ed in the executive to meet extreme cases in the administration of justice, been so grossly abused as in Pennsylvania for the last few years. Old offenders, criminals sentenced to the penitentiary for a long term of years or for life, thieves, adulterers, assas sins, murderers, have been recklessly let loose upon the community, and may be seen at the polls at every election, guarding the interest of that distinguished friend of the "largest liberty," David R. Porter. Never has the gubernatorial chair been more deeply disgraced in any state, than in Pennsylvania under his administration. We know not whether he has ever read the scriptures; but we should think that he made the unjust steward his model, and that in the bestowment of favor upon the inmates of the penitentiary, he has been bespeaking favor for himself whenever he should receive his dues. In some instances his pardon of a criminal has even anticipated the sentence of the court. It may be that his "Excellency" is one of those high-minded philanthropists who regard all legal penalties as an insult to human nature; but it is sometimes true that "a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind." To call upon Governor Porter to quell a riot in which the ringleaders were perhaps the very men whom he had let loose from the penitentiary, and whom he would pardon again three days after their conviction, appears to us somewhat farcical. We rejoice, and we presume that the friends of order and good government every where will rejoice, that the constitutional limit of his administration is just at hand. Will not the people of Pennsylvania be careful hereafter to select rulers who have at least some slight pretensions to respectability and moral principle?

But after all, the radical defect in the administration of law in Philadelphia is in the people themselves. Had not public sentiment sanctioned deeds of violence in that communi

ty again and again, they would not have become so frequent. Public officers are seldom found in advance of public opinion. But if there was a strong public sentiment against every species of outrage, no officer would flinch from his duty. The burning of Pennsylvania Hall might have been prevented by fifty resolute men; but while thousands stood ready to applaud the deed; the police officers did not venture to interfere. Even for some time after that event, no editor could comment upon it with an honest independence without exposing himself to the fu ry of the mob. The public sentiment of Philadelphia sanctioned the burning of an edifice consecrated to the cause of human freedom. Behold the just retribution! The mob once let loose suffers no restraint. The torch which fired an odious abolition hall, may fire a church or a private dwelling. What a lesson has been taught the people of Philadelphia on the folly and guilt of conniving at crime! Let them learn that their only security against the repetition of such appalling scenes, is in preserving the sanctity of the law. We may talk of suppressing a riot by the force of arms, (and doubtless the recent riots might have been quelled by an early demonstration of military power ;)-we may com. mend the decision of Napoleon in pouring grape shot into the heart of a mob, and imagine that the like decision would repress the most turbu. lent of our own populace; but we must not forget that our soldiers are not the hirelings of a military despot,-that they have not been trained to the profession of arms and taught to look on men as "food for powder." They are our fellow citizens, sympathizing with us in every great popular movement ;they can not easily be induced to fire upon a mixed assembly at the risk of shooting down their own friends and neighbors. Our reliance for the support of law, must be up

on the strength of law in the hearts of the people. They must be taught to love the law-to reverence it as the bulwark of freedom-to stand in dread of anarchy as their most deadly foe. This, and this only, can make ours a strong government. And this has made it strong. Even the bloody events of the three days' in Philadelphia have proved its strength. For when anarchy has triumphed over the law and its ministers, and is rioting in the ruin it has made, the people rising in their own sovereignty, and frowning on the foul usurper, drive him from the midst of them, and set the law again upon its throne. The strength of freedom is in the strength of law; and the strength of law is not in standing armies, but in the hearts of the people.

Our limits will not suffer us to enter at length upon the principles and policy of the Native American party, the organization and movements of which were an occasional cause of the Philadelphia riots. That the flagrant abuses in the municipal government of New York, warranted the strong rebuke which was given to both of the great political parties at the late election, we fully believe. The votes of Roman Catholics will not soon be courted again by the promise of political power. But, while we rejoice in the temporary benefits of the new organization, we are not prepared to approve of it as a permanent political party. Its tendency will be to organize in one compact and hostile body, the emigrants who are yearly thronging to our shores, and'who might otherwise be swallowed up in the mass of our native population, and become identified with them in interests and pursuits. It will keep alive a foreign feeling; it will keep the refugees from civil and ecclesiastical oppression in the old world, forever strangers to the spirit of our institutions. An Irishman cannot even blunder himself into a native American; and

if shut out from fellowship with our native-born citizens, he will never become an American at all. Romanism will become a political organization in the midst of us, and the Jesuit will appear as the advocate of equal rights.

The true method of dealing with Roman Catholic Irishmen, (for it is against this class particularly that the Native American party is organized,) is little understood in our country. It deserves to be studied attentively by every patriot and Christian. The subject was discussed so much at length in our last number, that we simply refer to it here to say, that the only hope of success in our attempts to make them American and Protestant in their feelings, is in treating them kindly. They are dependent upon Protestants in this country for employment. Let them see that Protestants have human hearts; and that Protestants in America have no sympathy with that Church establishment which robbed them and ground them to the dust in the old world. Give them time to become enlightened. Give them time to understand our institutions. Let them breathe the air of freedom and of love, and their hearts will swell and burst the chains of spiritual despotism. Their children, if not themselves, will be thorough Americans; they cannot be long the staunch adherents of Romanism on our soilunless we make them such.

One of the fundamental principles of the Native American party, that this is a Protestant country, is altogether wrong. This is a Christian country, for our national government recognizes, in various ways, the institutions of Christianity, and our laws are based upon its principles. But it is not a Protestant country. Though the great majority of its inhabitants are Protestants, Protestantism is not recognized in any form as the established religion of the land.

In making these remarks, we would not be understood to object to any wholesome changes which may be proposed in our naturalization laws.

We will only add, that the events which we have contemplated are a warning to Roman Catholics. Led by their Priests and Bishops, they have attempted to make the civil government subservient to their hierarchy, to carry their schemes by stratagem at the polls, and when defeated there, to gain their ends by force. They have aroused the indignation of the American people. They have kindled a fire which, if they fan it again, may utterly consume them. All the proclamations

and manifestoes of their Bishops to allay excitement cannot save them. These only exhibit more strikingly the danger of suffering them to gain the ascendancy. For, if the word of a Bishop can stay the fury of a mob, the same word can arouse it. The Roman Catholic system is now seen to be utterly repugnant to our civil institutions. Let it not, then, obtrude itself upon public notice. In modest and quiet retirement, let it conform itself, if it can, to the genius of a free country. Let not the Court of Rome attempt to dictate here. Let Pope and Prelate remember the three days in Philadelphia, and beware!

THE REV. JAMES H. LINSLEY, with whose likeness the proprietor of the New Englander has chosen to decorate the present number, was born at Northford, Conn., May 5, 1787, and died December 26, 1843. Till his mature age nothing remarkable appeared in his character. Though born and nurtured in a religious family-his parents being members of a Baptist church-he passed through the period of childhood and youth without any experience of the power of the gospel. But in 1810, when he was nearly 23 years of age, his character underwent a great transformation. He was made to know himself a sinner, and Him whom to know is life eternal. Moved by a desire to communicate to others that which in his own experience was the wisdom of God and the power of God to salvation, he determined on educating himself for the Christian ministry. Religious considerations had wakened within him an earnest thirst for knowledge. In the face of many difficulties, he fitted himself for ad

mission to college, went through the course of studies at Yale, and received his first degree in arts with the class of 1817.

His constitution was already impaired. Pulmonary disease compelled him to forego his cherished expectation of laboring in the Chris tian ministry. With New England versatility, he entered upon the bu siness of teaching, first as the prin cipal of an academy at New Canaan; afterwards at Stratford, as the instructor of a few pupils whom he received into his own family.

In 1831, having recovered so much health that he was encouraged to attempt public speaking, he was ordained to the work of the ministry according to the usages of the Baptist churches. For a short time he served as pastor of a church in the vicinity of his residence. But in 1836, he was compelled finally to give up the work which he most loved.

From this time forward, his life was little else than a protracted struggle with disease. For the sake

of the exercise in the open air, which was constantly necessary, he devoted a great portion of his time to Natural History. A series of papers from his pen, on the Natural History of Connecticut, published in the American Journal of Science, attests the extent of his researches, and has won for him an honorable reputation among men of science. These labors he pursued, continually enriching his valuable collections

of specimens gathered and preserv by himself, till all his labors were broken off by death.

Religion, the quickening power of the gospel upon his intellectual powers and his moral sensibilities, made him a scholar; and then disease, forbidding the pursuits which his heart in its yearnings after the highest usefulness had chosen, made him a Naturalist.

A Discourse delivered in Boston, before the Pastoral Association of Congregational Ministers in Massachusetts, May 28, 1844. By EDWARDS A. PARK, Bartlett Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. Andover, Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, 1844.

THIS discourse, which has just come to our hands, we hail as indeed "a Tract for the Times." We rejoice at it, especially as coming from Massachusetts. We rejoice at it more especially as having been prepared at Andover. We rejoice at We rejoice at it most especially as having been preached at Boston. We have looked with an eager eye to that part of New England, to see the Puritan spirit awake against the pretensions of Episcopacy, and we rejoice that we see tokens so decisive, that "the Pilgrim spirit is not dead."

The sermon is founded upon Matt. v, 13-16 as its text, and its subject is "some of the peculiar duties which are incumbent on the New England clergy." This subject is ably handled under several appropriate heads. The discourse is written in the well-known vein of its accomplished author, and as delivered by himself, in connection with the somewhat peculiar circumstances of some of his audience, occasioned

no little sensation among several classes of his hearers. Indeed, we suppose that the preacher himself hardly anticipated the measure of the appropriateness of his discourse, or the sensitiveness with which it was in fact received. Hence, we suppose, the allusions in his preface to the objections which had been made against it.

We can see no ground for any objection to the sermon, in the particulars hinted at, or in others which rumor has sent abroad. We think it worthy of the highest praise, for the theme which it proposed, for its courteous and Christian temper, and its manly argument. It is indeed a defense of New England institutions. This may be a ground of objection with those who are avowedly hostile to these institutions, and to those who, bearing our name, have too little sympathy with their principles or spirit, but with none others. It has ever been the New England way, to contend for the truth, and to do it in a manly and open spirit.

It is also a defense with a distinct and avowed reference both to the objections which have been made against our system, and to the sectarian pleas which have been urged to our disadvantage. But what if it is? Which is the nobler, to urge such attacks in a secret and whispering

way, or to expose and meet them? Who made the first onset ? Who cast the first stone? Is argument of this kind to be all on one side? If we can show that we have the advantage, upon the very grounds on which objections are made, shall we not do it, at least so long as our ears are stunned with the din of ceaseless repetition? Ought we not to do it? Are we not sacredly bound to do it? Should we not be traitors to the memory of our fathers, did we not do it? Should we not be faithless to the trust for which they suffered the loss of all things that they might bequeath it to us, did we not show its value?

We have heard it said, that such efforts do no good,—that they irritate but do not convince. We think the contrary. We believe they do much good. We know of no better way to deal with all sorts of inflated things, than to prick them, even if the painted bubble suffer a collapse, or vanish into air.

We have heard that it has been said, that there is no reasoning in the sermon. There is, we confess, but little of the Episcopalian variety of this article, but a very considerable measure of the more substantial

sort.

Let those who think there is but little reasoning, set themselves to answer the little that there is, and perhaps they may discover that there is at least the quant. suff. for an ordinary or extraordinary Episcopalian sermon.

Last of all, we have heard it said, that the disconrse was ungentlemanly, nay, that it was excessively vulgar. On this point the tastes of men differ. Those Episcopalians whose estimate of things as genteel or otherwise is expressed in the maxim, that "Episcopacy is the only religion fit for a gentleman," will be likely to think a little freedom of remark at the expense of a thing so genteel to be "decidedly vulgar." Certain Congregational ists be of the same opinion. may

There are those who see no violation of gentlemanly or Christian courtesy in coolly marching their Christian brethren out of the pale of the church, provided only it be done in bland and silvery phrase, accompanied by the responses and chantings in the metropolitan church at Boston, amid a score of clergy in rustling robes, and at the consecration of an evangelical bishop. There are those who can thus be marched out, and yet be so bewildered by the imposing scene, that they do not know it, or think it very gentlemanly to submit meekly, nay, who will even praise the gentlemanly preacher who does it, but whose taste is greatly offended if a Congregationalist is so clownish as to hint, that there may possibly be as much vanity as holiness in the love of the gown and surplice, the lawn sleeves and the miter.

But, seriously, we believe, and have long believed, that the movements of Episcopalianism in Massachusetts demand a grave attention, and we are glad that they begin to receive that attention. Its attitude is peculiar, its language is guarded, its pretensions are seemingly mod erate, its spirit is professedly and we hope honestly evangelical. But if those who have to do with it will not resent, as impertinent and officious, the advice of those who know something of it in other ways than by report, we would take leave to say, that at this day the prelatical or hierarchical element is everywhere the same, and though it requires time fully to act itself out, it will show itself sooner or later. It may be resisted, and often it is resisted effectually, by the sanative energies of a healthy constitution. For a time it may wear a mild and harmless type. But it is an evil disease still. Facts also in the history of Episcopacy in Massachusetts for the last ten years, show conclusively, that as it has increased in strength, so has it advanced in openness of pros