ter is not, as some badly think, the foundation of the whole Church; because other foundation can no man lay excepting that which is laid, which is CHRIST JESUS."* This last expression, "For Peter was not, AS SOME BADLY THINK, the foundation of the whole Church, since other foundation can no man lay, &c., 1 Cor. iii, 11," clearly shows the period in which the modern Romar interpretation was introduced. That "BAD OPINION" which Dr. Kenrick and his brethren hold, was held only by some in the days of Paschasius, or the middle of the ninth century!

Dupin quotes Peter of Blois, the inventer of the word Transubstantiation, who died a. D. 1200 and others too numerous to mention, as holding the same opinion with Bede. The "bad opinion" had not gained exclusive possession of the Latin Church even so late as the thirteenth century; and we might even show from the works of John Gerson, called "the most Christian Doctor, and the great light of France and of the Church in the fifteenth century," that the extravagant doctrine of St. Peter's Primacy, maintained by Dr. Kenrick, can not be traced higher as an Article of Faith, than to the Council of Trent itself.

We think, therefore, and we trust our readers will think, that we have good reason in saying of the modern Roman interpretation of St. Matt. xvi, 13-20, that it has neither Antiquity, nor Universality, nor Consent. What Consent is there, when at least four interpretations have been maintained? What Universality is there, when some maintained that the rock was Peter; others that the rock was CHRIST; others that it was the confession of CHRIST as co-equal and consubstantial with the Father; and others, reversing the modern proposition, that it was the Church itself which was called Peter, and not Peter who was called the Church? What Antiquity is there, when so late as A. D. 400, St. Augustine thought each opinion a moot point, whether St. Peter was personally honored for his firmness, or whether in figure he represented the person of the Church founded upon CHRIST the rock? Yet of what avail are our proofs as far as Dr. Kenrick and his brethren are concerned? What hope can we have of a man who can coolly speak of "Isaac Barrow as a good mathematician but bad divine," and quote with applause, a few pages after, such a writer as Henry Major?

* S. Paschasii Ratberti Opera, Paris, 1618, fol. 671. "Quia tu es Petrus, quod à petra derivetum est nomen, id est à me super quem ædificatur omnis ecclesia. Non enim UT QUIDAM MALE PUTANT, Petrus fundamentum totius ecclesiæ est, 'Quia fundamentum nemo aliud potest ponere, præter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus.'"

p.

We should far exceed our limits were we to notice the unfair and most dishonest representations of the Church of England and her learned divines and historians, in his sixteenth chapter, 249-267. We may have occasion hereafter to expose them. At present we will content ourselves with assuring our readers that this chapter is like the rest of his book, a mere tissue of plausible perversions of testimony, such as an ingenious barrister might weave, who wishes, in behalf of his client, to make "the worse appear the better reason." By whatever name he chooses to call us of the Protestant Episcopal Church, whether Anglicans or Episcopalians, or any other party and sectarian appellation, we are truly the Catholic Church sojourning, to use the ancient phrase, in the British dominions and the United States of America. Holding the Apostolic Succession, and the Catholic faith pure and undefiled, CHRIST the rock, as co-equal and consubstantial with the Father, ours is the Apostolic fellowship. Ours is the mission from CHRIST to bring into the Church, which is the fold, and to feed, the sheep of our Divine Master, the great Shepherd. What right has the Roman Pontiff to send his emissaries here? St. Peter had no such right over the other Apostles. If he had, the Roman Pontiff is not his successor; for there is no proof that he was ever Bishop of Rome. The domination of Rome was the result of political intrigues and commotion. It proceeded from the sinful struggle for pre-eminence between the two capitals of the Roman Empire. If it had aught of authority within the bounds of that Empire, it had none over Britain and Ireland, which were separated from the Empire before any Patriarchal authority was conceded to the Bishop of Rome. If it had no authority over Britain and Ireland, much less can it have authority over the United States of America, or any of the British Colonies. The Roman Bishops are heretical intruders into the mission of the Catholic Bishops. The laity in communion with them, though members of the Catholic Church by baptism, hold to an unlawful Priesthood, and so are partakers with them in their idolatry, heresy and schism. What shall we say of those who have unhappily abandoned the Catholic Church and gone over to the Roman schism? They, alas! are guilty of a sacrilege from which the laity of the Roman Communion generally are exempt. They have sinned against light and knowledge. among them especially, who have received the sacred inves titure of the Priesthood, are in a state of fearful apostacy. We weep for them, while we commend them to God's mercy. "LORD JESUS! lay not this sin to their charge." "Father! forgive them; for thev know not what they do!"

Those

BISHOP HORNE'S WORKS.

ART. II.-The Works of the Rt. Rev. George Horne, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich; to which are prefixed Memoirs of his Life, Studies and Writings. By WILLIAM JONES, M. A., F. R. S., one of His Lordship's Chaplains, and long his most intimate and confidential friend. New York: Stanford & Swords, 2 vols. 8vo. 1848.

AMONG the remarkable periods of the Christian Era, the eighteenth century is by no means the least notable. To biographers and annalists of every class, and to the student of history, ecclesiastical or secular, it opens a wide field of observation. It was an age fruitful in grand schemes and momentous movements, as well as great names and mighty minds. It was distinguished alike by the discovery or evolution of efficacious social principles, and by the application of those principles, developing the resources and advancing the interests of mankind.

Many of the changes of that eventful period have been attended already by marked results, easily traced to certain causes. But the full tendency and ultimate issues of many of those changes are, as yet, in the dark womb of the future. The most candid and skillful collator of facts can not yet bring out the various objects of those sketches in a perfect picture, as the true image of a portion of the entire past; a portraiture fully conformed to the rigid standard established by the test of ages; and fit for a permanent place in the archives of the world. All that any can now do towards accomplishing this great end of historic care, is comparatively little. It is to consider in a cautious manner all the bearings and relations of prominent events; to suggest frankly any modifications required in the glaring colors and deep shadows, here and there given by the rapid, bold strokes of partial delineators: and to bring into some due prominence characters and influences hitherto overlooked. Thus far, may all who have opportunity safely do whatever is within their capacity, to supply the first sketches of biographers and annalists with the various shades and tints of a more complete representation.

These remarks are applicable to every class of subjects and

characters with which the history of the human race is concerned; to politics, philosophy, military achievements, the useful and the fine arts, and above all, to the greatest object of intellectual effort, theological truth. Their application is more important, if not more obvious, with respect to this, than either of the other objects of historic care. It may be fitly illustrated by a brief view of some striking features in the ecclesiastical history of the eighteenth century, and the consequent state of religion in the nineteenth; such a view as is naturally suggested by the name and works of Bishop Horne.

We assume then, here, the truth of the common observation, that the farther we are removed from the antipathies or prepossessions of the period in which a man of literary eminence lived, the more exact is our judgment of his moral character and intellectual achievements. This observation we might illustrate by a comparison of good Bishop Horne with some of the more celebrated of his cotemporaries; for example, with those earnest propagators of diverse refinements on the simple theology of the New Testament, Wesley and Whitfield on the one hand, or with their extreme opposer, Warburton, on the other. We might show how those sticklers for new views, under the much abused phrase, "doctrines of grace," unlike our truly evangelical interpreter of holy David's Gospel, actually, in the real influence of their views upon their disciples generally, met their most violent opposer with perfect, though not cordial agreement, in the extremes of theoretical depreciation and practical disregard of the Old Testament; considered as an essential part of the Divine manifestation of the everlasting gospel, which was " preached before to Abraham."* Nor would a thorough comparison of the spiritually wise expounder of the Psalms with the mentally gigantic author of the Divine Legation of Moses, be altogether out of place in this review. But we shall only attempt here to illustrate briefly, by the other comparison sug gested, the superior influence of those views of divine truth, to the elucidation of which the great commentator on the Psalms lent the best part of his laborious and devotional life.

The permanent power of such views of Scriptural truth, then, deserves to be clearly distinguished from the comparatively ephemeral efficacy of efforts like those of Whitfield and Wesley. Not only were those remarkable men too ready to lay the foundation of their usefulness in an almost unprecedented amount of preaching in divers places and

* Galatians iii, 8.

countries, but still more were they too ready to rely largely upon the frequent repetition of exciting discourses, based chiefly upon their earnest controversies with each other, concerning the speculative questions, presented by the Calvinistic and Arminian systems of metaphysics; systems, which had been better left by them, as ministers of the Church of England, where, in the language of Archbishop Whately, "the Bible hath left the abstract metaphysical questions of fate and free-will, exactly as it found them, undecided and untouched." Zealous and laborious preachers, men of no mean mental abilities, confessedly unsurpassed by any of their followers in the religious communities which they originated, Wesley and Whitfield had been, like many who still occupy the first rank among all the great men of Puritanism, nurtured in the Church of England, fed at its board, and invigorated from its fountains, until their religious character had reached its maturity, and been fully formed and settled, as to its practical type and tone. But in their hazardous career of ecclesiastical agitation, they were strangely misled by their partialities towards the two extremes of the diverse systems of opinion, tolerated in that Church, with respect to metaphysical questions, not essentially involved in any doctrines of Scriptural Christianity. Magnifying, therefore, the opinions which they thus respectively espoused, they unwittingly alienated their disciples, on the one hand and on the other, from the venerable Church, to which, on their own part, they professed a cordial attachment to the end of their lives. And still more they alienated the stedfast members of that Church from themselves, and from their successors in the schemes of religious instruction which they set on foot. But it is not in the whirlwind of great awakenings, produced by distorted or partial views of revealed truth, though it be "a great and strong wind, rending the mountains and breaking in pieces the rocks before the LORD," that the presence and power of GoD are most truly manifested to promote "the perpetual fear and love of his holy name." Much less is it in such religious commotions as demolish some of the essentials of Apostolic order in ecclesiastical organization, that the elements of spiritual progress are to be found by any class of Christians. Nor yet is it in fierce polemical discussion, which raged with much violence in the last century, especially among the advocates of those new views to which we have alluded, that the pure substance of sound doctrine is to be sought

* Whately on St. Paul, P. E. Press ed. p. 71.