not effected by any appeal to consistency, or by cultivating any thing in the mind of the individual or the system in which he has been trained; it is by detaching him first from the Protestant family or communion; causing him to forget the principles of his early training, and beginning the work with his soul de novo with a view to implanting the principles of the Papacy there as a new thing. The Jesuit missionary finds much on which he can hope to act with success in the forms and ceremonies; the processions, genuflections, bowings, gorgeous vestments and processions; the reverence for sacred orders of men and sacred places; the multitude of festivals and fasts, in the Pagan world, and is always successful there. He finds much, he thinks, in the Episcopal church of the same general description, on which he relies for success, and entertains the hope of ultimate triumph. In other Protestant churches he finds nothing, and entertains Lo hope of success.

Whatever may be thought of these views as matters of speculation, it is certain that in the apprehension of Roman Catholics, and we may add of many sober Protestants, and even in the view of not a few Episcopalians themselves, they are any thing but speculative, and that the present state of things in the Episcopal church is but the fair and inevitable result of certain tendencies in that church

which have always existed there. Puseyism claims, and we think with great show of reason, to be but a development of principles laid down in the Prayer-book. It professes, if we understand it, merely to bring back the church to what it was in the age of Elizabeth, and, so far as we can see, if its aims were accomplished, and Tractarianism were entirely in the ascendency, the church would be no nearer to Rome than Elizabeth, the acknowledged head of the church, and under whose auspices the Episcopal ser

vice received its present form, desired it should be. The argument, to say the least, is to non-Episcopal eyes, strongly on their side; and the full strength of this argument is probably seen by every Jesuit in the world. The hopes of the Papal communion, so far as Protestantism is concerned, are in that church; and the Romanists themselves are not disposed to conceal their exultation.

That the hopes which they cherish are not entirely baseless in regard to the developing tendencies of Episcopacy, must be apparent to any one on the slightest inspection. Ia order to show the tendencies and affinities of Episcopacy, and the exact importance to be attached to the results to which the General Convention came on the subject of Puseyism, we may refer here to a few indisputable facts-showing the 'position' of the Episcopal church, and the ground of the hope cherished by the Romanists.

(a.) The sympathies of Episcopalians, as such, are not at all with any other Protestant denomination. They recognize neither their ministers nor their ordinances; they do not speak of other churches as churches; they dismiss none of their own members to them as churches; they rebaptize those who have been baptized by Protestant hands, or admit their baptism only on the ground that baptism by any man, or even woman, is to be recognized by them, (Bishop Hopkins' Letters, p. 48,)-because in the time of Athanasius, the "baptism of boys in play" was recognized, (pp. 27, 28 ;) because that Augustine held that those "who were separated from the unity of the church might baptize," (p. 35;) because Pope Leo taught that "the baptism of heretics must not be repeated," (p. 39;) and because the venerable Bede taught that "whether a heretic, or a schis matic, or any wicked wretch whatever baptises in the confession of the Holy Trinity, it avails not that he who is

ders, bishops, priests, and deacons, they do not hesitate a moment to acknowledge them as Christian churches, and to treat them as brethren of the same household of faith. "The Rev. Mr. Southgate, who at the recent General Convention, was appointed Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church in the dominion and dependencies of the Sultan of Turkey,' when at Constantinople, was so scrupulous on this point, that he could do nothing which even by implication would recognize our missionaries as ministers of Christ, though he could not deny to them the possession of great purity both of faith and piety. But in a lecture delivered by him after his return to this country, he took the opportunity of claiming, that the seven millions of Greek Christians, the five millions of Armenians, together with all the remaining sects of native Eastern churches, estimated at some three millions more, were 'venerable branches of the one great Catholic vine.' 'All these churches,' he remarked, are in the truest sense of the term, apostolic in their origin.' 'They are churchmen-and churchmen, too, of a very decided stamp. They have the three sacred orders of the ministry, the sacraments, the creeds, a common prayer, festivals, and fasts, and whatever else goes to make up the acknowledged institu tions of a church of Christ.'

666

6

They are churchmen;' and of course they are to be owned as brethren. If they are churchmen, that is enough. It is no matter whether they are Christians or not. They may be perfectly destitute of vital godliness, may worship pictures,' have an excessive reverence for relics,' be addicted to the invocation of saints, especially of the Blessed Virgin;' their great internal defect' may be the want of a just appreciation of the doctrine of justification by faith, which lies at the root and basis of all sound theology,' and they may be especially

deficient in a sense of the real, intimate, spiritual, and vital union of the believer with Christ,' or in other words, be in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity,' and yet they are welcomed as sister churches in Christ! And this Mr. Southgate, who can find nothing, among the fifteen millions of American Christians, out of the pale of his own church and of the Papal, that goes to make up the acknowledged institutions of a church of Christ,' and yet finds every essential among the fifteen millions of native Eastern Christians,' who, to all intents and purposes, are as far from Christ, and as much his enemies, as the very heathen-this Mr. Southgate is honored with the prelacy, and sent to these sister churches to recognize them as true churches of Christ, while such a recognition is denied to almost the entire body of evangelical Christians at home!"'* In these sympathies there is strong ground for encouragement to the Roman Catholics. Whatever, hope the Papist may have from the Greek or the Nestorian communions, it is

* We are happy to perceive that the fact which we are now adverting to, is beginning to trouble the consciences of some of the Episcopalians themselves. Bishop Hopkins of Vermont, in a letter recently published respecting the appointment of Mr. Southgate as Bishop of Tur key, says:

I have been obliged to express, in the plainest terms, my entire dissent from the appointment of the foreign Missionary Bishop of Constantinople, and can not allow that he is sent forth to do apostolic work' at all, for the simple reason that I do not believe the Apostles would have connived, or appeared to connive, at the corruptions of the Greek and other Orien tal churches, in the face of the people, under the vague and delusive hope of converting the priesthood, en masse, by friendly private conversations at some future day. Neither can I admit that such a mission is within the proper scope, either of our service for the consecration of bishops, or of the missionary work itself. Indeed, I consider it as perfectly sui gene ris, altogether visionary and impracticable, and totally without precedent or parallel in the whole history of the church."

obvious that his hope of success among Protestants rests with Episcopalians. In the great matters which in their view constitute a church, they stand aloof from all other Protestants; but they find ample evidence that, whatever it may be, exists in the Roman communion. There is a ministry, and there are valid sacraments, and there is the true succession, and in that communion there is all that constitutes a true church; in the Protestant denominations there is nothing.

(e.) It may be adverted to, also, that in the apprehension of most Protestants who are not of the Episcopal church, there are many things in their mode of worship, and in their Prayer-book, which have a stronger affinity for the Roman Catholic religion than for Protestantism. Their forms and ceremonies; the cross in baptism, and bowing at the of Jesus; the changes of vestments in the clergy; the days observed in commemoration of the virtues of the saints; the ceremonies to commemorate the birth, the passion, and the resurrection of the Savior; the observance of the season of Lent, all had their origin in the bosom of the Roman Catholic church, and all are consistent with the views held there; but inconsistent with those which constitute the essence of Protestantism. But be sides these external things, there are certain internal matters in the Prayer-book, which have remained there since the days of Elizabeth as a germ of evil, and which have been from time to time developing them selves in various approximations to the Papacy. Recently those things have developed themselves in the form of Puseyism or Tractarianism, and have caused, under the gifted men of Oxford, the gigantic stride which the Episcopal church has recently made towards Rome. On this point we expressed the views which we, in common with many others, entertain, in our article on Vol. III.

45

the "Position of the Evangelical party in the Episcopal church," in Vol. II, pp. 137, 138. Those views substantially are, that the form of religion known as Puseyism is but a development of certain things found in the Prayer-book; that there are views expressed there in relation to baptismal regeneration, to the efficacy of the sacraments, the real presence, the intermediate state, the veneration of the saints, the appointment of festival days in commemoration of their virtues, the sign of the cross, the holiness of the church and the altar, and the sacredness of the consecrated burying place, which are part and parcel of Romanism, and not of the religion of the New Testament. So far as we can understand the matter, the views of Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey are, in the main, but a fair development of the principles laid down in these parts of the Prayer-book, and a man who should with a consistent logic and life carry them out, would find himself in the position which the true Episcopalian occupied in the days of Elizabeth, and not far from the gates of the Eternal city.

It is these things which give the Episcopal church so much importance in the view of the friends of evangelical religion. It is not their numbers, their wealth, their learning, or their increase for in these things they have no eminence above their brethren, but it is because there is in that church the only tendency existing in the Protestant denominations to that system from which the true people of God under Luther, and Calvin, and Zuingle, and Knox, and Cranmer, separated; because there are strong affinities for that system still; because there are developments of alarming character which we think grow out of the unreformed portions of the Liturgy; and because the hopes of the Papacy, so far as the Protestant world is concerned, center

To this development of the natural tendency of Episcopacy as it has come down to us, the attention of the world has been recently directed in a remarkable manner. By a silent and most skillful movement; a movement conducted with much talent and learning, the way had been prepared at the seat of one of the most ancient universities under the patronage of the Episcopal church, to express more openly the affinity for the Romish doctrines, and to bring the modern Episcopal church back to what it was in the days of Elizabeth. This movement had every conceivable claim to public attention. It began at one of the centers of influence in the Episcopal church. It was conducted under the auspices of men of acknowledged learning and talent. Its promoters were apparently men of much and humble piety; men whose lives were blameless; men who were stanch friends as was understood of the Episcopal church; men who had carefully and profoundly studied the whole subject. They were men whom from their talents, and learning, and position, it would not do to overlook or despise. But most of all, they were formidable to the Episcopal church from the evident truth which was on their side in the argument. They professed nothing new. They did not claim to be reformers, or wish to modify any thing in the Articles or the Liturgy. They sought to introduce no new doctrine, and called in question nothing in the order or offices of the Episcopal church. They claimed only that their labors tended to bring the Episcopal church back to what it was in its purer days, and to revive the memory of obsolete rites, and to give the original significancy to expressions and customs as they found them in the Prayer-book. What they asserted would be done if their labors were successful was, that the church would be what it was contemplated it should be when the

Prayer-book received its permanent and fixed form after the several revisions which it had undergone in the times of Edward VI, and Elizabeth. There are two distinct elements in the Prayer-book, which can never be made to harmonize, and which will always give rise to contentions and parties in the Episcopal church. There is the Protestant element expressed in its Articles, in which it harmonized with Calvin, whose very words are employed in some of the Articles ; and there is the anti-Protestant element, retained in its forms of worship; its fasts and festivals; its days in honor of the saints; its changes of vestments; its view of the eucharist, and especially in its doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and confirmation. The formerthe Protestant view, is in its Articles, rarely read, and rarely referred to; the latter pervades the book, is brought forward at every public service, and is particularly evinced at every administration of the ordinances of religion. Now the difficulty with the Oxford scholars was, that they deliberately and learnedly went to work to develop this antiProtestant element which pervades the Prayer-book, and which has always so fettered the movements, and hindered the progress of the evangelical party in that church, and which, whenever an evangelical party has been formed, has ultimately given occasion for a secession, as in the case of the Puritans and the Wesleyans. The Oxford party appealed to the fair interpretation of the language of the Liturgy. They appealed to the writings of the most distinguished of the British reformers. They gave meaning and import to words and phrases which the whole Episcopal church was required to use in its public services. It was undeniable that those who followed their views would tread far back to Rome, and perhaps some who embraced them