SIR,-It has sometimes appeared to me not a little extraordinary, that in a day in which, through the great increase of charitable institutions, a very large number of persons are called to perform the duties of Committee-men, no person has ever thought it worth while to publish any hints for the direction of those who occupy that important, but often arduous situation. The functions of a Committee-man are so diversified, they are so immediately connected with the well-being of our charitable and religious institutions, and they often involve such difficult points, that I cannot but think, that if some person, whose experience and judgment qualify him for such an undertaking, would spend a little time in preparing for the press, some observations upon this subject, he would be performing a very useful service, and perhaps his labours might have no small tendency to prevent a recurrence of such unhappy circumstances, as have of late divided and weakened, that which I hesitate not to call, the most noble institution which has blest the world since the days of the apostles.

Now, sir, I most sincerely feel, that both in experience and judgment, I am far from having made such attainments as might qualify me to undertake to be a teacher upon this subject; yet perhaps your readers may not be unwilling to allow me to bring forward a few hints for their consideration; and I shall most cordially rejoice, if they have the effect of leading some person who is better qualified to take up the discussion.

I. I would observe, in the first place, that when a person allows himself to be placed upon the Committee list of a charitable institution, he tacitly binds himself to be diligent in his endeavours to promote the prosperity of that institution. I

FFB. 1827.

are

am not here referring to the case of clergymen and others, whom it is customary to place officially upon Committees, (though, I believe, many of our Societies would be greatly benefited, if they could devote to them a larger share of their attention)--but I am speaking of those who are selected from the great body of the supporters of various charities, to take the lead in the conducting of them. Now, Sir, from what I have observed myself, I fear that a large portion of these persons look upon their office as a sinecure. Various excuses brought forward to palliate neglect of duty. They say, that their engagements are so numerous, that they have no opportunity to attend upon Committees. To this I would reply, Then resign your office, and let your places be taken by some who have more leisure. Or they plead, that though they are remiss, yet such and such individuals are always at their post, and therefore no injury will follow upon their absence. To see the vanity of such reasoning, we need only suppose to be adopted by all the members of any particular Committee, and we may easily imagine how the business of the institution will be conducted.

In fact, Sir, the man who allows himself to be chosen a member of a committee, does make an implicit contract to sacrifice such a portion of his convenience and of his ease, as may be necessary in order to his bearing his share in the conducting of the affairs of the institution.

II. I would, in the next place, urge Committee-men to endeavour to get a correct view of the nature of their office.

affairs of their institutions according to their own judgment, Now, Sir, this is a mistaken view of the fact. A committee is not a legislative, but an executive body. It is, in fact, a trustee, to whom a sum of money is committed for a certain specified purpose, and to be applied according to certain definite rules. If this view of the nature of the office of a committee is correct, it will easily appear that it is the bounden duty of every committee to frame its resolutions in strict conformity to the rules of the society in behalf of which it acts. Nor can a departure from those rules be vindicated by the plea of good motives and correct intentions. As well might a magistrate decide a case in defiance of the statute law; and then palliate his conduct by referring to the equitable purposes which he had in view. Reference must, as far as possible, be made to the very letter of the rules; and, in cases in which the meaning of the rules appears doubtful, recourse must be had to the authoritative interpretation of the subscribers at large. A committee, no doubt, is authorized in recommending such alterations of rules as may appear adviseable; but till the change is sanctioned by a general meeting, the infringement of the rules must be confessed to be highly incorrect, and in some cases may prove to be a gross breach of trust.

III. A third point to which I would call the attention of the persons to whom I address myself, is to the necessity of independence of mind. By which I would be far from intending a captious disposition to object to every proposed measure; but I mean that honest firmness, which will lead a man to decline giving his support to a proposal, if he is not satisfied that it is of beneficial tendency. In every institution there are to be found certain individuals, whose experience in the affairs of that in

stitution, whose eminent services, or whose talents or rank in life give them a strong claim to respect and deference; I would not be thought to insinuate that the expressed opinions of such persons should not carry much weight with them; but then there is on the other hand no reason why the opinion of any particular individuals should be assumed to be correct; for if such an assumption is to be admitted, the necessity for a committee would be annihilated, as the whole affairs might as well be left to their uncontrolled management. Let every proposition, from whatever quarter it comes, be fully examined, let impartial reason weigh the arguments for and against it, and then let each individual give his vote to that side on which he believes truth is found.

IV. But along with this independence of mind, let a meek and quiet spirit be carefully cultivated.

In the best arranged and most united Societies, differences of opinion will at times arise; and that sometimes upon very important subjects: and unless both parties

are

on their guard against an obstinate and contentious spirit, discord will speedily come in, and will mar the beauty, and weaken the energy, and cripple the activity of the very best institutions. Let

conflicting opinions be fairly stated, but let no asperity of remark be heard, let no motives be impeached without absolute necessity; let each party be willing to be set right, and then in general truth will be speedily elicited, even in the most complicated cases.

V. Upon only one more point I will now venture to touch, and that is upon the duty incumbent upon every committee of religious and charitable institutions, to avoid all unnecessary and useless expenditure of the funds entrusted to their stewardship.

Profusion is, I verily believe, one of the easily besetting sins, to

which both individuals and collective bodies, are in the present day peculiarly liable. Wherever we look, we see lamentable proofs of the mischiefs which it occasions. And I can of my own knowledge assert that no other thing would so much tend to dimini-h the resources of our charitable institutions, as would the idea that the money contributed, or even the smallest portion of it, is wasted. There is a sensitiveness upon this subject in the public mind, of which every member of a committee ought to be aware. And on the other hand he ought to know, that nothing would so much tend to enlarge the income of our best societies, as a firm conviction that the most minute portions of that income are applied, with the most scrupulous care, to the direct promotion of the object for which it was contributed.

Now I do not mean, that by a short-sighted policy, real advantages should be overlooked, because attended with expense; or that inexpedient retrenchments should be made, in compliance with mere popular clamour.-But I mean this, that such expenses as do not really promote the objects of an institution, ought not to be sanctioned by

the Committee which undertakes to conduct its affairs: and therefore the salaries of officers, the buildings, the furniture, and the incidental expences of every charitable Society, should be on as frugal a scale as is consistent with the well being of the Society. The man, therefore, who, when a grant of money is proposed for any particular purpose, will be at the trouble of carefully investigating the necessity of such an expence, or the advantages likely to arise from it, and will candidly and temperately object to what he regards as useless expenditure, will, I conceive, occupy a very important post, though, probably, it may be one to which considerable censure will often be annexed. He may however console himself by the reflection, that he who by his exertion saves £100 to a charity, does in fact add £100 to its funds.

Should you think proper to insert this communication in your columns, I may perhaps at no very distant period, trouble you with a few remarks upon the duties of subscribers to charitable institutions, towards their Committees.

JER. VIII. 20.

H. M. S. B.

means before it is too late, imitate the example of thy glorious Redeemer, give up the inordinate pursuit of the things of this world, and strive to enter in at the strait gate. Think seriously on thy state by nature, calmly reflect upon the past, the present, and the future, and act continually with the scenes of the last great day in view. Lord, I feel that I need thy free and unmerited grace; support me under every trial; be thou, O my Saviour, the balm for every wound, and so guide, guard, and sanctify me, by thy Holy Spirit, that I may pass the valley of the shadow of death in peace, and be received of thee when" the harvest is past, and the summer ended.”

THE immediate successor of this first specimen of unerring Pontiffs, furnishes us with another instance of the unfounded nature of such pretensions. On the banishment of Liberius, the Roman clergy and people bound themselves by an oath, not to elect any other Bishop in his place, conceiving his treatment to have been, as it undoubtedly was, most unjust.

But imperial supremacy was not thus to be trifled with, for Constantius so ordered it, that a Deacon named Felix, was placed in the episcopal chair; of whom the first thing recorded, is certainly not much to his credit; namely, that he was one of those who had sworn fealty to the absent Bishop. The fact however of his having been selected by an Emperor, who pursued his purpose per fas et per nefas of forwarding the Arian heresy, affords strong presumptive evidence, that his sentiments were of a similar cast, this is indeed expressly stated by Socrates,* who says, that he embraced the doctrine of Arius'it is also maintained by Jerome, although the historians Theodoret,† and Rufinus, express their doubts as to his belief in the opinions of the Alexandrian presbyter, while they assert that he held communion with all of that persuasion,' in other words (agreeable to the meaning given to the term communion at that time) he dissembled his real conviction, and for the love of power, rank, and station, countenanced the error which perhaps in his heart he disbelieved.

Be that however as it may, his appointment to the Roman See was, clearly and undoubtedly, irregular and uncanonical; the lawful Bishop

*Soc. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 2. Cap. 37.

Theod. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 2. Cap. 17. Ruf. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 10. Cap. 22. See also Valesius notes on Sozoman, Lib. 4. Cap. 19.

being in existence, and (at that time) a confessor for the truth; and yet this man is placed not only in the list of Popes as we have it in Platina, * (the chronicler of these holy fathers) but is even deemed, and designated in their martyrologies as a saint and martyr.t As to his title to the first of these designations, it rests but on slender grounds, similar to that of hundreds of others held up as objects of idolatry to a misguided and ignorant multitude; for its sole foundation, we are told, is an apocryphal inscription (so Dupin terms it) found in the days of Pope Gregory the first, in the church of St. Cosmus, respecting the body of St. Felix, Pope and martyr ; intimating that he was martyred by the Emperor Constantine; it happens however, rather unfortunately, for this proof of his having witnessed a good confession, that he survived the Emperor according to the testimony of Marcellinus, a cotemporary writer. And how, indeed, is it possible (as Dupin argues) since neither St. Hilary, Athanasius, Lucifer of Calaris, nor any ancient author (and we have voluminous writings of many who flourished in his time) speak one word of such a martyrdom; or give any idea of such a saintship; surely Roman infallibility slept when Gregory the seventh placed his name on the sacred list, and even appointed a day (the 4th of August) to be kept holy in memory of this Arian Bishop.

Platina in his history of these two Popes, seems to feel the difficulty of the subject; his work dedicated to Sixtus the fourth, must of course contain nothing too harsh or grating for the courtly air of the Vatican;

* Platina's Lives of the Popes, p. 69. 'Felicem 2 ut Papem et Martyrem ecclesia catholica veneratur.'" Bellarmine de Rom. Part. Lib. 4.

As quoted by Dupin.

yet the fall of Liberius is too palpable for him to deny, although he endeavours a little to escape the consequence of his admission, by remarking, I have placed his name in the list of Popes, more on the authority of Damasus (a Pope and saint, and therefore it is to be presumed tolerably good evidence) than for any deserts of his own; but what says the accurate Dupin, ⚫ Liberius was always acknowledged as a lawful Bishop, and continued in possession of his see, with the consent of all the Bishops of the Catholic church.'

His account of Felix shows also the difficulties he had to contend with, in order to preserve appearances. As a heretic saint would be rather an unusual character, he endeavours to give a different version of his history by stating⚫ that Felix was put in the place of Liberius, by the orthodox ;' we have already seen, that the Arian Emperor Constantius, placed him there ; he next informs us (to give a lofty idea of papal power) that he pronounced Constantius a heretic, because he had been twice baptized by Eusebius, an Arian Bishop of Nicomedia.' What we have seen above from Socrates (a cotemporary historian) and Dupin, show the utter impossibility of such an event; to which we may add the concurring testimony of Hilary, Lucifer, and Athanasius, the latter of whom expressly states, that the Emperor was baptized at the latter end of his life by Euzoius.*-So much for the accuracy of papal writers.

Pelagius, a British monk, residing at Rome, began to propagate his erroneous opinions (on the subject of free will and the merit of works) early in the fifth century. In the formation of these dogmas he was aided by an able brother of the same monastery, named Celestius; and

* Vide Wall on Infant Baptism, and the authorities quoted by him in confirmation of this fact respecting the late baptism of Constantius. P. 289. 4to. Sec. Ed.

by their united exertions, their opinions on these points gained many proselytes. The cause of truth was however so ably advocated by the pious and learned Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, that Pelagius finding his cause losing ground in the West, sought refuge for his person, and support and countenance for his doctrine, in the East, where he was kindly received by John Bishop of Jerusalem; who hoped by his means to oppose Jerome, with whom he was at variance.

There happened to be at this period two Bishops of Gaul in Palestine, of whom it will be necessary to give some acconnt. Many of the Prelates of this century (especially those of the larger Sees) in consequence of the power and importance attached to their stations, departed from the apostolic simplicity of early times. This evinced itself more particularly in the disputes that arose among them for power and precedency, which tended in a great measure to weaken the bonds of Christian fellowship and friendly communion.

The Sees of Arles and Vincennes had for some time disputed the right of supremacy over some neighbouring provinces; and a decree of a synod held at Tours, intending to set at rest these unchristian contentions, failed in its effect. In the mean time Zosimus (the then Pope) conceiving, doubtless, this a good opportunity of trying the temper of St Peter's sword, issued his mandate, giving the envied pre-eminence to Patroclus Bishop of Arles; conveying to him, with other rights and privileges, that of deciding all contests which might arise in the disputed provinces; with an important exception of those weightier matters, which he reserved to his unerring self, as he expresses it, "nisi magnitudo causæ, nostrum desideret examen."

The principal opponent of these papal encroachments, was Procullus