this diocese, in stronger terms than ever. Am I asked to forgive all this^ and to indulge no purposes of resentment towards Mr. Jones ? 1 answer again — I do forgive it— I harbour no wish to injure Mr. Jones. But 'when I am called upon to esteem him, to place confidence in him, and to adopt a system of conduct which may assure the world that such is the state of things — I answer— I can esteem those only whom I believe to be worthy ; and I can- not hold eoinlia] intercourse with a man who prefers against me the most unfounded arid injurious charges, and refuses all reparation. Indeed, it is dangerous to have any commu- nication with one who watches every word you utter, enters it in his journal, and finally publishes that journal to the world, embellished by his own comments, and sharpened by his own uncharitable interpretations. With a person of this description, it can never be safe to have intercourse. What should we think of a man who, after publishing his neighbour to the world, as totally unworthy of respect or confidence, should go about and say that he wished to be upon terms of respect, esteem, and confidence witli that neighbour, and that he declined ! Just such is the conduct of Mr. Jones. He denounces me to the public — ^And then, because I decline adopting a course of behaviour which may give the world to understand that I respect and esteem him, be represents me as refusing to be reconciled to him, and en- deavours to make it out that I am destitute of all pretensions to the Christian temper. No. If a reconciliation take !^' r »"■> ( 23 ) place, it must be bottomed upon solid* principles, and must be so conducted as to satisfy reasonable men that it is sincere. Any reconciliation, which shall be preceded by no act"" of justice toward those whom Mr. Jones has injured, will be regarded as a mere scene of hypocrisy, and will destroy, and justly destroy all public respect for their characters. Beside, how can I possibly consent to any act which may imply that I esteem and respect Mr. Jones, until he convin- ces me that he is entitled to my esteem and respect ! Again, it is said that I wish to get Mr, Jones dismissed, in order that the way may be cleared for my election to the. Rectorship of Trinity Church. Thank God, I feel perfectly innocent of this. I have never been conscious, in this business, as far as I know my own heart, of the operation of such a base and mercenary principle. Indeed, until the thing was mentioned to me, as among the charges in circulation, I do not know thajt it had even so much as passed through my mind. It will be recollected that Dr. Hobart is a much older As- sistant Minister of Ti^inity^ Church than I am, and that, whatever arrangements may at present be made, his claim to the Rectorship is to be considered as not in the slightest degree impaired. Admitting me then to be capable of act- ing from the motive which is imputed to me, it will be seen that the object in question is one which I can have no pros- pect of accomplishing. Among other things which are laid to my charge, it is said that I have expressed the opinion that there ought to be but one sermon delivered on Sunday. This would appear to have very little connection with the case of Mr. Jones. It may be proper, nevertheless, to take some notice of it. And I shall speak with that frankness wljieh is always ho- nourable, however it may occasionally lay us open to inju- rious suspicions. The charge is not true. I have expressed the opinion that an undue stress is laid upon preaching, while too little yalue is attached to the prayers, which alone, strictly speak- ing, constitute the public worship. I have said that if peo- ple would be satisfied with a sermon in the morning, go to Church in the afternoon simply to worship God, and employ the evening in self-examination, prayer, and the instruc- tion of their families, the interests of vital piety would be much more effectually promoted. Of the soundness of this opinion I am well satisfied. In proportion as men get into the habit of prayer, will they progress in the divine life. And one of the evil consequences of never going to Church, i- I • ^1 without the expectation of bearing^a sermon, is that it leads to the most erroneous ideas of the ohjeet of public Tvorsh^# But I have never expressed the opinion that it wouM be pro- per to attempt to introduce the system in question into the Church in New-York. Indeed, I have expressed a directly contrary opinion; having repeatedly declared that, in the existing state of things, I consider the evening lecture as important, and by no means to be dispensed with. We must accommodate ourselves to circumstances. It is often a duty to conform to the ideas and feelings which prevail, when no principle is absolutely violated in so doing. Admit that the opimon, which I have been expressing, is an erroneous one. Still it is an honest opinion. And I do hope it may be accounted for without supposing* it to b« the result of an absolute want of zeal for the reUgious cause. It may not be improper to add, that for some time after I settled in New-Yorl^, I preached the third time on Sunday, not only in Trinity Church, but frequently also in Christ Church. And 1 continued to do this until my health was injured. I humbly trust that I have not merited the sevew remarks, which, in reference to this subject, have been made against me. To conclude, my object, in writing, is not to impeach any man's character, but simply to defend myself. I submki what I have said to the candid eonsideratiou of the members of the Chureh« THOMAS Y. HOW. * It ought to be recollected that it uas a prevailing practice in the Chureh of Engfatnd, to have hut one sermon on Sunday; the people assembling in the after- iK)on simply to worshipTJod. This, if 1 am coarcetly informed, Tras, for a long time, the almost universal rule. f^. I > '1 I .V ^ f ' * ' "'■ ■» '■' '- i TiS juriaaiy COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 0026057000 Ti \ f re ^flhji L BRiniE DO NOT PHOTOCOPY '- ',' ►t J-'^ ■ JSi"j|-^^ "," -•"' jf'"' i*' i V ' >: r a»..' ^ rj: '>i' ;'» -^i ri ^^ > ,- >iS ' . .* '■.-^.-^ ■ .■ i-^ ii^»- . . vr -^' ': ' JS ^0 vr v. , f r^ :.'■«-.•.■ .»- < •>^..;^' ^v^-"7v- >^A .-^^i' '' ^> ^4. * V '1- ".>w \^-^ ;-lf.-;-^>'- .EV V f^rK .»*''«i .S-i. I » ,>^^ i -* • -....-.•f- ^ ^r V ><•