every British Colony stands notoriously in want, is a part of that reigning epidemic which makes men prefer what is showy to what is right. We object therefore at the outset to Bishop Chase's scheme, as one not yet ripe for European countenance or support. His request is unreasonable, and his object impracticable. Until his plans have received substantial encouragement from those among whom he has lived, and to whom he is known, he has not the slightest claim upon strangers. Something in the way of ornament and finish, they may perhaps be able to contribute; but to ask them for the substratum, of some unknown Academy, to be erected in unknown lands, conducted upon unknown principles, and superintended by unknown managers, is ask→ ing a little too much.

The next ground upon which we dissent from the recommendation of Lord Gambier, is unfortunately less creditable to Bishop Chase, and proves him deficient in other qualities besides modesty and prudence. His scheme is discountenanced by the American Church, and that fact has been concealed with more ingenuity than candour.

In the "Appeal on behalf of the Diocese of Ohio,” (p. 4.) we are told what Bishop Chase wrote to the venerable Prelate of Philadelphia, but are not favoured with a sight of Bishop White's reply. We are told (at p. 15) that an affecting picture of the state of affairs was drawn by Bishop Chase at the time of the last meeting of the Convention (June 1823), but not a syllable is subjoined respecting the effect produced upon the assembled representatives of the American Church. We are told that Bishop Bowen approves of the plan, and that the Rev. Amos Baldwyn thinks nothing can be better. Doctor Ravenscroft, Bishop of Carolina, is also favourable to the undertaking, and the Postscript informs us that the Convention cannot dissent.

«P.S. In order to shew that the Theological Seminary, which Bishop CHASE is endeavouring to establish in the Diocese of Ohio, is entirely in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the American Episcopal Church, it is thought proper to subjoin a Declaration issued by the House of Bishops, on occasion of the temporary removal of the General Theological Seminary' from New York to New Haven

"The House of Bishops inform the house of Clerical and Lay Deputies, that, in concurring to the Resolutions relative to the Theological Seminary and its removal from the City of New York, they deem it proper to declare, that they do not mean, by their concurrence, to interfere with any plan now contemplated, or that may hereafter be contemplated, in any Diocese or Dioceses, for the establishment of Theological Institutions or Professorships.-[Journal of Convention, 1820 p. 57.]" Appeal, p. 15.

We must now request our readers to turn to the Letter from a Presbyter of the Diocese of New York, and become acquainted with the real state of the case. The writer commences by regretting the necessity of exposing the unfairness of Bishop Chase; and proceeds to accomplish his undertaking in the following terms.

"You have been misled by the publication of your Bishop. In his printed Letter to Bishop White, of forty pages, he does, indeed, in seven lines, recognize the fact that the venerable Prelate addressed by him, and Bishops Kemp, Croes, and Moore, have expressed sentiments unfavourable to his project. But what their objections are, he carefully avoids informing the public; but by publishing Bishop Hobart's Letter, brings him forward as, in fact, the only objector of sufficient consequence to be noticed.”

Bishop Chase announces to his brethren by private communications, a contemplated design, and solicits from each an epistle approbatory of it. Bishop White states his reasons for declining to give his approbation. He states them more strongly and at large, in a second Letter, declaring that he does so at the request of three other Bishops, and in accordance with their views of the subject, Thus far all has been done by private Letters. Bishop Chase chooses to bring the subject before the public. He publishes an answer to Bishop White; takes it for granted that he, and the other Bishops concerned, will consider the answer sufficient to remove all their objections; leaves the public in utter ignorance what those objections are; of course designing that they shall unite with him in believing that he has triumphantly refuted them; and before his correspondent has time to make it known what are the objections thus unceremoniously thrown aside, hurries off to England with his pamphlet, there also to produce, before a word of defence can reach there, by exhibiting but one side of the question, the im pression that Bishop White, and the three Bishops in whose name he has written, are thoroughly answered-Let me ask you, Gen+ tlemen, Is this fair?" Presbyter's Letter, p. 5.

Bishop White's letter upon the subject is given at full length, but a summary of the contents will be sufficient for our present purpose.

"This Letter, containing such strong objections by Bishops White, Hobart, Croes, and Brownell, and in which the venerable writer declares his belief, are also entertained by the great body of the Clergy, is thrown aside as unworthy of notice, even in a prefessed answer to its writer.

"The names of Bishops Moore and Kemp do not appear in Bishop White's Letter. As they, however, are mentioned by Bishop Chase among the brethren whose objections he so uncereMm

L

VOL. XXI. MAY, 1824.

moniously disregards, they are to be added to the number of those who thought with Bishop Hobart. But they, too, are not suffered to be heard, but are to be considered as of course satisfactorily answered.

"Be pleased, then, Gentlemen, in the next Declaration and Protest' which you may think proper to issue, to declare your surprize and grief, and your conviction of the duty of appealing to the public, not only in reference to Bishop Hobart, but to Bishop White, Bishop Moore, Bishop Kemp, Bishop Croes, and Bishop Brownell; and, if Bishop White is to be credited, many of the Clergy.

"But because it appears that six-tenths of our Bishops are thus avowedly of one mind on this subject, it does not follow that the remaining three approve of the design of your's. Bishop Bowen is greatly misunderstood, if deemed to do so. He gives no opinion on the expediency of the visit to England; but expresses himself in a way clearly evincing doubt of it. Nor does he say one word in favour of a Diocesan School in Ohio. His uniform and consistent views and conduct relative to theological instruction, should secure for him the confidence of every candid mind, that a Branch of the General Seminary, to be located in Ohio, is the provision on this subject that he would most approve.

"Bishop Griswold has expressed no opinion on the subject." Presbyter's Letter, p. 8.

Our readers, we presume, will now entertain a different opinion of the encouragement given to Bishop Chase in America, from that which they formed on a perusal of his Appeal. And the reference to the Resolutions of the Convention, which he has placed in his Postscript, contains a grosser misrepresentation. That resolution was adopted several years ago, before the General Seminary had obtained universal approbation. The separate colleges to which it alludes have been subsequently abandoned, and the cause of the General Seminary unanimously supported by the Church. The event was hailed with gratitude and joy, and while the congratulations of the American Episcopalians upon the prospect of uninterrupted unanimity are still sounding in his ears, Bishop Chase, not only counteracts their plan, but defends himself in a foreign country, where the facts of the case are little known, by appealing to a resolution which has been abandoned, and representing it as still in force!! As a proof how completely the Convention is misrepresented, Presbyter shall inform us what was done with respect to Connecticut, when a separate college was in contemplation for that state.

"The main objections to the General Seminary are removed.

A strong desire of conciliation and compromise has manifested itself in both Houses of Convention. They have acted with astonishing unanimity. The delightful hope is cherished in almost every breast, and expressed by almost every tongue, that now all differences on the momentous subject of theological education will be dropped; and our whole Church act in full accord, and with its undivided energies. The venerable presiding Bishop, with whose wise and prudent counsels that Church has been blessed since its first organization-who, for nearly forty years, has been actively and anxiously engaged in its concerns, expresses, in terms, and with emotions, appealing most powerfully to the virtuous and pious sensibilities of the members, his feelings of joy and gratitude on the prospect thus opened to our Church. Would you, gentlemen, have excused Bishop Hobart, if he now hesitated a single moment in dropping at once all minor objections, and entering, with his whole soul, on a cause which thus, in the course of Divine Providence, had been commended to his peculiar care, and enlisted him in peculiar responsibilities and exertions? Will you not approve the principle which produced, throughout our Church, a general feeling of surprise and regret, when, in less than a year after the effecting of such happy results, the Convention of the Diocese of a Bishop who was among the warmest and most active friends of the new constitution of the seminary, contrary to his expressed sentiments and wishes, and chiefly under the influence of a few young Deacons, organized an independent local seminary? And did you not participate in the satisfaction and joy which were felt, when the subsequent Convention of the same Diocese, coming out in the full strength of its talent, in the full ardour of its pious devotion to the prosperity and unity of the Redeemer's kingdom, and under what has ever been, by the divine appointment and blessing, and particularly in those days of primitive purity when the Church was the most evangelical in its principles and order, a chief mean of that prosperity. and unity, the influence of a good and faithful Bishop, arrested this work of confusion and discord? And do you wonder, gentlemen, that when the Church had just congratulated itself, and raised the pious tribute of its thanks to its Divine Head, that this threatened source of disunion in its counsels, and division among its members, was so promptly removed, we should soon hear that in another Diocese, whose union with our General Convention was hailed with joy by us all, in which we all felt an interest, and which we thought we had every reason to expect would be moulded upon those true principles of ecclesiastical order, which would make it ever to be depended upon as the friend and promoter of the counsels which were generally deemed the best for the interests of the Church-do you wonder that when here, without one word of previous intimation, and without one effort to seek the benefit of theological instruction through the medium of the general institution which the Church had established for the purpose, we found the project of an independent seminary suddenly started, and at once

saw the Bishop of the Diocese on the wing to bear to our mother Church the disgraceful tidings that her American daughter is so hardened against the necessities of a portion of her own household, that its only hope is in foreign bounty-I say, Gentlemen, do you wonder that a feeling of utter astonishment, and of heartfelt regret, should have been excited in the great body of your fellow-members of the American Church?

"In one particular, indeed, the Ohio project differs from that above mentioned. The latter was the work of a Convention in opposition to their Bishop. The former is a plan of the Bishop in dependently of the Convention. For although your friends and advocates, the conductors of the Washington Theological Reper tory, give your Convention the credit of resolving upon having a Theological Seminary, and sending your Bishop, as its agent, to England, they are as unfortunate here in point of fact, as they are generally, on this subject, in their inferences and elucidations. I look in vain into the Journal of your Convention for any evidence in favour of their assertion; and would be obliged to them to point it out." Presbyter's Letter, p. 32.

Unless Bishop Chase and Lord Gambier can shew that Presbyter has spoken falsely, the consistency and good conduct of Bishop Hobart are placed beyond all question,. and his opponent, for such after all that has passed, we must call him, requires the aid of an ingenious defender. The disapprobation of the American Church may be regarded as important or unimportant. Difference of opinion on that matter is no subject of reference. But the existence of such disapprobation is an indisputable fact, and Bishop Chase's attempt to conceal it is not the strongest part of his case.

Such being the precise amount of the approbation which Bishop Chase's plan obtained in America, and such the Bishop's representation of it, let us enquire whether he has dealt more candidly with the English half of his argument.

He does us the honour to quote from our Number for May, 1822, in the following terms:

"Some idea may be formed of the overwhelming labour, con'nected with an infant Diocese in such a country as that of the Western Territory of the States, by the following fact, quoted by the Editor's of the British Critic, for May 1822, from the Journal of the Convention :

"Bishop Chase travelled in the course of the year 1820, on horseback, which is the only way of visiting the infant settlements of that country, a distance of twelve hundred and seventy-one miles, and performed divine Service, and preached eighty-two times, besides attending the sick, the dying, and the afflicted.'