To delineate characters, and represent the delicate shades that distinguish those that are equally good, requires not only close attention to the various movements of the human heart, but nice discrimination of mind, and a peculiar talent for unfolding to others what is discerned by itself. Still, almost all can feel the effect, of what but few can explain. It is without any pretension to a capacity for the latter, but under the full influence of the former, that the writer would speak of his departed friend. To say that she was a faithful wife, endeared to her husband by every expression becoming the relation; a dutiful child, a tender mother, a kind and obliging neighbour, and an exemplary Christian, would be saying no more of her, than is true of every woman, who properly fills the station allotted her by Providence. All this we can say of her. Still we feel that there were some conciliating qualities in her, that all this, though it may imply them, does not bring distinctly into view. What these were, is best understood by her friends and neighbours, who were flooded with tears, and overwhelmed with sorrow at her death; and those tears, and that sorrow, are the best explanation that can be given of them. The loss of so much excellence, and of one so much needed in her family, must be keenly felt by her surviving partner; and, when we think of him alone, with his group of little children around him, it awakens a sympathy that words can but poorly express; nor are we forgetful of the pang of sorrow excited by this death in the bosom of a tender mother, nor of the grief occasioned by it in the hearts of many other of her relations and friends. We commend them all to the indulgent care of him who can sustain the sorrowful, and dry up the tears of the afflicted. Though clouds and darkness surround thee, yet just and true are thy ways, thou King of Saints.-Troy Post. Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina. THE Protestant Episcopal Church, in the diocess of South-Carolina, held their annual Convention last week. There were present, the Bishop, 11 Priests, and 6 Deacons, and 39 Lay Delegates, representing 21 churches. The Church in this diocess at present consists of the Bishop, 21 Priests, 7 Deacons, and 35 organized congregations. The Convention sat four days, and business of considerable interest was transacted. Measures were adopted for the increase of the Bishop's Fund, and for the endowment of that important institution, the General Theological Seminary, established in NewYork. The first public suggestion of such a Seminary, it is believed, was made in our Convention. It has since been cherished, and recommended at every meeting of that body; and now, having, by the munificence of a deceased individual of New-York, obtained the means of successfully commencing its operations, upon a larger and more efficient scale, it is earnestly to be hoped, that its progressive improvement will be secured by the increased liberality of Episcopalians in every part of the United States. The Convention have likewise recommended to the members of the Episcopal Church, in this state, to extend their patronage and support to the Gospel Advocate, published in monthly numbers, in Boston, at one dollar a year, and the Christian Journal, published monthly in New-York, at two dollars a year. These publications are well conducted, and contain, besides the religious intelligence of the day, much matter that is important to the Christian, and peculiarly interesting to Episcopalians. The Convention have likewise expressed their high approbation of the pious labours of the "Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South-Carolina," and of the manner in which that excellent institution has been conducted, and have recommended it to Episcopalians as highly worthy oftheir confidence, and most liberal support. Several other subjects engaged their attention, and evinced their zeal for the prosperity of that portion of Christ's Church, upon whose concerns they had met to deliberate.-Charleston Courier, 20th Feb. 1822. Life of Archbishop Sancroft; abridged for the Christian Journal from a Review of his Life, by Dr. D'Oyly, in the British Critic. (Continued from page 69.) It is recorded, much to the honour of the Dissenters, that, at this anxious moment, they joined the Church heartily and zealously in repelling the danger which threatened the Protestant cause. They were wiser than to be deluded by the declarations of general indulgence which the king issued: they knew that the Church of England was the great bulwark of Protestantism; they were grateful for her efforts against the common enemy; and were well aware that if she fell, that toleration, which she so liberally and cheerfully conceded, would fall with her; and the proffered indulgence of the king would probably be withdrawn, as soon as the object for which it was granted was obtained. It was, perhaps, from a conscientious regard for this meritorious conduct, and an anxiety to strengthen the Protestant interest by an effort to close those breaches which had hitherto proved its bane, that the Archbishop was induced, at this time, to meditate a scheme of comprehension. "In which," says Dr. D'Oyly, "his purpose seems to have been, to make such alterations in the liturgy, and in the discipline of the Church, in points not deemed of essential and primary importance, as might prove the means, through corresponding concessions on the part of the more moderate dissenters, of admitting them within its pale." It is probable that the Archbishop had done little more than draw out the great outlines of his plan; and he seems never to have been very heartily engaged in carrying it into execution. Like every other scheme which has yet been tried upon the basis of mutual concession, it VOL. VI. [VOL. VI, would doubtless have proved abortive; and, perhaps, we may deem it not one of the most unfortunate consequences of the evil days in which he lived, that they effectually prevented the further prosecution of any such design. For experience has fully proved, that, whatever may be the benevolent intentions of those who contrive or advocate such measures, they will always fail in effecting the good they contemplate; and, at the same time, will run great hazard of producing much evil which they did not foresee. The dissenters have never required of us, that we should merely make some little and unessential alterations in the liturgy and discipline of our Church, to satisfy their scruples: they have always demanded a total change of both. Their terms are known and avowed: the substitution of presbyterian parity and directory, for Episcopacy and the Common Prayer Book was then their object; and though, at this crisis, they were induced by more pressing dangers to lay that object aside for a while, and to join the Church in its struggles against Papal domination, it shewed more zeal than knowledge of the human character to suppose, that therefore they could be induced to unite permanently with the Church, on any terms of mutual concession, which involved a surrender of the fundamental principles of dissent. Fortunately, this scheme does not appear to have been publicly avowed. If so, by awakening at once all those jealousies which the fear of common danger had Julled, it might have served the cause of the Roman Catholics more effectually than any of James's violent and ill exe"cuted measures. In justice to the Archbishop, we should add, that it ap pears, from printed documents referred to by Doctor, afterwards Archbishop Wake, in a speech delivered by him at 13 the trial of Sacheverell, and from his own testimony, that "no alteration was intended but in things declared to be alterable by the Church itself;" and that especial care was to be taken in making these alterations, that "the doctrine, government, and worship of the Church, should be preserved entire in all the substantial parts of them " tion. "Such is the only account which we possess of the scheme of comprehension projected by Archbishop Sancroft. That it originated on his part from the purest and best of motives, and that his sole object was to give stability to the Church, and to extend the influence of sound religion, can admit of no quesCircumstances prevented his bringing it to a conclusion; but a similar attempt was made soon after the revolution, which proved altogether abortive. Judging from the result of that later attempt, and from the similar results which have generally followed from plans of this description, we may conjecture, with some probability, that, although all would have been effected by Archbishop Sancroft, which could be effected by a spirit of conciliation, mixed with firmness and discretion, the scheme which he projected, had he been enabled to persevere in it, would not have been attended with any successful result." The storm which the infatuated measures of the king had raised against his throne and government, now burst over his head. About the middle of September, 1688, he became first convinced of the real object of the expedition which had been so long preparing in Holland; and his firmness at once forsook him, when his real danger was apparent. With an eager haste, which deprived him of all the grace of his concessions, by shewing that they were forced from him by the necessities of his situation, he endeavoured to recall his impolitic declarations, and to conciliate his people by milder measures of government. He now condescended to ask the advice of those who had lately been selected by him as objects of insult and violence. The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops were summoned to court; the suspension under which the Bishop of London had so long suffered was taken off; and every artifice was employed to induce the nation to believe, that a thorough reconciliation had taken place between himself and the spiritual guardians of the Church, and that his actions were guided by their opinion. Neither Sancroft nor his brethren were deceived by these advances. They understood the king's character too well to trust him; and were aware, that his present conduct was the result of policy and fear, rather than of a sincere and settled purpose to repair the evils of his administration. They were too near the court not to know, that the king still retained his popish advisers, and was, in secret, as much under their influence as ever; and they could not be ignorant of his real motives for drawing them once more round his person, and appearing to listen to their counsels. Still, however, they thought it their duty to avail themselves of so favourable an opportunity, for addressing to the king that bold but necessary admonition, in which his own best interests, as well as those of the Church and nation, were so deeply involved. They touched, with great freedom, upon the leading vices of his government; and marked out for him a line of conduct, which, had it been earlier chosen, and steadily pursued, would have deprived his enemies of all reasonable excuse for hostility, and se cured him the support of all his truly loyal subjects. But the time for useful concession was now past. Many leading men had already pledged themselves too deeply against him to return with safety; and the nation had ceased to place any confidence in his promises. The Archbishop and his brethren had peculiar difficulties to contend with; but they seem to have conducted themselves with great prudence; and while they never refused to give their monarch that honest and wholesome counsel which the critical situation of his affairs demanded, they refused to comply with his earnest solicitations to lend their names, in any way, to the support of his cause. The king was very desirous to induce the Bishops to draw up a paper, expressive of their abhorrence of the de signs of the Prince of Orange. But, though they affirm that they had not made any application to the Prince, nor were at all concerned in the plan of calling in his assistance, they refused to sign any such declaration, for they knew that his interference was necessary; and, though not prepared to go the lengths of some who had invited him, they could not express their abhorrence of designs which they conceived to extend no further than the deliverance of the nation from the dangers of Popish supremacy, and arbitrary power. When the Prince of Orange had actually landed, and all things seemed to forebode a civil war, the Archbishop united with other persons of rank in London, in taking the necessary steps to prevent the mischief and confusion which generally attend such an unhappy state of public affairs. The king was not yet convinced of his really destitute situation; "he was not aware (says Dr. D'Oyly) how entirely he had forfeited the good opinion and affections of his people, and he still flattered himself, that he should meet with sufficient support to enable him to repel the invader of his kingdom." When, at last, disappointed in these expectations, "He left London, for the purpose of making his way to France, those who had most firmly adhered to him immediately turned their views to the Prince of Orange, as to the only person whose protecting authority could be called in to secure the public peace. The day following, December 11, the spiritual and temporal peers who were at that time in London and its vicinity, assembled at Guildhall, as hereditary counsellors and guardians of the kingdom, whose office it was, during the vacancy of the throne, to provide for the public safety, and to take measures for the prevention of general disorder. The Archbishop of Canterbury acted at this meeting in concurrence with the other peers." This was the last public measure in which Sancroft took any part. He always disapproved of excluding James totally from the government; and as he found that this was the object of many among the peers, he declined being present at any of their subsequent meetings. Thus far he appears to have acted consistently. It may perhaps be more difficult to defend his subsequent conduct. His pertinaciously absenting himself from the convention parliament, is not to be reconciled with any ideas which we can form of the obligations imposed upon him by his high station, at this eventful period. His opinion was certainly adverse to the proposed settlement of the crown; and it seems to us that he was bound to have appeared in his place, and as a peer of the realm, and the spiritual head of one of its three estates, to have advocated the cause of the sovereign to whom he conscientiously adhered. We may readily acquit the venerable Archbishop of the other charges which his enemy, Burnet, brings against him; but it is impossible to deny, that his conduct betrayed an indecision, and want of firmness, which detracts much from our admiration of his character. When the times required prompt resolves, and vigorous action, he was deliberating, and hesitating, and remaining inactive. But the new government was not disposed to suffer any man thus to stand neuter on this trying occasion: and it soon became apparent, that none would be permitted to retain their offices, whether of trust or dignity, either in Church or state, unless they would transfer their allegiance from the abdicated king, to those whom the nation had invited to fill the vacant throne. The imposition of the new oath of allegiance, and the rigour with which it was exacted from all in authority, have been topics on which great difference of opinion has existed. The immediate effect of the new impositions was, to deprive many eminent and highly honoured ecclesiastics of their dignities and preferments; and this measure, harsh in itself, and rendered peculiarly unpopular by the blameless character of those who were its victims, while it aimed at violently severing the ties which had bound the members of the Church of England to so many of her ministers, produced a dangerous schism. For, many most conscientious churchmen, agreeing with the deprived Bishops and Clergy in their dislike to the new oath, and not comprehending the legality of that exertion of authority which deprived the Clergy of their ecclesiastical dignities and offices, and prohibited the exercise of their spiritual functions, without attributing to them any professional delinquency, were induced to adhere to their communion by a sense of attachment to their persons, and sympathy for their sufferings. And, the deprived Prelates and Clergy themselves, unhappily influenced more by a sense of individual injury, than by a due regard for the peace of the Church, were rather disposed to encourage, than to check this injurious manifestation of a sentiment so gratifying to their personal feelings. We are far from wishing to justify those who thus continued to exercise their ministerial powers, in disregard of their paramount duty to maintain the unity of the Church. But, while we freely confess that they incurred a fearful responsibility who thus acted; we must not exempt those from blame, who urged on the fatal measure which placed them in a situation of so much danger and temptation: nor can we forget, that the government, by adopting this measure, ungratefully sacrificed the very persons who, by their firmness and talents, had saved the established religion from the attacks of its Popish enemies; and by setting the example of well-regulated and temperate resistance to unlawful commands, had greatly, though not perhaps intentionally, contributed to awaken in the nation that spirit of just and jealous regard for its rights and liberties, which had vested the supreme power in the hands which now thus rigorously exerted it for their destruction. We write this upon the supposition that the oath was honestly framed, under a conviction of its necessity. If any sinister motives actuated those who devised it; if they anticipated the scruples it excited, and the refusals it met with; and calculated upon the wealth and patronage thus to be placed at their disposal, their conduct merits the severest censure which the bitterest of their antagonists could utter. The charge has often been made; perhaps it was to be expected that men soured by their losses should advance it; but for the honour of human nature we would hope, that there were few among the illustrious statesmen of the day to whom it would justly attach. We are inclined to make liberal allowances for the conduct of the Archbishop in the difficult circumstances in which he was now placed; and we admire the steady principle which induced him to suffer the loss of all things, rather than to falsify his conscience. But, in minor points, he appears to have swerved from that unity of purpose, and steadiness of resolve, which we could wish to be able to record of such a man, on so important an occasion. When he consented so far to exercise the functions of his office, as to commission other Bishops to act in his name, to the consecration of Bishop Burnet, it seems scarcely possible to acquit him of the charge of inconsistency. And we cannot regard this transaction with a more favourable eye, because the Archbishop did not consent to grant the commission, until he discovered that he should incur the penalties of a premunire if he persisted in disobeying the royal mandate; or because the instrument was drawn up in very cautious terms, so as not to imply the least direct acknowledgment of the prince filling the throne. These appear to us to be mere subterfuges, wholly unworthy of the dignified and patient resignation with which he afterwards submitted to his change of fortune. In the following passage, the biographer, though he candidly admits the blemish in the aged Prelate's conduct, makes perhaps the best apology for him which the nature of the case will allow. "A charge of inconsistency against Archbishop Sancroft has been grounded on this act of his consenting to grant a commission to enable others to do what he deemed it unlawful to do himself. It may readily be allowed that, strictly speaking, he cannot be absolved from the charge, since one who acts by "See Burnet's Own Times, and Birch's Life of Tillotson." |