therefore the dilemma in which Bishop Whittingham has placed himself, remains in full play against him, and we repeat the question, where was the Church of Christ, 'the pillar and ground of truth," at the time when low, contradictory, almost blasphemous practices were prevalent, and a halfdiscarded paganism characterized its worship? How can all this be conciliated with the promises of Christ, to remain with his Church to the end of time?

3. We proved that Bishop Whittingham had incorrectly represented the Catholic worship, in the statement that it was offered "not with, but for the people." The words of the canon of the mass quoted by us are an evidence that the people do offer in conjunction with the priest: but to escape from the charge he says that we did not cite his words at length; we cited what we knew to be an error, and we exposed it. That this error moreover was the point to which the bishop directed particular attention, is plain from the italicism of the words. He seems to argue that, the sacrifice in the Catholic Church is not offered with the people, because the more solemn part of it is recited in an inaudible voice, and in an unknown tongue. But how such an inference could be drawn from the premises we are utterly at a loss to conceive. For if the people read the prayers in their books or mentally unite with the officiating clergyman, what prevents them from being co-offerers with him ?*

Bishop Whittingham very learnedly tells us: "In their (Catholic) books of devotion, while a part of it (the canon) is translated, as if it were the whole (see Ursuline Manual, &c. approved by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Hughes, New York, 1840, page 101, ss), a part is cunningly kept back, because it makes mention of facts and implies doctrines that it would be most inconvenient to have constantly before them. Let this be disproved, if it can." It is difficult here to conjecture what the writer wishes us to disprove. If he allude to the motive for omitting the words of consecration in the U. Manual, we deny the assertion as utterly gratuitous: 1. Because in any prayer-books all the words of consecration are to be found. See Roman Missal, in English; Holy Week; Paroissien Rom. in French, &c. 2. The people not being the consecrators of the bread and Wine, there is no necessity to place the formula required for this in the prayer-books. It would be no convenience whatever for the Catholic clergy to withhold from the notice of the people any doctrine of the Church, because the people believe the real presence, and every thing else that the clergy believe; but we may conceive that it is very conveVOL. II.-No. 3.

4. In relation to the charge that Bishop Whittingham had stigmatized the Catholic priesthood in opprobrious terms, he remarks that he spoke of the priesthood which the reformers found. This observation may pass for what it is worth; every body knows that the priesthood which the reformers found, was the priesthood of the Catholic Church. But he adds: "In many respects the reformation has been of great advantage to the priesthood even in the Tridentine schism: and the writer of these discourses would not choose to employ the language of the text, without qualification, of the priesthood in any part of the Roman obedience at the present day; still less, of that in the Roman schism in this country."+ Are we to consider this a compliment, gentle reader? It cannot be denied that opposition on the one side is frequently productive of reaction on the other, and in the providence of God evil may become the occasion of good. By the efforts of the reformers, who set up their private opinions against the teachings of the universal Church, the vigilance both of the clergy and the laity was doubtless awakened, and they armed themselves more vigorously against the dangers that surrounded them. In the same way does the faithful Christian derive advantage even from the suggestions of the evil spirit, and by the habit of resisting temptation become more firmly established in the practice of virtue. As to the doctrine and worship acknowledged by the members of the priesthood anterior to nient for certain bishops and clergymen to talk of a sacrifice, real presence, &c. at one time, and a few days after, to explain the whole matter away.

But be it observed," says Bishop Whittingham, "the assertion is made in the text, of times preceding the reformation. Does the Romish critic venture to admit that his communion at the present day, in this country, is answerable for all that may be truly proved against portions of the western and eastern Churches in the sixth and following centuries?"" To this we answer yes, if these portions were in communion with the see of Rome; because the doctrine and worship of the Catholic Church have never changed. They are now what they were in the sixth and following centuries. "Does he venture to affirm that even now, as much of the mass as is laid before the people, say in the Ursuline Manual,' would be entrusted to them in Sicily or Malta, where Rome has the complete spiritual dominion she so much affects?" We answer most assuredly.

* See pages 172–182.

+ Priesthood in the Church, 2 edit. p. 21, note. 24

and teach all nations, . . lo! I am with you all days, to the consummation of the world." The history of the Church of Christ is but a verification of his promise. From the city of Jerusalem, where the mustard-seed of truth was originally sown, it was disseminated in every direction, and has now reached almost every part of the earth, exhibiting in the universality of its diffusion, of its duration, and of its doctrine, one of the bright characteristics by which the true Church will always be easily distinguishable from the numerous offspring of error. The Church of Christ, according to his words, which will not pass away, was to exist in all ages: every sect, therefore, that has sprung into existence subsequently to the apostolic times, is by that very criterion ascertained to be heterodox. The universality of the Church in respect of place is to be understood in a limited sense, because there never was a period when her communion was so universal, as not to exclude from its pale heretical sects and heathen nations. Yet in the scriptures she is called the Church

The

of all nations, and St. Paul applies to the apostles those words of the Psalmist, "their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the earth." Church of Christ is therefore called Catholic or universal: 1. Because she has been at all times since the days of the apostles, the Church of many nations. 2. Because she forms the great body of Christians, from which others have withdrawn themselves. From these observations it follows that the title of Catholic is applicable only to that Church which can trace its existence to the apostolic age, and has always constituted the mass of the Christian people, or in other words to the Church in communion with the see of Rome. The members of this communion alone, all the attempts of modern sectarianism notwithstanding, can say with truth and consistency, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. This article of our faith, as far it implies the universal diffusion of the Church, is beautifully developed in the following lines of our gifted correspondent. ED.

Common Prayer, and the administration of the sacraments, was commanded to be " accepted, received, used, and esteemed, in like sort and manner," and with the same penalties as had been enacted with respect to that established four years before, and which was now superseded. In the same year, by the authority of the king, was published "A Collection of the Articles of Religion," forty-two in number, which had been compiled by Archbishop Cranmer, then laid before a committee of bishops and divines, and after approval by them, sanctioned by the king. Edward died in 1553, at the age of sixteen years, and at the time of his death, this book of the forty-two articles was the standard of English orthodoxy.

Mary, who ascended the throne in July, 1553, was a Catholic, and in less than six months after she began to reign by act of Parliament, (Stat. 1, Mary, Session ii), all the statutes on the subject of religion passed since the death of her father, were repealed, the first and second book of the "Common Prayer," were prohibited to be used, and in lieu thereof it was enacted that such forms of divine worship and administration of the sacraments should be received and practised as had commonly been used in the last year of the reign of Henry the Eighth. In the next year all the articles and provisions of every kind, made in his reign for severing the Church of England from the See of Rome, were repealed, and the Church of England was re-admitted into the unity and bosom of the great Christian Church (See Stat. 1 and 2, Phil. and Mary, ch. viii). This was the state of religion in England, when Mary died in November, 1558.

Elizabeth, her successor, either hesitated or affected to hesitate between the Catholic and the Protestant religions. This, however, did not continue long, for in February, 1559, by Stat. 1, Eliz., ch. i, all the laws made in the preceding reign on the subject of religion, were repealed, and those in the reign of Henry the VIII, and Edward the VI, were re-enacted, and it was required that all bishops, ministers, &c., should take an oath "that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or

causes as temporal; and by the second chapter of the same statute, the book of Common Prayer is again modified and commanded to be used in all the churches and chapels throughout the kingdom, and every person was bound on Sundays and holidays to attend during the time of common prayer, preaching, or other service of God there to be used and ministered. All the bishops but one-and a large portion of the clergy refused to take this oath, and for that cause all who refused were ejected from office, and others more compliant, were, by royal authority, appointed in their stead. The power of parliament was then resorted to in order to cure all defects and irregularities in this violent course, and by Stat. 8, Elizabeth, ch. i, the substituted bishops were declared to be bishops rightfully made, any statute, law, canon, or other thing to the contrary, notwithstanding. In January, 1562, the forty-two articles of religion, established under Edward, were revised and amended, and what have since been termed the thirty-nine articles, were promulgated in lieu of them, as the creed for the nation. Thus-and by the authority of the king and of the parliament, was ultimately fashioned, "The Church of England, as by law established," and this is its proper style and and title as given to it by its authors.

With the exception of the New England colonies, "the Church of England, as by law established," was upheld by law in all the English colleges and plantations on this side of the Atlantic. The king was its supreme head, and under him the government of it was vested in its archbishops, bishops, and priests, and the American colonies were for all ecclesiastical purposes declared to be a part of the diocess of the Bishop of London. The church was an integral part and parcel of the state, and when the dominion of England and of the English king was thrown off, the church also fell with it. It ceased to have existence here. But many of those who had been accustomed to the worship and rites observed in the Church of England, felt a natural attachment thereto. Under the influence of this attachment, a convention was held of certain clerical and lay delegates from dif

ferent congregations, and a plan of religious union agreed upon, whereby they associated under the name of "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States." This name, they themselves chose, and by this, in their prayer books and in their public acts they have ever since been designated.

Recently there have been extraordinary movements among some of the most pious and learned of the Church of England on the subject of religion. Believing that in the innovations on the ancient faith, and still more in the changes from the ancient rites, ceremonies, and observances, their predecessors, in many instances, instead of reforming errors and correcting abuses, had perverted the truth, and weakened almost unto death the spirit of devotion, they have zealously and industriously sought to restore what they believed had been rashly if not impiously taken away. In the course of their animated discussions some of them have protested against the name of "Protestant," as a term significant of nothing but dissent, or opposition, or separation, and claimed to be called English Catholics, as being a branch of the great Catholic Church. These agitations and discussions have reached this shore of the Atlantic, and several among "the Protestant Episcopalians of the United States," following this example, now set up their title to the name of "Catholic" also.

These pretensions or claims are of very modern date. True, both in the English and American Churches, the ancient formularies of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, were recited in divine worship, wherein a faith is solemnly professed in "The Holy Catholic Church," but without being able to ascertain what precise idea was supposed to be expressed thereby, I hazard nothing in asserting that in pais, out of the church, no member of either, until within a few years back, called himself or his Church Catholic. All of them gloried in the appellation of "Protestant," and the term Catholic was exclusively applied as the more respectful designation of the Church which they were accustomed to deride by the nickname of "Popish."

The professors of the ancient faith have certainly no cause to regret this new-born zeal for the name of Catholic. Names are by no means unimportant. The attachment now avowed for the appellation of Catholic, and the solicitude on the part of these, our separated brethren, to appropriate it to themselves, may be, and probably is, in the order of God's providence, one of the means to bring them back to the Catholic faith. But while we do not regret that the claim is preferred, they ought not to be surprised that we cannot admit it to be well founded.

The word Catholic has a precise and undisputed signification. It means "universal," or "general." Is there any ground upon which "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States" can claim to be the universal or general Church of Christendom? Their numbers are understood to range between six and eight hundred thousand, while the whole Christian population far exceeds two hundred millions. As compared with the Christian body they do not constitute one in three hundred. But they do not assert this claim in behalf of themselves exclusively, but insist that they constitute one Church with the Church of England. Now is this the fact? That there is a near affinity, a striking family resemblance between the two Churches, is not to be disputed, but it seems impossible to maintain that they two make but one Church. In so grave a concern as that of religion, care should be taken not to confound similarity with identity, and there, emphatically, the rule applies that no like is the same. Do the two Churches profess the same faith? There is one essential and marked difference in their professions of religious belief. It is a fundamental-indeed the very primary principle of the English Church that the supreme power is of right in the king, his heirs and successors. It belongs to his indisputable rights to reform, repress, and correct errors, heresies, and abuses in the Church, as fully as they can be reformed, repressed or corrected by any manner of spiritual jurisdiction or authority that is to say, to remodel the creed, to regulate the administration of the sacraments, to prescribe the forms of public