--to administer the Lord's Supper. 3d Sab. Nov. J. Reynolds; 18t Sab Dec. J. M. Graham: 3d Sab. Dec. J. Clay bangh.

At Hopkinsville, J. Reynolds to administer the Lord's Supper 5th Sab, Sept.; M. Brown to preach 2d Sab. Nov.; J. Prestly one Sab optional as to time.

Presbytery is to meet at Sycamore on the last Friday of Dec. at 11 q'clock A. M. The Lord's Supper is to be administered during its sittings. COMMITTEE.

TO JOHN HUG ES.

WHO STYLES HIMSELF BISHOP OF NEW YORK.

(Concluded)

This system of public schools, thus established in this city, was working admirably. It was the pride and glory of our city, and its superintendence the occupation of our most virtuous and intelligent citizens. The intelligent infidel even acquiesced in it. Sectarianism was hushed, and bigotry was asleep, until, in an evil hour, you appeared, to trouble the waters. You claimed, as a right, that this system should be thrown into confusion, and the spirit of religious discord again introduced, after having been so carefully excluded. And what was this mighty wound which was inflicted on the exceedingly tender consciences of your flock, or which you made them helieve they were enduring? In one of the debates in which you took part, pending the agitation of your petition before the Common Council, you assumed a most high religious attitude. Our schools, forsooth, were too latitudinarian. You said, and you said justly, that the excluding of religious instruction of all kinds was the positive inculcation of infidelity. And yet how soon do we find you acting in concert with all the infidels and semi-infidels of the land, and carrying with you their profoundest sympathies, in your war upon the Protestant Bible. You most solemnly deny that you ever engaged in such a war. Sir, what has been the matter with our schools for two years past? Have we all been dreaming? Or can you suppose that any courtesy can withhold the proper charge, which is due to so bold and impudent a denial? You pretend

to say that you never advised the removal of the Bible, against the wishes of the parents. Can you imagine that any one is so stupid as not to perceive the deceptiveness of this statement, or that it can be disguised under another position, which you must assume, that one Papist parent has a right to exercise a veto on the whole school? If left to the inhabitants of a district, in this its worst possible form, of a veto on the part of any discontented individual, what was this but to revive an odious system of sectarianism, which, when aimed at by Baptists and presbyterians, had created so much alarm among your infidel sympathizers?

Did you really wish, in opposition to one of the oldest, most marked and best known characteristics of your Church, that the children of apists should be taught in any version of the Holy Scriptures? Are Irish priests, as soon as they reach this country so suddenly changed into the ardent lovers of Biblical instruction to the poor? We may well ask why this feeling is not manifested in those countries in which i opery exists undisturbed by any counteracting power to check its benign in Auences. But perhaps you may allege, yes, through your well-known established organs, you have repeatedly alleged, it has been over and over again declared from your pulpits, (all of which are under your absolute control, in a manner, to an extent to which Protestantism is an utter stranger)—that it was a corrupt version, full of heresy and error. Perhaps there is no point in which Popish priests have taken more pains to deceive the people than in this. Their ignorance is the only defence that charity can award them against the charge of most wicked misrepresentation. But you, sir, stand higher. Have you any faith in such declarations? Do you believe that our children, or your children, would learn deadly error, or any error, from the use of this version, because of its corruptions? Dare you, as a scholar and a theologian, which you assume to be, pledge that reputation for learning which some very learned editors are so very fond of ascribing to you-dare you pledge it, in an examination of the comparative merits of the Protestant and Douay Bibles, when referred to the acknowledged originals? Dare you hazard this fame, for which you are mainly indebted to infidel sympathy, by a vindication of these charges in a discussion of these alleged corruptions, before the literary world, or in the presence of the really learned? If you dare to assume this attitude, I have no doubt that you can at any time be gratified with a fair field, and a competent antagonist, Protestants would have no great objection to

your Douay Bible, if you were sincere in your wish to have it read in our schools without note or comment. Even its errors,

although many, are of comparatively minor importance, although it is a version of a version, and therefore incapable of a direct comparison with the originals. Still it is better, even for Protestant children, than no Bible. I had almost said, we would rather see them Papists, than that an- early infidel bias should be given to their tender minds, by beholding so awfully significant an act as the expulsion of the Scriptures from the school as a dangerous book. It is far better, I say, than no Bible, and I should expect the speedy downfall of Popery, if every where throughout Europe it was taught in every school, and to every child, with a desire that they should drink in its true spirit and meaning,

You say the Popish child must not hear our Bible read, and yet you would deny that yourself or your Church is opposed to the general perusal of the Word of God. You deny, then, that it is the Word of God. You Say it is a corrupt version. This you are required to prove. Your denial is not enough; for although it may seem a negative proposition, the centuries during which this version has been in use-the hosts of learned and pious men who have lived by its precepts and died by its consolations-the strong attachment of our fathers-all these raise a presumption which fairly throws upon the assailant the burden of proof. When you object, therefore, to its being read in a school where one Popish child may be present, I do maintain that unless you can substantiate your charges, you would wish to deny that child, and indirectly all the children in the school, of what is really and truly the Word of God. I say this, because I am not addressing a professed infidel, but one who knows better, or ought to know better, when he asserts that the English Protestant Bible is a corrupt version of that revelation. And if excluded from our common schools, why not from our colleges? They too are in a great measure supported by public funds, into which some infinitesimal dribble of the Papist's tax may have flowed. But I cannot pursue this inquiry into all the lateral branches in which it solicits inves tigation. For this purpose a volume would hardly suffice, much less the space to which I wish to confine myself.

Such then, I say, was the condition of our public schools, and such the course which you and your organs had taken at the time of your Carroll Hall meeting. Your repeated attacks had been repulsed. Your application for Romish schools had been before the Common Council, and almost unanimously re

jected. Parties in the State and city were nearly balancedcorrupt politicians on both sides were intriguing for your aid, for they had an instinct which led them to hope for success with you, when they never would have thought of standing in the same relation to a rotestant clergyman. The votes of your flock were publicly offered to the highest bidder; the best and most unanswerable proof of which is found in the fact, which you dare not deny, that simultaneously with the bill being pas sed, the threatened organization was withdrawn. Your troops until that moment obeyed your orders, and did not flinch. I say, then, that all the circumstances succeeding, preceding and connected with the Carroll Hall meeting, favor the idea that the language and acts, then and there exhibited, have been most truly represented.

Every thing is in consistency with such a view. Your very presence at that meeting was the presence of an active and vio lent politician And now I cannot help pausing, and asking how the matter would have been viewed, had some one of our Protestant Bishops, the Rev. Dr. De Witt, or Dr. Milnor, or Dr. Spring, been actively present at a similar meeting. What if they had insolently demanded that a portion of the public money should be devoted to schools exclusively under their care, and for the inculcation of the peculiar tenets of the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechismis, or the Thirty-nine Articles? What if they had, in all the turbulence of a political harangue, recited their wrongs, talked of the infringements of of their rights, advise their hearers, amid the thundering of shillelahs, never to flinch, and offered to the corrupt of both parties a direct bribe, in the shape of a balance of needed votes, for which they felt sure they could pledge their flocks? Would your semi-infidel sympathisers, think you, have been content to call them political priests? Would not the infuriated yell of Church and State have resounded, in every quarter, and irreli gion given signal evidence of its most tender sensitiveness in regard to its religious rights? Does any one ask why this class remain so silent when Popery rears its head? The answer might readily be given. Infidelity knows its friends, and has its instincts as well as the politicias.

Another reason for believing that your proceedings at Carroll Hall were faithfully given, is found in the character, and position of Bennett himself at the time. e was, as is well known, a Papist, and at that period very much in the habit of lauding yourself. This laudation was mixed with some things which a rotestant clergyman would not have thought flattering;

still there can he no doubt that Bennet on the whole meant to glorify you in his peculiar way This appears from the whole tenor of the report. It is evident also, from the fact that such was the intimacy between your own organ and his, that in this case there was the same reporter for hoth, for whom, as Bennett asserts, you expressly sent. I have no doubt then that he thought he was recommending you wonderfully, in his own faforite style. He meant to represent you as you are, a Bishop of spirit, as one who was something more than a mere commonplace theologian, or as one of your admiring Protestant editors has said, "that Bishop Hughes was no ordinary man He meant to exhibit you as a hero, who, when he chose, could figure in the world as well as in the Church; on the political rostrum as well as in the pulpit; in short, as something far above the ordinary level of those dull prosing Protestant clergymen, who are only fit to figure in such tame affairs as Tract and Bible and Sunday-school meetings, but have no capacity for those higher and more thrilling scenes in which you appear so eminent. There is little doubt, then, that he believed he was advancing your cause and your interests; and though it may he your policy now to affect a different feeling, a strong reason for believing that you were then pleased to be thus represented, is derived from the fact that you sutlered three years to pass without the least attempt at denial. A leading democratic paper, on the faith of that report, sharply censured your priestly interference in politics; but the censure cailed forth no disavowal. Your subsequent course of action was favorable to the party to which that editor belongs; your relations have changed, and hence you deem it policy to let him off in your Episcopal epistle with the gentle charge "that the Evening Post, you are constrained to admit, repeated the charge for a moment, and but for a moment." Ah, Bishop Hughes, do you say you are no politician? What, then, were you about when you wrote that sentence? This alone is sufficient to enable one who knows the course of past and present movements in this city, to appreciate th candor of the mild declaration-"I am no politician, but the simple pastor of a Christian fluck." have, doubtless, ir, often read the speech of Shakspeare's Anthony. It must be a favorite passage of yours You need no mirror, then. Your whole Epistle might be deemed a parody on that famous harangue

I am a plain, blunt man,
That love iny friends...

I only speak right on--

But were Brutuse

ου