H'l'jifii nil

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES

WESTCOTT

\J<ir Mb foiling of a. Cclhi^Sl^^^^ht^l

Anonymous Gift

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES

Catholic Principles

AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE DOCTRINE,
HISTORY. AND ORGANIZATION

AMERICAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES
COMMONLY CALLED
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
BY THE LATE
REV. FRANK N. WESTCOTT 8 • •
NEW EDITION
REVISED AND EDITED
BY THE
RT. REV. A. C. A. HALL, D. D.
Bishop of Vermont

MILV\rAUKEE
THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO.
1916

COPYniGHT BY
THE YOUNG CHUECHMAN CO.
1902, 1916

CORRIGENDA
Page 7, line 18. Read "scriptural" instead of "spiritual."
Page 48, line 19. Read "If any man foUoweth one that mak-
eth a schism," etc.
Page 49, footnote. Read "The translations of St. Ignatius
are Bishop Lightfoot's."
Page 72, line 5. Read "covenant" instead of "convenant."
Page 80, line 27. Read "drink the Cup" instead of "drink
this Cup."
Page 88, line 16. Read "gift" for "gifts."
Page 90, line 8. Omit first three words.
Page 146, line 4. Read "Court" for "Courts."
Page 146, line 6. Read "at Rome" instead of "of Rome."
Page 190, line 20. Insert closing quotation marks after
"Decretals."
Page 226, line 28. Read "teaching" for "teachings."
Page 229, line 28. Read "Leo" for "Leon."
Page 280, line 10. Read "a communion" instead of "the
communion."
Page 341, line 20. Read "Roman Question" instead of
"Roman Questions."
Page 348, line 1. Read "argument" for "arguments."
Page 362, line 29. Read "supposititious" for "suppositious."

TO THE MEMORY OF
MY FRIEND AND SENIOR WARDEN
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM MARVIN
EX-JUDGE AND SOMETIME PROVISIONAL
GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, UNDER THE IN
SPIRATION OF WHOSE JUDICIAL CRITICISM
AND KINDLY SYMPATHY THIS BOOK WAS
WRITTEN
"Rzsl eternal grani lo him, O Lord; and
may light perpetual shine upon him."

CONTENTS
ohaptee page
I. — What is the American Episcopal Chueoh? 1
II. — The Protestant Theory of the Chuech - 18
III. — The Catholic Theory of the Church - - 39
IV. — The Catholic Principle of Authobitt - 55
V. — Did oub Lobd Establish a Church? - - 70
VI. — The Apostles' Work in Founding the
Church .... - 88
VII. — The Catholic Chdbch and the Incaena-
TION 101
VIII. — The Unity of the Chuech in Space 120
IX. — Founding of the Anglo-Catholic Church 132
X. — The Rbs'obmation in the Chuech of Eng
land - .... 144
XL — The Catholic Chuech in the United
States .... - - 163
XII. — Papal Supbemact ajmd the Holt Sceip-
TUBES - 169
XIII. — The Gbowth of Papal Claims 182
XIV. — The Catholic Method of Defining the
Teuth  198
XV. — Papal Infallibility - ... 219
XVI. — The Ministbt of the Chuech - 237
XVII. — The Apostolic Succession in the Angli
can Chuech  255
XVTII. — The Sacramental System - 264
XIX. — Saceificial Woeship 288
XX. — The Rationale of Ritual ... - 299
XXI. — The Catholicity of the Peayee Book 315
XXII. — "Romanism" in the Chuech 333
XXIIL— Conclusion - - - - 348

NOTE TO REVISED EDITION
TM FEW years ago, when the lamented author was
J I already in failing health, my chaplain for many
years, the Eev. Gteorge B. Johnson, went through this
little book with care, suggesting points for revision or
reconsideration. Mr. Westcott was not well enough to
take the matter up. And now, when both he and Mr.
Johnson have passed from us, the publishers have asked
me to incorporate into the text of a new edition such
of the criticisms as it seems desirable to adopt.
Mr. Johnson's judgment of the book was that it was
"the best handbook on Church principles we have. It
is thoroughly readable; it is not too long; and it avoids
the arrogant tone toward the dissenter which mars the
usefulness of some of our manuals." Because of its ex
cellence in these respects he thought it worth while to
remove some inaccurate or doubtful statements, and to
improve the references. His own exact scholarship is
well known.
Citations from the New Testament have now been
conformed to the Revised Edition, not as necessarily
passing judgment on its text or translation, but to avoid

X CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
a possible objection that stress was laid on a disputed
passage. As a tribute to both men I am glad to have a hand
in bettering the work on which they both spent much
labor, and which they hoped might have wide useful
ness. The large sale of the earlier editions proves this
hope to have been well foimded. A. C. A. H.
BurUngton, Vt., January, 1916.

PREFACE
31781 in proportion as the Anglican Church has
been content to act as if she were Catholic, and
to stir up the gifts within her, in that proportion we
find she is so, and has the living Spirit in her body.
What is reassuring is not merely that the faith of indi
viduals, whether priests or people, finds its response : it
is not merely that we are allowed to realize our Cath
olicity in this or that parish, this or that institution:
. . . it is true further and beyond this, that our Church
is driven in her formal and corporate action more and
more to take her stand on the only basis which is ten
able and enduring, the basis of catholic principle." —
Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, page 18.
"The wonderful part of it is, that all this" (the re
vival of Catholic teaching and practice in the Anglican
Church) "should have come about as the result of in
ternal causes ; of the working out of their own thoughts
and principles, and not from any external persuasion
or influence." — Bagshawe's Credentials of the (Roman)
Catholic Church, page 47.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
CHAPTER I
WHAT IS THE AMEEICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH ?
TT IS quite generally admitted by those who
watch the trend of the religious movements of
the day, that that body of Christians which is com
monly known as the American Episcopal Church
has come to occupy a position, and exert an in
fluence, quite out of proportion to the number of
its members, or the extent of its organization. By
the confession of both its friends and its enemies,
for some reason or another, it seems to be like "a
city set on a hill which cannot be hid."
It is to-day, perhaps, the most enthusiastically
defended, the most violently attacked, the most
frequently imitated, and the least understood, of
all religious organizations in the country. There
seems to be something about it which challenges
attention, and leads its friends to feel an enthusi-

2 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
astic love for it, and great hope for its future, and
those who are not its friends, to feel that in it they
have no common sect to deal with, but an organ
ization and a system, which by virtue of its pe
culiar claims, and rapid growth, may prove a for
midable power in winning the allegiance of Prot
estant Christians.
There is something about the Church, the
genius of its system, the enthusiasm of its de
fenders, the spirit which animates it, the self-
assertive way it teaches, the devielopment of its
work and worship on lines, and in directions, with
which Protestants are not familiar, for which the
logic of neither Protestants nor Romanists can
account; and which therefore challenges their at
tention and their criticism.
Now it is very evident that those outside of
it do not altogether understand either its teaching,
or its historic position, or the genius of its life,
from the fact that what is said about it is so
contradictory. It is said to be too narrow, too
broad; too inclusive or too exclusive; too con
servative, too liberal; too mediseval, too advanced;
too formal, too lax; too dogmatic, too tolerant;
too Protestant, too Romish; a Church in which
one believes too much, or too little; which makes
religion too hard, or too easy for its members.
Occasionally a sympathetic critic attempts to
explain its life, on the principle that its cat
echetical system interests and holds the young;
or that its liturgical worship attracts people; or

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 3
that it is eminently respectable, and has trained
a great many patriots and eminent thinkers in
the past.
But after all, such explanation confessedly
fails to account for the character and work of the
Church of to-day.
Now, why is it that the Episcopal Church is
so little understood by either Protestants or Ro
manists? Eor the very simple reason, that the
Church is neither Protestant nor Roman, in the
ordinary use of the terms. A Protestant can
understand a Protestant sect, and he thinks he
understands the Roman Catholic Church; but a
religious body which is neither the one nor the
other is beyond his depth, at any rate beyond his
experience. The Protestant assumes that anything
in the Episcopal Church which he does not under
stand must be "Romish ;" and the Roman assumes
that anything in the Episcopal Church which he
does not understand must be "Protestant." Each
judges from his ovsm standpoint, and experience,
and each is wrong. The Roman cannot conceive
of a Catholicity which is not Roman, nor the
Protestant of a Reformed Church which is not
Protestant ; and so naturally the Episcopal Church
is between two fires; is repudiated by both, be
cause she will not assimilate with either, and ac
cept their own definitions of what the Christian
Church ought to be.
Now let us suppose that a Protestant who is
thoughtful and intelligent, recognizing the fact

4 CATHOUC PRINCIPLES
that the Episcopal Church is to him in a sense
unique, has a sincere desire to study it for himself,
and find out, if possible, what it really is. Sup
pose such a man, laying aside his prejudices, ap
proaches the Church as a sympathetic learner,
rather than as a hostile critic.
What will he find? What features of the
Church's organization, history, life, and work, will
be most apt to impress him, on a merely super
ficial inspection? Eirst, he will find, that the
Church is grovsdng in the centres of population
with considerable rapidity. He wiU find that she
receives over twenty thousand converts from the
Protestant denominations, and between thirty and
forty of their ministers each year, and that in ten
years she has received over three hundred and
fifty ministers from various religious bodies, and
the drift is practically all one way. (See notes
at the end of this chapter.)
These clerical converts are often the most in
telligent of their class, men who come at the cost
of considerable self-sacrifice, knowing that if they
are to enter the ministry of the Church, they must
be confirmed, and begin at the beginning in the
order of deacons, before they can be made Priests.
The remarkable fact about this growth is not its
rapidity, but the fact that it takes place and con
stantly increases, apparently as the Church's
special claims are better understood, and more
clearly taught; claims which seem narrow, arro
gant, and exclusive, to the Protestant, and which

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 5
ought therefore rather to offend intelligent men,
and keep them out of the Church, than to attract
and hold them, unless the claims are true. More
over, the Church shows most remarkable powers of
assimilation; for, though these clerical converts
represent all sorts of creeds, they soon come to ac
cept the claims of the Church, and for the most
part defend them as heartily as her ovra. children.
The Church seems to have a wonderful way of con
vincing these men that she is right; and she pro
ceeds to mould them to her ideas, while they have
little or no effect in moulding her to their ideas.
The Protestant wiE also discover, that a ma
jority of the Church's intelligent laymen believe
thoroughly in their Church; are devoted to her
interests and work, and at rest in their acceptance
of her Eaith. Eor example, in a small town
where there are large and fine Protestant churches,
which represent brilliant preaching, and much
social advantage, a Churchman will still prefer
(if there is no larger church) even a little mission
of his ovTn Church, plain and outwardly unattract
ive, conducted possibly by a priest of very mod
erate ability, and he never seems to care to go
elsewhere. He is contented and happy, appar
ently believing that he receives something in his
little mission church, which Protestants do not;
and that which he finds more than makes up to
him for the loss of the intellectual and social ad
vantages, which are offered elsewhere. His loy
alty to his Church seems, for some reason which

6 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
is not apparent, to be a matter of vital principle,
rather than a matter of taste or choice. Surely
there must be some reason for this, some very at
tractive power, to hold men to the Church.
The Protestant will also find in the Church,
something which is very perplexing. That this
Church which as he supposed was so narrow, is
as a matter of fact amazingly broad and Catholic;
so much so, that he is confused at first by what he
finds. Eor he soon discovers that the Church not
only holds and teaches the fractions of truth
taught by his own sect, but that she teaches the
truths held by all Protestant sects put together;
so that in coming into the Church, he really gives
up nothing, but simply widens his range of be
lief immensely. He finds that with the Presby
terians, the Church holds an order of presbyters,
but refuses to deny the historic character of
Episcopacy ; that with the Methodists, she believes
in the necessity of conversion and personal holi
ness, but refuses to deny the necessity of sacra
mental grace ; with the Baptists, she requires faith
in adults as a condition of Baptism, and baptizes
by immersion whenever immersion is desired, but
refuses to rule children out of God's Eamily, the
Church; with the Unitarians, she believes that
there is but one Grod, but refuses to deny that in
that imity there is a tri-personality ; with the
Eriends, she believes in silent meetings, which she
calls retreats, meditations, or quiet days, in the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, and in simplicity of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 7
life; but she refuses to reject the visible Church,
which the Lord Himself creates and sends, or the
Sacraments which He has ordained. In short, the
Protestant finds that just so far as any sect affirms
any truth positively, the Church holds that truth
also ; but that what the Church rejects, is simply
the protestant denials of truth. But more than
this: the Protestant finds that the Church holds
and teaches, with the truths with which he is
familiar, many others with which he is not famil
iar, and which he has been in the habit of con
sidering false or superstitious. Truths about the
Church, its nature, history, and doctrine, which
he always thought were Roman Catholic errors.
Truths which are entirely foreign to the Protestant
system as such. And yet most Churchmen seem
to take these doctrines as a matter of course, and
to be ready and glad to give both spiritual and
historic reasons why they believe them, and do
not seem in the least inclined to go over to the
Roman Church, because they hold them. This is
a very puzzling fact to the Protestant, this discov
ery that truth is hy no means limited to Protestant
ism, and that a Church can hold many truths in
common with Romanists, and yet apparently have
the strongest possible objections to adopting the
Roman system.
To the Protestant the Church seems in many
ways to be an imitation of Rome, and he thinks
that its members must or ought to go to Rome,
but for some reason or another they do not, to

8 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
any marked extent. If the Church is obviously
not Protestant, in the ordinary sense, it is equally
evident that she is not Roman. The Protestant
is puzzled at the breadth of truth which he finds
in the Episcopal Church, its vigorous grasp of
essential truths, and its broad tolerance of differ
ences of opinion in matters which are not essential.
Then, too, the Protestant is puzzled by the
discovery that the Church is such a remarkable
combination of the old and the new. So far as he
can see, it is ready to meet new issues, to adapt
itself to the necessities of the age. It contains
many of the most advanced thinkers along certain
lines. It is employing all sorts of means, to reach
all sorts of men. It is not the least afraid to
adopt any truth which modem science or higher
criticism may happen to demonstrate.
In certain congested districts of large cities
it is the only religious body which seems to suc
ceed in winning and holding men. It has all
sorts of services for all sorts of people, from re
vivals, which it calls missions, and silent meet
ings, which it calls meditations, up to the elab
orate ritual of a High Celebration. It has an
endless number of guilds, fraternities, brother
hoods, and sisterhoods, for doing various kinds
of work, for meeting the needs of all sorts of
temperaments. Its clergy are interested in mu
nicipal reforms, and public charities, and yet with
all its modem, up-to-date spirit, and organization,
there is a strange mixture of that which is old,

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 9
and by Protestants thought to be effete. Some
how Churchmen seem to believe that their Church
is as old as Christianity; that it inherits from an
ancient past the essentials of doctrine, organiza
tion, and custom, which are practically change
less. In an Episcopal Church the Protestant often
finds the arrangements and symbols, which he
would have found anywhere in the Christian world,
many centuries before such a thing as Protestant
ism was ever heard of.
He sees the high altar, central in position, in a
sanctuary made beautiful with form and color and
costly fabrics, in honor of Him, who. Churchmen
believe, comes to them in the Blessed Sacrament.
On the Altar he sees the cross, the lights, and
the flowers, symbols of his salvation. The priests
wear official vestments, the service is liturgical
and dignified; and in its dignity and orderliness,
is eloquent of a reverent faith in the unseen Pres
ence of God. He finds that the very words of the
liturgy are many of them over a thousand or
fifteen hundred years old; that they have the
stamp of no one man, and no one age, but repre
sent the cumulative devotion of many centuries.
That in all this the Church's ways and organiza
tion are not of her own making, are hers, not by
adoption from another system, but by inheritance
from her own past. In some parish he may hear
a most evangelical gospel sermon, and yet see
candles on the Altar, and hear a prayer for some
departed soul; and all this curious combination

10 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of that which is new and that which is old, is
very strange to him at first. Most certainly the
Church cannot be Protestant, in the ordinary sense
of the word.
Then, too, he notices that there are different
schools of thought in the Church, which at times
seem to be more or less at variance with each
other; and yet they remain in the Church, and
are devoted to it, whereas such differences would
split a Protestant sect all to pieces.
What is it that holds them together? More
over, if any one school tries to dominate the
Church, and mould it to its convictions, it fails.
The Church moulds men, and is not materially
moulded by them; while, at the same time, she
claims as her own, all that is positive and true
in each school of thought, rejecting nothing but
their negations and "denials, and finds a place for
them in her household. She is heartily in sym
pathy -with the personal piety and evangelical
orthodoxy of the Low Churchman, with the learn
ing and scientific scholarship, the broad-minded
ness of the Broad Churchman, with the High
Churchman's appreciation of her historic position
and claims, with the Ritualist's recognition of
symbolical ritual as a necessary expression of
truth; and yet she herself is not limited to the
position of any party, but is Catholic; in that she
holds all truths of all schools, repudiating indi
viduals only when they become protesters, or de-
niers, or impugners, of her Catholic Faith.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 11
Then also there is another conspicuous fact
which the Protestant will observe, and will no
doubt resent as arrogance, namely, that the Church
speaks as one having authority ; with a certain as
surance of conviction that she is sent to teach,
which the Protestant sects do not adopt, or rather
do not seem to feel. The very fact that the Church
speaks as if she had authority so to speak, while
it is no doubt irritating to others, is after all a
phenomenon which must be accounted for in some
way. The Church is constantly denounced for its
arrogant tone ; but surely, any system which comes
from God, and holds a commission to speak in
His Name, must speak with authority. Our Lord
spake not as the Pharisees, "but as one having
authority" ; and to His Church He said, "He that
heareth you heareth Me." Now Protestants, no
doubt, speak with the force of a conviction that
they are right in their belief, but as a rule no
Protestant sect teaches as if it held commission
to teach its ovra. creed by the authority of Christ
through a special historic commission so to do.
Any Protestant sect can say, "If you refuse
to hear my teaching, you will not have the right
views of Bible Truth," but no Protestant sect can
possibly say, "If you refuse to hear my teaching,
you oppose our Lord Himself, because He sent
me to teach you." Only the Catholic Church can
say this. The fact that Protestants are often so
apologetic in their teaching, lays their whole system

12 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
open to the suspicion that it lacks authority, and
that they are quite conscious of this fact.
So if, as we have said, the Protestant will take
pains to study the Church, he will find not only
that the popular estimate of it is a mistaken one,
distorted by a lot of radical misconceptions, but
also that the Church in its life, organization, and
attitude toward Protestants, is certainly unaccount
able from the Protestant standpoint.
Now, suppose a Roman Catholic was to study
the Church from the inside. What would he find ?
He would find, perhaps to his very great surprise,
that in doctrine, custom, and religious life, the
Church is remarkably "Catholic," and that there
is much similarity to the Roman Church, in some
matters. He would assume that all this was but an imi
tation of the Roman Church, which must event
ually end in union with Rome. But again, to his
great surprise, he finds, that notwithstanding this
Catholic doctrine, practice, and life, in the Epis
copal Church, Churchmen are absolutely united
in repudiating the supremacy and infallibility of
the Pope of Rome, and in rejecting certain Roman
errors of doctrine; that conversions to Rome are
decreasing instead of increasing, and that Church
men seem to be happy and contented where they
are, and that they are turning out to be the worst
rivals Rome has to deal with, and her most relent
less opponents, whenever she asserts her exclusive
claim to be the whole Catholic Church. Why

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 13
should there be in the Church so much that is
Catholic, and yet so strong an opposition to that
which is Papal?
How can the Catholic type of religious life
exist and flourish in what he believes to be a
Protestant sect ? Where does it come from ? All
this is very amazing to him, and he cannot com
prehend it. Eor example, the Rev. J. B. Bag-
shawe, Roman Catholic, writing in the "Creden
tials of the Catholic Church" (page 47), of the
revival of Catholic life and doctrine in the Church
of England, says: "The wonderful part of it is,
that all this should have come about as the result
of internal causes, of the working out of their own
thoughts and principles, and not from any external
persuasion or influence."
Now all this indicates that the characteristic
teaching and life of the Church cannot be ex
plained from the Roman or the Protestant stand
point ; and that if these things are to be understood
at all, it must be on the supposition that that doc
trine, and habit of thought, and type of life which
makes the Church what it is, is neither Roman,
nor Protestant.
What is it? Is there any one word which
defines the nature of the Episcopal Church, and
gives the key to the situation? Any one term,
which defines her position and claims? A
Churchman will answer. Yes, there is, and that
word is Catholicity. For true Catholicity is
neither Roman, nor Protestant; but a system.

14 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
which holds the truths of both Protestantism and
Romanism, while it rejects the errors of each.
Now to assert that the Episcopal Church is,
by the providence of God, the Catholic Church in
the United States, and that its individuality and
peculiar characteristics are to be accounted for on
this supposition, is to assert a fact which cannot
be understood without considerable knowledge of
Church history and Church doctrine, and the ef
fort to overcome old prejudices and old miscon
ceptions. In the first place, the very word Catholic
prejudices the Protestant against the Church, be
cause to him it has always meant Roman Catholic ;
and it is associated in his mind with what he calls
Popery and superstition. He does not know that
Catholic was the universal name for the Christian
Church for centuries before the modem papal
claims, and Roman errors of doctrine, were ever
heard of; and for fifteen hundred years before
any one of the modem Protestant denominations
came into existence; so that to be a Catholic in
the primitive and universal sense of the word, is
to be neither a Protestant, nor a Romanist.
Now to understand fully what this means, we
have to study three great theories, as to the nature
and constitution of the Christian Church ; the Prot
estant, the Catholic, and the Roman Catholic ; and
to determine, if possible, which one has the evi
dence of Scripture and history in its favor.

NOTES ON THE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH
From 1850 to 1859 the communicants of the Church
had increased 59 per cent.; in the war period, reckoning
from 1859 to 1868, the increase fell to 27 per cent.; from
1868 to 1877, it rose to the enormous amount of 61.5 per
cent.; from 1877 to 1886, it was 43 per cent.; from 1886
to 1895, it remained practically steady at 45.5 per cent.
No other Christian body in the country has maintained any
such percentage of progress, unless by immigration, of
which our Church has had hardly any.
[From the Church Standard, Feb. 18th, 1899.]
That the Church has grown at the expense of other
bodies is an admitted fact. The Andover Congregational
Review a few years ago said that "a wave of Episcopacy is
upon us."
The Roman Catholic News lately confessed that "the
gain of the Episcopalians in this country, steady, onward,
luideniable, and that at the expense of the denominations
commonly called evangelical, is one of the remarkable char
acteristics of our times."
So the (Roman) Catholic Review: "Statistics have
shown that the Episcopalian body is the only Protestant
one that is growing in numbers in the United States, and
that it is growing rapidly, and at the expense, of course,
of the other Protestant" bodies — and of the Roman Cath
olic as well.
The Methodist Christian Advocate (Buffalo) says:
"While other denominations and societies are paying evan
gelists and brass bands to evangelize the people, the Episco-

16 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
palians are doing the effective work and constantly gain
ing in numbers and strength."
The Rev. Dr. Waffle (Baptist), in the Christian En
quirer, says: 'What are the reasons for this superior
growth? This growth is due mainly to the confidence,
assurance, and courage of the Episcopalian leaders. They
believe that theirs is 'the Church,' and are not slow to
assert their belief. That very assurance is their tower of
strength." A Roman Catholic journal, quoted by the Archbishop
of York: "The Church of England has sucked into itself,
or at all events sucked out of their faith, a vast number
of (Roman) Catholics born and educated in this land"
(England). Sir Walter Besant, in an article in The Queen, gives
figures showing the great increase of Protestants over
Roman Catholics in the past; and says that, at the same
rate of increase, in one hundred years the dominant Christ
ian Church will be the Anglican and not the Roman, and
that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and not the Bishop of
Rome, will be the dominant head of Christendom.
Testimony like the foregoing might be multiplied. It
shows that the growth of the Church is recognized beyond
us. But from such admissions let us come to the figures.
Let us take one of our New York city parishes — St.
George's. The Confirmation class in 1896 numbered 208.
Of these 89 were Church people, 52 Lutherans, 28 Presby
terians, 19 Roman Catholics, 7 Methodists, 13 scattering.
Their class in 1897 numbered 202 persons. Of these 126
were Church people, 17 Lutherans, 16 Presbyterians, 10
Roman Catholics, 8 Methodists, 9 scattering, 16 no church.
Among the confirmed in 30 New York city parishes in
1896 were 400 who had been brought up Dissenters. The
Confirmation class in a Philadelphia parish in 1896 had
French, Germans, Syrians, Swedes, Norwegians, Scotch,
English, Finns, and Americans — 9 nationalities.
This return of Dissenters is going on all over the
country. But the drift to the Church is not confined to the
laymen. It is just as marked among their ministers as the
following table will show.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 17
1888. '89. '90. '91. '92. '93. '94. '95. '96. '97.
Methodist  8 11 14 12 13 13 8 9
Baptist  5 3 5 5 8 4 2
Roman Oath  4 4 2 2 2 1 2
Presbyterian  3 3 10 8 7 6 2 5
Congregat'nal ... 2 5 12 07743.
Reformed  1 6 5 201
Lutheran  1 0 4 211
Ref . Episcopal  1 31 00111
Adventist  0 1 1 0 0 0
Unitarian  0 12 012
Scattering  2 0 4 11 2 2 4 1
Totals  27 37 60 22 43 42 41 38 21 21
This list is not ofBcial, and therefore some accessions
may have been overlooked, others may not have been re
ported. — Rev. J. 8. Hartzell.

CHAPTER II
THE PROTESTANT THEORY OF THE CHURCH
CHE bane of religious controversy has always
been the fact that men generally insist in
making religious discussions personal matters.
The average man assumes that if you question his
belief in any particular, somehow, his personal
character and dignity are at stake; and that to
impugn his belief is to be "uncharitable" to him.
Now in attempting to define and point out the
mistakes of the Protestant system (if any system
based on negation can be properly called a sys
tem), it must be constantly remembered that we
are dealing with systems, and not with the personal
character of the individuals who support the sys
tems. Very devout, earnest, and Christ-like men
have in every age advocated and supported er
roneous creeds; and surely one can deal frankly
with error, and yet at the same time admire and
respect the personal holiness of men who honestly
believe it.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 19
Moreover, to assert that any given system is
erroneous and hostile to the best interests of truth,
is by no means to exclude the working of God's
grace from the hearts of those who are trained un
der that system. God, as we believe, offers grace
under certain conditions, and through certain
means, which we are bound to accept in obedience
to Him. But He is not necessarily limited by
the conditions which He imposes upon us, in His
gifts to those who do not understand His condi
tions; and no Catholic Churchman vsrill for one
moment question the fact, that prevenient (non-
sacramental) and baptismal grace, often produce
a very high order of Christian character in indi
viduals, without any reference to the ecclesiastical
system which they adopt. It is perhaps difficult
to persuade a man that because you point out the
mistakes of his system, you are not necessarily
making an attack upon him; but in the argument
which we are about to present, we must once and
for all insist that we are to consider facts and sys
tems on their own intrinsic merits; and that the
personal element does not enter into the question :
that is, not if we are to come to any logical and
just conclusion.
Doubtless when a man has made an earnest
and sincere effort to find the truth of God, and
to live in accordance with it, he will ultimately be
judged in accordance with his sincerity of purpose.
But such sincerity of purpose justifies nobody in
holding error, if God puts the truth within his

20 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
reach ; and it can only be a kindness to the man to
point out his error, while at the same time you
wholly respect his sincerity of purpose, and in so
doing, the charge of "uncharitableness" is out of
place. In the United States of America, a large ma
jority of people who profess to have any religious
belief call themselves Protestants; and ordinarily
everyone who is not a Roman Catholic is supposed
to be a Protestant. Now, quite apart from the
special tenets of any individual Protestant sect,
there is what may be called the Protestant theory
of the Church ; a way of looking at religious mat
ters which is shared by most Protestants ; a certain
conception of so-called "Protestant principles,"
which they hold in common, and which they ab
sorb from infancy, and which mould their habits
of thought. Ask any intelligent Protestant to in
form you what Protestantism is, and he will prob
ably tell you something like this :
"Protestantism originated as a protest against
formalism in religion, and to vindicate the right
of private judgment. The liberty of the individ
ual Christian to make up his own faith or belief
out of the Bible, was opposed to the authority of
priestcraft, and mediseval superstition. Protest
antism also vindicated the right of freedom of
thought in religious matters, as opposed to the
dogmas and creeds of the Church; and it estab
lished the necessity of heart religion, as opposed to
formalism and ceremonial worship. The Chris-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 21
tian life begins with the conversion of the individ
ual man by the Holy Spirit ; and a number of con
verted men, finding that they take the same views
of the Bible, organize themselves into Churches,
which are voluntary associations for religious pur
poses. One of these churches may happen to be
nearer the scriptural model than some others, but
all of them are organized on the same principle,
by different men, at different times, and no one
of them can claim any superior authority over
the others. All of them do good work, and produce
a certain type of Christian character, and their
members live good lives; and so God shows His
approval of all, and any exclusiveness on the part
of any one would be merely bigotry. Personal
religion is the object of Christianity, and forms
and sacraments and ceremonies are non-essential,
and are apt to interfere between the soul and God.
The original Church, if there ever was one, became
hopelessly corrupt very soon after the days of the
Apostles, and during the Middle Ages Christianity
was practically lost; and evangelical truth was
brought to light again by the Protestant Reform
ers. "The true Church is invisible," according to
this idea, "because it is composed only of holy
people; and God alone knows who these are, be
cause He alone can see into the hearts of men. So
far as the Church is visible, it is composed of all
denominations of Christians taken together. The
only unity of the Church which is possible, is heart

22 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
unity among Christians, which is promoted by
union meetings; and as long as Christians are
one at heart, we can agree to differ, and let each
man go where he feels inclined. Creeds hamper
thought, and interfere with spiritual freedom.
The Bible and the Bible only is the religion of
Protestants ; and the heart religion of the country
is in the evangelical Protestant Churches, which
do not depend on forms and ceremonies for their
attraction, but on the power of the Holy Spirit."
Without the slightest intention to misrepresent
the belief of Protestants, we think this is a fair
statement of it; at any rate, it is what one con
stantly hears in religious discussions.
Now if anyone ventures to present an argu
ment favoring the claims of any one sect or
Church, the Protestant usually replies that "forms
and organizations are of no consequence, so long as
a man's heart and life are all right." From his
standpoint this answer is most natural, and so far
as his own position goes, it is in one sense true;
for he knows quite well, that all Protestant sects
were by their own confession founded by men in
modem times, were merely of human origin, and
so no one of them can claim exclusive authority,
and each must concede to the others the privileges
it claims for itself, and that a certain type of Chris
tian character is produced by and seems to thrive
under them aU, irrespective of origin, form, or
ganization, or creed. Moreover, no one of them
claims to give any necessary sacramental grace.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 23
So it is not at all surprising that to the Protestant
Christian, with his limited knowledge of Church
history, all religious bodies seem to be precisely
on the same footing, though they differ so widely;
and naturally little by little his estimate of what
he calls "essentials" narrows down to faith in Christ
and leading a good life. He concludes that one
can be a Christian without joining any Church;
and so, as a result of Protestant teaching, to-day
multitudes of honest, sincere men, who believe
themselves to be Christians, stay out of the Church
altogether; and on the Protestant theory one fails
to see how they can be seriously reproached for
their independence.
Now in any community where the Protestant
theory predominates, if a converted man makes up
his mind to "join the Church," the whole question
presents itself to him as being very largely a mat
ter of taste, or expediency ; and he goes where his
family does, or to that church which his friends
attend, or to some church where he happens to take
a personal fancy to the officiating minister, or per
haps he reads a book about some new cult and
attends the meetings of the latest and most up-to-
date sect; or perhaps he selects that church which
seems to make the least demand upon his faith,
and is the most "liberal," in the sense of teaching
the least definite dogma.
Wherever he goes, or whatever he does, he
simply follows his own inclination; and if any
thing happens to disturb his equanimity in the

24 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
church of his adoption, he forthwith goes over to
some other church, where he is welcomed as a
new convert. His church relationship seems to
be a thing which can be assumed or discarded at
pleasure, without any qualms of conscience, with
out any feeling of responsibility to any particular
authority. It is a very curious thing, that holding this
theory, which is, in effect, that forms and organ
izations are of no consequence as long as the heart
is all right, each group of Protestants should still
contend vigorously for their own particular sect
and creed, and spend an immense amount of money
in perpetuating its peculiarities and making con
verts from other sects. Apparently each sect acts
as if it thought its own particular forms and creeds
were of very vital consequence, and must be main
tained and perpetuated at any cost. This hardly
seems to be consistent.
Now the question arises, Is the Protestant
theory of the Church a wholly satisfactory one
to thoughtful and intelligent Protestants them
selves ? Has it any vital, not to say fatal, defects,
as a method of preserving and perpetuating Chris
tian truth ?
It may seem at first thought to the average
Protestant like rank heresy to question the matter
for a moment; because he has been brought up in
the belief that Protestantism has vindicated, and
practically monopolizes, the principle of the right
of private judgment in religion, spiritual freedom.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 25
heart religion, and evangelical truth ; and that the
only alternative to Protestantism, is the "super
stition" of the Roman Catholic Church, which he
has been educated to abhor.
To question the glory of Protestantism may
perhaps seem like disloyalty to the Lord Himself ;
and yet be this as it may, the question does force
itself into the thoughts of many thoughtful Prot-
testants, who are shrewd observers of the times,
and the trend of Protestantism itself: Does the
Protestant principle embrace the whole truth?
Does it define, defend, and perpetuate truth?
Does it furnish any security for the future of
Christianity, as an organized, teaching system?
These questions cannot be put aside. They must
be met and answered, in the light of modem de
velopments in the religious world.
Now in the first place, the Protestant theory
proves unsatisfactory in this respect: in that it
involves an enormous waste of money and mission
ary energy when it undertakes to maintain, and
support, three or four separate organizations or
churches in a town where one would be amply
sufficient; churches which under the best of cir
cumstances suffer from jealousies, run off with
each other's converts, and are obliged to offer all
sorts of inducements and social bribes, in order
to keep their members together at all.
Secondly, the co-existence of a number of sects
in one place renders any such thing as discipline
impossible; for if a church undertakes to disci-

26 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
pline a refractory, or discredited, member, he
simply takes up his belongings, and "goes over" to
some other "church," where he is welcomed and
made at home. Protestantism is absolutely pow
erless to enforce any penalty or church discipline
against offenders, as long as it is divided against
itself. One sect may attempt to discipline a man,
but as long as a hundred others stand ready to take
him in, he may snap his fingers at them all, and
does as he pleases.
Thirdly, everj candid Protestant must admit
that such a multitude of creeds is very perplexing.
Take all Protestant sects together, and they agree
about hardly any one article of belief. All sects
cannot be right, and yet each claims that it is right.
An unbeliever turns to the Protestant and says,
"Your creeds are at best your personal opinions
about a book ; and where there is so much disagree
ment there cannot be any vital truth. If there is,
what is it ?
If in this dilemma, any one sect should step
forward and say, "I alone am right; I have the
truth; I have authority to settle the matter;" then
all the others would instantly raise the cry of arro
gance and narrow exclusiveness, and their disagree
ment would be all the more conspicuous and hope
less. Protestantism as a whole cannot define its
own belief, and acknowledges no final living court
of appeal in matters of dispute.
Fourthly, when the Protestant hotly defends
his right of private judgment, the right to make

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 27
his own creed and his own church, out of the Bible,
according to his individual interpretation, he must
admit that every other man has the right to do
the same thing, and consequently cannot be con
demned for arriving at different conclusions, or
because he takes an entirely different view as to
what the Bible teaches. Thus the Protestant has
no fixed standpoint, no secure vantage ground,
from which he can say that any particular creed
is erroneous, beyond his own personal opinion.
His principle of private interpretation and pri
vate judgment has run away with him, and forces
him to admit, if he is consistent, that Protestant
ism is after all but a matter of individual views
and personal opinions about a book ; and that there
is not anything positive, permanent, or authorita
tive in it. The terrible logic of this principle
finds its illustration in the unquestionable fact,
that certain portions of Protestantism are eaten
out with rationalism, which denies the superna
tural element of revelation, and that Protestantism
is utterly powerless to stop the process or to save
itself. Fifthly, while the Protestant claims "the Bi
ble and the Bible only" as his creed, it is not very
difficult to prove that there are large portions of
the doctrinal teaching of the Scriptures which have
no place in his system at all ; passages concerning
the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, and
other matters, which are either ignored or ex
plained away, as meaning practically nothing.

28 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
It may seem like a very strange assertion to
make, but it is demonstrably true, that notwith
standing their boasted loyalty to the Bible, the
way Protestants as a class speak of the Church,
and the way the Bible speaks of the Church, are
entirely different.
Eor example, putting aside for a moment the
question as to what the Bible teaches about the
nature and organization of the Church, let us
ask: How does the Bible regard the importance
of these things ? Does it speak as if they were of
very little consequence, and as if the only essen
tial thing was faith, and holiness of life? Or,
on the other hand. Does it speak of the Church as
if there were only one Church, created by Christ
and His Apostles, and not by men'; and as- if it
were to exist always, and had some vital relation
to the Lord Himself, and to our salvation ? As a
matter of fact, the Bible not only speaks always,
and everywhere, of one, and only one, Church,
but it exhausts language in the effort to exalt it,
and impress us with its importance. The Church
is caUed the "Body of Christ," "The Eulness of
Him who fiUeth all in all," "The Church of the
Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,"
"The Bride of Christ," "The mountain of the
Lord's house." Men are told to "hear the Church,"
or become as heathen men and publicans.
Christ is said to love the Church, and give
Himself for it; to sanctify and cleanse it. He
calls it His Church; and promises that the gates

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 29
of hell shall not prevail against it. In one place
the Church is actually called Christ. In some
sense it holds the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
What it does on earth, is ratified in Heaven. To
hear its authorized teachers is to hear Christ Him
self. Christ is said to nourish and cherish the
Church; through it we become members of His
Body. He is the Head of the Church ; the Saviour
of the Body ; and so the Bible continually identifies
Christ with the Church, and speaks as if He saved
us in, and through, the ChurcL
Now we ask. How could language express the
importance of the Church any more forcibly than
this; and if the Church is what the Bible says it
is, can any man who calls himself a Bible Chris
tian, assert that it is of no consequence what, or
where the Church is, or whether one belongs to it
or not, provided his life is all right? So we re
peat that the way Protestants speak of the impor
tance of the Church, and the way the Bible speaks
of it, are totally different and irreconcilable.
Sixthly, the Protestant believes that the
Church, if there ever was any, became hopelessly
corrupt soon after Apostolic days; and remained
so during the Middle Ages, until the Protestant
Reformers brought the truth to light again ; so that
for many centuries the whole Christian Church
was immersed in darkness and superstition, and
practically became apostate. But we ask. How
did Christianity survive at all through a thousand
years of apostacy; and why did God allow His

30 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
own work to be so soon thwarted, and generation
after generation of men to know nothing but for
malism and superstition and corruption, after
Christ had promised that He would be with His
Church every day to the end of the world, and
that the gates of hell should not prevail against
it? These questions are utterably unanswerable,
on the Protestant theory of the nature of the
Church. Surely, to any thoughtful man, it must be an
incredible assumption, this, that a coterie of men
in the sixteenth century should suddenly discover
that for fifteen hundred years, the whole Christian
Church had been proceeding on a radically false
conception of her nature and organization; that
all her missionary triumphs and her crowns of
martyrdom, had been won while she was burdened
with gross superstition and formalism and slavery
to dogma, and maintained a unity of belief and
organization which had no scriptural basis what
ever. It is certainly a very curious thing, if the
Protestant theory be true, that from the very first,
whenever any man used his private judgment to
make a new Church, or a new creed, he was in
stantly condemned by the Church as doing a thing
which was not only unlawful, but in itself fatal to
the very existence of the Church, if it were to be
unchecked. But seventhly, suppose it should be discovered
that the boast of Protestants, that their system
exists to vindicate the two principles of Private

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 31
Judgment and Eree Thought, was a mistake ; and
that after all people who refused to be called Prot
estants used their right of private judgment and
were free to think pretty much as they pleased,
so far as sane men can. Take the right of private
judgment: Does Protestantism monopolize this
right? Surely not, for no man ever accepts any
religion as true, until in every case the first appeal
is made to his own conscience and judgment. The
man who accepts a statement wholly upon the au
thority of another, must first decide whether the
credentials supporting that authority are good and
sufficient to warrant him in accepting its pro
nouncements. The man who accepts a definition of the Pope
of Rome as infallible, must first pass judgment on
the question as to whether the Pope is infallible.
As some one has said, "You can't get rid of private
judgment, any more than you can jump off from
your shadow." You can bring the claims of a rev
elation from God to the bar of your individual
judgment, to determine that it is such a revelation,
and you must do this ; but once having done it, you
must STOP ; because having recognized a revelation
from God, you are utterly incompetent to assert
what that revelation shall be, or to pick and choose
between different parts of it. God gives you the
faculty of individual judgment to test the claims
of a Revelation, hut having once accepted its claims
as true, you cannot choose between different ele
ments of the Revelation; and when Protestants

32 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
assume to do this, they generally wind up by re
jecting the Revelation altogether. The claim that
Protestants monopolize the right of legitimate pri
vate judgment, is most absurd on the face of it.
And how about the question of free thought, as
opposed to dogmatic creeds ? Are Protestants the
only ones who are free to think?
In the first place, the words, "free thought" are
themselves suspicious, because sane men are lim
ited by facts and the rules of logic in their think
ing ; and so thought is effectual and valuable, gen
erally, just in proportion as it is not free. You
have to affirm something definite and certain, that
is, something dogmatically, before you can think
logically at all ; and your conclusions are valuable,
only just so far as your premises are fixed and
positive. All systematic thinking, that is every
science, has its creed of the most dogmatic kind;
and the science itself would be impossible, if its
creed were not dogmatic and changeless. No man
is free to assert that two times seven are three, or
ninety-one ; and if he were, mathematics would be
impossible. God reveals the fact of the Incar
nation. No man is free to set it aside, and yet
claim to accept God's revelation. If Christianity
is a revelation from God to man, of supernatural
facts, then such a revelation cannot change, any
more than God can change; and if a scientific state
ment of them was true in the first, fifth, or tenth
centuries, it is true to-day. Much so-called free
thought is but the refusal to recognize the fact

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 33
that a revelation from Ood is a closed question,
for every man who professes to recognize it as a
revelation. Moreover, if creeds limit and hamper
thought, how did it happen that they have formed
the basis of the most vigorous thinking the world
has ever known; and have formed the sub-struc
ture of the intellectual life of the Christian
Church, which was marvellously fertile and pro
ductive, centuries before the catch-word of Free
Thought was ever heard of ? Thought may be free
devoutly to study the Faith, which must always
be beyond its full comprehension, and to apply
that Faith to the changing needs of the individual
and the times; but it cannot be free to remodel
that Faith, when once God has spoken.
Apparently, the claim that Protestantism either
vindicates or monopolizes the right of private
judgment, or freedom of thought, has no basis in
the facts of the case. So we think that the Prot
estant theory proves unsatisfactory in many ways,
as one studies it. Those who have most to do
with men in religious matters, who keep them
selves in touch with the trend of popular thought,
admit that there is a more or less widespread
spirit of unrest among thoughtful Protestants,
many of whom are beginning to feel the difficulties
of their position.
If the Protestant turns to Protestantism for
help, he finds that there is no central authority
competent or authorized to state even what Protest
antism teaches; and perhaps he begins to think

34 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
that it does not give the average hard-working man
much security of knowing the truth. A suspicion
of this fact seems to be finding its way into the
minds of many men who have become dissatisfied
with the popular Protestantism of the day. The
more earnest among them, feeling their ovni in
competence to settle these great questions for them
selves, are looking for some source of authorized
teaching, which is fixed, bracing, and definite,
while others are drifting away from the Christian
faith altogether, into indifference and rationalism.
There can be no question but that popular Christ
ianity in America is passing through a transition
period, the outcome of which no man can foresee.
Many of the Protestant sects have left their old
moorings, are falling off in numbers and infiuence.
Many popular preachers seem to be losing their
hold on the old-fashioned Gospel truths, or, if they
teach them at all, do it with a hesitant, apologetic
air, which carries no force of conviction with it.
To a Churchman all this seems to be but the legit
imate result and logical outcome of the Protest
ant sectarian theory, which makes Christianity an
individual matter, on the principle that every man
has the right and the ability to make his own
creed and his own church, according to his own
views; and therefore there can be no one central
voice of authority to declare the truth, which all
men must accept.
Protestants have been teaching for a hundred
years that there is nothing supernatural in the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 35
origin or organization of the Church. Is it any
wonder that men have drawn the inference, that it
makes no difference what creed a man holds, or
to what Church he belongs, if his life is all right ?
Is it strange that they have taken the next logical
step, and concluded that it makes no difference
whether a man holds any creed, believes anything
or not, if he lives a moral life? And is it so
very unaccountable, the dreadful fact that in
Protestant America the great bulk of its teeming
population are not Christians in any sense; but
have drifted completely beyond the reach of the
sects of which their ancestors were ardent support
ers? Surely the logical result of the Protestant
system is either indifference or despair.
To a devout believer it must always seem like
a dreadful calamity to lose one's faith in the
Christian religion; and perhaps that experience
which next to this is the most trying, is to lose
one's faith in the religious system or sect in which
one has been educated, and which one has trusted ;
to feel cut adrift, and uncertain, and helpless, in
the effort to find out what is the truth.
The saddest part of such an experience is, that
a man who loses faith in his sect is apt to think that
he has lost faith in everything ; and so gives up the
search for the truth, and drifts into skepticism or
indifference. To him the Protestant conception
of Christianity has been his Christianity ; the only
type of it he has known ; and if he comes to distrust
it, there seems to be nothing left for him. There

36 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
are to-day, unquestionably, a very large number
of persons who were brought up as Protestants,
and are unsettled and drifting, sadly reluctant
to give up their faith, yet far from sure that they
can retain it. Now if such persons could know
that the difficulty is not with Christianity at all,
but with their sect or system which has misrepre
sented it to them, and that there is an organization
of Christians in this country, which is neither
Protestant nor Roman Catholic, and which offers
a secure ground of certitude in religious belief,
surely the claims and status of such a system or
Church must be of interest to them as being unique,
if nothing more; and as at least promising some
help, where there is very great need of help, guid
ance, and light, of some sort.
Some one Church in the United States, al
though it be not large in the number of its mem
bers, may yet after all be, historically, the legit
imate representative to the American people of
certain great Church principles, by which the
truth of Revelation has been defined, taught, and
protected in the past, and handed down from one
generation to another, and by which it certainly
must be defined, taught, and be protected in the
future, if the Christian's Creed is to survive at all.
Does the Protestant system define, teach, and
protect the truth of the Revelation of Jesus Christ,
and speak with authority to the man who is in
search of the truth? If it does not, is there any
system or organization which does? These are

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 37
vital questions, and this book is one of many at
tempts to answer them, or at least to suggest a line
of thought along which the answers may be found.
Notes of a lecture by Doctor E. O. Haven (Methodist),
Chancellor of Syracuse University, as reported in the
University Herald, Vol. IV., No. 3.
Protestantism, on the other hand, is a term that un
fortunately implies more than is generally conceded; from
a Catholic standpoint, it is that 'ism that protests against
the Romish Church, hence must come under this head, not
only the Orthodox, but Universalism, Spiritualism, Lati-
tudinarianism, and that most abominable of all 'isms, Mor-
monism. Protestantism, when viewed as a whole, appears to
be only a shapeless mass of innumerable sects, opposed to
each other and agreeing only in one point, protesting
against the Roman Catholic Church. Each revolving year
adds new doctrines and effects new changes in doctrines,
until we concede the argument offered against us by the
Bishop of Meaux: "You change, and that which changes
is not truth." It is not uncommon to see a person passing
by gradations from the Orthodox religion to Infidelity,
but it is uncommon to see him return to his former posi
tion, and a person with no religion is dangerous to the com
munity in which he resides.
Germany, the fatherland and first theater of Protestant
ism, examples to the world a sad result. It requires but
little acquaintance with the present state of affairs to per
ceive the real tendency of German Protestantism. Ration
alism is there on the ascendant, and this system has already
removed the very substance of Christianity. The inspira
tion of the Bible itself, the integrity of its canon, the well
authenticated miracles, and even the resurrection of Christ
Himself, have all fallen before the Juggernaut-car of Ger
man exegesis. Christianity is reduced to a mere skeleton,
and infidel principles are unblushingly advocated through
the press, and even from the pulpit.
We think that we do not misconstrue the idea that our

38 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Chancellor desired us to revolve in our minds, in saying
that Germany presents a direct demonstration of the work
ings of a system whose basis is liberty. If it is admitted
that liberty is liable to be abused and taken for license,
then it is evident that some restraint is required. Cath
olic children are trained in the faith of their parents —
a profound reverence for God and a belief in eternal pun
ishment for sin. Protestant children, on the other hand,
are permitted such a wide range of liberty in forming their
ideas and shaping their faith that they really settle upon
nothing. In this condition they are thrust out into the
world, and thus, staggering under the weight of responsibil
ity, they awake, if ever, to a realization of the fact that
their plans of free thought have been too broad, and that
they have made a complete wreck of faith. The whole his
tory of the mind unrestrained, harmonizes with this state
of affairs, and abounds in systems inexhaustible in subtle
ties; as ready to conceive as incapable of maintaining it,
full of conflicting ideas; now soaring on the wings of im
agination, now floundering in the slough of despond; just
as intent upon destroying the works of another, as impotent
in forming anything durable of itself. The history of man's
knowledge consists in an immense and confused heap of
truth, error, and absurdity. Catholicism says to a man:
"Your intellect is not sufficiently strong to see where those
are, who have made their own exegesis of the Bible; thou
hast need of a guide." Protestantism says to him: "Thou
art surrounded by broad fields of truth; it is thy preroga
tive to make thy own exegesis. Do as thou wilt."

CHAPTER III
THE CATHOLIC THEOEY OF THE CHUECH
TN the last chapter we defined the Protestant
theory of the Church, and found that at best
it was in many respects an unsatisfactory one.
Now there is another theory of the Church, which
is held to-day by three great Christian bodies,
known as the Roman Catholic Church, the An
glican, or Anglo-Catholic Church (which includes
the Church of England, with her branches in Scot
land and Ireland and in the colonies, and the Amer
ican Episcopal Church), and the Holy Orthodox
Greek, or Eastern Church. These three parts of
the Church, however much they may differ in
some points of doctrine and organization, agree in
holding what may be called the Catholic theory of
the Church; and they all recite the Catholic Creed,
in which the Church is said to be One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic. This theory of the nature
of the Church would seem to be of some impor
tance, if for no other reason, because it is held

40 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
by over two hundred and seventy millions of Chris
tians to-day ; that is, by about five times as many
as all Protestants put together ; a hundred and sev
enty millions of Roman Catholics, eighty millions
of Greek Catholics, and twenty millions of Angli
can Catholics.
Notice that about a hundred millions of these
Christians, who call themselves Catholics, are not
Roman Catholics, and repudiate entirely the su
premacy of the Pope of Rome.
The Catholic theory of the Church may be
stated somewhat as follows. A Churchman says:
First. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God: and as my Creator, and Redeemer, de
mands of me, first of all, obedience; and there
fore, whatever He did, and whatever He said, is to
me of infinite importance, and is of binding obliga
tion on my conscience, no matter whether it con
cerns holy living, or His Church.
Second. The Son of God became incarnate, to
give me grace and truth necessary for my salva
tion; and I can be sure of receiving this grace
and this truth only by receiving it through such
means as He provides, in obedience to His will.
Third. Holy Scriptures and Church history
prove to me beyond question, that He organized a
visible, self-perpetuating Church, one, and only
one, as this means of conveying grace and truth
to men. Fourth. This Church was to exist unto the
end of the world, and therefore exists to-day ; must

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 41
claim my allegiance, and must have certain marks
by which I can find it and identify it, in any com
munity where it exists.
Fifth. The Lord Christ commissioned this
Church to teach, administer sacraments and dis
cipline in His Name and by His authority, so that
to hear its ministry was to hear Him. Therefore,
obeying those whom He sends is a necessary part
of my obedience to Him, as the Son of God. I
must belong to the Church He creates and He com
missions, and to no other.
Sixth. The Catholic Church thus being the
product of our Lord's own words and acts, and the
work of the Apostles under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, is divine in its origin and authority;
and therefore cannot be altered or abolished; nor
can something else be substituted for it, any more
than the Lord Himself can be repudiated.
Seventh. Historically, the Church is a self-
perpetuating body, begins at Jerusalem, and ex
tends itself by a continuous, organic life through
every age and every race, throughout the world;
and its historic identity may thus be traced, from
first to last, as one and the same body.
Eighth. Mystically, the Church is the Body
of Christ in which He dwells, and through which
He works for, and upon, men. It is thus the re-
manifestation of His Incarnation, no longer under
the limitations of a human body in one point of
space, but in a mystical Body throughout the whole
world ; and so the Church is One, Holy, Catholic,

42 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and Apostolic, because He unites it, He sanctifies
it. He fills it, and He organizes it.
Ninth. The Lord gives men truth, in the
Church, through the Holy Spirit, who does two
things : He guides the mind of the whole Church
to teach and believe the same thing, and so this
universal consent and agreement as to what is the
truth, is expressed and crystallized in the Catholic
Creeds. The Holy Spirit also inspires individ
uals to write, and guides them in writing, and thus
we have the New Testament Scriptures as the
record of apostolic teaching. Hence the Catholic
accepts the Faith, because the Church has been
supematurally guided in defining it, and teaches
it with the Lord's authority; and not because he
has reasoned it out for himself, or made his own.
selection of doctrines, according to his ov^n private
opinion. Tenth. The Lord gives men grace in the
Church, by associating certain gifts of grace, with
the reception of outward signs ; and thus we have
the sacramental system. And so whatever grace
may be found out of the Church, the Catholic
Christian cannot be sure of receiving all the grace
Christ wiUs to give, unless he receives the sacra
ments Christ ordains in the Church.
Eleventh. The Lord continues His mediato
rial work in the Church through the ministrations
of a continuous priesthood, which He commis
sions ; whose chief work it is, to offer to the Father

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 43
the memorial of His sacrifice ; to baptize, absolve,
teach, and bless men, in His name.
Twelfth. It therefore follows, that the Cath
olic Church in any place is that body of Christians
which was organized by, and is in communion
with, the Catholic Church of Christ ; which retains
the Catholic Creeds, ministry, and sacraments, and
submits itself to the corporate authority of the
whole Catholic Church, in matters of doctrine and
discipline. This is practically the Catholic theory of the
Church, and if this theory be true, then it follows
that Christians do not make the Church, but
Christ makes it. The Church comes first in the
persons of the Apostles, and then the Church
makes Christians, by gathering men into itself.
The Church is one Body of divine origin, not a
hundred sects of human origin. The Church is
not made up out of the Bible, but the Church
comes first and writes the New Testament itself.
Men come into the Church, not because they are
saved, but because they want to be saved ; not be
cause they are holy, in order to exhibit their faith,
but because they are sinful, and need the help of
the Church to get the grace and truth they need.
Conversion does not make a man a member of the
Church, but Baptism does; and so a man cannot
become a Christian first, alone by himself, and
then a member of the Church later, or not at all,
as he pleases, because he is made a Christian and a
Churchman at one and the same time, hy the same

44 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
means, namely Baptism. Thus Church member
ship is not a matter of taste or expediency, but
simply one of obedience to our Lord, who sends the
Church in His name. A Churchman's creed is
not the platform of any sect, not anybody's theory,
not even his own views or his own interpretation
of Scriptures. He accepts the Catholic Faith of
the whole Church from the first. He does not get
it from the Bible, but from the Church which
gives him his Bible, and he tests it by the Bible.
Now to sum up the whole matter in as few
words as possible : According to Protestants, grace
does its work in the hearts of individual men,
making Christians of them by conversion. These
individuals then make a human church, which
comes up to God from men. According to Cath
olics, grace is first of all lodged in a divine Church,
which comes down to men from God; and which
(after conversion) makes Christians of them
through Baptism. On the Protestant theory, a
Church, being a human organization coming up
from men, you can have any number of such
churches, and you can belong to any one you like.
On the Catholic theory, the Church being a di
vine organism which comes down to men from God,
you can have only one Church, the one Christ
sends to you, and you must belong to that and no
other, simply because Christ makes it, and sends it.
Now we have been speaking of the Catholic
theory of the Church, as a theory; but we must
bear in mind that this theory rests on a fact which

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 45
cannot seriously be questioned by any competent
scholar ;. namely, that from the days of the Apos
tles to the present time, a great organization calling
itself the Catholic Church has existed, to which
nearly three hundred millions of men give their
allegiance to-day, who hold this theory as the foun
dation of their Christian Faith.
When Protestants use the word Catholic, they
generally refer to the Roman Catholic Church;
and it is often a matter of great surprise to them
to find, that a hundred millions of men claim to
be Catholics, who are not Roman Catholics at all.
It is equally surprising to them when they learn
that members of the Church of England and of the
Episcopal Church in the United States, claim to
be Catholics, and that their respective communions
are parts of the ancient Catholic Church. Yet
nevertheless, such is the claim of members of the
Anglo-Catholic Church. This claim is based on
the historic facts which prove that the Church of
England, from which the Episcopal Church in
the United States derives its organization and
authority, its faith, ministry, and sacraments, was
founded by missionaries in primitive times; and
was for many centuries in communion vnth the
whole Catholic Church the world over, and has had
a continuous corporate life ever since; so that to
day, it is historically and actually the Catholic
Church of the land, in distinction from the Prot
estant sects which have originated since the Refor
mation, and the Roman Catholic, or Latin mission

46 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
in England, which dates only from ISYO, when
Romanists left the old Church and founded a new
body, by order of Pope Pius V. So the Episcopal
Church in the United States claims to be historic
ally a part of the Catholic Church, and to inherit
by unbroken succession the Church's ancient min
istry, sacraments, faith, authority, and jurisdic
tion ; to be the representative to the American peo
ple of the ancient Church, which recognizes no man
short of the Lord Christ Himself, as its founder.
Now it is necessary further to define the word
Catholic, in order to avoid misunderstanding. It
means universal, or whole; and originally it was
applied to the Christian Church to distinguish it
from the Jewish Church, which was temporary,
national, and local ; whereas the Christian Church
was to be Catholic or Universal, in teaching all
truth, and administering all grace, to all men, of
all ages. Then when heresies and sects were or
ganized, by men who left the old Church, the name
Catholic was used to distinguish between the old
and the new body, and the old and the new faith ;
just as the Church uses it to-day, to distinguish
between modem Protestant sects, and the old
Church. This original and primitive meaning has
been distorted in two ways. First, by narrowing
it down so as to designate only those in communion
with the Pope of Rome; and in this way the
Roman Catholic Church has succeeded in making
Protestants believe, that Catholic means Roman

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 47
Catholic, and so Protestants are suspicious of the
word, and of those who use it.
Again the word Catholic is distorted by
Protestants, who, like the Irvingites and the Chris
tian Scientists and some others, use it to express
their own peculiarities, in utter defiance of its
historic sense ; and so it becomes practically mean
ingless ; because as thus used, a word which means
everything and anything, and nothing in partic
ular, and is used to define things that contradict
each other, really means nothing at all; and is
even less definitive than the word Protestant,
which at least means negation, or denial. Cen
turies of universal usage determine the historic
meaning of the term Catholic; and it can neither
be limited to the Roman Church, nor be expanded
to fit the vagaries of sectarianism. Neither Ro
mans nor Protestants can re-define it, to suit the
exigencies of their own positions. The Church
retains it, because it is the only word which defines
her relation to antiquity, and her protest against
hoth Sectarianism and Romanism. To be a Cath
olic in the original and historic sense of the word,
is neither to make your own Church and your own
creed, nor is it to submit to the authority of Rome,
and subscribe to the creed of Pius IV. Both posi
tions are modem and uncatholic.
Now in order to show that neither the Catholic
name, nor the Catholic theory of the nature of the
Christian Church, are modem inventions or late
corruptions of primitive truth, let us turn to the

48 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
witness of some of the early Christian writers and
see what they say. Eor example, Ignatius, Bishop
of Antioch, who was a disciple of St. John the
Apostle, and whose Epistles were written about
A. D. 110, writes:
"Shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. . . .
Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the
Church apart from the Bishop. Let that be held
a valid Eucharist which is held under the Bishop
or one to whom he shall have committed it. Where
soever the Bishop shall appear, there let the peo
ple be ; even as where Jesus may be, there is the
Universal Church." '
"He that is within the sanctuary is clean; but
he that is without the sanctuary is not clean, that
is, he that doeth aught without the Bishop and
presbytery and deacons, this man is not clean in his
conscience." ^
"If any man foUoweth one Bal maketh a
schism, he doth not inherit the Kingdom of God." °
"Every one whom the Master of the household
sendeth to be steward over His own house, we ought
so to receive as Him that sent him. Plainly there
fore we ought to regard the Bishop as the Lord
Himself." '
"For Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is
the mind of the Father, even as the Bishops that

' Smyrnaeans, ch. viii.
' Trallians, ch. vii.
' Philippians, ch. iii.
^Ephesians, ch. vi.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 49
are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in
the mind of Jesus Christ." "
"Let all men respect the deacons as Jesus
Christ, even as they should respect the Bishop as
being a type of the Father, and the presbyters as
the council of God and as the college of apostles.
Apart from these there is not even the name of a
Church." '
Clement of Alexandria, who lived about A. D.
193, writes:
"From what has been said I think it has been
made plain that unity is a characteristic of the
true, the really ancient Church, into which those
that are righteous according to the divine purpose
are enrolled. For God being one and the Lord be
ing one, that also which is supremely honored is
the object of praise, because it stands alone, being
a copy of the one First Principle: at any rate the
one Church, which they strive to break up into
many sects, is bound up with the principle of
Unity. We say then that the ancient and Catholic
Church stands alone in essence and idea and prin
ciple and preeminence, gathering together, by the
will of one God through the one Lord, into the
unity of the one faith, built upon the fitting cove
nants (or rather the one covenant given at differ
ent times) all those who are already enlisted in it,
whom God foreordained, having known from the
° jjphesians, ch. iii.
' Trallians, ch. iii.
The translations of St. Ignatius as Bishop Lightfoot's.

50 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
foundation of the world that they would be right
eous. . . .
"Such being the case, it is evident that these
later heresies and those which are still more recent
are spurious innovations on the oldest and truest
Church. . . .
"It needs no long discourse to prove that the
merely human assemblies which they have insti
tuted were later in time than the Catholic
Church." '
Cyprian, who died A. D. 258, writes :
"There is one God and Christ is one, and there
is one Church, and one chair founded upon the
Rock by the word of the Lord. Another Altar
cannot be constituted, nor a new Priesthood be
made, except the one Altar and the one Priesthood.
Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth." °
"The Catholic Church has been shovm to be
one, and to be able neither to be cut nor divided." °
"We have exhorted them to acknowledge and
hold the root and matrix of the Catholic Church." ^°
Writing concerning Novatian, who attempted
to organize a separate sect, Cyprian says :
"In spite of God's tradition, in spite of the
combined and everywhere compacted unity of the
Catholic Church, (he) is endeavoring to make a
human church, and is sending his new Apostles

' Stromata, bk. vii, ch. xvii.
® Ep. xxxix. 5.
' Ep. xlvi. 2.
" Ep. xliv. 3.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 51
through very many cities, that he may establish
some new foundations of his own appointment." "
Describing the unity of the Catholic Church,
Cyprian says :
"The Church is likewise one, though she be
spread abroad, and multiplies with the increase of
her progeny; even as the sun has rays many, yet
one light; and the tree, boughs many, yet its
strength is one, seated in the deep-lodged root ; and
as when many streams flow down from one source,
though a multiplicity of waters seem to be diffused
from the bountifulness of the overflowing abund
ance, unity is preserved in the source itself. Part
a ray of the sun from its orb, and its unity forbids
this division of light. Break a branch from a tree,
once broken it can bud no more. Cut the stream
from its fountain, the remnant will be dried up.
Thus the Church flooded with the light of the Lord,
puts forth her rays through the whole world, with
yet one light, which is spread upon all places,
while its unity of body is not infringed. She
stretches forth her branches over the universal
earth, in the riches of plenty, and pours abroad her
bountiful and onward streams, yet is there one
head, one source, one Mother, abundant in the re
sults of her fruitfuLness." ^^
Cyril, who was Bishop of Jerusalem A.D. 350,

' Ep. li. 24.
' On the Unity of the Church, ch. 4.

52 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
"While the Kings of particular nations have
bounds set to their dominion, the Holy Catholic
Church alone extends her illimitable sovereignty
over the whole world." " "Now it is called Cath
olic because it is throughout the world, from one
end of the earth to the other, and because it teaches
universally and completely one and all the doc
trines which ought to come to men's knowledge,
concerning things both visible and invisible. Heav
enly and earthly; and because it subjugates in
order to godliness every class of men, governors
and governed, learned and unlearned ; and because
it universally treats, and heals every sort of sins
which are committed by soul or body, and possesses
in itself every form of virtue which is named,
both in deeds and words, and in every kind of
spiritual gifts. And it is rightly named Church
because it calls forth and assembles together all
men. Again Cyril says :
"But since the word Church or assembly is
applied to different things . . . the Faith has
delivered to thee by way of security, the Article
'and in One Holy Catholic Church' ; that thou
mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever
abide with the Holy Catholic Church in which
thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art so
journing in any city, inquire not simply where

" Cat. Lee. xviii. 27.
» Ibid. 23, 24.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 53
the Lord's House is, (for the sects of the profane
also make an attempt to call their ovra. dens houses
of the Lord,) not merely where the Church is, but
where is the Catholic Church. For this is the
peculiar name of this Holy Body, the mother of
us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God." "
The writings called the "Constitutions of the
Apostles" compiled about A.D. 350, assert, "The
Catholic Church is the plantation of God, and His
beloved Vineyard containing those who have be
lieved in His unerring and divine religion." "
In the Liturgy of St. James, the priest prays
"For the stablishing of the Holy Catholic Church
which Thou hast founded on the Rock of Faith,
that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." "Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
throughout the world." In the Liturgy of St.
Mark, the priest prays, "with the entire body of
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." "We
pray and beseech Thee, O Lover of men, O Good
Lord, remember in Thy good mercy, the Holy
and only Catholic Church throughout the whole
world." In the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles we read,
"O Lord God Omnipotent, Thine is the Holy Cath
olic Church. Accept this oblation for the whole
Holy Catholic Church."

"Lect. xviii. 26.
" Book I., sec. 1.

54 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
The quotations which we have now given from
the early Christian writers, prove beyond question
that both in name and theory, the Christian Church
was Catholic from the very first Apostolic days;
and that anything approaching the modem Protest
ant theory of division, was either unknown or was
promptly condemned the instant it was suggested,
as contrary to the whole teaching and essential
nature of the Church.
It still remains for us to see if the Catholic
theory is also the theory embodied in the Holy
Scriptures; and the proof that it is will come in
its proper place.

CHAPTER IV
THE CATHOLIC PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY
TJLMOST all theories, however complicated,
Jm rest on some one principle which is essential,
can be tested by some one question which touches
the vital point at issue ; and so if we find this prin
ciple and apply the right question, the whole argu
ment is immensely simplified, and the ground
cleared of a lot of side issues, which are not of
vital consequence.
This is true of the issue between Catholics and
Protestants, for while to a man who takes a super
ficial view of the differences and controversies
among those who call themselves Christians, any
solution seems to be almost hopeless, yet if you
ask two very simple questions, you find that all
sects must instantly group themselves into two
classes, take one side or the other of a distinct and
vital issue. The questions are these: How did
any sect under discussion originate, and on what
principle does it teach ? Mind you, the question is

56 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
not What doctrine does it teach, but By what au
thority does it teach any doctrine? You will thus
find that those who call themselves Protestants,
organized their churches since the Reformation,
and teach on the principle of individual interpre
tation of the Bible; while those who call them
selves Catholics, claim to belong to the Ancient
Church which our Lord created, and to teach on
the principle of authority transmitted from Him,
in the Church. The Catholic accepts the teaching
of the Church, because Christ sent and commis
sioned it to teach and interpret the Faith and the
Holy Scriptures. The whole matter then reduces
itself to this: Who has authority to teach? Can
such authority be assumed, or must it be inherited ?
Any sect or any man may be right or wrong in
what he teaches ; but before you can deal with his
teaching, he must show what is his authority to
teach anything at all in the Name of the Lord
Christ. If he has authority, then what he says
must carry with it a certain moral obligation to
listen to it, and obey it. But if he has no such
authority, then what he says, however true it may
be, cannot be binding upon us in any way, if we
happen to disagree with him. The man, or church,
must be sent by some authority we can recognize,
and must give reasonable credentials of possessing
that authority.
Catholics have no controversy with individual
Protestant denominations, about their individual
peculiarities, but vsdth all of them as being of one

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 57
class, and as representing one principle, namely,
the right of the individual to make a new church
and a new creed, for himself, according to his own
views of the Bible.
If, as Catholics claim, the Lord Christ made
and sent one Church and one ministry which exist
to-day, authorized to represent Him, then the vital
question which must precede all others, is, Where
is that Church and that ministry ? Notice, this is
not a question of detail, or personal preference, or
expediency, but of authority pure and simple. This
will be better understood, by the use of a simple
illustration. Suppose that an ambassador had been sent to
this country from England, and that three Eng
lishmen should present themselves to the President
at Washington, claiming to fill the ambassador's
position. Imagine the first man saying, "I am
perfectly competent to represent my country as
ambassador at Washington. I belong to a promi
nent English family, and have been a member of
Parliament, a conspicuous legislator. I am famil
iar with English politics, and I do not see why I
should not be the Ambassador." Then suppose the
second man should present himself, and say, "I
am a trained diplomat; I have made a special
study of political and social science, I have an
honorable record, great persuasive powers in argu
ment, I am clever and tactful. There is no reason
why I should not represent England in America."
Then lastly, suppose the third man should come

58 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
forward and say, "Whether I am personally com
petent or not, as a simple matter of fact I am the
Amhassador, because I have been so appointed by
the English government; and I have my creden
tials here at hand."
Now which one would the Government at
Washington receive? Would his reception turn
on the question of his fitness, or his authority ?
Most certainly on the question of his authority;
and the strong presumption would be, that if his
government had selected him and sent him, he was
a fit person to fill the office. At any rate, the ques
tion of his fitness would be determined later ; and
it would not determine his official authority at all.
The other men might be very clever, and very intel
ligent; in short, they might possess every possible
qualification to become diplomats, and in fact
might be much more clever than the Ambassador
himself, hut they would lack representative au
thority. When any Protestant sect asks our allegiance,
and invites us to join it, its members generally set
forth its merits on the ground of expediency, and
not on the ground that it has any special authority
to demand such allegiance. They say to us, "We
are competent to teach the Christian Religion. Our
forms and our platform are nearer the Gospel
model. Our members show much piety and zeal.
Our ministers make many converts. Our system
is easily adapted to the needs of the times. We
are broad and tolerant. What more could you ask ?

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 59
Are we not competent to represent the Christian
religion ?"
The Churchman replies : "Granting the truth
of aU that you have said, the question still remains.
Whence do you get your authority to teach ? Show
us the credentials of your official commission. You
assume to represent the Lord Christ to me, in that
you teach in His Name. Now prove to me that
He sent you. You must do this before I can give
you my allegiance, because fitness to teach, and
authority to teach, are not the same thing. I may
not question your fitness, I do question your au
thority." Now St. Paul compares the authority of a
Christian minister to that of an ambassador, when
he says : "We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ,
as though God were intreating you by us; we
beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled
to God." And if words mean anything, certainly
this means that ministerial authority is so real,
that Christ can be said actually to speak to men,
through the lips of the Apostle.
Precisely this same principle is again asserted
when St. Paul says: "If I have forgiven any
thing, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the
PEESGN- OF Cheist," that is, as if Christ absolved
personally through him.
If then the central question between religious
bodies be one of authority to teach in the Name of
Christ, it must appear at once, that the discussion

60 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of details of belief, and organization, and custom,
is of secondary importance.
If the Lord by His Apostles organized one
Church to represent Him, and perpetuate itself
in history, until you have determined what and
where that Church is, there is no use in discussing
questions about details of belief, or matters of
taste and expediency ; or whether this sect, or that
sect, is nearer the scriptural model than some
other, or whether we shall immerse or pour, or have
little ritual or much, or whether we have all gone
through the same internal emotional experience or
not, or whether one sect is more liberal, more pious,
or more up to date, than another.
These things may be right or wrong, true or
false, good, bad, or indifferent ; but if you find that
the Old Church exists, and can give credentials of
its authority to teach and administer sacraments,
in Christ's Name, then the presumption would be
that it is fitted for its work; and even in matters
of detail, has probably not gone hopelessly wrong.
Now there is a large class of people who have
argued for the American Church, because it has a
fine system of educating the young, or because it
has a dignified worship in which the people have
their share, or because it maintains a sober stand
ard of religious belief and feeling, or because its
services are attractive, or because it is conservative
and respectable, all of which is unquestionably
true. Again, men have argued in its favor, because
it sprang from the Mother Church of the English-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 61
speaking people, and represented the Church which
gave us the English Bible, and which was instru
mental in maintaining all that has been wise and
good in English law and literature. This also is
true. But all these questions are matters of detail ;
and do not touch the one question of importance,
namely. Has this Church authority to teach in the
Name of Christ? Is it by organization and his
torical inheritance the Apostolic Catholic Church,
the American Catholic Church, in distinction from
the Roman Catholic Church which is foreign and
alien, and the Protestant sects, which are self-
created ; or is it, on the other hand, merely a Prot
estant sect, without either the grace or the wisdom
to recognize its own insignificance?
To one who is unfamiliar with the teaching of
the American Church, and who learns its historic
position for the first time, it may perhaps be a
startling, and possibly offensive thought, that any
one religious body in the community should claim
to have credentials of a special authority to teach
in Christ's Name; and on this basis should claim
the allegiance of all who call themselves Chris
tians. Such a claim may seem absurd, preposter
ous, arrogant, exclusive, pretentious, or anything
you like ; but after all, the truth or falsity of it is
determined by simple matters of fact. For if the
Lord Christ did found and commission one Church
which exists to-day, it certainly must be some one
religious body which exists among others in any
given community, and there must be some way of

62 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
finding out which it is, by tracing back its history
and determining how it originated. Even though
it happens to be small in numbers, and weak in
influence, and perhaps even distinguished neither
for its piety nor its zeal, nevertheless it still must
be, by reason of its Apostolic origin and historic
descent, in a special and peculiar sense the Church
of Christ ; and if it is, and if it is conscious of the
fact, it must have the courage to proclaim it, no
matter how the fact may happen to impress others.
The Church's credentials are open to investiga
tion. The facts on which she bases her claims are
neither obscure or uncertain. Now, no Protestant
sect could possibly venture to teach in the Name of
Christ, without claiming some sort of authority
so to do. Protestant ministers will sometimes say,
that their authority is based on the belief that God
sent them to preach the Gospel, because He has put
a strong desire to preach and a conviction that they
ought to preach, in their hearts ; and they believe
that this desire is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But if Protestants claim that their authority rests
on the fact of the inward call of the Holy Spirit
to preach the Gospel, we reply, that even if such a
call conveyed authority, there would be no way of
proving the fact of the call to any one but the man
himself, who thinks he has experienced it in his
own heart. We cannot see his heart, and he may
be mistaken as to his call. Again, if Protestants
assert that God has blessed their work, and so ap
proved of their position and authorized them to

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 63
speak in His Name by giving them His blessing,
we reply that God blesses the work of the Young
Men's Christian Association. Does that make a
Church of them, or authorize them to administer
sacraments ?
God blesses the work of any faithful, devout
man who strives to serve Him. Does that give him
authority to call himself a minister of God in any
official sense ? Certainly not ; and no sect would
receive him as such without some sort of an or
dination. God certainly blesses the good works of men in
all sorts of sects; but to assert that God thereby
blesses, or authorizes, the sectarian position or
principle, which is contrary to His law, is false;
for the exact reverse is true, as history abundantly
proves. The nemesis of ultimate self-destruction
follows sectarianism everywhere, and is far more
significant of God's disapproval than of His bless
ing. Division and subdivision, the loss of teaching
authority, and the inroads of rationalism, these
things indicate the mind of God as to sectarianism.
Now of course there can be no doubt that the
word "Authority" has an unpleasant sound to the
average Protestant ; and that it is particularly dis
agreeable, when used to denote the authority of the
historic Catholic Church; because spiritual free
dom from ecclesiastical authority of any sort, was
supposed to be a great principle asserted, and vin
dicated, at the Reformation. Authority is asso
ciated with superstition and priestcraft, while in-

64 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
dependence is supposed to be essential to individual
liberty and freedom to approach God without in
tervention of any sort.
Without stopping to discuss whether such a no
tion of spiritual freedom can be held by a Chris
tian, a moment's thought will show that any relig
ion which has God for its author must he hased
on the principle of authority, the authority of Him
who creates it, and makes its acceptance binding
on the consciences of men. If Christianity is not
based on the authority of God, then certainly we
are at liberty to accept or reject it as we please;
and it is not Divine. Whether or not any man
shall be a Christian, will be merely a question of
taste and not one of obligation and obedience.
The fact is not sufficiently recognized by Prot
estants, that acceptance of the Lord Christ in any
real sense, is not primarily an act of love or trust
simply, but it is an act of submission to Him as
the Son of God; the recognition of the relation
which must exist, between a creature and his
Creator; a relation which is expressed by author
ity on one side, and obedience on the other. There
would be no sense in loving Christ, or trusting Him
for our salvation, unless we first admit that He is
what He claimed to be, the God who creates us,
and who is to judge us; and it was because He is
God, that He spoke as one having authority.
So to believe in Him in any real sense, is to
believe the one thing which makes Him what He
is, the one fact, the acceptance of which carries

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 65
with it the obligation of obedience. Our Lord
Himself constantly made obedience the test of
faith. "He that hath My commandments and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me." "Ye are
My friends, if ye do the things that I command
you." Now it may be said that all this is true of
Christ. We can accept and obey His authority.
What we object to, is the authority of man, or a
Church, which comes between us and Christ.
We reply, that to accept Christ's authority at
all, or in any sense, is to admit His right to dele
gate it if He sees fit, to whom He pleases. And
if He does so delegate it, then recognition of those
He sends and commissions to represent Him, is
recognition of Him, and is an act of ohedience to
Him personally. And this is precisely what our
Lord Himself says, in the plainest language,
speaking of His Apostles: "As the Father hath
sent Me, even so send I you." "Whosoever shall not
receive you nor hear your words, when ye go forth
out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of
your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in
the Day of Judgment, than for that city" (St.
Matt. X, 14). "He that heareth you, heareth Me;
and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth Me; and he
that rejecteth Me, rejecteth Him that sent Me (St.
Luke X. 16).
Surely our Lord never could have used such
words as these, unless to reject those whom He
sends is in some very dreadful way, to reject Him.

66 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
This may be a hard truth to receive. It may run
counter to our pride and sense of independence. It
may violate our notions of Christian liberty; but
after all, for one who loves the Lord Christ and
wills to obey Him, the one question which must
be faced sooner or later is this: What has the
Lord done ? Has He delegated His authority to a
Church which exists to-day, and if He has so done,
must I not recognize it as part of my obedience
to Him, to find and obey that Church? If then
Catholic Churchmen are contending not for this
or that detail of belief or organization, not for mat
ters of choice or personal preference or expediency,
but for the vindication of some great principle
which is vital to the very existence of the Church
itself, then the whole question is lifted out of the
rut of ordinary controversy, and assumes an im
portance which must be obvious to any one who
calls himself a Christian.
As between English Catholics and Roman
Catholics, the question of authority resolves itself
to this: Was Catholic authority conferred by the
Lord Christ on all the Apostles, and through them
on the Episcopate as a whole, or on one Apostle in
the Church, St. Peter, and through him on the
Popes of Rome ? As Protestantism seems to be a
religion of individuals, each man for himself, so
Romanism seems to a Catholic Churchman to be
also an individual matter, one man for himself;
and in both cases, the Church as such seems to
count for nothing.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 67
Authority, as we believe, was conferred, not
on St. Peter alone, but on all the Apostles, by our
Lord; and there is no evidence that St. Peter re
ceived any authority which was peculiar to him
self, as head of the Church, which he could trans
mit; neither is there the slightest shadow of evi
dence that he ever did transmit such authority to
the Bishops of Rome. We will take up this mat
ter later in the argument.
Now doubtless it will be said just at this point,
that if the Catholic Church claims to be the old
Church, to possess special historic authority to teach
and administer sacraments and discipline in the
Name of the Lord Christ, by virtue of a commis
sion inherited from Him, it makes an arrogant
assumption of superiority over various Christian
denominations which do much good, and which
God has blessed, and which are very much larger
in numbers ; and that therefore such an assumption
is narrow and uncharitable. We reply to this
objection, that the claims of the Church rest simply
on historic facts which make her what she is ; and
which were settled by the providence of God cen
turies ago; and that any charge of arrogance can
neither make nor unmake them. With the mere
assertion of a fact, or a series of facts, charity as
such has nothing whatever to do.
Charity deals with motives, not facts; with
the motive which inspires a man to assert certain
facts. For example : the claims of the Church may
be taught in a narrow and arrogant spirit, as if

68 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Churchmen felt themselves personally superior to
Protestants; or they can be taught in a gentle,
humble spirit, as if Churchmen were very con
scious of their own shortcomings, and were ap
preciative of the holy lives of Protestants ; but as a
matter of fact, the spirit in which they are taught
does not make or unmake the facts themselves, for
these things are matters of history. Doubtless
arrogance, narrovraess, and uncharitableness do
exist in the American Church, just as they do
wherever there is any organization composed of
fallible men; but that such sentiments are the
natural or necessary product of her claim of au
thority to speak in the Lord's Name, is most cer
tainly not true. Must a man repudiate his an
cestry, or deny his identity, or give away his
inheritance, and play false to his birthright, just
because some other man, situated differently, says
he is arrogant if he does not? Is an ambassador
ever accused of being arrogant, uncharitable, or
narrow, just because he claims to be the authorized
representative of his government, and to be able
to produce the credentials of his commission for
this, and refuses to recognize other men as ambas
sadors without such credentials ? Surely not. The
Church has not the slightest desire to deny any
thing which can be truthfully said of the devotion,
zeal, and holy lives of Protestants. Nor does she
deny that a man may be a Churchman, and set
forth the claims of the Church in a miserably intol
erant and self-righteous spirit, while he himself

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 69
is wanting in personal holiness: but the existence
of such persons in no way weakens the force of a
logical argument based on an appeal to history;
and the claims of the Church are not set forth to
show the personal superiority of Churchmen, but
to induce others to share vsdth Churchmen the
special blessings which they think they enjoy.
We come now to the point where we can con
sider the question which is first and foremost in a
Churchman's plea. Did the Lord and His Apos
tles found a Church which was to be perpetual,
and was to represent Him by His authority, to all
men, in all time ? We will endeavor to answer this
in the next chapter.

CHAPTER V
did our lord ESTABLISH A CHURCH ?
^OH every man who calls himself a Christian,
y everything that our Lord did, and everything
that He said, must be of supreme importance ; and
this is true because He who speaks is the Son of
God, and from His word there can be no appeal.
Moreover, this is true, whatever He says,
whether He speaks concerning faith and holy liv
ing, or concerning the Church and its sacraments.
We have not the slightest right to discriminate
between these things, and virtually to say that we
will accept what the Lord says about Christian
morals and sentiments, but we will hold our own
opinions about Church matters ; and men virtually
do this when they accept His teaching of Christian
ethics as binding, while they ignore or explain
away what He says about the Church. To reject
our Lord's word in any particular, is to repudiate
His authority and to reject Him; because, being
God, He cannot err in the slightest particular.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 71
Moreover we believe that the Holy Ghost is
God; and so whatever He does, comes with the
authority of God, no matter whether He inspires
the Apostles to write the New Testament, or guides
them in the work of organizing the Church: both
New Testament and Church are His work, and rest
on precisely the same Divine Authority. We can
not accept parts of the Holy Spirit's work as bind
ing on our consciences, and reject other parts as of
no particular consequence, for in so doing we
reject Him.
For a Christian man who undertakes to inform
himself about the Church, the question of first im
portance is. What has the Lord done? What has
the Lord said? Has He said or done anything,
or are we left to our own choice about it, to join
any sect we please, or none at all if we do not
please, or to make a new, up-to-date sect for our
selves, according to our own views of the Bible,
if we think we have some new light? The com
mon Protestant impression seems to be, that our
Lord taught men to be good, gave them a book, and
then left them to find out what it meant, and do
as they liked. We often hear men say, "Christ left
no command to belong to any particular Church.
He taught no creed. He merely taught men to love
their neighbors, to be honest and clean, and to have
faith in Him." Well, then, let us turn to the New
Testament and find out exactly what is the trutt
about the matter.
Now we must start with a great fact of Scrip-

72 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ture, namely this : That when God willed to teach
and save men, before the Son of God became Incar
nate, He did it by establishing a visible Church,
through which, and in which. He entered into spe
cial convenant relations with men, and gave them a
special revelation of truth. This Church was estab
lished by Moses under explicit directions from God,
given on Mount Sinai. It had a rite of initiation,
by which men were made members of it, ordinances
of sacrificial worship, a priesthood of three orders
perpetuated by hereditary succession, a code of
moral law, a temple where God manifested His
presence by a visible sign, an established ritual
order for worship, and a year of Church fasts and
festivals. God's covenant was with this Church,
and to share that covenant, men had to be members
of it. God never dealt with a Jew as an individ
ual alone in saving him, but always as a member
of the great Church Body.
Now we must bear in mind, that the Lord
Christ was brought up in this Church, was made
a member of it when eight days old, was pre
sented in the temple at the end of forty days, that
He was taught its law, and attended its worship,
and kept its festivals, hy His own deliherate choice
as God, as part of His own wonderful submission
to God's law for men, and as His recognition of the
great Church principle, in the scheme of saving
men from sin.
The Lord was emphatically a Churchman, and
strenuously upheld the authority of the Church to

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 73
His disciples. He tells His disciples, "The Scribes
and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All there
fore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe :
but do not ye after their works ; for they say and
do not" (St. Matt, xxiii. 1). When our Lord
healed a man of leprosy. He sent him to the priest
in accordance with the ritual law to have his cure
certified. Again our Lord said of receiving Bap
tism, "thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous
ness." Now men say to us, "We admit that there was
a Jewish Church, and that Christ recognized its
authority and observed its laws, but later He abol
ished all this; and established a purely spiritual
religion." We reply, that Christ Himself said,
"I came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law."
That is, the old method or principle was retained,
but the old Church was filled full of new grace,
so that ordinances became Christian sacraments.
The old law was retained, but it was filled full
of new motives and new inspirations. If God
abruptly altered all His methods of dealing vsdth
men and established a purely spiritual religion
after suddenly discarding a purely formal re
ligion, either in the first instance He was radically
mistaken, or immediately after Christ came, hu
man nature underwent a sudden and complete
change, was so amazingly spiritualized that men
had to be treated as pure spirits, disembodied
souls, or angels, rather than as men who could be
taught through bodily senses, by outward signs and

74 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
forms, just exactly as men are taught everywhere
to-day, and as they always must be taught until
they get to Paradise. Now natural science teaches
us most distinctly that God develops life in nature
always by a continuous process ; and that He never
suddenly revolutionizes His methods, makes sud
den leaps or breaks, or treats the life for which
He is caring, one way one minute and another the
next. The new comes always and everywhere by
gradual development out of the old; and if the
Christian Church revolutionized all God's pre
vious methods of saving men, then surely it can
not be God's work, or else God's previous work
must have been a failure.
We read that the Law was our schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ ; and if this be true, then cer
tainly the old system was in many respects essen
tially Christian, was prophetic and preparatory
for the Christian Church, and so there could not
be any vital antagonism between them. The strong
presumption then is, that if God saved men under
the old dispensation by forming a visible Church,
giving it a special revelation and covenant priv
ileges, and then incorporating individual men into
it. He will do the same thing under the new order,
without violent change and without repudiating
His old methods of dealing with men in matters of
religion. Now right here we are met by an assertion
which is in one sense true ; and which is supposed
to dispose of the whole matter, in a summary way.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 75
It is this: Christ did not prescribe in the New
Testament any explicit directions for making any
one Church, and none are to be found there. We
reply, most certainly not. But why not ? Simply
because any such directions would be wholly
uncalled for and unnecessary, inasmuch as the
Church had already been founded by Him, and its
organization determined, some sixty years before
the New Testament was completed, and several
hundred years before the whole Christian Church
had it. What, pray, would be the use of giving
plans for doing that which was already done, for
making that which was already made, in giving
exact details about that with which Christians
had long been familiar, for settling matters which
had never been disputed? The Bible, which was
written in the Church, by members of the Church,
cannot be expected to plan out the making of an
organization which made the Bible itself.
Protestants as a rule baptize children, observe
the first day of the week, Sunday, and admit
women to the communion ; but there is not any
explicit direction in the Bible to do any one of
these things. They simply follow the tradition of
the Catholic Church in these observances, which
is, that children were baptized from the first, that
Sunday became the weekly memorial of our Lord's
resurrection, and that women converts received the
blessed sacrament as well as men. Indirect allu
sions to these facts do occur in the Scriptures, but
there is no recorded command enforcing them any-

76 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
where to be found. So Protestants could not pos
sibly defend their own system on the ground that
nothing is of obligation which the New Testament
does not actually command and direct. We believe
that we have a right to expect that the New Testa
ment would allude to the Church which already
existed, perhaps with sufficient distinctness to
determine much concerning the nature of the
Church; just as we would expect that we could
learn much of the organization of the army from
the letters of its officers, or of the nature of any
society or fraternity if we could see correspondence
between its various chapters. So we come back to
the central question. Did the Lord establish a
visible Church?
We must pause and try to realize the impor-
ance of just this one issue, as best we can. We
must bear in mind that He is God Almighty ; and
that whatever He does, as well as whatever He
says, must be of eternal moment to us; and that
for this reason a God-made Church and a man-
made sect, must be poles apart ; the one may closely
concern the salvation of our souls, while the other
may not be of any vital consequence. So we must
proceed slowly, and try to take in the significance
of each step by itself.
Now what are the scriptural facts of the case ?
Exactly what did our Lord do, and what did His
Apostles do, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit ?
In the first place, what did Christ begin preach-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 77
ing about ? About holy living, charity, gentleness,
and morality? No. He came preaching first of
all about the Kingdom of God ; and the words are
repeated again and again, "The Kingdom of God
is at hand." Well, then, what is this Kingdom ?
Is it Heaven, or Paradise? No, because in His
parables which describe it, our Lord tells us that
this Kingdom will contain both good and bad peo
ple. He likens it to a net, holding good and bad
fish; a field of wheat and tares; a flock of sheep
and goats; in short a Kingdom in which both
good and bad men can live side by side; and so
a Kingdom in this world, not in Heaven.
What is a kingdom in this world? Is it not
an organized state, with a king at its head, having
its ov5Ta laws for self-government and for perpet
uating its own existence, and commissioned officers
to execute these laws, its methods of naturalizing
foreigners, its territorial boundaries, and its duties
and privileges of citizenship, and its own type of
civilization? A kingdom is an organized, active,
visible body of men; not a moral philosophy, nor
a lot of speculations about a book, nor a group of
rival republics, nor a ghostly collection of invisible
souls which nobody can locate or identify.
Now it is said at this point, Christ says the
Kingdom of God is within you ; therefore it cannot
be outside of you, as a visible Church is. Well,
why not ? The Kingdom of England is within the
hearts of its loyal subjects; but the government
is also an objective reality. But our Lord was

78 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
talking to the Pharisees, and the Kingdom of God
was most certainly not within them, in any pos
sible sense, for they were a bad lot. Moreover
the word translated within also means among;
and the Kingdom was certainly among the Phar
isees, in the persons of the Apostles. As a matter
of fact the Kingdom of God, the Church, did not
come with observation, in the sense that the Phar
isees thought it would, with the pomp and display
of a civil kingdom, but it came sufficiently under
observation to be found without the slightest
trouble by its enemies when they wanted to per
secute it, and it has been the most constantly
observed organization in history, ever since. We
will deal with the question of the so-called "invis
ible Church" later on.
Now our Lord said that except a man be born
of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the King
dom; and the earliest Christian writers, like Jus
tin Martyr, assert that these words referred to
Baptism with water, in the Name of the Holy
Trinity. If men entered the Kingdom by a visible
rite through Baptism, then certainly it would be
an easy matter to tell who were members of it, and
who were not ; and it must necessarily be a visible
Kingdom. Having thus proclaimed the coming of the
Kingdom, the Church, the Lord takes the first
active step in establishing it. "He appointed
twelve, that they might be with Him, and that
He might send them forth to preach" (Mark iii.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 79
14) . To these men He gives the technical name of
Apostles. He says to them, "As ye go, preach,
saying The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"
(Matt. X. 7). "I appoint unto you a Kingdom,
as My Father even appointed unto Me" (Luke
xxii. 29). "Ye did not choose Me, but I chose
you and appointed you" (John xv. 16). In other
words, the Church from the very first step is
Christ's work, and not man's. Men do not get
together, having become Christians, and make a
Church of their ovsm. Christ does the choosing,
and begins by selecting His ministry, and a great
deal of His instruction is directed towards pre
paring them for their work. St. Peter confesses
his faith in our Lord saying, "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the Living God." Our Lord replies,
"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build
My Church; and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven ; and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in
Heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
shall be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. xvi. 18, 19).
This commission here promised to St. Peter,
was subsequently conferred on all the Apostles
(Matt, xviii. 18).
Now notice the import of our Lord's words:
"I will build My Church." This is a definite
promise, and for our Lord to promise, is to fulfil.
How about the Protestant statement that Christ
never built any Church? Again, Christ does the

80 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
building, not men, and the thing He builds is not
many churches, but His Church, not this man's or
that man's Church, but His Church; His because
He makes it and commissions it.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
But the gates of hell certainly did prevail, if at
the Reformation the Church had become apostate,
or hopelessly corrupt, so that it was necessary to
make a lot of substitutes for it. A Churchman
fails to see how the abandonment of Christ's
Church at the Reformation can possibly be justi
fied, except on just this supposition : that the gates
of hell did prevail, notwithstanding our Lord's
promise that they would not prevail.
Again, our Lord promises the guidance of the
Holy Spirit to the Apostles, saying, "When He,
the Spirit of Truth, is come. He shall guide you
into all the truth. The Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you
all things, and bring to your remembrance all that
I said unto you" (John xiv. 26, and xvi. 13).
When our Lord instituted the sacrament of His
Body and Blood, He bade His Apostles, Do this,
or perform this service, for a memorial of Him.
St. Paul commenting on our Lord's words at the
institution says, "As often as ye eat this Bread and
drink this Cup, ye proclaim the Lord's Death till
He come" (I. Cor. xi. 26), implying the perpetuity
of the Apostolic order.
After our Lord's resurrection from the dead.
He again meets His Apostles, and gives them

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 81
their ministerial commission, saying, "Peace be
unto you ; as the Father hath sent Me even so send
I you. And when He had said this. He breathed
on them and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye forgive they are for
given unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained" (John xx. 21).
Notice what these words imply. First, our
Lord ordains them by an outward sign, breathing
on them; He gives them the gift of the Holy
Ghost, and imparts to them His own authority
from the Father, to minister in His Name and
in some real sense to forgive sins.
Could any words convey a ministerial commis
sion involving divine authority more distinctly and
uncompromisingly than these?
Again our Lord says to them: "All authority
hath been given unto Me in Heaven and on earth.
Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the na
tions, baptizing them in the Name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I com
manded you, and lo I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18).
In these words, our Lord gives the Apostles a
commission to baptize, and teach, and He promises
to be with them unto the end of the world, always.
Now either our Lord speaks to them as individuals,
or as a continuous ministerial order. As individ
uals they would soon pass away ; therefore it could
be only as a continuous order, that our Lord could

82 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
be with them always, unto the end of the world.
Here is the promise of the perpetuity of the Apos
tolic ministry. The transfer of His own authority
was so real, that He could say of them thus or
dained, "He that receiveth you receiveth Me"
(Matt. X. 40). "Verily I say unto you, whatso
ever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth,
shall be loosed in Heaven" (Matt, xviii, 17-18).
After He had commissioned the Apostles, our
Lord told them to wait at Jerusalem for the
promised gift of the Holy Ghost, and said: "Ye
shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come
upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and
unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts i. 8).
Here again the Apostolic order is appointed to
be witnesses, to the uttermost parts of the earth.
But within seventy years every one of the original
twelve would be dead; so if they were to witness
to the uttermost parts of the earth, it must be as
a continuous ministerial order, and not as individ
uals. Let us now sum up our Lord's acts thus far.
First. He selects twelve men, and calls them
Apostles. Second. He instructs them about the
Church. Third. He institutes the blessed sacra
ment, and commissions them to celebrate the
Eucharistic sacrifice. Fourth. He gives His com
mission to teach, baptize, absolve, and administer
discipline, in His Name, and by His authority.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 83
by an outward sign of ordination, which conveyed
the gift of the Holy Ghost to them. Fifth. He
promises the perpetuity of the Apostolic minister
ial order to the end of the world, and the uttermost
parts of the earth. Sixth. He promises to ratify
in Heaven their ministerial acts. Seventh. He
promises the blessing of His perpetual presence.
Now we ask. What more could our Lord pos
sibly have done, or said, that would have em
phasized the divine origin and authority of the
Apostolic ministry of the Christian Church?
It is difficult to conceive of language more
forceful, more definite, and more far-reaching,
than that which He certainly did use, in thus form
ing the ministerial nucleus of His Church. Words
from the lips of God Incarnate cannot be mean
ingless, or overdrawn, or ill-chosen, and liable to
convey false notions of His meaning, to men whom
He came to save. Everything that He has said,
and everything that He has done, so far, is not
merely out of harmony with the Protestant theory
of the origin of the Church, but it flatly contra
dicts it, in the most unmistakable terms.
After our Lord's resurrection, we read that
He showed Himself to His Apostles, "appearing
unto them by the space of forty days and speaking
the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"
(Acts i. 3). Thus during these forty days. He
gives them His last instruction about the Church
which they were to complete under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit. Now we do not know what all

84 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
these instructions were, but we have a reasonably
sure ground of inferring what many of them were.
For example, if an Admiral of the Navy were
to summon the captains of his squadron on board
the flagship for a conference, and immediately
afterward they were to return to their ships and
begin at once a concerted plan of action, in an
orderly and systematic way, issuing the same com
mands on their individual vessels, we would natur
ally infer that that which they did, they had been
told to do by their commanding officer, when he
conferred with them privately.
So when the Apostles, immediately after Pen
tecost, start out and everywhere work according
to the same plan, teach the same truth, and ad
minister the same sacraments, we infer that they
were simply carrying out our Lord's orders and
instructions, given during the forty days of re
treat and conference. Eor example, whenever men
and women were baptized, the Apostles laid their
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost
(Acts viii. 17 and xix. 6). So though there is
no recorded command of our Lord to administer
Confirmation, yet we infer that He gave such
command privately, because Confirmation was a
universal practice from the first throughout the
Church, and is spoken of as one of the principles,
"the first principles of Christ," in Hebrews vi. 1-2.
It is difficult to imagine how there could have been
this universal agreement about such a matter, un
less the Lord Himself had provided for it.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 85
Again, St. James says that the elders of the
Church are to pray over the sick, anointing them
with oil in the Name of the Lord (James v. 14).
But who would dare to do this in the Lord's Name,
unless the Lord had at some time authorized such
a proceeding ? So, no doubt, much of the uniform
tradition of the Church about doctrine, organiza
tion, and worship, had its origin in our Lord's
instructions given during these great forty days
between His resurrection and His ascension, in
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Now in view of what has been said, it will
be seen how utterly misleading and untruthful is
the assertion that the Lord Christ taught merely
a spiritual religion, and left men to organize them
selves into churches or not, as they pleased; and
that it did not make any matter one way or the
other, provided the heart was all right. If words
mean anything, these words of our Lord are of
terribly solemn import: "Ye did not choose Me
but I chose you." "As My Father hath sent Me,
even so send I you." "He that heareth you heareth
Me." "Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world." "Go, teach, baptize, and do this in
remembrance of Me." "Whosesoever sins ye remit
they are remitted unto them." "Whatsoever ye shall
bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." These
words, if they mean anything, mean the inaugur
ation of a Kingdom which the Lord alone creates,
and which He endows with divine authority to
represent Him to all men. And remembering that

86 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
they come from the lips of God Incarnate, it is the
part of humility to try reverently to understand
them, and it is the part of prejudice and ignorance
to escape their import by saying that they cannot
or do not mean what they seem to mean.
Now be it well observed, that everything our
Lord did, and every syllable He uttered, is strictly
in accord with the Catholic theory of the Church,
as we have stated it. In the persons of these
twelve Apostles, we have the ministerial nucleus
of the Church chosen by Christ, commissioned by
Christ, with the promise of Christ's continual
presence, to do Christ's work, in Christ's Name,
until Christ shall come unto the end of the world ;
and .this is Christ's Church ("My Church"), for
Christ "builds it," men do not build it.
This is Catholicity pure and simple; and the
central fact of it is the gift of authority to an
order of men in a divinely created Church, to
claim the allegiance of men unto the uttermost
parts of the earth, in Christ's Name.
Surely it must be obvious, that the Protestant
theory of the Church is hopelessly inconsistent
with our Lord's own acts and words. For it
assumes that a hundred man-made sects can dis
place the Christ-made Church fifteen hundred
years after Christ ascended; and so our Lord's
work has failed, the gates of hell have prevailed
against His Church, and His awful ministerial
commission has been annulled, and His breath
wasted. Think of it! His sacramental breath

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 87
("He breathed on them") wasted! That breath
which could confer the Holy Ghost, who was to
guide the Church into all truth, instead of allow
ing it to become apostate, and lapse into fatal
error, as Protestants assert it did !
Viewed from the standpoint of our Lord's
words and acts, as recorded in Holy Scripture, the
Catholic theory is true, and the Protestant theory
is false; and no amount of ex post facto special
pleading can make them otherwise.
It now remains for us to study the words and
acts of the Holy Apostles, in completing our
Lord's work of organizing the Church, and see if
they, too, correspond to the Catholic theory of the
origin and organization of the Church.

CHAPTER VI
the apostles' work in founding THE CHURCH
771 E HAVE so far considered what our Lord
W Himself did, by act and word, in establish
ing the ministerial nucleus of the Catholic Church.
Now we must find out exactly what the Apostles
did, in perfecting this work; remembering that
they were working under our Lord's instructions
given during the great forty days, and also that
they were guided in what they did by the Holy
Ghost, as our Lord promised they should be.
The first thing they did after our Lord's
Ascension, was to elect another Apostle in the
place of Judas, "to take the place in this ministry,
and apostleship from which Judas fell away"
(Acts i. 25).
They tarried in Jerusalem eleven days for the
promised gifts of the Holy Ghost. As in the
original creation "God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and man became a living soul," so

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 89
Christ formed the Body of the Church of ordinary
men; and on Pentecost the Holy Ghost breathed
into this Body the breath of life, and the Church
became filled with divine vitality, the life of the
Son of God.
He thus re-incarnates Himself through the
work of the Holy Ghost, in the Church which is
called His Body; and so this pentecostal baptism
forever stamps the Church vidth the attribute of
sanctity, and emphasizes its divine origin, and
differentiates it eternally from all man-made sects.
Pentecost is the Church's birthday.
The Church begins its work at once. St. Peter
preaches the first sermon, and when men ask him
what to do, he replies, "Repent ye, and be bap
tized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ
unto the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38). Here
then, the very first Christian sermon ever preached
in the Church, calls men not merely to repent, but
to be baptized; not only to be baptized, but to be
baptized unto the remission of sins^ that they
might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Notice
how the sacramental doctrine comes to the front
at once. If Baptism had been a mere form, such teach
ing as this from one who had so recently been
under our Lord's personal instruction, would have
been profane in the extreme, for what sane man
would have dared to associate remission of sins,
and the gift of the Holy Ghost, with the recep-

90 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
tion of a mere ordinance, unless the Lord Himself
had so instructed him? In modem Protestant
revival preaching, did you ever hear the preacher
urge his converts to be baptized for the remission
of sins? As a result of this first sermon, we read that
"they that received his word were baptized; and
the same day there were added unto them in that
day about three thousand souls" (Acts ii. 41).
To hear the word of God then is obediently
to receive Baptism. Now the Church is com
posed of the twelve Apostles, the one hundred and
eight disciples, and the three thousand other lay
men, who had just been baptized. We read again,
that these Churchmen continued steadfastly in
four things: in the Apostles' teaching and fellow
ship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers
(Acts ii. 42).
Here we have four elements of the unity of the
primitive Catholic Church. Unity of doctrine,
of organic fellowship in one body, sacramental
unity, and the unity of common prayers, that is,
unity of worship; and we read that the Lord
added to them day by day those that were being
saved (Acts ii. 47).
He added those who were being saved (the cor
rect translation) because the Church was the
means of salvation. Now this unity of Apostolic
doctrine, fellowship and sacramental worship is
something positive, tangible, organic, and definite ;
and their steadfast loyalty to it, is in marked con-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 91
trast with the modem Protestant idea of agreeing
to differ, and the assertion that the only unity pos
sible, or necessary, is a kind of heart unity, which
nobody can define or comprehend. Later we will
take each one of these bonds of unity by itself and
study its nature.
Now our Lord committed to the Apostles all
ministerial authority, and so, having chosen an
Apostle in the place of Judas, they request the dis
ciples to choose seven men for the office of Deacons,
whom they (the disciples) set before the Apostles,
"and when they had prayed, they (the Apostles)
laid their hands on them" (Acts vi. 6). That is,
they ordained them. Then again we read that they
appointed them elders in every Church (xiv. 23),
and so we now have a ministry of three orders:
Apostles, Elders, and Deacons, who went about
from city to city preaching the Gospel of the
Kingdom, and converting men, and bringing them
into the Church, through Baptism.
Let us take an example of their work. Philip,
the Deacon, meets an Ethiopian eunuch, riding in
his chariot, and reading the prophecy of Isaiah.
Philip joins the Ethiopian, and asks him if he un
derstood the scriptures he is reading. The Ethiop
ian replies, "How can I except some man shall
guide me?" You notice that the Ethiopian did
not seem to hold the Protestant theory, that every
man can interpret the Bible for himseK; on the
contrary, he feels the need of a guide of some
sort, and so Philip, representing the Church in-

92 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
structs him, Philip, as we read, preached unto
him Jesus. Then, as they rode along, they came
to a certain water; and the Ethiopian instantly
said, "Behold, here is water ; what doth hinder me
to be baptized?" Now obviously enough, preach
ing Jesus according to the Apostolic method in
volved preaching Baptism as the way to Jesus, the
way to receive His grace, otherwise, the Ethiopian
would not have immediately desired Baptism,
when Philip "preached Jesus."
So "he commanded the chariot to stand still ;
and they both went down into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him."
Now the Apostles not only baptized men and
women, but they also confirmed them. For ex
ample, St. Paul finds certain disciples and asks
them, "Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye be
lieved?" Obviously, then, faith does not confer
all gifts of the Holy Ghost, and there must be sac
ramental ways of receiving Him, after one is con
verted and believes. St. Paul finds that they had
only received John's baptism, which was not Chris
tian Baptism at all. Having explained this fact to
them, they were baptized into the Name of the
Lord Jesus. "And when Paul had laid his hands
upon them the Holy Ghost came on them" (Acts
xix. 6). Again we read an account of another
Confirmation in Acts viii. 17. "When the Apostles
which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John, who when they were come down,

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 93
prayed for them that they might receive the Holy
Ghost. (For as yet He was fallen upon none of
them ; only they had been baptized into the Name
of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands
on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."
So this laying on of hands always followed
Baptism, and was the sacramental means by which
the Holy Ghost was given to men. Again, we
read that they celebrated the Holy Communion
always on Sunday. "Upon the first day of the
week, when we were gathered together to break
bread, Paul preached unto them" (Acts xx. 7).
Notice first, that the Christian weekly holy day
is the first day, that is, Sunday, in commemoration
of our Lord's resurrection; and that the Church in
setting apart this day, assumes Divine Authority to
act in the matter; otherwise she would not have
dared to do away with that which was an estab
lished ordinance of God.
Notice also, that while St. Paul preached, the
purpose of coming together was to break the sacra
mental bread; and the preaching was only inci
dental, or of secondary importance. Preaching
in the New Testament is never an end in itself,
but the means to an end; and the end is always,
and everywhere. Church membership through Bap
tism. Moreover the chief object of all Christian
assemblage is always worship, and never merely
to hear a sermon.
When any question arose, any point of doc
trine or discipline needed further definition, the

94 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
matter was referred to a council of the Church
for decision, under guidance of the Holy Ghost.
For example, the question came up whether Gen
tile converts should be circumcised and observe the
Jewish law. The brethren appealed to the Apostles
and Elders at Jerusalem, and they came together to
consider the matter. When after full discussion
the question was decided in favor of the liberty of
the Gentiles, letters were written to announce this
decision to the Church at large, and the formula
used to express the decision was, "It seemed good
to the Holy Ghost and to us." That is, they dis
tinctly claim the guidance of the Holy Ghost in
their decision, which the Lord Himself had prom
ised them. Then we read that Paul and Barnabas
as "they went through the cities, they delivered
them the decrees for to keep, which had been or
dained of the Apostles and elders that were at
Jerusalem" (Acts xv., xvi. 4). Here we have an
example of the Church acting as a whole, through
her representatives in council assembled ; and in so
doing, claiming to be under direction of the Holy
Spirit. Here we have an organized legislative body in
authority, acting for the Church, and issuing de
crees which are binding upon the whole Church.
Could any proceeding more distinctly illustrate,
and bring out, the Church principle than this?
Could anything more strongly emphasize the or
ganized character of the Church, its unity, and
its exercise of authority in practical matters, than

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 95
this ? We fail to see how it could ; and yet Prot
estants speak of the Church as an invisible thing,
or as a collection of disconnected sects. Pray,
how could either of these deal vdth such a question
as this council of Jerusalem settled? How can
they settle anything, when they recognize no su
preme legislative authority anywhere?
Now the last thing that the Book of the Acts
of the Holy Apostles tells us, is this: Paul
preached the Kingdom of God, and taught the
things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts
xxviii. 31).
So from first to last, the preaching is always
about the Lord, and His Church. The two things
are never separated. The world had to wait fif
teen hundred years before men discovered that that
personal loyalty to Christ, and to Christ's Church,
could be divorced: that one was essential, while
the other was not ; that one must believe something
about God's Son, while God's Kingdom was a
matter of indifference. According to St. Paul,
to preach those things which concern the Lord, is
to preach the Kingdom, the Catholic Church, as
the way to Him. That kind of preaching which
aims merely to rouse men and convict them of sin
and stir faith in their hearts, and stops with this,
is certainly not Apostolic preaching, whatever else
it may be. The first principles of the doctrine of
Christ do not stop with faith and repentance, but
go straight on to Baptism and laying on of hands
(Heb. vi. 1).

% CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Now let us go back and sum up what the Apos
tles did in obedience to our Lord, and under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost, in completing and ex
tending the organization, of the Catholic ChurcL
First, they chose an Apostle in the place of
Judas. Second, they preached Baptism for the re
mission of sins, and three thousand men were ad
ded to the Church. Third, they held their dis
ciples steadfastly to the Apostles' doctrine, min
istry, sacraments, and worship, as four bonds of
Catholic unity. Fourth, they ordain seven Dea
cons. Fifth, they ordain elders in every Church,
and thus completely develop the Apostolic minis
try. Sixth, they baptize both men and women.
Seventh, they confirm them, that they may receive
the Holy Ghost. Eighth, they institute the weekly
memorial of the Resurrection, and celebrate the
Holy Eucharist every Lord's day. Ninth, they
settle matters in dispute by an appeal to a council
of the whole Church, which claims the guidance of
the Holy Ghost in reaching its decision ; which de
cision is announced as of binding authority on
Christians. Tenth, always and everywhere, the
Kingdom of Christ is preached when Christ is
preached, and the two things are never separated.
Now in all this, we find the Church organized
and at work, under the Spirit's guidance, preach
ing, teaching, baptizing, confirming, celebrating
the Holy Eucharist, exercising discipline, and leg
islating, held together by four bonds of Catholic
Unity, one and the same, wherever it exists at

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 97
all. This much at least has been proved, by what
we have read in the Book of the Acts. And all this
is the natural and necessary sequence of what our
Lord Himself did and said, when He selected,
ordained, and commissioned the Apostolic order,
to teach, baptize, absolve, celebrate the Holy Com
munion, and exercise discipline, in His Name, and
by His authority, unto the end of the world in time,
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth, in space.
Now, in view of all this, what do you think of those
who assert that Christ founded no Church, and
taught merely a spiritual religion; and that none
of these things make any difference if the heart is
all right? Such an assertion is so radically con
trary to the facts of the case, that the only thing
one can say charitably is that those who make it
are so blinded by prepossession that they do not or
cannot take in, the simple statements we have been
studying together.
They must know that the Book of the Acts is a
book of Church History. They have their open
Bibles before them, they occasionally read what we
have read, and the only possible explanation for
their failure to grasp the plain significance of
Bible facts, is that they are handicapped by a habit
of thought, and by a theory, which must be de
fended at any cost ; a theory by which alone their
position can be justified. We do not necessarily
question the sincerity of such people. They have
been taught, and have always believed, that the
New Testament recognizes no Church ; and so they

98 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
fail to take in the plain, direct statements of his
toric facts. The power of old habits of thought is
too strong for them, and it takes more effort, and
more concentration of thought, and more independ
ent thinking, to weigh a series of facts at their par
value, than most of them are capable of, at first.
Now we have found that the Church and the
New Testament stand on precisely the same basis,
come from the same source; for the Church was
founded, and the New Testament was written, un
der the direction of the Lord Himself, by the guid
ance of the Holy Spirit which He had Himself
promised. Here then is a very pertinent question.
No Protestant among the evangelical denom
inations would think of making a new Bible.
Why should he think of making a new Church?
If it is irreverent, or profane, to substitute a new
Gospel for the old Bible, why is it not equally
irreverent, or profane, to substitute a new sect
for the old Church? To accept the New Testa
ment and reject the Church, is simply a piece of
inconsistent individualism which considerably
weakens our ground on which we defend the Bible
itself. For, if you can reject the Church of God
which He creates, why not reject the Word of
God, which He inspires? In either case, you
reject that which is of divine origin and authority.
Now we affirm that the Apostles' work in
completing the organization of the Church under
Christ's directions, and the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, is perfectly in accord with the Catholic

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 99
theory of the Church. The baptismal gift of the
Holy Ghost at Pentecost, emphasizes the divine
origin and life of the Church, and is the visible
pledge of its supernatural character.
Preaching Baptism for the remission of sins,
and Confirmation that men may receive the Holy
Ghost, is Catholic doctrine, pure and simple.
Transmitting Apostolic authority by laying on of
hands, involves the doctrine of Apostolic Succes
sion. The Apostles' doctrine, fellowship, break
ing of Bread, and the prayers, have always been
four visible bonds of Catholic unity, throughout
the Church.
The council of Jerusalem distinctly illustrates
certain great Catholic principles: the organic unity
of the Church, which can act through a general
council; the necessity of some authoritative court
of appeal in defining the faith; the fact of the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, when the Church
thus acts as a whole; and the authority of the
Church to make her decrees binding on the con
sciences of Christians. These are all of them Cath
olic principles, and it goes without saying, that a
Protestantism divided against itseM does not and
cannot maintain these principles.
Having now found what our Lord did in estab
lishing the Church, as recorded in the Gospels, and
having seen what the Apostles did in completing
the organization of the Church, as recorded in the
Book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, it remains
for us to turn to the Epistles, that is, the official

100 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
correspondence of the Church's officers, and find
out what they said of the Church, in their letters
to different persons under their Apostolic care.
So far, we have been studying the simple his
toric facts which concern the origin and organiza
tion of the Church. Now we are to consider cer
tain great Church principles on which these facts
depend, and which they illustrate. We must
learn what we can of the philosophy of the Church
system, as given in the Bible, and determine the
methods by which she accomplishes certain results.
Christ the Lord created her. What then is her
vital relation to Him? How does she teach His
truth, and administer His grace, and bring men
into union with Him ? The answer to these ques
tions brings out certain very wonderful principles
of the Kingdom, which we must study carefully
and reverently, and try to understand as best we
may, by the help of the Holy Spirit and the testi
mony of the Apostles,

CHAPTER VII
the catholic church and the incarnation
771 E MUST bear in mind that the Epistles of
%V the New Testament are simply letters from
the Apostolic officers of the Church, to their sub
ordinates. In any scriptural study of the Church, the
Epistles are valuable, not so much because they
give detailed historic facts, but because they set
forth incidentally certain great Church principles
involved in the organization of the Church; and
suggest the methods by which the Church fulfils
her mission of conveying grace and truth to men,
from the Lord Christ.
In the Epistles the Church is called by various
names which suggest its nature. It is said to be
the Temple of God, the Bride of Christ, the
Household of God, the Ark, the Kingdom of
Heaven, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth ; and
all these figures suggest an organized society
in which God dwells. But there is one figure em-

102 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ployed to represent the Church, which occurs some
thirty-three times in St. Paul's Epistles ; and which
more than all others suggests the relation of the
Church to Christ and the principles of its struc
ture and mission.
The Church is called the Body of Christ.
It will pay us well to take this figure and study
it carefully, trying to comprehend its full mean
ing, and yet being careful not to push it too far and
make it mean what it never was intended to teach.
Now, to begin with, the expression, the Body of
Christ, suggests at once a great fact or doctrine,
namely, that of the Incarnation; that the second
Person of the adorable Trinity was made man;
and the failure to realize the vital relation between
Christ and His Church is often due, either to a
latent or open disbelief in the Deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ, or to a failure to appreciate what is
necessarily involved in the fact of the Incarnation
itself, if we once admit it to be a fact. This is
not the place for proving the Deity of the Lord;
for if He is not very God of very God, then all
argument about Church matters is the most arrant
nonsense. But this is the place for pointing out
to some who claim to accept the truth of our
Lord's Deity, what is involved in their confession ;
and to insist, that if you accept the doctrine of the
Incarnation, that the Lord Christ is perfectly
God and perfectly man in one adorable Person,
then it is mere childishness to halt and stumble
at the supernatural character of the Church, which

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 103
the Lord creates. If He makes it, and m any way
chooses to associate His own Person with the
Church, and utters very wonderful and mysterious
things concerning it, then the attempt to rid the
Church of its supernatural character recoils
against Him, and is a species of rationalism. This
may sound harsh, but it is the truth, just the same.
Let us try to get some idea of what is the re
lation of the Incarnation to the Catholic Church.
If Christ were merely a man, or came merely to
teach men, then we could consider Him and His
teaching, quite apart from the Church; just as any
great philosopher can be considered apart from
the school which he founds, or the doctrines he
enunciates. The personality of Plato or of Socrates
is not in the least necessary to the Platonic or Soc-
ratic system of teaching. One can accept what
they taught, without thinking about them as indi
viduals at all ; and without belonging to any organ
ization or society of men; or without coming into
any personal relationship with the founders of such
societies. But the central and vital fact of Christianity is
not any mere doctrine, however true, but it is the
essential nature of the Lord Himself; and the
fact that He saves us through union with His
Person. He is at once perfectly God, and per
fectly man. In His own Person, He reunites the
two natures that had been separated by sin, the
divine and the human, and in so doing, sanctifies
His own human nature ; and He saves us, by unit-

104 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ing our sin-stained nature with His perfected
human nature, part for part. His Body is to us
the channel through which His divine life flows
in to us ; it is the bond of union with God we have
in common with Him. He deals vsdth us, and has
relations with us, not directly as God alone, but
always as the Son of Man; and always through
His Manhood as the channel of communication be
tween us and God, This, mark you, is far more
than being saved by faith alone. It is coming into
vital touch vnth His Manhood; and it is being
healed and restored by that touch, even as the
woman was restored, who put out her hand and
touched His garment.
Notice, too, that the Incarnation establishes
the sacramental principle, which is, that the life
of God does not flow down to us directly, by an act
of faith merely, but it comes to us indirectly as it
were, through the human body of Christ; so that
His human nature is the outward and visible
sign of the presence of the inward and spiritual
life of God among men. At the Incarnation, the
Son of God comes visibly and audibly in touch
with men ; teaches them, heals them, absolves them,
by words and acts and symbols ; and all power and
grace proceed from His Incarnate Person which
men can see and handle. Hence Christianity
must be a sacramental religion, and its Church, if
it has any, a sacramental Church, because Christ
will never cease to be man, and vtIU never cease to
save men through His manhood, as the bond of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 105
union vsdth His deity. His person must be the
type of His system. Being a Christian is not
merely believing in Christ, but it is also being
brought somehow sacramentally into touch with
His sanctified manhood, through outward signs of
spiritual grace.
It must constantly be remembered that Christ
ianity is not purely a spiritual religion, and never
can be, as long as Christ, the Son of God, is also
man. Now we come to the vital question : The Lord
came to men and lived with them, taught them, ab
solved them, comforted them, gave them grace, and
then ascended into Heaven, some nineteen cen
turies ago ; and all this took place on the other side
of the world from us. Is there then anything to
span this double guK between us and Him, this
gulf of time, and space; nineteen centuries, and
thousands of miles ? Did the Lord provide any
means by which His mediatorial work was to be
carried on in the world, after He left us, by which
His truth was to be taught, and His pardon as
sured, and His grace given; some way which we
could understand, some means which would give us
certainty about these things which concern our sal
vation, some way through which He could still act
among and upon men, though the sight of His face
and the touch of His hands had been withdrawn ?
We think that He must have made some such pro
vision, because, if it was once necessary for the
Lord to become man, to come to our realm of life

106 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
in order to speai to men, touch, and heal them, and
absolve them, then much the same necessity exists
now. We are still human. Gt)d is still infinite.
The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. There
is stiU the same necessity that God shall ac
commodate Himself to our limited perceptions, if
He is going to communicate with us ; that Christ
shall speak to us, and heal us, and absolve us, if not
by His words which we can hear, and His touch
which we can feel, then at least by some sign which
we can see, some sacrament we can touch, some
authoritative word we can hear, without making
any mistake about it.
Moreover, He is to-day the same Christ dwell
ing in our manhood, and dealing with us through
it sacramentally. Certainly before He ascended
He promised to return in some way. "I vnll come
to you." "Lo, I am with you always (every day)
unto the end of the world." If Christ returns it
must be as the Incarnate Christ; and it is per
fectly natural, we think, to expect some visible
organic manifestation of His presence among men.
Now this presumption that Christ will come
and in some way manifest His presence among
men, finds a most remarkable and striking con
firmation, when we find St. Paul calling the
Church the Body of Christ ; as if the Church were
the living organic presence of Christ Himself, His
visible Body, in which He dwells, and through
which He brings Himself again in touch with men,
just as the body of a man is the instrument of his

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 107
soul's working. What a marvellous and far-reach
ing thought it at once suggests, namely, that Christ
wills to re-manifest His Incarnation, no longer
visibly, but mystically and sacramentally, no longer
under the limits of an ordinary human body in
one point of space, but universally throughout the
world, and in every age, through one splendid or
ganism which He creates, and in which He dwells,
and through which He gathers men into union
with Himself. St. Paul seems to assert this in
most unmistakable and explicit language when he
says, "The Church which is His Body, the Fulness
of Him that fiUeth all in all" (Eph. i. 23).
The union of Christ with His Church is a
tremendous thought; but after all, it is no more
wonderful than the thought of the Incarnation
itself, in which the eternal Son of God "for us men,
and for our salvation, came down from Heaven,
and was Incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Vir
gin Mary, and was made man."
The same line of thought which would lead us
to expect an Incarnation, would, as we think, also
lead us to expect that the Incarnation or sacra
mental principle would become permanent. This
will appear as we proceed in the argument.
No doubt much of what has just been said, has
a theological or mystical sound, and is difficult to
comprehend; but we cannot deal with the deep
things of God at all, vdthout touching the most
awful mysteries of His being; and if the nature
and function of the Catholic Church did not in-

108 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
volve mystery, it could not possibly be the Body
of Christ, nor could it be divine as we claim it is.
Every anatomist and physiologist has to acknowl
edge that a living human body is full of mysteries,
which the most advanced science has done little
or nothing to explain. If, then, the Church is
Christ's Body, if it is the instrument of Christ's
working, as a man acts through his body, then to
the natural mysteries of human life, you have ad
ded the supernatural mysteries of Christ's divine
life in the Church ; and our business is not to at
tempt to explain away such mysteries, but to try
as best as we can, to find out what they mean, so
far as God reveals them to us.
We have already found that our Lord selected
and commissioned a ministry to teach, and admin
ister sacraments and discipline, in His Name ; and
that the Apostles under His direction and the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, completed the organi
zation of the Church, as recorded in the Book of
the Acts of the Holy Apostles. It is this Church,
thus organized, which St. Paul calls the Body of
Christ ; and so in studying this expression, we will
learn more of the nature of the Apostolic Church.
What, then, does this expression mean? In
what sense is the Church the Body of Christ ?
Now the word body, may be used in one of two
senses: to denote an organization, or an organism.
These are two quite different things. An organi
zation of men is merely a collection of men united
for a purpose, under some rules and regulations.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 109
A club, a society, a guild, a fraternity, or a sect,
is an organization. Each member has his ovsm indi
vidual life, but there is no vital union between
them, which proceeds from the club itself. The
bond of union between different members is not
life, but a community of ideas, purposes, sym
pathies, and methods of work. A fire company, a
lodge of Masons, the Young Men's Christian Asso
ciation, are each an organization.
But an organism is a body inhabited by life,
which permeates it and operates through certain
organs in the body. An animal, or a man, is an
organism ; Christ's human body was an organism ;
and the Church as an organism differs from all
human organizations, in that in her the Life of
Christ and the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost,
dwells sacramentally; and binds the Church into
one living whole, animates it, nourishes it, and
sustains it, so that the Church lives and grows,
when this inward life vitalizes, and assimilates
new matter, as men are baptized into Christ, and
so put on Christ. In this sense the Church is an
organism, a body, the Body of Christ, and there
fore it must live and grow, subject to the laws
which govern the life and grovdih of organisms ;
and as we go on in studying the Church, we shall
find abundant proof of this fact.
Every living body has certain characteristics
by which we recognize it as such. For example,
it is visible. We speak of invisible spirits, never
of invisible bodies. Then it is one. If you cut

1 10 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
up a living body you kill it. Each part must be
in vital union with the heart, brain, and nervous
system. It must also have life. A dead body
is not an organism, it is a corpse; and will soon
disintegrate. Again it must have organs through
which the life sustains itself; a man without
heart, lungs, or stomach, is unimaginable. And
lastly a living body must grow. If the Church is
Christ's living Body, the Fulness of Christ, then
it must certainly have these necessary characteris
tics of a living body that we have named. It is
visible. It is one. It has life. It has organs
through which that life operates, and it grows.
Let us take these characteristics in their order.
First, then, the Church is visible. It is a curi
ous fact that we have to insist on this, but it is
necessary because some good Protestants, in order
to avoid the logic of facts, have invented the theory
that the true Church is an invisible body of the
truly sanctified, which is known only to God ; and
which is therefore invisible and independent of
any outward form.
The very obvious reply to this theory, is the
fact that when St. Paul calls the Church the Body
of Christ, in every case he uses a Greek word,
which always refers to the physical organization
of a living organism, as distinguished from the
spirit of life which inhabits it. St. Paul himself
carefully makes the same distinction. "There is
one Body, and one Spirit" (Eph. iv. 4). "By one

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 111
Spirit are we baptized into one Body" (I. Cor.
xii. 13).
Now, in the name of common sense, how can
the Church organize itself or serve any function
of a Church, teach men, convert them, and sup
port its ministry, without becoming instantly and
necessarily visible? So far as we are concerned,
an invisible Church would be a Church which has
no existence anywhere. If the Church is invis
ible, how can a man find it, join it, hear it, or obey
it, or be sure he belongs to it ? Of course the best
answer to this, is to point out the fact that our
Lord and His Apostles did as we have found, actu
ally establish a visible organism or society, by
their own acts and words, which has been the most
visible institution in history; and nobody would
ever have thought of denying it, unless the theory
of an invisible Church had had to be invented, as
an escape from the logic of indisputable facts.
If God saw fit to become visible, when He wanted
to bring Himself in touch with men, surely that
Church through which He is to work, must he
visible. A body is not only visible, it is also visibly one.
We read of the Church, "There is on^ body, and
one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of
your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism"
(Eph. iv. 4). Again, "In one Spirit were ye all
baptized into one body" (I. Cor. xii. 13). Again,
"We, who are many, are one body in Christ"
(Rom. xii, 5). Again, "As the body is one and

1 12 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
hath many members, and all the members of the
body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ"
(I. Cor, xii. 12). And again, "God tempered the
body together . . . that there should he no schism
in the body" (I. Cor. xii. 25). That is, no divi
sion in it. So imity is the second characteristic of
the body, and is essential to it.
Notice carefully what sort of unity this is. It
is organic unity, not the mechanical, arbitrary
unity of a club or a voluntary society bound to
gether by a set of rules and common sentiments;
but the unity of a living, growing organism, which
is one from head to foot ; every part of which is in
vital connection with and necessary to every other
part, just as joint articulates with joint, and as
one arterial system nourishes the whole, and makes
it grow, and one nervous system holds every part
in conscious union with the brain, and every
muscle responds obedient to the mind and will.
St, Paul thus differentiates the several func
tions of the body. He says "the body is not one
member, but many" (I, Cor. xii. 14), "As we
have many members in one body, and all the mem
bers have not the same office" (Rom. xii. 4), that
is, do not serve the same function. "If they were
all one member," he asks, "where were the body ?
But now they are many members, but one body ;
and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need
of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no
need of you" (I. Cor. xii. 19-21).
Here he brings out the mutual interdependence

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 1 1 3
of the organs of the body. Then he notes their
vital union, saying, "Christ, from whom all the
body fitly framed and knit together through that
which every joint supplieth, according to the work
ing in due measure of each several part, maketh
the increase of the Body" (Eph. iv. 16). Again,
"Holding fast the head, from whom all the body
being supplied and knit together through the joints
and bands, increaseth with the increase of God"
(Col. ii. 19).
Here certainly is a description of organic
growth depending on organic unity; and it is im
possible to imagine how any language could more
strongly express the vital importance of the unity
of the Church, than this. St. Paul proceeds to
enforce the necessity of this unity later on, in lan
guage that is startling in its vigorousness. He
says, "I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
are causing the divisions and occasions of stumb
ling contrary to the doctrine which ye learned and
turn away from them. For they that are such
serve not our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. xvi, 17),
"I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly
believe it. For there must be also heresies among
you that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you" (I, Cor, xi, 18). "For
whereas there is among you jealousy and strife,
are ye not carnal and walk after the manner of
men ? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and an
other, I am of ApoUos, are ye not men ? . . , Is
Christ divided?" (L Cor, iii. 3, and i, 12-13),

114 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
St, Jude says that they who make separations have
not the Spirit (Jude 19). "Now I beseech you,
brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that
there be no divisions among you" (I. Cor. i. 10).
To divide the Church, then, is a sin against its or
ganic life ; and is forbidden absolutely, by the voice
of the Holy Spirit.
Now our Lord's earthly body was one in a
double sense : One from head to foot in space, and
one from birth to death in time. So the Church is
one in a double sense; one in its continuous ex
istence from one age to another, and one in space,
that is, one throughout the world at any one time
in its history.
First, the Church is one in time ; it has a con
tinuous life, and is the same body from first to
last. Must this not be so ? How does any living
body grow ? By discarding waste material, and by
receiving, vitalizing, and assimilating new food;
yet all the while remaining one and the same body.
A man fifty years old is the same person he was at
thirty, fifteen, or five years of age. Thus the
Church grows, extends itself from age to age, is
nourished and increases as St, Paul said. Genera
tion after generation are baptized into the Church,
live and die in it; but it continues one and the
same. Now he it well observed, that to divide one
body into two or twenty, is not growth. To substi
tute one body for another is not growth. Even
though the resemblance be perfect, the second body

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 1 1 5
is not the first body, and the first body cannot trans
fer its identity to the second body, any more than
a man can get out of his body, and into the body of
somebody else. Suppose at some point in the his
tory of the Church, say at the Reformation, you
organize a new church. The new would be new,
the old would still remain one, as it was before.
There would be no vital connection between them
whatever. The new would be no part of the old,
could not share its life, any more than an arm cut
off from the body, or a limb from a tree, can live
and grow.
The fact that the Church of Christ is a living,
growing organism, is absolutely fatal to the Prot
estant assumption that the Church can be propa
gated by creating new churches, or by cutting parts
off from the old Church.
This question of the unity or continuity of the
Church, is of the greatest importance for this rea
son: If the Lord Christ created His Church, en
dowed it with a supernatural life and grace, gave
it a revelation of truth and authority to represent
Him to men, then you cannot be sure that you re
ceive the truth and life of the Church, and obey
Christ in it and through it, unless you are sure
that the Church to which you belong is the Body
Christ established. Mark you, the question is not
one of resemblance, but of identity. A modem
sect may adopt the Church's form of organization,
her Creed, and her Ritual, and her Vestments. It
may teach much truth, convert men, and flourish

1 16 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
as an organization, and do much good; but how
ever this may be, it cannot assume the authority
or identity of the old Church, or claim its life,
simply and purely because, as a matter of fact,
it is not the old Church, has no organic connec
tion VTith it, has no share in that unity, which is
necessarily characteristic of the original organism.
Again, any modem Protestant sect may at
tempt to prove from Scripture, its similarity of
organization and belief to the Apostolic Church.
But similarity, even though it be perfect, is not
identity. If Christ founded a Church, the ques
tion is not what organization is like that Church,
but what body is that Church ; and if this Church
exists to-day, it is the heir by inheritance of the
grace, truth, and authority, Christ gave to the
Church. Now when a man inherits property, the
law requires that he prove his identity as the heir.
Another man may look exactly like him, and as
sume his name, and claim his rights ; but mere re
semblance is of no importance whatever in the eyes
of the law, if the heir establishes his identity. A
man may form a club like a lodge of Free Masons,
and adopt their principles, and use their insignia
so far as he knows them ; but such a club is no part
of the great fraternity itseK, and would not be
recognized in any way by the fraternity, notwith
standing the close resemblance, simply because
Free Masonry as a corporate institution perpetu
ates its own existence by absorbing men into itself,
and so preserves its ovsm identity. It is not com-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 117
posed of a lot of self-created, disconnected, spor
adic clubs, patterned after some vague specifica
tions in a book about masonry.
If, then, the Church extends itself as an or
ganism over the world, by absorbing men into it
self, that is, by continuous growth, it must be
possible to test the claims of any sect claiming to
be a part of it, by tracing its history back, and
finding out whether it articulates with the old
body; has had any historic, vital union with it,
was organized by it, and is now in communion
with it. In short, whether it to-day forms a part
of it. No Protestant sect claims to have existed
before the Reformation. All do, as we have said,
claim to be purer than the old Church, to contain
more piety, to be more spiritual, more enlight
ened, and more free, and more up-to-date, than the
old Church, more scriptural, and more evangel
ical. Be this as it may, it is nothing to the point,
that they have no organic connection with the old
Church, and never did have. Whether or not this
signifies much, will appear later; but as a simple
matter of fact it is unquestionably true, admit
ted to be true, by the Protestant churches them
selves. For example, the Baptist Church was founded
in this country in March, 1639, by Roger Wil
liams and others, in Providence, Rhode Island.
The Congregational Church had no existence in
this country as an organized body previous to
1620, when Mr. Robinson's disciples arrived in

1 18 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Plymouth, Mass., representing the independents
who had left the Church of England. The German
Reformed Church was founded by Zwinglius in
Zurich, about 1530; and was introduced into the
United States about 1735, The Lutheran Church
was established in Germany by Luther, Melanc-
thon, and others, about 1525 ; and was formally or
ganized in this country in 1760. The Methodist
Church, as such, was formally organized in this
country in 1784, when the superintendents sent by
Wesley were received by the Methodists, who as
individuals had separated from the Church of
England, and first emigrated to America in 1766.
The Presbyterians were organized as a Church in
America about 1704; and they were originally
seceders from the ancient Catholic Church of Scot
land, when the Presbyterian system was imported
into England and Scotland from Geneva, on the
continent, about 1550. The Reformed Episcopal
Church was organized by seceders from the Amer
ican Episcopal Church in the year 1874. The
Unitarians had no separate existence previous to
1815. The Universalists were founded about
1775. The Friends or Quakers were organized as a
sect by George Fox, 1647. Besides these, there
are a lot of other sects of various names and creeds,
which are mostly secessions from the original seced
ers or Protestant sects; and as we have said, the
point to be observed about all of them is, that not
one single one of them had any organized existence
as a religious body, before the Reformation. Not

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 1 1 9
one of them was founded by any part of the old
Church, or with its sanction, and not one of them
is in open communion with any part of the old
Catholic Church to-day. Each one does claim
that its own peculiar creed and form of organiza
tion are the primitive forms which existed in
Apostolic days; but this is a far different thing
from saying that their actual organization has had
a continued, visible existence from Apostolic days.
Each sect by its independent existence violates
the original law of unity of the Catholic Church.
The Anglo-Catholic Church of which the Epis
copal Church is a part, claims to be able to trace
its organic life back to Apostolic foundations, as
one and the same organized body, and so to be
to-day the ancient Church of the land where it
exists; to inherit through an unbroken succession
of ministerial ordinations from our Lord, His
commission to teach and minister in His name.
Having now considered the unity of the Church
in time, that is, having found that the Church has
a continuous life from one age to another, and so
is one by virtue of this organic continuity from the
first century to the twentieth, we come to consider
the unity of the Church in space ; that is, that the
Church is one corporate body throughout the world,
at any one time in her history, from St. Peters
burg to San Francisco, and from London to Je
rusalem.

CHAPTER VIII
the unity of the chuech in space
CHE second law of Catholic unity is this : The
Church is one corporate organization through
out the world at any one time in her history ; and
in opposition to this, the Protestant theory of the
Church is that the Church is the collection of dif
ferent Christian sects, taken together.
But surely the Protestant theory is contrary
to facts; for it is an abuse of words to call a lot
of things that differ radically, one and the same
thing. Does any sane man ever assert that the
Methodist church is one and the same body as the
Presbyterian church, or that the two bodies were
founded by the same men, are governed by the
same officers, are historically in any sense one and
the same organization? Certainly not. How is
it possible that a hundred and seventy bodies,
separate in every possible sense, can be one body ?
There would be no sense in saying that the Free
Masons, the Odd Fellows, and the Young Men's

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 121
Christian Association constitute one organization,
for as a matter of fact they do not ; they never were
united in one organization ; they did not have the
same founders; or do they hold the same prin
ciples of organization. It is equally untrue to say
that a lot of rival sects constitute one body.
Then secondly, there is no analogy whatever
between a number of independent sects and the
unity of a living body such as the Bible represents
the Church to be, when it calls it the Body of
Christ, Christ had only one human body. He
did not live in several human bodies at one and
the same tim^e. "Is Christ divided?" St. Paul
asks of those who said I am of Paul, I am of
ApoUos, and who would divide the Church.
Each part of His body was in vital and visible
articulation with the whole, was nourished by one
set of organs dependent upon each other ; and when
this vital union was interfered with at His cruci
fixion. He died. "There is one body." "The body
is one." The corporate unity of the Church is as
serted over and over again, and to divide it is
condemned as sin.
Thirdly, the Protestant theory is opposed to
our Lord's prayer in which He made the unity of
the Church the condition of missionary success,
and prayed, "Make them to be one as We are one,
that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me."
Christ was one in substance with His Father.
They were co-eternal, and co-equal, and insep-

122 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
arable; and such unity is not even remotely sug
gested by the disunion of a number of rival sects.
Fourthly, a divided Church cannot possibly
perform the functions of the one Church, because,
as we found in the first chapter, it cannot define
the faith with one voice ; it cannot administer dis
cipline ; and it cannot witness to the unity of the
one Christ, the one Lord, the one Faith, and the
one Baptism, the one Body, and the one Spirit.
Now it is said that members of Protestant
bodies are one in some obscure sense, through what
is called "heart unity" ; that notwithstanding the
fact that they vigorously maintain and justify their
independence, differ in many essential articles of
belief, are more or less jealous of each other, run
off with each other's converts when they get a
chance, waste an immense amount of money and
zeal in trying to maintain their differences, they
still are "one at heart."
In the name of common sense, what is this
heart unity? Can any living man define it intel
ligibly? Does it mean anything, or amount to
anything, beyond an occasional handshaking on
platforms, and then a separation which leaves each
sect as set as ever, in the resolution to keep up the
old divisions? Besides, sentimental unity, even
if it did exist, is not organic unity ; not the unity
of a living body ; not the unity of the Church of
the Bible and of history.
If Protestants want and profess to have heart
unity in any real and practical sense, they will

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 123
get it in one body, and in no other way. Anything
else is a mere fiction:. The reason why the Amer
ican Episcopal Church refuses to join in any
union meetings with Protestants which are sup
posed to promote heart unity, is certainly not be
cause she fails to appreciate their Christian char
acter and good works as individuals, but because
as organizations, by their separate existence, they
sanction and perpetuate the principle of division,
the sin of schism, which the Church and the Scrip
tures condemn; and it is precisely because these
Christian denominations teach so much truth, and
their members exhibit such holiness of life, and
they accomplish such good works in many ways,
and become so influential, and so greatly respected
by all sincere men, that they lend respectability
to the principle of division and make it seem justi
fiable and harmless; when in its ultimate results,
it is destructive of all that makes Christianity a
power in the world, and is absolutely contrary to
God's law.
The very respectability of these denominations
makes it all the more necessary that the Church
should protest against their position as organiza
tions, and refuse to unite with them, lest men lose
sight altogether of the evil of a divided Christian
ity. The Church refuses to share in their union
meetings, because such union meetings, if they have
any effect, tend to obscure the real issue. They
suppress symptoms, without curing the disease.
They are meant to convey the impression that

124 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
things are all right, when they are all wrong; for
what is the use of keeping up the appearance of
unity by such meetings, when each sectarian goes
home as determined as ever to propagate his own
individual sect at any expense, and the real evil
of sectarian division is untouched? The whole
proceeding resembles the administration of mor
phine, which no doubt for a time relieves pain and
produces pleasant sensations; but which also ob
scures symptoms of the disease which the physician
ought to know, and to treat radically. Union meet
ings may palliate the symptoms of the disease: so
far, they have done nothing to cure it. If an ex
change of pulpits, and union meetings, can bring
about unity of organization, a genuine search for
the radical evil itself, that would be one thing ; but
such exchanges and meetings have been going on
for many years among Protestants, and they seem
no nearer corporate union than they were fifty or a
hundred years ago. The Church cannot take any
part in union meetings, which ignore, rather than
cure, vital divisions, which aim at anything short
of the surrender of whatever prevents organic
unity; and the Church can do little but teach her
faith and wait the providence of God in the
matter, until Protestants are vdlling to acknowl
edge that division is deplorable and sinful, and to
ask in all seriousness. What were the original and
primitive conditions of Church unity ? By whom
and how, was the original unity broken? Do the
essential elements of such unity exist to-day ? And

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 125
how can unity be restored again? The Church
claims that it has not broken the original bonds of
unity, but has had a continuous organic life from
Apostolic days ; and that therefore it does not need
to review its position, or change it in any essential
point of organization.
On the other hand, the Methodist and Presby
terian bodies and others, were formed by men who
left the Church of England and formed independ
ent sects which exist to-day as rivals of the old
Church, and claimants of her privileges and author
ity. They are unquestionably modem denomina
tions, while the Church remains the old Church.
They have unquestionably broken the original bond
of Church unity, by their separation from the old
body ; and until this fact is clearly recognized and
dealt with as it certainly would have been dealt
with a thousand years ago had it occurred then,
the Church cannot compromise her belief in cor
porate unity, by any masquerading of heart unity.
If God lays down conditions of corporate unity,
any modem, man-made scheme evolved to evade
the difficulties of a very dreadful disunion, is of
no earthly consequence. Christians were united in
one corporate body the world over for over a
thousand years from the first ; and the Scriptural
conditions of unity cannot possibly be made to fit
the modem Protestant plan of agreeing to differ.
There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism,
one Body, one Spirit, one Christ, the Head of the
one Body; which is joined and knit together, each

126 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
part in vital union with all the others, and which
lives and grows as bodies live and grow, union be
ing a condition of life, and disunion fatal to it.
The Protestant, when he is pressed with the evils
of disunion and the Scriptural statements about
corporate unity, will attempt to justify separation
from the old Church and the formation of new
sects, on the ground that the Church had become
so corrupt, there was no alternative. We reply
that in the Book of Revelation our Lord is speak
ing to the seven Churches of Asia through St,
John, which Churches had become more or less cor
rupt, and He is dealing with cases exactly in point.
What does He do? Does He tell them to with
draw from the corrupt Churches, and to form new
ones? Certainly not. On the contrary He says
to them, "Be watchful, and establish the things
that remain, which were ready to die. Repent
and do the first works. That which ye have, hold
fast till I come," That is, hold fast to the Church.
Reform must be accomplished within it; and to
leave it is not reform at all, but rebellion.
Moreover, if schism be ever justifiable, who is
to judge when it is justifiable ? For example, the
Methodists left the Church under the stress of a
situation which soon passed away ; and a little pa
tience would have obviated all shadow of excuse
for it. But suppose that under peculiar pressure
a sect is formed on the supposition that the Church
is corrupt; surely when, as time goes on, a valid
branch of the old Church properly organized and

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 127
reformed, exists in the same country with the sect,
all excuse for its existence is taken away; and if
it maintains its independence, and attempts to ex
ercise the Church's functions, it must be respon
sible for the sin of division which it countenances
and approves by its very existence.
The American Church teaches every particle
of truth held by all Protestant creeds put together,
A convert coming into it gives up nothing but his
Protestant denials of truth, and the Church's sys
tem could be easily adapted to the real needs of
any one system. Baptists could be immersed in
the Church, Methodists have revivals and extem
pore prayer in the Church, Friends could have
their silent meetings, their plain language and
dress, and as a simple matter of fact, not one
single sect in the United States to-day, exists to
vindicate any particular principle or truth which
the Church rejects, or which the members of the
sect would have to give up, if they became Church
men. So we claim that a divided Christendom is
not only unscriptural and disastrous, but that it is
also without excuse and justification of any sort,
in this country.
Doubtless it wiU be retorted when we teach
that the Church is one: "There are nevertheless,
as you admit, three distinct bodies today, each
claiming to be part of the ancient Catholic Church,
the Anglican, the Greek, and the Roman Churches.
How are you going to reconcile this fact with your
theory about unity, when you claim that these

128 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
three together constitute the one Catholic Church
of history, and are one body ?"
We reply that the suspension of intercom
munion between the three parts of the old Church
is all wrong and contrary to God's law, and that
it is the result of sin, and that it has done an
immense deal of harm. But the question is, after
all. Is this so vital as to be fatal, so that any one of
the three has actually cut itself off from the old
Catholic Church, and so has become a schism ? Or
on the other hand, does each in itself possess the
essentials of Catholic organic unity with the others,
being so related that after all the division is more
apparent than real, and that if open intercommun
ion between the three were to be again acknowl
edged, nothing would be necessary but the mutual
recognition of an existing bond between them
which made them one ? In what sense, then, are
the Roman, Greek, and Anglican bodies, one to-

First, they all trace their organic, continuous
descent back to the time before division took place,
when they were in open communion with each
other and constituted one body. They all had the
same Apostolic foundation, they all inherit the
same Catholic faith, sacramental system, and min
isterial orders, in unbroken succession. They all
appeal to the Catholic consent of the whole Church
as expressed in the general councils, and to the
same Scriptures as interpreted by the Fathers.
Each in its own jurisdiction is actually the ancient

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 129
Church of the land; and so, if intercommunion
were to be restored, it would be by a mutual
acknowledgment of that which already exists, and
not by any vital or organic change in any one. It
is precisely on this basis of an appeal to existing
facts, that the Anglican and Greek Churches are
coming to a better understanding of their mutual
relations ; and that individual Greeks are acknowl
edging the validity of Anglican orders and sacra
ments, and so the way is gradually being opened,
as we believe, for corporate intercommunion in the
future, and thus at least one of the divisions will
be healed. Now mark you, the Greeks cannot and do not
find any such basis of union with the Protestant
sects, simply because none exists. Historically
these sects have nothing in common with the
Greeks, being self-created and voluntary associa
tions of men, of modern origin, and recognizing
no authority in common with the Greek Church.
After the Anglican Church reformed herself,
she did not withdraw from union with the Roman
Church at all. The separation between us and
Rome was of the Pope's making, when he excom
municated Englishmen during Elizabeth's reign;
and he did it on the supposition that nobody could
be in the Church unless he recognized the Pope of
Rome as the source and centre of all authority,
to whom absolute obedience was due. If this as
sumption be true, then doubtless all English
Churchmen are out of the Church, and in refusing

130 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
to submit to Papal obedience have cut themselves
off from the unity of the Church, But it is pre
cisely this assumption which is denied by the hun
dred millions of English and Greek Catholics, who
claim that obedience to Rome's supremacy was
not essential to Catholic unity by divine appoint
ment. The full papal claims are of comparatively
modern growth.
Consequently, in repudiating such claims, the
Anglo-Catholic Church did not cut herself off from
Catholic unity, but still remains what she was
originally, the Catholic Church of the Anglo-Saxon
race, only throwing off unwarranted developments
and usurpations. If all this be true, then Romans,
Greeks, and Anglicans, share the original corporate
life of the one body, and are organically related in
sacramental union with each other now; and so
while the suspension of visible intercommunion by
Rome is deplorable, it is not necessarily fatal to
the Catholic character of any part of the Church,
because the essential bond of unity still exists be
tween them.
Now we have reviewed the statements of the
Apostolic Epistles concerning the nature of the
Catholic Church as a living corporate organism.
We have found that it is visible, that it is a living
body, that it has organs through which its life is
nourished and continued, and that it perpetuates
itself by a process of continuous growth from age
to age, and so preserves its identity ; that being the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 131
Body of Christ, it is the Body in which He dwells,
and through which He teaches and heals men.
It hardly seems necessary to point out the fact
that all this is fatal to the Protestant theory of the
Church, which assumes that the original body can
be cut up into a hundred bodies, and still live ; or
that a brand new body is the same as the old body ;
or that a hundred distinct bodies, constitute one
body ; or that any body organized in the sixteenth
century by men, is the same body that was organ
ized in the first century by the Lord Christ, The
teaching of the Apostolic Epistles is in strict har
mony with the Catholic theory of the Church, and
hopelessly out of joint with the Protestant theory.
Having reviewed the Scriptural teaching con
cerning the nature of the Church, we must now
turn to the history of the Anglo-Catholic Church,
and see, if we can, whether in her origin, and her
continuous life, and her organization and teaching,
she has been, and is, loyal to Catholic principles.

CHAPTER IX
FOUNDING OF THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCH
77 IE HAVE now found that the Church which
W was created by the Lord Christ and His
Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
was a visible Body, having the unity of an organ
ism; that it is one throughout all ages, by virtue
of its continuous, organic life from one age to
another. If, then, the American Church claims
to be historically part of the old Church, it must
certainly be able to trace its continuous, organic
descent from one age to another, and thus show
its identity with the Catholic Church, We must
note the Catholic origin of the Church of England,
and then trace its history through the Middle Ages
and the Reformation, and then across the ocean
where we find it at first known as the Church of
England in the Colonies, and then later the Ameri
can Church, after the colonies became independent
and the national life of the United States begins.
To do this with any degree of thoroughness.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 133
would necessitate an immense deal of work and
time; nevertheless, it is possible in a brief space
to give just the salient facts which are necessary
to establish certain .principles, and to prove the
continuity of the Church. In other words, the
continuity of the Church cannot be questioned by
anyone except at certain turning points, or stages,
which are comparatively few in number; just as
in the history of any nation, after it has once been
established, its organic life goes on uninterruptedly
until some political crisis introduces the possibility
of a radical change of some sort ; which crisis must
be noted by the historian, to determine how it
affects the corporate identity of the nation itself.
The history of the Anglo- American Church divides
itself naturally into five periods, which may be
summarized as follows : First, the British period,
from the introduction of Christianity into Britain,
to the arrival of Augustine in A.D, 596, Second,
the Anglo-Saxon period, from Augustine to the
Norman Conquest, 596-1066. Third, the Anglo-
Norman period, from the Norman Conquest to the
Reformation, 1066-1534, Fourth, the Post-Ref
ormation period, from the Reformation to the in
troduction of the English Church into the Amer
ican Colonies, 1534-1607. And, Fifth, from the
colonial origin of the Church, to the independent
organization of the American Church,
Notice that these periods do not denote any
radical break in the historic continuity of the one
Church, nor the establishment of any new organ-

134 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ization; but rather they are transition periods in
the history of one and the same organization, from
first to last. It will therefore be necessary to con
sider only the facts which concern these turning
points, and determine their effect on the Church,
The Catholic Church was introduced into
Britain, by the beginning of the third century,
and probably by missionaries from Gaul, or mod
ern France, Its early history is veiled under a
number of curious traditions, which however in
teresting, are historically unreliable. But concern
ing the fact of the existence of the Church in Brit
ain in the third century, there cannot be the slight
est doubt; and so far as our argument is con
cerned, it is of no particular consequence who were
the actual missionaries who introduced Christian
ity into Britain from the Continent. Representa
tive Bishops from the British Church attended the
Council of Aries, in France, A.D. 314, the Coun
cil of Sardica in 347, the Council of Ariminum in
359, and were invited to the Council of Nicea,
and in a letter to Athanasius, sent in their
adherence to the Nicene Creed. This proves con
clusively several things: that the Church existed
in Britain, and was in communion with the rest of
the Catholic Church, and retained the Catholic
ministry, faith, and sacraments; for otherwise, it
would not have been recognized in the General
Councils as a valid part of the Church ; and so the
established fact of intercommimion is sufficient
pledge and certification of the Church's existence

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 135
and orthodoxy, no matter who its -first founders
may have been.
When the Romans withdrew their armies from
Britain in 410, Britain was invaded and conquered
by the Saxons, who almost exterminated the
Church, driving what little was left of it into
Cornwall and Wales; and so the greater part of
England having thus relapsed into heathenism, it
became necessary that it should be re-converted
from without. Gregory, one of the seven deacons
of Rome, who was afterwards Pope Gregory the
Great, happened to see some Saxon slaves who
were exposed in the market at Rome ; and through
them became interested in the conversion of the
Saxons of Britain. Up to this time he seems to
have been ignorant of the independent existence of
the British Church. When Gregory became Pope,
he sent Augustine with forty monks from one of
the Roman monasteries to Britain ; and on his ar
rival Augustine landed on the Island of Thanet,
and by invitation of the King of Kent, proceeded
to Canterbury, in the year 597. The king, whose
wife was already a Christian from Gaul, soon be
came a convert. Augustine found the Catholic
Church already established in Britain, but driven
by the Saxon invasion into Wales. In its isola
tion the British Church maintained a certain in
dependence, and had its own customs. In order to
bring about a union of the two missions, the Brit
ish and his own Latin mission, Augustine called
two meetings of the British Bishops ; seven of them

136 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
attended these meetings, and Augustine demanded
of them that they conform to the Roman custom
of keeping Easter, administering Baptism, wear
ing the tonsure, and that they acknowledge him as
their metropolitan, and join with him in convert
ing the Saxons. The British Bishops declined to
comply with his demands. So the two missions
existed independently, the British Church con
fined to Wales and making few or no converts, and
the Latin mission growing and extending itself
over England. After the Saxon Conquest, all Eng
land was divided into seven kingdoms, and Au
gustine introduced the Church into four out of the
seven. He went back to France, and was conse
crated a Bishop by Virgilius, Archbishop of Aries ;
and returning to England, became the first Arch
bishop of Canterbury, The Latin mission took
possession of much of the southeastern part of the
Island. But after the death of the Christian king
of Northumbria, most of Augustine's converts
lapsed into paganism, and only one kingdom, that
of Kent, and a part of Essex, survived ; and so the
Latin mission was almost exterminated. The
British mission continued its independent exist
ence, and did not unite with the rest of the Church
until as late as the close of the thirteenth century.
Augustine's work of converting Saxons thus being
largely undone, we come now to the advent of
missionaries from the Celtic Church in Ireland,
which was not in any immediate dependence on
Rome.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 137
St. Patrick, a priest of the Celtic Church, was
bom probably in Scotland; and after being edu
cated in France, was ordained and went to Ireland,
and was largely the means of its conversion to
Christianity. Then St. Columba, a missionary
from the Irish or Celtic Church, crossed over to
Scotland, and founded a monastery on the Island
of lona, on the western coast; and from lona as
a missionary centre, the northern part of Scotland
was converted. In 635 Aidan, a Celtic mission
ary Bishop from lona, founded a monastery on
the Island of Lindisfame off the coast of North
umberland, and commenced his work among the
Saxons, about thirty years after the death of Au
gustine. After laboring about thirty years, he
succeeded in converting about half of England, So
now we have two missions : the Celtic founded by
Aidan, and the Latin founded by Augustine, and
the credit of the conversion of England is about
equally divided between them, Augustine was
followed by five Archbishops ruling over the Latin
mission with Canterbury as its centre.
Each of these missions held the Catholic min
istry and faith, and administered Catholic sacra
ments; and it was only necessary to unite them
in one body, to perfect the union of the Church
throughout England, A conference with this end
in view was held between the Latin and Celtic
missions at the Abbey of Whitby in 664, After
much argument on both sides, it was decided to
follow the Latin customs and leadership. In some

138 "CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
way the opinion of "the Church of the English
race" in general was ascertained, and Wighard
was elected Archbishop of Canterbury, but he died
before he could be consecrated ; and Pope Vitalian
selected in his place, Theodore, a Greek priest of
the Eastern Church, who was bom in the city of
Tarsus, As a Greek, he was acceptable to the Celtic
mission, and as ordained by Vitalian, he was ac
ceptable to the Latin mission, and he became the
seventh Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 669,
In 673 he summoned the Council of Hertford,
and vsdth the Bishops and clergy of the two mis
sions, he organized the one Catholic Church of
England, which was the national Church of the
whole land, one hundred and fifty-six years be
fore Egbert united the seven kingdoms into one
State by conquest in 829. Thus the one Church,
precedes the one State: and it was really the
Church which established the State, rather than,
as the popular notion has it, that the State created
the Church. Theodore died in 690.
At this point we come to the first critical ob
jection to the independence of the Church of
England, and it is made by Roman Catholics who
say that the Pope of Rome sent Augustine to Eng
land, and that therefore the Pope is the founder
of the Church of England, and has the right of
supremacy over it.
The answer to this assertion is manifold:
First, as we have found, the Catholic Church, duly

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 139
organized and having lawful jurisdiction, existed
in England before Augustine's arrival. Second,
Augustine converted permanently not more than
haK of England ; and the Latin mission was really
only one of three missions, which contributed to
wards the formation of the national Church,
Third, if it is maintained that by establishing a
mission, a Church acquires permanent jurisdiction
over it, then certainly the Roman Church must it
self be subject to the Church of Jerusalem, from
which it originally received its faith and orders,
and which is unquestionably "the mother and
mistress of all Churches," Fourth, the canons of
the Council of Ephesus forbid any Bishop to
occupy or claim jurisdiction over any Diocese
which has not been his from the first; and we
have found that Bishops held Catholic jurisdiction
in England, when Augustine landed. And, fifth, it
is most absurd to suppose that Augustine could
commit the Church of England several centuries
in advance, to papal claims and doctrines of which
neither he nor the Church of his day, had even
heard, *
In view of these facts, Rome's claim to be the
founder of the Church of England proves to be un
tenable.

^ There is a sign on the Lexington Road which reads
something in this way: "This is the tavern at which Paul
Revere, on his famous ride to arouse the country against
the British troops, would have stopped had it been built
then!"

140 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
When Theodore was consolidating the missions,
and subdividing the larger Dioceses he divided
the Diocese of York ; and Wilfrid, the Archbishop
of York, protested against such division, and ap
pealed to the Pope, This was the first appeal of
an English Bishop from the authority of his Arch
bishop to Rome ; and it is very interesting to note,
that when the Pope decided against the division of
the Diocese, and so in Wilfrid's favor. Archbishop
Theodore paid no attention whatever to the papal
authority, and Wilfrid was imprisoned, and pun
ished for disloyalty. But if the Pope of Rome
was then acknowledged to be, by divine right, the
head of the Church, and Rome the ultimate court
of appeal, surely Archbishop Theodore would have
accepted his decision as conclusive.
From the time of Theodore to the time of the
Norman conquest, a period of four hundred years,
nothing whatever happened which can be said to
interrupt the continuous organic life of the Church
of England, But during all this time, the papal
claim of universal jurisdiction was growing. Be
ginning with a Primacy of honor among equals,
which was voluntarily yielded to the Bishop of
Rome by the whole Church, because he was the
Bishop of the imperial city, the Pope developed
the claim of a supremacy of office over inferiors,
and the right to hear appeals ; and then later from
this was evolved the idea of Hildebrand, that the
Church was a great spiritual monarchy under the
Pope as the autocratic ruler of nations, as well as

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 141
of the Church, England, occupying an isolated
position, was not for a long time wholly accessible
to the influence of continental thought, and the
growth of papal claims; but when William of
Normandy conquered England with the Pope's
blessing on his undertaking, he brought in the new
conception of Roman authority, and the Norman
conquest of the English State is practically syn
onymous vsdth the papal conquest of the English
Church, Still, in every age previous to the Ref
ormation, Bishops and kings made abortive at
tempts to assert and maintain the fast passing
liberties of the Church and nation,
Down to the time of the Reformation, the con
tinuity and Catholic character of the Church of
England cannot be disproved. The fact that for
several hundred years she was forced into submis
sion to a foreign Patriarch under terrible pressure,
which was quite as much political as it was eccle
siastical, does not necessarily destroy her corporate
identity, A man is the same man when he is tied
and bound hand and foot by a stronger man,
neither does he forfeit his legal rights merely be
cause for the time he is prevented from exercising
them. We come now to the Reformation within the
Church of England; and as this period is greatly
misunderstood, it will be necessary to proceed more
slowly, and to dwell on passing events more at
length. A certain objection should be noted at
this point.

142 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
It may be said — "Granted that the Church of
England had a continuous organic life to the time
of the Reformation, yet she was so full of medi
seval corruptions, superstitions, and abuses, that
she forfeited her spiritual character and authority
as a valid Church of Christ." The reply is mani
fold: First. Our Lord expressly recognized the valid
exercise of official authority on the part of the
officers of the Jewish Church, and commanded
obedience to them, even while He warned men
against following their error of doctrine and life.
Second. He recognized the official authority
of the corrupt Churches of Asia, even when He
condemned their corruption and urged reform.
Third. If the personal failings of a Church
officer invalidate his official acts, then there is ab
solutely no security of receiving valid sacraments
in any religious body.
Fourth. Many of the mediseval corruptions in
doctrinal teaching in the Church of England were
but floating errors introduced from the Continent ;
and were never officially adopted by the Church
nor were they incorporated in her official formulae.
Fifth. There was far more evangelical preach
ing, and personal religion and devotion among the
mediseval clergy and laity than Protestants sup
pose; and the charge of universal corruption and
ignorance is a figment of Protestant imagination,
pure and simple.
Sixth. With all their corruptions, the medi-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 143
aeval clergy and laity of the Church were loyal to
whole realms of truth which Protestants discard,
and were faithful to many religious duties which
Protestants as a class neglect ; and so if the actual
facts of the case are known, honestly considered
and compared, the wholesale charge of apostacy
against the Mediseval Church of England, is quite
likely to recoil against those who make it.

CHAPTER X
THE REFORMATION IN THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND
CHE popular idea among Protestants seems to
be, that the Church of England was founded
by Henry the Eighth; and in accounting for the
prevalence of this mistake, we must remember that
there are two religious parties to-day that are
greatly interested in perpetuating it. First, the
different Protestant denominations ; because if the
Church of England was founded by Henry the
Eighth, then of course it follows that the Church
is nothing but a Protestant sect; and therefore
can claim no special historic advantage, or author
ity, over Protestant Christians, as being part of
the ancient Catholic Church which was founded
by our Lord and His Apostles. Again, the Ro
man Catholics are interested in propagating the
same mistake; because if it be true, then they
thereby disprove the Catholic character of the
Church of England, and so remove the greatest

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 145
obstacle that Rome has to her progress among
English-speaking peoples.
Doubtless in most cases the mistake occurs
through honest ignorance of Church history; but
however it originates, both Romanists and Protest
ants have a suspiciously strong motive for perpet
uating it and making the most of it.
But the assumption seems unreasonable from
the start : for the supposition that a King of a great
realm, merely by reason of a personal quarrel with
the Pope, could suddenly bring about a tremendous
reaction against the acknowledged authority of
Rome throughout England, among people who
loved their Church and were ready to die for it,
without any other pre-existing and adequate mo
tive for such rebellion, without any other determin
ing cause or overwhelming moral force behind the
movement, is incredible. Radical religious reforms
are not bom of the caprice of a sensual monarch.
The Reformation in England was the cumulative
effect of centuries of oppression and abuse. It was
the outburst of a long suppressed sense of wrong
and injustice. It was, in fact, but the final cul
mination of a movement which would eventually
have produced a radical change in the relation of
the Church to Rome, even if Henry the Eighth
had never been born, Henry furnished the occa
sion for the Reformation; he did not furnish the
cause of it.
This is how so judicial a writer as the late
Dean Church puts the matter :

146 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
"Henry had the nation. Bishops and clergy.
Peers and Commons, at his back, in their deep
hatred, a feeling not of yesterday, of the arrogance
and extortion of the Roman Courts, Foreign in
terference and greed, long practised in fearless se
curity of Rome, and borne, not without much bad
language, by a much-enduring clergy and laity in
England, ended in a sullen disgust, not yet with
the Roman creed, but with Roman practical ways.
So when Henry stood up to the Pope, and asserted
the independence of the English kingdom and the
English Church, though he put his claim in terms
which implied a new submission to himself, even
Fisher, in the first and less violent form of the
claim, could accept it ; and the other Bishops, like
Gardiner, made no difficulty about it. For the
independence which Henry claimed, he claimed
not as the author of a new form of religion, but
as the representative of the ancient and existing
Church, which he was to protect and reform, but
not to create anew 
"To the end, the independence of the English
Crown and Church was the ruling and paramount
consideration, and the continuity of the Church
was never so much as touched by his measures. In
truth , . . the English ideas of the relation of
the kingdom and Church to Rome, and of the
obedience due to the Pope, had, from the days of
William the Conqueror, been much looser than
those which prevailed on the Continent, where
rulers and people were in closer and more con-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 147
stant contact with the Popes, and where the study
of the canon law was a perpetual reminder of their
claims." '
In the first place, the more devout men in
the Church were profoundly dissatisfied with the
spiritual condition of the clergy, and the lack of
discipline and learning among them. In 1409
English deputies from Oxford to the Council of
Pisa reported certain grievances which needed
reformation, asserting that many benefices were
conferred on one person, that the monasteries were
exempt from episcopal control and so were degen
erating in manners and morals, and that very
many of the clergy did not reside in their parishes,
which were sadly neglected, and that the constant
custom of appealing to Rome for the settlement of
disputed matters, promoted bribery and injustice.
The Kings of England and France, in 1425,
appealed to the Pope, through deputies, at the
Council of Basle, urging reform, Colet, Dean of
St. Paul's in London, preached a remarkable ser
mon on the great necessity of reform, before a con
vocation of clergy in 1511. Nearly a third of all
the English parishes were under the care of mon
asteries, which could not properly provide for
them. There was constant friction between the
Government and growing political power of the
court of Rome. The whole nation complained of
the enormous taxes Rome exacted, and resented the

'Occasional Papers, vol. I., pp. 396, 397.

148 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
interference of the Pope in the appointment of
Bishops for English sees; many of whom were
Italians, and did not reside in their Dioceses at
all, and could not even speak English. The pop
ular notion concerning purgatory, the sale of in
dulgences, the growth of Mariolatry, all contrib
uted towards the growth of a restless desire for
change of some sort. Cardinal Wolsey began the
movement, before the King's divorce was ever
thought of, by seeking power from the Pope to
visit and reform the monasteries, to suppress some
of the smaller ones, and to use the endovraaents to
establish new professorships at the Universities,
and to endow new Bishoprics. So that neither the
idea of a reformation, nor the movement towards
it, originated with Henry the Eighth.
The facts concerning the divorce are somewhat
as follows. Henry had married his brother's
widow, Catherine of Aragon; and as the table of
forbidden degrees prohibited marriage with a
sister-in-law, it had been necessary to get a dis
pensation from the Pope, to. set aside the law.
Henry was eighteen, and Catherine twenty-six;
and the disparity between their ages soon began to
tell. After Henry had reason to despair of having
a male heir to succeed him, he became alienated
from Catherine, and interested himself in Anne
Boleyn, a lady of the court. As a result of his
association with this woman he soon desired a di
vorce from his wife, and suddenly developed what
he claimed was a conscientious doubt of the valid-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 149
ity of his marriage with Catherine, because she
was his sister-in-law, Henry laid the matter before
the Bishops at Westminster, appealed to the Pope
to declare his marriage null and void, and endeav
ored to force the Pope to let Cardinal Wolsey try
the case in England. The Pope refused to declare
the marriage illegal, and appointed Wolsey and
Campeggio as legates, to hear the case in England.
The King gave the necessary license for the trial.
The Queen at once appealed to the Pope, and the
Pope responded by recalling the case to himself;
and so the King's court had to be dissolved and
dismissed. Then the King sent deputies to all the
Continental Universities, laying the case before
them. The Pope proceeded to inhibit Henry from
marrying again while the case was pending, and
Henry retaliated by prohibiting the publication of
the decree in England; and so the King and the
Pope came into direct and final collision.
Convocation met and voted in favor of the
divorce. Cranmer maintained that the Pope can
not dispense a law of God, and that the marriage,
being obviously null and void from the beginning,
there was no need whatever to appeal to the Pope ;
and the King was at liberty to act as though the
marriage had never occurred. This phase of the
matter naturally appealed to Henry, and he made
Cranmer Archbishop, Cranmer then petitioned the
King to license him to try the case in England,
which request the King granted; and then Cran
mer held court, and pronounced the marriage with

150 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Catherine null and void from the beginning. The
Pope reaffirmed its validity and excommunicated
Henry in 1538, who had already married Anne
Boleyn. Now was the Church's opportunity to assert
herself. The King's quarrel with the Pope placed the
King on the Church's side, in her effort to regain
her ancient independence; and the reform move
ment culminated in a series of legal enactments
by which the papal supremacy was finally re
pudiated. The clergy and people of England had grad
ually been prepared for this formal action. In
the first place, England had been at peace for some
time, and people had had time to think. A new
spirit of national independence was growing
throughout the land. The invention of printing
had been the means of disseminating information
about the Church and her history. The people
had learned to despise the Popes, because for
nearly sixty years there had been hardly a single
good Pope, and many were utterly vile ; and so the
masses felt little loyalty to the papal see, and were
becoming slowly alienated.
Next we come to the question of appeals to
Rome. Appeals had originally been made to the Pa
triarch of Rome in the primitive Church, merely
because he was the most conspicuous and often the
most learned Bishop of the Church; taking prece-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 151
dence of other Bishops, because he was the Bishop
of the imperial city, which was the head of the
Roman empire. Such appeals, of course, were
quite voluntary. Then later, as Rome's power
grew, the Popes began to claim a legal right to
hear appeals ex officio; and then to impose their
decisions by divine right, as heads of the Church.
Of course this took an immense number of cases
out of the English courts to Rome for trial, and
gave opportunity for a great deal of fraud, brib
ery and oppression, and caused interminable de
lays. Attempts to introduce the claim of hearing
appeals at Rome in the English Church were made
soon after the Conquest, but were withstood until
the time of Stephen.
A further step in the legal procedure was taken
when an act was passed preventing appeals to
Rome, on the supposition that the Church of Eng
land was competent to settle her own affairs with
out the assistance of an Italian Bishop,
Rome also claimed to be the source of all
episcopal authority; and for some time the Pope
had nominated the Bishops who were to fill Eng
lish Dioceses, and had gi-eatly increased his power
in England by filling English sees with Italians,
who were ready tools of the Pope, or neglected their
Dioceses altogether.
The Statute of Provisors, of Edward III,
1351, was an attempt to stop this; and a new act
was passed, claiming for the Crown the right of
nomination to English Bishoprics, The Pope had

152 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
also claimed the right to dispense Englishmen
from obeying the laws of the English Church when
he saw fit, in certain particulars ; and this power
of dispensation was taken away from him and
vested not in the King, but in the Archbishop of
Canterbury, by Act of Parliament in 1533, The
19th clause reads: "Such dispensation shall be
granted to the sovereign, and his subjects, by
Archbishops of Canterbury, provided always, that
neither this Act, nor anything or things therein
contained, shall be hereafter interpreted or ex
pounded that your Grace, your nobles, and your
subjects, intend by the same to decline or vary
from the Congregation of Christ's Church, in any
thing concerning the very Articles of the Catholic
Faith of Christendom, or in any other things de
clared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God
necessary for your, and their, salvation."
This certainly does not sound much like mak
ing a new Church, and a new Creed,
Now we come to the last and formal repudia
tion of the spiritual jurisdiction of Rome, The
Convocation of Canterbury, March 31st, 1534, and
the Convocation of York, May 5th, 1534, passed
an act declaring that "The Bishop of Rome hath
not by Scripture any greater authority in England
than any other foreign Bishop." ^

' "Such a statement left untouched any primacy or
authority which the popes might have acquired through the
dignity of their position or by consent or custom of the
Church. It denied the doctrine of a divine prerogative of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 153
This declaration was subscribed to by both
houses of Convocation, by the Bishops and chapters
of Cathedrals, by the monastic bodies, by the Uni
versities of Oxford and Cambridge, and by the
parish clergy ; and the edict was published through
out the land in all churches, on Sundays and feast
days. By this Act, the authority of the Popes of
Rome in England was completely and finally re
pudiated; and from a legal standpoint at least, so
far as any connection vsdth Rome went, the Ref
ormation was an accomplished fact.
Be it well observed, this was not the formation
of a new Church, or a new Creed, not the separa
tion from any Church, not even from the Roman
Church as a corporate body; but it was the legal
repudiation of the claim of the Pope of Rome,
first, to lawfully impose taxes on English Church
men; Second, to hear appeals from the decisions
of the English courts; Third, to appoint or nom
inate Bishops for English dioceses ; and fourth, to
exercise spiritual jurisdiction over English Church
men. Notice that these acts are passed by the
highest authority in Church and State; and that
it is the old Church of the land, acting for itself,
through its own representatives ; and that the basis
of this repudiation of papal authority, was not the
assumption of the right to make a new Church,

rule inherent in the popes, because given to St. Peter, by as
serting that Scripture contains no evidence of such a pre
rogative." Wakeman's History of the Church of England,
ch. xi, p. 222.

154 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
but to restore the old Catholic Church of the land,
to the independence of Rome which it had en
joyed in the past. It never entered the heads of
the King, the Parliament, or the Houses of Con
vocation, for one single moment, that they were
making a new Church or that they could, as they
said, "decline or vary in anything concerning the
very Articles of the Catholic Faith."
As a matter of fact, even Henry the Eighth
never had any notion of radical reform beyond
repudiating papal authority in order to substitute
his own. He did want to control the Church, and
rob it of its endowments ; and he tried his best to
do it. He did not want to make a new Church,
and he never attempted anything of the sort.
In a letter which Henry caused to be addressed
to Cardinal Pole, he says : "Ye suppose the King's
grace to be severed from the unity of Christ's
Church. . . . His full purpose and intent is, to
see the Laws of Almighty God freely and sincerely
preached and taught, and Christ's faith without
blot kept and preserved in this realm ; and not to
SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM THE UNITY OF ChEIST's
Catholic Chuech, but inviolably at all times
TO KEEP AND OBSEEVE THE SAME, and to redeem
His Church of England out of all captivity of for
eign powers heretofore usurped therein, into the
Christian state that all Churches were at the begin
ning." Henry claimed to be the Supreme Head of the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 155
Church of England, but Convocation admitted his
claim, "only so far as the law of Christ will allow."
He tried to force Convocation to give up all
canon law into his hands, so that it could have no
force apart from his word; but the Bishops de
clined to do anything of the sort. Henry op
pressed the Church in every way he could. He
intimidated its clergy, robbed the monasteries of
over two hundred and fifty million dollars' worth
of property, and slaughtered many who opposed
him. He did everything he could to acquire auto
cratic power over the Church: but the one thing
he most certainly did not do, did not attempt to do,
and had no thought of doing, was to make a new
Church. The Church he robbed, oppressed, and
insulted, was the old Catholic Church of the land,
and there was no other.
If the Church of England separated from the
Roman Catholic Church in England, as some peo
ple assert, then certainly there would have been
two religious bodies in England; the old Church,
and the new sect. But as a matter of fact, the
papal supremacy was discarded and there was only
one Church in England still. There was the old
Church, and there was no other; no Roman Cath
olic Church, no Protestant sect, nothing whatever
from which the Church could have separated. All
Churchmen worshipped in the same churches, re
cited the same creeds, received the sacraments at
the hands of the same clergy, under the care of the
same Bishops, throughout the land ; and the Church

156 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
was still known by the same old name, "Ecclesia
Anglicana," or the English Church, so called in
the Magna Charta of King John, long before the
Reformation, Never, at any time before the Ref
ormation, was she knovsna in her legal title as the
Roman Church, or the "Roman Catholic Church,"
not even when the papal power was strongest in
England, and never since the Reformation has she
adopted the name "Protestant."
Protestants sometimes ask. Was not the Church
of England the Roman Catholic Church before
the Reformation? We reply by asking: If the
Sultan of Turkey by gradual encroachments
through superior power and political infiuence
should gain ascendency over the Kingdom of
Greece for a while, and the Greeks should be
forced to submit under protest, would that make
Turks out of the Greeks ? And if the Greeks rose
in rebellion against this Turkish usurpation, and
regained their former independence, would it be
truthful to say that before the rebellion, Greece
was Turkey, or Greeks were Turks? Most cer
tainly not. Would it be true to say, that Greece,
freed from Turkish power, was a new state, when
it still retained its old laws, its old territory, its
old legislative bodies, and its old national tradi
tions, practically the same as they were before the
Sultan of Turkey gained any power over Greece ?
Most certainly not.
Now granting that Henry the Eighth was a
licentious, brutal hypocrite, and one of the great-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 157
est thieves the world has ever known, is it fair to
transfer the reproach of his misdeeds to the
Church, which took advantage of his position to
regain her former liberties — the Church which he
abused, intimidated, insulted, and did his best to
control, yet which proved too strong for him ? The
Church existed for over a thousand years before
he was bom; and has lived on now, nearly four
hundred years since he died. Whether Henry
was saint or devil, God certainly overruled his
folly for a good purpose; and beyond this fact,
the Church is not concerned about him one way or
the other.The whole question of the relation of the
Church of England to the papacy can be stated in
a few words : If the Pope of Rome was by divine
appointment the supreme head of the whole Cath
olic Church, so that he was the centre of unity and
the source of all authority, then certainly when the
Church of England repudiated his authority she
committed ecclesiastical suicide, and is to-day
nothing but a Protestant sect. But if on the other
hand, the Pope of Rome could claim lawfully
nothing but a primacy of honor in the Church, and
no spiritual authority whatever over the Church of
England, then the Church not only had a right to
repudiate his tyranny, but she was morally bound
so to do, in the interest of truth and her own well
being ; and in so doing, she separated neither from
the Catholic Church as a whole, nor from any part

158 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of it, not even from the Churches still under papal
obedience, as we shall presently see.
In 1536, Convocation set forth ten Articles of
Religion, defining Catholic doctrine as opposed to
the Continental extravagances, and also published
a book of instructions called "The Institution
(that is, instruction) of a Christian Man." Both
Articles and book were subsequently revised and
re-issued. Parts of the public services and the
Holy Scriptures had already been translated into
English ; and in the reign of Edward VI., Henry's
son and successor, the first Prayer Book in Eng
lish was published in 1549, representing the doc
trinal basis of the Reformation, and teaching the
Catholic faith, Edward's successor. Queen Mary,
was an ardent papist, and under one pretext and
another she drove the English Bishops and many of
the clergy from their dioceses and parishes, replac
ing them with Roman Bishops, She imprisoned
others, and burnt two hundred and seventy-seven
persons at the stake. Many of the clergy fled to
the Continent, and the lay people were terrified
into submission; and so the Church was brought
again under papal power. But she and Cardinal
Pole died on the same day, and under Elizabeth,
her successor, the Church was again freed from
papal supremacy.
Elizabeth found that ten of Mary's Roman
Bishops had died of the plague, and of the remain
ing fifteen, fourteen refused to conform. These
fourteen Roman Bishops, who had illegally dis-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 159
placed the English Catholic Bishops, were de
prived ; and so only one Bishop was left in posses
sion of his see. But four of the old Bishops whom
Mary had turned out of office. Barlow, Hodgkin,
Coverdale, and Scory, were summoned, and con
secrated Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury, ' and
the other sees were quickly filled; and so Mary's
attempt to undo the work of the Reformation came
to nothing beyond creating an undying hatred of
Roman methods and Roman persecutions, among
the common people.
Only 192 out of 9,000 clergy refused to take
the oath of the Queen's supremacy; and when,
later, Elizabeth was invited to attend the Council
of Trent as a Protestant, she resented the term as
applied to herself, and said that "an invidious dis
tinction is made between me and such other Cath
olic Potentates as have been invited to this Coun
cil." And to several Roman Catholic princes, she
wrote: "There is no new faith propagated in
England, no religion set up, but that which was
commanded by our Saviour, preached by the prim
itive Church, and unanimously approved by the
Fathers of the best antiquity." The suspension of
intercommunion was brought about by the Pope,
when, despairing of regaining control of the Eng
lish Church, he ex-communicated Elizabeth in
1569, and a number of papists withdrew from the
old Catholic Church, and organized the Latin or
Roman mission, which is now known as the Roman
' See Appendix A.

160 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Catholic Church in England, and which has no
connection with the pre-Reformation Church of
England of any sort or description. The present
Roman Catholic hierarchy in England was organ
ized in 1850, with Doctor Wiseman as the Cardinal
Archbishop ; and not until comparatively recently,
did the new Roman Bishops begin to use the old
historic names for their dioceses.
Many Churchmen fled to the Continent during
Mary's reign to escape persecution, and were there
indoctrinated vsdth Calvinism and Lutheranism;
and returning to England under Elizabeth, set
themselves in opposition to the Church and formed
the first independent sect about the year 1568.
Many of these independents had acquired influ
ential office in Church and State, and then began
a terrible struggle between them and the Church ;
and when the Presbyterians got the upper hand,
they tried to abolish Episcopacy by law, they
turned the clergy out of their parishes, made it a
penal offence to use the Prayer Book, thrust their
own ministers into church livings, and established
the Presbyterian system by law. But the Inde
pendents came into power and forced the Presby
terians to retire. With Cromwell, the Indepen
dents were supreme in authority, and the insults,
abuse and sufferings, and physical violence to
which the English clergy were subjected are almost
beyond belief. But when the kingdom was re
stored again under Charles IL, the Church of Eng
land was again restored to its rightful position.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 161
James II, attempted to bring the Church again
under Roman obedience, but his efforts were
brought to naught by the rebellion which placed
William and Mary on the throne.
No doubt in the changing vicissitudes of post-
Reformation times, when the Church was supreme
one moment, and trampled under foot the next, it
seems difficult to feel that her continuous life as
an organization w&s never vitally injured or de
stroyed; but it must be remembered that from
what has been said it is evident that through all
changes the ministerial succession of her apostolic
Bishops was never lost, nor did she ever repudiate
the Catholic Faith as contained in the Catholic
Creeds, nor did she cease to administer Catholic
sacraments, or to claim lawful jurisdiction in Eng
land. Protestant tyranny in the Puritan age could
no more destroy her corporate identity, than could
Roman tyranny in the Middle Ages. The very
fact that the Church of England has suffered such
dreadful abuse at the hands of Protestants and
Romanists, at different times, would seem to show
that she cannot be either Roman or Protestant;
and that she is a power which must be feared and
demolished, if either Protestantism or Romanism,
is to prevail in England. We found that the
Church is the Body of Christ; and we must re
member that Christ's natural Body was worn and
emaciated with suffering, wounded in hands, and
feet, and side, stained with filth and blood, and
racked with pain, and burning with fever, stripped

162 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and insulted by His enemies; yet even so it was
none the less His Body, the adorable Body of the
Son of God,
The Lord has said, "Remember the word that
I said unto you. The servant is not greater than
his Lord, If they have persecuted Me, they will
also persecute you," And so the Church of Eng
land regards the discipline through which she has
gone, as a pledge of discipleship, and also as a
preparation for the work which the Lord wills she
shall do, in the ages yet to come.

CHAPTER XI
THE CATHOLIC CHUECH IN THE UNITED STATES
CHE American Church was founded by English
colonists who were members of the Church of
England; and the first regular colony of Church
men was established in Virginia, with the Rev.
Robert Hunt, Priest, as Chaplain. They landed
in Chesapeake bay in April, 1607, and named their
settlement, Jamestovm, Their first act on landing
was to offer a prayer of thanksgiving; and the
Holy Eucharist was celebrated for the first time,
in a tent, June 21st, 1607, Offerings were sent
from England to support these Church colonists;
and from time to time, other priests emigrated
and shared their fate. Many of the colonists were
massacred by the Indians, but still the colony grew,
and each group of Churchmen constituted a repro
duction of an English parish, with its religion es
tablished by the local laws. Other Churchmen
emigrated to New England ; but they were far out
numbered by the Puritan emigrants, who excluded

164 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
them from the rights of citizenship and persecuted
them in many ways, driving many of them out of
New England, so that in 1680 only one priest was
left; but later, the Church was planted in New
England, being made up largely from converts who
became such after careful study of the Church's
claims, and went to England, obtained Holy Or
ders, returned, and gathered congregations of
Churchmen, thus forming parishes of their own.
In Maryland in 1700 there were seven clergymen ;
and in both Maryland and Virginia, the majority
of emigrants were Churchmen. Before the Revo
lution, the Church was established by law and was
supported by a general tax, which of course made
it obnoxious to the dissenters, and so retarded its
growth. In September, 1664, an expedition of the Duke
of York landed in what is now New York, under
the command of Colonel Nichols, a Churchman.
Their Chaplain was given the use of the Dutch
Church, after their service was finished, and the
Church was established by law under Governor
Fletcher, in 1692, Trinity parish was organized
in 1697, In 1700, Christ Church was organized
in Philadelphia among the Quakers, and eventu
ally five hundred of them were baptized. In Eng
land these colonial parishes were regarded as part
of the Church of England, and in 1685 Compton,
Bishop of London, was put in charge of them, as
a part of his diocese; and he licensed priests to
officiate for them. These parishes were subject to

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 165
the law of the English Church, and were supported
largely by the English Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel, which sent many priests to America.
An increasing spirit of restlessness grew up at the
inconvenience and opposition which the Colonial
Churchmen suffered from the fact that they were
governed by British authorities beyond the sea;
and it was felt that Bishops must be obtained from
the English succession, in order to complete the
organization of the Church in America, Many
attempts were made to obtain episcopacy from
England; but the Church of England was hamp
ered by her relation to the State, and it was very
difficult, at first, to get the necessary royal consent
to the consecration of colonial Bishops,
In America the Puritan element hated the
very idea of Episcopacy, as representing the Eng
lish Church and State; and there was much oppo
sition to the plan of obtaining Bishops for the col
onists. The war of the Revolution, making the col
onists independent of the English government,
was felt to have annulled at once the authority of
the Bishop of London over Colonial Churchmen;
and the immediate result was that Churchmen in
each state found themselves in disorganized
groups. Before the adoption of the Constitution,
each state was a little independent nation ; and so
its Church was a little independent national
Church: and while Colonial Churchmen were
bound together by a common Faith, Ministry, and
Sacraments, and were governed by the old Church

166 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
law, their organization was defective, without
Bishops, The Revolution cut off the supply of clergy
from England, and the Church had to depend on
clergy furnished by emigration, and on those lay
men who went back to England to obtain Holy
Orders. Consequently during the interval before
Bishops were consecrated for America, the Church
suffered much inconvenience, and lost many mem
bers. Local conventions were now assembled, to com
plete the organization of parishes into dioceses,
and to obtain Bishops for them. In Connecticut
Doctor Samuel Seabury was elected Bishop, was
sent to England, and was consecrated by Scottish
Bishops, November 14th, 1784, These diocesan
conventions united in forming the General Con
vention of the American Church, and the first
General Convention was called to procure the epis
copate, to revise the Prayer Book, so that it would
conform to the new political situation in which the
Church found herself, and to organize permanent
union between all Churchmen,
Addresses were sent to the Archbishops of Can
terbury and York and the Bishops of the Church
of England, requesting that they consecrate as
Bishops for the Church in America, such men as
American Churchmen might elect ; and in response
to this request, Doctor William White of Pennsyl
vania and Doctor Samuel Provoost of New York
were consecrated Bishops at Lambeth Chapel in

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 167
London, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Bishops of Bath-and- Wells and Peterborough as
sisting, February 4th, 1787, The Convention of
1789 adopted a constitution for the national
Church, and the Bishops organized as a House of
Bishops; and so the organization of the Catholic
Church in America was completed. The Conven
tion proceeded to revise the Prayer Book, James
Madison was consecrated Bishop of Virginia at
Lambeth Chapel, September 19th, 1790 ; and now
that the American Church had the requisite num
ber of Bishops of her own to consecrate canon-
ically, John Claggett was consecrated Bishop of
Maryland in 1792 by Bishops Provoost, Seabury,
White, and Madison, and this was the first conse
cration of a Catholic Bishop in America, for the
American Church,
From this point to the present time, nothing
has occurred which can be said in any way to
affect the continuity, or Catholic character, of the
American Church. She is to-day in full and open
communion with the Church of England, and in
the preface to her Prayer Book asserts that she is
"far from intending to depart from the Church of
England in any essential point of doctrine, discip
line, or worship, or further than local circum
stances require." Through her Bishops she in
herits authority from the Lord Christ, to admin
ister sacraments and discipline, and to teach, in
His name. She accepts as the Catholic Faith, that
doctrine which has been taught everywhere, by the

168 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
whole Church, from the beginning, defined by her
general councils, expressed in the Catholic creeds,
and is verified by Holy Scriptures, as interpreted
by the ancient Fathers.

CHAPTER XII
PAPAL SUPEEMACY AND THE HOLY SCEIPTUEES
771 E have considered the Protestant theory of
W the Church, and the Catholic theory, and
now we consider the Roman Catholic theory of
the Church.
However complicated the controversy with the
Roman Church may at first seem to be, yet to a
Churchman it necessarily reduces itself to one
or two points, on which the whole question turns.
Determine these, and you have the key to the
situation. Neglect these, and other discussions
must still leave the real issue unsettled. Very
often the claims of the Roman Church are met by
pointing out the fact that she teaches erroneous
doctrines; or has committed herself to what is
commonly called superstition; and no doubt in
certain points of doctrine, the Church of Rome
has varied from the Catholic Faith.
But after all, the question in regard to Rome
from the standpoint of a Catholic Churchman,

170 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
is practically the same one that is at the bottom
of the controversy with Protestants; namely, the
question of authority; and it is of the greatest
possible importance to determine exactly what is
the decisive issue, before we proceed with the argu
ment. The Roman Catholic theory of the organization
and authority of the Church, may be stated some
what as follows: The Lord Jesus Christ founded
the Catholic Church, and appointed St. Peter to
be the head of the Church, giving him supreme
authority, which he was to transmit to the Popes
of Rome as his successors, who were to be the
supreme rulers of the Church; and were to be so
guided by the Holy Ghost, in their formal, ex
cathedra definitions of matters which concern
Faith and Morals, that such definitions should be
infallible and irreformable. It logically follows,
that obedience to the Pope of Rome as head of the
Church, is the condition of Catholic communion;
and that the acceptance of his definitions is the
only ground of certitude, in matters of faith.
Of course it must readily be seen, that if Papal
Supremacy is the divinely appointed centre of
unity, then all Anglo-Catholics, and all Greek
Catholics, are out of the Church (because they
refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff), no matter
how orthodox they may happen to be in doctrinal
matters; and if the Pope is guided by the Holy
Ghost, in his formal definitions of questions which
concern faith and morals, then Rome's doctrine

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 171
must be right, and Anglo-Catholics must be wrong ;
no matter how scriptural and primitive their doc
trine may seem to be. So that really we are con
cerned, not primarily with details of doctrine, but
with two, and only two, questions: namely, the
claim of Papal Supremacy, and the claim of Papal
Infallibility. If these two claims are well founded,
then the Anglo-Catholic Church has no ground
whatever on which to base any claim, and is
simply a schism, or Protestant sect. But if it
happens that these two claims are unhistoric, un
catholic, and unscriptural, then certainly they con
stitute a very dreadful distortion of the Catholic
Faith, and have proved to be the most potent cause
of division among Christians ; and Anglo-Catholics
cannot possibly submit to them, no matter whether
Rome's doctrinal teaching, in certain other re
spects, is true or false.
Every intelligent Churchman must at once
admit, that there are certain features of the Roman
Church which, taken by themselves, are admir
able; and which, to certain impressionable tem
peraments, prove so attractive that they blind the
mind to the real, logical issue, and prejudice the
controversy much in Rome's favor. For example :
the effectiveness, discipline, superficial unity, and
superior numbers of Rome's organization are al
ways impressive; and her unity of belief in cer
tain Catholic doctrines is very striking. That in
a limited number of cases, and under certain cir
cumstances, she develops and trains a very high

172 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
type of saintliness, is also true; and when these
characteristics are cleverly contrasted vsdth certain
superficial defects in the local working of the
Anglo-Catholic system, doubtless the comparison
is sometimes in Rome's favor.
But we must insist that after all such com
parison does not touch the root of the controversy
between Anglicans and Romans, It is possible
for Rome to have all these impressive features,
which are legitimate characteristics of the true
Church, and yet be radically wrong in her theory
of organization and her method of determining
what is the truth, in which she is distinctively
Roman: and if she is thus wrong in the essential
points which make her what she is, then the defect
is vital, and all other considerations are mere side
issues. Mere superiority of numbers, or cleverness
and effectiveness of organization, cannot blind us
to the fact, that such organization is built on a
false foundation; and an impressive unity of be
lief signifies nothing, if such unity is produced at
the expense of truth, and happens to be out of
unity with the Catholic Faith of the past.
On the other hand, it is possible for the An
glican Church to have many superficial defects
which are not vital, and which correct themslves
as time goes on, and yet be radically right in her
theory of organization, and in her method of de
termining what is the Catholic Faith, in which she
is distinctively Catholic. To use a medical expres
sion, Anglican difficulties are functional, and can

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 173
be remedied ; while Roman difficulties are organic,
and are incurable.
So, as we said, the whole question reduces itself
to this: Has the Pope of Rome divine authority
to claim our obedience as head of the Church, and
has he the right to claim supernatural guidance,
in formally defining matters which concern faith
and morals? In other words, the issue between
Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics, turns on
the questions of papal supremacy and papal in
fallibility. The only way these questions can be
settled is by an appeal to the Holy Scriptures and
to history ; notwithstanding the fact, that Cardinal
Manning in his book The Temporal Mission of the
Holy Ghost, said (page 226) that an "appeal to
antiquity is both a treason and a heresy." We
cannot admit that "history, and antiquity, and
facts, as they are called, of the past, vanish before
the presence of an order of facts which are divine
, . , namely, the unity, and perpetuity, and
infallibility of the Church of God" (page 204),
On the contrary, we claim that just because the
Catholic Church is one, perpetual, and infallible,
she cannot cut herself off from history, antiquity,
and facts of the past; nor can she teach as of
authority in one age, that which was entirely un
known to the Catholic Faith of primitive ages. We
claim that the strength of the Anglican position
lies just in this fact : that we appeal constantly to
history and the Holy Scriptures, for the verifica
tion of Catholic truth.

174 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
To start with, we must bear in mind that the
authority of the papacy is supposed to be derived
from St. Peter, on the assumption that our Lord
appointed St. Peter the supreme head of the
Church, with authority to transmit such headship
to the Bishops of Rome. If St. Peter was not the
head of the Church by divine appointment, then
the whole fabric of the papal claims falls to the
ground; for confessedly, there is no other source
from which the Bishops of Rome could receive
supreme authority. The position of St. Peter in
the Apostolic college is the first issue by which
the whole Roman system stands or falls.
There cannot be any doubt that St. Peter en
joyed a certain preeminence and leadership among
the Apostles, for he appears in Holy Scriptures
first on the list of Apostles, first in action, and
first in confession of the faith. But the assump
tion which Anglicans deny, is that he was given
any sort of official authority over the other Apos
tles, which made them subject to him, or which he
could transmit to any one else.
Of course it is well known that the classic text
of Holy Scripture which Romans quote as substan
tiating their claims, is St. Matthew xvi, 18-19.
St. Peter had made the first great open confession
of faith in the fact of the Incarnation: "Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," And
our Lord replies, "I say also unto thee, that thou
art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My
Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 175
against it, I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what
soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven," What, then, is this rock, on which the Church
is built? Is it St. Peter himself, or St. Peter's
confession of our Lord's divinity, or is it Christ's
adorable Person? If we turn to the Fathers to
discover what was the primitive patristic inter
pretation, a careful analysis of their testimony,
seems to give this result: they do not agree on
any one of the three interpretations, some giving
one and some another; and so there has been no
fixed tradition in the Church, as to what our Lord
meant by the Rock. But one thing is certain : that
the Fathers never believed, and never taught, that
St. Peter was the Rock in any sense which ex
cluded the other Apostles, But suppose that our
Lord did pronounce St, Peter to be the rock on
which He would build His Church. The question
comes up. Is the Lord dealing with St. Peter as
distinct from the other Apostles, and as superior
to them, or merely as their representative ?
Now we find that our Lord subsequently gave
to all the Apostles, precisely this same commission
to bind and loose which He promised to St, Peter,
and so it could not be exclusively Peter's preroga
tive. Notice that our Lord's word to St, Peter is
a promise to give, not the actual giving ; and when
our Lord's commission is actually conferred, after

176 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
His resurrection, it is given alike to all the twelve,
and there is no special commission given to St,
Peter. We read that the New Jerusalem, the
Church, is built not on one, but on twelve founda
tion stones, St. Peter seems to have been the rep
resentative leader among the Apostles, and as such,
to have been addressed by our Lord: but there is
not one word to indicate that he was superior in
office and authority, by divine appointment.
We shall find later, that the position of St.
John, St, Paul, and St, James, in the Church, is
absolutely inconsistent with the assumption that
St. Peter is the head of the Church and the source
of authority. Roman Catholics profess to inter
pret Scripture according to "the unanimous con
sent of the Fathers" (Creed of Pius IV,), but cer
tainly no such consensus can be claimed for the
modem Roman interpretation of our Lord's words
to St. Peter.
The second text quoted in support of papal
claims, is St. Luke xxii, 32, Our Lord's words to
St. Peter, "I made supplication for thee, that thy
faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast
turned again, stablish thy brethren." But, as St.
Chrysostom says, our Lord thus spoke to St, Peter
because of his presumption, to rebuke and warn
him ; and there is nothing whatever in our Lord's
words to imply that St. Peter is head of the
Church. The third text which Roman Catholics
quote in support of papal claims, is St. John xxi,
16, where our Lord says to St, Peter, "Simon, son

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 177
of Jonas, lovest thou Me ? Feed My sheep," and
repeats the expression three times. Romans claim
that, this is a special pastoral commission given to
St, Peter by our Lord, to rule over His flock. But
certainly the words suggest to us at once, as they
did to Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine, and
other Fathers, a threefold restoration of St, Peter
to our Lord's favor, after his threefold denial of
Him; and the words have no official significance
whatever. If St. Peter was the divinely appointed head of
the Church, certainly that fact must appear in St,
Peter's relation to the other Apostles. But so far
as Scriptural hints, without historical verification
go, it would be vastly easier to prove that either
St. John, or St. Paul, or St. James, was intended
to be the official head of the Church, than that St,
Peter was. For example, take the case of St, John.
He was the "beloved disciple" of our Lord, He
alone was faithful to the end, and was present at
the Crucifixion. To him the Lord commits the
care of the Blessed Virgin. He witnessed the
Blood and Water that fiowed from our Lord's side,
as symbols of the two greater sacraments. He was
the only Apostle to outlive the destruction of Je
rusalem, Was this not providential, in that he
was to be the head of the Church ? He alone
beheld the glorified vision of Christ, and to him
Christ gives His messages to the seven Churches,
He sanctioned and authenticated the first three
Gospels, and wrote the fourth as supplementary.

178 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
He probably arranged the system of diocesan epis
copacy. Our Lord said of him, "If I will that he
tarry till I come" (John xxi. 22), Now of course
St. John could not live always, and so it would
appear that only by living in the persons of his
successors, could he thus tarry till the Lord should
come, at the judgment. So much for St. John.
The case of St. Paul is even better. St. Paul
received neither his doctrine, nor his commission,
from Peter, but from our Lord Himself, who ap
peared to him specially for the purpose. St. Paul
rebuked St. Peter openly, as he says, "I resisted
him to the face" (Gal, ii. 11). If St. Peter were
the supreme, infallible head of the Church, he
might thus rebuke St. Paul, but certainly St,
Paul would not so rebuke St, Peter. Then St.
Paul says, "That which presseth upon me daily,
anxiety for all the Churches" (II. Cor. xi, 28).
"So I ordain in all the Churches" (I.Cor. vii. 17),
Now if St, Peter had said this, would we ever
have heard the last of it from the Roman Cath
olics? Surely "anxiety for all the Churches,"
ought to be on the shoulders of the one supreme,
infallible head. Then to St. Paul was committed
the exclusive care of the Gentile converts, while St,
Peter was restricted to the Jews, But surely all
converts ought to be subject to the authority of the
one head of the Church, You cannot imagine the
Pope to-day dividing his jurisdiction with any
body. Then St, Paul asserts, "In nothing was I
behind the very chiefest Apostles" (II, Cor, xii.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 179
11). But St. Paul was certainly a very long way
behind St. Peter, in the matter of rank and author
ity, if St. Peter were the head of the Church. So
as a simple matter of fact, St. Paul is far more
prominent in some ways, than St. Peter.
A very good case can also be made out for St.
James as the head of the Church. He was un
questionably the first Bishop of Jerusalem, which
was the mother of all Christian Churches. St.
James perhaps presided at the First Council of
the whole Church held at Jerusalem. If St, Peter
were the head of the Church, he ought to have been
Bishop of the mother Church, When St, Paul
went up to the city to attend the council, he speaks
of James first among those "who were reputed to
be pillars" (Gal, ii, 9), Then many years after
ward, when St. Paul, with others, went back to
Jerusalem, St. Luke says, "The day following,
Paul went in with us unto James, and all the
presbyters were present." When St, Peter was
released from prison, he ordered the news to be
taken to James, saying, "Go show these things to
James," as if all matters of interest had to be re
ported to him, as to one in authority. Why, then,
is not the Bishop of the mother Church of Jeru
salem, to-day the head of the Church, as successor
of St, James?
Moreover, when converts were to be confirmed,
we read that "the Apostles which were at Jeru
salem sent Peter and John" (Acts viii. 14) to
Samaria to administer Confirmation by laying on

180 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of their hands. But surely the one in supreme
authority always sends his inferiors; and if St.
Peter were the head of the Church, why did he not
send the Apostles, instead of their sending him?
Imagine, if you can, a modern Pope being sent by
the college of Cardinals at Rome, to administer
Confirmation in Florence, or Naples, or to do any
thing else! Then we read that those who said,
"I am of Cephas" (I. Cor. i. 12) (that is, Peter)
were rebuked, as sanctioning a spirit of division.
But if St, Peter were the supreme head of the
Church, the representative of its unity, then cer
tainly it would be a most natural expression of
loyalty, to say just this very thing: "I am of
Peter," Beside all this, we must remember that the
Book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles is a book of
Church history, written under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit; and that it covers the period when
St. Peter must have assumed his position as head
of the Church, and begun to exercise his authority.
Now there is not one single word in the Book of
the Acts, which even remotely hints at St, Peter's
headship; and as we have found, there is much
that would seem to contradict it. If the Lord
meant that all men should recognize St. Peter's
authority as supreme spiritual Pope of the Church,
so that to refuse obedience to him and his succes
sors was equivalent to excommunication and per
iled the salvation of the soul, surely He would
have had the fact so plainly Written out in Scrip-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 181
ture, that there could be no doubt about it; or at
least it would have been so plainly taught as to be
unmistakable. The simple fact of the case is, that
not only is there no adequate evidence in Scripture
to support the claim of St. Peter's spiritual head
ship of the Church, but there is much that is hope
lessly inexplicable on the supposition that our Lord
gave him any such authority.

CHAPTER XIII
THE GEOWTH OF PAPAL CLAIMS
TN the last chapter, we found that while St. Peter
doubtless occupied a position of "first among
equals" in the Apostolic college, yet there is no
scriptural evidence that our Lord conferred upon
him any official authority, which was not also con
ferred on the other Apostles ; or any personal pre
rogatives which he could transmit (as head of the
Church) to the Bishops of Rome. To make good
the papal claims, it would be necessary to show
that St. Peter not only possessed supreme author
ity, but that he was intended to transmit such
authority to the Bishops of the Roman See, to be
held and exercised by them as a perpetual ruling
order in the ChurcL
Now we must answer a question which natur
ally presents itself, just at this point: If the
papacy was not of divine origin, not an original
and essential part of the apostolic organization,
how did the Popes of Rome acquire such enormous

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 183
power, as they unquestionably have exercised
through many centuries?
The point on which the whole position of the
Patriarchal See of Rome depends, is not its su
premacy by divine appointment, but its close asso
ciation with the imperial city, and its intimate
alliance with the Roman Empire, through which
alliance it acquired its power and its prestige.
To start with, we must be careful not to be
misled by the use of names, phrases, and expres
sions, which meant one thing in the third and
fourth centuries, and mean quite a different thing
in the mouths of modern Roman Catholics, in the
present century. Churchmen in early days were
quite free to express their reverence for the or
thodoxy, learning, and ecclesiastical preeminence
of the Bishops of Rome ; and to acknowledge them
as being first among equals ; but such complimen
tary expressions when carefully analyzed, are very
far from an acknowledgment of the supremacy of
office and authority, which the Popes of Rome sub
sequently claimed for themselves. The very name
Pope simply means Father; and all the great Pa
triarchs were called Popes ; and the parish priests
of the Greek Church are called Popes to this day.
In order to understand how Rome acquired
her power, and the growth of the papal claims, it
is first of all necessary to consider for a moment,
the organization of the post- Apostolic Church ; and
we will find this to be true : that, while in Apostolic
times there were only three orders of the ministry.

184 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and all Bishops were equal in spiritual authority,
still, after the Apostolic age, the Church found it
advisable as she extended over the world, to arrange
a more complicated system of government than was
at first necessary, and to yield to certain Bishops,
by reason of the prominence of their sees, certain
authority over other Bishops, for executive pur
poses and for the maintenance of discipline.
The important point to be remembered is, that
in thus elaborating her own system, the Church
followed the lead and structure of the civil gov
ernment, the Roman Empire, which ruled the
world. For example: the dignity of any individ
ual Bishop was largely determined by the polit
ical prominence of the city of which he was the
Bishop; its political, commercial, and literary
prestige. These important sees were generally
filled by men of ability, and it was natural that
the Bishops of the smaller cities, should defer to
them, and consult them, especially as the smaller
cities were first evangelized from the large cities;
and so the humbler Bishop would look up to the
Bishop of the greater city, as being in a sense his
Father, and superior in prominence, if not in ac
tual authority. Thus developed the Provincial
System, by which the Bishops of a certain district
would group themselves together under the head
ship of the Bishop of the largest city of that dis
trict, who would be called the Metropolitan, that
is, the Bishop of the Chief City. Naturally he
would preside at the councils of the Bishops of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 185
that district, would call its meetings, and consent
to ordination or consecration of other Bishops, and
would act as the consecrator. The Metropolitan
Bishop would thus be first among equals. Then
the Church further elaborated its organization to
meet new needs and more complicated issues, by
grouping these Metropolitan Bishops together un
der one presiding officer, who was called a Pa
triarch; and the group of Provinces under his
oversight was called a Patriarchate. Thus, the
whole Catholic Church was divided into five great
Patriarchates, whose patriarchal Bishops resided
at Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and,
last of all, Constantinople, when the seat of the
Roman government was removed to that city.
These cities were the five great cities of the Chris
tian world; and the sees of bishoprics in four of
them, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem,
had been founded by St. Peter, St. Paul, St.
Mark, and St. James, and so were regarded with
special veneration.
As time went on, it was necessary (or at least
natural) that even among these five patriarchal
Bishops there should be some order of precedence ;
and what more natural than that the Bishop of
the most conspicuous diocese in the ruling city of
the whole Christian world, should be .granted a
primacy of honor, or rank, while it was distinctly
understood, that as a Bishop exercising spiritual
authority, he was superior to none? That that
was the true explanation of the preemine nee of the

186 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Roman Bishop, we know from the twenty-eighth
canon of the Fourth General Council, that of
Chalcedon, A,D, 451, which reads :
"We, following in all things the decisions of
the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon
of the 150 most religious Bishops which has just
been read, do also determine and decree the same
things respecting the privileges of the most holy
city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, For
the Fathers properly gave the Primacy to the
throne of the elder Rome, because it was the Im
perial city; and the 150 most religious Bishops,
being moved with the same intention, gave equal
privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome,
judging, with reason, that the city which was hon
ored with the sovereignty, and the senate, and
which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal
Rome, should also be magnified like her in ecclesi
astical matters ; being the second after her," This
canon, notwithstanding the protest of the Roman
delegates, was adopted by the Council.
Notice well the reason assigned for Rome's
prominence. It was not that the Bishop of Rome
was the divinely appointed head and ruler of the
Church, but that the Bishop of Rome was the
Bishop of the Imperial city, the head of the
Roman Empire; the most conspicuous Bishop of
the Church. Notice also, that "if the Fathers
bestowed precedency on the Chair of old Rome,"
certainly it was not originally "bestowed" by the
Lord Christ. Then Constantinople having come

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 187
into prominence as the seat of the Roman govern
ment, we find that the Council, "moved by the
same consideration, awarded equal precedence to
the most holy throne of new Rome," that is, Con
stantinople; and Jerusalem, though the oldest
Church of all, "the Mother of all Churches,"
which was founded by St, James, was assigned
the lowest in rank of the five patriarchates; be
cause, as a city, Jerusalem was of so little political
prominence. Notice that the Church still held that by divine
appointment, all Bishops were of equal authority ;
and the arrangement of diocesan Bishops under
metropolitan Bishops, and metropolitan Bishops
under patriarchal Bishops, was wholly a matter of
ecclesiastical concession for executive purposes;
and the order of precedence among patriarchal
Bishops was determined incidentally, by the prom
inence of the great cities in which the Bishops
lived. We learn from the historian Rufinus, that the
Patriarch of Rome's original authority, was lim
ited to ten provinces in central and southern Italy,
vsith the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica,
and that dovTu to the Council of Antioch in 341,
the system of jurisdiction was complete within
each province for itself; and beyond it there was
no appeal, except to a general council of the whole
Church. The eighth canon of Ephesus reads:
"No Bishop shall interfere in other provinces,
which have not been from the very first under him-

188 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
self and his predecessors. But if any one have
taken a province, or caused it to be subject to him
through compulsion, he must restore it,"
It was not unnatural, that inasmuch as the
Church had developed its executive organization,
so far, largely along the lines of the civil govern
ment, the attempt should be made to carry the idea
of imperial centralization to its logical issue ; and
so to invest the most conspicuous Patriarch with
sovereign power over the whole Church, and thus
transfer the idea of empire from the State, to the
Church, But it is a curious fact, that the first
Bishop to call himself "universal Bishop" was not
the Pope of Rome, but John, Pope of Constan
tinople, who in 589 assumed the title of universal
Bishop, Whatever claims he made for his see as
inheriting power from St. Peter, Pope Gregory
the Great protested against any one assuming this
title. He vsrrote to the Emperor, "I confidently
affirm that whosoever calls himself, or desires him
self to be called, universal priest, is in his pride
going before Antichrist ; because through pride, he
prefers himself to the rest," To the Patriarchs of
Antioch and Alexandria, Gregory wrote: "This
name. Universal Pontiff, was offered during the
Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the Pontiff of the
Apostolic See, a post which by God's providence I
fill. But no one of my peedecessoes consented
TO USE so PEOFANB A TEEM, BECAUSE PLAINLY, IF
A SINGLE PaTETAECH IS CALLED UNIVEESAL, THE
NAME OS" PATEIAECH IS TAKEN FROM ALL THE

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 189
REST," To John of Constantinople, Gregory wrote :
"The SOLE Head of the Universal Chuech is
Cheist," Notice that the Gregory who thus writes,
is the same Pope who sent Augustine to Britain to
convert the Saxons.
So for many centuries, there was constant
rivalry between Rome and Constantinople as to
which should be the greater, until the ninth cen
tury, when Charlemagne established his empire,
and thus the weight of his enormous influence was
thrown on Rome's side, and her claims were ad
vanced. The idea of imperial centralization was
constantly growing in the Churches under papal
obedience, until under Hildebrand it culminated
in the assumption that the Pope was the auto
cratic ruler of nations as well as of the Church,
and had the right to depose kings, and to absolve
subjects from their allegiance.
It was natural that minor Bishops should go
to Rome and consult the learned and conspicuous
Bishop of the Imperial city, about disputed mat
ters ; and the Popes, taking advantage of this grow
ing custom, began to claim an official right to hear
appeals from local ecclesiastical courts; and this
placed great power in their hands.
We have already seen how the first appeal to
Rome in the Church of England, by Wilfrid, from
the ruling of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury,
was ignored by the Archbishop, and how the appel
lant was punished and exiled for his disloyalty;
and the question is, not whether appeals were made

190 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
in early days to Rome for the settlement of dis
putes, but on what ground they were made. Were
they made to the Pope as a referee, voluntarily
chosen by the parties in dispute, or was he the
supreme judicial authority ? Anglicans claim that
the way his decisions were often resisted, set aside,
and ignored, is contrary to the assumption that
Churchmen recognized in him divinely given au
thority which was final and absolute. Why should
the council of Sardica grant the privilege of appeal
in certain cases, if the unquestioned right of appeal
had existed from the first? Surely there was no
necessity for any council to legislate concerning a
recognized prerogative of the Roman See.
We come now to something which bears
strongly on the question of appeals to Rome.
The growth of the papal claims and their ac
ceptance during the middle ages, was enormously
assisted by the publication of what are now known
as the "Pseudo-Isidorian, or false Decretals;
which appeared about the year 850, and purported
to be a series of over one hundred letters, decrees,
and briefs, written by the Popes from A.D. 90 to
314; decrees of several councils, quotations from
the Fathers, and the supposed "Donation of the
Emperor Constantine," bestovidng on the Roman
patriarchate the gift of the city of Rome, and
Italy. All these quotations supported strongly the
Roman claim of universal jurisdiction, and were
accepted in an uncritical age as authentic. They

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 191
proved to be enormously effectual in extending
Rome's dominion ; and yet these decretals are now
universally admitted to be forgeries originating
not earlier than the year 600, even by Roman
Catholic historians, like Fleury, who says: "One
of the greatest wounds which the false decretals
have inflicted on the discipline of the Church, is
that they have extended infinitely the appeals to
Rome. It appears that the forger had this point
greatly at heart, by the care he has taken to dif
fuse through all his work, the maxim that not only
every Bishop, but every priest, generally every
person who finds himself harrassed, may on every
occasion appeal directly to the pope." ^
The Jesuit priest, Pere Regnon, says: "The
reforms brought about by the Pseudo-Isidore, con
sisted in reserving to the Roman Pontiff, the trial
and judgment of all Bishops."^
The false character of these decretals is also
admitted by Cardinal Baronius, by the Roman
historian Bellarmine, and others; and though
until very recent times they were quoted in Roman
controversial books, they are now practically dis
carded. It is a sad and most unfortunate fact, yet one
which is easily capable of demonstration by any
competent historian, that all along the ages,
Rome's interests have been advanced by forgeries

' Carter's Roman Question, p. 52.
^ E. G. Wood's Regal Power of the Church.

192 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and falsification of the Fathers; and that such
interpolations are quoted with approval to-day,
in Roman controversial books; and that it is not
safe to accept patristic quotations in such books,
without verifying them at first hand.
There are plenty of historic facts which are ut
terly inconsistent with the assumption that the
supreme judicial, and spiritual authority of the
Church, has always been in the hands of the Bish
ops of Rome. For example: the first difficulty
which required judicial action in the Apostolic
Church, was settled by a council of the whole
Church at Jerusalem.
When Victor, Bishop of Rome, A,D. 196,
undertook to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches,
because they disagreed with him about the time
of the observance of Easter, he was rebuked by the
other Bishops, including Irenaeus, and his excom
munication was ignored, and had no effect what
ever. In the fourth century, the Council of Sardica
allowed a condemned Bishop to appeal to Rome
for a new trial ; not as a recognized right, but as
conferring a privilege. This canon of Sardica,
was misquoted by the Bishops of Rome as being
a canon of the Council of Nicea in a controversy
with the African Bishops. But the latter consulted
the Eastern Patriarchs, and, so discovering the
misquotations, replied to the Patriarch of Rome
through his legates, "We find it enacted in no
council of the Fathers, that any person may be

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 193
sent as legates of your holiness  Do not
therefore at the request of any, send your clergy
as agents for you, lest we seem to introduce into
the Church of Christ the ambitious pride of the
world," ^
The great Arian heresy which denied the divin
ity of our Lord, was settled by the Nicene Council,
which was called, not by the Pope, but by the
Emperor Constantine. Hosius presided, and the
heresy was finally refuted, not through the pro
nouncement of the Pope, but through the argument
of Athanasius ; while later a Pope, Liberius, under
pressure signed an heretical creed.
Then the heresy denying the divinity of the
Holy Ghost was settled at the Council of Con
stantinople in 381, at which the Nicene Creed was
reaffirmed, and the sentences defining doctrine
concerning the Holy Ghost added, and the Roman
Bishop was not present either in person or through
his legates. Meletius of Antioch presided at the
council, and was succeeded by Gregory Nazianzen,
Patriarch of Constantinople; and so in the settle
ment of the two greatest heresies, the authority of
the Bishop of Rome counted for little or nothing ;
and it is interesting to note that the Bishops assem
bled in council at Constantinople in 381, in their
Epistle to the Western Bishops assembled at Rome,
called the Church of Jerusalem the "Mother of
all Churches."

' Bp. Gore's R. C. Claims, p. 115.

194 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Of course the most complete refutation of the
Roman claim of supremacy has been the historic
position of the four patriarchates of the Eastern
Church, which have never acknowledged the claims
of such universal jurisdiction, and yet were in
communion with the patriarch of Rome until the
twelfth century.
The claims of supreme and spiritual jurisdic
tion over the whole Church, on the part of the
Bishop of Rome, cannot stand the test of catholic
ity, and so become articles of faith, unless they
have been acknowledged always, everywhere, and
by all Catholics; and this we have shown to be
historically incredible.
Roman Catholics are very fond of asserting
that a visible Church must have a visible head;
and that as there is no other Bishop who claims
to be the head of the Church but the Pope of
Rome, therefore he must be that head. We reply,
that in the Holy Scriptures St. Paul asserts that
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church; and he
nowhere recognizes any other head; though he
constantly insists on the visible, organic nature
of the Church itself. St. Augustine asserts the
same fact, thus: "Since the whole Christ is made
up of the head and the body, the head is our
Saviour Himself, who suffered under Pontius
Pilate, who now, after He has risen from the dead,
sits at the right hand of God ; but His body is the
Church; not this Church, or that, but the Church

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 195
scattered over all the world. . . . For the whole
Church, made up of all the faithful, because all
the faithful are members of Christ, has its head
situate in the heavens which governs this body:
though it is separated from their sight, yet it is
bound to them by love." ' Then again, it must be
remembered that the greater part of the Catholic
Church is made up of souls in Paradise, and there
fore is not visible to us; and Christ is the Head
of the Church to them, as well as to us.
But supposing the visible Church must have a
visible head we reply, as a practical matter of
fact, the universal episcopate assembled in gen
eral council was from the first regarded as the head
of the Church; the ultimate source and seat of
authority, to which the Bishop of Rome himself
was always subject : as is proved by the fact, that
the universal Episcopate settled heresies, defined
the Faith, and deposed Popes who were themselves
heretics, and excommunicated them.
It makes a neat turn of an argument to say
that the visible Church must have a visible head ;
and then to set forth the Pope as that head; but
after all, it is merely a question of historic fact,
and history points to the universal Episcopate as
the head, and not to the Pope of Rome.
If the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church,
then when the Pope dies, apparently the Church
has no head, and remains a headless monster, per-

* St. Aug. On the Psalms, p. 561.

196 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
haps for several months, until another Pope is
elected and enthroned. Surely this is a curious
condition of things, that the Church should be
continually sloughing off its head, and growing
another, every generation or so; so that every
little while it has no head at all. The collective
Episcopate does not die ; but lives on from age to
age, and as the head of the Church, is abiding and
permanent. The whole grovrth of the papal claim may be
summarized by four words : Primacy, Supremacy,
Sovereignty, and Infallibility. The Primacy of
Rome Anglicans admit to be lawful; not as of
divine appointment, but as a matter of precedence
and executive convenience, originating from the
prominence of the Imperial city. The Supremacy
of Rome Anglicans reject, as disturbing the orig
inal balance of power defined by the general coun
cils and canon law of the Church. The Sover
eignty of Rome Anglicans repudiate, as mere sec
ular Imperialism transferred to the Church, from
the State, The Infallibility of the Roman pon
tiffs the Anglican Church denies, as an assumption
by one man in the Church of a power, or faculty,
conferred by our Lord on the Church as a whole.
From what has been said, it seems evident
that there is no scriptural evidence that St, Peter
was appointed supreme head of the Church by our
Lord, and that there is no historical evidence of
any sort which proves that St, Peter ever attempted

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 197
to transmit any authority peculiar to himself to
the Bishops of Rome; and that what the early
Church conceded to the Patriarch of Rome, was a
primacy of honor among equals, and not a suprem
acy of authority, by divine appointment.

CHAPTER XIV
THE CATHOLIC METHOD OF DEFINING THE TEUTII
$0 FAR we have been considering the nature,
authority, and history of the Catholic Church
as an organization ; and now we must consider the
first of the great functions of the Church, her
office as a teacher; and this brings us to the ques
tion, How does the Church determine and define
what is divine truth?
We must begin by assuming that when the
Lord Christ was visibly present among men. He
taught certain truths as revelations of His Divine
Mind, which we never could have found out for
ourselves by any natural process of reasoning.
These truths concern the Nature of God, and His
relation to us; and the Lord willed that all men
should know and accept these truths, as the ground
of the salvation of their souls.
All Catholic Churchmen believe that it is the
function of the Church to hold, define, and teach
this revealed truth throughout the world, by the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 199
authority of the Lord who has committed this
truth to the keeping of the Church,
Right here we must be careful to distinguish
between revelation and inspiration; between the
work of the Lord, and the work of the Holy Spirit,
in conveying divine truth to us; in order to de
termine accurately, what share the Church may
have in this work. We believe that the substance
of the Christian Faith was revealed, whole and
entire, by the Lord to His Apostles ; that the Eaith
"was once (for all) delivered to the saints" ; and
that therefore, they certainly cannot add to it in
the slightest particular. Whatever function the
Church may serve, she cannot reveal any new
truth, nor can she add any new dogma to the Cath
olic creed. She can simply hold, define, and teach,
the truth which was delivered to her in its en
tirety. She can do no more, and certainly no less.
The work of the Holy Spirit is not to reveal,
but to guide men in the acceptance of what has
been already revealed, so that they may be sure of
knowing what the revelation itself is, interpret
it correctly, and apply it to their own individual
lives. The Lord Himself promised such guidance
when He said: "The Comforter, even the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name,
He shall teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I said unto you" (John xiv.
26). "Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth,
is come. He shall guide you into all the truth"

200 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
(John xvi. 13). Supposing then, that our Lord
has delivered His revelation to His Apostles by
oral teaching, once for all, how does the Holy
Spirit begin His work?
If we put this question to an evangelical Prot
estant, he will probably reply, that the Holy Spirit
inspired the Apostles to write a Book; that He
guided them in their vmting, so that they were
saved from any radical error; and that therefore,
the Bible is the Word of God, and is the embodi
ment of the revelation of Christ to men.
Now any Catholic Churchman will at once
agree with this statement, and no Anglo-Catholic
would for a moment think of teaching anything
as necessary to salvation, that was contrary to the
Holy Scriptures. But there is another question
right here.
Supposing that the Bible is the Word of God,
how do you know what it means? Confessedly
it is capable of different interpretations. Which
is the right one ? The evangelical Protestant will
probably reply, that having studied the Scriptures,
carefully and prayerfully, he believes that the
Holy Spirit guides him, in his interpretation and
understanding of the Bible ; so that he is to make
up his creed out of the Bible. This seems to be
the general Protestant idea of the matter : that the
Holy Spirit guides the individual Christian in the
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and on such
guidance his belief rests.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 201
Now, true as this assumption is in a certain
limited sense, it presents at once certain very
serious difficulties, which we must consider. For
if you start out with the assumption that the Bible
alone, by itself, independent of the Church, is all
that you need, how are you going to determine
that the Bible you have in the twentieth century,
is the Bible the Apostles wrote in the first ? And
how are you going to tell that the Bible itself is
inspired ?
There were many spurious gospels afloat in
the early Church, before the canon of the New
Testament was finally settled: and some of them,
so far as their moral tone was concerned, were
indistinguishable from the inspired Books ; but the
Church, by a divine instinct, rejected them, under
the guidance of the Holy Ghost; and so, appar
ently, the testimony of the Church must come in
at just this point, to certify to the inspiration of
the Bible. No doubt we believe the Bible to be in
spired, largely because it appeals to our conscience
and moral sensibilities; but suppose a man says
it does not appeal to his sensibilities, as Martin
Luther did when he rejected the Epistle of St.
James; then surely some external authority must
settle the matter.
Then again, the New Testament was written in
the Church by Churchmen, and has been cared for
ever since by the Church. Before the modem
science of textual criticism was perfected, the only

202 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
assurance that men had that the Bible they read
was the one the Apostles wrote, was the Church's
testimony, certifying that the original documents
were properly transcribed and copied from age
to age, and protected from interpolations or serious
changes. So, as a matter of fact, the individual Prot
estant has got to fall back on the witness of the
Church in determining the preliminary questions
of the identity and inspiration of the Bible, before
he begins to interpret it.
Then in the second place, does it seem likely
that God would leave the individual Christian,
the average busy man, to determine exactly what
the Bible means in its doctrinal statements, when
you remember that it was written in languages
he does not understand, that parts of its translation
are imperfect, and some of the Greek text doubt
ful; that it is not one Book, but sixty-six books;
that it is an elaborate compilation of history, po
etry, and philosophy which belong to other races
and remote centuries ; that it uses words, and refers
to customs, that are obsolete; and that even doc
trine is not stated in systematic form, but only
incidentally and disconnectedly, in sermons, letters,
and official documents; when many passages are
stiU under debate among clever scholars ? Surely
it must be a great undertaking for the individual,
by himself, to adopt the Bible as his creed, and

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 203
attempt to tell just what it means, without any
external help in the matter.
But more than this. If individual interpreta
tion was to be the source of truth for men, directly
from the Bible, how did it happen that the canon
of the Bible was not settled exactly for centuries ;
that its manuscripts were almost wholly in pos
session of the clergy; that printing was not in
vented for fourteen hundred years ; and that until
it was, laymen did not have the Bible as we have it,
to make their creeds from, but learned the Scrip
tures through the oral teaching of the clergy of the
Church, in whose possession the Scriptures had
always been ? The historical position of the Bible
seems to have been from the first inconsistent with
the Protestant theory.
Of course the final test of any theory is the
result of its application in practice. Does the
Protestant theory furnish men with any certainty
as to the truth ? Let us see.
If the Bible interprets itself correctly to the
private judgment of the individual Protestant,
we have a right to expect that it will produce some
unity of belief among Protestants. Now granting
that the Bible is the divinely inspired and only
source of religious truth and revelation from God
to man, we ask one plain question: WHAT
DOES IT MEAN?
You call yourself a Bible Christian. Very
well, then. Suppose you make up your creed out

204 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of the Bible, according to your light. Then cer
tainly you must grant to any other man the same
privilege. Now suppose he happens to differ with
you. Granting that you are equally sincere and
intelligent, who is right? One man studies his
Bible, and becomes a Presbyterian ; another studies
his Bible, and becomes a Baptist; another studies
his Bible, and becomes a Unitarian; another
studies his Bible, and becomes a Roman Catholic ;
and every one of these men will give you what he
honestly believes to be satisfactory scriptural evi
dence, proving the truth of his belief. Each one
regards himself as preeminently a "Bible Chris
tian." Now suppose ten, twenty, forty, or five hun
dred men use your privilege, and all of them differ
more or less from you and from each other, in
their individual conclusions. Who is right ? Then
suppose this process goes on, until every doctrine
of Christianity is subjected to the same treatment,
and yet there is no agreement. You have your
open Bibles, Now we ask, What is the truth?
What authority among Protestants is there to
settle the question? Where in the process does
orthodoxy leave off, and error begin? And what
is to stop the movement, or to prevent the Prot
estant Churches from drifting into rationalism,
pure and simple? What is to save them from a
total collapse of the teaching power?
This is no imaginary supposition, for abroad.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 205
where Protestantism has existed longest and has
had time to work out more fully the logic of its
principles, Protestants have many of them drifted
into rationalism, and denied every characteristic
doctrine of Christianity. If it be replied that the
Orthodox Protestant Churches do agree, for ex
ample, in salvation through Christ, we ask. What
right have you to determine who are orthodox, and
who are not, by this test? The man who studies
his Bible and concludes that he does not believe
in salvation through Christ, has arrived at his
conclusions by the same process by which you have
arrived at yours. A Unitarian or a Universalist
is as consistently Protestant as you are. He has
his Bible, his reason, and his imagination. You
have the same outfit. You use the same process;
you both quote Scripture, and yet you differ.
Unless you have some authority to which you both
can appeal, I fail to see what is going to help you.
Now the Protestant boast has always been, that
it has set the Bible free from the Church, and has
put it into the hands of all laymen, so that every
body could have access to the truth ; but when men
received the Bible as interpreted by the Church,
there was comparative unity of belief; and now
that the Bible is separated from the Church, there
are as many creeds as there are sects ; and nowhere
in Protestantism is there any generally recognized
authority which can define doctrine, or settle the
endless dispute and say what the Bible means.

206 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Suppose we take so simple a statement of Christian
doctrine as the Apostles' Creed. By actual count
it can be shovm that there are between thirty and
forty varying interpretations of that creed, held
by different Protestant denominations to-day ; and
on their own principle of individual interpretation,
there is absolutely no way of finding out which is
the right one.
We may sum up the whole matter in this way :
The Churchman says to the Protestant, You have
no recognized authority for defining and teaching
truth. The Protestant replies. Oh, yes we have;
we all agree that the Bible is that authority. The
Churchman replies. Very well, then, what does
the Bible teach? And the Protestant, if he is
honest, is obliged to say. We are not agreed as to
what the Bible does teacL And then the Church
man says. How then am I to know the truth ? And
to this question Protestants can give no answer.
However strongly and implicitly one may be
lieve that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word
of God, the fact still remains, that as interpreted
by the individual Protestant, it does not and can
not produce unity of belief. Therefore it would
seem that there ought to be some teaching authority
somewhere, competent to tell men what is the truth
of Revelation and the correct interpretation of
Holy Scriptures,
For if God made a revelation of certain truth
which men must accept as the ground of their sal-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 207
vation, that truth certainly must be expressed m
definite terms which men can comprehend, and so
plainly set forth by competent authority, that the
ordinary, hard-working man may have the same
chance of knowing the truth, and accepting it, as
any critical expert scholar ; sure that he has found
it beyond a peradventure, God does not ask us to
do impossible things; and He surely does not
expect the average man to sift the claims of a hun
dred sects and a hundred creeds, in order to form
his own opinion ; and then, after all, to have noth
ing hut his own opinion when he gets through.
What men need is some accredited teacher in
which they can have confidence, which can come
to them and say. This is the truth; and if there
is no such teacher, then one fails to see how they
can be sure of the truth at all, vsdth nothing better
than their own fallible judgments to guide them
in interpreting the Bible.
In many other departments of human knowl
edge, men accept much of what they believe, on the
testimony of some competent authority. For ex
ample, there is such a thing as a code of civil law
by which the affairs of the nation are governed;
but while this system of law is of supreme author
ity, and complete in itself, it has to be interpreted
and applied by a living court of some sort, which
defines what the law means. Any man who at
tempts to be his own lawyer, is generally a fool
for his pains. Now why should we assume, that

208 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
while a living court is necessary to interpret the
law of man, to men, no such authority is necessary
to interpret the law of God to men, but each man
can make his own interpretation, for himself ?
Catholic Churchmen claim that there is, and
there can be, in the nature of the case, only one
remedy for the confused teaching of modern Prot
estantism, and that is, to show men plainly that
God did not make a revelation of truth, incorporate
it in a book, and then leave that book to be under
stood or misunderstood by the individual ; but that,
before God inspired the New Testament at all.
He first created a corporate, living organism, a
court of appeal, which was to exist always, and to
this Church He commits His revelation.
Has, then, the Catholic Church anything better
to offer than individual interpretation as a method
of determining the truth of revelation ? To answer
this, we must go back for a moment, and start
again with our original assumption that our Lord
gave His revelation of divine truth to the Apos
tles, complete in substance, and that the Church
cannot add to that revelation. How then does the
Holy Spirit begin His work? The Protestant
reply was. By inspiring the Bible; but we claim
that something else comes first. In other words,
the Holy Spirit, as we have already shown, guided
the Apostles to complete the organization of the
Catholic Church, many years before a word of
the New Testament was vsritten. When the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 209
Church begins to teach, the Holy Spirit does two
things: He so guides the minds of the Apostles
that they all, everywhere, preach and teach the
same thing, and He so opens the minds of those
who hear, that the Church everywhere receives
and accepts the same oral teaching; "continues
steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine," The Faith
being thus definitely taught, and everywhere re
ceived, must necessarily begin to assume exact ex
pression in creed forms; and to such forms the
Bible frequently alludes, as existing when it was
written. "Hold the pattern of sound words" (II.
Tim. i. 13), "Contend earnestly for the Faith
which was once for all delivered to the saints"
(Jude 3). 'The holy commandment delivered"
(IL Pet, ii, 21).
The Faith would also naturally find its formal
expression through the sacramental formulae
which were necessary for valid administration of
the sacraments ; and in the elemental creeds taught
the candidates for Baptism. So far the New
Testament does not exist, but the Catholic Faith
does, and is expressed in more or less definite
creed forms.
Now the Holy Spirit begins His next work, in
moving certain men in the Church to write certain
letters and historic accounts of our Lord's life, and
in guiding them in the selection of the material,
and in correctly stating the facts with which they
deal. Thus we get the books of the New Testa-

210 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ment Scriptures. These scriptures embody the
Faith already taught, but they do not originate it.
As time went on, there was some dispute or
question, which demanded a further definition of
the Faith, or of some point of discipline; and we
see exactly how the Apostles determined it, by
noting their action at the Council of Jerusalem,
which represented the "Whole Church" ; at which
council the Apostles and Elders announced the
decision thus : "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost
and to us." That is, they distinctly claim that the
Holy Ghost guided their counsels, when the Church
spoke as a whole, through them. When a serious
dispute about doctrine arose, a general council con
sidered the matter, and the creed was further de
fined. Now we must be exceedingly careful to note
on what this decision was based; and what it ac
complished. It certainly did not add anything
new to the Faith: did not pretend to be in any
sense a new revelation of truth. The council was
called for one purpose, and only one; namely, to
bring to a focus, as it were, the teaching of the
whole Church about the matter in dispute ; and so
the voice of the council was regarded as infallible,
only so far as it was representative of the whole
Church, which the Lord had promised to guide.
In the great general councils of the Church, the
question put to every representative was, "What
has always been the teaching about the matter in
your Diocese ?" and if the replies produced a gen-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 21 1
eral consensus of opinion, then it was regarded as
final. But even then the decision of the council
had to be delivered to the Church, and generally
accepted by the whole Church, before it became an
article of Faith.
In this way, the great Catholic Creed of Nicea
was formulated and delivered, before the Church
was divided ; and so it is the teaching of the whole
Church, as finally defined in 451 at Chalcedon.
Now the Catholic Faith of the Church thus de
fined, is not in any sense a rival of Holy Scrip
ture; much less is it an addition to the revelation
of the Bible; but it is the Church's definition of
what she has always believed, even before the New
Testament was written. The Church constantly
verifies it by the Bible, and finds in the Bible
scriptural testimony to its truth.
Thus we believe that the Catholic Faith fur
nishes a standard of interpretation, by which the
Bible may be correctly understood. The Anglo-
Catholic claims that the Church is the "witness
and keeper of Holy Writ," He accepts the Holy
Scriptures as the Word of God, as they have been
interpreted by the Church semper, uhique, et ab
omnibus. That is the true Faith, and that is the true
interpretation of the Bible, which has been held
always, everywhere, and by all Churchmen. Apart
from the Catholic Creeds, such interpretation is
embodied in the decisions of the general councils,

212 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
in the writings of the Fathers, in the liturgies and
offices of the Church, and in her constant tradi
tions and customs: and to these the Churchman
appeals, as giving the Catholic sense of Holy
Scripture. A Protestant might ask at this point, Is not
a modern Christian, with twentieth century schol
arship behind him, far better able to tell what the
Bible means, than one of the Fathers of the second
century? And we reply, No: for the thing we
want is not merely, or primarily, scholarly exegesis,
but contemporaneous testimony, as to how the
Bible was understood, and interpreted, from the
first. The difference between, say, Justin Martyr,
and a modern scholar, is just this : Justin Martyr
is competent to tell how the disciples of St, John
were taught to interpret the Bible, and how it was
imderstood in his time; whereas the modern
scholar, with all his fine exegesis, lives some
eighteen centuries too late, to do anything of the
sort. We do not appeal to the Fathers primarily
for their personal opinion, but for their personal
testimony, as to a matter of fact. And whereas
one of the Fathers might be very deficient in mod
em methods of textual criticism, he might make a
first-rate witness as to how the Bible was under
stood in his day.
The initial mistake of Protestants is, as we
believe, the assumption that the Lord promised
the guidance of the Holy Spirit to individuals.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 213
as individuals, in the interpretation of the Bible.
No doubt the Holy Spirit does help individuals
to enter more fully into the spiritual meaning of
the Bible, and in the understanding of doctrine.
But in the formulation of dogma, the Spirit's
guidance was promised to the Church as a whole ;
not to any one part, or branch of it, not to any
individual in it, be he Pope or layman.
The Church, not the individual, is the organ of
the Spirit's utterance. Individuals might err ; but
against the Church as such, "the gates of hell shall
not prevail" (Matt. xvi. 18). It was to be "the
Church of the living God: the pillar and ground
of the truth" (I. Tim. iii. 15). The Lord was
speaking to the ministerial nucleus of the Church,
when He said, "the Spirit shall guide you into all
the truth" ( John xvi. 13). He was not speaking
to men at large.
The whole Church defines her belief through
a general council. The Anglo-Catholic Church
recognizes the authority of the great general coun
cils of the Church, and accepts their decisions as
binding upon herself. Her appeal, as against the
claims of Rome, has always been to a free and
open General Council of the whole Church. Such
an appeal was made before, during, and after the
Reformation; but in every case it was defeated
by the Popes (chiefly Martin V.), who naturally
were afraid of the result of such open and general
discussion and consideration of their claims, as
a general council would bring out.

214 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Most unfortunately the suspension of inter
communion between East and West and again
between Anglicans and Romans, has rendered the
calling of a general council impossible, at least
for the present age. But fortunately, in the prov
idence of God, before intercommunion was sus
pended, the Catholic Faith had been sufficiently
defined to furnish criteria for the decision of
theological questions, and for the consistent inter
pretation of Holy Scriptures; and however de
sirable another general council might be, such a
council is not necessary at present for the defini
tion of truth, or the detection of heresy. Until
a general council is again possible, local synods
and provincial councils must be guided by the Law
of Catholic consent, as they were, previous to
A. D. 325, and as they have been practically since
A. D. 68L
If you remember how divided Protestants be
came in their belief almost immediately after the
Reformation, and you find a fairly consistent
scheme of teaching voiced by the Catholic Church
everywhere for many centuries, it is difficult to
account for this fact, unless you assume that
some supernatural guidance has been at work, over
ruling the speculations of men, directing their
teaching, and opening the hearts of others, for its
recognition and acceptance. No matter how much
Greeks, Anglicans, and Romans may differ about
some' things, no matter how much Rome may have
added to the Faith, they all still teach virtually

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 215
the same truth about the Holy Trinity, the In
carnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection and
Ascension, about the necessity of Faith and Re
pentance, about the divine origin and authority of
the Church, the functions of the ministry, the
sacramental system, the inspiration of Holy Scrip
tures, the duty of worship, the observance of the
Christian year, and many other matters.
Wherever there is any important difference, as,
for example, between the Anglican and Roman
Churches, we believe it is simply due to the fact
that Rome has in just so far abandoned the rule
of universal consent, and has developed teachings
unknovsTi to antiquity ; because she has practically
committed herself to a doctrine of development,
which makes "an appeal to history treason" ; and
because she has made the definitions of one man
"irreformable of themselves," binding upon her
conscience, without regard to the witness of the
Church. The Anglo-Roman controversy is not the
result of the failure of the Catholic method of
determining the truth of revelation, but is the
result of an abandonment of that method, on the
part of Rome, and the substitution of one dis
tinctly Roman.
In asserting that the Bible does not necessarily
interpret itself correctly to the individual Protest
ant, let it not be inferred that the Church slights
or undervalues the Bible; or that in insisting on
the necessity of Catholic interpretation, we have
any wish to undermine the sufficiency of the Holy

216 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Scriptures, in any way. So far from the Church
neglecting or undervaluing the Holy Scriptures,
the exact reverse is true, as will be seen from the
following facts :
First, every Churchman confesses his belief
in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures when he
asserts in the Nicene Creed that "the Holy Ghost
spake by the prophets" of the Old Testament,
Second, wherever the Prayer Book services
are used in full, every day of the year, at least
four chapters of the Bible are read publicly, as are
also six or eight psalms, and two selections from
the Gospels and Epistles; to say nothing of the
fact that much of the service is in scriptural lan
guage. So a Churchman hears at least ten times
as much Scripture in his Church as a Protestant
hears in his extempore worship.
Third, the Church has a system for setting
forth the great Gospel facts of the Bible, which
Protestantism wholly lacks. The Church takes each
great event of the Gospel, and sets apart a day,
or a series of days, for its commemoration; so
that in the festivals and fasts of the Christian year,
each great Gospel truth is set forth and emphasized
in its chronological order ; beginning with Advent,
which teaches the fact of our Lord's coming, and
then proceeding through Christmas, Epiphany,
Lent, Holy Week, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension,
following closely the Gospel narrative of our Lord's
life. Again it must be noted, that each festival
gathers around it parts of the Holy Scripture

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 217
which refer to its theme. Thus the Church de
velops a marvellous plan of reading and teaching
the Scripture itself, according to an intelligent
system, and so sets forth the whole Scripture as
it bears on our salvation through the Lord Christ,
The priest of the Church is not left to make his
own selections, read his own favorite passages
merely, and give the people just as little of the
Scriptures as he sees fit.
As a matter of fact. Protestantism, which
makes a great show of exalting the Holy Scrip
tures, has absolutely no systematic method of
reading them or grouping them, and a Protestant
hears very much less of them read in public, than
does a Catholic Churchman.
Moreover one of the most notable advantages
of a liturgical system of worship is, that the
Prayer Book constantly rehearses the Catholic
doctrinal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures
before the worshippers, and puts its language in
the mouths of both priest and people ; so that even
if an individual priest should teach some false doc
trine, the Church services furnish the antidote
and correction, which he himself is obliged to
read to his people. The liturgy furnishes the con
gregation with a constant standard of doctrine,
by which they can test the preaching of an individ
ual, and determine its Scriptural character. The
extempore worship of Protestantism furnishes no
such safeguard against unscriptural teaching on
the part of its ministers.

218 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
To put the case in a few words in conclusion :
The Protestant method of getting the truth is indi
vidual interpretation of the Holy Scriptures;
which recognizes no central teaching authority,
and produces no agreement among Christians as
to what the Scriptures teach, and therefore fur
nishes no changeless ground of certitude. The
Roman Catholic method, as we shall find, is, that
truth is defined by the infallible pronouncements
of one man in the Church, speaking for the
Church; for which method we find neither scrip
tural nor primitive authority of any kind; which
breaks down in practice; and which furnishes
no ground of certitude. The Catholic Churchman,
who is neither Romanist nor Protestant, accepts
as the Revelation of God the Holy Scriptures,
as interpreted by the Fathers of the Church, and
the Catholic doctrine which has been held and
taught always and everywhere from the first, in
the Church, and has been voiced by general coun
cils of the whole Church, and formulated in the
Catholic Faith, In this way, and in this way
alone, do we discover any changeless ground of cer
titude, any secure assurance that what we hold
is the revealed truth of Almighty God, as taught
by the Son of God.

CHAPTER XV

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

CHE Roman Catholic theory of determining the
truth of Revelation is expressed in what is
commonly knovTn as the doctrine of Papal Infalli
bility, a doctrine which was formally announced to
the Christian world by the Vatican Council, in
July, A.D. 1870. The statement of it was this :
"It is a dogma divinely revealed, that the
Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra (that
is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and
doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme
Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regard
ing faith and morals to be held by the universal
Church), by the divine assistance promised to him
in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility
with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His
Church should be endowed, for defining doctrine
regarding faith and morals; and that therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre-

220 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
formable of themselves; and not from the consent
of the Church." This is the Vatican decree.
Now we must notice carefully, exactly what
this means; for the ordinary Protestant notion of
Papal Infallibility, is a mistake. Many Protest
ants imagine that Romans claim that the Pope can
not be mistaken in anything he says ; or worse yet,
that he claims to be incapable of sin. This is all
nonsense. The claim of infallibility is this:
That when the Pope speaks with a certain for
mality, as the divinely appointed head of the
Church, and pronounces on questions of faith and
morals for the benefit of the whole Church, he is
saved from error by the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, Outside of such formal pronouncements,
the Pope is supposed to be liable to error ; that is,
when he teaches, not as Pope, but as private doc
tor ; and certainly no Pope ever claimed to be sin
less, at any time.
It is claimed that the Pope of Rome is the
Vicar of Christ, as successor of St. Peter, and the
infallible guide in faith and morals, for all men,
of all time. Now no doubt in some respects it
would seem like a very desirable thing, to be able
to refer all complicated questions and controversies
at once to the decision of one man, who would be
infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost. But the
question is, not whether it would be desirable, but
simply whether God has provided any such short
and easy method of getting rid of doubt, and
solving difficulties, and so allows us to shirk all

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 221
moral responsibility for the effort to find out what
is the truth, in some more indirect fashion.
God's methods are effective; but they are seldom
simple, and never short and easy, in the sense of
demanding no use of our reason, no effort, and
no patience. Has He then, conferred the gift of
infallibility on any one man in the Church ?
We have already seen that there is no scriptural
evidence that St. Peter and his successors were
appointed heads of the Church. Most certainly,
no promise of infallibility was made to St. Peter
personally. So far as the Lord promised the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was to the whole
Church, not to any one part of it, and much less
to any one man in it. Then, too, it is curious, if
for nineteen centuries the Popes of Rome have
been infallible, that the fact should not have been
formally proclaimed to the whole world until July
in 1870, as an article of Faith divinely revealed.
If the doctrine of Papal Infallibility be true,
then certainly it is a very vital matter; and one
would think it ought to have been asserted plainly
by the ancient general councils. But most cer
tainly it was not. Then too, if it was the Pope's
function to pronounce upon doctrine and to de
termine its orthodoxy, how is it that the Popes
did not formulate the creeds; but that when the
Faith required further definition by reason of a
new controversy, it was necessary to call a general
council, and to consult the whole Church, at an

222 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
enormous expenditure of time, and money, and
vitality ?
Probably there never was greater doctrinal dis
cussion and confusion in the Christian Church
than in the second century. The points under
discussion at that time were fundamental. The
Creed was not yet fully formulated, and the canon
of Holy Scripture was not settled, the first general
council had not yet been held. Certainly there
was great need of infallible papal definitions, if
the Church was to determine truth by their aid.
But in this age, there is not the slightest evi
dence that one single point was settled by any such
definition; nor of any supposition that any truth
could be so settled.
Take again the time of the Arian heresy in the
fourth century, when the whole Church was dis
tracted by the denial of our Lord's deity. The
most vital of Christian truths was at stake. The
whole future of the Church depended upon the set
tlement of this heresy. No situation can be imag
ined, in which there was greater need of an author
itative papal definition to restore peace and safety
to the Church; and yet such papal decision had
nothing whatever to do with the suppression of
the heresy, for the matter was settled by a general
council, called by the Emperor Constantine, of
which Hosius was the president. Athanasius of
Alexandria, as we found in the last chapter, won
the victory for the Church, as defender of the
Faith ; while some thirty years later the Pope Li-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 223
berius, signed a semi-Arian creed, and repudiated
Athanasius, In the Xlllth chapter, we also called atten
tion to the fact that the second council of Constan
tinople in 381 settled and defined the doctrine
concerning the deity of the Holy Ghost, and that
the Pope was not even represented in the council.
Thus the two most vital points of Christian doc
trine, at times of the Church's most critical need,
were settled by general councils ; and papal defini
tions served no function whatever. Certainly this
ought to be in itself decisive as against the claim
that papal infallibility is the source from which
the Church receives her Faith.
Surely it would have been much easier, when
these heresies sprang up, simply to refer the
matter to the Pope, and get an official pronounce
ment which would be infallible, and from which
no one could appeal. And yet it seemed never to
occur to any one to do this, during many centuries,
when the Church was torn and distracted by false
teachers and by heresies, and when the function of
papal infallibility would have been of enormous
service. There cannot be any question but that
Pope Liberius signed an heretical creed, and that
Pope Honorius was a Monothelite heretic and was
condemned as such by the sixth general council,
and excommunicated. It would be an easy matter
to prove that various Popes have contradicted each
other in their formal decisions, times without num
ber ; that they have formally committed themselves

224 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
to palpable errors and blunders; and that the
Church has not hesitated to revise their definitions
in any particular case, when they have been in the
wrong. Of course it will be replied by Romans,
that when the Popes thus erred they were not
speaking ex cathedra, that is, with the formality
necessary to infallibility; but that they erred
merely as private doctors, as ordinary teachers,
who are liable to mistakes.
We reply that these pronouncements have been
just as formal as the Popes could make them, that
they have been thrown into the form of decrees
and bulls and pronouncements of the most official
and technical kind, and have been backed up and
enforced by threats of anathema and excommuni
cation. It is impossible to imagine how an in
fallible pronouncement could be given out more
officially, or more formally. So we ask. How are
you going to tell which pronoimcements are infal
lible, and which are not ?
And this brings us at once to a very important
fact; namely, that Romans themselves are not
at all agreed as to what constitutes an infallible
utterance. What does Infallibility mean ? Car
dinal Nevsrman gave one definition. Cardinal Man
ning, another, another writer gives six possible
meanings, and stiU another gives several others.
Then we ask. If you cannot be infallibly sure that
in any given case the Pope is speaking infallibly,
and if you cannot infallibly define just what infal
libility itself means, what possible use is an in-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 225
fallible pronouncement of any sort? Apparently
the Pope himself must infallibly declare that he
is declaring infallibly. But how do you know that
this first declaration, is itself infallible? Appar
ently some infallible authority has got to pro
nounce on infallibility, and so you have two diffi
culties, instead of one. When Roman Cath
olics are pressed with the difficulties, they are
apt to admit that as a matter of fact the Pope
has spoken infallibly only two or three times; but
if this be true, then he has used this wonderful
gift only two or three times in nineteen centuries.
As a matter of fact then, has the infallibility been
of any earthly use as a guide for settling the multi
tude of vital questions, which have clamored for
settlement, in every age of the Church's life ?
To assert that infallibility is the God-given
means of ascertaining the truth for the Church
in matters of faith and morals, and yet to admit
that this faculty has been used effectually only two
or three times, is simply to make the doctrine of
infallibility futile in the extreme. It is to assert
the divine creation, of an enormous inestimable
power, that has been after all practically useless.
So far as history testifies, no vital issue was ever
settled by an infallible decree. Some Romans go
so far as to say that the Pope has spoken infal
libly only once; and that, when Pius IX, in 1854,
decreed the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin Mary,
It is said by Romans that when the Pope pro-

226 CATHOUC PRINCIPLES
noimces infallibly upon matters of faith and
morals, he does not teach new truth, but merely
declares explicitly, what has always been held im
plicitly by the Church from the beginning. But
how can you know that any given doctrine was
taught implicitly, that is informally, from the be
ginning, when there is no mention of it in the Holy
Scriptures, or the creeds, or the early Fathers, or
the devotional formularies of the Church; and
when, after it is first suggested, it is condemned
by some of the Popes, and is controverted by great
doctors, long before it gains any hold in the
Church ? If the Pope finally pronounces upon it
and supports it, then he certainly adds a new doc
trine to the Catholic Faith; and who can tell
where such a process shall stop, or what may be the
Roman creed five hundred years hence? What
security is there for knowing the truth in the Ro
man Church ?
Suppose for a moment that the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility is true, has it secured doctrinal
stability for the Roman Church? Has it taught
always and everywhere the same thing? Let us
see what are the facts of the case.
The old doctrine of the Church was, that the
invariableness of its teaching rested on two things :
the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the Apostolic
Fathers, and the Catholic teachings of the whole
Church, everywhere from the first. These two
things furnish an invariable standard by which
any one doctrine may be tested. But the decisions

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 227
of the Pope of Rome, as infallible teacher in faith
and morals, are, as the decree says, "irreformable
of themselves and not from the consent of the
Church," That is, after he has cut himself loose
from the Bible and the Church, there is nothing
left by which the Pope's definitions can be tested.
The first example of a papal definition of doc
trine made independently of a council occurred in
1854, when, under Jesuit influence. Pope Pius
IX. declared that the doctrine that the Blessed
Virgin was "preserved in the first instant of her
conception from all stain of original sin, . . .
was revealed by God, and is therefore to be firmly
and steadfastly believed by all the faithful."
We must be careful to note exactly what this
doctrine means and involves. Anglican Church
men do not deny that the Blessed Virgin may have
been so sanctified by the Holy Ghost, that she was
preserved from actually committing sin, though
this is merely a pious opinion. What the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception affirms is, that she
did not inherit original sin, a sinful nature, the
taint which has been transmitted from Adam ; and
if this be true, then it would seem to follow that
the Blessed Virgin, and not our Lord, is the start
ing point of our redemption ; the beginning of the
new humanity, the second Adam ; and that the in
herited taint of sin was cut off by Mary, not by
Christ ; and that from Mary we inherit the new na
ture, rather than from Christ. Now of this doc
trine, there is not the slightest hint in the Bible ;

228 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and when it first began to be taught, it was contro
verted and disputed. St, Ambrose, St Augustine,
and St, Thomas Aquinas, taught the contrary ; and
the whole Greek Church has always repudiated it.
It virtually contradicts one of our Lord's unique
attributes, namely, that He alone was bom without
taint of sin.
If this doctrine be true, then salvation begins
with the Blessed Virgin, rather than with Christ ;
and yet this doctrine was proclaimed in 1854, as a
dogma divinely revealed.
If it is the function of the infallible voice to
teach the truth, it must equally be the fimction of
such a voice to condemn that which imperils, or
denies, the truth ; and as a matter of fact, the Popes
of Rome have been very free to condemn that which
they believed to be error.
Let us take, now, that peculiarity of the Ro
man Church which to an Anglo-Catholic Church
man is perhaps the worst feature of modern Ro
man error, namely, the so-called "Cultus of the
Blessed Virgin Mary." Anglicans admit at once,
and teach, that the Blessed Virgin is worthy of all
possible reverence and love which one human being
can pay another, simply because God has chosen
her to be the mother of the Son of God, His in
carnate Son, She is thus the most exalted, the
purest, the most holy of women, the first of saints :
and so worthy of "all but adoring love." Roman
Catholics will tell you that they merely ask the
Blessed Virgin Mary to pray for them, as they

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 229
would ask any saint to pray for them; and that
they honor her, because in exalting her they indi
rectly bear witness to the truth of the doctrine of
the Incarnation. But is this a true statement of
the case ?
Is the Cultus of the Blessed Virgin confined
within these limits ? Most certainly the apostolic,
primitive Church believed in the doctrine of the
Incarnation, and no definition of the Church has
ever gone beyond St. Paul's statement of the doc
trine; and yet there is not the slightest hint in
any of the writings of the Apostles, of anything
remotely resembling the modem Cultus of the
Blessed Virgin.
In 1803, the Roman congregation of Rites at
Rome decreed that in the writings of St, Alphonsus
Liguori, there is not one word that can justly be
found fault with. Pope Pius IX. made Liguori
a Doctor of the Church on this supposition, and
therefore approved his writings.
Among these faultless writings, there is a book
called the "Glories of Mary," a formal theological
work in which we read :
"Queen, Mother, and Spouse of the King: to
her belong dominion and power over all creatures.
She is Queen of mercy, as Jesus is King of justice.
In the Franciscan chronicles it is narrated that
brother Leon once saw a red ladder on the top of
which was Jesus Christ; and a white one on the
top of which was His Most Holy Mother; and
he saw some one who tried to ascend the red ladder.

230 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and they mounted a few steps and fell ; they tried
again and again fell. They were then advised to
go and try the white ladder, and by that one they
easily ascended: for our Blessed Lady stretched
out her hands, and helped them, and so they got
safely to Heaven. . , . , Mary is our only refuge,
help, and asylum, God before the birth of Mary
complained by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel,
that there was no one to rise up and withhold Him
from chastising sinners ; but that He could find no
one, for this office was reserved for our Blessed
Lady, who withholds His arm until He is pacified.
Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus
preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call
upon her name, than we should if we called on
the Name of Jesus our Saviour. Many things are
asked from God, and are not granted; they are
asked from Mary, and obtained. At the com
mand of the Virgin all things obey, even God, The
salvation of all depends on their being favored
and protected by Mary. He who is protected by
Mary will be saved ; but he who is not will be lost.
Mary has only to speak and her Son executes all."
Such is Liguori's teaching under the Pope's
sanction. The very last words which the Roman ritual
puts into the mouth of a dying man, are these:
"Mary, Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, do
thou protect me from the foe, and receive me in
the hour of death,"
Whatever explanations Romans may give of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 231
their prayers to the Blessed Virgin, the fact still
remains, that precisely such prayers as are ad
dressed to God, are addressed to her. This is ob
vious from what has been given; and all this
amounts to a revolution of the Christian Faith, in
making Mary, a more than half divine mediatrix.
There is not one word in the Holy Scriptures to
sanction this cultus. The Bible does call her
"Blessed among women," "The Mother of the
Lord," and asserts that she was "full of Grace,"
"highly favored," and that the Lord as a child,
but only during His childhood, was subject to her.
But our Lord said, when some one extolled His
Mother, "yea, rather blessed are they that hear
the Word and keep it." And at the marriage of
Cana, our Lord refused to permit even His Mother
to suggest to Him what He should do. From
Whitsunday, when the Church begins its work,
there is no further mention of the Blessed Virgin
in the Bible, Nothing whatever is said of her.
If we turn to the writings of the Fathers, we find
that there is nothing in the least justifying the
Roman doctrine, for over four or five hundred
years, in what they wrote, and that when it first
began to be broached, it was controverted as a
novelty and a heresy.
But the dreadful thing about this doctrine is,
that it ascribes powers and attributes to the Blessed
Virgin, which belong to God alone; it represents
the Lord Christ as stern and hard, and the Blessed
Virgin as kind and loving; it makes her a me-

232 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
diatrix between us and Christ, and makes Him
alter His will at her demand. The Blessed Vir
gin is said actually to have a coordinate share in
our redemption, with the Lord Christ Himself.
Dr, Pusey in his Eirenicon, quotes abundant proof
of this fact, as for example, from De Salazar of
the Roman Church in Spain, as follows :
"And since she had this in common with
Christ, that she is said really and perfectly to have
given and offered the price of our redemption"
(i. e., her Son), "therefore she bears, together with
Him, all the titles and names which are wont to
be ascribed to Christ, and is rightly called Re-
demptress, Restoress, Mediatress, Authoress, and
cause of otfr salvation" (Eirenicon, p. 157-158).
Again, in the Encyclical of 1849 Pope Pius
IX., addressing the whole Roman Church, we
read: "Ye know very well, venerable brethren,
that the whole of our confidence is placed in the
most Holy Virgin, since God has placed in Mary
the fulness of all good, that accordingly we may
know, that if there is any hope in us, if any grace,
if any salvation, it redounds to us from her; be
cause such is His wiW, who hath willed that we
should have everything from Mary" (Eirenicon,
p. 123). Surely the witness of a Pope is unimpeachable
as to what is the authorized teaching in the Roman
Church. Of course there are other points of doctrine in
which the Anglican Church differs radically from

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 233
Rome; but we are dealing at this point, not so
much with individual doctrines, as with the Ro
man principle of defining doctrine, and we have re
ferred to the Cultus of the Blessed Virgin merely
to show that the Roman theory of getting the
truth through the infallible pronouncements of one
man, fails utterly in protecting the Church from
serious error; and leaves us in entire doubt as to
what will be the faith of the Roman Church in
the future. There is no secure anchorage of the
Faith apart from the witness of Holy Scripture
as interpreted by the Fathers and the universal tes
timony of the Church from the first, Rome's
boast of always teaching the same thing, is easily
proved to be futile, when she is brought to the test
of universal Catholic tradition, and the distinctly
traceable growth of false doctrine from age to age,
Rome is fond of taunting us with the fact that
there are wide differences of opinion tolerated in
the Anglo-Catholic Church; but the difference is
a thousand times less, than the difference between
the teaching of the Roman Church to-day, and the
Catholic Church of the past. The Anglican
Church may tolerate important difference of be
lief; but she certainly is not committed to the
principle of development, nor to the doctrine of
infallibility, which render all security impossible.
Roman Catholics sometimes admit that the
Anglican Church teaches "most Catholic doc
trines," but they affirm that Anglicans select these
doctrines from the Catholic Faith, by their Individ-

234 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ual private judgment ; whereas the only true basis
of Catholic belief, is authority; and assert that
unless Catholic doctrine is accepted as defined by
authority, holding and teaching it, it is a purely
Protestant proceeding, and furnishes no basis
whatever for certitude. The reply to this is very
obvious. Of course Roman Catholics mean by
"authority,"the authority of a papal definition
"irreformable of itself," "independently of the
Church" ; whereas Anglicans mean by authority,
the authority of the Catholic Church, as expressed
in Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Creeds and
the consensus of tradition, which has been voiced
by the general councils. Even as late as 1851,
Dr, Wiseman, Cardinal Archbishop of West
minster, could vtrite as to the method of settling
disputes in matters of faith :
"The method pursued would be, to examine
most accurately the writings of the Fathers of the
Church, to ascertain what in different countries,
and in different ages, was by them used; and the
collecting the suffrages of all the world, and of all
times — not indeed to create a new article of Faith
— but to define what has already been the Faith of
the Catholic ChurcL It is conducted in every in
stance as a matter of historical inquiry; and all
human prudence is used to arrive at a judicious de
cision." Thus the Roman Cardinal expresses the An
glican position or method of determining what is
of authority. We have already shown that the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 235
deity of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost, were
defined by the authority of general councils and
that a papal definition had nothing whatever to do
with formulating the Church's faith, in these vital
matters. Our reply then, is, that Anglicans accept the
Catholic Faith in its entirety, on the authority of
the Catholic Church, as the Faith is set forth by
the Church itself ; and it is exactly for this reason,
that Anglicans refuse to accept the definitions of
one man in the Church, independently of the
Church, Moreover, previous to 1854, when the Pope
defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
not one single doctrine of the Roman Church
had ever been received by papal definition, inde
pendently of a council; and so when Romans
speak of "authority," they use the word in a
strictly modern and limited sense, which is Ro
man, but not Catholic, To assert that there can
be no Catholic authority apart from papal defini
tions, is historically so inaccurate as to be absurd.
Again, Romans often point to differences of
opinion which are tolerated in the Anglican
Church, as if the Church in tolerating them com
mitted herself to error, or sanctioned heresy. There
are two or three things to be said in answer to this.
First, the actual doctrinal differences held among
Anglicans are constantly exaggerated by Romans,
for purposes that of course are quite obvious.
Then, we are not disposed to deny that there is.

236 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
at present, a lack of doctrinal discipline in the
Anglo-Catholic Church, which is greatly to be re
gretted. But we affirm that this is a matter which
Avill correct itself, as time goes on, because the
teaching of the Church itself, in its authorized
formularies is conspicuously orthodox, so that no
charge of heresy can be brought against it.
Moreover this is exactly the reply of the
Roman Church, under certain circumstances, when
she is charged by Anglicans with teaching certain
false doctrines. For example : some years ago,
Dr. Pusey published quotations from accredited
Roman writers, giving certain doctrines concern
ing the Blessed Virgin, which seemed to be but lit
tle short of blasphemous. Cardinal Newman
replied, that we must distinguish between that doc
trine which was tolerated by the Church, and that
which was de fide, i.e., the teaching of the Church
itself; between individual errors, and corporate
definitions; and if such distinction is legitimate
in freeing the Roman Church from the charge of
error, why is not the same distinction legitimate
when applied to Anglican teaching? Certainly
no eccentric teacher in the Anglican Church has
ever taught anything much worse than the Co-
presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Sac
rament of the Altar, which has been at least sug
gested in the Roman communion.

CHAPTER XVI
THE MINISTEY OF THE CHUECH
771 E HAVE found how the Church receives
W and defines the Revelation of Jesus Christ,
through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Now
it is necessary to find how and through whom she
teaches the faith. We must remember that the
Church is not merely a library of inspired books
and documents for the consultation of students and
experts, but it is a great living organism, and
must teach hy a living voice in all ages.
Our Lord said. Go preach the Gospel to every
creature; and men were told not merely to read
the Bible, but to hear the Church ; and so it is ob
vious that there must be some ministerial order of
men who shall be authorized to teach the Faith,
and bring it to bear directly on the hearts and lives
of men, by personal witness, unto the uttermost
parts of the earth. If laymen are to feel any
obligation to follow and obey this teaching, the
teachers must be able to show that they have re-

238 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ceived a commission from the Lord Christ, author
izing them to teach in His Name. When a man
is made a minister of Christ, the Holy Spirit does
two things: First, he puts the thought into the
man's heart, that he ought to become a priest ; and
thus the man is impelled to seek Holy Orders,
This is God's call, or vocation. But vocation does
not give authority to preach. Then secondly, the
Holy Spirit gives the man the grace of Holy
Orders, the stamp of priestly character, through
ordination; by which our Lord's commission to
teach is transferred to him by the Church, and this
is called mission. These two things are necessary ;
the man must be called, and he must be sent.
The ordinary Protestant idea seems to be, that
vocation, or the inward call, makes a man a minis
ter of God ; and that ordination is simply the pub
lic act on the part of the congregation, or of the
Church officers, by which (after the man has been
examined by them) they certify to their belief
that he has been truly called of God to preach
the Gospel,
In other words, ministerial character or author
ity, according to Protestants, really depends on
vocation or the inward call, and not primarily on
ordination, A Catholic Churchman replies to this
assumption, that the inward call may be sufficient
evidence to the man himself that he is to be a
minister of Christ; but it certainly cannot be to
anybody else, because no one can see his heart.
Moreover, after a while the man may find that he

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 239
was mistaken about the inward call. Was he then
really a minister of Christ, and are we to be left
in utter uncertainty about it ?
We have found that the Church is a great
visible Kingdom, and it follows that if we are to
know who are its visible officers, there must be
some visible sign or act which we can see, by
which the officer is commissioned; otherwise we
cannot be sure of his official character. No man
is an officer of a Kingdom just because he thinks
he is, or because he believes that God wants him
to be, or that he ought to be. The inward call of
the Holy Spirit, by its very nature, is out of the
reach of proof or disproof; and so cannot be of
any use to us, however much it may satisfy the
man himself. There must be something else be
sides the inward call.
Take ordination, then, by delegates from the
congregation. Does this give ministerial author
ity? Certainly not; because laymen cannot pos
sibly give that which they never had, that is, min
isterial authority. A stream cannot rise higher
than its source ; and a layman who is ordained by
a layman, must be a layman still.
If, then, the inward call does not convey
authority, and the congregation of laymen cannot
give it, surely it must come from the persons who
do the ordaining, who were themselves officials of
the Church, Very well; now the question is,
where did they get it ? And if we reply, as appar
ently we must, that they got it from those who

240 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ordained them, then certainly we are at once com
mitted to the principle of authority transmitted
from person to person, through ordination. In
other words, we virtually hold a doctrine of Apos
tolic Succession.
Now a chain cannot hang in mid-air; it must
be attached somewhere, to some point of suspen
sion. Transmitted authority must start from some
original source; and if, as we found, it cannot
begin with a layman, where can it begin, short
of the Lord Christ, who, as we have found, chose
twelve men, and ordained them by an outward
sign, and said to them, "As My Father hath
sent Me, even so send I you" ? If you can trace
your ministerial pedigree back to this source, then
you can certainly prove your right to teach in
Christ's Name, but not otherwise ; and so a Church
man says to a man who claims to be a minister on
any other basis, "You may be a very good and
holy man. We do not question this in the least.
You may also be called in your heart by the Holy
Spirit, to preach the Gospel. We cannot know
anything about that, one way or the other. What
we want, is the credentials of your official author
ity. You may be called. You must be sent.
WHO SENT YOU?"
This question is far more vital than at first it
seems ; because, how is any layman to know that he
fulfils his duty in obeying and supporting those
whom the Lord sends to represent Him, when he
obeys and supports you ? How is he to be sure of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 241
receiving the grace of valid sacraments at your
hands, unless you prove in some way that you in
herit the Lord's commission to administer Sacra
ments in His Name ? The Government of the
United States cannot be sure that it is dealing
directly vsdth the Empire of Great Britain, through
its Ambassador in Washington, until the creden
tials of the Ambaissador's authority have been
passed upon and certified. How is any layman
to have any security of hearing the truth from you,
unless you are sent by the great teaching body
which the Holy Spirit guides, and which must put
the truth in your mouth, and see that you teach it,
just as it is given you to teach ?
You must claim to speak by some authority.
If you come to me in your own name, then you
cannot expect me to listen to you, any more than
to any other layman. If on the other hand, you
come and claim to speak in the Name of the Lord
Christ (and this is a tremendous and very awful
claim for any living man to make), then you are
bound to give me some reasonable credentials of
your authority so to do; credentials which are
tangible, and subject to ordinary laws of evidence,
which I can test, accept, or reject, as I deem best.
Before I can render you my allegiance, as repre
senting the Lord, I must be sure of your authority,
beyond a doubt.
To this demand, a Protestant may reply. Even
if we cannot trace our ministry back to Christ's
original commission, you must admit that the

242 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Lord has blessed our ministerial work, and so has
accepted us, as His servants, whether we inherit
an outward commission, or not'
We reply that when God established a new min
istry of any sort. He always gave its members a
special gift, to prove their authority before men.
He enabled them to work miracles, Moses proved
his commission by working miracles ; the Christian
Apostles proved their commission at first by work
ing miracles, and the commission being thus as
serted, the power was taken away, God's blessing
tupon conscientious work does not make a man a
minister, otherwise all earnest men who did any
religious work, would be ministers, de facto.
Now we must turn to the Holy Scriptures, and
find out, if we can, how the Christian ministry
originated, what was its commission, and how it
was to be perpetuated from one age to another ; and
it will be necessary to repeat here, part of what
was said in the Vth chapter, concerning our
Lord's acts and words in selecting and sending
the ministry of His Church,
He begins by selecting twelve men, to whom
He gives the technical name of Apostles, They
are His constant companions, and receive His con
stant instructions. He promises them, that He
will build His Church, and will ratify in heaven
their ministerial discipline on earth; saying,
" Then apparently we must wait to see whether a man
succeeds or fails before we can determine whether he is a
minister or not. How much success settles the question?

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 243
"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound
in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt xviii. 18).
After He rose from the dead, on Easter night.
He said to them, "Peace be unto you: as the
Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And
when He had said this. He breathed on them, and
saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost;
whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto
them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained" (John xx. 21). Just before our Lord's
Ascension He said to them again, "All authority
hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth.
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded
you ; and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18-20).
Again He says to them, "Ye shall receive
power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you:
and ye shall be My witnesses, both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the utter
most parts of the earth" ( Acts i. 8).
Notice that our Lord ordained these men by an
outward sign (breathing on them), with ordaining
words, and a gift of the Holy Ghost ; and thus He
conveys to them His own authority, commissioning
them to remit sins, to baptize, to teach; and He
promises to be with them alway, unto the end of
the world. Before this. He had promised to ratify

244 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
in heaven their exercise of discipline in the
Church, and had bade them offer the Holy Eucha
rist in remembrance of Him, This endovsTnent
of authority to represent Him, to teach in His
Name, was so real, that He could say to them, "He
that heareth you, heareth Me ; and He that despis
eth you, despiseth Me." Here, then, we have the
original and only historic commission of the Chris
tian ministry, conferred by the Lord Himself;
the one source and pledge of its authority.
Was this authority to be transmitted by these
men to others, so that the ministry should perpetu
ate itself from age to age ? Notice our Lord prom
ises to be with them, and they were to witness to
Him unto the uttermost parts of the earth in place,
and to the end of the world in time. Then if this
be so, they must live always, and go everywhere,
or else the order to which they belonged must con
tinue always and extend everywhere throughout
the world.
The continuity of the Apostolic order is in
volved in the terms of the Apostles' commission.
And moreover, they unquestionably believed that
it was to be continuous, for immediately after the
Lord's Ascension they begin at once to expand the
ministry, as if by His express direction, electing
Matthias to the "apostleship" (Acts i. 25). Paul
and Barnabas are afterwards added to the twelve.
After Pentecost, they ordain seven deacons, and
elders in every city; and so we have the three

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 245
orders of the Apostolic ministry : Apostles, Elders,
and Deacons.
We have a plain instance of the transfer of the
Apostolic office, from the Apostles to the second
generation of Apostles (so to speak), when St.
Paul ordains Timothy, by laying on of hands, and
says to him, "Stir up the gift that is in thee
THEOUGH the putting on of my hands" . . . "given
thee WITH the laying on of the hands of the pres-
bytery^' (II. Tim, i, 6),
That is, the ordination gift of the Holy Spirit
is conveyed through St, Paul's Apostolic hands,
while the presbytery lay on their hands with him
as a sign of their assent to the ordination. This
is the custom of the Church to-day, St. Paul also
ordains Titus, and to both Timothy and Titus,
he gives authority to ordain, charge, and rebuke
elders or presbyters, and to superintend the doc
trine and conduct of Presbyters and Deacons; in
short, what amounts to episcopal authority, over
both Elders and Deacons. So if Timothy and Ti
tus were not Bishops, their commission, and their
position in the Church, is wholly inexplicable.
The ancient historians agree that Timothy was
Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete,
In the Book of the Revelation of St, John, each
one of the seven Churches of Asia is represented
as having a chief pastor, who is called an Angel or
Messenger; who is held responsible for all the
clergy in his city; and who could not thus be held
responsible, unless he was in a position of author-

246 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ity over them, and exercised episcopal supervision
(Rev, ii, 1),
If ft is said that in the New Testament the
names bishop and presbyter are sometimes applied
to the same person, and that the inference is that
all presbyters were bishops, or that there were no
bishops at all, we reply, that a confusion of names,
is not necessarily a confusion of things; and that
we are not after names, but facts ; and that if an
order of men be given episcopal oversight over
presbyters or elders, we have the unquestioned fact
of Episcopacy, and it matters not an atom what
you call that order, as long as it exists, and exer
cises distinct functions as an order, superior to
Presbyters, At first the officers of the Church
seem to have been called Apostles, Elders, and
Deacons ; and then, later, the term Apostle was re
stricted to the original twelve, and their successors
were called Bishops ; so that the three orders were
universally called Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
in the next generation; and we believe that this
form of the Christian ministry is the only one rec
ognized by the Bible as prevailing through the first
century. We come now to consider the Presbyterian the
ory, and it is this. Most of the eminent Presby
terian scholars admit that from the year 150, Epis
copacy prevailed throughout the world, in East and
West ;' and that no other form of the ministry was

° See Timlow's Plain Footprints.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 247
knovsm until the Reformation, that is for fourteen
hundred years. Their supposition is, that the
original ministry of the Church, being presby-
terian in form, individual presbyters, who pre
sided in presbyterian assemblies, gradually ac
quired power and authority over other presbyters,
until Episcopacy was developed: and that this
change took place between the death of St. John in
the year 90, and the year 150. In other words,
this radical revolution in the original form of gov
ernment, was accomplished in about sixty years.
If this supposition be correct, then several
things necessarily follow. First, that our Lord's
original institution was subverted and revolution
ized by His followers, almost immediately after
His departure ; and that such a revolutionary con
dition continued without interruption for fourteen
hundred years, and existed everywhere throughout
the Church. We ask, what was the Lord's will in
the matter? Had He abandoned His Mystical
Body, or was He powerless to prevent this complete
thwarting of His original purpose? Then, sec
ondly, it follows that all the great Fathers of the
early Apostolic Church were prevaricators; for
they testify to the existence of episcopal govern
ment from the first Why should men who gave
their lives for the Church, deliberately connive to
misrepresent its history and to pervert its true
nature ? Thirdly, if such a revolution took place,
it must have been accomplished in a very short
time, without protest or disturbance of any sort

248 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
or description; for there is absolutely no record
of any such disturbing process in Church history.
Suppose that some modern Presbyterian minister
should begin to claim superior authority over his
fellow ministers, and so to start a movement for
the establishment of Episcopacy, in the Presby
terian Church. Could he do it without protest?
Would not the attempt stir up a tremendous pro
test, and opposition? The whole Presbyterian
Church would be shaken from end to end, and
would go to pieces under the strain, if the move
ment were strong enough to hold out.
Yet we are asked to believe, that just this thing
occurred in the early Church within a few years,
and that no serious protest was offered, no opposi
tion was made. No record of the change can be
found, and men everywhere wrote and spoke in
absolute ignorance of any such occurrence.
Then, fourthly, we are asked to believe that at
the Reformation, the original and primitive pres
byterian government was re-discovered and re
established by an ex-monk and a French layman,
although the immediate result of this restoration
was the division of Protestant Christianity into a
multiplicity of sects which acknowledged the au
thority of no one ministry of any sort or descrip
tion; and which cannot even agree as to what
makes a man a minister of Christ. The assump
tion that the original structure of the Church was
presbyterian, is beset with altogether too many his
toric difficulties to make it even credible to a

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 249
Churchman. The ordaining function has always
from the first been the office of the highest or Apos
tolic order, exactly as it appears to be in the New
Testament. Moreover, it must be carefully noted
that the Reformers did not start out in the first
place by announcing that the Presbyterian system
was the only true one. They endeavored to per
petuate Episcopacy, and acknowledged that their
system was defective without it ; and so when they
found that they could not get episcopal orders, they
became Presbyterians from necessity, and not from
choice. The Presbyterian theory was historically
an after-thought, invented to fit the case of sects
who could not get Bishops. Calvin, Beza, and
others, practically admitted the truth of this when
they expressed themselves as desiring to retain
Episcopacy, as necessary to the Church,
Again, it must be noted that the Methodist
body is really presbyterian in its ministry, because
it began at the hands of a presbyter, John Wesley,
who certainly did not possess, and could not give,
episcopal authority.
In the General Conference of 1792, the follow
ing question and answer were inserted in the Dis
cipline: "If by death, expulsion, or otherwise,
there be no Bishop remaining in our Church, what
shall we do?" Answer: "The General Confer
ence shall elect a Bishop, the elders or any three
of them that shall be appointed by the General
Conference for the purpose, shall ordain him, ac
cording to our office of ordination." This is

250 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
equivalent to a rejection of the historic doctrine
of Episcopacy as being a self-perpetuating order,
superior to Elders or Presbyters, Methodist his
torians assert that "Presbyters and Bishops were
of the same order; and the doctrine of uninter
rupted succession from the Apostles, in a third
order, by triple consecration, as distinct from and
superior to Presbyters, has been discarded by many
of the most eminent ecclesiastical writers as resting
upon no solid foundation, not being susceptible of
proof from any authentic source." " So our asser
tion is proved; namely, that so far as historic or
ders go, the Methodist Church is Presbyterian in
form, and not Episcopal, according to the original
and universal meaning of the word Episcopal,
Wesley's own position seems to have been in
accordance with this. In England he recognized
that the Bishops by the law of the land had the sole
right to ordain. But for the needs of America he
held that as a Presbyter he had Scriptural author
ity to ordain as much as any Bishop. He preferred
the title Superintendent when he commissioned
Dr, Thomas Coke, but he meant by this title the
same as Bishop. Coke's doubt as to his position is
shovsm by his negotiations with both Bishop White
and Bishop Seabury as to episcopal ordination for
himself and others.
Apart from the question as to the rightful min
ister of Ordination, it must be remembered, that

'Hist. M. E. Oh.; Nathan Bangs.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 251
a minister of the Church is, as St, Paul says, a
Steward, A Steward is a Trustee, and a Trustee
is one who is entrusted with the care of property
which belongs to another. He cannot use it for
himself, or give it away as he pleases. He is au
thorized to use the income for the heirs of the
estate, and for no others. If he uses his authority,
or power of attorney, to alienate any part of the
property, he is guilty of fraud, and forfeits his
office. No minister can act independently of the
Church which gives him his office and makes his
tenure of office dependent on his loyalty to the
Church. If an officer in a lodge of Free Masons were to
attempt to use his authority to found a Chapter of
Odd Fellows, his act would be null and void. So,
ministerial authority can be used to perpetuate the
old Church, and never to found new ones.
The ministry is an integral part of the great
organism; and cannot he separated from it, or used
apart from its original intention, any more than a
man's backbone can he extracted, and used for an
other man.
So that if Wesley could ordain, he could only
act as representing the Church to which he be
longed, from which he received his orders, and as
authorized by the Church, to perpetuate the
Church, Did the Church authorize him to ordain
Coke ? Certainly not. Has the Church ever recog
nized the validity of Methodist orders ? Most cer
tainly not. Then what could Wesley's action

252 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
amount to? Whatever authority Wesley had, he
derived from the Church of England, and he held
it subject to the laws of the Church of England,
and could exercise it only with the Church's con
sent. The Church never gave Wesley authority to
ordain anybody, to any office, of any sort or de
scription. What has just been said is sufficient answer to
all those sects that claim to be able to trace a pres
byterian succession in their ministry, or an epis
copal succession, like the Reformed Episcopalians,
Supposing they could do this, it would be of no
use to them, as long as such succession was used
to perpetuate a new sect, separate from the Chutch,
the very existence of which Scripture forbids as
sinful. Moreover, Protestant denominations which
claim some sort of presbyterian succession, refute
the significance of their own claims by admitting
the validity of the ministry of those sects which
make no such claim, and whose ministers are
merely appointed by the Congregation.
This is the place to meet a very common objec
tion to the Church's teaching about the ministry,
its nature and authority. The objection opposes
what it calls "Sacerdotalism," The thing objected
to, seems to be the principle that one man shall
have any authority over another in religious
things, or that one man's salvation should depend
in any way on another man, or on the reception of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 253
sacraments which he administers ; or that any man
should "come in between the soul and Christ."
The best answer is to call attention to the fact
that God constantly deals with men through other
men, and that we are dependent on special orders
or classes of men, for certain gifts of God, whether
we like it or not. For example, there is a min
istry of medicine, and a ministry of law. It is
commonly said that that man who is his ovsm doc
tor, or his own lawyer, is a fool. Interdependence
is the law of life, in every department of it; and
the question is simply one of fact. For if Christ
has sent men to minister in His Name in religious
things, then, as He says, to despise them, is to
despise Him,
If the idea of a ministerial priesthood be ob
jected to, as bringing an order of men in between
the soul and Christ, it must be remembered that
every name used in the Bible to describe the Chris
tian ministry, implies mediate agency of some sort.
For example, all sects call their ministers "pas
tors," But a pastor is a "shepherd" ; and a shep
herd is one whom the ovsmer of the flock has set be
tween himself and his sheep. An "ambassador" is
one through whom a King treats with other nations.
He is a "go-between." A "steward" is one who is
authorized to administer the estate of another. An
"apostle" or a "prophet" is one who is sent by some
one to represent him, to somebody else: and yet
this fact of mediate agency does not in the slightest
degree detract from our Lord's unique prerogative

254 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of being Himself the only true Shepherd, King,
Steward, Apostle, Priest, and Prophet. Why
should it be said to interfere with the soul's direct
communion with Christ, through faith and love
and prayer, to recognize the fact that in certain
respects, the Lord can and does minister to us
through other men ?
When our Lord fed the five thousand. He alone
multiplied the loaves and fishes, but they were dis
tributed to the hungry men through the hands of
the Apostles. Was the food any the less satisfac
tory, or their gratitude to the Lord any the less sin
cere, personal, and direct, on this account ?
Doubtless it requires humility to submit to au
thority of any kind, or to acknowledge any kind
of dependence ; but the initial difficulty is not with
the idea of a commissioned priesthood; it goes
farther back; and starts with the question of sub
mission to the authority of Christ. A man must
become as a little child, in order to take this first
step ; and once having accepted the authority of the
Lord Christ, the question as to how that authority
is exercised is merely one of fact or detail. If the
Lord chooses to use an order of men to minister to
us in religious matters, if He commissions and
sends such an order, then it is the part of Christian
Faith to admit the fact, and to be on our guard,
lest opposition to what we call "sacerdotalism" is,
after all, a spirit of rebellion against the Lord
Himself,

CHAPTER XVII
THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IN THE ANGLICAN
CHUECH
CO most Protestants, the doctrine and fact of
the Apostolic Succession seems to be incred
ible, simply because they fail to understand how
the succession itself was maintained, and what
were the laws and safeguards which insured its
continuity. It is therefore necessary at this point
to ask, granting that our Lord gave a commission to
His Apostles, how do we know that this commission
has been transmitted, by an unbroken succession,
through all the ages, from the first century to the
present time ? How do we know that the chain of
ordinations has been continued, without break or
interruption, and so has secured to Anglican Cath
olics, valid orders and authority to teach in the
Name of the Lord ?
We reply, that by the universal testimony of
history, as soon as evidence is available. Bishops
were always made in just one way, and no other:

256 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
that is, by consecration at the hands of lawful
Bishops. As time went on, such consecration had
to be duly licensed, performed, and recorded, with
the utmost care and formality, before any man
could possibly be recognized as a Bishop anywhere
in the Church, and before he could claim any of the
rights and privileges of his office, perform his epis
copal functions, or become entitled to the support
of the Church.
Consecrations were always public and memor
able ceremonies, and were attested by a long series
of official documents. To assert that a man was a
Bishop, exercising his functions with unchallenged
authority, was necessarily to assume that the old
law of the Church had been complied with in his
case; just as the existence of a human being, pre
supposes the fact of human parentage. The laws
of nature, insuring the perpetuity of the human
race, being fixed and universal, we assume the fact
of lineal physical descent, because anything else is
impossible. So in the Church, we may say that the lineal
descent of Holy Orders is the sine qua non of the
existence of a Bishop. Of course it will be said
that the actual records of most of the early con
secrations have been lost or destroyed altogether;
and so we are left in uncertainty concerning the
succession. But we reply, by asking a question:
If all the records of the elections and inaugura
tions of the Presidents of the United States for the
last fifty years, were to be burned up, would we

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 257
be any the less certain that those Presidents had
been properly elected ? Certainly not ; because we
know that during that time, the same laws govern
ing elections have been in force, and that all elec
tions were carefully watched, and their results pro
perly verified, at the time they took place ; so a
man could become President of the United States
in one way, and only one; and so the mere fact
that he held office during his term, with unchal
lenged authority, is prima facie evidence that his
election was orderly and valid.
Moreover, we have to-day not one single one of
the original manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures;
and yet no Christian seriously questions the fact
that these manuscripts were properly transcribed
for the most part ; and that the Bible we have, is
the Bible the Apostles vsTote ; that it has come down
to us by an unbroken succession of transcriptions
— an Apostolic succession of transcriptions ; if we
may use such an expression.
The Church is the living witness which testi
fies to this fact all along the line ; and in precisely
the same way, the ministerial succession comes
down to us and is certified by exactly the same wit
ness, even though the records of the early consecra
tions have all been lost We are as morally certain
that we have the orders the Apostles conferred, as
that we have the Bible the Apostles wrote : and in
this, as in a multitude of other ways, the Bible and
the ministry are bound up with the Living Church.

258 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
The consecration of a Bishop in England was
always safe-guarded with the utmost care. It was
preceded by a nomination, or license from the
crown to elect, it was conducted with much pub
licity, and every stage of the proceeding had to be
verified and recorded, time and again, in official
records, both of Church and State; and if in any
given case any of these requirements had been
omitted, the Bishop's authority was sure to be
challenged. The very fact that in several notori
ous cases the validity of a consecration has been
challenged, and finally and completely vindicated
by historic proof, is in itself re-assuring as to the
historic validity of Anglican Orders in general.
Having now seen how Holy Orders have been
transmitted from one generation of Bishops to an
other, we must note from whence the Anglican
Church received these Orders, originally. In
studying the history of the Church, we found that
the Church of England as a corporate organization
was originally formed by the union of two Cath
olic Missions: the Celtic, founded by Aidan,
Bishop of Lindisfame (Durham), and the Latin
Mission, founded by Augustine, the first Arch
bishop of Canterbury, Aidan introduced the Celtic
line of Orders, and Augustine, ordained by Virgi
lius, Bishop of Aries in France, introduced the
Galilean succession,
Theodore, the seventh Archbishop of Canter
bury, under whom was brought about the union of
the Celtic and Latin Missions, was consecrated by

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 259
Vitalian, Bishop of Rome; and so he introduced
the Latin succession,
John Moore, the eighty-sixth Archbishop of
Canterbury, with other Bishops, consecrated the
first American Bishops, to receive orders from
the English Church, William White, Samuel
Provoost, and James Madison; and so every
Bishop in the American Church inherits from
them, and, through them, from the Archbishops of
Canterbury, and through them, from the great
Apostolic Sees, authority to minister in the Name
of the Lord, and the grace of Holy Orders.
So if any Protestant asks a priest of the Amer
ican Catholic Church for the credentials of his
authority to teach in the Name of Christ, the re
ply is a very simple one. He says, the fact that
I am recognized by the Bishop of my Diocese, and
allowed to officiate by him, is prima facie evidence
that my orders are valid; because my Bishop rep
resents the Church; and the law of the Church
has always been that no man could officiate as a
priest at its altars, unless he had been properly
ordained by a Bishop, who himself had received
his commission to ordain from other Bishops, in
regular and unbroken succession from Christ
Himself, You can trace back the records of consecra
tions if you like ; and you can see how rigidly the
law was executed, in every age; you can follow
the various lines of succession from different coun
tries as they converge in the Anglican line; you

260 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
can study the Ordinal; but after all, this is un
necessary, for the Church is in possession of all
the facts of the case, and she stakes her very exist
ence on the truth of her pronouncement; and so
her recognition of any man as a priest of the
Church is, as we said, sufficiently satisfactory evi
dence of the validity of his orders. The average
layman is incompetent to investigate or weigh the
evidence in the matter, and he must rely on the_
Church in this, as in most other matters, for his
assurance; and the Church is the only authority
competent to pronounce upon the question.
Now it must constantly be borne in mind, that
the Apostolic succession of Bishops in the Cath
olic Church is not a theory, or a plausible supposi
tion. It is first of all, a historic fact, which must
be encountered and recognized by anyone who air
tempts to study the history of the Church, any
where in the world, from the earliest days. For
as you trace the extension of the Church through
out the world, you find Churchmen everywhere as
careful to transfer Holy Orders, through valid
episcopal consecrations, as they were to hand
down the text of the Holy Scriptures unimpaired ;
or to preach the Faith, exactly as they had received
it, from the original Revelation of our Lord, The
shorter (authentic) Ignatian Epistles, prove to a
demonstration that Churchmen believed from the
first, that the preservation of the episcopal succes
sion was vital to the very existence of the Church;
and if this be true, certainly they would take every

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 261
possible precaution to preserve the valid succession
intact. Ignatius, the disciple of St, John, writes :
"Let all men respect the deacons as Jesus
Christ, even as they should respect the Bishop as
being a type of the Father, and the presbyters as
the council of God and as the college of Apostles.
Apaet feom these there is not even the Name
OF a Church" (Trallians iii).
Moreover, the importance of preserving and
transmitting the episcopal office intact, will be
seen from the fact that Churchmen believed that
the Episcopate was the source of Holy Orders.
Each Bishop was in himself Bishop, Priest, and
Deacon ; and a Bishop alone could confer any one
of the three orders. Moreover, the Episcopate
was always regarded as the bond of unity of the
Church, as Ignatius wrote, "Where the Bishop ap
pears, there let the people be: as where is Jesus
Christ, there is the Catholic Church, The Bishop
is the centre of each individual Church, as Jesus
Christ is the centre of the universal Church."
The Episcopate was to the Church very much what
the backbone is to the body in any vertebrate sys
tem. Again, the Episcopate was regarded as the
custodian of the Faith, and the channel of sacra
mental grace ; for to the Apostolic order was prom
ised the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and to them
was given authority to baptize, remit sin, celebrate
the Holy Eucharist, and to administer all sacra
mental means of grace.

262 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Thus it will be seen, that the orderly preserva
tion and transmission of the Episcopate was re
garded of the highest possible importance. This
fact will appear when we turn to the early writ
ers, like Irenseus and TertuUian. Irenaeus, who
had been taught by the disciples of St. John,
writes 180-185 : "We can enumerate those who
were appointed by the Apostles Bishops in the
Churches, and their successors, even unto us.
The Apostles wished those to be very perfect and
irreprehensible in all things, whom they left their
successors, delivering to them their own place of
government. By this ordination and succession,
the tradition which is from the Apostles and the
doctrine of the truth hath come even to us," *
Again TertuUian, who vsTote in the year 199,
says: "If any dare to mingle themselves with the
Apostolic age, so that they may appear to be
handed down from the Apostles, we are able to say,
let them produce the origin of their churches; let
them set forth the series of their Bishops, so run
ning down from the beginning by successions, that
the first Bishop may have some of the Apos
tles, or Apostolic men who continued with the
Apostles for their author or predecessor. For in
this manner, the Apostolic Churches trace their
origin ; as the Church of Smyrna, having Polycarp,
relates that he was placed there by St. John; as
that of Rome doth, that Clement was in like man-

^ Adv. Haeres, iii. ch. 3d.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 263
ner ordained by Peter. In like manner also, the
rest of them show that they have grafts of the
Apostolic seed, who were appointed to the Episco
pate by the Apostles." ' The testimony of these
two men covers the period from 150 to 200. Euse-
bius, who was Bishop of Csesarea, and a great
Church historian, gives the succession of the Bish
ops in four great Patriarchal sees from the Apos
tles, namely, in the Patriarchates of Rome, Alex
andria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, down to his own
time ; that is, to within twenty years of the Council
of Nicea; and he had access to libraries and ar
chives of both State and Church.

¦ De Praescript. Haeret., ch. 32.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE SACRAMENTAL SYSTEM
TN THE last two chapters, we considered the
ministry of the Church, chiefly as that otder
of men which our Lord commissioned to teach the
Catholic Faith of the Church in His Name, and
to bring it to bear on the hearts and lives of indi
vidual men. But certainly our Lord did far more
than reveal truth; and so His ministry, which
He sends to represent Him, must do far more than
teacL Our Lord does not save men by giving
them a new philosophy of life, or even a new and
correct system of theology. But He saves them
from the power and penalty of sin, through His
Adorable Sacrifice of Himself upon the cross ; and
it is the chief part of His mediatorial work now,
to apply the benefits, won by the shedding of His
precious Blood, to individual men, in every age,
and every place. Does our Lord do this directly,
with each man alone by himself, or does He do it
mediately through His ministry, in the Church?

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 265
The Church, and as we think, the Bible, teaches
that "the principle of the ministry of reconcilia
tion is this : that God is pleased to convey the bene
fits of His redemption from sin, not only directly
from Himself, but mediately, or more indirectly,
but none the less certainly, through the action of
others" ; those He sends to represent Him,
Everyone admits that He uses the preaching of
men as a means through which He gives men
truth, and stirs faith and repentance in their
hearts ; so that one man may thus be instrumental
in the salvation of other men, may thus bring them
to receive our Lord's pardon.
But did our Lord commission His ministry
as priests, as well as teachers? He Himself was
certainly "a Priest forever" (Heb, vii, 17).
God sent Him as a Priest; and He said to His
Apostles, "As My Father hath sent Me, even so
send I you" (John xx. 21). Certainly His min
isters could not make any new atonement for sin,
nor could they offer any new sacrifice. They could
not repeat, or in any way add to, the merits of our
Lord's oblation of Himself. "But if the essence
of all Christian Priesthood is the application to in
dividuals of the one all sufficient Sacrifice, then
He sent them to be priests ; to apply and to plead
the same sacrifice, which He offered on the cross,"
How does the Christian priesthood serve its
priestly function? How is its work related to
the great Sacrifice ? We answer that it is through
what we may call the Sacramental System of the

266 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ChurcL In other words, the benefits of our
Lord's sacrificial offering, the gifts of pardon and
grace, are ordinarily conveyed to men through the
reception of sacraments, which our Lord Himself
ordains, and which His priests administer in His
Name, This brings us at once to the question, Do Sac
raments convey pardon and grace ?
The popular definition of a sacrament is, that
it is a symbolic ceremony instituted by the Lord
Christ as a figure of spiritual truth, to appeal to
the imagination, and so to stimulate faith. It is
a symbol of grace, but not the means by which
the grace is actually given, A child is baptized,
it is said, in the hope that some day in the future
it will be regenerate ; and a man is baptized in the
belief that he has sometime in the past already
become regenerate; but neither child nor man is
baptized that the baptism may convey regenerating
grace when the sacrament is administered.
Now there is, to begin with, a very radical ob
jection to this view that sacraments are merely
figures or symbols, because, if they are, then they
are contrary to the whole essence and nature of the
Christian dispensation, which is one of realities,
not types or symbols. The Jewish system was one
of types, and the characteristic difference between
it and the Christian Church is, that types were
done away, and realities took their place, when the
Lord came to establish His Kingdom among men.
The Protestant idea of maintaining a system of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 267
symbolic rites in the Christian Church, which are
merely sj^mbols, is purely Jewish in its origin and
nature. But if the Christian Church is Christ's
Body, endowed with His life, it must have organs
through which that life operates, nourishes, sus
tains, and perpetuates itself. The only way we
can know any kind of life is through some sort of
organs through which it acts. The strong pre
sumption is, that grace in the Christian Church
will be sacramental grace, that is, that it vsdll be
conveyed under some sort of a visible form, simply
because, as we have proved, the Church itself is
an organism, and represents the Incarnation,
which is an organic fact. When our Lord was
visibly present among men, He frequently healed
men through media of some sort; by the touch of
His Hand, His Garment, the use of His saliva,
or common clay. The use of any medium was
not in the slightest degree necessary or significant,
unless it was meant to enforce the truth that all
grace comes from His Person, and that He is to
work through media in the future, when He should
be mystically present in His Church ; should heal
spiritual diseases through the use of sacraments,
which had outward signs, and which men could see
and touch.
Men often ask, "How can God give spiritual
grace through outward forms ?" We reply, that
it is rather dangerous business to attempt to say
what God will do or will not do, or to ask how
He does what He does. The only question within

268 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
the scope of our intelligence is. What has God
actually done ? And then we must accept the fact
of His doing, just as He states it. To assume
that Christ now, as Man, is so shut up and hemmed
in by the conditions which He creates, that in His
Church He cannot, or will not, give men pardon
and grace through sacraments, is sheer presump
tion. To assume that the sacramental forms are
inconsistent with a high spiritual ideal of religion,
may prove, after all, but the assumption to be
more spiritual than the Lord Himself, if He pro
vides such forms. He only knows what is best
for men; and to set aside mysterious statements
of His, as being only figurative, merely because
they are mysterious, is simply to impeach His
wisdom. No doubt Christ did teach by the use of fig
ures and metaphors, at times when the figurative
character of what He said, would be perfectly
obvious and beyond question, to those who listened
to Him; as for example, when He said, "I am
the door," "I am the true vine." No one with
any degree of intelligence could possibly take Him
literally when He thus spoke. But this attempt to
explain the Lord's words figuratively, in any case
where they are not obviously figurative, is very
dangerous, for this reason: If you are at liberty
to explain what He said about the sacraments
figuratively, why not explain what He said about
His sacrificial death, and His claims as the Son
of God figuratively? In short, where are you

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 269
going to stop, until you explain away the supernat
ural element of Revelation altogether. The whole
genius of rationalism is involved in the liberty to
explain away that which savors of the superna
tural. We are playing with a dangerous tool, when
we attempt to turn mysteries into metaphors, and
so get rid of them.
When we come to consider our Lord's sacra
mental teaching, we must constantly remember
who it is that speaks. We must recall the fact that
in His ovsm Divine Person, He is infinitely mys
terious. If an ordinary man had evolved a new
religion, and had instituted a series of memorial
observances as the founder of a new religion, they
could not have involved any mystery. But when
the Son of God, the Word made Flesh, institutes
a sacrament, or a series of sacraments, and uses
expressions concerning them which associate them
as closely as language can with His own media
torial work of saving and cleansing men, then cer
tainly, those sacraments must have some very won
derful connection vsdth His Divine Person, and
with the application of His Precious Blood, by
which men are saved. He could not use words that
would needlessly mislead anyone; and again we
repeat, that to accept the wonderful mystery of the
Incarnation as a fact, as the greatest of all conceiv
able mysteries, and yet to halt and stumble at sac
ramental mysteries, is certainly a very illogical pro
ceeding. If we can disabuse our minds of all precon-

270 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ceived theories, and take the words of our Lord
and His Apostles about the sacraments just as they
stand, in their ordinary gTammatical sense, one
thing is very certain; namely, that they do imply
that the sacraments are means by which the par
don and grace of God are given to men. Such an
inference cannot be gotten rid of, except in one
way ; that is, by assuming that neither Christ nor
His Apostles meant what they said, but that they
spoke figuratively, obscurely, and through a round
about and very perplexing metaphor, when they
wanted to convey simple truths to simple men, who
would be most apt to take them literally.
Now for the proof of this statement.
Take first the sacrament of Baptism. Our
Lord said, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved" (Mark xvi, 16), Notice, He here puts
Baptism on the same level with, and as being of the
same importance as, faith. But surely. He could
not possibly have spoken of Baptism in the same
breath with such a vital matter as faith, and made
them both conditions of salvation, if Baptism is
only a form. On the contrary, if Baptism conveys
some grace which is generally necessary to salva
tion, then our Lord's association of Baptism with
faith, is most reasonable and natural.
Again our Lord says, "Except a man be bom
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God" (John iii, 5). Now if our Lord
meant, Except a man repent and be converted, he
cannot enter into the Kingdom, why did He not say

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 271
so plainly ? Elsewhere, when He speaks of repent
ance and conversion, there is no ambiguity in His
language. Moreover, what can the material ele
ment of water have to do with repentance and con
version? And yet our Lord mentions both water
and the Spirit, as two agencies, separate and dis
tinct, and yet binds them both together. More
over, "being born," is not a change of heart; but
it is entering into a new life, the life of the Incar
nate Son of God ; and if the word water is merely
a symbol, and not literal water, then it is out of
place: because it is totally inadequate to represent
such a thing as the new birth. But if we assume
that a man who receives the gift of the new Christ-
life, receives it through the Spirit, and by means
of water baptism, then our Lord's words become
plain and intelligible.
In the first sermon ever preached, St, Peter
said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you,
in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost" (Acts ii, 38), Now if Baptism is a mere
form, how can it possibly be administered for the
REMISSION OF SINS ? But if, ou the other hand.
Baptism does convey some cleansing grace, does in
some way apply to the baptized man the benefits
of Christ's cleansing Blood, then certainly men
would be baptized "for the remission of sins," St.
Paul was wonderfully converted, and yet after
his conversion, he was told to "rise and be bap
tized and WASH away his sins" (Acts xxii. 16).

272 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
So that conversion does not complete the spiritual
cleansing without Baptism. Christ is said to
"sanctify and cleanse His Church with the wash
ing OF WATEE BY THE WOEd" (Eph, V. 26), But
a mere form or symbol cannot possibly sanctify or
cleanse anything, in a spiritual sense, A sacra
ment surely can, if it conveys cleansing grace.
Again we read, "that even Baptism doth now save
us" (I, Pet. iii, 21), together with "the answer of
a good conscience towards God," Baptism then at
least must be one of the means by which we are
brought into a savable condition. Again we read,
that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
Body" (I, Cor, xii, 13), "Christ's Body the
Church," and are thus made so really one with
Him that we become "members of His Body"
(Eph, V. 30), Being "baptized into Christ" is "to
put on Christ" (Gal. iii, 27), By Baptism we "are
buried with Him," and "rise with Him" (Col. ii._
12) ; that is, the benefits of His death are so truly
made over to us in Baptism, that we are said actu
ally to die and rise with Him, Thus Baptism
brings us into the most intimate relation with His
Person and His atoning work; and to assert that
any such results could be produced by the admin
istration of an empty form, a mere symbol, is of
course preposterous in the extreme.
Take next Confirmation, When St, Peter and
St, John confirmed the Samaritans, "they prayed
for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost"
(Acts viii, 17), "Then laid they their hands on

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 273
them, and they received the Holy Ghost," When
St. Paul confirmed the Ephesians, he said unto
them, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
believed?" And when they replied in the nega
tive, "Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy
Ghost came on them" (Acts xix, 6), And so Con
firmation appears in Scripture as a sacramental
means of receiving the Holy Ghost, and not as an
empty form, not even primarily as an opportunity
for professing one's faith before men.
Confirmation is called one of "the principles
of the doctrine of Christ" (Heb. vi. 1), and in a
list of such doctrines, is ranked with faith and re
pentance. This could not possibly be the case, if
Confirmation were a mere form.
Take next Absolution. The commission to
remit and to retain sins, primarily in admitting to
and repelling from Baptism, was given by our Lord,
when He ordained His Apostles, and said to them,
"As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye
forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; and whoseso
ever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John xx.
23). If by these words, the Lord meant nothing
more than that the Apostles should tell men that
if they should repent, God would forgive them,
why did He use such ambiguous language, so liable
to be misunderstood ? He said, "Whosesoever sins
ye remit, they are remitted." He did not say. Go
preach that God will forgive all men who repent.

274 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Moreover, it must be remembered that when He
forgave the sins of the sick man, and His hearers
stumbled at His words. He claimed the right to
forgive sin, not as the Son of God, hut as the Son
of Man. "That ye may know that the Son of Man
hath power on earth to forgive sin" ; that is. He
claimed to absolve by a delegated power, which He
in turn delegated to His Apostles, "All power is
given unto Me in heaven and in earth ; go ye there
fore. As My Father hath sent Me, even so send
I you. Whosesoever sins ye remit," etc. And cer
tainly it is no harder to believe that one whom the
Lord commissions and sends can remit sins by
word of mouth to a repentant believer, restoring
him to the Baptismal position he had forfeited,
than that he can baptize with water "for the remis
sion of sins." Baptism and Absolution are alike,
in that they both are means by which the cleansing
Blood of Christ is applied to the individual,
through the ministrations of someone else. Now
St. Paul evidently believed that he had power to
remit sin, when he said to the Corinthians, "If I
forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your
sakes forgave I it, in the Person of Christ" (II.
Cor, ii. 10).
Take next Ordination. When our Lord or
dained His Apostles He said to them, "Receive
the Holy Ghost" (John xx. 22), and He "breathed
on them," His breath being the sacramental symbol
of the gift of the Spirit. When St. Paul had or
dained Timothy, he said to him, "Stir up the gift

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 275
(of the Holy Spirit) that is in thee, through the
putting on of my hands" (IL Tim. i. 6). And so
he claimed to be able to give such spiritual gift, in
ordination,' Now lastly, we come to the Blessed Sacrament
of the Holy Eucharist. When our Lord said,
"This is My Body," "This is My Blood," are we
to take Him as speaking figuratively, or literally ?
In the sixth chapter of St, John's Gospel, our
Lord utters a discourse which seems to be prepar
atory for the institution of the Holy Eucharist,
which followed a year later on Maundy Thursday
night. He calls Himself "the Bread which came
down from Heaven," and asserts, that "the Bread"
which He "will give, is His Flesh." Nowhere else
does He use such language, except in the institu
tion of the Holy Eucharist, where He says, "This
is My Body," "This is My Blood" ; and the Church
has always held that this chapter sets forth our
Lord's teaching concerning the Eucharist,
When our Lord thus taught, how was He to
be understood ? First, He says, "I am the Bread
of Life, which came down from Heaven." And
the Jews stumble at this statement, saying, "Is not
this Jesus, whose father and mother we know?"
They stumbled at our Lord's assertion that He
came down from heaven; that is at His Incarna
tion. But our Lord proceeds, "The Bread which I
' The passage may refer to Confirmation rather than to
Ordination. The sacramental principle affirmed would be
the same in either case.

276 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
will give is My Flesh" ; that is. He directs atten
tion away from His whole personality, to one spe
cial part of it. His Flesh, which He promises to
give them in some way. Naturally they take Him
literally, and stumble at His words, saying, "How
can this man give us His flesh to eat ?" This mys
tery is harder to believe than the other. Notice
well that those who heard Him, thought that in
some way He meant what He seemed to mean, that
He would give them His Flesh to eat; and they
were amazed and offended, and began to turn away
from Him. Remember that He came to teach
these men, and that He loved them, and was in
finitely concerned to save them. What then was
He morally bound to do under the circumstances,
when they were wandering away from Him, slip
ping from His grasp ? Was He not bound to ex
plain their mistake, and say to them plainly, if
such were His meaning: "There is no reason why
you should be offended at My words. They con
tain no mystery. I do not mean what I seem to
mean, I am only speaking figuratively. When
I say that the Bread which I will give is My Flesh,
I do not mean fiesh at all, I mean the bread that I
wiU give is the Bible, or My Spirit, or a sense
of pardon, or saving grace, or comfort and conso
lation, or truth, with which I will feed your souls.
There really is no mystery in My words, nothing
whatever to perplex you, or to stumble at" ? If
our Lord had thus explained Himself, all difficulty
would at once have been removed; and the Jews

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 277
would have been satisfied. But as a matter of
fact, did He so explain Himself? He certainly
did not. Why not ? Simply because no such ex
planation could truthfully be given; for He did
mean what He seemed to mean, that in some way
He would give them His Flesh to eat ; and so He
was obliged to let them go away, just as He did,
without retracting His words, or explaining them
figuratively. On the contrary. He only adds to
the difficulty by saying, "Except ye eat the Flesh of
the Son of Man, and deink His Blood, ye have no
life in you." We read that many even of His dis
ciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard
saying, who can hear it ?"
Could any incident more effectually settle the
question that in this case our Lord meant what He
said to be taken as indicating a wonderful mystery
concerning the nature of the Holy Eucharist ? But
beside all this, we must remember that our Lord
knew all things ; and He knew at this very moment,
when these Jews took His statement literally, that
all Christians in the Church, from one end of the
world to the other, for fifteen hundred years, would
also take His words literally, and believe that in
the Blessed Sacrament, they received the Lord's
Body and Blood; and yet He gives no warning
against this terrible mistake, if it be a mistake.
He says nothing, not one word, when it would have
been such a simple matter to have said plainly that
the sacraments would be symbols, and nothing
more; and so He would have saved generation

278 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
after generation, from a radically false belief.
His true meaning must have been stated at least
once, so that no man could mistake it. Our Lord's
refusal to explain away the mystery of His words,
when such explanation was imperative if it could
be made, is surely decisive as to His meaning.
It is sometimes said that our Lord did so ex
plain His words when He said, "It is the Spirit
that quickeneth. The Flesh profiteth nothing."
But we ask, what living Christian will dare to say
that the Flesh of the Son of God proficeth nothing,
in the sense implied ?
The Church has always held that in the Holy
Eucharist, it is the Holy Spirit that quickeneth.
His power is invoked upon the elements of bread
and vsdne, that they may become to us, the Body
and Blood of Christ, The Holy Spirit brings
about the sacramental Presence of our Lord, as
He was the means by which the Word was made
Flesh, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. If we
can think of our Lord's Flesh as existing apart
from the operation of the Holy Spirit, for one sin
gle moment, surely it would profit nothing; but
the Church never has done this, and cannot do it
without denying the Catholic Faith, So these
words cannot possibly be construed as if by them
our Lord intended to retract all that He had just
said, concerning the life-giving property of His
Flesh, Our Lord's teaching in the sixth chapter of
St. John finds its fulfilment in the institution of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 279
the Holy Eucharist, m which our Lord "in the
night in which He was betrayed took bread; and
when He had given thanks. He brake it, and said,
This is My Body, which is broken for you ; this do
in remembrance of Me, In like manner also the
cup, after supper, saying. This cup is the New
Covenant in My Blood, This do, as oft as ye drink
it, in remembrance of Me, For as often as ye eat
this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the
Lord's death till He come" (I. Cor, xi, 23-26).
This account of the institution of the Holy
Eucharist was given to St. Paul by special revela
tion from the Lord Himself ! And St, Paul adds,
"Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the
cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
Body and Blood of the Lord." Guilty, not of
irreverence merely, but guilty of one particular
thing, namely, of sin against the Body and Blood
of Christ, Now how could anyone be guilty of
the Body and Blood of Christ, when he ate this
bread, and drank this cup unworthily, unless this
bread, and this cup, actually conveyed the Body
and Blood of Christ?
Again St, Paul says, "He that eateth and
drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to him
self, if he discern not the Body" (I, Cor, xi. 29).
That is, not discerning the presence of the Lord's
Body, Now surely, no man by receiving mere
symbols, could eat and drink judgment to himself.
Such an expression would be preposterous. The
use or misuse of any symbol could not of itself in-

280 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
sure either salvation, or condemnation, to anyone.
But if the bread and wine actually conveyed the
Body and Blood of Christ, then the abuse and un
worthy reception of these things, must certainly
bear very closely on the question of salvation or
condemnation. Again, St Paul says: "The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not a communion (or partici
pation) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which
we brealf, is it not the communion (or participa
tion) of the Body of Christ ? Seeing that we, who
are many, are one bread, one body ; for we all par
take of the one bread" (I. Cor, x. 16), Here he
asserts that partaking of the sacramental bread, is
the source of unity. Eating common bread to
gether, might be a symbol of unity, but it never
could be the source of unity ; and if participation
in the same sacrament made all Christians one
Body, then the sacrament must convey some super
natural gift, which bound them all together.
In answer to this line of argument, it is often
replied. The Lord said, "I am the door" ; "I am
the true vine"; when everybody knows He spoke
figuratively; and in this figurative sense He said
of the bread, "This is My Body," But notice
carefully our Lord's words. He did say, "I am
the true vine," that is, the reality of which the
ordinary vine is a type and figure. To make His
sacramental words correspond He should have
said merely, I am the true bread; and we would
know He was speaking figuratively. But what He

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 281
actually said was, "This is My Body" ; and to
make this expression analogous. He should have
said, "This door is Myself"; and "This vine is
truly Myself," which He did not say at all. So
there is no analogy between these two expressions,
"This is My Body," and "I am the true vine,"
When the Church asserts her belief in the pres
ence of the Body and Blood of the Lord, under the
forms of bread and wine, in the Holy Eucharist,
and, refusing to rend His adorable Personality, as
serts the fact of His sacramental Presence, we are
often met with this objection: God is everywhere
present, and He is no more present in one place
than in another. He does not dwell in temples
made with hands, and He can be as truly wor
shipped with the thoughts of the heart anywhere,
as in the sacrament. We cannot localize or limit,
the Presence of God,
We reply. Certainly not. Nevertheless, the
fact of God's omnipresence does not in the least
prevent Him from establishing certain means of
special access to Himself, certain points of special
approach and contact with Him, in time and
space, when He assures us of such contact by
outward signs. The Lord was everywhere pres
ent; and yet at the same time He was specially
present in the manger at Bethlehem, and on the
Cross at Calvary. So with the glorified humanity
of our Lord. Because it is enthroned at the right
hand of God, at the highest place, that is, of honor
and of power. He can vouchsafe its presence where

282 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
and how He pleases, and sacraments He ordains as
special meeting-points with Himself.
If the question be asked how and in what way
is the Lord present in the sacrament, our reply
must always be, that the Church as a whole refuses
to define the nature of the Lord's presence. She
does not say, that He is present by "Transubstan-
tiation," or "Impanation," or "Consubstantia-
tion." She believes and teaches the fact of His
presence, without professing to understand the
mode of that presence. She affirms that it is ob
jective, and not a subjective consciousness ; that it
is real, and not imaginary ; that it is mystical and
spiritual and not material, and beyond this she
cannot go.
Just at this point a Protestant may say. You
interpret what Christ says about the sacraments
literally, while equally intelligent and scholarly
men interpret the same passages as being figura
tive. How can I decide who is right?
We reply. You cannot decide the matter on
the Protestant principle, because the argument
which seems conclusive to one man, may not to
another. And so right here is a good illustration
of the difference between the Protestant and the
Catholic way of settling the matter ; for if you dis
pute the sacramental interpretation, the Catholic
Churchman appeals at once to that which alone
can settle the matter, namely, the constant teaching
of the Church from the very first, explaining the
sense in which the Bible is to be understood. Has

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 283
the Church always taught the doctrine of sacra
mental grace ? Most certainly it has, always,
everywhere, and among all people, from the very
first, when her first teachers were in personal con
tact with those who wrote the New Testament,
down through every age. From Ignatius, Justin
Martyr, and Irenaeus, down, nothing can be more
certain than that the Church taught that in Bap
tism the new birth of spiritual regeneration was
given, and that in the Holy Eucharist the Lord
Christ was truly present to offer Himself to and
for men. There was no other teaching about the
matter anywhere throughout the Christian world
for over a thousand years. This sacramental
teaching was affirmed and reaffirmed in the earliest
commentaries on the Bible, in the writing of the
Fathers, and in the liturgies and formularies of
the Church, as well as in the homilies of its pas
tors. This settles the question for a Churchman;
and it is the only possible way it can be settled.
If the Holy Spirit has ever produced unanimous
consent in the mind of the Church, it certainly
has in this case, that God gives grace through sac
ramental media.
Two very common objections ought to be con
sidered here. If God gives grace ordinarily neces
sary to salvation through the sacraments, are we
not forced to believe that every unbaptized man
is lost? No, certainly not; for multitudes of un
baptized men are such, not from choice, but from
ignorance, or defective education, or the lack of

284 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
any opportunity to learn the importance of Bap
tism; and no man can be condemned for that for
which he is not himself responsible. God is not
bound in such cases by the limitations of His own
system, however much we are who are brought into
intelligent contact with it; and we hope and be
lieve, that in some way, God will ultimately com
pensate all men who love the truth and seek Him,
for what they lose through ignorance of the
Church, But, mark you, such a man is in a far different
position from one who, knowing the truth, and
coming into contact with the Church, learns its
full teaching, and then deliberately rejects it and
refuses to receive its sacraments. Such a refusal
is very perilously near to rejecting the Lord Him
self, if we are to take what He says of the Church
as the truth.
Another objection to the sacramental system
is this : Men say, "I believe in spiritual worship,
and I do not want to have any forms come in be
tween my soul and God."
Certainly not, if the sacraments are mere
forms; but if they are means by which the Lord
assures us of His nearness, and brings us into
spiritual touch with Himself, then they cannot
come in between us and God ; on the contrary, they
bind us to God. This objection springs from the
failure to realize the true nature of the sacraments ;
and if it applies at all, applies to the Protestant

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 285
notion that sacraments are only empty forms. Men
talk about spiritual worship without forms; but
it is doubtful if any Protestant ever has such an
intense realization of our Lord's real presence as
an object of worship, as does the Catholic Church
man when, in the Holy Eucharist, he believes that
his Lord comes to him, as at no other time, and in
no other way. The whole Eucharistic action, with
its beautiful symbolism, its stately liturgical order,
its solemn progression toward one supreme thought
and fact, is but the means by which the imagina
tion is roused, and the heart is lifted into a sense
of the Lord's presence, from which, finally, all
consciousness of form is banished, and one "sees
no man save Jesus only."
This, of course, must be experienced to be
understood; but it is the truth, and the all-suffi
cient answer to the dread of formalism interfering
between the soul and God in worship.
Here we must meet one more objection which
is frequently made. If the Catholic Church pos
sesses any special means of grace, why do not those
who have access to them, show signs of greater
holiness than they do?
We reply, the system is not at fault, neither has
God's promise failed ; but human nature is weak ;
and God's grace cannot act, unless men will co
operate with it. Churchmen fail lamentably to
use the grace God puts within their reach. We
are not concerned to maintain our own holiness, or

286 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
to deny that at certain periods, the spiritual life of
Churchmen has been at a very low ebb. On the
contrary, we are inclined to call attention to this
very fact; because it is such marked evidence of
the vitality of the Church itself, of the presence
of the life of Christ within her ; for no matter how
sluggish she has been, no matter how worldly or
corrupt her clergy have become at times, the spir
itual stirring which has renewed her has sprung
from within, not from without. One of the most
convincing proofs of the divine character of the
Church, is just this sacramental vitality, this
power ultimately to overrule the follies of her own
children, to survive and assert her power, to cast
out the evil, and renew her own life, when men
have thought she was dead or dying, and have
done what they could to destroy her. She never
could have survived the shocks and sins of the nine
teen centuries, unless she had had the Lord Christ,
and the Holy Spirit in her. Men are constantly
pointing out defects in the local workings of the
Church system: faults and foibles of her clergy,
controversies between her members, sins and
narrovsmess of her laymen, but all this is nothing
new. It is exactly what our Lord Himself said
would happen in the history of His Church, when
He foretold the co-existence of good and evil, in
the one Fold, It only goes to show the inherent
vitality of the Church, by which she can rise su
perior to weakness, and grow and flourish as she

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 287
does.° Sects rise, flourish for a few centuries, and
then disappear, as if what life they had was ab
normal and ephemeral; and when they commence
to disintegrate, they show little power of recupera
tion. We deplore the inconsistencies of Church
men. We admit with shame much that can truth
fully be said of their weakness and selfishness in
every age. But the more the existence of human
weakness in the Church is emphasized, the more
necessary it becomes to assume the existence of
some supernatural power in the Church, which
could counteract and overcome this weakness, and
inspire the Church's missionary success, and fire
the devotion of her martyrs, and form and fashion
the character of her saints, and save and vindicate
her Faith in the midst of widespread heresy, and
convert and uplift men, and satisfy souls hungry
for knowledge of God, The sins of Churchmen
have been so great, that if the Church were of hu
man origin, she would have perished a thousand
years ago. But though wounded in hands, and
feet, and side, she is still the Body of Christ ; and
like Him she is divine; and proves her divinity
by her power of resurrection from the dead, of her
own past.

^Bishop Williams of Connecticut used to say; "A dead
body cannot have boils. Boils are not pretty, but they are
evidences of vitality, and nature's effort to eliminate poison
from the system. A Church with no imperfection, no diffi
culties, is a dead Church."

CHAPTER XIX

saceificial woeship

TN THE last chapter, in speaking of the Blessed
Sacrament of the Altar, we endeavored to show
that the only consistent interpretation of Holy
Scripture, as given by the Fathers and accepted
by the whole Church from the first, leads us to
believe that our Lord gives us His Body and His
Blood under the forms of bread and wine, in the
Holy Eucharist ; and so is Himself present, not as
a dead Christ, but as our living Lord, to feed us
with heavenly food.
We believe that in this way the Lord responds
to the well nigh universal longing for the manifes
tation of His Presence among men ; for some sign
by which they can apprehend His nearness, and be
sure of receiving His blessing.
This aspect of the Blessed Sacrament is one
in which God is represented as giving something
to us : giving us Himself, the highest possible gift
which He can give.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 289
The question suggests itself. Can we give Him
anything in return? Is there anything perfect
enough to offer to Him? Must the giving be
wholly on God's side? And the answer to this
question brings out another great truth, involved
in sacramental worship, which we must carefully
notice ; and we must ask what is worship ? That
is, what is Christian worship as distinguished
from all kinds of worship which is not Christian ?
Or perhaps, to be more accurate, what is Catholic
worship, in distinction from the Protestant idea
of worship ?
The Protestant as a rule will tell you that he
goes to church to get something : spiritual help and
comfort, the truth of God's Word, new inspirations
for right living, consolation when he is depressed
or disheartened, and answers to prayers of various
kinds. Now no doubt it is right to expect and
ask for all these things when we worship God ; but
as a matter of fact, if such petitions furnish the
only, or the chief motive for going to church, then
worship must be a very selfish thing. On the
other hand, the Catholic Churchman goes to church
not chiefiy or primarily to get anything; but to
give something to God, He believes that he must
give something, before he has the right to ask
anything. He must give his praise, his love, his
obedience, and his dutiful submission, which is
due from a creature to his Creator, He must offer
his thanksgiving for God's mercies, and his body
and soul and his alms, in God's service.

290 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
But right here we encounter a difficulty ; for if
we venture to offer anything to God, we m-ust re
member that nothing is worthy of Him, but that
which is perfect, holy, and without spot or blemish,
or taint of sin. What have we, what power or fac
ulty of mind or body, which has not been stained
or marred by sin, and which is worthy to present
to God ? Has our body shared in no sin, our eyes
gazed upon nothing unlawful, our lips uttered no
untruth, our hearts burned with no low passion,
or malicious hatred, or spirit of envy? Has our
faith never been wavering, our praise faint or
formal, our repentance shallow and soon forgot
ten? If we conclude thau the highest type of
worship is that in which we offer something to God,
we seem to be confronted with the fact, that we
have nothing which is worthy to be offered to Him;
not even ourselves, separated as we are from Him
by our sins. Something must come in between
us and God, and sanctify and cleanse whatever
we offer Him, before He can accept it.
In God's plan of salvation the terrible evil
of sin is met by the great fact of our redemption,
through the precious Blood of Christ. So that
the central fact of Man's redemption is the sacri
fice of Calvary, on our behalf. The Lord Himself
being without touch or taint of sin, offered Him
self upon the Cross, as the one pure offering, per
fectly acceptable to God, for the sins of the whole
world; and if we are to approach God, and offer
ourselves to Him, in some way the merits of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 291
Christ's Sacrifice must be transferred to us as
individuals. We must have some share in offering
this one perfect sacrifice, to God the Father,
Since the time of Abel, God has provided some
act of worship by which the worshipper is brought
into union with the Lord's Sacrifice, and by which
his praise and offerings may thus become pure
and perfect, in God's sight. Whatever virtues
the Jewish sacrifices had, were derived from the
fact that God appointed them as memorials of
the one Sacrifice on the Cross, They constantly
looked forward to it. So in every age, men can
approach God, only as they plead that sacrifice.
Now if all Jewish worship was sacrificial, because
it looked forward to Calvary, must there not be
some distinctively Christian act of Worship, by
which Christian men can plead the Lord's Sacri
fice before the Father, and so share in the merits
of that Sacrifice?
In all our prayers, we ask that God will grant
our petitions for Christ's sake, or through Jesus
Christ our Lord: that is, through the Sacrifice of
Christ; and so all Christian prayer must be sac
rificial : that is, it must be brought into association
with the one great Sacrifice in some way.
The Catholic Church and the Bible teach
that there is at least one act of worship which is
peculiar to Christianity: the only one our Lord
Himself instituted, and, so far as Holy Scripture
testifies, the only act of worship He commanded

292 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
His disciples to observe: and that is the Holy
Eucharist, A Jew, a Mohammedan, a Hindu, might have
a service of prayer; but no one but a Christian
could possibly celebrate the Holy Eucharist, Now
the question arises. Is this chief act of Christian
worship, sacrificial ? Has it any direct connection
with the Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary ? One would
naturally assume, or imagine, that the chief act
of Christian worship on the part of redeemed men,
would have some connection with the chief act
of sacrifice, through which their redemption was
accomplished. The Church has always taught
that the Holy Eucharist is a sacrificial act, for
the following reasons: The prophets of the Old
Testament Scriptures, in speaking of Christian
worship, constantly used sacrificial terms to ex
press its true nature. For instance, Jeremiah,
speaking of the reign of the Messiah, saw under
Him, priests and Levites "doing sacrifice contin
ually," Malachi foretells the offering of "incense
and a pure offering," among the Gentiles, He
says, "The Messiah shall purify the sons of Levi,
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in
righteousness." Isaiah says, "The sons of the
stranger that join themselves to the Lord. , , ,
Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and
make them joyful in My house of prayer; their
burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be ac
cepted upon Mine altar, for Mine house shall be
called a house of prayer for all nations,"

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 293
If we turn to the writings of the great Fathers
of the Christian Church, to the works of Clement,
the companion of the Apostles, of Ignatius, Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, and later, of
Athanasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom, we find
that these men, without exception, regarded the
Holy Eucharist as the great sacificial act of
Christian worship; and moreover all the great
primitive liturgies of the Church use sacrificial
terms in the Celebration itself, to set forth the
meaning of the sacramental action. The Holy
Eucharist was often called "the Holy Sacrifice,"
or "the Unbloody Sacrifice," or "the Sacrifice of
the Altar,"
We believe that the Sacrament is a sacrificial
act, again, because our Lord used sacrificial acts
and words, when He instituted the Holy Eucharist,
Our Lord took bread and brake it, and said, "Take,
eat ; this is My Body which is given for you" ; and
of the cup He said, "Drink ye all of it, for this is
My Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for
you" (Matt, xxvi. 26 ; Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxii.
19; I, Cor, xi, 24), Our Lord's Body was given
as a sacrifice ; and His Blood was shed in sacrifice ;
and His words strictly translated read, "This is
My Body which is being given for you, is being
broken" ; that is. His Body was then and there,
at the time of the institution given and surrendered
to His Father as a sacrifice, by an act of will, on
His part ; though the actual immolation took place
the next day. If Christ thus offered Himself to

294 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
His Father in the Holy Eucharist, and if He told
His disciples to break the bread, as He broke it,
and to say what He had said over the cup, in short
to do what He did, then their act must in some way
be identical with His; and His offering must be
perpetuated in the Holy Eucharist,
In the Holy Eucharist to the outward sign of
the bread is added the inner gift of His Body
broken, and to the wine His Blood shed, separated
from each other, as in His sacrificial death upon
the Cross, and so the Blessed Sacrament is a mem
orial of His death.
Then we believe that the Holy Eucharist is
a sacrificial act, because our Lord instituted it at
the time of the Passover, which was the most
intensely sacrificial of all the Jewish festivals.
He had probably just partaken of the passover
lamb, when He instituted the sacrament; and the
Apostles present must have understood His action
in a sacrificial sense. He Himself is called the
true Paschal Lamb. He is "Christ our Passover,"
and so all Jewish sacrifices are fulfilled in Him.
Then again when our Lord broke the bread and
poured out the wine, as His Body was broken and
His Blood was shed in the sacrifice of the Cross,
He said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." The
word translated "remembrance," is Anamnesis, a
word which is used in the Old Testament to denote
sacrificial remembrance or offering; and the word
translated "Do this" is equivalent to Offer this,
and so our Lord's expression may be translated

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 295
"Offer this as a sacrificial remembrance of Me."
So we believe that while the Holy Eucharist can
not be a sacrifice in the sense that our Lord's death
can be in any way repeated, or that the sacrifice
of the cross is in any way insufficient, or needs to
be supplemented, yet it is a sacrifice, in the sense
that in the Holy Eucharist our Lord's Body
broken, and His Blood shed, that is. His sacrificial
death, is set forth before the Father, by acts and
words, which our Lord Himself prescribes; so
that in the Blessed Sacrament, Christ is both
Priest and Victim ; both that which is offered, and
the one who offers.
In the Jewish ritual, the High Priest on the
Day of Atonement took the blood of the victim
which had already been slain, and entered within
the veil, into the Holy of Holies in the Temple,
to sprinkle the Mercy Seat with the blood; and
thus to plead or present the sacrifice, just offered,
for himself and for his people. So our Lord,
having offered the sacrifice of the Cross, as a
High Priest, "by His own Blood He entered in
once into the Holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us" (Heb, ix. 12), and He as a
"priest forever" (Heb. vii. 17), "having somewhat
to offer" (Heb. viii. 3), and "ever living to make
intercession for us" (Heb. vii. 25), before the
Father, pleads His ovsm sacrifice on our behalf in
Heaven. When St. John had a vision of heavenly wor
ship, he saw "a Lamb (standing) as it had been

296 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
slain" (Rev. v. 6), that is, "The Lamb who taketh
away the sin of the world," carrying on His media
torial work in Heaven.
In the Holy Eucharist our Lord has provided
the means whereby we are allowed to join in His
sacrificial presentation of Himself to the Father;
whereby under the limits of time and space, we
occasionally do that which He is always doing.
In the Holy Eucharist time and space are, so to
speak, annihilated; and every altar in the Cath
olic Church is caught up into union with the
Heavenly Altar; all priests are merged into the
one eternal priesthood of the Lord, and He it is
who offers Himself. He it is who lets us offer
Him. He it is who, having united us to Himself,
in offering Himself, offers us to His Father.
Here then at least, we have one perfect gift,
which we can present to God in our worship.
Here then, we have an offering, in union with
which we can offer to God our prayers, our praises,
ourselves, our souls, our bodies, our faith, our
penitence, and our devotion; because the sacrifice
of Christ cleanses these gifts, remedies their de
fects, supplies their deficiencies, makes them per
fect, and complete, and so worthy of God's accept
ance. "We (Christians) have an Altar" (Heb.
xiii. 10), in the highest and traest sense of the
word on which "we do show forth the Lord's death
until He come" (I. Cor. xi. 26). This, in un-
technical language, is the doctrine of the Euchar
istic Sacrifice ; and this doctrine is clearly set forth

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 297
in the language of the Consecration Prayer, the
Canon of the Liturgy (see Chapter XXL).
If then the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist
is the chief means instituted by the Lord Himself,
by which we are brought into touch with our
Lord's Sacrifice, by which we are allowed to pre
sent it to the Father, and in union with which
we can present our souls and bodies, our alms and
oblations, and our prayers and thanksgivings, then
this service must be the highest possible, and the
central act of Christian worship to which all other
private and public prayers must be subordinate.
It is for this reason that it is the one serv
ice of the Church which Christians are bound to
attend; the service which must precede all others
in importance on the Lord's Day, and which must
be distinguished from all others, and honored
above all others, in inward devotion, outward rev
erence, and orderly ritual. The central and con
spicuous position of the Altar, the vestments, the
lights, the orderly ceremonial, the extreme rever
ence in word and posture, all these things indicate
unmistakably the fact that the Holy Eucharist is
the great Christian Sacrifice, the one distinctively
Christian act of worship in the Catholic Church,
the chief means by which the benefits of our Lord's
Sacrifice on the Cross are applied to the needs of
individual worshippers.
The fact that the Holy Eucharist is a sacri
ficial act, as well as a communion, is the reason
why, when for any reason a communicant is not

298 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
prepared to receive the Blessed Sacrament, it is
far better to remain through the celebration, and
make it a time of special prayer and adoration,
than it is to go away and leave the altar in the
middle of the service, just at that point when the
Lord comes to bless and minister at the altar on
our behalf ; and thus, as it were, to turn our backs
upon Him.
This, mark you, is not in the least to discourage
sacramental communion, but it is to assert in the
plainest terms, that to be present at the highest
act of Christian worship, and remain through it,
whether one communicates or not, is always better
than to turn away from it, as though it were a
matter of indifference to us.
The question is not between "communicating
attendance," and "non-communicating attend
ance," but between "non-communicating attend
ance," and non-communicating non-attendance:
that is, between staying and praying, and going
away and not praying. No one pretends for a mo
ment, that a communicant who remains without
receiving, receives the full benefit of the sacra
ment itself ; but at least, it must be better for such
a person to offer his prayers in union with the
Sacrificial offering, than to go away, and claim no
privilege of any sort; to offer our Lord no recog
nition whatever of His Sacramental Presence: to
neglect altogether the highest act of Christian wor
ship on the Lord's Day,

CHAPTER XX
THE EATIONALE OP RITUAL
771 HEN a visitor who is not accustomed to lit-
%V urgical worship, enters a -Catholic church,
that which impresses him most as characteristic of
its worship, is the use of ritual forms.
They may impress him favorably, they may
confuse him, or perhaps they may strike him as
superstitious, or as savoring of what he calls "Ro
manism," At any rate, they seem to be the most
striking feature of the service which he attends.
It is perhaps natural that he should imagine
that the Church makes a very great deal of the use
of "ritual," and is, as he has heard people say,
"given over to ecclesiastical millinery and formal
ism," Now as a matter of fact, however useful
ceremonial may be, the Church does not value it
for its own sake, and does not give any exagger
ated importance to it. If a priest were to cele
brate the Holy Communion without conspicuous
ritual of any sort, with the woods in place of a

300 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
church, and a rock in place of an altar, the sacra
ment would be valid as an act of worship, and
might be quite as acceptable to God, When
Anglican Churchmen contend for the use of any
point of ceremonial, as they do sometimes, even in
courts of law, or in the face of great local preju
dice, the contention is not for the liberty to use
forms for their own sake, but because the cere
monial represents, and stands for, vital truths,
which must be defended ; because they are part of
the Church's Faith, The American flag is noth
ing but a piece of bunting, and its use is merely
ritual form. But any American citizen would
defend the flag, and resent an insult to it Why ?
Because it is a symbol, which represents the
authority and dignity of the Government of the
United States; and its defence is the defence of
certain vital principles at the basis of free govern
ment and the integrity of the nation.
Churchmen who are accustomed to the use of
ceremonial, and understand what it means, think
very little about it, one way or the other. It is
to them simply a minor part of a great system, hav
ing its legitimate, though subordinate place in
worship. Ceremonial is made conspicuous chiefly
by those who oppose it, not by those who use it.
But supposing it is not of the first importance,
must it therefore be discarded? Has it no use?
We hear men who oppose the use of ritual, some
times contrast the importance of "saving souls,"
with "wasting time about forms and ceremonies" ;

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 301
as if a Church which used forms, could not, and
did not, save souls ; and as if souls were saved just
in proportion as all forms were cast aside. This
certainly is nonsense. There is not the slightest
reason to assume that because men are absorbed in
the great vital issues and interests of religion, the
minor details of it must be neglected; and it is
equally illogical to assume, that because the priests
of the Church provide for the details of a proper
ritual, they therefore neglect the weightier matters
of the law. Public opinion is slowly coming to
admit that there is no group of men in the religious
world who are more in earnest, more devoted to the
poor, more spiritually minded, and more successful
in making converts, than those who have been com
monly stigmatized as "Ritualists."
God, so to speak, spends just as much time, and
thought, and care, in constructing the tiny leaves
of a little fern, hidden in the cleft of some rock
where no man will ever see it, as He does in re
deeming and saving the world ; that is, relatively to
the importance of the two things. God loves care
and perfection in the minutest detail; and to neg
lect or scorn minor matters merely because they are
not vital issues, is the part of human infirmity,
never of the Divine plan or purpose, in religion or
anywhere else.
Wherever organized society exists at all, you
must have ritual of some sort. The customs and
habits of good society are but the ritual of good
breeding, by which men express mutual respect.

302 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
The etiquette observed in military and naval life,
or in official circles at the Capitol, is necessary to
maintain respect for office and authority, vested
in the Government. You cannot possibly abolish
ritual and ceremonial forms, and when the Friends
or Quakers undertook to do this, they adopted the
most formal manner of speaking and dressing pos
sible ; and so made themselves conspicuous by their
Quaker ritual.
The question presents itself. What is the
rationale of ritual which justifies its use in the
worship of the Church? And the answer is, that
ritual of any sort is simply a medium for the ex
pression of truth. Every teaching system has its
symbolism, because truth necessarily clothes itself
in symbols. As a rule, men act as they feel, or
believe ; and if the inspiration of any act prompted
by religious feeling be continuous, or recurs fre
quently, then the act becomes habitual; and the
habit establishes a custom, which the Church
adopts, and regulates by law ; and thus a system of
ritual is developed, through which her teaching
finds its expression. So perhaps we can define
ritual as a system of observances, which appeals to
the imagination and the heart through the senses,
by ceremonial acts or symbols ; and thus both ex
presses and stimulates religious feeling. '
Reverence is not merely the inward and spirit
ual condition of the mind, but it is also the outr

' Gratacap's Philosophy of Ritual.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 303
ward and visible expression of this attitude, in acts
and words. You cannot divorce action from
thought or belief, any more than you can divide
the spirit from the body, and expect the man to
live. The existence of ritual in the Church implies
a constitutional necessity in men, to express their
feelings in outward and sensible form; which in
its turn, stimulates the very emotion it expresses.
This fact needs constant emphasis, because
Protestantism, in its attempt to spiritualize re
ligion, has largely lost sight of the essential con
nection between the soul and the body ; and there
fore between truth and the things which embody
and express truth. We are not angels or spirits ;
we are men. The soul must always be reached
through the senses, and the spirit must express it
self through these same senses by act and word.
The soul dwells in a material body, and its life
is conditioned by it. God always deals with men
as men, and not as spirits. He teaches them
through the senses in religion, as everywhere else.
The Church's ritual system is built, in the first
place, on this essential necessity of teaching truth
in forms, which the senses can apprehend. Then,
in the second place, beside symbols, there are sym
bolic acts, which take place during worship. The
common Protestant notion is, that worship is
purely a matter of the spirit ; and that outward acts
are of little consequence. But the body is made
by God, is redeemed by Christ, and sanctified by

304 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
the Holy Spirit, It is an essential part of the man
himself, and is to be raised from death. Why
should it not take part in worship, have its own
peculiar duties, its own share in adoration,
acknowledge its own debt, in its own way, by out
ward postures which are expressive of the attitude
of the heart, as in kneeling, standing, and bowing ?
Everyone must certainly have observed the fact
that men instinctively change their attitudes with
changes of their feeling ; and a change of attitude,
prescribed by custom in worship, is the best pos
sible reminder of a change in the character of wor
ship itself.
Whenever God undertakes to cultivate the
religious sense in men, in any dispensation. He
provides a place in His system for a symbolic rit
ual. God's method is illustrated and typified in
His interview with Moses at the burning bush.
There was, first of all, a local manifestation of
God's Presence; then secondly, a special sign of
that presence, "the burning bush" ; then thirdly a
special sanctity conferred by the Presence, "The
ground whereon thou standest is holy ground";
then fourthly, a special ritual act prescribed by
God in recognition of that Presence ; that is, Moses
was told to "remove his shoes from off his feet."
In the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple a special
manifestation of God's presence was vouchsafed in
the Shekinah of light, which hovered over the
mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. This was itself

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 305
a type and promise of the Incarnation, when God
would tabernacle among His people.
Certainly any local sign of God's Presence
calls for special recognition of that Presence ; and
no man in either dispensation, be he Jew or Chris
tian, can believe that God appoints special times
and places and media of peculiar access to Him,
and come into that Presence, with the common
place manners, thoughts, dress, and conduct of
ordinary life. Such a proceeding would be con
trary to every natural instinct of reverence, and
every prompting of faith ; and if a man did it, we
would naturally suspect that he failed entirely to
realize into whose august Presence he had ventured
to come. When God willed to provide a proper and
formal method of expressing reverence for Himself
in worship, two men, on separate occasions, were
allowed to see something of the worship of pure
spirits in Heaven. Moses was taken up on to
Mount Sinai, and to him was revealed a pattern
of worship, which he was to embody in the Jewish
ritual. St. John was removed to the lonely
island of Patmos, and to him was revealed a vision
of heavenly worship. Moses had a vision of the
worship of the Church in its preparatory stage,
and St. John a vision of the worship of the Church
triumphant; and there is a most striking sim
ilarity between these two visions. If God thus
saw fit to clothe the great spiritual truths of wor
ship in a series of ritual symbols which represented

306 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
those truths, must we not assume that such symbols
are not only legitimate in Christian worship, but
that it is God's will that they should be used as
part of His method of cultivating the religious
sense, and as being an acceptable expression of our
reverence for Him ?
In St. John's vision before the throne of God
was seen the Lamb as it had been slain, who ever
liveth to make sacrificial intercession for us. Be
fore the throne of God were seven lamps, which
represented the seven spirits of God. Incense
ascended before the throne, representing the sac
rificial intercession. The worshipping hosts bow
and adore, and chant together with liturgical uni
formity, the Ter-Sanctus, the "HOLY, HOLY,
HOLY, Lord God ALnighty," to the Blessed
Trinity. To assume that the Christian dispensation is so
purely spiritual that there can be no place or func
tion for ritual in Christian worship, is gratuitous
and irrational, simply because Christians are still
men, and are influenced by what they see and hear,
just as Jews were, and express themselves through
outward signs, just as human beings always will.
Neither in nature nor in religion, does God deal
with those He cares for according to one plan up
to a certain point, and then suddenly revolutionize
all His methods, make a break and a leap, and be
gin on a new system, as if the old had been a mis
take, or the men with whom He was dealing had
suddenly become entirely different beings, with

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 307
entirely new needs. What our Lord did, was not
to spiritualize men above the necessity of forms,
hut to vitalize the forms themselves, and make them
means of grace, and symbols of new truth. Had
He disapproved of the ritual principle. He surely
would have condemned it, or have stated plainly
that in a dispensation of grace ritual would
be out of place. As a matter of fact, we know that
as soon as the Christian Church was free enough
from persecution to develop and regulate her wor
ship in accordance with her doctrine, she at once
began to clothe her worship with symbolic ritual,
resembling the ritual of heavenly worship which
St. John beheld. This development was so uni
versal and so instinctive throughout the Church,
that it must have been but the flowering of some
deeply rooted principle, and in accord with the
Lord's will.
Beside the five physical senses, there are three
spiritual senses: the sense of the good, the true,
and the beautiful ; essential parts of human nature,
to which an appeal must be made, and through
which the soul acquires knowledge of God. The
error of Protestantism has been in treating men as
if they were all intellect; as if they could be
preached into the fulness of the higher life by
sheer force of conviction, while the love of the
beautiful in nature, art, and morals, was left to
starve. They failed to see, as Martineau says,
"that the heart is to have the primacy over the
head; that the movement of humanity is from the

308 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
affective life, while the intellectual function is
simply regulative and selective. It is folly to
assume that any growth in refined intellectualism,
can ever render visible symbols of truth and beauty
of God useless, or unworthy attention."
Nature's method of education appeals quite
as much to the eye by its environment, as to the
ear; to the sense of the beautiful, as to the sense
of truth ; and the Catholic Church strives to appeal
to, and educate, the whole man, in every possible
way, through every avenue of approach to the
soul. The imagination and the emotions have a
mighty deal to do with stirring impulses, which
rule the life of the man. Ritual appeals to both,
and stimulates both as no sermon ever can.
A Celebration of the Holy Eucharist properly
conducted, is worth much, not only as an object
lesson in reverence, but also as an effective means
of touching the heart, stimulating the imagina
tion, and bringing home a sense of the nearness of
God, His beauty. His love, and His sanctity, which
Protestantism does not, and cannot give. This is
not a theory, but a simple matter of experience,
to the truth of which, multitudes of men are ready
to testify; who, educated in other systems, have
found in the Church's sacramental worship, that
supreme satisfaction of the whole nature, which
they had always craved. When a man, believing
in our Lord's sacramental Presence, kneels before
an altar made beautiful by the best offerings which
love can suggest and afford, with its symbolism re-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 309
minding him of the glory and sanctity of Him who
is to come; when the stately music touches the
heart and stirs the fount of feeling; when the
solemn reverence of ritual order lifts the soul above
the commonplaces of the world, into a sense of an
awful Presence ; when all this stirring of the whole
nature centres itself around a Person, the ador
able Person of Christ Himself, present as in no
other way, and as at no other time, coming to plead
the supreme expression of His love, coming to bless
and heal, surely there is, and there must be, a
power in all this to lift and stir the soul, which
nothing else can have. For one to assume that in
this there is little that appeals to him, and that it
is therefore useless, or trivial, is simply to make
the limitations of his own mind, the measure of
all men's needs, privileges, and capacities. No
man can judge of the value of ritual, until he
learns what it means, and by its use has been habit
ually educated to some degree of appreciation of
its power and helpfulness.
There are two objections to the Church's ritual
which are very frequently made, even by persons
who are more or less attracted by it. We must con
sider these. First, it is said that the use of rit
ual begets "formalism," Notice, the persons who
say this generally do not use ritual. How then do
they know what it does, or does not do? One is
hardly competent to pronounce upon that of which
he knows nothing at all by experience.
What is formalism? Is it the presence of

310 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
forms ? Certainly not. It is the absence of spirit ;
and for anyone to assume that because forms are
present, spirit is not, is as absurd as to suppose
that because a man has a body, he can't have a
soul, or because he has a brain, he can't have a
mind. If a system of ritual necessarily begets
formality, why did God provide just such a system
for the Jews, and why did our Lord sanction such
a system by His Presence at the Temple worship,
and His personal observance of Jewish ritual ?
No Churchman for a moment denies that ritual
may be abused ; and that men may observe it me
chanically, without appreciating what it means,
in a formal way; and that such abuse would be
bad for anyone who indulges in it ; but is there any
religious privilege or observance of any sort or de
scription, which cannot be abused? A man may
offer an extempore prayer in a Friend's meet
ing house, and the whole thing may be the driest
and most formal observance, unless the man's heart
is in what he says. You cannot get rid of formal
ism, by discarding ritual. The difficulty is with
the man's heart, not the form ; and if the heart is
dead, or formal, then formalism is inevitable under
any system, and is as liable to exist in a prayer
meeting as in a high celebration of the Holy
Eucharist, Another objection which perhaps ought to be
considered for a moment, is this : It is sometimes
said that the use of ritual is contrary to Gospel
simplicity. This is said, not only in opposition

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 311
to the use of ritual, but also to the whole liturgical
and sacramental system of the Church ; and there
fore, it may be well to analyze it, just at this point.
Doubtless the worship of the Church does seem
confusing and elaborate to anyone who has not
been brought up in it, and encounters it for the
first time; but to object to any system because it
requires some study and intelligence to understand
it and use it, and because it does not seem familiar
at first sight and cannot be wholly comprehended
at a glance, is to bring all progress and develop
ment to a standstill; and if it be applied to wor
ship, must necessarily reduce it to the level of the
most stunted intellect and the dullest comprehen
sion, and render it useless as a teaching and uplift
ing power, for the average worshipper. To assert
that God hears the simplest word or breath of
prayer that is offered to Him, is one thing. But
to assert that the sacramental worship of the
Church, approaching the Eternal Father, in the
name of His incarnate Son, and by the power of
the Holy Spirit is without mystery, is easily com
prehensible, is simple in any rational sense, is to
betray an utter failure to comprehend the awful
truths on which our salvation rests. Simplicity
in worship may be but another name for barren
ness ; and the absence of outward reverence, merely
the symptom of a lack of inward reverence, the loss
of spiritual perception of that Holy Presence into
which the worshipper ventures to come.
There is no necessary relation of any sort or

312 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
description between "simplicity" and spirituality.
There may be, however, a very close relation be
tween "simplicity" and selfishness, "simplicity"
and irreverence, "simplicity" and narrow preju
dice, which is largely bom of ignorance.
As the historic ritual of the Catholic Church
developed, dt embodied certain elemental points,
which have been in general use throughout the
Catholic world, in the Eastern and Western
Church, For example, the use of Lights on the
Altar is to signify that our Lord, as God and Man,
is the light of the world. Such lights are used at
celebrations of the Holy Communion, as symbols
of our Lord's Sacramental Presence; just as God
always used some form of light to indicate His
special Presence ; as in the Shekinah, the Pillar of
Fire by night, the burning bush, the lamps before
the throne in St. John's vision, and the glory of our
Lord's Transfiguration.
Vestments are used in different services, to
indicate the official position of the priest who is
officiating : to serve as his official uniform or badge
of office and authority. Special vestments are
used at the celebration of the Divine Sacrifice, in
honor of our Lord's Sacramental Presence; and to
indicate that the Holy Eucharist is a sacrificial act,
by which our Lord's sacrificial offering is pleaded
before the Father,
Wafer, or unleavened Bread, is often used, be
cause it is probably the bread our Lord used when
He instituted the Christian Passover ; and because

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 313
it is less liable to crumble and occasion irreverence
than ordinary bread,
A little water is mixed with the wine at the
celebration in accordance with what was doubtless
our Lord's example, in instituting the sacrament.
Incense (one of the most thoroughly scriptural
symbols there is) is a symbol of the prayers of the
saints, ascending before God, in union with our
Lord's sacrificial offering; and a symbol of spirit
ual cleansing, necessary before one can venture to
approach the altar of God,
Choral worship is the highest and most perfect
form of vocal praise ; and serves to give a distinc
tive character to our intercourse with God, and to
lift it above the commonplace colloquial expression
of ordinary intercourse between man and man.
Beside these symbols there are certain sym
bolic acts which are expressive of the devotional
attitude of the mind, at different parts of the serv
ice. Worshippers kneel in confession of sin, and
in prayer, to express repentance and humility, and
also as an act of adoration of our Lord when He
is present in the Blessed Sacrament. They stand
in acts of praise, and at the reading of the Gospel,
and elsewhere, as an attitude of respectful atten
tion. They bow the head, as in the creed at the
mention of our Lord's Sacred Name, in recognition
of His deity. They use the sign of the cross, as
at the end of the creed and in blessings, to remind
themselves that all possible benediction and bless
ing comes to us through the cross, the symbol of

314 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
our salvation. And so each symbol or symbolic
act sets forth some Christian truth, and serves to
interpret the meaning of the service itself, and to
give it order and dignity, which is befitting all wor
ship of Almighty God. Churchmen make the Altar
itself, and the Sanctuary, as beautiful as possible,
because the Altar is to them the throne of their
Lord's sacramental Presence, and because the
Sanctuary is the Christian Holy of Holies, the
place of meeting between man and God. We be
lieve God accepts such gifts as expressions of love
and devotion to Him, just as our Lord accepted the
costly ointment, which might have been sold (as
Judas suggested) and given to the poor.
The worship of the Catholic Church has always
been liturgical, that is, conducted with the use
of fixed forms of prayer, because only in this way
is it possible to have congregational worship, in
which all the worshippers can take part ; and only
in this way is it possible to preserve that order and
dignity of expression which are necessary in the
public worship of God, to keep it free from the
eccentricities of individual ministers who may hap
pen to officiate.

CHAPTER XXI
THE CATHOLICITY OF THE PEAYEE BOOK
now the question arises, does the American
Church hold and set forth the Catholic theory
of the Church, as correctly expressing her own
position and teaching, or is this theory one which
is foreign to her nature, and one which is held
merely by a party within her which has no author
ity to represent her ?
Of course the appeal must be at once, to that
which is the only authorized statement of the
Church's belief, and that is, the Prayer Book.
This does not voice the principles of any one
party, or any one age ; but it is part of the Church's
historic inheritance, as representing her corporate
teaching from the first. The acceptance of the
Prayer Book is made obligatory, by competent
authority, on all loyal Churchmen; and so to the
Prayer Book we must turn, if we would get an
authorized statement of the Church's position and
doctrine.

316 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
We affirm as a starting point, that the Cath
olic theory of the Church's position and doctrine
not only underlies the whole structure of the
Prayer Book, but that it is distinctly and unmis
takably expressed in the Prayer Book formularies,
from beginning to end ; and that this theory must
be accepted as the true one, by anyone who calls
himself a "Prayer Book Churchman."
This fact would appear with much stronger
emphasis, if we were to make a careful study of
the history of the Prayer Book, tracing it to the
liturgical sources from which its various parts and
offices are derived ; and studying the historic posi
tion and belief of the men who were its compilers.
We would then discover that not only is the Book
itself in harmony with the other great Catholic
liturgies of the ancient Church, but that it was not
composed by Protestants; and the essential parts
and structure of it were determined centuries be
fore modem Protestantism was ever heard of,
either as a theory or as a fact.
This would take much time, and after all is
quite unnecessary; for the Prayer Book as it is,
speaks for itself. We can turn to it at once, sim
ply insisting that its expressions shall be taken in
their ordinary, grammatical, and historic sense.
First of all, we come to the name of the
Church, The word Protestant occurs on the title
page of the Prayer Book; but every liturgical
scholar knows that it does not occur in the English
Prayer Book, from which ours is derived, and

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 317
that as used in our Prayer Book it is equivalent to
"Reformed," or non-Papal, and does not stand for
a denial of the Catholic position,^ The word Prot
estant is rapidly dropping out of current colloquial
use among Churchmen, and is being slowly
dropped from official titles and legal documents
as opportunity offers for disposing of it; and the
whole Church is discarding it as a misnomer, an
unfortunate mistake, which misrepresents both the
contents and teaching of the Prayer Book itself,
and the historic position of the Church in the
United States. And the same title page declares
that the book is "The Book of Common Prayer
... of The Church."
If we turn to the Prayer Book, we find that in
the Apostles' Creed (the creed of the choir-offices),
the Church is called "the Holy Catholic Church,"
and in the Nicene Creed (the Eucharistic Creed),
the Church is called One, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, And so we get the full title —
ONE, HOLYj CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH
And so in her official statement of belief, the
Church names herself the Catholic Church,

^ This is the historical sense in which the word was used
by Bp. Cosin when he said concerning the English Church,
"We that are Protestant and reformed according to the an
cient Catholic Church." (History of Transubstantiation, L,
7.) So Bp. Sanderson speaks of "the right English Prot
estant, as he standeth in the middle between, and distin
guished from, the Papists on the one hand, and the some
times styled Puritan on the other." (Preface to sermons,
1657, § xxi.)

318 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
Never at any time in her history, has she form
ally repudiated the name; never has she surren
dered it to the exclusive use of Roman Catholics ;
and never has the term Catholic dropped out of use
among Churchmen,
In the prayer of the Visitation Office, Church
men pray that they "may be gathered unto [their]
fathers, having the testimony of a good con
science, in the Communion of the Catholic
Church." And certainly, they could not have the
testimony of a good conscience, if they prayed that
they might die in the Communion of the Cath
olic Church, while they believed they belonged to a
merely Protestant Church,
In the prayer for the Unity of God's People,
the Church declares, "There is but one Body, and
one Spirit, . . . one Faith, one Baptism," The
Church is called in the prayer for All Saints' Day,
"One Communion and fellowship in the mystical
Body of Christ our Lord" ; and in the Litany to
divide this body on the Protestant principle is
called the sin of schism. In the Te Deum the
Church is spoken of as the "Holy Church
throughout all the world," that is, it has sanctity
and catholicity. In the prayer to be used at the
meetings of Conventions, the Church assumes the
principle of continuity, asserting that God has
promised through Jesus Christ to be with His
Church TO THE END OF THE WORLD, The ApOS-
tolicity of the Church is asserted in the prayer at
the close of the office for Institution, which says.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 319
God has built His Church upon the foundation of
the Apostles and Prophets. And so the four Cath
olic attributes of the Church, Unity, Sanctity,
Catholicity, and Apostolicity, are recognized in
both the Church's creeds and prayers.
Again, in the Convention prayer the Church
asserts that the "Holy Spirit did preside in the
council of the blessed Apostles," and that God is
to be, "through Jesus Christ, with the Church to
the end of the world," and this fact is the basis of
the Church's claim that she is guided by the Holy
Spirit in the universal consent by which she sets
forth the Catholic Faith, Here is made clearly
enough, the distinction between the Protestant idea
of individual guidance in interpreting the Scrip
tures, and the Catholic principle of corporate gnid-
ance in defining the Faith,
In the Twentieth Article of Religion the
Church's historic relation to the Bible is stated,
when the Church is said to be the "witness and
keeper of Holy Writ." The Preface asserts that to
the Church of England the Episcopal Church in
the United States "is indebted under God for her
first foundation," and that "This Church is far
from intending to depart from the Church of Eng
land in any essential point of doctrine, discipline,
or worship." Here the historic continuity of the
Church, and its unity with the Anglo-Catholic
Church, are most distinctly asserted, and its loyalty
to Catholic traditions is pledged.
It must be obvious then that the Church as

320 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
she defines herself is Catholic and not Protestant,
Take the question of the Church's ministry. The
Protestant doctrine is that the inward call makes
a man a minister of God, and that there is only one
order of ministers. The Catholic doctrine is that
there are three orders, which receive their commis
sion through ordination, at the hands of a Bishop,
The Preface to the Ordinal in the Prayer Book
says that "from the Apostles' time, there have been
these Orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bish
ops, Priests, and Deacons  And to the in
tent that these orders may be continued, ....
no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, ....
except he hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordi
nation," Here certainly the continuity of a min
istry of three orders is most distinctly asserted, as
is the necessity of Episcopal ordination or consecra
tion to transmit the ministerial commission which
makes a man a lawful Bishop, Priest, Or Deacon.
This doctrine is emphasized in the prayer in the
Institution Office, which says that Jesus "has
promised to be with the ministers of Apostolic Suc
cession, to the end of the world." The divine
origin and appointment of the ministry is brought
out in the prayer for those who are to be admitted
into Holy Orders, which says that "Almighty God
of His Divine Providence hath appointed divers
orders in His Church."
Protestantism repudiates any notion of the
minister being a priest, and stigmatizes the doc-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 321
trine as "sacerdotalism." But members of the
second order of the ministry are constantly called
Priests in the Prayer Book. In the Office for or
daining Priests, the candidates are said to be
"called to the office of priesthood," and when they
are ordained, the Bishop says: "Receive the
Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest
in the Church of God, now committed unto thee,
by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou
dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins
thou dost retain, they are retained : and be thou a
faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His
Holy Sacraments, in the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Notice carefully, that in these words Ordina
tion is sacramental, because through it men receive
the Holy Ghost; second, it makes priests of men
who are ordained by the imposition of the Bishop's
hands ; and third, it conveys authority to remit sins
and to administer sacraments.
Protestants constantly deny that ordination
conveys grace that makes priests, or that ministers
have any authority of any sort to remit sins. One
can hardly imagine a formula of a few words, in
which the Protestant position could be more em
phatically denied, that in this formula of ordina
tion. It is Catholic from beginning to end.
In the commission to administer sacraments,
is included the commission to offer the Eucharistic
sacrifice, as we shall see when we come to consider

322 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
the Holy Eucharist. Moreover, every priest or
dained swears that he "will reverently obey his
Bishop, and other chief Ministers who, according
to the canons of the Church, may have the charge
and government over him." And thus the Cath
olic principle of subordination and obedience is
distinctly set forth, as opposed to Protestant indi
vidualism. We come now to the sacramental teaching of
the Prayer Book. The Protestant teaching is
that Sacraments are symbols only, and not means
by which grace is actually conveyed. The Cat
echism defines a sacrament as "an outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given
unto us; ordained by Christ Himself, as a means
whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to as
sure us thereof."
According to Protestant doctrine. Baptism is
a symbol of regeneration, which is synonymous
with conversion, which latter occurs at some other
time than when the Baptism itself is administered.
Conversion being a conscious emotional experience,
an act of faith, children, they hold, cannot be regen
erated in Baptism.
The Catholic doctrine is that Baptism, both in
the case of children and of adults, is the means by
which men are bom again or become regenerate,
are made members of Christ and children of God,
What is the Prayer Book teaching? Take Bap
tism. Article XXVII. says that "Baptism is not
only a sign of profession, and mark of difference.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 323
whereby Christian men are discerned from others
that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Re
generation or New Birth, whereby as hy an instru
ment, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted
into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness
of sin, and of our adoption to be the Sons of God,
by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed,"
In the Catechism the baptismal gift is defined
as a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteous
ness; a sacrament wherein the child is made a
member of Christ, the child of God, and an inher
itor of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Before the child is baptized, the priest is di
rected to pray that "he coming to Holy Baptism,
may receive remission of sin, hy spiritual regen
eration" ; "that he may be bom again, and made
an heir of everlasting salvation." After the child
has been baptized, the priest declares to the wit
nesses, "this child IS regenerate and grafted into
the Body of Christ's Church." Then in his prayer
he thanks God "that it hath pleased Him to regen
erate this infant with His Holy Spirit, to receive
him for His own child by adoption, and to incor
porate him into His Holy Church," Could any
combination of words assert more strongly than,
these, the Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regen
eration, as opposed to the Protestant doctrine of
empty symbolism ?
Take next the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist. The Protestant doctrine, is, that it is
a symbolic rite setting forth to the imagination the

324 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
fact of Christ's death, much as a fine picture of the
Crucifixion would; that it does not convey the
Body and Blood of Christ, but is a mere symbol
of these things ; that the memorial is made before
men, not before God,
The Catholic doctrine is, that in the Blessed
Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord is sacramentally
present; and under the form of bread and wine.
His Body and Blood are given, taken, and re
ceived, and His Sacrifice, once offered on the
Cross, is presented before the Father, as Christ
presents it in Heaven,
What is the Prayer Book doctrine?
The XXVIIIth Article says that "The Sup
per of the Lord is not only a sign . , , , but rather
is it a sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's
death ; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily,
and with faith receive the same, the Bread which
we break, is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and
likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the
Blood of Christ."
In the Consecration prayer, the priest prays
that the Holy Spirit may so bless and sanctify
.... the Bread and Wine, "that we receiving
them . . . . may be partakers of His most Blessed
Body and Blood"; and again that "we and all
others who shall be partakers of this Holy Com
munion, may worthily receive the most precious
Body and Blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ," When
the Bread is delivered to the communicant, the
priest says : "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ,

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 325
which was given for thee, preserve thy body and
soul unto everlasting life." After the Sacrament
has been administered the priest thanks God "that
He doth vouchsafe to feed us who have duly re
ceived these Holy Mysteries, with the spiritual
food of the most precious Body and Blood of His
Son." The Catechism defines the inward part of the
Blessed Sacrament, as "The Body and Blood of
Christ, which are spiritually taken and received
by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."
Now we ask again, if you wanted to assert
the Catholic doctrine of the real objective Pres
ence of our Lord's Body and Blood, under the
forms of Bread and Wine, in the Blessed Sacra
ment, in opposition to the Protestant doctrine of
the real absence of these things, what language
could you use that would be more decisive, and
positive, than that of the Prayer Book ?
Again, the Holy Eucharist is a sacrificial offer
ing made before God. The prayer of Consecration
reads : "Wherefore, O Lord and Heavenly Father,
according to the institution of Thy dearly beloved
Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we Thy humble
servants do celebrate and make here before Thy
Divine Majesty, with these Thy Holy gifts which
we now offer unto Thee, the memorial Thy Son
hath commanded us to make; having in remem
brance His blessed Passion and precious death
. . . And although we are unworthy through
our manifold sins to offer unto Thee any sacrifice.

326 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden
duty and service."
Here the sacrificial nature of the Blessed Sac
rament is distinctly set forth; and such sacrificial
doctrine is emphasized when the celebrant is called
a "priest," and the thing on which the sacrament
is celebrated is called an "altar," as it is in the
Office of Institution. This surely is not Protestant
doctrine. Take next Confirmation. The Prayer Book
Office sets it forth as a sacrament in the sense of
being the outward sign of a spiritual gift. The
selection of Scripture read in the service, sets
forth the fact that the Holy Ghost was given by
the laying on of the Apostles' hands. The Bishop
prays for the gifts of the Holy Ghost for those who
are about to be confirmed ; and after they are con
firmed, he prays again for them "upon whom after
the example of Thy Holy Apostles," he has now
"laid his hands to certify them by this sign, of
God's favor and gracious goodness to them." In
the Office for the Consecration of Churches, the
Bishop prays that those who are confirmed by the
Bishop may receive a measure of God's Holy
Spirit, Protestantism not only denies that the Holy
Ghost is given in Confirmation, but has repudiated
the form of Confirmation altogether. It has no
place in their system.
Take, next, the question of Absolution.
When the Bishop ordains a priest, as we have

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 327
already found, he says : "Receive the Holy Ghost
for the office and work of a priest in the Church of
God. . . . Whose sins thou dost forgive, they
are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain,
they are retained," Here certainly is a commis
sion to forgive sins in some way. When the
priest pronounces absolution publicly in Church,
he says : "Almighty God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ , , . hath given power and com
mandment to His Ministers, to declare and pro
nounce to His people being penitent, the Absolu
tion and remission of their sins," This certainly
is a direct and clear statement. In the exhorta
tion after the Eucharistic office, the priest is
directed to say: "Because it is requisite that no
man should come to the Holy Communion but with
a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet con
science; therefore, if there be any of you who by
this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein,
but requireth further comfort and counsel, let him
come to me, or to some other minister of God's
Word, and open his grief; that he may receive
such godly counsel and advice, as may tend to the
quieting of his conscience, and the removing of
all scruple and doubtfulness,"
In the Office for the visitation of prisoners, the
priest is directed to "examine the penitent whether
he repent him truly of his sins, exhorting him to a
particular confession of the sin for which he is con
demned, and upon confession he shall instruct him
what satisfaction ought to be made to those whom

328 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
he has offended. . . . And after his confession,
the priest shall declare to him the pardoning mercy
of God, in the form which is used in the Com
munion service," that is, in the form of absolu
tion there given. Now while this last rubric refers
to men who have committed great sins and are
under condemnation of the law, still, all men in
the sight of God are sinners. Confession and ab
solution are not penalties, but privileges; and if
the Prayer Book sanctions a privilege to one sin
ner, it cannot deny that same special means of
grace to another, who is penitent. And so the
Prayer Book distinctly recognizes the Catholic doc
trine of Confession' and Absolution, without mak
ing confession obligatory. By no stretch of imag
ination can this doctrine be called Protestant; on
the contrary, it is perhaps the one doctrine of the
Church which has, more than any other, been
feared, antagonized, and ridiculed, by Protestants,
So far as the office of Holy Matrimony is con
cerned, it most distinctly adheres to the Catholic
doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. The
man takes the woman to be his wedded wife "so
'till death
And the priest declares: "those
WHOM God hath joined together, let no man
PUT ASUNDEE," Christian Marriage, according to
the Prayer Book, is sacramental ; for it "signifies

' See Appendix B.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 329
unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ
and His Church," and is "a holy estate."
The Prayer Book recognizes the Catholic doc
trine of the Intermediate State, and of the min
istry of Angels ; asserting that God has "ordained
and constituted the services of Angels and men in
a wonderful order," and praying that "as God's
holy Angels always do Him service in Heaven, so
by His appointment they may succor and defend
us on earth,"
Besides its statements of Catholic doctrine, the
Prayer Book recognizes many Catholic customs
and traditions. For example: "The Church re
quires such a measure of abstinence as is more
especially suited to extraordinary acts and exer
cises of devotion," at certain seasons, and on cer
tain days of the Christian year; and the Prayer
Book prays that God "may give us grace to use
such abstinence," Thus the duty of fasting and
abstinence is recognized. The power of benedic
tion of things set apart for a holy purpose, is
recognized in the office for the consecration of
churches, and in the benediction of the water in
the font before a Baptism, when the priest asks
God to "sanctify this water to the mystical wash
ing away of sin," The use of the sign of the
Cross is sanctioned in the baptismal service; and
the rubric declares that the Church "knoweth no
worthy cause of scruple concerning the same,"
The Church follows the Catholic custom of
praying for the dead, beseeching God "that we.

330 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
with all those who are departed in the true Faith
of His Holy Name, may have our perfect consum
mation and bliss, both in body and soul, in His
eternal and everlasting Glory" (Burial Office), In
the Eucharistic Consecration Prayer, the Church
prays that we and all God's whole Church (which
expression must include the souls in the Church
Expectant in Paradise) "may obtain remission of
our sins and all other benefits of Christ's passion,"
Again Article XXXIV. rebukes those who
through their private judgment, willingly and pur
posely do openly break the traditions and cere
monies of the Church, that are ordained and ap
proved by common authority.
Surely enough has been said to prove beyond
a doubt, that the Prayer Book embodies and sets
forth the Catholic Faith, as the Faith of the Amer
ican Church. It was exactly for this reason that
the Reformed Episcopalians left the Church; be
cause as Protestants, they could not conscien
tiously use Catholic formularies, which stated
Catholic Truth. They were quite consistent in
their action.
If then the Catholic theory of the nature and
organization of the Church is thus incorporated in
the Prayer Book, it must be the teaching of the
Church, and not merely of any one party or group
of men in the Church.
It is sometimes said that certain expressions
in the Thirty-nine Articles seem to contradict the
Catholic teaching of the Prayer Book ; but if such

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 331
expressions were taken in their original and his
toric sense, such appearance of contradiction at
once disappears. For example. Article XXXI. is
sometimes quoted as condemning the Catholic doc
trine of the Eucharistic sacrifice; but it must be
noted that the error condemned is not the doctrine
of Eucharistic Sacrifice, but the doctrine of "sac
rifices (note the plural) of masses." In other
words, the popular notion that while the sacrifice
on Calvary satisfied for original sin, the sacrifice
of each mass was necessary as an oblation for
actual daily sins; and so the repeated sacrifice of
the Altar was necessary, to supplement the insuf
ficiency of the sacrifice of the Cross.
This doctrine implied that each Eucharistic
oblation was therefore in a sense a repetition of
the original sacrifice, or at least a necessary addi
tion to it; and so of course was vigorously con
demned by the thirty-first Article, as a "blasphe
mous fable."
The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Sac
rifice is, that our Lord made upon the cross, by
His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis
faction, for the sins of the whole world ; and that
in the Holy Eucharist this sacrifice is not re
peated; but is offered to the Father, in union
with our Lord's perpetual sacrificial pleading in
Heaven, as a Priest who ever liveth to make inter
cession for us.
Again, it is sometimes said that the Church

332 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
tolerates much difference of opinion concerning
the nature of the Church, its ministry, and its
sacramental system; and this no doubt is true;
but the question after all is not what the Church
tolerates, or what this man or that man, or this
school of thought or that school of thought teaches,
but what the Church herself teaches in her own
authorized standard of doctrine and practice,
namely, the Prayer Book ; and we have shovsm that
the teaching of the Prayer Book is clear and dis
tinct, and cannot possibly be adapted to fit the
Protestant theory, that is, not if words are to be
taken in their grammatical and historic sense, and
language is held to be a medium for expressing
accurate thought,

CHAPTER XXII

IN THE CHUECH

CHERE seems to be no limit to the number of
charges which are brought against the Church,
by those who do not understand her system and
doctrine. Most of these answer themselves, to
any one who takes the slightest pains to appreciate
the Church, from her own standpoint. There is,
however, one charge which is frequently made
against the Church, and which, as time goes on,
will be reiterated, and that is, that the Church, as
the popular expression has it, is "Romish" ; that
it imitates Roman doctrine and practices, and even
that some of its members are "Jesuits in disguise,"
whose purpose is to lead the whole Church gradu
ally over to Rome. Naturally, from a Protestant
standpoint, such a charge, if it can be substan
tiated, would be very damaging to the influence of
the American Episcopal Church ; and it is perhaps
worth while to consider the charge in detail, and to

334 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
see just how much truth or falsehood there is be
hind it.
It is not at all unnatural that a Protestant
should make this charge against the Church, be
cause he is familiar with only two types of Chris
tianity; namely, the Protestant type and the
Roman Catholic type ; and of course, logically, to
him, that which is obviously not Protestant, must
necessarily be "Romish." Consequently, if there
is anything in the American Church with which he
is unfamiliar, he naturally concludes that it must
be an importation from the Roman system. Then,
too, during the Church revival of the past sixty
years, many neglected Prayer Book doctrines have
been emphasized, and certain ancient points of
ritual, as symbolizing these doctrines, have been
restored to their ancient place in the worship of
the Church, from which they were displaced by
the Puritan innovators. To an outsider or a
poorly instructed Churchman, who knows little of
the historic doctrine or ritual of the American
Church, of course any such restoration seems like
an innovation, or perhaps like an imitation of the
Church of Rome, and to indicate a dangerous ten
dency; and so it comes about, that occasionally
devout men are troubled by what is doubtless a
very sincere and worthy anxiety concerning cer
tain "tendencies" which to them appear to con
stitute a movement Romeward. It may perhaps
be wise for us to stop for a moment, and see if
such fears are justifiable.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 335
We have spoken of an anxiety which is sincere,
however mistaken it may be ; and with this alone
we are to deal; ignoring entirely the charge of
Romanism which is constantly made maliciously,
and for the purpose of hurting the Church, on the
part of her enemies ; who know that an appeal to
popular prejudice and Protestant hatred of Rome
is the quickest way to bring any cause or organiza
tion into popular disrepute, and so stop its prog
ress. Failing entirely to meet and disprove the
claims of the Church on Scriptural and historic
grounds, unable otherwise to hinder her marvellous
growth, a certain class of fanatics will resort to
anything to gain their ends ; and often from such
sources comes the cry of "Romanism" in the
Church, With such persons or their methods we
are not in the least concerned in a work of this
kind. Ultimately they defeat their own purposes.
What we ought to do is to point out the fact, that
the suspicion of honest and sincere people concern
ing the "Romish tendency" is a mistaken one, and
that such fears are groundless.
Let us take the charge itself in detail.
The charge is this: That the Church's doc
trine, or ritual, or characteristic tendency, is
Romish. We can imagine just six possible meanings to
the expression Romish, Let us take them in turn :
First, it may mean that the principle of using sym
bolic ritual in Christian worship, is a Roman
error. This statement is disproved by the fact

336 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
that (as we have found) Almighty God Himself
instituted the principle of ritual in the old cove
nant, and reveals all we know of heavenly wor
ship under the symbolism of ritual forms, and
that the use of ritual of some sort is an inherent
necessity of human nature when it attempts to
express itself, its thoughts, emotions, and senti
ments; and that every Protestant sect employs
ritual of some kind, and cannot possibly avoid it,
if it has public worship at all.
Secondly, it may be said that the use of ritual
is peculiar to the Roman Church, We reply, it
certainly is not; for the most ritualistic Church
in the world is the Greek Church, which repudi
ates Roman error, and always has. The Protest
ant sect of the Irvingites has a very ritualistic
service. The continental Lutherans employ a
more or less elaborate ritual. Many secular soci
eties, like the Free Masons and others, employ an
elaborate ritual, and its use is peculiar to no one
body, either religious or secular.
Perhaps the objector may mean that ritual
teaches Roman Catholic error. Well, what, for
example ? Do lights on the altar, which teach that
our Lord is the Light of the world ; the Cross, and
the sign of \h.e Cross, that the Lord died on the
cross for our salvation; Incense, which represents
our Lord's sacrificial intercession for us; Vest
ments, which define the official character and serv
ice of the minister who is officiating; Kneeling
and Bowing, which are acts of the body express-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 337
ing the worship of the heart, the relation of a
creature to his Creator ; or Choral Worship, which
is the highest form of vocal praise ? Surely these
things symbolize and teach Christian truth, and
nothing else. The objection that ritual teaches
Roman error lacks point, until the objector speci
fies to what point of ritual he refers; and what
error it teaches.
It may be said that the Church's ritual or doc
trines are copied from Rome, As to ritual, the
Church inherits her ritual from her own past, and
all the distinctive elements of Church ritual were
legally retained in the reformed Church, not as
adoptions from another system, but simply as part
of the great Catholic inheritance of the Church
of England, from Catholic antiquity.
As to doctrine, the Church's belief is embodied
in her Prayer Book, which is also part of her
Catholic inheritance, and which is not copied from
any foreign system. Her standard of doctrine is
fixed and unalterable; for it is the Nicene Creed,
the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by the Apos
tolic Fathers, and such definitions of truth as have
been voiced by the whole Church from the first.
Much of this doctrine may be unfamiliar to the
average Protestant, but for that reason, to call it
Romish error is nonsense and contrary to fact.
It may be said that our ritual or doctrine in
many points resembles that of Rome. Certainly
it does. But why ? Simply because we both in
herit from the same Catholic antiquity, and we

338 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
both hold the same Christian traths, in many re
spects. Because Rome teaches the doctrines of
the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement,
and the Resurrection, the necessity of penitence
and faith, or uses the Lord's Prayer, and hymn
books, and because she worships in churches, must
we get rid of these things, lest somebody might
find a resemblance between us and Rome ?
If our chief object is to eradicate every resem
blance to the Roman Church, the best thing we can
do is to become Hottentots or Zulus ; for probably
these people have not much in common with Rome.
Perhaps it may be said that the Church's doc
trine or ritual "leads to Rome." We reply. Truth
leads to God; and nowhere else. You must first
impeach the creed of the Church, before you can
assume that it leads into error. No doubt the creed
can be perverted into Roman error ; but that is no
reason why it should be, or why we should discard
it. To discard every doctrine which might be per
verted, would be to discard much that was in the
creed of the early Church, and which was per
verted. To hold nothing which can be perverted,
is to surrender the Christian Faith altogether.
"Men differ from monkeys in having intellects;
but the penalty of being a man, is the possibility
that the reason may be perverted, and the man
become insane. Does anybody argue from this,
that it is better to have no brain, and to be a mon
key, rather than a man, because then you are in
no danger of insanity ? In other words, that it is

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 339
better to have no sacramental truth, because then
you are in no danger of Romanism?" (Bp. Wil
liams of Connecticut).
The Anglican Church shows plainly wherein
Rome has erred; and in vital issues, the line be
tween the two systems is clearly drawn. No man
in the American Church can accept the papal
claims of Supremacy, or Infallibility. To speak
of nothing else, these two doctrines are like a
mighty wall between us and Rome; and the man
who goes to Rome must make a positive and diffi
cult climb to get there. He cannot possibly wan
der there by a path which leads him astray uncon
sciously to himself; that is, not if his action is
governed by facts and logic. Occasionally, Rome
acquires a certain fascination over men of a senti
mental temperament, who, shutting their eyes to
all historic considerations, allow themselves to
drift into the Roman Church: but in a very con
siderable number of cases, as is well known, such
persons return to their first obedience; sooner or
later finding that after all, facts are more potent
and practical and stubborn than sentimental fan
cies ; and the superficial attractiveness of the
Roman Church does not compensate for deeply-
rooted evils of the Roman system.
Before an American Catholic Churchman can
become a Roman Catholic Churchman, he must
consciously or unconsciously repudiate certain con
spicuous warnings, and violate certain well-defined
principles, which the Catholic Church maintains.

340 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
He must choose between two distinct systems. He
follows his own will, and he is not "led," any
where. That the Catholic doctrine of the American
Church does not lead to Rome, is proved by several
important considerations: First, since the old
Catholic doctrines of the primitive Church have
been more generally taught in the Anglican
Church, men have been less tempted to go to Rome
for such doctrine, and for Catholic sacraments;
and so, the so-called "High Church" teaching has
practically stopped perversions to Rome. Occa-
sially one hears of some Churchman who goes to
Rome; but such perversions are nothing like as
numerous as they were some years ago.
One has to remember several things about this
matter of Rome's making converts. In the first
place, Rome is careful to advertise every impor
tant convert she makes, in order to convey the im
pression that such converts are numerous; while
the Church never advertises her converts from
Rome, though as a matter of fact she is continually
making such converts, and the number of them is
constantly increasing. She could if she were in
clined, give an important list of such converts,
which would surprise Protestants greatly, were it
to be published ; and if all the Bishops should re
port their converts from Rome, we would have a
large and ever increasing annual list of converts,
containing the names of many priests. Moreover,
when men who go over to Rome from us, discover

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 341
their mistake, and come back again, Rome for
some reason does not publish their return to the
American Church.
Then again, when the Roman Church claims a
rapid grovsd;h in this country, it must be remem
bered that such increase in numbers is derived
from immigration of foreign Roman Catholics,
who are not converts; but members transferred to
America, chiefly from Ireland; and so what the
Church gains here, she loses abroad. Of actual
converts, the Roman Church makes comparatively
few, when you consider its vast organization, and
complicated machinery for bringing men into the
Church. Then, too, if Catholic doctrine leads toward
Rome, how does it happen that all the best modern
books written against Roman errors, have been
vsrriten by High Churchmen? As for example.
Gore's "Roman Catholic Claims," Carter's "Let
ters on the Roman Questions," Puller's "Primitive
Saints and the See of Rome," Ewer's "Roman
ism, Protestantism, and Catholicity," Littledale's
"Plain Reasons," Seymour's "Papal Claims,"
Pusey's "Eirenicon," and a host of others. So
that if a Protestant sectarian wants to contend with
Rome, he has to borrow our weapons to use in the
contest. As a matter of fact, so far from it being true
that the teaching of the American Church is Ro
mish, or leads toward Rome, the exact reverse is the
truth. For example: Suppose a Protestant stud-

342 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
ies Church history, and the Holy Scriptures, and
discovers that our Lord did found one Church,
which was to last always, and which therefore ex
ists to-day ; and which teaches certain truths which
Protestantism neglects or repudiates. Suppose
that such a man is looking for the Church of his
tory; the Catholic Church of the Apostles' Creed,
The Protestant sects cannot help him, because they
deny the existence of any such Church, and admit
that they themselves are new bodies. Suppose a
Roman Catholic gets hold of him. He teaches
him the Church of Rome is Catholic, and holds
Catholic truth; and what is more, he proves his
case. But the Roman Catholic so cleverly mixes
Roman error with this Catholic teaching, that he
makes the two things seem identical to the poorly
instructed Protestant; and so he accepts both, un
der the impression that he is accepting Catholic
truth, and goes over to Rome,
Now suppose that an American Churchman
found a Protestant in search of the old Catholic
Church of history. He would teach him that the
Anglican Church is Catholic, and holds Catholic
doctrine, and what is more, he would prove his
case. But he would also show that the papal
claims of supremacy and infallibility were false,
and unhistoric; and that, therefore, to be a Cath
olic in the primitive sense of the word, the man
should belong to the American Church ; and so the
man is saved from Rome, whereas a Protestant

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 343
could not have saved him or satisfied him, or have
done anything with him.
This is not a mere theoretical supposition, but
it has been the actual experience of a great num
ber of men; who, having become dissatisfied with
the Protestant system, have searched for the old
Church, and have found it, to their surprise per
haps, in the American Church, which gave them
the Catholic Faith, and Catholic Sacraments, by
Catholic authority ; and so kept them from accept
ing these things, together with Roman error, in the
Roman Church.
This is why the Anglican Church is the only
secure bulwark against Rome, and it is the ex
planation of Rome's cordial dislike of Anglicans.
The constant assertion of the Catholic char
acter of the American Church is in the line of the
strongest possible defence against Rome, in the
great battle of the future between Catholicity and
Roman Catholicity, To assert and to prove your
assertion that there is in this country an American
Catholic Church, is to stamp the Roman Catholic
Church, by a simple contrast of names, as being
Roman, foreign, Italian, and alien to Americans ;
and is, in just so far, to save men from the mis
take of looking to Rome for truth and guidance.
The mere fact that the vindication of the Cath
olicity of the Anglican Church is so largely due to
those who are called "High Churchmen" or Ritu
alists, men who have been suspected of Romish
tendencies, is proof positive that they have done

344 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
more to meet and defeat Rome on her own ground,
than all the Protestant sects put together. The
very best a Protestant can do, is to attack certain
false doctrines held by Rome, and to condemn what
he calls its superstition; and then, if a Roman
turns on him, and says, 'Your Church is nothing
but a man-made sect, without authority to teach
anything, true or false," the Protestant is power
less to vindicate his position. He has not the van
tage ground of Catholic orders and the Catholic
Faith from which he can reply to Rome, on the
basis she herself assumes,
Rome's power to-day, and for the future, lies
in her magnificent system, her unity of belief and
organization, and her habit of speaking with as
sumed authority. What have a lot of disorganized
sects, which cannot agree about any one doctrine,
got, with which to meet such a power? Though
they may have some truth on their side, they recog
nize no one teaching authority, and all Church his
tory is against their position, as man-made sects.
It is a favorite method with Protestants to rep
resent that the American Church is torn with in
ternal dissensions concerning ritual; that she is
drifting toward a terrible crisis, and ultimate dis
ruption. But this is just about as true as it would
be to say, that because there is an occasional dis
turbance on some Western reservation, the whole
United States was torn with dissensions, and was
drifting toward rebellion and internecine war.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 345
As a matter of fact, the great mass of American
Churchmen know little or nothing of controversies
about ritual; and attend to their own business,
without misrepresenting their neighbors. The
whole principle and status of ritual in the Amer
ican Church was vindicated years ago.
Occasional disputes there are; but such dis
putes are merely incidental, in the process of the
restoration of some things the Puritan innovators
cast out of the Church, which belonged to her
ancient heritage; and the great mass of so-called
"Ritualists," are law-abiding and hard-working
men, who would sooner die than be disloyal to the
Church, or repudiate Catholic authority, or intro
duce Roman error ; and who, strange to say, using
ritual, are most ready to agree that its use is of
much less consequence than are many other things
in the Church's work.
The marvellous thing is, not that there has been
an occasional controversy and conflict of opinion
in the Church about matters of ritual and doctrine,
but that after the Puritan movement had vsrought
havoc in the Church, and had trained generation
after generation in ignorance or hatred of the
Church's historic position, the whole process of
reaffirming the Church's old Catholic Prayer Book
doctrine, and the restoration of her ancient Cath
olic customs, should have gone on so quietly, so
persistently, and so almost universally, as it has
for the past sixty years, leavening the whole An-

346 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
glican Church from one end to the other, as if the
Holy Spirit were behind the work, moulding the
minds of men to know and to do His will. One
great reason why Churchmen believe in the Cath
olic theory of the Church, and in the Catholicity
of the American Church, is that the restoration
of Catholic teaching and practice, both in England
and America, has been accompanied by the great
est revival of spiritual life the Church has ever
known. To assume that any such spiritual re
vival could possibly be the product of the intro
duction of error, or the institution of a foreign
ritual use, and nothing more, is of course absurd
in the extreme.
We believe that the great issue of the future
will not be between the Roman Church and the
Protestant sects, nor between Anglo-Catholics and
the Protestant sects ; but between the Anglo-Cath
olic Church and the Roman Catholic Church; and
so, as time goes on, Protestants will make the sur
prising discovery, that the so-called Episcopal
Church is the only religious body in the United
States of America, competent and able to meet
Rome on her ovsm ground, and to defeat her where
in she is strongest; simply because the American
Church historically and doctrinally represents
primitive Catholicity, which the Protestant sects
have discarded, and which Rome has perverted.
If Protestants are afraid of Rome, we say to them.
Your divisions make you an easy prey to Rome.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 347
Come to us ; unite under the old flag, and we will
put weapons in your hands which you have not got,
and which alone will be effectual. You are scat
tered and disorganized; the best you can do is to
conduct a guerilla warfare against Rome's serried
ranks. Become Catholics, unite with the twenty
millions of Anglican Catholics, and the eighty
millions of Greek Catholics, and we will advance
all along the line to battle for the truth, against
Roman encroachments and Roman error ; and God,
who loves truth, will give us the victory.

CHAPTER XXIII

CONCLUSION

771 E HAVE now completed our arguments for
W the Catholicity of the Church, and our at
tempt to set forth plainly the great principles of
Catholic Churchmanship, which make the Church
what she is. If the inferences which have been
drawn from the argument are justifiable, and the
data on which the argument is built are correct,
then we think it logically follows, that it is the
duty of every American Christian to yield his per
sonal allegiance to that Church which has been
known as the Episcopal Church in the United
States; because historically, it is the Catholic
Church of the land, in distinction from the Prot
estant sects, which are self-created, and from the
Roman Church, which is alien in its organization
and uncatholic in some points of doctrine. We
believe that in the American Church, a Christian
has the best opportunity of knowing the truth;
because it holds the old anchorages of the Faith,

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 349
in the Bible as interpreted by the Fathers, and the
Creed which, substantially as we have it now, has
been taught everywhere since the second century.
Certainty never can be found in a Protestantism
which depends on individual interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures for its conclusions, nor in the sup
posed infallible announcements of one man who
cuts himself off from the witness of the Church.
Catholicity is neither Protestant nor Roman;
and we believe that the American Church best rep
resents it to the American people, and can give the
best assurance that in it, Christians can find all
reasonable certainty of knowing God's will, and
of receiving His grace and truth.
Now the fact must be steadily faced, that how
ever much grace and truth a man may think that
he has received in the Protestant denomination to
which he has belonged, he cannot be sure that he
has received all the grace, and all the truth, God
wills to give him, unless he receives it in the
Church, which the Lord Himself creates, and at
the hands of those whom the Lord Himself sends,
to teach and minister sacraments in His Name,
and by His authority.
Granting everything that can possibly be said
in favor of the Protestant system and the personal
religious experience of Protestants, the fact re
mains, that out of the Catholic Church there is no
certainty of obeying the Lord's full will. The
certainty of believing in Christ, and the certainty

350 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
of being blessed by such belief, is one thing; but
the certainty of fully obeying His will, in obey
ing those whom He sends, is quite another thing ;
and while Protestantism may give the one kind of
certainty, it does not, and cannot, give the other.
If Christ Himself creates one Church, ordains and
commissions one ministry, then the position of any
substitute for these things must at best be utterly
uncertain, not to say illegitimate; and to admit
that the Lord has created a Church which exists
to-day, is to admit the obligation of finding and
submitting to that Church, simply because the
Lord is the Son of God, and His words and work
cannot be set aside by any individual opinion.
We have proved, as we think, that the Lord did
found one Church, and that that Church exists
to-day and teaches the Gospel truth; and until
these facts have been disproved, the obligation to
find and submit to the Catholic Church, cannot be
evaded in any way.
It happens not infrequently, that a person may
be more or less impressed by the arguments sup
porting the claims of the Church, and yet feel that
the Church itself, as it presents itself to him in his
own community, is unattractive. He sees it merely
from the outside; he hears the popular gossip
about it; he notices local defects in the working
of its system, or disagreements among its mem
bers. Even the claims of the Church may be so
set forth as to seem hard and repellent.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 351
But we reply, as one did of old, in answer to
the question, "Can any good thing come out of
Nazareth ?" "Come and see" for yourself. Bring
yourself in contact with the Church, attend its serv
ices, try to understand its teaching, make the test
a matter of your own experience ; and you will not
be disappointed. You will find human nature,
and human defects in the Church; but you will
also find abundant evidence of the divine life,
which makes her what she is, A perfect under
standing of the Church will not come at once, or
suddenly. It takes time and patience for old
doubts to lose their hold, and old habits of thought
to readjust themselves and adapt themselves to
new ideas ; but as time goes on, all these perplexi
ties gradually disappear. You must remember
that the Church has received many thousands of
converts, who were brought up in some Protestant
sect, who have gone through the experience, first,
of great prejudice against the Church, then of sur
prise and contempt for its claims, then of curiosity
and interest as they began to study, then of per
plexity at the wealth of new thoughts in confiict
with former impressions, then of slow readjust
ment of ideas, and then, finally, of deep and last
ing satisfaction, in the ever-growing conviction
that in the Church they have found the truth of
which they were in search; certain of it, as they
never have been before. Thousands of converts
are ready to testify to the truth of just this ex-

352 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
perience. You cannot be argued into loving any
body. Love is the fruit of personal intimacy;
and you cannot learn to love the Church, until
you know it, not as an outsider, but as a devout
learner ; and then as a devout communicant at her
altars. The requirements of the Church from one
entering it, are very simple. The Church recog
nizes every properly baptized person as being al
ready a Christian, and a member of herself; and
she requires Confirmation, not to make the man a
member of the Church, but to give him gifts of
grace he has not yet received.
The Church requires no great profession of
faith; but trusts that one's whole life in the
Church will be a continuous growth in knowledge
of divine things, and the Catholic Faith, In com
ing into the Church, you give up nothing you have
held before, no gospel truth which has been dear
to you. You merely open your heart and mind to
the teaching of the Church; to wider ranges of
truth than you have held ; truths which are neces
sary to make those you already hold, entire and
complete. If, at first, the services of the Church seem
strange and unfamiliar, remember that no educa
tional system can be comprehended at a glance;
and that one great beauty of the Church system is,
that it is educational as well as devotional; and
that for the oldest communicant there is always
something yet to learn in the liturgical system of

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 353
worship, by which he is led on from one great
truth to another. And yet the elemental knowl
edge required for following the services, is very
simple ; one very soon feels at home in a liturgical
service. Probably the feeling that most frequently
makes people hesitate about coming into the
Church, even after they become convinced of the
truth of its claims, is, that they will thereby seem
to question or to refiect unpleasantly upon the
Christian character of the members of the denomi
nation to which they have belonged; or to repudi
ate the truth and grace they believed they have
received, in that denomination, in the past.
But why should anyone have this feeling?
Surely we are never called upon to deny that any
baptized man is a Christian, nor can it ever be
necessary for us to repudiate or to ignore the fact
that God has given us grace and truth in the past.
When a man comes into the Church, he does not
deny 'that that sect he leaves is just what it claims
to be. It is a voluntary association of men, for
religious purposes. Its ministers convert men,
and help them to lead good lives, and preach more
or less of the Church's faith. While they claim
that they are ministers of the Gospel, they would
be the first to deny that they are priests ; or that
their sacraments are channels of grace; or that
their own particular sect existed before the Refor
mation as an organized body. Surely they cannot

354 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
deny that they teach on the principle of individual
interpretation of the Scriptures,
So the Church afiirms nothing concerning them
which they do not practically admit for them
selves; and the Church freely admits that they
often teach much truth, and that their members
show unmistakable evidence of the work of God's
grace in their hearts and in their Christian char
acters; often putting to shame the inconsistent
lives of communicants of the Church.
Sometimes a man is deterred from entering the
Church by the opposition of his own family, or
his friends, who would be hurt or alienated by his
change of Church relations. This no doubt is
very trying ; but after all, in a matter of such im
mense importance, every man must act for him
self, as his conscience and judgment dictate, with
out regard to the scruples of others. And then,
in a large majority of cases, such opposition is
based on a misunderstanding of the Church itself,
which can in time be explained away; or at any
rate, as time goes on, such bitter feeling dies out
of itself and is forgotten.
If the opposition and misunderstanding of
one's friends is hard to bear, as no doubt it is,
then one can remember that it is exactly what our
Lord Himself said would occur, when men came
into His Kingdom, The opposition of Protestant
sectarian prejudice to the Church, is often wonder
fully like the opposition the Church encountered

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 355
from the world in early apostolic days; and men
who come into the Church, must meet and bear it
for the sake of Him who dwells in, and sanctifies
the Church, and gave Himself for it; and en
deavor to show by their patience and gentleness of
bearing, that the hatred of Protestants is unde
served. Sometimes a man hesitates about coming into
the Church, merely because it seems like such a
great step to take ; and without any other tangible
reason, defers the matter from time to time. But
generally, when the man does finally come, and
discovers what a help and comfort the Church is
to him, he greatly regrets that he did not enter
it, long before.
Again, a person will sometimes say, "The
Church interests and attracts me; but it is so dif
ferent from anything to which I have been accus
tomed. It would be dreadful if, after I had been
confirmed, I should find that I had made a mis
take." Well, perhaps the fact that the Church makes
many thousands of converts from the Protestant
sects, every year, and that very few return, and
that they seem to be happy and contented in the
Church, ought to be reassuring as to the danger
of disappointment. It is not to be regretted that men often find
their way into the Church by a slow process, which
involves overcoming many objections and preju-

356 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
dices. In the first place, the Church wants men
who become Catholic from conviction, because they
believe that the claims of the Church are true ; and
not men who become "Episcopalians" because they
like a liturgical service, and bring with them all
their sectarian narrowness and prejudice. And
secondly, the man who becomes a Catholic intelli
gently, will derive a thousand times more comfort
and help and inspiration from the Church, than
he would if he came ignorantly, and as a matter
of taste, and thought of the Church merely as the
most respectable sect. Some of the most devoted
Churchmen in the Church, are those who became
Churchmen after a long struggle, and at the ex
pense of some self-sacrifice.
Occasionally we meet a person who finds it a
very easy matter to make a change in his ecclesi
astical relations, who moves about from one de
nomination to another, apparently led by no better
motive than taste, or the influence of friends, or
the attractions of some special preacher or form of
worship. But to most thoughtful persons, the act
of leaving one religious body and entering another
must be a serious matter, which can take place
only after careful and prayerful study of all the
issues involved. Such persons, even when they
have come to believe that a change is a matter of
duty, find it exceedingly difficult to make it in the
face of inherited prejudices and old associations,
whose power is still very strong.
Such a change is never justifiable, unless the

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 357
person who enters upon it, feels very sure that in
the Church to which he goes, he will be better able
to obey God's will, and more sure of receiving His
truth and His grace. These questions must come
first, before any question of mere personal prefer
ence or expediency ; and the final decision must rest
on the answer which one can honestly give to them.
So after all, the whole matter resolves itself into
a question of personal loyalty to the Lord Christ ;
for membership in the Church which He creates,
and which He sends to represent Him, must neces
sarily be a bounden duty; while connection with
any man-made, voluntary association, never can
be a duty, nor can it be a substitute for such
membership. If the conviction of this truth suggests itself to
any one who has read this argument, let him not
put it aside, until he has given it such prayerful
and careful thought and consideration as it de
serves. The Holy Spirit leads men as He wills;
silently and gently. He coerces no one; and it is
not difficult to resist His leading; but it may re
sult in great loss to the soul which turns away
from Him.
May the Holy Spirit take away from us, all
pride and prejudice; and open our hearts to re
ceive what He would teach us, and give us the
strength and courage, to follow where He leads the
way; and if there is anything in this book which
is false, or contrary to His will, may He blot it
out of our memories, and pardon him who wrote it !

APPENDIX A

ROMAN OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANGLICAN OKDERS
ROMAN Churchmen commonly make five objections to
the validity of Anglican Orders, asserting First, that
Archbishop Parker's consecration never took place,
because a certain document among many attesting it, is
missing. Second, that Parker went through a parody of
consecration at an inn in London, called the Nag's Head,
at the hands of an apostate monk, who in turn was con
secrated by Parker. Third, that Barlow, Parker's chief
consecrator, had never been consecrated, because an entry
of his consecration is absent from Cranmer's Archiepiscopal
register. Fourth, that the formula used in Parker's con
secration was insufficient to confer valid orders. And Fifth,
that the ordinal is deficient in expressed intention.
In order to answer these objections satisfactorily, it
would be necessary to produce a mass of evidence which
would fill a large volume; and it is much simpler to refer
the reader to such works as Denny's "Anglican Orders and
Jurisdiction," Haddan's "Apostolic Succession in the Church
of England," Mortimer's "Catholic Faith and Practice,"
The "Response of the Archbishops of England to the Letter
of Leo XIII.," "The Priest's Prayer Book" on Anglican
Orders, and several others, in which these questions are
treated somewhat at length, and thoroughly.
In regard to Archbishop Parker's consecration, the
facts were as follows: He was nominated to the see of
Canterbury, elected by the Dean and Chapter of the Metro-

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 359
politan Church of Christ (in accordance with a congi d'
elire dated July 18th, 1559) on the 1st of August. The
election was confirmed Dee. 9th, 1559, by four Bishops,
Barlow, Scory, Hodgkin, and Coverdale. A deed certi
fying this still exists in Parker's register. Eight days
after, Dec. 17th, Parker was consecrated in Lambeth
Chapel by these same Bishops, according to the Edwardine
Ordinal of 1552, all four Bishops laying their hands on
his head, and all repeating the consecrating formula.
Parker was duly enthroned, and did homage as Arch
bishop in March following, and on the 21st of March the
Queen issued the usual mandate for the restitution of the
temporalities of the see to Parker. Parker's register gives
the records in full, connected with his consecration.
There is a long series of documents, letters, and inci
dental references, which go to prove the fact of Parker's
consecration; and among them is the register of the fact in
the archives of Lambeth, written in the same hand as the
registers of Cranmer and Pole, and attested by the same No
taries Public as Pole's . own record ; also a contemporary
copy of a part of this register, in the State Paper olBce;
also another copy in the Library of Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge; also Parker's autograph notebook in the same
Library, mentioning the consecration as occurring Dec. 17th,
1559. The diary of Henry Machyn, the Zurich letters,
and other papers, furnish a mass of incidental testimony
which is all the stronger because it is incidental.
Most reputable Roman Churchmen have discarded the
famous Nag's Head fable, and it is unnecessary to speak
of it. But supposing Parker's consecration was invalid, the
succession would not be lost, because three of Parker's con-
seerators. Barlow, Hodgkin, and Scory united with him
subsequently in the consecration of four Bishops, through
whom the succession was transmitted. But again, suppos
ing the succession was actually lost, it certainly was re
stored in the person of Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury,
in whom were imited the Irish, Italian, and English lines.
The registry of Barlow's consecration is missing, though
all the other documents attesting his consecration are in
evidence. But supposing he had not been consecrated; he

360 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
was only one of four Bishops who acted together in the
consecration of Parker, all of whom laid on their hands
and recited the consecrating words, and all of whom were
consecrators. The objections which Romans make to the Anglican
Ordinal would not only also invalidate the Roman Orders,
but would also nullify the validity of Holy Orders through
out the Christian Church for the first thousand years;
and so they prove far too much, if they prove anything at
all. For if the words used to ordain Bishops were in-
suflScient, because they did not specify that the man conse
crated was to be a Bishop, we reply that neither did the
Roman form of consecration contain any such words for
many centuries; and that the only sacraments which by
divine ruling are tied to fixed forms of expression, are
Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Again, Romans object
that the English Ordinal does not expressly confer any
power to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice in ordination;
but we reply that such power is involved in the power to
administer the sacraments, which is given in the service;
and moreover, the power to ofi'er sacrifice is not expressed
in the Ordination of the Greek Church, which the Roman
Church recognizes as having valid orders, and no express
recognition of such power was in the Roman Ordinal for
many centuries.
Some of the best defences of Anglican Orders have been
made by Roman Catholics themselves, by such men as Cour-
ayer, Colbert, Bossuet, Butler, Affre, Tierney, Portal, and
also by Diillinger, who was one of Rome's greatest theo
logians before he repudiated the decree of Papal infallibil
ity, and was excommunicated.

APPENDIX B

CONFESSION

TN the chapter on the Sacramental System, we found
that our Lord gave to His Apostles when He ordained
them, the delegated authority to pronounce absolution
upon penitent sinners, saying: "Whose sins ye remit, they
are remitted unto them"; and we called attention to the
fact that absolution was analogous to Baptism "for the
remission of sins," and as a ministerial act involved no
greater difficulties than Baptism, by which the benefits of
our Lord's cleansing blood are applied to individual souls.
Now in these days when the Church has attempted to give
some practical force to our Lord's words, and has assumed
the right to receive and absolve penitents, the thing has
been the occasion of grave and bitter controversy. Per
haps it may be well for us to try to approach the subject
for a moment from the standpoint of common sense, and
so far as possible, to discuss the question on its intrinsic
merits. Of course the difficulty turns on the fact that the
Church requires personal confession of sins before pro
nouncing personal absolution, and confession of sin to a
man is supposed to be degrading, demoralizing, and contrary
to "Protestant principles." Perhaps the exercise of no
other function of the priesthood has elicited so much acute
hostility, and has excited such groundless fears, as this
use of confession.
Let us stop for a moment, and ask ourselves a very

362 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
simple question: Why should it be thought perfectly
proper for a man to go to his lawyer, and tell him his
business complications, or to his physician, and tell him his
physical symptoms; and yet if he goes to his clergyman,
and tells him his spiritual difficulties, which are infinitely
more important than the others, the thing is said to be de
moralizing and dangerous?
Are we to be allowed to have confidential relations
with professional men on every other subject under heaven,
except those matters which concern the salvation of our
immortal souls? Apparently as long as we confess our
sins, or our neighbor's sins, to our intimate friends, the
thing is legitimate enough; and yet when confession of
our own sin is made to a priest of the Church, who is bound
by the oath of his office to observe absolute silence con
cerning what is told him, and is trained to deal with indi
vidual cases and to help penitents, such confession, for some
reason or other, is condemned as dangerous and unlawful.
Sin is spiritual disease; or rather a complication
of very serious diseases; and for us to assume that every
penitent knows how to treat himself without telling his
symptoms, or getting any personal advice, is about as
reasonable as the assumption that every sick man is com
petent to prescribe for himself.
Moreover, suppose that a physician in a hospital, in
stead of going from one patient to another, and pre
scribing individually, after a careful diagnosis of each
case, should mount a table in the hospital, and read an
essay on a suppositious malady; and then leave the patients
to discover if they could, what is the matter with them;
the physician thus delivering ten, twenty, or a hundred
essays, perhaps, before he happens. to stumble on the
difficulties of any individual case. Then suppose this man
learns what is the matter with him; is he to proceed alone
to treat himself? If any hospital were managed on any
such plan, no sane man would trust himself under the care
of its stafi of physicians for twenty-four hours.
When a man is troubled and perplexed about some
legal difficulties, he does not go to a law college, and listen
to a course of lectures; he goes straight to his lawyer, and

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 363
confesses his difficulty, and asks for the help and advice he
needs. Now every man who does a priest's work, knows per
fectly well that a multitude of souls are lost to the Church,
simply because, with the very best of intentions, men get
confused and hopeless about themselves; the moral problem
of their lives is too complicated for their solution; they
do not understand themselves, and their weaknesses; and
in despair they give up the fight, and drift away from the
Church in indifference. If such persons could only have
the benefit of a good, wholesome confession, and receive
the necessary advice and the moral support of a sympathetic
priest who understands them, in a very large majority of
cases such persons could be saved; and perhaps would
eventually grow in strength and independence of character.
It is also well known among priests of the Church, that
there are certain circumstances of life in which men are
surrounded with acute temptations, when the support which
a confidential relation with a wise priest gives, becomes
almost a necessity, if such men are saved at all.
One of the strongest forces in the moral life, is personal
sympathy. Much of the bitterness of the struggle with sin,
is due to the loneliness of it; when its difficulties, dangers,
and defeats must be sealed up in our hearts, unknown to
anyone else. Men often become so hungry for sympathy,
that they feel almost driven to confess their trouble to
some intimate friend, who can understand them and sympa
thize with them. But surely the experience and training
of a priest of the Church fits him for a more practical
sympathy, and he knows too much about sin, about his
own sins, to feel anything but the tenderest pity and
sympathy for those who come to him. There are multitudes
of men the world over, who can testify that a confidential
relation with some priest of the Church, has been to them
of inestimable value as a, support, a restraint, and a com
fort, when perhaps without it they would have been utterly
lost. The Church values private confession of sin in certain
cases, not merely because it enables the penitent to receive
godly counsel and advice, and affords him the personal
sympathy of the priest to whom he confesses, but also, be-

364 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
cause such confession is sometimes necessary to bring about
any realization of the dreadfulness of sm, in the mind of
the penitent.
We are constantly told that we should confess our
sins to God; and this iff no doubt true; but after all, it is
difficult for the most devout person to so thoroughly realize
God's Presence and Purity, that confession to Him of
actual sins brings any very acute sense of shame with it;
and so men often confess freely to God, who would shrink
greatly from confessing those same sins to a man ; and must
this not be largely because when we look at our sins through
the eyes of another man, somehow we realize their shameful-
ness much more acutely?
Certainly anything which deepens our sense of the
shame of our sins, imust be a moral power in the spiritual
life; and a very wholesome medicine, however disagreeable
it may be.
Occasionally a man will be so thoroughly in earnest
that he will long for some special way of manifesting the
sincerity of his repentance, some act of humiliation before
God, by which he can express his unworthiness ; and in such
case, confession satisfies a real want.
Then again many devout persons who are sincerely
penitent and have confessed their sins habitually to God,
still feel some disquieting doubts as to whether they have
done all that they ought to win forgiveness; and to such
persons, after personal confession, the absolution of the
Church comes with a very grateful and reassuring force;
because it is positive, authoritative, and definite.
We are frequently told that confession is demoralizing,
both for the penitent and for the priest. But those who
make this assertion, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,
know nothing whatever about it hy actual experience;
and what they say, or believe, is based often on most ig
norant and malicious gossip. Ask them if they have ever
been to confession, and they will almost resent the ques
tion as an insult. Now suppose a man were to attempt
to lecture on the subject of medicine, and should begin his
remarks by assuring his audience that he had never
studied medicine first hand, had never had any actual med
ical practice, had never been sick enough to go to a

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 365
physician himself, and would not go to a physician if he
were sick; and should then proceed to denounce the con
fidential relation between physicians and their patients,
as demoralizing and dangerous. Do you suppose that the
man's audience would have very much patience with him,
or would think that his word carried any weight with it?
Surely the testimony of thousands of laymen and priests,
the world over, who have found confession of inestimable
help and comfort to them, who are familiar with the
method and results of confession, is worth more in the
interests of truth, than all the cavils of those who know
nothing about it by experience. Doubtless the abuse of
confession in certain cases has resulted disastrously, where
priests have been gross, untrained, or injudicious; bul to
assume on this account that any large percentage of priests
are gross, or that confession of sin cannot be made, or
heard, in anything but a gross or vulgar spirit, is mon
strously false. Every sensible man knows perfectly well
that occasionally a man has to do, see, and hear things,
in the natural course of performing his duty, which would
perhaps be demoralizing, if he were to dwell on them or
stop to let them appeal to his lower nature. But surely
right-minded men can bring themselves into contact with
evil, in the necessary effort to reform it or to help the
offender, without suffering moral contamination them
selves, or suggesting evil to others. If this were not true,
then all efforts to help and uplift men must come to an end ;
and every gross man must be left to perish in his sin.
The best answer to all this assertion of the danger of
confession, is the counter assertion, that our Lord never
would have sent His priests to represent Him in their
ministry to penitent souls, and have given them a com
mission to remit sins, if such intercourse between priests
and penitents would be dangerous and demoralizing.
Sometimes it is said that confession enfeebles the
moral nature, and makes a man weak and dependent;
but this certainly is not the testimony of those who re
sort to confession. For example, take the following letter
from "F. R. C. S.," in "The Angelus": "I should like to
make a further remark on the statement that habitual
confession results in mental enfeeblement. This has been

366 CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES
so repeatedly stated, that no doubt a vast number of people
believe it to be a fact. But I may fairly ask for some
evidence. I have never seen it so stated by anyone who
has been in the habit of hearing confessions, or by anyone
who habitually goes to confession. And I hold that only
those who have the experience are fit judges in the matter.
I take my own case, if you will for a moment permit mc
to be an egoist. 1 am over sixty years of age. For the
last thirty years I have been going to confession, some
times at long intervals, more frequently at shorter ones.
I am a member of the medical profession, a Fellow of
my College, a hospital surgeon, and have attained some
repute. I judge myself to be about the last man to be
infected with morbid influences. My wife and my grown-up
children go to confession. They none of them seem to be
affected with mental feebleness. A vast number of my
own friends, some in my own profession, others lawyers,
others hardheaded men of business, go to confession, and 1
fail to see the dreadful deterioration which is set forth.
I am an Alpine climber, and have the personal acquaintance
of the finest race of men, the Swiss guides. They are the
most devout men I know, and they all "go to their duties."
The whole thing is a figment of the brain, unsupported
by a single shred of evidence. One other thing I should like
to state. In all my long experience of confession, made
to many priests, I can never' remember having one single
question put to me. This statement as to examination of
penitents is a pure fiction."
Now every intelligent man who has studied the his
tory of the Anglican Church for the last half century,
must admit that there has been a wonderful revival of
spiritual life and missionary energy throughout the Church ;
and that she has a far stronger hold on her own children,
and is far more influential among all religious bodies, than
she was at the beginning of this period. As a matter of
fact, it has been during just this period that the use of con
fession a (privilege long neglected) has been steadily in
creasing among Anglican Churchmen, the world over.
The question will be asked, Do you believe that God
forgives sins without confession to a priest, and if He
does, why should one confess? We reply that the Church

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 367
holds that God forgives the sins of any thoroughly contrite
man, without such confession; and the Anglo-Catholic
Church never makes confession obligatory, or a necessary
condition of communion. But surely one cannot limit the
ministrations of grace in the Church to those things which
are absolutely necessary to salvation, and say that because
God can save a soul without confession, therefore confession
has no use. Such a position is certainly untenable.
It will be said that confession of sin to any man is
a hard thing to expect of anyone. We reply, most certainly
it is; but it is just because it is a hard thing, and requires
some courage and humility, that it is such a thorough test
of penitence, and such a moral power, in the spiritual life.
Were it an easy thing, did it involve no heart-searching, no
facing of hidden sins, no humiliating and open acknowl
edgement of weakness and shame, it would amount to noth
ing as a discipline in the acquirement of self-control and
the upbuilding of Christian character.
In the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., the Church
of England set forth the following declaration, concerning
the use of Confession:
"Such as shall be satisfied with a general confession
are not to be offended with them that do use to their
further satisfying, the auricular and secret confession to the
priest; nor those also which think needful or convenient,
for the quietness of their consciences, particularly to open
their sins to the priest, to be offended with them that are
satisfied with their humble confession to God, and the
general confession to the Church. But in all things to
follow and keep the rule of charity, and every man to be
satisfied with his own conscience, not judging other men's
minds or consciences, whereas he hath no warrant of God's
Word for the same."

BOOKS QUOTED IN THE TEXT
Theophilus Americanus  Wordsworth
The Primitive Church  Chapin
Plain Footprints  Timlow
The Church for Americans  Brown
Plain Reasons  Littledale
Church Doctrine Bible Truth  Sadler
The Church Identified  Wilson
The Catholic Religion  Staley
History of the American Church  McConnell
What is the Anglican Church ?  Ewer
The Worship of the Old Covenant  Willis
Turning Points of Church History  Cutts
The Philosophy of Ritual  Gratacap
Reformation of the Church of England  Blunt
The One Offering  Sadler
University Sermons  Liddon
The Roman Question  Carter
Roman Catholic Claims  Core
Primitive Saints and the See of Rome  Puller
Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction  Denny
A Churchman's Life of Wesley  Urlin
Notes on the New Testament  Sadler
The Priests' Prayer Book  Vaux and Littledale
Memoirs of the Church  White
The Gospel and Philosophy  Diao
The Grace of the Ministry  Denton
Reasons for Being a Churchman  Little
Catholic Dogma  McLaren
The Holy Catholic Church  Ashwell

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 369
The Genesis of the Church  Cotterill
Credentials of the Catholic Church  Bagshawe
Catholic, Not Protestant, Nor Roman Catholic  Hall
History of the American Church  Wilberforce
Right to Use the Catholic Name  Or eaves
Romanism, Protestantism and Catholicity  Ewer
Why I am a Churchman  Hey gate
The Ante-Nicene Fathers 
Elements of Religion  Liddon
The Church in the Prayer Book  Temple
Catholic Faith and Practice  Mortimer
The Dogmatic Faith  Gariett
History of the Church  Wordsworth
Doctrine of the Incarnation  Wilberforce
Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist  Wilberforce
The Provincial System  Wilson
Papal Claims  Seymour
Catholic Versus Roman  Langtry
History of the M. E. Church  Bangs
The Old Church in the New Land  Smith
History of the Church of England  Bright
Annotated Book of Common Prayer  Blunt
Antiquities of the Christian Church  Bingham
An Exposition of the Creed  Pearson

3 9002 00736 8906

lllillll'iilillllifl

iiiiiiiiiiii'

'•]'.' ''¦'

''i J^i;: ¦Iii;:: ii^i^Si^'Siiii

i I' 'h iii

in "!

iri||i|!iH

i!!li;i

i';l:i!,ii;

iiitiil'iil