in this contest. It is the flood coming upon us. The same which once nearly drowned the Gospel out of the earth, and drove the Bride of Christ into the wilderness. The Lord lifted up his standard against it at the Reformation, and "the waters were driven back." We need again that he should make bare his arm. True, we must not withhold our efforts. Books are good. Sermons, charges, warnings, instructions are good. But God alone can wage this war. Be much in prayer, dear brethren, for the interposition of God to "cleanse, and defend," and raise up with new beauty and power, his Church; that, instead of being torn with controversies within for the very essence of the faith, she may go forth united and mighty "as an army with banners,' to do her great work among the nations. Keep yourselves in the cleft of the rock. "Be still" and steadfast, and "wait for the salvation of God."

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

NOTE.

THE following account of the ordination of Rev. Arthur Carey is taken from Extracts from a Sermon by Rev. Mason Gallagher, Rector of the Church of the Evangelists, Oswego, N. Y.;" preached January 13th, 1861, after the decease of Rev. Dr Anthon, and published in the Protestant Churchman, March 2nd of same year.

The publisher adds it on his own responsibility, not having had an opportunity of consulting with Bishop M'Ilvaine, without occasioning too great loss of time.

"You know the history of the Tractarian system, which originated at Oxford. Its unsound teachings reached this country, and were embraced by Clergymen and laymen in great numbers.

"In July, 1843, a young man named Arthur Carey graduated at the General Theological Seminary, and sought orders in our Church. He was gentle and lovely in his character. I knew him well. He was suspected of unsoundness in the faith. The Seminary, it was well known, was largely leavened with the new theology. I can testify to the truth of this charge, as I was then a member of the institution. It was a hot-bed of unscriptural doctrine. The leers of the new movement had more influence than its sound, able, and venerable Professors. Of my own class in the Seminary.

four have since become Romanists. After a full conversation with Mr. Carey, Dr. Hugh Smith (with whose parish Mr. Carey was connected) refused, with the advice of Dr. Anthon, to sign the candidate's testimonials. A special examination of Mr. Carey took place, at which the Bishop and eight presbyters were present. At this examination, Mr. Carey avowed that he deemed the differences between us and Rome such as embraced no point of faith. He doubted whether the Church of Rome or the Anglican . Church were the more pure; considered the Reformation unjustifiable, and followed by grievous and lamentable results, though not without others of an opposite character; faulted not the Church of Rome for reading the Apocrypha for proof of doctrine, and did not consider that we were bound to receive the Thirty-nine Articles in any close and rigid construction of the same; declared that he knew not how to answer the question which had been repeatedly asked, whether he considered the Church of Rome to be now in error in matters of faith; was not prepared to pronounce the doctrine of transubstantiation an absurd or impossible doctrine; did not object to the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, as taught by the Council of Trent. He believed that the state of the soul after death was one in which it could be benefited by the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the altar; regarded the denial of the cup to the laity as a severe act of discipline only; justified the invocation of saints; in one instance, declared that he did not deny, but would not positively affirm the decrees of the Council of Trent; in another, that he received the articles of the creed of Pius IV., so far as they were repetitions of the decrees of that council."

"Incredible as it may seem, such was the madness of the hour, the Bishop and six of the presbyters decided to ordain this candidate; are we surprised that Drs. Smith and Anthon, as faithful Protestant Clergymen, refused to give their sanction to such an act? The day of the ordination arrived-a most eventful day in the history of our Church. I was present at the scene. I remember the question of the Bishop, whether any one present knew any impediment in the way of the ordination. I remember how those two undaunted men arose, and read their public protest. The ordination proceeded. The two protesters left the Church. I remember the loud Amen of Bishop Ives, at the conclusion of the form of ordination. He was present in the chancel. Mr. Carey died a few months after his ordination. Five years later, Dr. Smith rested from his labors. The ordaining Bishop was suspended for unworthiness, the year after the ordination; and Bishop Ives entered the Church of Rome."

REASONS FOR REFUSING TO CONSECRATE A CHURCH HAVING AN ALTAR INSTEAD OF A COMMUNION TABLE: OR, THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, AND OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AS TO A SACRIFICE IN THE LORD'S SUPPER AND A PRIESTHOOD IN THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, BY CHARLES PETTIT M'ILVAINE, D. D.,

BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN OHIO.

The following pages were addressed by the Author to the Convention of his Diocese in 1846, and made part of his annual communication to that body. The reader will thus account for some appearance of abruptness at the beginning-and other features as it proceeds:

IN times past, when nothing seemed less possible than that the Romish corruptions of Christianity should make head in the Protestant Churches of England and of this country; when a man would have been thought almost mad who should have predicted that, by this time, and as the work of about ten years, such changes as we are witnesses of, as well in attachment to the great principles of the Protestant Reformation, as in detestation of the antichristian doctrines of Popery, would take place at home and abroad; when for one minister of a Protestant Church to become a Romanist, was singular enough to excite universal astonishment; and when the fact that nearly one hundred clergyman of our mother Church in Great-Britain, and several from our own Church, have apostatized to the faith of Rome within some five or six years, had it been predicted would have been utterly ridiculed, as too impossible to be even dreamed of; it is not singular that some things then should have been looked upon as matters of indifference which such alarming changes have now compelled us to regard as of serious importance in connection with the growth of false doctrine among us.

Of that class, is the form of the structure on which we celebrate the Supper of the Lord. We have not been accustomed hitherto to take that matter into much account, except as a question of taste. It has always indeed been decidedly the usage of our Church to have a literal table, as distinguished from an altar-form structure. Until a very few years, the contrary was not seen. It is still an exception to the general custom. But as long as it seemed to be a mere matter of architectural preference; as long as there appeared among those who called themselves members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, no effort to "unprotestantize" the Church, to

east dishonor upon the principles of the Reformation, and to bring back the outcast corruptions of the Church of Rome, especially her doctrine concerning a real and propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist, and a real, sacrificing, mediatorial priesthood in the Gospel minister, as if he stood between God and man at an altar of mediation, and as if your peace with God depended on his priestly intercession there; under such circumstances there was no sense of hazard in leaving people to follow their fancies in the particular article of Church furniture referred to; although then, just as much as now, to have any thing but a literal table, in the usual sense, for the communion of Christ's household of faith, was at variance with the directions of the Prayer-Book, the precedents of the Scriptures, and the practice of the early Church.

But wonderfully have matters changed within a very few years. What sort of language and of sympathy, in regard to the Reformation, and the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome, especially those most connected with our present subject, have we become so accustomed to, of late, among professed Protestant Episcopalians, that we almost cease to notice them; but which, a few years ago, would have seemed impossible to any but a real Romanist! It is now too late for any man of ordinary observation to question that there is in the bosom of the Church of England, and of our own, which shares so necessarily in all the influences that affect the doctrinal condition of the former, a decided and concerted effort to propagate among the Clergy and laity those very essential and central doctrines of Romish divinity against which our Church declares her strong protest on every fold of her banner. This effort is too systematic, too bold, too diligent, too artful, and is already too successful not to be alarming to any mind not already so drugged with its poisons as to be incapable of natural sight; or else so indifferent, or so inordinately anxious for peace, at almost all hazards, as to be unwilling to believe there is an enemy at the gate, until his standard is planted on the citadel.

No object is more essential to the unprotestantizing of our Church, and to the taking away of the great gulf that lies between the Gospel, as she teaches it, and its awful perversion and denial in the Church of Rome, than that of getting away the doctrine of our Articles and Homilies concerning the nature of the Lord's Supper, and substituting that of the decrees of the Council of Trent. Our Church, in the "Homily concerning the Sacrament," having in her eye the very corruptions now sought to be propagated among us, exhorts us to "take heed lest of the memory (i. e. of the doctrine

of a remembrance of the death of Christ in the Eucharist) be made a sacrifice;-lest applying it for the dead we lose the fruit that be alive." And she assures us that in the Lord's Supper we "need no other sacrifice or oblation " (than that of Christ on the cross:) "no sacrificing priest, no mass, no means established by man's invention." But the revolutionary effort, which is best known as the Tractarian, directly contradicts this language of our Church, teaching that we do need another oblation and sacrifice; that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross cannot avail us, unless it be applied by what is called the "unbloody" sacrifice of his body and blood upon the altar of the Eucharist; that we must have the mediation of a "sacrificing priest" at that altar, or we cannot partake in the mediation of our Great High Priest before the mercy-seat in the sanctuary in the heavens; and consequently that the Lord's Supper is not a mere "memory" of a sacrifice, but is a real sacrifice for sin. This is Popery in the essence. This is one of the devices by which, under a mask of Gospel phrase, the Church of Rome evacuates the Gospel of all that makes it a Gospel. This is the hand by which she forges the chains of superstition and priestcraft, and riveting them around the reason and the consciences of men, fastens them down, under bondage, to whatever terms a despotic priesthood may employ.

Now where this doctrine, concerning a real sacrifice and priesthood in the Eucharist, exists, it must have a literal altar in the communion; because an altar expresses, and is part of, the very idea of the Sacrament which the doctrine maintains. And it must get rid of a literal table; because that declares the very truth concerning the Sacrament, as simply a commemorative feast, upon a sacrifice, once offered on the cross, and never in any form to be repeated, which, is most absolutely denied.

This view is so well expressed by Gregory Martin, a learned Romish divine of the sixteenth century, and one of the principal hands in the Rhemish translation of the New Testament, that I am content with his words. "The name of altar, both in the Hebrew and Greek, and by the consent of all peoples, both Jews and Pagans, implying and importing sacrifice, therefore we, in respect of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, say 'altar,' rather than table.' But the Protestants, because they make it only a communion of bread and wine, or a a supper and no sacrifice, therefor they called it a table only." "Understand their wily policy therein is this to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they * Homily concerning the Sacrament. Part I.

: