an worship, and to control the conduct of its teachers in all spiritual matters. This is, indeed, sometimes complained of as usurpation of the crown, but has it not been submitted to by the Church of England, and is it not embodied into the creed of that Church? The thirty-seventh article of religion, as contained in the book of Common Prayer, declares that unto the king's majesty the chief government of all the estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain," and the only explanation or even seeming qualification of this acknowledgment of dominion over the ecclesiastical estate in all causes, is, "that the ministering of God's word or of the sacraments is not given to the princes." We have seen in what sense the supreme power over the Church was asserted by Parliament, and the oath acknowledging that supreme power in the king required to be taken, and this article must be understood, so far as it does not contravene or qualify this claim thus avowed, and thus enforced by oath, as an explicit sanction and recognition of it. What is the creed of "The Frotestant Episcopal Church of the United States," on this very important article? Far from adopting, it expressly repudiates the principle therein asserted. The thirty-seventh article in the American book of Common Prayer declares "that the power of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well clergy as laity, in all things temporal, but hath no authority in things purely spiritual." The question is not which of these be right--but whether the Church which holds as an article of religion that the civil magistrate hath supreme power in all causes, as well spiritual as temporal, can be the same with that Church which holds as an article of religion that the civil magistrates have no authority in spiritual causes? In the eighth article of the English confession of faith it is declared that 66 the three creeds, Nicene creed, Athanasius' creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of scripture." But the eighth article of the American Epis copal confession, evidently copied therefrom, purposely omits the Athanasian creed. It declares that "the Nicene creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of scripture." One, therefore, of the symbols of faith in the English Church-one which it declares ought thoroughly to be received and believed is wholly thrown aside by the American Church. In the catechism, contained in the English book of Common Prayer, the doctrine of the Church with respect to the Lord's supper is laid down in the form of questions and answers thus: "Question. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's supper? Answer. Bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received. Question. What is the inward part or thing signified? Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper." In the catechism contained in the American book of Common Prayer, the answer to the first question is the same, but the answer to the second and only important question, most materially modifies the doctrine, thus: "Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper." There is an essential difference in the rites commanded to be observed. In the English book of Common Prayer it is directed in the visitation of the sick as follows: "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort. Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thy offences, and by his authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen!" In the American book of Common Prayer, there is to be found no injunction for a special confession of sins, and no absolution directed to be pronounced as of 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? 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 re 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 officiatingsisting temptation become more firmly esclergyman, 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 many 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. tablished 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 the reformation, it is the glory of the Catholic clergy in the United States to Coincide perfectly with them and with their successors on the other side of the Atlantic; because, as we have before observed, the doctrine and worship of the Catholic Church have never varied. 5. We have now reached the last inconsistency that was imputed to Bishop Whittingham, and which consisted on the one hand in advocating an authority in the minister to teach the people, and on the other in leaving that teaching to the final judgment of his hearers. In endeavoring to repel this charge the bishop has been as unsuccessful as in his other attempts at explanation. He accuses us of having miscited his words, and then entering upon distinctions which are rather difficult of comprehension, he tells us that the people. are judges, "whether they, each one as he is to give account of himself to God, are to receive certain portions of his (the minister's) teaching as that of Christ." Afterwards he remarks: "many things a pastor may teach which his people are not bound to receive as the voice of Christ. But they are bound, at their soul's peril, to reject nothing for which the Bible rightly interpreted, is his warrant. Rightly interpreted the Bible can only be, in and by the Church."* Whatever may be thought by others of this solution of the difficulty, we must acknowledge for our part that we do not understand it, and we shall briefly mention our objections. 1. Bishop Whittingham admits that the people are to judge whether they should receive certain portions of the pastor's teaching as that of Christ, and are bound to reject nothing for which the Bible is his warrant. Now, we ask, how are they to judge of this, unless by comparing the teaching of the pastor with the teaching of the Bible? and if they have the right, as the bishop says, to institute this inquiry for the satisfaction of their minds, what becomes of the pastor's authority as a representative of Christ? But he will, perhaps, inform us, that the Church has settled the meaning of Priesthood, &c. second edition, p. 27, note. the scriptures, and the people may judge of the pastor's orthodoxy by comparing it with the doctrine of the Church. Where will they find this doctrine of their Church? We have already observed that the sense of the thirty-nine articles has never been determined, and that to this day they are explained in at least four different ways. We know that in the Protestant Episcopal Church the office of bishop is considered by some an essential order of the priesthood, while among others it is looked upon as a distinction, unnecessary for communion with the Church of Christ. We know that the book of Common Prayer authorizes the people, in the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, the most venerable formula of Christian faith, to modify one of its articles, or even to omit it altogether. Even were the teaching of the Church well ascertained, we contend that it is incapable of setting the mind of the people at rest upon the subject of religion, because the Protestant Episcopalian believes that the decision of no pastor or bishop, nor of all the pastors or bishops collectively, can determine with certainty the meaning of the Bible, and consequently, when the people hear the doctrinal expositions of their pastor, even if they are assured that his teaching is in accordance with that of their Church, they are still in a state of uncertainty whether the doctrine proposed to them is true or false. The charge, therefore, which we brought against the bishop of having asserted a contradiction remains in all its force. He recommends a pastor to the people as the representative of Christ, and enjoins upon them to hear him as they would hear his Master, and at the same time he assures us that they are "judges whether they are to receive certain portions of his teaching as that of Christ." He again affirms that the people are bound to reject nothing for which the Bible, rightly interpreted, is the pastor's warrant, that the Bible can be rightly interpreted, only in and by the Church, and at the same time he allows the people to believe that their Church * See Westminster Review, No. 130, American edition. + Bishop Johns' Farewell Sermon. Book of Common Prayer, p. 25, Phil. edit. is fallible, that it may lead them into error, and, therefore, that its interpretations of the scripture may be erroneous, while their own individual interpretation may be correct. The reflecting Christian will perceive the vast difference between this inconsistent view and the Catholic principle. The Catholic believes that his Church is infallible in its decisions, and when the pastor is in communion with this Church, he bows assent to an infallible authority, rendered such by the promise of Christ that the gates of hell "will never prevail against his Church, and that he himself will abide with it forever." Here we discover a real and true freedom of the mind, a consistency which places the Christian at rest by an adherence to incontrovertible principles; but that a Protestant Episcopalian bishop who believes his Church to be fallible, should call himself a representative of Christ in the office of teaching, and assert that the Bible can only be rightly interpreted in and by the Church, is a contradictory assumption which at once convicts him of what he alleges against the Catholic Church, a disposition to bind the intellect of the laity. W. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN. TRANSLATED FROM A RECENT PASTORAL LETTER OF CARDINAL DE BONALD. HEN the Christian religion came forth on Calvary from the blood of Jesus Christ, she appeared in the world with an aspect as austere as her language; and, daughter of the man of sorrows, she received for her inheritance but a crown of thorns; her hands bore no other sceptre than the cross. But this stern appearance would have been too terrible if the Saviour had not given to religion, from her cradle, a companion whose mildness would temper her severity, whose charms would lead us to forget the rigor of her laws, and to support the heaviness of her yoke. This companion, my dear brethren, was the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. United by the bonds of a common origin and the same vocation, these two sisters, joining hands, descended together from the holy mountain, to devote themselves to the conquest of souls. From that time, wherever the standard of salvation has been planted, the ensigns of Mary have been unfolded. Jesus in taking possession of a heart, made his mother reign there with him, and these two sacred names have become inseparable on the lips of a Christian, as they are in the highest heavens, in the canticles of the angels. The history of our Church will bear testimony to what I say. When in the first days of Christianity, bishops came from the east to instruct your fathers in the faith and traditions of the apostles, were not the shores of your rivers, in receiving that precious deposit, hallowed with the devotion to the mother of God? Was it not in the catacombs of Gallic Rome that the first altar was raised in honor of the queen of angels? Did not the echoes of your hills first repeat that invocation, by which the glorious Irenæus saluted Mary as the advocate of sinners? Yes, it was amid the flames of persecution, amid burning piles and torturing racks, that this consoling devotion was established, which has been faithfully transmitted in this diocess through the lapse of ages; and the eloquent appeals of your martyred pontiff's from that time planted in the hearts of the people the germ of that confidence in Mary, which has been so happily developed, and to which the inhabitants of this country have so often been and will hereafter perhaps be often indebted for their safety during the most trying evils. Ah! permit me to say, beloved brethren, at the beginning of a season which seems to menace us with additional sufferings, permit me to say that devotion to Mary is a consolation, and a hope for the afflicted. Permit me to revive, by the most pious and solemn demonstrations, that worship which aided our ancestors to support the most painful adversities. Will we not turn our grateful looks towards that celebrated sanctuary, where a tender mother watches so lovingly over her cherished family, where reigns the powerful queen whose hand opposed a dike to the impetuosity of the waves, and arrested in its angry mission that mysterious disease which would have traversed your city, only to levy among all classes and all ages, a frightful tribute of blood and tears? Devotion to the immaculate Virgin, seems to have been principally established in favor of the unfortunate, and for the purpose of sweetening the bitterness of adversity; because this devotion has for its object the most afflicted of mothers, the mother of grief. The Christian can express to her no pains that she has not experienced, he can relate to her no misfortune that has not been surpassed in the sufferings of her life; he cannot pour into her bosom the troubles that oppress him, without an assurance from her, that no afflictions have ever been like unto her afflictions; and if she has been raised to the summit of glory, it was only after having been plunged into an ocean of sorrow. Why is the devotion to Mary propagated at the present day with so much pomp and rapidity? Why those fervent invocations of the faithful to the immaculate heart of Mary, and that continual recourse to her powerful intercession? The true Catholic, as it were, no longer prays to Jesus except through the instrumentality of Mary; there are no festivals for them without her; it would almost appear that without her there is no hope for them. Her name is incessantly on their lips, and her image is engraved upon every heart. The Church, far from opposing, encourages these raptures of piety, and from his agitated bark, Peter turns his eyes continually upon the Ocean's Star. It would seem that God had confided to his mother the exercise of his almighty power, and that the hands of this pure Virgin could alone dispense to Jew and Gentile the rays of truth and the waters of grace. There is no doubt, beloved brethren, that because we have reached the unhappy times in which we live, the Holy Ghost who will assist the Church until the consummation of ages, has rekindled among the faithful a lively confidence in Mary, and propagated under a thousand different forms, and as many various denominations, the devotion to this queen of angels. Does it not pertain to the economy of his providential care for the Church, to dispense his assistance the more abundantly, as the dangers that beset her in her passage through the world are more numerous? At the appearance of a new enemy, has she not always received from Christ her spouse an additional armor for the conflict? When we cast our eyes abroad to look for that progress in well-being, that is proclaimed with so much eloquence by the writers of our age, we witness only a more scandalous profanation of the Lord's day, a more revolting licentiousness in literature and the arts; an increasing boldness of that doctrine which has ceased to be Catholic, and can scarcely be called Christian; a cupidity which absorbs the soul of man, or an egotism which chills the heart. In our eyes these are the baneful causes which heap upon our heads the burning coals of the divine anger, and which produce in the depths of society those moaning sounds, the forerunners of the volcanic eruption. But where is the intercession sufficiently powerful to avert the anger of heaven? Who will protect us against the blow which we have merited? Nothing less efficient is required, beloved brethren, to implore our pardon, than the voice which so often commanded the master of the universe when he had become for us an humble and a little child. The arms which so often carried the ruler of the earth, when become the servant of us all, must snatch the thunder from the hands of an irritated God; and the heart which gave to the humanity of the word that precious blood shed on Calvary, will move the heart of our indignant Father. It is enough to tell you, that in these days of confusion and indifference we need the powerful Virgin for our advocate and support! Behold how the Spirit of God, who |