3. The British churches never refused to admit the authority of the papal see. The controversy did not turn on this point. They merely refused to submit to St. Augustine, because he could not sanction their customs, and would not brook their notorious immorality, attested by all cotemporary writers. The testimony of Gildas, an historian of the time, clearly proves that they acknowledged the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, even after that authority had proscribed them for their clergy still went to Rome to obtain ecclesiastical preferment.'

4. The British churches did not "truly plead apostolical warrant for their customs," as Bishop Whittingham says; nor did they plead it at all. They merely alleged the example of St. Columban and of their forefathers. St. John and the churches of Gaul had nothing to do with the controversy. It is ascertained that the British churches were not quartodecimans, or did not persist in keeping Easter with the Jews. They merely refused to adopt the improvement in the calendar introduced by Dionysius Exiguus, and already adopted by Rome and the whole Church. The venerable Bede tells us, that their remoteness from the rest of the world was the reason of their ignorant adherence to an erroneous calendar. By the way, as Bishop Whittingham so greatly admires those "ancient customs," why does he not adopt them, and shave his own head in the form of a crescent? In this strange plight, and keeping Easter about a month sooner or later than his brethren, he would certainly excite admiration! He would be a glorious reformer, "truly pleading apostolical warrant!"

5. We would much like to see any evidence going to prove, that after their separation from Rome, "the British churches were acknowledged as Christians by many churches." We doubt whether there is one fact in history to warrant this assertion.

6. That the Anglo-Saxon church acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs, from the time of St. Augustine to the reformation, could be proved by a whole volume of evidence. But our space will not allow us even to touch on this subject.3

Professor Palmer gives us some very fine sketches of St. Anthony, of St. Pachomius, of St. Martin, and of many other principal saints and illustrious ornaments of this period. They are judicious, well selected, and edifying; written too in the right spirit. He even speaks with great praise of that remarkable man, St. Simeon Stylites, who passed many years of his life on the top of a column, in order to escape the importunity of the multitudes who flocked to him for his blessing. He tells us how this holy man was venerated by emperors, empresses, and bishops; and how he converted thousand of pagans to the Christian faith. He gives this opinion of his character:

1 This whole subject is ably handled by Lingard. Ibid. p. 41, et seq.

2 "Utpote qui longe extra orbem positis nemo synodalia Paschalis observantiæ decreta porrexerat."— lib. iii, c. 4.

3 For facts and authorities on this interesting subject, we refer the reader to Dr. Kenrick on the Primacy Part I, oh. xvi; also to the late eloquent work of Dr. Ives—"Trials of a mind," &c.

4 P. 44, et. seq.

5 P. 55, 56.

"An example of want of moderation in self-denial and mortification is frequently pointed out in the case of St. Simeon Stylites, who lived in the fifth century. Yet it is impossible not to admit that, with some excesses in these respects, there was much to admire and venerate in his character."

This eulogy did not suit the taste of the Episcopal editor. He says,

in a note:

"The excesses of Simeon were more reprehensible than mere want of moderation in self-denial and mortification.' His multiplied bowings, protracted watchings, constrained postures, and pillar-isolation, belong to a low class of superstition, and furnish a melancholy proof of the degenerating tendencies of the age."

The Protestant bishop is far too enlightened to relish these same "multiplied bowings and protracted watchings;" as to the "constrained postures," his very soul abhors them. Only think of the "degenerating tendencies of the age!" Rank popery perched on a pillar, surrounded by admiring thousands, in the middle of the fifth century! It is really too bad! It is absolutely shocking to the nerves of a delicate Protestant bishop, even to think of those austerities! To be more serious: the example of St. Simeon is extraordinary, and almost single in Church History. It belongs to the class of things admirable, but not imitable. In those warm Eastern climates, it was not unusual, at that day, for persons to pass considerable portions of their lives in the open air, or on the terraces of their houses. The manner of life of St. Simeon was, then, after all, not so very great a departure from the usage of his time and country, as might appear at first sight. We make these remarks merely to steady the bishop's nerves.

Dr. Palmer devotes an entire chapter to what he styles "the rise of abuses and corruptions." This chapter is a tissue of unfounded assertion and of special pleading, from beginning to end. It is bad enough already; and hence the bishop makes no notes. It would far transcend our limits to enter into a detailed refutation of its glaring perversion of facts and evidence. On one page alone, we have marked no less than four false statements, for the refutation of each of which, however, a separate paper would be necessary. We will offer only a few general remarks.

The gist of the reasoning consists in the assertion, that many doctrines, -invocation of saints, veneration for relics, purgatory, and others,led to great abuses; and in the inference thence drawn, that they were, therefore, rightly repudiated by Protestants. The things were good in their origin and harmless in themselves; they were subsequently abused; therefore, they were justly abolished. Under this leveling reasoning, everything in Christianity, and the bible itself would be swept away. 'He says:

"Could the pious fathers of the fourth century, who in their orations

apostrophized the departed saints and martyrs, and called for their prayers to God, have foreseen the abuses to which this practice was to lead, they would carefully have avoided the introduction of a practice so dangerous to true religion."

Could they now rise from their graves, how they would rebuke those, who, under pretence of promoting true religion, have mutilated or rejected the practices which they so much cherished! How they would be charmed too with the motley appearance of modern Protestantism! According to our Oxford divine, even the Church, sustained, as he delights to repeat it was, by the promises of Christ, was yet wanting in knowledge on this subject:

"The Church has not always been gifted with a spirit of wisdom and foreknowledge, to discern the future abuses of opinions and practices, which it originally permitted without reproof."

For our parts, we greatly prefer the wisdom of the Church, which Christ promised to protect from error, and which he commanded us to hear, to the new-fangled and mystical notions of Oxford. It may be childish simplicity in us; but if we err in hearing the Church, we err by the express command of Christ!

Professor Palmer will not admit, that either the seventh or the eighth council was oecumenical, or general. The former condemned the Iconoclasts, and maintained the lawfulness of images in churches; the latter condemned the intruder Photius, that ambitious man who had been consecrated bishop of Constantinople in six days from being a mere layman, while St. Ignatius, the lawful bishop, was still living. He tells us, that the former was rejected by the Western, and the latter by the Eastern church. Neither of these assertions is true, as we could easily accumulate evidence to prove, did our limits permit. The Roman Pontiffs certainly sanctioned the canons of the seventh council, or the second of Nice, held in 787. And with them the bulk of the Western bishops certainly agreed, at least after a brief hesitancy. The fathers. of the council at Frankfort, in 794, merely labored under an error of fact, founded on a false version of the Nicene canons: this error was subsequently removed, and the Western bishops then gave in their adhesion.

What the bishops of the Greek church may have thought on the subject after their final rupture with Rome under Michael Cerularius, is not important: but during the two centuries intervening between the holding of the eighth general council and this final schism, they had certainly, at least a majority of them, received its decisions. There is, in a word, as much evidence to prove that these councils are oecumenical, as there is to prove the same of the six preceding ones, which our 2 Page 47.

1 Pages 68, 69.

3 See Palma, vol. ii, part ii, p. 15, et seq., and p. 26, et seq, and ibid, p. 89, et seq., seq., for full proofs on the subject of the seventh and eighth general councils.

and p. 114, et

author receives. Objections had been made to all of them for a time; but they were all finally sanctioned by the body of bishops.

We have now finished our remarks on this epoch; and with them we also close this paper. We have not noticed one-half the passages we had marked for animadversion; but the few specimens we have been able to give will serve to show the general character for accuracy of Mr. Palmer's work, as also that of its Right Reverend editor. Our readers will probably concur with us in opinion, that Bishop Whittingham might have been much better employed, than in writing notes on Palmer's Church History. He might, for instance, have devoted his leisure moments to an answer to Archbishop Kenrick's book on the Primacy.

II. CHURCH HISTORY.*

ARTICLE II.-THE MIDDLE AGES.

A different Division suggested-Triumphs of the Church over Barbarism-Missionaries sent by Rome The Ages of Faith - Auricular Confession - Testimonies of Tertullian and St. Cyprian -Nectarius and the Penitentiary - Puseyite View of the Holy Eucharist-Paschasius Radbert and Berengarius — Temporal Authority of the Pope and Bishops - Decretals of Isidore - Prerogatives of the Roman Pontiffs - Pope Julius I. - Greek Schism - Order of Pre-eminence - Michael Cerularius-Shaving the Beard - The Nicene Canons - Edifying Incident of St. Anselm-Modern Anglican Parsons- Vision of "Roman attempts at Usurpation" - Have the Promises of Christ failed? - The Roman Primacy acknowledged by the early Greek Church — And at Councils of Lyons and Florence - When was the Doctrine of the Primacy Defined? - Purgatory - Transubstantiation - Indulgences - Protestant Indulgences - Penitential Works - Repudiating the DebtThe Rosary-"The Pure and Holy One"- Temporal power of the Popes-Its influence on Civilization.

In our first paper, we extended our review of Mr. Palmer's work to the beginning of the third epoch of Church History, according to his division. In the present, we intend to offer some remarks upon the third and fourth epochs, which bring the history down to the reformation. To the period which has elapsed since this eventful revolution, we will have to devote a separate paper, which will be the last of this series.

We have already intimated that we did not approve of the idea of our author, which makes the year 680, the date of the seventh general council, against the Monothelites, a distinct era in Church History, on the ground that this was the last general council. We have briefly shown how unfounded is this assumption. We would have greatly preferred a less whimsical, and more rational division, and one, at the same time, more conformable to the great vicissitudes of ecclesiastical history. We would have divided the period which elapsed from the accession of Constantine the Great, as sole emperor, in the year 324, to the reformation in 1517, into four, instead of three epochs.

The first would have terminated with the fall of the Roman empire in the west, in the year 476,- -an event of sufficient importance, surely, both in general and ecclesiastical history, to form a distinct epoch. This period, embracing one hundred and fifty-two years, witnessed the rise, progress, and condemnation of the four great heresies against the doctrines. of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation; as well as the holding of the first four general councils, which St. Gregory 1. and the ancient fathers.

* A Compendious Ecclesiastical History, from the earliest period to the present time. By the Rev. William Palmer, M. A., of Worcester College, Oxford. With a Preface and Notes, by an American Editor. New York, 1841, republished. 1 vol. 12mo. pp. 228.