Philander Chase



Download Full Text (14.0 MB)


Memorandum of replies by Bp. Chase to attacks on him mainly from Bishop Hobart.




Bishop Hobart, Onderdonk, England Voyage, Josiah Pratt, critique, attacks



[Copied by Josiah Pratt]


Bp Chase was in Birmingham 15th November 1824 there from [Manchester]

Were not [?] others of Bp. H published n London before this? And yet it is asserted that Bp. C. commenced his attack on Bp. H and thus was the aggressor.

Important Memorandum about who begun it!

Bishop Chase saw all the objections to his coming to England condensed in Bishop Hobart’s Letter which he published without answer. As all the arguments were summed with this letter of Bishop Hobart (which Bp. C. published with his reasons for coming) the whole subject was before the public; And Mr. Onderdonk is requested to bring from Bp While letters published in England to Bp C which any one argument worth naming which is not in Bp. Hobart’s letter.

See page 5. Of N.Y. Presbyter.

P.S. Bottom Sentence

All that Bishop Chase had heard or learned of the sentiments of Bishop Moore and Kemp was in the private letters and reiterated communications of Bishop Hobart. Bp. Chase supposed from Bishop Hobart so frequently naming them Bishops Kemp and Moore that they with Bp. White had agreed together to oppose his Mission to England—and if in his depressed state of mind he mentioned to Bp. White their having written to him when they had not—if Bp. Chase took the picture of their minds held up by Bishop Hobart to be one drawn by those Right Rev. Gentlemen themselves, it was not to be wondered at. As to Bp. Chase no suffering them to be heard in his reply how could he do this better than publish the letter of Bp Hobart entire which from the very fountain head contained all objections in all their purity.

Page 10, about the middle

“Of course it (the objection of the Missionary Society) could no have been made known to him.” —

It was made known to Bishop Chase by Bishop Hobart that this would take place. Hence everyone may see where it originated.

P. 21 — almost ⅓ down

“The Bearer if an official instrument from the Gen! The! Seminary.” and what was this? The very thing by which (it is supposed) Bp. H. says he is [?] to make known to the claims of that Institution to British country. And yet Mr. Onderdonk condemns this application as disgraceful! —!!

P. 21 about ¼ from the bottom

“He” (Bp. H.) foresaw a controversy” so when did he foresee this? When writing his letter to Bp. C. — and accordingly on his arrival as soon as he has learned that Bp. C. has stept [sic] a foot on English shore he published his handbills against him. It was not any thing against. It was not any thing which Bishop Chase had published and circulated (as insinuated in the appendix of Mr. Onderdonk’s letter) which made Bishop Hobart commence his attack in England.

P. 32 nearly at bottom

Bishop Chase has always been a friend to the [G’s] Theological Seminary and to these “expressed sentiments and wishes” his present conduct is not contrary. A seminary in the west is acknowledged by all who know what the wants ot the church really are. To be necessary to her existence. How a desire to cherish our branch of the church can be hostile to her prosperity in another can not be seen. Bp. Chase’s Seminary is no “independent” of the Government of the Bishops as may be seen by the first step he took in England —

How cruel then is this sneer at the Young [Dream]

Minuets of Reply to Onderdonk

These were [embed]: on in Mr. Pratt, letters to Lord Kenyon


Memorandum of Replies to Attacks



Rights Statement

No Copyright - United States