Deacons, and five to that of Priests. Seven of the Deacons and four of the Priests are to be engaged in missionary labors in the Diocese Eight of the Deacons were from the Diocesan Theological College at Cobourg, in which there were lately seventeen students. In the evening service following the Ordination, seventy-five persons received the Rite of Confirmation. On the next day, a deputation from the congregation at Hamilton, waited upon the Bishop with an Address, to which he made an appropriate and beautiful reply. The Church in this large Diocese seems to be infused with fresh life; though, as we judge, it had never to contend with fiercer opposition.

APOSTACY TO ROME.

Two Clergymen of the English Church, of the Diocese of Sydney, New South Wales, have recently joined the Church of Rome. Their Diocesan, Bp. Broughton, says that their only plea for the step, was "their conviction of the necessity of being in communion with what one of them terms the See of St. Peter, and the other the Holy See." Both of them appear to have acted with great precipitancy; both of them fed from the breasts of their Spiritual Mother, up to the very moment of the matricidal act; and both were guilty of entire want of candor towards their Spiritual and Canonical Head. So little are the principles of Catholic Order understood or appreciated, and so bold is the arrogance of Papal pretension, that apostacy occasions more regret than surprise.

POPERY IN ENGLAND.

The most extraordinary exertions are now being made to establish Romanism in England, by building Churches and planting religious establishments, male and female; at the head of which operations, we see the names of Bp. Wiseman, Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer, Dr. Newman, Mr. Oakley and Dr. Whitty. The demands of the Romanists upon Parliament for Governmental support are more and more exacting. The torpid body which has been so tenderly embraced, seems warming into activity.

ENGLISH COLONIAL BISHOPRICS' FUND.

All the six Bishoprics which were named, as requiring immediate erection, in the First Declararion of the Archbishops and Bishops, dated WhitTuesday, 1841, have now been endowed.

Of the seven remaining Sees, to the future erection of which that Declaration had regard, three have also been established, in British Guiana, South Australia, and Port Philip.

There remain four of this latter division still to be formed, viz: at Sierra Leone, and Western Australia, as well as for Northern India, (Agra,) and Southern India, (Tanjore and Tinnevelly.) Since that time, the plan of founding a Bishopric for the British possessions in the Chinese seas has been sanctioned in the third Report of the Episcopal Committee, dated May, 18, 1846; and the Mauritius and Prince Rupert's Land (the Hudson Bay Company's territories) have also been named, as appearing to require resident Bishops of their own.

The Bishoprics, therefore, still to be formed in the British possessions abroad, may be mentioned in the following order: Sierra Leone, (for the care of the flourishing and important missions of the Church Missionary Society,) Western Australia, Agra, Tanjore and Tinnevelly, China, the Mauritius and Prince Rupert's land.

It is to be hoped that the year 1848 will, at least witness the Consecration of an English Missionary Bishop for China.

THE

CHURCH REVIEW.

No. IV.

66

JANUARY, 1849.

"KENRICK ON THE PRIMACY."

ART. I.-The Primacy of the Apostolical See Vindicated. By FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, Bishop of Philadelphia. Ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbæ inferorum portæ. Augustinus in Ps. contra partem Donati. Third edition. New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1848. pp. 527. 8vo. We have finished our approaches, and must now open upon our author. The first thing we notice is the adaptation of a work to the democratic spirit of the age, the real and sole object of which is to prove a universal monarchy. It is written by plain "Francis Patrick Kenrick," with no other title than Bishop of Philadelphia." We rejoice at the plainness. It is, as we have seen, a recurrence to primitive usage. Would that he and his brethren, who, like the Donatists, intrude into the Dioceses of the Catholic Bishops, were heedful of the primitive prohibition against two Bishops in one city! We have no doubt that Dr. Kenrick means to be an unassuming man; but when the visions of the past flit before us, we are almost as much puzzled by this plainness, as the titular Bishop of New York was, when he found himself seated among the sons of the Puritans. When we recollect the peacock's feathers, the gestatory chair borne on the shoulders of men, -the prostrations,-the foot-and-hand-and-cheek-kissings, according to various ranks and dignities, from the humble Priest and layman, up to Cardinals and Patriarchs,-the kneeling in the dust when the Pope's carriage passes, and all the other

servile ceremonies borrowed from imperial usage of the Roman and Byzantine Court, we can not but be amazed that honest men can seek to introduce into the United States, the arrogant pretensions of the Papacy.

If we are shocked by this enormous attempt to hide from public view the gorgeous and puerile gradations of Roman servility, which every traveled American must have seen wherever the Papal Communion is the established religion of the country, we are not a little amused in comparing the two editions of Dr. Kenrick's Book, to see how much that of 1848 differs from its predecessor in 1845. It is absolutely re-written. The Italian antiquarians are curious in detecting what they call the "pentimenti" of a distinguished artist. The obliterated lines were his first thoughts: the retouches, proclaim the changes in his own mind. We can assure our readers that a collation of the two editions will furnish a specimen of purgatorial process, more significant of a skillful apology for error, than of the simple enunciation of truth.

But let us admit all his changes, and represent him as he wishes to appear. We come first to his arguments from Scripture. Supposing that he could prove all that he has asserted and assumed; unless he can disprove what we have said concerning St. Peter, and the true origin of the Roman Primacy, he has not secured a single step in his argument. Elevate St. Peter as much as he will above the other Apostles, and it will not prove that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to a Primacy even of honor. London, or Paris, or Vienna, or St. Petersburg, are now as much, and even more entitled to precedence, than a city which has sunk from being the world's mistress, to become the inconsiderable capital of a territory three hundred miles in length and less than a hundred in breadth. In approaching the Scriptural argument, therefore, we are not at all solicitous to overthrow his criticisms, any farther than as they are inconsistent with Catholic interpretation. We have already observed that like all other sects who depart from Catholic truth and order, the members of the Roman Communion have ingeniously perverted the meaning of the Bible, and by forced interpretations have made it speak a language conformable to their wishes. Dr. Kenrick is one of these ingenious commentators, and begins his proof of St. Peter's Primacy from the lists of the Apostles, in which he is always the first named. This is not invariably the case; for St. Paul speaks of James the Lord's brother before Cephas. (Gal. ii, 9.) But let that pass. In St. Mat. x, 2, and St. Luke vi, 14, the fact is as he has said. The

only question is as to the motive. We might, with equal propriety, say, as a reason for the arrangement, that Peter was the oldest of the Apostles, and a married man. The true reason seems to be that which Theophylact has given, following the Greek fathers: προτίθησε δὲ Πέτρον καὶ ̓Ανδρέαν, διότι καὶ πρωτό κλητοι. "He places Peter and Andrew first, because they were the first called; then the sons of Zebedee; and he places James in order before John, for not according to dignity, but simply by accident does he form the catalogue. He says, therefore, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican,' &c. Behold the humility of Matthew, in placing himself after Thomas," &c. (Theophyl. in Matth. Comm. Opera, Tom. i, p. 46, Venet. 1754, fol.) It is worthy of remark that when a leading idea has taken possession of men's minds, imagination diffuses its peculiar color over every thing. A still more ingenious writer than Dr. Kenrick, the celebrated Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, makes the following comment upon the simple facts recorded by St. John, chap. xx, 1-10:*"Peter and John run to the tomb. John arrives the first; but respect restrains him, and he DARE not enter within the depths before Peter! PETER is the FIRST to see the linen clothes of the burial, deposited in a corner of the sacred tomb, the first spoils of conquered death!" Such is the inference of a French courtier of the age of Louis XIV! To his vision, St. Peter was the great monarch himself, and St. John one of his ecclesiastics, who could not possibly precede his Majesty in a visit of ceremony to the relics of the passion! This easy passage from the sublime to the ridiculous, was not uncommon with the brilliant French Prelate; and one of his greatest admirers says of him, what we shall take the liberty of applying to the learned advocate of St. Peter's Primacy:†" It must be granted that he sometimes becomes cold, languid, tediously trifling and mean. All extremes meet; and often from the sublime to the ridiculous there is only a narrow step."

Dr. Kenrick produces next the passage, St. Mat. xvi, 13-20. We object to the Roman interpretation for three reasons; its

* "Pierre et Jean courent au tombeau. Jean arrive le premier, mais le respect le retient, et il n'ose entrer devant Pierre dans les profondeurs; c'est Pierre qui voit le premier les linges de la sépulture posés à un coin du tombeau sacré, et les premières dépouilles de la mort vaincue."

+ Cardinal Mauri, Reflexions sur les Sermons de Bossuet, p. 41. Il faut convenir qu'il devient quelquefois froid, lâche, minutieux, et rampant; c'est que tous les extrèmes se touchent, et qu'entre un trait burlesque, et un trait sublime, il n'y a souvent qu'une ligne."

grammatical inaccuracy,-its absurdity,—and its want of antiquity, universality and consent. As to its grammatical inaccuracy we have already said enough in the Articles entitled "the Rock of the Church," in our first and second numbers, to which we refer our readers. As to the absurdity, and we might use even a stronger term, the blasphemy, for such it truly is, of turning our blessed LORD's language into a miserable pun, it is so gross that we can not but wonder how men of piety and good sense can adopt or defend it. In the whole conduct of St. Peter,-in his writings,-in the Gospel which is said to have been written under his particular and immediate inspection, we mean that of St. Mark, there is not the least act or expression indicative of any such claim. The whole transaction at Cæsarea Philippi is recorded by all the Evangelists but St. John, whose Gospel was supplementary to the rest. Its subject was most important; for it was the solemn confession of CHRIST as the Son of GoD, scarcely a year before his crucifixion. If the declaration of our LORD to St. Peter involved a commission of such high and momentous import, why was it not recorded by St. Mark and St. Luke? The entire silence of these Evangelists is very unaccountable, if our LORD's words were then understood, as the advocates of the Roman Primacy now understand them. If St. Mark wrote under the cognizance and revision of St. Peter, and if they were so intimate,* "that it seems as if there were one heart, and certainly one soul in two persons," as the Blessed Peter Damian observes, we have in St. Mark, the Apostle's own negative testimony against the modern interpretation. "Why blessed Mark," exclaims the fervent Damian, "wast thou so unsparing with thy pen towards thy exalted and illustrious Teacher, whom thou so dearly lovedst? Why omit all that is uttered in his praise, and describe only what seems worthy of blame? Why dost thou not insert that Peter, at the first casting of his hook, took the fish in whose mouth was found the stater? Did this also escape thy observation that after the SAVIOUR had conferred on him the privileges of shutting or opening the heavenly kingdom-after he had subjected all the kingdoms of the earth to him-after, in fine, he had prayed that his faith should not fail, because he was the foundation of His whole Church,-He delegated to him, in his own stead, over the whole flock of His sheep the care of feeding? Why dost thou repress thy pen from the proclamation of such praises? It must be believed, brethren, that Peter restrained him from speaking

* "Ut unum cor una certè in duabus fuisse personis anima videatur."