part of this new matter is of a devotional kind; the editor evidently being of opinion, that for family reading the original work is too generally critical, and too little calculated to enliven the affections and elevate the soul. In this conclusion, we fully concur with him: but we are not so sure of the necessity of another portion of his new extracts; for we do not think that the Family Bible of Bishop Mant and Dr. D'Oyley required the assistance of Bishop Gleig or Archdeacon Daubeny to raise its tone of orthodoxy and high-church principles. As a whole, however, we consider Bishop Hobart's new extracts as a valuable addition to the work; a work, we must continue to think, highly useful, and interesting for reference; but grievously defective, and, in some important points, we believe positively erroneous, in exhibiting the faith and duty of a Christian. Our readers will best feel the force of our remark if they will only be at the pains to collate a few portions of the Family Commentary with the corresponding passages in Scott, or Henry, or Doddridge, or various other writers whom we might easily name. We do not say, that in these last might not be found much that is meagre or even exceptionable, and in the former, much that is useful and excellent; but for convincing men of their sins, and teaching them the only way of salvation, and urging them to become new creatures in Christ Jesus, and setting before them the high privileges and corresponding duties of the true believer, we cannot hesitate to express our opinion as to the side on which the preponderance is

to be found.

But we pass on. In our volume for 1823 several papers were inserted relative to the state of the Epis

the sentiments inculcated in that work and the "Family Bible," could not be expected to be a favourite authority with him, yet he has included it in his list, and given occasional extracts from its pages.

copal Church in the United States, in which the name of Bishop Hobart often occurs, as connected with the discussions in that church relative to the Bible Society, and the other points in dispute between what are, in America as well as among ourselves, popularly, though incorrectly and invidiously, denominated the "orthodox" and the "evangelical" clergy. It is but justice to Bishop Hobart to remind our readers, that among these papers will be found a brief one (p. 752) in defence of the sentiments held by that prelate, in common with many of his fellow-episcopalians in the United States. A fuller exposition of his sentiments, with some remarks of our own upon them, will be found in our Review of his Sermons in our opening Number for the present year. Those sermons were published in London during Bishop Hobart's late visit to this country, expressly with a view to vindicate himself and "the great body of the bishops and clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America from the charge

* We say "many," neither affecting to speak of a minority or a majority. On the bart has been in a very small minority subject of the Bible Society, Bishop Hoamong the Protestant Episcopalians of America. When he published his dissuasive against joining it in 1816, six of the it, and had urged those under their charge eight American prelates were members of to unite themselves to its standard; the seventh was silent on the subject, and Bishop Hobart stood alone in his opposiisted among the subordinate clergy and tion. The same proportion probably exlaity; and such was the general popularity of the institution that Bishop Hobart, in the conduct which he pursued, must assuredly have been actuated by a sincere, though, we think, most unhappy and mistaken conviction of duty. There were certainly no dispensers of honours or preferments to please by his denunciations of this points of doctrine and ecclesiastical regimuch-injured institution. With regard to men, the majority of the American Episcopalian clergy have nearly symbolized with what are called the orthodox party in this country; though of late years there have been similar changes-and shall we say improvements?-to those which have taken place among ourselves.

of not faithfully inculcating the distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel." To that work, or to our review of it, we must at present refer, as we have not space now to enter upon points of discussion; our object in the present remarks being merely to prepare our readers for the better consideration of the pamphlet before us, by that preliminary information which relates to the sentiments and theological school of the writer.

During the visit of Bishop Hobart and Bishop Chase to England, in 1823 and 1824, a question was raised among us by the former respecting the propriety of establishing the proposed Episcopal Seminary in Ohio. A warm controversy on this subject was conducted, not only in America, but in several periodical publications in this country; a controversy in which we declined taking any part, considering it highly injurious to the best interests of the Episcopal Church in America, and not by any means involving any point which called for our interference. Bishop Chase had most zealously, and benevolently, planned a seminary in his diocese for theological education; the necessities for which were great and pressing. (See an interesting memorial on the subject in the Christian Observer for 1824, pp. 52-61.) Bishop Hobart opposed the plan, as likely, in his view, to produce much eventual evil, by laying a foundation for sectional peculiarities and future schisms in the Episcopal Church in the United States; and he considered the measure also uncalled for, as a General Theological Seminary, supported by the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Episcopal communion was already in operation in the city of New York, with a power to form branch seminaries wherever it might be thought needful. The discussion concluded, as our readers are aware, by lodging the superintending control of the Ohio seminary in the General Convention and House of Bishops in consequence of which Bishop Hobart withdrew his opposi

tion; and the result has been a most munificent collection for Bishop Chase's object, and we believe, though we are not informed of the amount, a highly respectable list of donations to the General Seminary also.

During the intercourse which the two bishops held with various classes of persons in this country, they must naturally have formed a somewhat definite opinion respecting our manners, customs, and political and religious institutions. What were the conclusions of Bishop Chase we are not officially informed; his address to his Convention after his return home (see Christian Observer for 1825, p. 197), being so fraught with the effusions of his affection and gratitude to England, that he seems to have forgotten our real or supposed defects. But Bishop Hobart has fully embodied his sentiments on the subject, in the discourse now before us, and which, as we have remarked, has greatly astounded some of his warmest admirers in this country. We shall not rehearse either the doleful lamentations, or the angry words which have been uttered by certain of the periodicals which emanate from "St. Paul's church-yard, and Waterloo place," in consequence of the alleged ingratitude, perfidy, and calumnies of our New-York assailant, who is accused even of violating the duties of private life, and making himself a spy, where he was admitted as a confidential friend *. It is most disastrous also, that his unhappy opinions respecting the state of our church,

The castigators may possibly allude dedication to Mr. Joshua Watson :to the following passage in the Bishop's

"Your favourable opinion of some of my early publications, in which I advocated the cause of 'evangelical truth' in union with Apostolic order,' introduced me to the notice of individuals in England, whose attachment to that truth and order, and whose exalted character and station and influence, render their friendship most honourable and valuable to me. At your hospitable board I often met this honoured circle." p. iv.

should have been formed, not among Bible Society and Church Missionary schismatics, where no reasonable man could of course have expected any thing better, but in his intercourse with the warmest opponents of all such outrageous proceedings, to whom his wellknown opinions, on these and similar matters, had introduced and recommended him. It seems to have been strangely concluded, that because Bishop Hobart was opposed to the Bible Society, and to what are called the "Evangelical clergy," he had of necessity forgot his Americanism also; and that he was of course a friend to a regal government, and to limited suffrage, and to the union of church and state, and to tithes, and pluralities, and official church-patronage, and many other of the good and the bad things, for which we happy Britons are famed thoughout the world. But not so: for the Bishop chastises us mightily; first, however, soothing us with a glorious recapitulation of our virtues, extracted from the general mass of his pamphlet—we beg pardon, his

sermon.

"The author of the following sermon is extremely solicitous that, while he avows a preference for the institutions of his own country, he should not be supposed to undervalue those of England, or be deemed deficient in the acknowledgment of the debt of gratitude which is due to England for the civil and religious blessings which his countrymen have derived from the land of their fathers.' To prove that these imputations cannot with justice be fixed upon him, he begs leave to collect from the sermon the following passages:

"That land with which the comparison is more natural and obvious; which must always come with lively excitement on our feelings, as the land of our fathers; and which, with all its faults, presents to our impartial, and calm, and scrutinizing judgment, so many claims to our admiration and love;-yes, even in that land whose fame is sounded throughout the earth, which its sons proudly extol (we need not wonder at the boast in them) as the first and best of the nations, whose destiny she has often wielded-even there, where nature has lavished some of her choicest bounties, art erected some of her noblest monuments, civil policy dispensed

some of her choicest blessings, and religion opened her purest temples."

"Let us never withold the acknowledgment, that from the first of European nations, drawing our origin, we have also derived her admirable principles of civil freedom.'

governments differ from that of England, "Still, though, in these respects, our let us gratefully remember, that from her we have derived not only many of our unrivalled maxims of jurisprudence, those and secure the trial by jury, but those which protect the freedom of the subject great principles which constitute the superiority of the modern republics above the ancient democracies.'

be in privileged orders, as constituting an "Advantages confessedly there may hereditary and permanent source of political knowledge and talent, and of refinement and elevation of character, of feeling, and of manners. And in this view, no men can be more imposing or more interesting than the high-minded noblemen and gentlemen of England.'

"Let us turn to that church, which every heart among us must revere and love as the church of our fathers-by whom our own Zion was planted, and long sedulously and affectionately nourished; and which, whatever may be the defects and faults that are caused by those human admixtures which are extraneous

to her Apostolic and primitive character,

still in that character, and in the zeal and liberality with which she expends her Christianity, must call forth our warm wealth and her labour in the diffusion of admiration, affection, and applause. And in union with this general sentiment, the American Episcopal Church, I repeat it, should cherish, as another tie which binds her to this church, gratitude for her 'first foundation, and for a long continuance of nursing care and protection.'

"The principle of our ecclesiastical polity we derive from the Church of England ;'—

"A church, who with all her faults, arising not from her spiritual character, but from secular arrangements, is the great blessing and hope of England and of Protestant Europe; whom, notwithstanding defects that obscure her splendour and impede her apostolic influence, I revere and love; and who ranks among her bishops and clergy some of the highest names for talents, for learning, for piety, and for laborious zeal; and whose friendship and hospitable attentions, an honour to any person, I have felt to be an honour to me. I make this acknowledgment with emotions of the liveliest gratitude for the abundant hospitalities and attention which gladdened my residence among them.'

6

"In her doctrine, in her ministry, in her worship, she is all glorious within'— and, thanks to the sound and orthodox

and zealous clergy, who have been faithful to her principles, she is still the great joy and the great blessing of the land. It would be impossible to sever the church from the state without a convulsion which would uproot both, and thus destroy the fairest fabric of social and religious happiness in the European world.'" pp. vi. —viii.

After this liberal panegyric in the gross, we must not be angry if our bishop bears a little hard upon us in details. The following is the manner in which he conducts his reprehension. First, he tells us of his own 66 lively and affectionate preference, in almost every point of comparison, for his own dear native land;" and that his object in pronouncing this discourse from the pulpit was "to confirm the enlightened and zealous attachment of his auditors to their country and their church." then notices" the blessings physical, literary, civil, and religious, which elevate his eminently favoured land." Of the first he

says:

He

"He can see one feature of every landscape here, one charm of American scenery, which more than repays for the absence of these monuments of the power, and the grandeur, and the wealth, and the taste of the rich and the mighty of other lands-and which no other land affords. The sloping sides and summits of our hills, and the extensive plains that stretch before our view are studded with the substantial and neat and commodious dwellings of freemen-independent freemen, owners of the soil-men who can proudly walk over their land, and exultingly say-It is mine; I hold it tributary to no one; it is mine. No landscape here is alloyed by the painful consideration, that the castle which towers in grandeur was erected by the hard labour of degraded vassals; or that the magnificent structure which rises in the spreading and embellished domain, presents a painful contrast to the meaner habitations, and sometimes the miserable hovels that mark a dependent, always a dependent-alas, sometimes a wretched peasantry." pp. 6, 7.

Of the second he remarks:

"Even in our literary institutions, their present improved and extended organization embraces a larger scope of science in connection with efficiency of operation, with the practical application of talent and learning to the great pur

poses of instruction, than some foreign institutions." p. 9.

"It would be absurd to say that foreign universities are not distinguished by intellect and learning of the highest order; but this intellect and learning are not always brought into as great practical efficiency as in our colleges, where the professors are engaged, for the greater part of tion, by the daily examination of the stuthe year, in the active business of instrucdents confided to them. In the English universities, it is well known that classical and mathematical studies are pursued to the comparative neglect of physical and moral science. PP. 9, 10.

"If I am correctly informed, it is extremely difficult, from the great number of applicants, to obtain admission into the universities; so that, from this circumstance, many are excluded; while the great expense of a university education excludes others. Both these causes, it is presumed, have had their effect in producing the plan, which is likely to sueceed, of a London university.'

more "

p. 10.

Respecting the third, namely, "civil blessings," he gives a still lively and affectionate preference to his own dear native land;" for though he lauds England in the passages already quoted in his summary, yet he adds,—

"But even in this, next to our own, the freest of nations, it is impossible not to form a melancholy contrast between the power, and the splendour, and the wealth of those to whom the structure of society, and the aristocratic nature of the government, assign peculiar privileges of rank and of political consequence, with the dependent and often abject condition of the lower orders; and not to draw the conclusion, that the one is the unavoida ble result of the other." p. 12.

"It is the glorious characteristic of our admirable polity, that the power, and the property, and the happiness, which in the old nations of the world are confined to the few, are distributed among the many; that the liveliness and content which pervade the humblest classes among us, are not the mere result of that buoyancy of animal spirits which nature seems to have kindly infused into our frame, and which man shares with the beast that sports in the field or courses over the plain-but a sober sentiment of independence, nurtured by the consciousness that, in natural rights and original political power, all are equal. The obedience, therefore, which fear in a great measuse extorts from the mass of the people of other countries, is here the voluntary offering of a contented and happy, because, in the broadest sense of the term-a free people." pp. 13, 14.