probably, in all cases, that the success of such movements was the result that might naturally have been expected from the causes in operation. There are certain states of society in which the public mind is peculiarly open to change. Such is the case after a long period of tranquillity, especially when there has been a previous change. There will be in some minds a dissatisfaction, on various grounds, with the present state of things, which will produce a desire to revert to old forms and institutions, though better may have been substituted for them. There are but few who form their judgement of truth independently of circumstances. Most are influenced by some object they have in view at the time, and a very considerable portion of mankind will always, from various causes, be found ready to fall in with any considerable movement of their day. Such we conceive to have been the case in the Protestant Church at no long period after the Reformation. Many were offended at the number of parties into which the Protestants were divided: they did not recollect, that, when the prison-doors of Rome had been forced open, and its captives released, it was no cause for surprise, if, in their haste to escape, they could not all agree to shape their course in the same direction, even though they might be travelling towards the same country; and that this fact did not diminish the value of liberty, even if some availed themselves of it to their own destruction. Such persons have not been wanting at several periods of the Church since, both in our own country and elsewhere; but hitherto, blessed be God, their efforts here have been unavailing. Our Protestant Church has maintained her ground and her principles against all her foes.

and

We have now arrived, however, at a period in the history of the Protestant Church, in which the Pro-popish party is making a more consistent, determined, and persevering effort than at any former period. The movement, which already assumes a serious and alarming aspect for the interests of truth, originated but a short time since in as small and feeble a beginning as could well be imagined. A few authors, certainly not of the first rank, either in power of mind or learning, and hardly stirring beyond a very limited circle, have contrived, by their publications, to throw the whole Protestant Episcopalian world into confusion; in the minds of a vast number of its members to shake, and in some to overturn, the very foundations of the Protestant faith. And now, turn which way we will, we see more or less the effects of their teaching manifesting themselves, in breaking down the wall of separation that has hitherto parted the doctrines and the worship of the Protestant Church from the corruptions of the Papal apostacy. The results are as remarkable as they were, we believe, unexpected by those who have been the primary causes in producing them. There was, no doubt, in the first instance, to use their own term, a "conspiracy" formed by them to get up an agitation in favour of what have been called "Church principles;" and, unfortunately, either alarmed by the dangers which then hung over the Church, or, led astray by the character of their reading, they undertook the advocacy of principles which, however plausible they

may appear to the natural mind, and likely to advance the cause of religion, are not scriptural principles, and, therefore, can lead only to error, evil, and confusion. They advocated the cause of their own Church by identifying all religion with it; and the cause of its ministers by magnifying them into mediators between God and man, through whose ministrations alone the people could hold communion with Christ, the Head. Commencing with these false principles, which they at once found needed the support of tradition, and must fall without it, they have gone on, as might have been expected, abandoning, one after another, every principle of Protestantism, until they are now panting for reunion with Rome. Almost all the distinctive principles of Protestantism are abandoned, and the distinctive errors of Rome advocated, if not in their full proportions, yet at least in their elements, by the leader of the party; and what is far worse, these errors are, by a sophistical perversion of language, such as can be paralleled only in the writings of the Jesuits, reconciled with the articles and formularies of our Protestant Church.

We cannot but feel that posterity, when reading this page of our history, will be inclined to ask, What were the authorities of the Church about while this movement was going on? What steps did they take to stop it at its commencement? Are we to suppose that men in such a position were not aware of the character and tendencies of such principles as those espoused by the Tractarians, until they had produced practical effects to which they could not shut their eyes? We are reluctant to give the answer which the page of history will certainly record.

But our present object is rather to give the reader some account of the present state of things in our sister Church of America, where the movement that commenced in this country has been making alarming progress. The pamphlets, of which the titles are prefixed to this article, present us with the particulars of a case of ordination in the Diocese of New York, fearfully illustrative of the influence which Tractarian principles have gained over some of the bishops and clergy of the United States.

For the sake of those of our readers who may be unacquainted with the case, we will here give a brief account of it. In June, 1843, a Mr. Arthur Carey, being a candidate for Deacon's orders at the hands of the Protestant bishop of New York, applied to Dr. H. Smith, Rector of St. Peter's Church, New York, for the usual testimonials. Dr. Smith, having heard some reports unfavourable to Mr. Carey's orthodoxy, had a long conversation with him on the subject, the result of which is given in the following statement, drawn up by Dr. Smith, submitted to Mr. Carey, and admitted by him, after the insertion of the part printed in italics, to be correct.

"1. In my conversation with Mr. Carey this afternoon, I understood him substantially to admit to me a conversation reputed to have been held, as leading to the general impression, that if union with the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this country were not

open to him, he might possibly have recourse to the ministry of Romenot without pain or difficulty, but still that he did not see anything to prevent or forbid such an alternative, although he thought it much more likely that he would remain in the communion of our Church; and that he could receive all the decrees of Trent, the damnatory clauses only excepted.

"2. That he did not deem the differences between us and Rome to be such as embraced any points of faith.

"3. That he was not prepared to pronounce the doctrine of transubstantiation an absurd or impossible doctrine; and that he regarded it, as taught within the last hundred years, as possibly meaning no more than what we mean by the real presence, which we most assuredly hold.

"4. That he does not object to the Romish doctrine of purgatory as defined by the Council of Trent, and that he believed that the state into which the soul passed after death, was one in which it grows in grace, and can be benefited by the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the altar.

"5. That he was not prepared to consider the Church of Rome as no longer an integral or pure branch of the Church of Christ; and that he was not prepared to say whether she or the Anglican Church were the more pure: that in some respects she had the advantage-in others, we.

"6. That he regarded the denial of the cup to the laity as a mere matter of discipline, which might occasion grief to him if within her communion, but not as entirely invalidating the administration of the sacrament.

"7. That he admits to have said, or thinks it likely he has said, inasmuch as he so believes, that the Reformation from Rome was an unjustifiable act, and followed by many grievous and lamentable results; he, however, having no question that a reformation was then necessary, and being far also from denying that many good results have followed from it both to us and Rome.

"8. That while generally subscribing to the sixth article, so that he would not rely for proofs to himself or others upon passages from books other than canonical, yet he is not disposed to fault the Church of Rome in annexing others to these, and in pronouncing them all, in a loose sense, Sacred Scripture; nor was he prepared to say that the Holy Spirit did not speak by the books apocryphal. Mr. Carey alleged himself here to have added, that this was the doctrine of the Homily.

"9. Mr. Carey considered the promise of conformity to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church, as not embracing the Thirty-nine Articles in any close and rigid construction of them, but regards them only as affording a sort of general basis of concord-as those which none subscribed, except with certain mental reservations and private exceptions; and that this was what he regarded as Bishop White's view."

Will any of our readers be surprised that, after this declaration of his sentiments, Dr. Smith declined signing his testimonials, and felt it to be his duty to apprise the bishop of his determination, and the grounds of it, having first communicated with Dr. Anthon, Rector of St. Mark's, on the subject, whose opinion entirely coincided with his own. Upon this the bishop appointed Dr. Smith, Dr. Anthon, and six other clergymen of his diocese, to meet him at a certain time and place to examine Mr. Carey. Drs. Smith and Anthon were desirous that, under the circumstances, the whole examination should be conducted in writing. This was refused, and all that could be obtained, after some discussion, was, that any presbyter present was at liberty to put his questions in writing and to take down the answers, and read them to the examined." (Statement, p. 16.) We think that the request of Drs. Smith and Anthon was but a reasonable one. We will not allow ourselves to suppose that there was any improper wish for concealment in the matter on the part of the bishop and his friends; but it seems to us quite clear, that throughout the whole transaction neither the bishop, nor those who went with him, realised the truth of the bishop's responsibility to his Church at large for his public acts. It never seems to have struck them, that Drs. Smith and Anthon had a duty to perform in the matter to their Church as well as to their bishop. They acted throughout as if the bishop was the irresponsible judge in the matter, not answerable to the Church for the views of those whom he ordained; and that, if he was satisfied, it was the duty of the two presbyters who had warned him of the unsoundness of Mr. Carey's views to acquiesce in his judgement and be silent. Now, this being the case, the examination which the two Doctors were invited to institute was a mere nullity. Far better would it have been for the bishop at once to have said, Gentlemen, you have protested against the ordination of this candidate; I will examine him myself, and act as I find his case demands. We can quite believe that the object of the bishop and his friends in objecting to the examination being conducted in writing, and in one of them insisting that, before they separated, even the notes taken should be burned, might be a good one-that is, to preserve the peace of the Church, (which, it was evident, must be disturbed, if an account of their proceedings got abroad,) grounded upon what we must call the false notion of the irresponsibility of the bishop. But Drs. Smith and Anthon took a different view of the case, and we think with justice. They held that a bishop was responsible to the Church for ordaining only such persons, as should be sound in the faith professed by that Church; and that if persons of a contrary description were about to be introduced into its ministry, it was their duty to call the attention of the Church to the fact; and how could the real state of the case be proved so easily or satisfactorily as by having on record the details of the examination? It would have been well for the bishop to have recollected, that, whereas by the laws of the Church it was requisite for him to receive a testimonial from three of his clergy, that the candidate had not held or taught anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church for

the preceding three years, he had at that time received a testimonial from two of the most respectable among them, that the candidate in question had held, and did at that time hold, doctrines contrary to the belief of the Church. We say not, by any means, that such a testimonial was decisive against the ordination; but we do say that, under such circumstances, the bishop should have thrown no impediments in the way of the examination being so conducted that the details of it might have been upon record: for how otherwise can the merits of the case be so well known to those whose duty it is to judge of it? The fact of responsibility on the part of the bishop can hardly be questioned; for, by the fourth Canon of the last General Convention, in 1841, it is provided that "a bishop may be presented to the bishops of this Church by the convention of his diocese for any crime or immorality, for heresy, or for violation of the Constitutions or Canons of this Church, or of the diocese to which he belongs, provided always that two-thirds of each order, clergy and laity, concur in the same. He may also be presented to the bishops by any three bishops."

To return to the narrative. The examination commenced with the following question by Dr. Anthon: "Supposing entrance into the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country were not open to you, would you, or would you not, have recourse in such case to the ministry of the Church of Rome?" Answer: "Possibly I might, after due deliberation; but think that I should more likely remain in our own communion, as I have no special leaning towards the joining of theirs at present."

"Dr. Seabury having objected to this question being put, and having advised the examined not to answer, the right thus to advise was questioned by us, as preventing our arriving at a knowledge of the sentiments actually held by Mr. Carey, and thus defeating the very object of the examination. THE BISHOP DECIDED THAT THE CAN

DIDATE

MIGHT BE ADVISED BY ANY ONE PRESBYTER WHOM HE

MIGHT SELECT. Dr. Smith then asked of the Bishop whether the examined was to be allowed the benefit of counsel? The Bishop did not recede from his decision. Exception was taken to the decision, as sanctioning a mode wholly unprecedented; but the exception was not strongly pressed by us." To which Dr. S. adds in a note, "Here, upon reflection, we are of opinion that a direct protest should have been interposed by us, as, in the entire course of our ministry, of nearly twenty-seven years, we have never known an instance in which this privilege was either asked or accorded." We entirely agree with them in this view of the case. The Bishop's decision appears to us most unwarrantable. The object was fully and clearly to ascertain the state of this young man's mind, and the tenor of his sentiments. Now, the only possible effect which this decision could have was to prevent him from committing himself, and enable him, through the aid of a dexterous controversialist, to evade the force of questions likely to bring out the real state of his mind. The same course was pursued throughout the whole of the examination. Mr. Carey was continually set on