The American Presbyterian t . AND... GENESEE EVANGELIST. RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY NEWSPAKEB, IN THI UTTEaEST OF THB Constitutional Presbyterian Cbureb, ...PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY, AT THE PRESBYTERIAN HOUSE, ' 1884 Chestnut Streefj (2d Story,) Philadelphia. ev. JOHN W. HEARS, Editor and Publisher. CONTENTS OP Missions in China 218 No New Thing 218 Thomas Chalmers 218 Essay A Review Acquit! 218 Melhod’t View of Calvin 218 Churches of New York.. 218 Table 219 Literary Items..... 219 Sensible A Encouraging View Fish Stealing. A PUTAL WORD ABOUT CONGREGA TIONALISM IN PHILADELPHIA. All men, even the formally accused*' Have a right to be regarded as innocent until the.opposite is proved true, we ■shall therefore freely accept the “ Cen tral” Congregational Church as an orthodox body; as Trinitarian and Cal vinistic—as much so as the Centre Church, New *Haven, or the Park Street Church, Boston. Any objections we might have to .the means used in gather ing its membership, and upon other matters connected with its organization we hiive already expressed or- are con tent to let pass. Even if, as we tho- believe, the establishment of the beet form of Congregationalism is entirely inexpedient in this city, its friends have a perfect right to try the experiment for the third time, or the tenth time, if they see fit. No person within our knowledge has the slightest intention of questioning that right. Nor shall we feel ourselves in any special manner called upon to interpose oar remonstrances if an open and avowed attempt is made to set up a new class of Arminian or of Unitarian churches, or of churches without any distinct creed in our city. The field is wide and open; truth in her intrinsic greatness can well afford to let error have an equal chance before the human mind with herself. But if old and honored names are used to shield error, if names and persons doctrinally and historically associated with ourselves and popularly identified, with us are freely given to endorse what we repudiate; if sectarian zeal and propagandism runs so high as to overlook radical defects in doctrine and even scandalous blemishes in the personal character of those whom it eagerly receives into its fold, it would he a breach of our trust as Christian journalists and as representatives of that branch of the, clmrchjiearest_.o:L r kin to the offenders, >to be silent. Wo disavow such proceedings. We can have no affinity with those who uphold and defend them. In the name of that very Congregationalism which we once recog nized and hope still to recognize, as congenial with ourselves, we resistthem and brand them as schismatic and dis honorable. We declare that the First and Second Congregational Churches of Philadel phia, recognized as such by the late council and received by the right hand of fellowship given by Rev. Mr. Gulliver, and another church, which at one time was reckoned as the “ Second,” hut which could not be finally manoeuvred by “ B. H.” and his associates out of its connections, were one and all of such a doctrinal character, or in such a posi tion, that they could not and would not have been received into any orthodox Calvinistic body in this city. The “ First Congrega tional Church” Rev. D. L. Gear, pastor, was originally a secession from the “ Independent Christian” Church, in Marlborough street, near Frankford road. Rev. D. L. Gear was admitted to mem bership in this church, and received as a minister in the snmmer'fSf 1801, on a certificate from the Second Congrega tional Church of Lynu, Mass., the home - of the late Rev. Parsons Cooke, D. 1)., formerly editor of the Boston Recorder. Were Ur. Cooke still living, he could throw some valuable light upon this part of the subject, as documents from his pen, now in bur hands, will show. We need only remark here, that Gear’s credentials were not signed by Ur. Cooke, and that from these documents and other testimony, it appears that this pastor of the First Congregational Church had been Methodist, Baptist, CODgrogationalist and Independent Christian, and now turns up, conveni ently for :; B. II.” and his friends, a Congregationalist again.* Having no employment, he was re commended as a preacher by the pastor of the*. Independent Christian Church, Rev. John G. Wilson, to the Mount Zion Christian Church, in the southern part of the city, where he laboured several months. He was then invited back to Mr. Wilson's church, where he laboured first as au associate, then, on recommendation of Mr. WuSon.whohad resigned, as pastor. Mir. W. still re gained his connection with the church over which ho had been pastor many yeai’B. This was in the spring of 1862. Soon after assuming tho pastoral office, Mr. Gear or McGear commenced a movement to revolutionize tho organiza tion and"get the property into different hands. Mr. Wilson, who at first never suspected such an intention, when it became evident, moved with prompti tude and energy, and having equity and the charter of the church on his side, was able to defeat tho plan. His opin ion of the morality of such a proceeding, on the part of a man whom lie had welcomed tb liis church and family, and assisted in gaining employment when *An eminent Methodist divine in this city suggests the inquiry whether Mr. Gear has not laid .unde a syllable of his name, and whether he ” , Daniel McGear, a local preacher m Cumberland.and Salem ooautie?, N. J., in 1858. INSIDE PAGES. Piegah—Our Orders 222 Waiting for Je5u5......... 222 Adhamed of her Father 222 Anecdotes Dr. Beecher. 222 Children’s Books 222 Sulphur Mine 822 Christian Commise’n on the Paoific Coast 223 Resurrection Flower 223 Itnumn l > «.slrt|trr«n. New Series, Vol. I, INlo. 38. an utter stranger ,-in 4his city, ■ may easily he imagined. He instantly sent to Lynn, Mass*, for further information, and the two letters from Parsons Cooke above referred to were the result. Any one curious to know their contents, may be gratified by calling at our office. Forthwith, Mr. Gear alias McGear, and his twenty ©r thirtyfollowers, with letters furnished by himself, made their exodus from the Independent Christian Church, and hence arose the “ First Congregational Church ofPhiladelphia,” .clarum et venerabile nomen! Whether “B. H.” and his friends had any hand tin stimulating this secession or not, we ■have no means of knowing. . They soon recognized* and aided it, however, and the results were: the erection of a chapel (with funds furnished by zealons Con gregationalists) on Montgomery avenue, near Frankford road; the handling of great hopes and schemes of Congrega tional extension in Philadelphia \ and the final recognition of the church by the late Congregational council, in these words, addressed to Mr. Gear or McGear as the representative of the church, _by Mr. Gulliver. We quote from the report of the Independent My brother of the First Congregational Church [Rev. Mr. Gear], you.represent, at present, a feeble band. Your work is pre eminently a missionary work. Like that of your divine Master, your aim is to preach the Gospel to the poor. We rejoice in the labor which you have undertaken to per form, and we especially rejoice that you have undertaken to perform it upon the broad platform of Congregational principles and usages, which we believe to be the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, of which Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone. In this labor, undertaken in these relations, you may be assured of the sympa thy and the aid of your brethren of the Congregational churches of this country; and in the hope of that sympathy, arid in the pledge of that aid, I now give you this right hand of fellowship. May the little one become a thousand, and the small one a strong peoplei; and may the Lord hasten it in his time. Did space permit, we should like to speak of what was originally designed tohethe Second Congregational Church, in this system of movements. ■ It will, he remembered that this Gear, or McGear served the Mount Zion Christian, Church for several months in 1861. After he returned to the Independent -Christian Church to assist Rev. J. G. Wusonp-tre — virQ —uXrv informed, some connection with the former organization. During this time several vain attempts were made to, revolutionize this church. Finally, the powerful aid of “ B. H.” and his asso ciates was summoned, and a transfer of the organization and change of name; to the “ Second Congregational Church,” with a call to a Congregational minister, were actually voted, by a minority of the church, accidentally in a position to - do so. Arrangements were also made, we are informed, for a renovation of the building, from funds to be supplied by their new friends. But the majority of the church rallied, and at a meeting held about November, 1863, ignored entirely the proceedings of the minority, called another minister and remain in undisturbed possession of the property. The fate of the unfortunate minority with their pastor-elect is unknown. <! B. H.” and the Independent, who may he supposed better imormed about them than any others, are silent on the sub ject. Amid their loud trum.petingB.of success in similar fields of strategy, some regretful note might have been given to these unhappy relics of a failure which came so near being ,a grand aehieve mon t for their cause. But ~ The world which credits what is done, Is cold to all that might have been. Great achievements surely! Petty secessions, led out of isolated, coinpara-. tively unknown churches, by men whose very obscurity is a veil to something worse'; these arc the materials for a Congregational triumph ; these are the foundations laid with such shoutings, upon which tho grand structure of Con gregationalism in the'middle and south ern States is to rise; these Quixotic exploits are tho themes of the jubilee proclaimed by the Independent and its contributors! The Congregationalism that grasps eagerly after such meat, must be, to quote the language of “ B. H.” himself, a “ beggar for a life” indeed. But there is another and more serious view to be taken of these disreputable ecclesiastical raids.. What is the doc trinal character of the churches from which these primal foundations of Con gregationalism in our city are sought to bo abstracted; what is the rock from \ruiGli iB time, the Congregation alists of our city are to he told they' -were hewn ? • The “Christian Church,” so fa* as wo can learn, has no creed. When inquired of for its belief, it falls back vaguely upon the Bible. Such is the fact in re ward to the Independent Christian Church, from which Mr. Gear, or Mc- Gear, and his score or more, seceded. It is true, the First Congregational Church brought with it to the council, certain “ principles of its faith and polity.” These'priueiples arc not given in the report of the Independent, import ant as they would have been m correct ing any wrong impression as to the doctrinal position and tendency of the church, and of the council which re ceived them. Wo would like to know something about them. We are tolera bly sure they are vague, non-committal, PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1864. ;and unsatisfactory in a high degree. Or let tho Independent say whether there ■is any thing in these “principles” which would be a security against a Unitarian, or a Universalist, or an Arminian be .Goming pastor of that First Congrega tional Church; or .anything to hinder Unitarians, Universalist®, and Arrnini ans from becoming members, in full and regular standing ? We risk little in as serting that there is no such security. The Independent’s correspondent falls hack upon the character of the councils; and with a cheap show of indignation, asks: - v “And who is this editor, that he questions the orthodoxy of Dr. Bacon and Dr. Todd and Dr. Kirk and Dr. Thompson and Dr. Stone and other men hardly less eminent ? Did he not get his own theological education ■ —what there is. of it—in Mew England? Who has appointed him as an umpire to de cide what is orthodoxy in all the religious denominations of the land ? Is it for such as he to charge us and the distinguished members of our council with sectarianism ?” We are expected of course to be; frightened by this parade of names and this assertion of the “distinguished” character of 11 our council.” But we beg pardon for being so bold as to ask l a question suggested by the_proceedings f of this “distinguished’’ body; viz;' What is tb e security for orthodoxy in a Congregational council?:. There is no reference to any doctrinal platform in its proceedings. Each church hasform ed its own articles, and these men, DrS. Bacon,'Thompson, and others, recognize; them without reference to any standards’; of their own, or of the Association with which they are connected. Have con fessions and platforms been thrown overboard as effete ? And in place of these are we to trust solely to the indi vidual opinions of an almost accidental, concourse of men, in deciding the mo mentous question of the 1 orthodoxy of entirely-new organizations, playing the. important par t of foundations In a great l ecclesiastical experiment ? We protest that “distinguished” names, evenif “B. H.” is included in the list, Will not sat isfy us. The dangerous looseness of the proceedings is apparent to every one not blinded by zeal for numerical acces sions and for demonstrations imposing to superficial observers. The First Church is made up mainly of seceders from an organization without a creed;. At*. lnajues--«aittfljjt vitggu iv*‘ xLuilLag faith into a council; the council is ltsfflf without any acknowledged system or known standard of faith, with no. doc trinal guarantee, in fact, but the charac ter of certain individuals, “ distinguish ed” and not distinguished, who com pose,it. But if this council is loose, as to doc trinal position it is at least consistent with itself. The two churches which it received, as the First and Second had remarkable points of similarity in their history. Principles were involved in the career of both which should have warned the council from intermeddling with them, and -which, when the church es were received, conferred necessarily a peculiar character on the council. Each was the result of a frustrated coup d’etat, which left it without status, prop erty, or sympathy with the orderly de nominations of the city. The Second Church that was to be, attempted a similar process, hut failed more disas trously than either of the others. Here we have no less than three disorderly, schismatic movements identified with the rise of Congregationalism in our city, finding refuge, and deriving char acter and material aid from tho council or its representatives. .Our readers will bear with us while we trace up more fully the history of what is now the SeeoncTCougregational Church under Rev. Dr. Stailey, and es tablish the position of our former article called in question by “B. H.,” in the Independent. Ho says : The church which has now become the Second Congregational Church was, at its origin, chartered by the State as an indepen dent “ Evangelical Reform Congregation,” on a Congregational basis; and the ninth section of its charter was, “It is also declar ed that nothing in this charter shall be so construed as to prevent or hinder the said congregation from uniting with any other Christian denomination, whenever it shall appear to a majority, of the members of said congregation to be for their advantage.” After some years of independence, this free congregation formed a spiritual connection with the Dutch Church, still, however, re taining its charter and acting under it. Wherever there was conflict, the ecclesiasti cal'law of the Dutch Church had to yield to the chartered rights ot f foe congregation, which were older thyy an( j moro sacred than Dutch Thus, although the consti tution of J llie Dutch Church gives the eonsis tofy power to call a pastor, this church had always claimed the right to do it congrega tionally under its old and unforfeited char-: ter, and had always done it. At length they called Dr. Smiley, by a strong majority. Then ecclesiastical lawwas brought to bear arbitrarily upon them, and they were de prived of chartered rights, and were ejected from their house of worship, which they owned, and its pulpit shut against their min ister. Dr. Smiley, before he came to Phila delphia, had been the successful pastor of a Congregational Methodist Church, and was, both by thorough study of Scripture and of ecclesiastical history, an intelligent Congre- CTationalist. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that such a pastor, Congrega tional in alt but the name, should pronounce openly for our free church polity. How wide these facts are from the calum nious representations of The American Pres byterian the plainest man can see. Possibly the editor of that paper did not know what the facts are. Then it was his first business G-enesee Evangelist, No. 947. to inform himself, and not impose upon the public with his crudities. Considering the assumption of supe perior knowledge contained in these paragraphs, the ignorance of this cor respondent is surprising. If he will turn to the final decision of Judge Lowrie, of the Supreme Court, in this case, (Wright’s Penna. State Reports, 6, 506) he will see that the First Re formed Dutch Church not only was never in spiritorpurpose Congregational or Independent, but unanimously shrank from such a position, to use their own words, as “ imprudent andunscriptural.” Their independency was but a temporary expedient. They originated in 1809, from the German Reformed Church, as a polony who simply desired English preaching, which they could not get in their existing relations. That they had no wish to change their polity or doe trine, appears from the name which they .assumed, when they' were char tered in January, 1810. By dropping a single syllable of the name, whether designedly' or accidentally we cannot tell, the Independent obscures this im portant fact. They were chartered as the “ Evangelical Reformed (not Reform ) Congregation ofPhiladelphia;” aud tho word “Reformed*” in the ecclesiastical language of Germans and their de scendants, as every one at all familiar with the history of the Reformation ought to know, means Presbyterian. But there is not a place left to hang a doubt upon.; since, in December, 1811, 'a congregational meeting was held, at which the form of government of the Presbyterian Church was expressly and unanimdusly adopted. At this meeting it was also resolved that, while it was inexpedient at that time to unite with any denomination, yet that to stand apart, or form a new religious sect or party “would be im pjjident and unscriptural,” arid contrary "to their traditions, as their forefathers were Presbyterians. Moreover, it was provided in their “Fundamental Arti 'cles,” which, by reference, formed part of the charter, that the pastor must be “of the Reformed or Presbyterian de nomination, regularly ordained,” How any person of common veracity or common sense could assert, in view of these facts, that the Second Congrega- originally “ chartered impossible, for us to see. The people even seem to have foreseen the possi bility of such a false and unjust construc tion of their independent position, and to Rave guarded against it with jealous, care, by unanimously voting themselves Presbyterians, like their forefathers. This they further proved in April, 1813, by voting, with like unanimity, to join the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, through the elassis of New Brunswick. Judge Lowrio’s view of this act is a plain inference from the facts. He Says: “All that had been done before was simply provisional. This act of union was the completion of the- process of organization, in accord ance with their original and continued purpose.” The congregation in fact never had a thought of being anything other than Reformed or Presbyterian, and .simply waited for the proper mo ment to carry out their orderly ecclesi astical tendencies, as inherited from their fathers.. What “B. H.” means by the congre gation forming “ a spiritual connection with the Dutch church” is not obvious. Surely he does not intend to mislead the reader into the idea that there was no organic union with- tho elassis, no sub sfipiption to;its authority, no ecelesiasti- dependence upon the Refor med Dutch Church at large. Surely he doe 3 not intend to ignore the fact that, as soon as the union was formed, steps were taken to have tho charter changed, to conform to the new circumstances, which was effected in ,1815; and that from the date of the union, until 1860, Forty-seven years, all their pastors have been in stalled by the elassis, and were men pledged to adhere to the symbols of the Reformed Dutch Church. As for the claim of the church under tho charter to call its pastor congregationally,Jn stead of through the consistory, “ B. H.” must know that this is a Presbyterian no less than a Congregational feature, and can be of no use whatever, by it self and especially in connection with' th,e unanimous vote of 1811, to prove the gregational tendencies of the church. 1 ' p ; ) Arid now Where are “the chartered rights” of which this correspondent declares, in tho face of the decisions .of our Common Pleas and Supreme Court, “fee majority” were deprived? They were' chartered, as a “ Reformed” Con gregation. Their unanimous vote and Fundamental Articles declared them to be Presbyterians, and they expressly repudiate any suspicion of their purpose to he anything else, which might have been aroused by their temporary; inde pendency. “B. H.” must therefore re nounce the absurd idea that the church was originally chartered on a Congre gational basis. But, if they were not Congregational in the outset, had they not a right to become so, and were they not unjustly restrained from exercising that right by the courts ? It is true their original charter provided that the congregation might unite-with any other 'Christian denomination,• whenever .a majority of the members should decide it to be to tbeir advantage.* And just here, the decisions of the two Courts, inferior and superior, diverge. Judge Allison, in the Court of Common Pleas, decided that a majority of the members might have taken the church from its .Reformed Dutch connection. Had there been such a majority—the correspondent in his hasty view of the case evidently thinks there was—Judge Allison would have given them the property. But the fact, as brought out in the trial, was that the transfer had never been voted by a majority of the members , but only by a majority of a quorum at a congregational meeting. The evidence at the trial showed that the conjugation numbered 166 voters ; hence 84 votes would have been required to constitute a bare ma jority, whereas only 75 votes, lacking nine of the lowest necessary number, could be raised by the friends of the transfer. The majority, therefore, so pathetically spoken of by “B. H.,” van ishes “ into air, into thin air.” It never existed. Judge Allison further ruled, that even if a majority of votes, as re quired by the charter, should be given for a change of relation, it would not be competent for the church to call Dr. Smiley as a pastor, on account of his Arminianisin; for, in or out of the Re formed Dutch Church, their charter required the pastor to be of “the Re formed or Presbyterian denomination, regularly ordained.” He accordingly issued an injunction ' restraining Dr. Smiley from occupying the pulpit of the church. At this point, “ B. H.,” with quite a show of familiarity with the case, asks, if we are not aware, that a higher Court j has, in part, reversed Judge Allison’s decision ? If “B. H.” knows as much as he affects to, he is guilty of inten tionally misleading his readers; for the fact is, that the Supreme Bench,., to whom the case was carried, reversed the decision of the inferior court in no manner or degree, except to make the po sition of the seceders far worse than Judge Allison had done ; it in fa'ct rendered their case utterly hopeless. Under Judge A.’s decision a large loop-hole was left them; an accession of nine votes to the strength of the seceding party would have given them control of the property, and all the chartered rights “B. H.” imagines they had; but under the change. ¥e quote his words (page 510) : “ It is supposed because, in the chart er, the right is reserved m the majority to make such a connection, a majority may dissolve it. But we' do not see it so. - According to the mere terms used, that article was fulfilled, and the right exhausted by the exercise of it and in the act of union, and we do not see how it can be implied that it was to extend further.” Judge Lowie has not the re motest idea of making the case any better for Congregational defenders of of the secession, like “R H.,” than Judge Allison had left it; for he says: “ Surely no respectable denomination would accept and. foster congregations who would reserve a right to separate from it at their pleasure. This they would regard as no better than Congre gationalism.” In another place lie says : “ It is therefore of no sort of import ance what may bo the majority in such matters, it cannot weigh a feather against well known law in affecting the rights of a minority. Before civil au thority the question is, not which party has the majority, but which is right ac cording to the law, by which the body has hitherto consented to be governed. We have no doubt that a majority of a congregational meeting transgressed their own law, and attempted to violate the rights of v the minority by calling a pastor whom their classis would not accept, and by resolving the secession from the Reformed Dutch Church. The majority may direct and control consist ently with the particular and general laws of the organism but not in viola tion of them.” In such a hopeless plight, Judge Downe upon his unappealable seat of justice, left these seceders. It was Pe lion piled upon Ossa. The little finger of Judge Lowi'ie’s decision was thicker than the loins of Judge Allison’s, - And who;is this Daniel come to judg-. ment, this questioner ot the solemn de cisions of our inferior and superior courts; what judicial experience, what stores of legal learning, what weight of character warrants him in assuming censorship of these decisions of our purest and ablest men? Wbat_ good end has he to serve .by sowing distrust in these irrevocable judgements and by weakening so far as his influence goes, the confidence of the people in their liighestand most trusted judicial officers. Is his cause of such a sort that it- can prevail only in an atmosphere breathing of revolution? Must the stones with which the foundations of Congregation alism among us are to he strengthened, be, in part,' pried away from our most venerable temples of justice? [We are compelled to lay over the conclusion of this article until next week.] The General Assembly’s Plan of Be lief for Disabled Ministers will appear in full in our next. TEBMS By mail, $2.00 per annum, in advance. “ 250 “ “ after a months. By carrier, 50 cents additional fur delivery GItTTBS. I°n or more papers 9ent by mail to one church or locality, or in the city to one address By mail, $1.50 per annum. By carriers. 2.00 - 1 To save trouble, cluo subscriptions must commence at the same date, be paid strictly in advance, in a single remittance, for which onf receipt will he returned. Ministers and Ministers’ Widows supplied at club rates. Home missionaries at Si per annum. Postage.— Five cents quarterly in advance, to be paid by subscribers at the office of de livery. MINISTERIAL VACATIONS & HABITS, This subject was : discussed not long since by an association of ministers, with somewhat differing views. All agree that a rest from active pastoral duties and a change of scene, at least annually, is better for both pastor and people. Sow and when to take the interlude to labour is a more difficult inquiry. That such arrangements should be made in cities that the people who remain therr in the warm Beason may have a eongf nial place of worship, and know whet to look in time of affliction for tl needed ministerial attention, is, ¥ think, a duty imposed upon pastort, alike by religion and humanity. It is certainly not Christian, withont a clear and unquestionable necessity, to deprive the people of the means of grace by closing churc3.es. Time and death do not wait on our. comfort and-pleasure. How the allotted time shall be spent must depend on conditions of health, taste and means. Whatever the recrea tion, and wherever it is taken, that a minister or Christian layman, especially the former, should not forget Christ and his eommisapn, so far as the sacred office ,is eoncimed, is undeniable. To affirm that to have relaxation one can not be a living, happy Christian, is a libel on the gospel, and this in the face -of revelation. That no clergyman can “puff” his cigar along the streets, or sprinkle his path with the juice of his quid, and retain that most precious treasure un sullied, influence, is the voice of Chris tendom. To shrink from the sight of a fashionable dance in the hotel of a watering place, and parade before the crowd a scientifically twirled Havana, is an odd moral distinction. The reso lution we give under Methodist religions items, and the nolile words of Bishop Janes express the growing moral senti ment of the church. John B. Cfough, all, speak earnestly of the affinities and associations of the habit ot using tobacco ; and the indecent pic tures often found in the shops of the retailers indicate the views of too many of those in the traffic. In the plain, free suggestions we have made, we arraign no man, nor answer for his conscience, but simply express our con victions. THE PUBLICATION PUND. Mr. Editor: —The acknowledgment donations to the Publication cause ceived inthe month of June, which 1 send you for insertion, taken in conns. tion with preceding acknowledgment , will encourage those of your readers in terested in this enterprise. The friends of wthe ork will sea in these contribu tions evidence that it is not only to live but to expand and increase its influence for good. The call of the General Assembly for contributions to complete the $50,000 Publication Fund, on the part of those who had not already given their propor tion of the sum has not been unheeded. Collections are coming in large, some small—and churches that have not yet found a good opportunity to take up their collections, are arrang ing to do so at as early a day as seems to promise success. If a little effort jsmade by each church the nesult will be the completion of the Fund. Wo hope that no church will by its neglect endanger the success of this important movement. Yours. HAMILTON COLLEGE. The commencement of Hamilton Col lege, Clinton, H- Y., /will be held on July 21st (Thursday.) President Fisher will deliver his Bac calaureate on Sunday afternoon, and Be v. Herrick Johnson, of Pittsburg, will address the Society of Christian Be search, Sunday evening, July 17th. Hon. Charles P. Kirkland, LL. P., of Hew York, will address the Alumni, and Professor Edward North, of Hamilton College, will deliver a Poem, Wednes day, P. M. The convention of the Psi Up si lon Fraternity will he addressed by Charles D. Warner. Esq., of Hartford. Ct. Poet, Francis M. Finch, Ithaca. - ®sr The Y. M. Christian Associate contemplate making their annual exo; si on to Allan Lie City on Friday nexl J. W. D.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers