the drift of the current, which is now so strongly and manifestly setting toward Rome?

"Quem das finem, rex magne, laborum ?" How determine where to rest? How shall they decide where to fix the landmark? It is not in the Bible alone. It is not in the PrayerBook. It is not in the first two centuries. Some say, with Dr. Jarvis, it is in the middle of the Fifth. Some say it is at the end of the Sixth General Council, or at the end of seven centuries. Others place it at the point of division between the Eastern and Western Churches; which point, again, some assign to the seventh century, others to the ninth. Others still, like Bishop Doane, Mr. Newman, and Dr. Pusey, declare that it embraces the whole eighteen centuries." The Holy Scriptures, as Catholic antiquity has revealed, and as Catholic consent has kept their meaning."*

But suppose the limits finally established, whether it be at two, seven, or nine, or eighteen centuries; then,

II. Who is to declare, or interpret the interpretations of those two, five, seven, or nine, or eighteen centuries? Private judgment, surely, will find it more difficult to interpret those interpretations than the Word of God. Or if the Church is the authoritative interpreter, then who is to declare the interpretation of the Church? Is it the Pope? Councils? Each individual bishop? The bishops of each province or country-so that what is the true interpretation of Catholic antiquity in France, Spain, Austria, and Italy, shall be a false interpretation of the same in these United States? Or if the power of interpreting resides in no particular Pope, or council, or bishop, and in no house of bishops, but in Catholic consent,-who has that consent? Bishop Brownell, in his Charge, says that the creed of his Church expresses its belief in "One Catholic and Apostolic Church," and declares that the expression imports that there is "but one Church." He talks about an "Identity" with this Church. He distinctly recognizes the Roman Church as a part of that one Catholic Church. If, therefore, the Protestant Episcopal and the Roman Churches are equally constituent parts of that one Catholic Church, which party may be presumed to have the "Catholic consent" that constitutes the authoritative interpretation of the interpretation of the two centuries? Does that consent and that right lie with the twenty-one bishops, or with the twenty-one hundred? Does it lie with the little party in England and the United States, setting up their interpretation for three hundred years or does it lie with the great party in Italy, Austria, Ireland, France, Spain, and Portugal, who not only symbolize with the great Eastern Churches in the points on which these differ

* Cited in New Englander, Jan., 1844, p. 70.

from the Protestant Episcopalians in England and the United States, but who hold the doctrines which confessedly prevailed over Europe for a thousand years before the Reformation? On Bishop Brownell's own principles, I do not see why he is not bound to renounce all Protestantism as a wicked schism and heresy, and to hasten back, as fast as he can, to Rome.

There is still another question: How many of these twentyone* American bishops are entitled to a seat in the conclave, which might be supposed to sit in determining the American interpretation of the first two centuries, even if such an interpretation might be supposed to determine the Catholic consent; and it is a difficulty which those who depend upon the valid sacraments of a ministry of the true Apostolical succession, would do well to examine, lest they should find themselves, after all, baptized, confirmed, and fed by hands without any valid authority or efficiency. It is this: It is the undoubted doctrine of all prelatists, that there can be but one bishop having authority in the same territorial diocese at the same time. Now, Popish bishops are regarded by our Protestant Episcopalians as true bishops; and when a presbyter ordained by them enters the Episcopal Church, according to canon, and in actual practice, he is not re-ordained. But on the 6th of October, 1789, Pope Pius VII. erected the United States into a bishopric, and appointed "John Carroll, an ancient Jesuit" (as the record says), its bishop. At this time there was a Protestant Bishop in Connecticut, another in New York, and another in Pennsylvania; but the rest of the ground had no bishop. On the principles of Episcopacy, it was all missionary, or heathen ground. In a National Convention for determining the "Catholic assent," save in these three States, the Protestant Bishops must be regarded as mere usurpers. Is this doubted? Hear, then, authority, which those concerned are not allowed to doubt. Cyprian declares it "contrary to law, for two bishops to preside together in the same city." This also was determined on by the Council of Nice, and became a settled proverb, “ One God, one Christ, one Bishop," two bishops being, as Theodoret testifies, infamous. So that whoever is made a bishop in any given territory after the first, is not a second bishop, but no bishop at all. Let those who have passed under the hands of the Protestant bishops in the vast majority of these United States, take care. What right has Bishop Whittingham in Maryland, where there was even a popish archbishop before him? What right has Bishop Kemper in Missouri? or McCoskry in Michigan? or Smith in Kentucky? or Polk in Louisiana?

*A. D. 1843.

† See Chapin's Primitive Church, dedicated to Bp. Brownell.

It is not for those to gainsay this appointing of a bishop to foreign unoccupied territory, who have so recently made a bishop for Texas.

or Chase in Illinois? Over these fields the Roman bishops had already extended their jurisdiction. The Popish title is, therefore, on the prelatical principle, indefeasible in these dioceses; and all the doings of the Protestant prelates, absolutely void and null; and their voices can weigh nothing in the supposed convention for determining the Catholic consent.

Now I do maintain, in all soberness, that if we are to depend upon Church authority to interpret the interpretations of the first two centuries, we can, with no manner of consistency or reason, stop with Protestant Episcopacy. We cannot linger on the road with Bishops Whittingham and Doane, and the Tractarians. We shall not palter with Romish principles, and still call ourselves Protestant, like the Bishop of Connecticut. We must go directly to Rome, whither these principles inevitably tend.

Waiving all these difficulties, however, and supposing the Prayer-Book of two countries, and of three hundred years-and not the Mass-Books of many countries, for a thousand years-to be the authoritative interpretation of the interpretation of the first two centuries,-then,

III. Even that standard, the Prayer-Book, has proved no ground of quietness and repose, but is even now the ground of turmoil and of war. While all parties praise it, the system of doctrines which the Evangelical and the Puseyistic parties draw from that standard, are fundamentally and irreconcileably opposed. Several of the bishops have denounced the latter scheme as "another Gospel;" while several others as openly avow and as strenuously defend it.* Nothing is more notorious than that the body of the clergy and people of the Episcopal Church no longer hold, but utterly reject some of the doctrines unequivocally set forth in the ThirtyNine Articles. Thus the Seventeenth Article clearly teaches the final perseverance of all the elect: and so it was authoritatively interpreted in the Fifth of the celebrated Lambeth Articles: "The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect, either finally or totally." Such was the doctrine of the Church: yet the Bishop of Connecticut says, in his Charge (p. 22), “The idea of a perseverance in grace is popularly connected with a change of heart; and it is hence inferred, that if a person is regenerated in baptism, his salvation is secured: but the Church holds no such doctrine." "But the grace vouchsafed in baptism may be misimproved and lost." King James not only sent the Lambeth Articles to the Synod of Dort, as the authoritative interpretation of the Church of England, but he declared one who held to the

*See "The Churchman," and "Protestant Churchman." See also Bishop McIlvaine's elaborate and admirable exposure of the Popery of Puseyism; see also the testimony of Dr. Milnor, and of the Bishop of Calcutta.

notion of falling from grace, to be "worthy of the fire." Dr. Wainwright, in his recent letters, earnestly denounces the dogmas of election and reprobation; and declares the Episcopal doctrine to be, "The system of free grace and of salvation within the reach of all" "The gates are continually open to every man," • "to which no man is admitted, and from which no man is excluded, by any unconditional decree of the Almighty." Would any man imagine that Dr. Wainwright belonged to that Church, which puts forth as fundamental in its scheme of faith, these words of the Tenth Article: "The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God." Would any one dream that Dr. Wainwright belonged to that Church, which so absolutely sets forth the doctrine of absolute predestination in its seventeenth Article; and which declares that doctrine to be full of sweet and pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons?" Dr. Wainwright's private judgment will not do here; nor must Bishop Brownell trust his own. Church authoritatively interpreted these Articles, by the Articles of Lambeth; in which she declares, that " God hath from Eternity predestinated certain persons to life; and reprobated certain persons to death." This predestination and reprobation, the Articles make absolute, unconditional, and utterly irreversible.

The

Now all this war of Puseyism and Evangelism-this discordant interpretation of the same standard in different ages, comes most naturally from the setting up of human standards as a safer authority than the Word of God. If the Bible needs interpreting, much more does the Prayer-Book need interpreting. If the first, though the perfect Word of God, affords grounds for difference in the interpretation, how much more must differences arise in interpreting an extended work of poor ignorant and erring man? Thus, while that Church boasts of her stability as possessed of a standard so much safer than the Word of God, she becomes like him of old, of whom it was said, "Unstable as water, he shall not excel." Nor is it possible to fix this floating and Protean standard on the principle of authoritative interpretation. Suppose the next General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church possessed of entire authority, to give a decision. between the conflicting interpretations of Evangelism and Puseyism; suppose their results should be, no commingled and equivocal compromise between the two parties, as it is to be expected, but a plain, straightforward document, intending finally to settle the meaning of the Standards: if that decision shall sustain the Puseyistic views, will the Bishops of Vermont

* The General Convention has met, and this expectation has been fulfilled.

and Ohio conclude to receive that as the true Gospel which they have so earnestly and solemnly declared another Gospel? Or should their views prevail, will Bishops Doane and Whittingham surrender to that, the faith for which they have so strenuously contended as the doctrine of ancient Catholic consent? But suppose the General Convention to agree in a definitive interpretation: Who is to interpret the General Convention? Here is a circuitous way of coming at the standard of faith God has given his pure and perfect Word, by which all things are to be measured, and which is to be measured by none. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book." Is that book, then, the ultimate standard? Is the Bible alone, without note or comment, a "sufficient bond of union and stability?" O no! We are told that we must "add unto" it the interpretation of the "first two centuries!" Unfortunately, at the Reformation, there is a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the first two centuries; and the bishops of a little province set up their interpretations against the bishops of the Catholic World, and against the "Catholic consent" for a thousand years! To what do they appeal? To the Bible alone? Do they then allow the right of private judgment? Alas! the Continental Reformers, says Bishop Brownell, "went to that extreme of rejecting all tradition and Church authority" (and so did the British Reformers too): but now he will have it that the Bible alone is no sufficient standard, nor must private judgment set itself up against the judgments of the Church. Is the little handful of Protestant bishops, for this purpose, the Church? But suppose they are ;they fundamentally disagree. Who is to interpret them? Oh, the General Convention! Who now is to interpret the General Convention? Where, on this principle, is the ground, on which -to adopt the language of Bishop Brownell-" wearied with perpetual agitation and changes," we may "find rest and repose?" Instead of repose, another element of discord is thrown into the hurly-burly, by interposing still another interpretation of an interpretation, which was originally but an interpretation of an interpretation, of the interpretation which the first two centuries gave of the Word of God! The difficulties are multiplied in the duplicate ratio of the number of removes from the original standard; and by what shall we adjust them now? By the Bible? What, by the Bible alone; and by private judgment, without reference to tradition, or the authority of the Church? O no-this is the Puritan ground, which the bishop so earnestly rejects. He must take his choice, then, of the only two alternatives that remain: these difficulties are to be settled either by the infallibility of the Pope; or they are to abide the decision of