hoped to obtain from me. This circumstance I little regretted, their manners and conversation being the reverse of interesting. It must not, however, be supposed, that, even with respect to the women, matters went on invariably in a smooth and satisfactory manner. The following little anecdote will show what slight dependence can be placed upon them, and how disposed they are at all times to take part in what is grotesque and malicious. One day they arrived, attended by a Gipsy jockey whom I had never previously seen. We had scarcely been seated a minute, when this fellow rising took me to the window, and without any preamble or circumlocution, said- Don Jorge, you shall lend me two barias' (ounces of gold). Not to your whole race, my excellent friend" (we fear that there was, here, a little of the 'wolf' and the horse flesh '), said I, are you frantic? Sit down and be discreet.' He obeyed me literally, sat down, and when the rest departed, followed with them. We did not invariably meet at my own house, but occasionally at one in a street inhabited by Gipsies. On the appointed day I went to this house, where I found the women assembled; the jockey was also present. On seeing me he advanced, again took me aside, and again said, "Don Jorge, you shall lend me two barias." I made him no answer, but at once entered on the subject which brought me thither. I spoke for some time in Spanish; I chose for the theme of my discourse, the situation of the Hebrews in Egypt, and pointed out its similarity to that of the Gitános in Spain. I spoke of the power of God, manifested in preserving both as separate and distinct people among the nations until the present day. I warmed with my subject. I subsequently produced a manuscript book, from which I read a portion of Scripture, and the Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed in Rommany. When I had concluded I looked around me. The features of the assembly were twisted, and the eyes of all turned upon me with a frightful squint; not an individual present but squinted-the genteel Pépa, the good-humored Chicharona, the Casdamí, &c. &c., all squinted. The Gipsy fellow, the contriver of the búrla, squinted worst of all. Such are Gipsies."—Vol. i, p. 321. We admire the candor of these disclosures. There is enough in them to make us regret that Mr. Borrow should have wasted in pestilent polemics, what would have made him famous as an observer and a humorist. We sincerely wish him better fortune, should he hereafter cease to mistake his roaming propensities (as we have hinted), for missionary zeal, and make up his mind patiently to delve in his own weedy vineyard. We will not forestall the further views which we shall feel ourselves compelled to express in regard to Mr. Borrow, when we shall have come to his "Bible in Spain." The evils which flow from books of this sort are too obvious to require much comment. There are some strangely deluded people, who think that the whole duty of man consists, the one half in a holy horror of their neighbors' faith-the remainder in constantly giving that horror expression. This class, we hope, nay, we are sure, is gradually diminishing in our country, and must become less and less, as we slowly extricate ourselves from our ancient blind adherence to every thing-moral, political, philosophical, and religious-which we find in English books. The Athenian sophists, it is said, could not conduct a law-suit for the loss of a sucking pig, without introducing Marathon and Salamis.* It is just as impossible for English writers of Mr. Borrow's caste (and to that caste the majority belong) to believe that truth is truth, and to admit that they tell it of a Catholic people, without introducing the Inquisition and the horned beast of the Apocalypse. What has "Popery" to do with chiromancy? What relation between Torquemada and Moncada, and the wild horse-thieves of Roma? How is it possible that we shall ever see that mutual understanding and affection generated among nations, which it is alike the effort of civilization and Christianity to produce, if books of travel are to be thus tainted with fanaticism, and every little tourist is to read and determine na * Sewell's Plato, p. 167. tional character, not by the unerring test of truth and candor, but according to the notions which he may draw from his own budget of locomotive theology? How can the jewel be found at the bottom of the well, if men like Mr. Borrow will be forever muddying the waters? It is strange that authors themselves should not see the impolicy of all this to say nothing of its criminality. A few kindred spirits may go hand in hand with them for a time, but will any sensible man regard their partisan pages with confidence? When the fever of sympathetic passion shall have grown cool, will posterity set its seal upon volumes, as classics of the language, when their authority as to facts and principles is utterly destroyed, by distortions naked upon every page? We should think that experience might be safely consulted for an answer to these questions. But alas! we fear that her wisdom will be of little avail, until weak heads and bad hearts shall have become more rare,-until bad education shall have ceased to pervert the better part of our nature, and interest shall have forgotten to corrupt the little that ignorance, malice, and perversion may have left unpolluted? "A THE EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH A MODERN SECT. T the period of the reformation," says Dr. Hook," when Cranmer and Ridley flourished, there was a Church existing and established in England, and, as archbishop of that Church, Cranmer, our celebrated reformer, was consecrated. That Church had existed, as all parties admit, from the first planting of Christianity in England." Very good, doctor. But let us take the tail of the quotation first, and then the head, and see if he does not bite his tail, devour his own body, and then hatch a new progeny under his own ermine and that of the royal mantle. But first, may I not ask you, doctor, what difference was there, in genus or in right, between the reformer, Cranmer, and the reformers, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza or Knox? You repudiate these, just as if they had not as much right to be reformers of the different Churches, as Cranmer had of the ancient Church of this realm. You do well, however, to speak of Cranmer and Ridley only, for these seem to have been almost the only cogs in the wheel moved by the royal hand. The historians of those times tell us, that when the new worship was concocted by Cranmer, out of eighteen bishops eight were opposed to it totally, and only four gave it their cordial sanction. I will here present to the reader an account of this affair, drawn up by a gentleman of great learning, talent, and research, which has just fallen under my notice. "The committee originally consisted of eighteen bishops, besides inferior clergy; eight of that number were against the book in the house of lords (vide Lords' Journals, 331). The archbishop of York, the bishops of London, Durham, and some others, refused to co-operate with Cranmer when his intentions became more apparent (Soames, iii, 354). Day, of Chichester, would by no means have his hand in the subscription (Heylin's Ref. lxv, 460). He, with the bishops of Hereford and Westminster, protested against the bill when it passed the lords (Strype). Thus it seemed probable that, out of the whole bench of bishops, none remained, in the end, but Cranmer, Godrich, Holbeach, and Ridley, together with a few assistant divines, viz., May, Taylor, Haynes, and Cox (Soames' Hist. Ref. iii, 356). The Bishops Gardiner, Tunstall, and Heath, in every respect Cranmer's equals in learning, and some of the most eminent theologians of the day, had no part in the undertaking, which, like the rest of the changes, was the work of a small knot of discontented, aspiring, and unscrupulous men, who had either fortunes to ac or by others sent by them, such as Joseph of Arimathea, it is equally certain that there is no evidence of the general conversion of that people, and the formal establishment of the Church among them before Eleutherius, the Roman pontiff, sent two missionaries, Fugatius and Damianus, at the request of King Lucius, to convert the British nation (Vide Lingard's Hist. Anglo Sax. Church, pp. 1, 2, 3, with the notes). Now a Church was established in England. But the doctor ought to know that in the year 449, Hengist, the Saxon chief, accepted the invitation of Vortigern to aid him against the Picts and Scots; and that the Saxons, having got a footing in the country, conquered it, drove the Britons out of the country, afterwards called England, into Wales and other parts, and established their own idolatry over this land; and it continued brooding from about the end of the second century to nearly the end of the sixth (596), when Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine and his thirty-nine companions to preach the Gospel to the Anglo-Saxons, in the reign of Ethelbert, who gave them an ancient church of the Britons, dedicated to St. Martyn, in Canterbury, which was the royal city. A year later the king embraced the faith and was baptized. He now gave the missionaries the church of St. Saviour, originally built by the Britons, and removing his royal residence from Canterbury, gave them the city and surrounding country. Here they built a monastery, and their leader, St. Augustine, was consecrated bishop by the archbishop of Arles (in France). As Christianity spread, St. Augustine consecrated bishops, and he became the archbishop of Canterbury, the first of the title and the founder of the En quire, or, like Cranmer, by violating their promise of celibacy, had rendered a secession from the ancient Church an object of personal interest and security. It ought never to be forgotten, that, at a time when to oppose the religious innovations was to run counter to the court, when the court was all-powerful, and these innovations were to the private advantage of all who supported them, only four bishops sanctioned the changes, and of these four, one, at least, had other affections, besides affection to his God, powerfully influencing his opinions and conduct." From this quotation it is evident that the liturgy was not reformed by any thing like a majority of the convocation; the far greater number opposed it in its first stages, and in its last stage, the house of lords; where opposition was known to be useless, and to oppose was likely to entail the highest disapprobation, eight bishops dared to oppose it, and Day of Chichester, and the bishops of Hereford and Westminster entered their protest against it. And when it is recollected that this book, after passing the houses of parliament, and receiving the royal sanction, as a work most godly, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, was found, three years later, so heterodox and imperfect, by the same men, that it was reformed again; and, after this, by Elizabeth; and again by Charles, every thinking man will see the rottenness of the whole reformation throughout; for the reformation of the liturgy was the prototype of the reformation of the Church. I now turn to the point before stated for consideration, viz., Cranmer's devouring his own body, &c. The doctor says, with some truth, that at the time of the reformation there was a Church existing, of which Cranmer had been consecrated archbishop,glish Church. With the conversion of and that this Church had existed from the first planting of Christianity in England. I have said, with some truth, the doctor says this, for it is not altogether correct, nor will all parties acknowledge it to be so. I will sift the passage and give the corn, and scatter the chaff. Certainly there had always been a Church in some part of Britain. Whether the ancient British Church was founded by some of Christ's apostles, England it received the Catholic faith and worship, and was united to the see of Rome as the centre of unity. And the Catholic faith and worship was the same then as now, and the English Church became in all things Catholic, and continued such till the reformation, or deformation. The *They who maintain, that with the progress and duration of the Church the Catholic religion lost its spirit, and the faith its purity, have never duly Church of the ancient Britons still existed; but, as they had (very naturally) a rooted antipathy to the Saxons, they would not submit to the archiepiscopal authority of a Saxon prelate, as ordered by the head of the Church, and thus became broken off from Catholic unity, and the Saxon Church had no connexion with the British, till with the Saxon arms was spread the empire of the Saxon Church. Now the amalgamation takes place, and the distinction is lost in the English Church. Some writers of the present day, more schismatical than wise, pretend to derive the English Church from the ancient Britons; and Dr. Hook mixes them up in a huddled, indiscriminate mass. But they ought to trace their origin either to the British or the Saxon Church-they cannot have it from both. If they choose the British, they must disclaim St. Augustine, and St. David's should be their metropolitan see, and not Canterbury. But they considered our Lord's parable of the leaven among meal. The kingdom of heaven is evidently the Christian Church Catholic; the meal is the human race; the leaven is the truths of the gospel, which are the objects of faith, animated by the Spirit of God. This leaven, which was applied by Christ and his apostles, and at first small and insignificant in the eyes of man, was to operate, by progressive fermentation, till the whole mass was leavened, or is to be leavened. Here we see how the greater part of the world became Christian, and the whole is to become Christian. We see that it is the same leaven at the beginning, and the end of its operation; that it will never be lost or corrupted; that the whole Church was at first, is now, and ever will be, of one faith and one mass-one united whole. Here the unity of the Church, the immutability of her doctrines and spirit, her perpetuity and increase, are clearly described-the parable and the promises of Christ go together to establish this important truth. Hence are two corollaries: 1. When St. Augustine established the Roman religion in England, Rome was held the head of the whole eastern and western Churches, and was of the same faith;-the faith of the whole Christian world was therefore planted in England. England preserved the religion of St. Augustine and of Rome till the reformation. The same leaven operated in the English Church as leavened the rest of the world; and it was therefore a pure leaven, and leavened the whole country. The Church of God was "one bread and all partook of one bread." 2. The leaven of Cranmer was different from the leaven of the whole world, except the other Protestant leaven; nor did these agree together. All Protestant leaven is therefore spurious, and can never leaven the whole world. The leaven of the Church Catholic is heavenly; that of Protestants earthly; it is either frost-bitten, or weak in spirit, or manufactured by the art of man; and therefore we need not wonder that the English Church is a sad loaf of bad bread; it is not able to ferment one batch aright, much less could it leaven the mass of the world in all ages. must then show the chain of succession through the British bishops down to Cranmer, and this they cannot do, and therefore never attempt it. It is the pretended glory of their archbishop that he sits in St. Augustine's seat. And the chain of succession is complete in the Saxon or English Church from St. Augustine down to Cranmer. This was "the Church existing"-the body of which that unworthy prelate was the head (saving the king's supremacy). But what did he do with the body of the Church? Why he devoured it, so that nothing was left of it after his time, and he became the head without any body, or member of the Church Catholic, attached to him. This head laid the eggs of a new progeny with its polluted mouth, for from the mouth proceeded every evil thing. By and by was seen a slender tail, growing from this head, something like the tadpole's tail, and this monstrous head and diminutive tail ruled the rising progeny. If this little tail pleased him, he wagged it, and if it displeased him, he bit it; so that he was lord alone, or subject to none but to the old swollen frog and his hydra master. Thus, reader, was the new religion and new Church severed from the old; but I spare thee the recital of the cuttings, hangings, burnings, embowellings, and tormentings, by which it was accomplished. We now turn to other things. The doctor says Cranmer found that in his time the Pope had usurped an authority and an influence which he did not possess by right. "In his time." What, then, was the Pope's power greater in Cranmer's time than it had ever been? The meerest noodle in history knows better. I suppose by this the doctor means that the Pope had a right to establish the English Church (this, of course, must be granted, or Dr. Hook would not be preacher to the queen, or have any fat livings). But he had no right to exercise any authority over the clergy he sent, or the Church formed; at least it was right for the Pope's authority to cease when king Henry VIII wanted a divorce; and a new clergy wanted institution and induction. Well, be it so; I make my bow. But will the doctor controvert the position, that the bishop of Rome is patriarch of the west, consequently of Britain; and, moreover, holds pontifical authority; and, as such, has the primacy of honor and jurisdiction over the whole Church Catholic? I throw down the gauntlet. If the Pope assumes more than his right, the Catholic people and clergy are free to resist him, and have resisted him; but the question is not about assumptions, but legitimate rights. No one ever denies the Pope's legitimate authority in spirituals over the whole Church Catholic, but he becomes, ipso facto, heretical and schismatical. The doctor now turns to doctrines, and says Archbishop Cranmer found that the ancient Church had become, in certain respects, corrupted, and many practices prevailed, some of them contrary to scripture, and some of them much abused to superstition, such as worshipping of images and saints, and the use of the liturgy in a language not understood by the people. What a clever man Dr. Hook is? He tells us the Church had become, in many respects, corrupted; but he does not tell us what doctrines the Church held that were corrupt: for an example, he goes directly to prove practices; but practices are not doctrines. I dare say if we were to point out certain corrupt practices in his Church, he would answer, that these were no proof of the heterodoxy of the thirty-nine articles. He comes to particulars, however, after playing about the bush a little longer. Some of these practices were contrary to scripture, and some abused to superstition, such as worshipping images and saints, and the liturgy in a language not understood by the people. But he does not tell us which of these were contrary to scripture, and which only abused. Pray, doctor, do give us some clear, definitive classification. I. What do you mean by worshipping images and saints? If you mean adoration given to them as gods, the Catholic Church never taught or practised this in England or any where else, and if Cranmer knew any thing of the religion of which he was so high a minister, he knew this and if his people were not well instructed, he could have seen that they were so, without altering matters of Catholic faith. If you mean by worship, what you must mean when you marry a couple, viz. relative honor, this is neither contrary to scripture, nor superstitious; and if it was, or is, Cranmer did not purge your Church from it, for it was preserved in the first reformation, under Edward, and, as may be proved in numerous instances, is existing in your Church now; and even on this point many of your divines have taught, and now teach, the same. Witness the hymn to the blessed virgin, by Dr. Pusey. The liturgy, in a language not understood by the people, is neither contrary to scripture nor superstitious. St. Paul only prohibits such prayers as are for public edification being said in an unknown tongue without interpretation. It is not necessary that the language of the mass should be in English for public edification. The priest is not addressing the people, but God; he is not performing an office that directly regards them, but Him to whom the sacrifice is offered; and if they join in the intention for which the sacrifice is offered, this is sufficient, and for this purpose any English prayer book adapted to the sacrifice is even better than the mass service translated: in fine, the language used in offering this sacrifice is peculiarly that of the officiator, and no one's else; yet Catholic Church furnishes a translation of the missal to all who desire it, and English missals are in use in all our chapels. But I know many priests who, when they are not the celebrants, prefer any Catholic prayer book to the missal, as more consistent, and even more conducive to private devotion. The doctor ought to know, and does know, for he has been told it, the Hebrew language was used in the Jewish service after the captivity, when the people did not understand it; and our Lord attended that service, and did not condemn it. The ancient Greek is not known even to the common people of Greece, and yet the mass is said in the ancient tongue; and it is said in that tongue throughout the Greek Church, yet the Russians, &c. do not understand it. Your own Church forced the English liturgy on the Irish people, where not one in a hundred understood it. The ancient Separatists brought not this charge against the Latin Church, and nothing but ignorance can now the |