IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ^ IIIIIM ■ 50 12.5 IM 12.2 m 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ■« 6" - ► v] & . \ ;\ % 1? ^.^<> 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ' ■ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage borit indiquos os n § n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 [^ A "R Fil > • • • • ' .1" • . . • I ^'^ ^ %^ AHGLICAS CLAIMS »v V ^^"tN ™e light of history, -0 ^<^ IIY JOSEPH POPE. A Paper Read Before the CArnoLic Truth Society or Ottawa, on the i2TH December, 1893, in Repev to a Leciurio Intituli':!) "ROMAN METHODS OF CONTROVERSY," Delivered by the Rev. VV. J. Muckleston, M.A., On the 15TH May, 1893 Fili ho/nittifi puta^nc. >:iie(it ost^a ifita i Et dixl : Doinine • • • • . • • • • • •• • • • • • II . • . • EzhCH. XXXVII, 3. PAMPHLET NO. 5. THE CATJIOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY OF OTTAWA. The Catholic Truth Society OF OTTA'WA. LIST* OF* PUBLICATIONS. PAMPHLETS AT NOMINAL COST. No. I. — The Catholic Teuth Society, its Aims ANb Objex^s^^^ No. 2. — TRADITIONS. — Joseph Pope. j^-i^; No. 3. — The Civil Allboianck. of Catholics. — Rev. M. jv;" ^ Whelan. . ,v i No. 4. —The Antiqttity of Man.— F. R. Latchfofd, B.A. *• ; No. 5. —Anglican Claims.— Joseph Pope. 9,jqE£TTS EAOH OR $2.50 FBIt 100. U^ ,'. ;* '( / ''-.v - ' ■ - ■ ■^^%:M. The Objects of The Catholic Truth Society of Ottawa are :-»\-Is ' 1. To disseminate among Catholics small and cheap devotional ■; ' works.. . • ,, ,-s^. \ 2. To assist the uneduc*i;ed poof to a* b'>tter knowledge at their M religion. :' ; . ^ ■ ." ^ , ...:..:">\ A -:••- '^^Z 3. To spread among Protestants infunhaa'tioy about Catholic Truth, , 4. To promote the circulation af good, chejjp A^fl/i popular Catholic Books. '•*'/' >?:j.;' 5. The prompt and systematic '^ofTBctiisa ,of mis:epres^nvat^9S^t'^^ j , slanders and libels against Catholicity..' ' "fe^v %;».r The annual subscription to the Society is one dollar, and ten dollars entitles to life membership. Any man, woman cr child sending his or her name and address, together with one dollar, to the Secretary will be elected a member of the Society, Members are entitled to numerous spiritual advantages, and to free copies of all publications of the Society. The Society's publications and most of those of the Catholic Truth Society of England, and of the Catholic Truth Society of America, may be h^id from the Secretary or at any of the follov^ing depots : — J. DURIE & SON, sin & 35 Sparks St. W. P. BATTERTON, 111 Bank St. P. C. OtJILLAUME, 495 Sussex St. WILUMH C. DeSBISAT, Secretary. ^\ •^ -^N NOTE. Were the subjects treated by the Rev, Mr. Muck lest on of a purely theological character I should have left the duty of answering hitn to those who are better equipped for such a task than I am. As, however, they are historical, and relate in great part to the history of England, I cannot see why they should not be discussed by any person interested in the institutions of his country. That such subjects are not popular in Ottawa I gather, not so much from Mr. Muckleston's frequent (I almost think unnecessarily frequent) allusions to " uninstructed church- men," as from the fact that any considerable number of people have requested the publication of a lecture in which, among a great many foolish or irrelevant things, it is blindly asserted that those who ques- tion the claim advanced on behalf of the Anglican communion to con- tinuity with the ancient Church of England, are either very ignorant or very designing persons. Now on behalf of those who do seriously question this claim, and who are just as honest as the reverend gentle- man, I join issue with him on this point. I undertake to prove out of the writings of eminent English historians, and distinguished Anglican divines — all of them Protestants — some of them among what I suppos the reverend gentleman calls his " authorities " : — 1st. That the Church of England, as it existed from the beginning down to the days of Henry VIII, acknowledged th) supremacy of the Holy See. , , and. That the Anglican Church, as it exists to-day, sprang from compromise between two sets of Reformers who vied with one another in uprooting and endeavouring to destroy the ancient faith, and who, so far from claiming continuity with the past, openly proclaimed their disbelief in the necessity for any Episcopal ordination whatever. To this end I cordially join with our reverend critic in his invitation to the " uninstructed laity " to " read history." JOSiPH POPE. Ottawa, i8th December, 1893, ■ >. ' ' -■.: yi > ' ANGLICAN CLAIMS. Mr. President^ Ladies and Gentlemen : The Catholic Truth Society of Ottawa has been honoured during the present year by the notice of an Anglican clergyman late of this city. It appears from a published report of the reverend gentleman's lecture that we have had the temerity to issue in a form designed to catch the public eye, and actually to expose for sale in a leading book-store, certain publi- cations in exposition and defence of what we believe to be vhe truth. For our effrontery in so doing we are roundl)'^ taken to task. All sorts of motives are imputed to us. Our statements, though sometimes cleverly put, are, as a rule, 'fraudulent' and 'deceptive;' our methods of controversy are 'slippery and evasive ;' our priests are ' wily' and ' unscrupulous,' and so on in the old familiar style to which we are all accustomed. Now, I do not complain of this language. I have come to the conclusion that on occasions of this sort such phrases have no r articular meaning. They recall Lord Palmerston's definition of a mob, " a noun of multitude signifying many, but not signifying much." They are merely a shibboleth which it is considered the proper thing to employ when referrinj^ to Catholics in relation to their Church. This method of controversy, known as * poisoninjT the wells,' is an ok! artifice which I was under the impression had been abandoned, at any rate by Anglicans, and which I still think, in their mouths has ceased to be anything more than a f aeon dc parley. P'ormerly it was considered particularly effective when speaking to Englishmen, because deceit and evasion and intrigue and hypocrisy are especially hateful to the English character. Therefore it was thought good tactics when addressing an English audience on the subject of ' Popery,' to begin by lay- ing down as an axiom that these words correctly describe the average Catholic. Thus a prejudice against Catholicism was created at the outset which often rendered any appeal to reason or argument quite unnecessary. The lecture under review is extremely desultory. The lecturer wanders over an immense rangeof controversy. He seems to have made it the occasion of firing off all the weapons in his theological armoury, vv^ithout stopping to consider whether they were al! suitable to the occasion. » , • . What bearing, for instance, has it upon the matter in hand to affirm the fabulous character of the ' Nag's Head ' story which the lecturer avers, on the authority of another, who himself heard it from a third person, that somebody, we are not told who, repeated — we are not told when — in St. Michael's Cathedral, Toronto. The reverend gentleman himself admits that no such statement is made in any of our publications. Not only is this so, but we actually circulate a pamphlet acknow- ledging the fact that Parker underwent a form of con- secration. The nearest approach to the ' Nag's Head fable' that I have ever seen in print, was in the Union Review, a Hij^h Church pubhcation, which in an able article on the subject ' frankly admitted that Barlow and Scory were 'rascals' capable of any profanity,evcnof 'going through a mock cercmonyof consecration'; and that 'probably I'arker liimsclf would have made light (if it' since 'he did not shrink from intercourse with t\\ r such rascals as Barlow and Scory were.' How is one to follow a lecturer who contents him- self by prefacing a quotation with, " one writer says," without indicating in any way who the writer is, or where or under what circumstances the statement was made, or how can one treat seriously a learned divine who brings forward grave accusations against the Catholic Church and supports them by a reference to the immortal author of the Pickwick Papers ! Now I yield to no one in my admiration for Dickens — as a writer of fiction, but as an ecclesiastical historian I submit he is not an authority. 2. Then again what reply is practicable to a statement that a French priest of no particular eminence, who lived nearly two hundred years ago, supported a certain contention without giving us his words,or at least indicating where 1. November, 1870. 2. Particularly in this case where, in the preface to the work our critic recom- mends as afTortling a good description of the inicjuities of " Popery," Dickens expressly oisclai'v.n any intenlio'i of holding the Roman Catholic religion responsihle for what he describes. He says : " I hop2 I am rot likely to be misunderstoo.i by professors of the Roman Catholic faith, on account of anything contained in these pages. I have done my best, in one of my former productions, to do justice to them , and I trust, in this, they will do justice to me. When I mention any exhibition that impressed mean absurd or dis-tgreeable, I do not seek to connect it, or recogiii/e it as ntcessarily coimected with any essentials of iheir creed. When I treat of \\\-: cereino'iier. of the Holy Week, 1 merely treat of th^ir effect, and do not challenge the gooii and l<.anied_ Dr. Wiseman's int-:rpretation of their mc.-ining. Wh'ii 1 hint a di^hUe of nunneries for yoi.ng girls who abjure the world before they have t-.ver proved or known it; ot douhl xhc ex officio sanctity of all Priests and I'riars, I do no more than many conscientiojs Catholics lioth abioad and at Uiyme."~^/^!ci!/res /'rout Italy, p. 2. If the reverend gentleman really wants a good 'creepy' description of the horrors of the inquisition, without ai.jr such qualifications, I recommend ' Monte- zuma's Daughter,' i.i which story Rider Haggard gives full i)lay to his lively imagination, and treats his readers to harrowing accounts of the walling up alive of unfortunate nuns in the most approved fashion. they are to be found ? So also von Dollinger Puscy, Freeman, and many other voluminous writers arc referred to in the same casual manner, which almost precludes criticism. This is his general rule and a very safe one it is. In three instances, however, he departs from it, to an extent sufficient to enable one to discover the source of his quotations. Let us very briefly examine these three. The first is contained in a pamphlet by the late Reverend Father Damen, S.J., intituled " Church or Bible," circulated by the Catholic Truth Society. Our critic takes exception to a statement therein contained, which he calls " an imaginary account of the dates when several of the books of the New Testament were written." Father Damen says in effect that St. Matthev/'s gospel was written about the year 40 A.D., St, Mark's about the year 43, St. Luke's about the year 58, and St. John's about the year 96. These non-controversial statements are declared by our amiable critic to be ' falsehoods,' * altogether imaginary,' ' bold asser- tions,' and so forth. Now it is difficult to see the reason for all this harsh language. The dates of these gospels are not exactly known, and Father Damen carefully guards himself by the use of the word 'about' before each year he mentions. I cannot see that the question is of much practical consequence, but as it is made the ground of a serious charge, let us turn to the authorities of our critic's own church and see what they have to say on the subject. In the first place all agree with Father Damen in the relative age of the Gospels. Bishop Wordsworth, the late Angli- can Bishop of Lincoln, says in his " Greek Testa- er Puscy, Titers arc ich almost ulc and a )\vcver, he jnablc one ,et us very Dy the late ' Church or iciety. Our 1 contained, the dates iment were lev/'s gospel ark's about 58, and St. )ntroversial ritic to be old asser- o see the es of these ler Damen ord 'about' e that the 3ut as it is us turn to h and see n the first elative age ate Angli- ick Testa- ment " 3 that some ancient writers assign to St. Matthew's gospel the date corresponding to the year 39 or 41, which is identical with Father Damen's figures, others a (cw years later. The Bishop expresses his opinion that St. Luke's was written not later than the year 53 4 — and he thinks it probable that St. John's appeared about half a century after St. Luke's, or not later than A.D. 103, 5 or within seven years of the date assigned by Father Damen. Dean Alford, in his " Greek Testament," says it would appear that St. ^iatthew's g' )el was published before the destruction of Jerusr.km, and while he considers the date very uncertr 1 1, quotes av.tiiorities to show that it was probably written v ithin fifteen years of the Ascension. Of St. Mark's he thinks the most direct testimony shows it to have been written subsequent to ihe year 63 7, or twenty years later than the time indicated by Father Damen. St. Luke's, he thinks, was published between the years 50 and 58 8, the latter year coinciding exactly with Father Damen's date. St. John's gospel, he thinks, may have been written between the years 70 and 85, 9 or a few years earlier than the date given by Father Damen. Both the Bishop and the Dean are dealing with the subject in extenso, and arc therefore in a position to p.m. - ' ib. p. 168. ib. p. 256. Vol. I. Prolegomena, p. 31. ib. p. 36. 8. ib. p. 46. 9. ib. p. 65 '■'r\M -; ' 6 qualify their statements to a much greater extent than Father Damen, who, in a short paper dealing with many subjects, is compelled, to express his absence of certainty by the single word ' about,' yet all three practically agree. It is, I repeat, difficult to see what the Jesuit has said in this connection to warrant the attack made upon him, particularly when our critic goes out of his way to admit that " our Jesuit author is perfectly right and the average Protestant is absolutely wrong, when the former teaches and the latter practically denies that we accept the Bible on the authority of the Church." •;■ - ■■'- ^: ■- The next statement that arouses the ire of our critic is the following made by Father Damen, that : " It was not until the fourth century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of St. Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council, and there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the word of God, and that the gospels of Simon, Nicodemus Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all these other epistles were spurious, or at least, unauthentic ; at least that there was no e\ idence of their inspira- tion." This is characterized by even stronger language than the preceding quotation. Now we do not claim that every statement in all the books we circulate is absolutely and literally correct. We .say that as carefully prepared papers, in many cases by men of distinguished reputation, they arc on the whole trustworthy, but those who write much well know how difficult it is to avoid an occasional error which, despite all precautions, will now and then occur. The history of the early councils is involved in much obscurity, and is a study with which I am not specially qualified to deal. My experience has taught me that any statement of fact made by a Jesuit priest is pretty sure to be well founded. Notwithstanding, however, the antecedent probability of Father Damen's assertion proving correct, I am bound in candour to say that it appears to me our critic has here discovered an error of fact. I have said that it is hard to insure absolute correctness. It is still more difficult to write 36 pages of controversial matter with- out making one point. Both these truths, it seems to me, receive their illustration here. I am inclined to think that Father Damen's statement is not technically accurate, and if so, our critic has made a point, the only one, in my judgment, that he has made against us from the beginning to the end of his lecture. To be sure it is not much of a point. Perhaps I am attaching undue importance to it. Let us see. Father Damen says that, in the fourth century the Pope, as Head of the Church, assembled together the bishops of the world in Council, and at that Council it was decided that the Bible as we have it to-day is the Word of God. Speaking with great diffidence it appears to me that, when writing this Father Damen had in his mind, not a General Council of the Univer- sal Church, but of the African Church which was held at Carthage in the year 397. But how much does this improve our critic's position ? I find from that 'very trustworthy' book of Bishop Westcott which the reverend gentleman specially recommends to those who desire to ascertain the truth about the early Christian Church, that at this council of Carthage which was presided over by St. Augustine the Great, a decree was passed enumerating and ratifying, subject ^m i I Hi 8 to the confirmation of the Roman Church, the canonical Scriptures. lo- - :^ ■ :'■ ~ '• •> This whole subject forms, as I have said, a recondite study which it is futile to attempt to discuss here — but let me ask again, how far is Father Damen's position materially affected by the fact that no General Council of the Church determined the canon of Scripture in the early centuries. Let us amend his statement and make it read " It was not until the fourth century that the Second Council of Carthage presided over by St. Augustine, decided upon the ratifi- cation of the canon of Scripture, subject to the confir- mation of the Roman Church'' The point Father Damen desired to make was that with the Roman Church rested the ultimate determination of the canon of Scrip- ture. Is not the statement as amended, testimony, somev/hat weakened, I admit, but still testimony to, the supremacy of the Roman See ? I hurry on to consider the remaining assertions of our critic which he has given us an opportunity to disprove. He says : A foolish list of " Roman Recruits " was paraded in this city last year, a pamphlet torn to shreds by the Quarterly Review for January, 1888, which showed that it covered the first 84 years of this century, and tha; it went to Russia, Germany and America for names. This article, well worth reading, shews how little has been done by the most elaborate system of most showy machinery, by Eminences, Graces, Lordships and Reverences without end, by assertion and assumption, and unheard of impudence, by pointing out and exaggerating our difficulties ; by concealing and falsifying their own. The facts in relation to this pamphlet are simply these. It was first published in the year 1878 by the editor of the Whitehall Review, a secular newspaper, as a bit of what is called newspaper enterprize, just as one of 10. " Bible in the Church." p. 188. 9 canonical I recondite iss here — Damen's ;io General canon of amend his until the Carthage 1 the ratifi- tlie confir- hcr Damen an Church Dn of Scrip- testimony, ,timony to, sertions of )rtunity to this city last for January, this century, names. This 1 done by the ences, Graces, d assumption, ggerating our mplythese. the editor 3er, as a bit as one of our newspapers published the other day, a list of Ottawa visitors to the World's Fair. This action of the Whitehall ReviewwaiSdc'prGcaXtd at the time by many ofthose concerned, who regarded it as an unwarranted liberty with their names. The Catholic authorities were in no sense responsible, and when I recall the letter from Cardinal Manning, pub- lished in the preface of the first edition, declining to furnish any information, or to countenance the publi- cation in any way, I cannot help feeling indignant at what I must characterize as the rude and uncalled for allusion, which our reverend critic has thought proper to make, to the " unheard of impudence of Eminences, Graces, Lordships." The man who first encouraged the publication was a pillar of the Anglican Church, to wit, Mr. Gladstone, who wrote a letter to the editor, making certain sug- gestions astothearrangement of the names and so forth. The pamphlet has since gone through several edi- tions, each an enlargement and improvement on the preceding. The last edition was published in 1892, and so far as my personal knowledge goes, is what it professes to be, a list of prominent English converts to Rome during the nineteenth century. Our critic refers us to the Quarterly Review of 1 888, where he says this pamphlet is torn to shreds. The writer in the Quarterly had reference to the edition of 1884, but I do not find that he was nearly so destructive as one would gather from the reverend gentleman's words. He does not tear anything to tatters ; on the contrary he is moderation itself In an article of 32 pages on " The Roman Catholics in England," this anonymous writer devotes one page to the pamphlet i» question. The hardest hit is as follows: — 10 " It should be 'premised that whatever errors, accidental or otnei- wise, may be detected in these lists, they are entirely free from under- statement. There are names inserted which have no business there, and some names of little children are set down as though they were adults ; but no name has been left out that couicl be got hold of, and the humblest claim to social position, such as kinship to an attorney, has been held sufficient for admission to the honours of the list. " We are not particularly concerned in the accuracy of this pamphlet, still, as it has been published, it is well to know how far it is to be depended on. Fortu- nately this question is capable of easy determination^ I have often looked through " Rome's Recruits " and my impression, notwithstanding the reviewer's state- ments to the contrary, is that the principal errors are those of omission. I need not go outside of this city to give one notable example of this, in the person of the Right HonourablegentlemanwhowasthefirstPresi- dent of this Society. Of course some names have got in that should not be there. How many do you think? So far as I can ascertain, just 1 1, in a total of 3541. exclusive of foreigners and children, or one in every 322 ; and these 1 1 are individually withdrawn and apologized for in the preface to the last edition. >> These mistakes apparently have occurred chiefly in the cases of extreme high churchmen, who in exter- nals, approach so nearly to Rome that it is no wonder the newspaper was occasionally deceived. It is surely not necessary to ascribe such natural errors, particularly when committed by a secular newspaper in search of a sensation, to ' Romish ' malignity or love of falsehood. To return to our local illustration. What would be thought of a man who would seek to hold up the Ottawa Journal to obloquy, because it was shown that out of |he 750 names published as having visited 11 ruits " and I Chicago, three had got off at Detroit ! Would not any reasonable being say that so far from the news- paper being blameworthy, the fact of only three names out of 750 being wrong was pretty good evidence of the correctness of the list as a whole? In like manner, though I object to the publication of these names, correctly or incorrectly, without the consent of the owners, I say that the fact of only 1 1 complaints being made out of 3541 names, is evidence of the trustworthy character of the pamphlet, whatever one may think of the taste which prompted its com- pilation. Our critic says that the pamphleteer went to Russia, Germany, and America for names. Why did he not say also France, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland ? The fact is, the book appears to be exactly what it |3urports, a list of prominent British converts. Following, as a sort of supplement, under the heading of ' List of a few foreign Converts,' which heading is printed in large type, are the names of a number of Americans, 13 French, 49 Germans, one Russian, two Swedes, four Danes, and six Swiss, Surely that is legitimate. Could any one who had never seen the book, conjecture from our critic's description its true structure? I will add that there is nothing in the reverend gentleman's criticism to indicate that he ever even opened it. Nor does this surprise me. I can well understand that the imposing array of eminent names theie presented is not calculated to promote an Anglican clergyman's peace of mind, I cannot see that this list, apart altogether from the question of its accuracy has, any more than the dates of the gospels, a bearing upon the merits of the controversy in which our critic is interested. But w ' - 'li 12 the reverend gentleman no doubt knows best. So much for our critic's general observations, under- lying which, so far as there is any connection between them, I think I detect an apprehension, disguised in the language of strenuous assertion to the contrary, that the position of the Anglican Church in respect of its claims to antiquity and continuity with the past, is not quite impregnable. ' As it is manifestly impossible to discuss the false decretals, and the Lollards, and the Albigenses and Martin Luther, and a host of other controversial subjects, in the brief space of half an hour, I think I should best fulfil the object we have in view, by devoting a few minutes to the claims advanced on behalf of the Anglican Church. And first let me disabuse the minds of those, who like our reverend critic, may consider that the Catholic Truth Society has any animus against that communion. To one casually looking over our publications the impression is perhaps not an unnatural one, but the explanation is very simple. Almost all our books are imported from England, where the Established Church stands for the great body of non-Catho^tc thought. Let me assure our Anglican friends that there is no antipathy to their Church on the part of the Catholic Truth Society. On the contrary, it seems to me that the notice we pay to it points the other way. It shows that at any rate we recognize in the Anglican Church, certain forms in common with our own, which render comparison possible. How is a Catholic profitably to discuss ecclesiastical history, with those who do not believe in any visible church, or in the episcopal form of government, or in the idea of sacramental grace, or who do not pretend to a corporate existence of a 13 I more than relatively a few yeara. We are so wide apart that unless one enters the purely theological arena there is no basis for controversy or discussion. Alone of all the bodies that surround us the Anglican communion sets up any claim to the prerogatives of the Church. A pale reflection though she be, still, in her form of govern- ment and liturgical observances, one can discern traces of Catholicity not wholly obliterated. While I do not believe that a single member of this society is animated by any illwill towards the Established Church, I may be permitted to add that my own feelings lead me in quite a contrary direction. That it is in any sense a portion of the Catholic Church I am, for reasons which I hope to show, unable to believe. At the same time it is undoubtedly one of the great institutions of our country, one of the pillars of the constitution. It is vastly better than its founders. It teaches much Catholic truth. It .stands as a breakwater against greater evils. It contains within its ranks numbers, of whose learning and piety there is no question, of men who would fain blot out its shameful past. I do not believe that it possesses the apostolical succession, but most heartily do I concur in the opinion that if excellence of purpose and purity of life could make a man a priest, the Church of England would number many .such. As a Catholic I should look forward to its disestablish- ment with dismay, and for very obvious reasons. Being purely a human institution, I greatly fear that the moment the strong arm of the state was removed, the Establishment would fall asunder, and there is nothing to take its place. The number of converts to Rome in England is very considerable, and the fact that they are almost all drawn from the upper classes ■pp 14 ■M of society, gives to the movement an importance altO' gether out of proportion to the actual count. At the same time we must remember that the great mass of the English people is Protestant, and Protestant it will remain, without a miracle, for years to come. The process of conversion now going on is no doubt leavening the upper strata of society. I believe I am not wrong in saying that there is scarcely a noble family in England which has not furnished a member to the Catholic Church, But there are 27 millions of people in England and in these days, when one man is as good as another, what are a few thousands among so many. If the Anglican Church were disestablished to-morrow^ it does not follow that her cathedrals and universities and revenues would revert to the use for which they were originally established. Far from it. All these things would simply become the spoil of contending factions, or be turned over to secular uses, and our pro- spects of some day regaining our own './ould be enor- mously lessened. It is sad I admit, that the ancient sees should be occupied by those whom we cannot but re- gard as intruders. It is equally painful to behold those glorious cathedrals erected by the piety of our fore- fathers for Catholic worship, diverted to their present use. But on the other hand it is surely better for their rightful owners that Westminster Abbey and Canter- bury Cathedral should remain in the keeping of culti- vated English gentlemen, who are not insensible to the sacred influences of those hallowed spots, than that they should e ice again be over-run by men without reverence for the past, respect for the present, or regard for the future. Better a thousand times that they should continue to resound with what is after all the echo, faint it may be, but still an echo of the olden worship, than that they should be profaned with 15 the uncouth diatribes of an itinerant preacher, or given over to the purposes of a socialistic propaganda. In this of course, I speak only for myself Holding this view of the Anglican body and its clerg}', it will be readily believed that it is not an agreeable task to be compelled to deny its claim to be considered a portion of the Catholic Church, or to say of its ministers that their orders are more than doubtful. Yet there are occasions when the truth demands the fulfilment of many duties from the per- formance of which we would willingly escape, and this is one of them. Fortunately in the present case the disagreeable character of the task is largely modified by the fact that a majority of the Anglican body (as regards the laity I think I may say the great majority) entirely disavow the doctrine, that union with a visible church, by participation in material sacraments, is necessary to eternal life. On the contrary, the whole body of the Low Church party will tell you that the Christian Church is not necessarily an external organization at all, but is the body of all true believers, no matter to what communion they belong. Thus one of their most eminent Bishops wrote II : — " Blessed be God there is no difference in any essential matters betwixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Reformation." To the members of this school, nothing I am going to say possesses interest. So far from claiming for their clergy any sacerdotal powers or functions derived from the imposition of hands m a direct line from the Apostles^ they will tell you that such an assertion is an impious derogation from the prerogatives of the Son of God. 11. Hall. The same idea can be found in Bishop Ryle's works, passim, or indeed, in the writings of almost any Low Church divine. (i!- 16 There is, however, a body of men within the Esta- blishment, certainly not inferior in learning or piety to the rest — who do, I believe, in all sincerity claim those attributes for their church and for themselves They affirm that their communion is one with the ancient church as it existed in England for a thousand years before the Reformation. That union with Rome is not essential to Catholicity. That there was an ancient British Church in existence before the days of St. Augustine ; that this Church was independent of Rome. That gradually the Popes imposed their power, until the sixteenth century, when the English Church threw off the Papal supremacy and resumed its original position in the Christian world. That the succession, though endangered by the excesses con- sequent upon the Reformation, was preserved in the per- son of Archbishop Parker, and that the Church of England is to-day a living branch of the Holy Catholic Church. For many who hold and preach this doctrine I entertain the highest regard — for some of them an affection that will last with my life. I can only hope that what I feel called upon to say here may be received by them without offence^ as I am sure it is uttered without malevolence. .-, I now propose to discuss the assertion of our critic which he says is disputed only by the ignorant or malicious, that — ■. ;j; " The Church of England claims to be historically and continuously the Catholic Church, as settled in England before the mission of Augustine, not originally subject to the Pope, and not losing her identity when, with other novelties unknown (like the Papal supremacy) to the Church of the Apostles and of the primitive centuries, that supremacy was cast oft. " Now, first, as to the early British Church. That Christianity existed in England before the mission of ^i 17 St. Augustine is undoubtedly true, though how it came there no one can say with any certainty. It seems to have reached its greatest development dur- ing the early part of the fifth century, or just before the arrival of the Saxons in 449. This savage race, issuing from the forests of northern Europe, remote from all civilizing influences, was the fiercest of the northern barbarians. Heathens who had never heard the name of Christ, they swept down upon the Britons whom after many a desperate struggle, they drove before them into the fastnesses of Wales and Cornwall. In little more than a century Christianity, says Professor Emerton of Harvard, in his introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages, had almost disappeared from England proper, and was to be found only in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. 12. Thus the greater part of England was again with- out knowledge of God, and so it remained until Pope Gregory, attracted by the beauty of a group of fair- haired Saxon slaves exposed for sale in the market place of Rome, sent St. Augustine to recover the land. We all know what happened. How the Saint went forth on his mission. How he landed on the Kentish coast and succeeded in winning over the rude Saxon king. How Christianity spread throughout the land. How again Mass was sung and the saints invoked on English ground. How Augustine founded tliv- Sec of Canterbury and governed the Church, sub- ject to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. The few remaining British bishops would not at first co-operate with him, not because he came from Rome, but for the expressed reason that they con- sidered he did not receive them with sufficient defer- II. p. in. i^ 18 ence. Within a comparatively short period, however, an understanding was effected. Together the British and Roman missionaries undertook the work of con- version in the north, and at the Council of Whitby, in the year 664, the supremacy of Rome was formally acknowledged. PVom 8t. Augustine and his succes- sors the Church of England derives whatever she may pos.sess. Indeed this is so well recognized that a favourite name tor their body, among many high Anglicans, is the " Church of St. Augustine." St. Augustine is recognized as the founder and he, as is not disputed, received his authority direct from Rome. But supposing, for the sake of argument, that the ancient British Church had preserved its local identity — suppose there had been no Saxon invasion and no visit from St. Augustine, and that the Anglicans of to-day could trace their succession in a direct line from the bishops who met Augustine, would that justify their present attitude towards Rome. I answer no, because the British Church, in common with the churches of Gaul, Africa {and elsewhere, acknow- ledged the authority of the Holy See. I do not merely assert this after the fashion of our critic. I prove it. In two leaflets issued by the Catholic Truth Society, intituled respectively. " The English Church always Roman Catholic," and "Was the British Church Roman Catholic," will be found quotations from St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, as also from the Venerable Bede and other early British writers, which seem to me to place this fact beyond doubt. I observe, however, that our critic feels some difficulty in accepting our quotations, all of which, he charitably says, are open to the suspicion of not being genuine 1^ To verify these patristic utterances would require more time, and call for more learning than, I fear, I possess. I think, however, I can remove the objection by supplying confirmatory evidence of what the Fathers say, from English writers, all of them Pro- testant, and some of them eminent divines of our critic's own church. For the correctness of these quotations I hold myself personally responsible, and as they are all from well known writers, any attempt at fraud on my part can easily be detected and exposed. ; I. St, Bishop Goodwin, the late Anglican Bishop of Carlisle, says in his " Church of England, Past and •'resent " — " There is no evidence of any substantial Giffcrence between it (the British Church) and the Church which Augustine established." >3- This is pretty straight and to the point. 2nd. Archbishop Trench, the late Protestant Arch- bishop of Dublin says in his " English Past and Present " : " The fact that we (the English people) received our Christianity from Rome, and that Latin was the constant language of the Church &c." M- 3rd. Hume, in his " History of England," says in effect that the early British Church differed from the Roman only in the mode of computing the date of Easter, and in the shape of the tonsure, 15 and 13. I have not been able to procure a copy of this work, which is not in the Parliamentary Library. Before reading my paper I sent to New York for it, but without success. While I have no doubt of ihe correctness of this quotation I am, for the above reason, obliged to give it second hand. In view of the fact that I have tal.en our critic's word for all his quotations, perhaps he will accept mine for this one. 14. Part I, p. 43. .^ ■■ 15. Vol. I, pp. 52, 53. Our critic stoutly affirms " that in ils origin, the Church of England was not Roman," but as usual, he does not support his statement by one single authority. Now, I propose to supply this want. Hume, in the same chapter from which I have just quotea, says that in the very beginning of things the British bishops did not acknowledge Rome. In this he differs from other authorities, and even from himself. (See above). I allude to this, because it undoubtedly weakeni the force of my reference, and I desire to be scrupulously fair. ^i ' 20 4th. Emerton, in his introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages, says the same thing. i6. 5th. Hallam, in his Constitutional History, admits that the clergy of England always acknowledged the Papal supremacy. ^7- ^^ i; ^ J In addition to these authorities I might quote Montalambert, who declared that " if England is Christian at this hour she owes it to the monks and emissaries of the Holy See," though, as Montalambert was not a Protestant, I do not choose to rest anything on his assertions. But not only is it true that in matters of faith and doctrine the early British Church was subject to Rome, it is a fact, dispute it who may, that no country in the whole world exceeded England in the loving obedience which our fathers paid to the suc- ce-i! ors of St. Peter. " Not only did the doctrine (of Papal Supremacy) take root in Germanic Britain," says Professor Ranke, " but with it a veneration for Rome and the Holy See, such as no other country had ever evinced." 18. ••;-:. ' * v In the face of witnesses such as these, what becomes of the theory of an independent British Church ? Whatever may have happened afterwards, it seems to me impossible for any candid mind to withstand the testimony brought in support of the claim that, from the earliest times down to the Reformation, England was subject in spiritual matters to the Roman Pontiff. 16. p. 112. 17. Vol. 1, p. 69. 18. Hist., Popes, vol. i, p. lo. il^ '»mx- 21 le Study of tory, admits pledged the night quote England is monks and ontalambert ;st anything )f faith and subject to y, that no ;land in the to the suc- doctrine (of lie Britain," leration for ountry had lese, what nt British afterwards, mind to upport of wn to the lal matters I do not for a moment seek to obscure the fact that there was a national spirit in English Catholicity which found expression in certain local ' uses ' and customs, just as France had its Gallican rite ; nor do I deny that the kings of England from time to time quarrelled with the Pope, as did the kingc of Spain but what I do maintain is that during all thctse years of which we have been speaking, there was but one religion in the kingdom — that of Rome ; but one faith — the Catholic. - It was the supreme consciousness of this fact that wrung from Macaulay these memorable words. (He is speaking of the Universities.) • " When I think of the spacious and stately mansions of the heads of houses, of the commodious chambers of the fellows and scholars, of the refectories, the combination rooms, the bowling greens, the stabling ; of the state and luxury of the great feast days, of the piles of old plate on the tables, oi the savoury steam of the kitchens, of the multitude of geese and capons which turn at once on the spits, of the oceans of excellent ale in the butteries ; and when I remember from whom all this splendour and plenty is derived ; when I remember what was the faith of Edward the Third and of Henry the Sixth, of Margaret of Anjou and Margaret of Richmond, of William of Wykeham and William of Waynefleet, of Archbishop Chicheley ai)d Cardinal Wolsey : when I remember what we have taken from the Roman Catholics — Kings College, New College, Christ Church, my own Trinity ; and when I look at the miserable Dotheboys Hall which we have given them in exchange (Maynooth), I feel, I must own, less proud than I could wish, of being a Protestant and a Cambridge man." 19. In process of time there came a change, and Eng- land, or rather its adulterous and bestial king, wearied of the restraints to which the Roman obedience held him. Inflamed with pride, avarice, and lust, he deter- mined to sever the bond which had connected Eng- land with the centre of Christendom for a thousand 19. Speeches, p. 683, 22 years. What he failed to complete his savage daughter accomplished. The Church and ecclesiastical commun- ities were pillaged, the altars were overthrown, the sees were despoiled, the professors of the ancient faith were hung, drawn, quartered, racked and roasted, and finally driven out of the kingdom, or obliged to hide in the holes and corners of the earth. A new regiiTie was inaugurated. The reverend gentleman is very angry at Father Damen for saying that Henry VIII was the fomider of the Anglican Church. He calls the statement a ' slanderous attack.' Yet Father Damen in saying this uttered nothing original. He who has been styled the most impartial of English his ians said it long before. •' Cranmer and most of the original founder!, of the Anglican Church, so far from maintaining the the national legislature and disposing of vast revenues for national purposes. It may reasonably therefore be concluded that those who interpret its formularies in the widest and most comprehensive sense compatible with honesty, are acting most faithfully to the spirit of \i^ foHnderS." Vol. 2, p. 541 24. Vol. Ill, p. 138. 24 the Reforhvition is the same as the Church of England before the Reformation. ' " Of course we are not told where or in what connection Professor Freeman uttered these words, but let that pass. Speaking not from a theological but from an historical point of view, no one doubts Professor Freeman's statement We may be quite sure that Henry VIII who made the laws, took good care t^ give' a legal status to the work of his hinds, and that- so far as Acts of Parliament could preserve the continuity, it was legally, and therefore in a sense historically, the same Church after as before the Reformation. What we are interested in knowing is was it the same Church, ecclesiastically and spiritually as before? Did it teach the same faith, administer the same sacraments, acknowledge the same head ? That is what many anxious minds want to know, and the reverend gentleman may take my word for it they will not all be put off by quibbles on the word legally or rubbish about washing one's face. From mere motives of expediency, and not from any belief in its divine appointment, Elizabeth determined that the new Church should retain the episcopal form. The Queen's choice of primate fell upon Matthew Parker, some time Dean of Lincoln, who she decreed should be Archbishop of Canterbury. On the accession of P^izabeth there were 14 bishops in England. All of them refused to have any part in the consecration of Parker, and in consequence 1 3 of them were instantly deprived of their sees. This unanimous refusal made it necessary to look about for some of the bishops who had resigned or been deprived at the beginning of Mary's reign. Of these William Barlow, who had been Bishop of Bath and Wells, was 25 chosen to consecrate Parker, assisted by Coverdale, Scory and Hodgkin, three other deprived bishops. The ceremony was performed. Archbishop Parker ascended the chair of St. Augustine, and from him the AngUcan episcopate of to-day derive their orders. The question which so deeply concerns our English Church friends is, was this consecration of Parker valid ? To determine it we are obHged to ascend one step and propound the enquiry whether Barlow, the con- secrator, was himself a Bishop. ThiS is the crucial point. In examining it I do so from the position of an Anglican. As a Catholic I may say that the sub- ject of Anglican orders has never been pronounced upon by the Church, and until she says so there is no absolute certainty on the point. It is not material to the controversy between Rome and Canterbury, so far as Rome is concerned. For even supposing it could be demonstrated beyond all doubt that Anglican orders were valid, the fact would not make the English Church Catholic. The Greek orders are certainly valid. That many of the sects of antiquity possessed true orders is beyond dispute. Rome has always acknow- ledged the orders of the Armenians, the Nestorians, the Old Catholics and many other heretical bodies The Catholic Church therefore has no possible object in denying the Anglican claim. But while the point is not material so far as the Roman Church is con- cerned, it is absolutely vital to an Anglican, because if his Church does not possess the succession, obviously she cannot form a part of the Catholic Church. The importance of the question is therefore apparent. Let us enumerate in a word the conditions necessary to constitute a valid ordination. The consecrator must himself be a bishop. He must pronounce ,'. *:,,-^ ,VT. , 111 26 certain words and perform certain manual acts, with the intention of imparting sacramental grace. Now. (i.) Was Barlow a bishop ? (2.) Did he consecrate Parker ? Taking up the latter point first. As to whether Barlow, supposing him to have been a true bishop, fulfilled the requisite conditions in his con- secration of Parker, I may say at once that we have in the register of Parker's consecration, which is among the archives of Lambeth Palace, prima facie evidence in the affirmative. !t is true there are several suspicious circumstances irt connec- tion with this record. In the first place it was not produced or specifically alluded to until after the lapse of 50 years, when every participant in the ceremony had long been dead. When during Parker's life time the consecration was challenged, the Arch- bishop replied, not by producing the register which would have settled the question, but by obtaining an Act of Parliament (8 Eliz. Cap. i) supplying what- ever defects might have occurred. Notwith- standing this, the register is there, and competent critics are of opinion that it is genuine, and consequently that Parker's consecration, apart from the question of Barlow, was in regular form. To come now to the point. Was Barlow a bishop? In the first place, no record of his consecration can be found. That fact, though unusual, taken by itself is by no means conclusive against him, for the omission might have been accidental, and in any case registration has never been held to be essential, but as we enquire further, doubts multiply. He is said to have been consecrated by Cranmer, "the most 27 al acts, with ace. it. As to been a true in his coii- lat we have m, which is , prima facie true there ill connec- place it was until after :ipant in the ring Parker's d, the Arch- ;gister which obtaining an )lying what- Notwith- competent onsequently question of )w a bishop ? ecration can