>AtE UMlVERSlT'f UBBASY,
NEW HAVEN, CONK.

ROMAN
CORRESPOND ENCE

AND REPLIES TO

The Rev. W.J. Brosnan, S.J., The Rev. E. Spillane, S.J.
and The Rev. L. J. O'Hern, C.S.P.

By
The Rt. Rev. CHARLES C. GRAFTON, S.T.D.
Bishop of Pond du Lac

Mni34

Milwaukee
The Young Churchman Company
igo9

9qoj

The articles of the Rev. W. J. Brbsnan, S.J.,
are to be found in the Weekly revie\l, America,
of the dates June 19, June 26, and Jikly 3; that'
of the Rev. E. Spillane, S-J., in the i4ue of the
same paper July 10, 1909 ; and that of thfe Rev. Fr.
O'Hern ia the Catholic World for AuguSt.
The pamphlets by the Bishop of FonS du Lac,
entitled Bishop Grafton's Letter to the Oneidas,
A Correspondence, and A Rejoinder, ma|r be had
of The Young Churchman Co., Milwaukee, at 15
cents each. A few nmnbers of these have been
boimd together, including this present psiinphlet,
so that those who wish to preserve the set may do
so. The price of the bound copies is $1.00.

ROMAN CORRESPONDENCE AND REPLIES TO
The Rev. W.J. Brosnan, S.J.,
The Rev. E. Spillane, S.J.,
AND
The Rev. L.J. O'Hern, C.S.P.

BY

The Rt. Rev. CHARLES C. GRAFTON, S.T.D.
Bishop of Fond du I^ac

MILWAUKEE
THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO.

Roman Correspondence
My readers may be pleased to know of some of
the responses which I have had to my late pamph
lets from Roman Catholics. I have received some
kindly ones, but a larger number of abusive letters,
and have been called various names, such as
"dunce," one who has ''no knowledge of history,"
"a user of vulgar and uncharitable expressions,"
declared to be "untruthful and insincere," and
told that "as certain as that two and two make
four," unless I joined Rome, I should "go to hell."
One who wrote from the "Church of the Holy
Spirit" said that my pamphlet was "the veriest
trash that ever came from the pen of a human be
ing who professed to be a Bishop. It is a compila
tion of lies, falsehoods, and calumnies, and its
author deserves the lowest pit in the lower re
gions." It is noticeable how some persons think
that mere assertion and violent language are argu
ment. The proud certainly have had me exceed
ingly in derision, but I have not ceased to love and
pray for them.
For using the term "papalism" and "papalist,"
I have been called "vulgar and uncharitable. ' ' My
reply to this was that it was used by Baronius, the

Roman Catholic historian, whose works I have in
my library, and also by one of the Presidents of
the Council of Trent, Bishop Hosius, who said he
"gloried in the title," and said that "the denial of
it was Satanism."
Another Roman wrote me that as Le Courayer
' ' died an apostate to the Christian religion, his work
defending Anglican orders was destitute of any
authority." My reply was, that though he gave
up the Christian faith it did not foUow that the
works he wrote when a Christian were worthless.
The Roman priest had simply made a blunder in
his logic.
Another Roman priest wrote me that he "be
longed to a Church whose orders had never been at
tacked." My reply was that "the validity of the
election of a number of popes on account of simony
had been attacked." (See Littledale's Petrine
Claims y Ch. 8, 304, 346), and I was very thankful
that our orders had been attacked, because thereby
they had been so thoroughly and successfully vin
dicated. I was asked to consider Newman's reported
saying that "the Anglican believes in his orders,
and so believes he is in the Church. The Roman
believes in the Church, and so believes in his or
ders." Poor Newman! He was somewhat of a
sophist in his reasoning. The validity of our
orders is one proof we are in the Church, for the

Church must have orders. The argument is thus
a logical one. The Roman argument is not, for it
begins by assuming that it is the one and only true
Church, which is the point in question.
To my argument that "within the Anglican
Church the Religious life had been revived, which
is one proof of its being in possession of sacra
mental grace," I was told that in the Roman
Church it had not needed to be revived. This is
not quite true. Pope Clement IV. suppressed the
Jesuit Order. This was not done, like the sup
pression of the monasteries, by Henry YIII., but
by the Pope himself. And it was subsequently in
the last century revived. In Rome, the Religious
Orders have needed again and again to be re
formed, and no such scandals have been found in
the Anglican Communion as those that have
been noted by Roman Catholic historians in the
times of Carlo Borromeo, and charged against the
Knights Templar.
The immorality of the Roman See was ad
mitted by Chieregati, papal legate, 1522; and
Fleury the historian said that for 150 years "the
Roman Church groaned under many unworthy
Popes. ' ' To the long List I gave of bad and wicked
Popes, acknowledged to be such by Roman Catho
lic historians, it was replied that there was "a
Judas amongst the apostles." This is not accu
rate. Judas was caUed to be an Apostle, but fell

away before consecration at Pentecost. But his
fall does not answer the point that Popes who are
thoroughly corrupt cannot be trusted to be the
mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost in deciding theologi
cal questions, and so are infallible guides. The sac
raments of bad priests are valid. But when men
have fallen from grace, they have lost the grace
by which they can perform their office as guide.
It was pointed out that Anglicans were Protes
tants. Yes, for we protest against the errors of
the sects and also against Papal errors. We are
thus Protestants, because, holding the ancient
faith, we are sound Catholics.
Another blamed me because I referred to St.
Peter as being the first on the list of Apostles only
as given in St. Matthew. But on the eleventh page
of the pamphlet referred to I had distinctly stated
that he was placed first in the Gospels and in the
beginning of the Acts. And so in my book. Chris
tian and Catholic, I had shown Peter to be first in
the Apostolic band during the formative period of
the Church and the early days of its history, but
pointed out that afterwards, in the order given
amongst the Apostles, he ceased to be assigned that
place. Another told me that Christ preached out of
Peter's boat. He did so because Peter and his
boat were representatives of the old dispensation,
on whose teaching Christ based His authority.

For the same reason, Christ walked and taught in
Solomon's Porch, because it was the only remain
ing part of the old Temple. The fishes, taken at
Christ's word, were brought into Peter's boat, but
not to Peter, for they were equally brought into
the other boat, which was not Peter's. Those who
were called to assist were the partners, not the ser
vants, of Peter. They were not commanded but
asked to assist, and that not because their own boat
was in danger, but because Peter's net was break
ing. And they gave their assistance while remain
ing in their own boat and not getting into Peter's.
As for Peter himself, he received in this no special
authority or other gift save that of conviction of
sin, for he fell on his knees, saying, "I am a sinful
man, O Lord." If one part of the miracle applies
to Peter, and through him to Rome, so must the
other. The Papacy must be convicted of its sin
and when "converted" may be able to strengthen
its "brethren." Another brought up to me Cardinal Gibbons'
argument that the Pope's infallibility was the in
fallibility of an authority of the last resort, like the
authority of the Supreme Court of the United
States, or the Privy Council in England. But the
difference between the two is this : Courts of last
resort may, and often do, reverse their decisions,
but the Pope, if infallible by a divine gift, cannot

do so. And the difficulty of knowing when he
speaks infallibly stUl remains.
Again, I was told that our Lord specially
prayed for Peter. Yes, for he had special need of
help. Christ prayed that his faith in Him might
not fail, and giving him the gift of repentance, it
did not, so that, being himself converted, he could
strengthen his brethren. He could tell them how
the Lord, who had forgiven His greater sin of de
nial, would forgive them their lesser one of deser
tion. But our Lord did not pray that he should be
infallible or never deny the faith, which he did
when he denied Christ's Divinity, saying of Him
whom he had confessed to be the Son of God,
"I know not the Man."
Another sent me, with kindly intent, Newman's
Hymn, "Lead, Kindly Light," and called it his
prayer, and wished me to use it. I had, like most
persons, seen the poetry before. It could not
properly be called a Christian prayer, or one a
Christian would choose to use, for it is not ad
dressed to God or through Christ. A Unitarian
or pagan might use it. Praying, as the Church has
ever prayed, to God, through Christ, I have re
ceived the light and the grace which kept me from
falling away to Rome.
Did not, I was asked, Christ pray that the
Church ' ' might be one ' ' % Yes, He prayed it might
be one as He and the Father were one, i. e., by the

possession of a common nature. This has taken
place. By union with Christ through the Sacra
ments, aU the members are united into one body.
It is like the union that makes the family one
family, as possessing a common nature. This is a
union that cannot be broken. The members may
quarrel, and refuse to acknowledge one another,
and the family become thus disunited, but it is
nevertheless one family. The gates of hell can
not prevail against it.
Christ indeed prayed for union, as well as
unity, and he who breaks union is guilty of schism.
The sin of schism, however, lies with the party
who demands unscriptural or uncanonical terms of
communion. And it is this, we hold, that the Pa
pacy has done, and so it, and not we, is guilty of
the sin of schism.
It was pointed put that a few clergymen had
lately left our communion, for which, as far as
our commimion is concerned, I am very thankful,
as their position with us was the untenable one that
the Bishop of Rome was by divine authority the
head of the Church. The true Catholic position is
that the present monarchical papacy is founded on
unpatristic interpretations of the text "Thou art
Peter"; upon the Forged Decretals, and upon the
spirit of wordliness and love of power. Those who
hold otherwise should rightly go to Rome. But
while these have left us, a far greater number have

10
left Rome for the Catholic position, and a body of
learned former Roman Catholics, with some
100,000 followers, have formed themselves sepa
rate from Rome in the Old Catholic communion.
Concerning prayers to the saints, I was told by
one that their prayers to the saints were entirely
different from those to God. "We ask God to help
us by His power, but we only ask the saints to in
tercede for us. ' ' The answer is that Modern Ro
man theology makes Mary "the Neck" of the
Mystical Body of Christ, through whom all graces
must pass from Christ to us. The book. Glories
of Mary, by Liguori, is full of prayers directed to
her for gifts of grace.
I was reminded that the Blessed Peter was first
in the Apostolic College. This we gladly grant.
His work was to lay the foimdation and to open
the Kingdom to the sheep of the Old Dispensation
and the lambs of the New. No authority, however,
was given him over other shepherds or Apostles.
When he asked concerning St. John, "What shall
this man do?" our Lord's reply was, "What is
that to thee?" He, having the authority of the
keys, was to open the new Kingdom to Jew and
Gentile. He did this at Pentecost to the Jew, and
on the baptism of Cornelius to the Gentile. He
was thus the leader of the Apostles in confessing
Christ before Pentecost, and in the early days of
the Church by baptism uniting persons to Him.

11
He calls upon the Apostles to fill up the vacancy
caused by the fall of Judas, but the nomination of
the new Apostle does not rest with him. He does
not preside at the Council at Jerusalem, and the
decree does not run in his name. He was sent by
the Apostles on a mission to Samaria, and the
"sent" is manifestly under the authority of the
sender. The Apostles did not look to him as their
head or ruler, for they divided the jurisdiction of
the Gentiles and Jews between St. Peter and St.
Paul. One was the Apostle, by their decree, to
the Jews of the Circumcision, and the other to the
uncircumcision or Gentiles. Thus the office St.
Peter held was one which he fulfilled and which
did not require a successor.
I was asked, "What were the False Decretals
on which the Papacy was built?" They were a
collection issued by a forger at the end of the
eighth century and professed to be genuine edicts
on matters of faith and discipline put forth by
Bishops of Rome, ancient Councils, letters of an
cient fathers. These Forged Decretals went to
prove that the supremacy of Rome was known in
earlier ages of the Church. The great book of Ro
man canon law by Gratian quotes 324 times the
epistles of the first four centuries, and of these 324
quotations, 313 are from letters which are now uni
versally known to be spurious. Of the 24 quota
tions which the great mediaeval theologian, Malcus

12
Carnus, gives on the subject of the Papacy, 18 are
out of the False Decretals. Lord Selborne, the
High Chancellor of England, declared that the en
tire edifice of modern and mediaeval papal suprem
acy was built up on these forgeries. It is some
thing different in kind from the precedence en
joyed in the early ages by Rome. "No one,"
says the historian Hallam, "has pretended to deny
during the last two centuries, that the imposture
is too palpable for any but the most ignorant to
credit." Pope Pius VI., in 1789, admitting the for
gery of these letters, said, "Let us put aside this
collection, and let it be burnt if you wiU. ' ' It was
after the discovery that the Monarchical Papacy
was built up in the Middle Ages on these forgeries
that Roman controversialists fell back on the text,
"Thou art Peter," and gave to it an interpretation
which was not warranted by the Fathers. For
none of the Fathers, in interpreting the text, had
stated that the office given to Peter was one which
he was to transmit to a successor. Thus it is on
the quagmire of the Forged Decretals and un
patristic interpretation of Scripture that the mod
ern Papacy is founded.
I was told of the old saying that "a visible
Church requires a visible head." I replied, that
a divine Society must have a divine Head, and be
ing one body, can have only one Head, which is
Christ. The Church on earth, being only a frac-

13
tion of the Church, does not need, as if an entity,
one head who represents Christ. The Headship
of Christ is represented by the Bishop of each dio
cese, who is necessarily visible to His priests by his
reception of them at their ordination, and to the
people who receive Confirmation at his hand.
Thus as each family and nation has a head, so each
Diocese has one, but as it is not necessary there
should be one head over all families, or over all
nations, so there is no necessity for there being one
Bishop over all Bishops. The Church's visibility
does not require this.
Another critic stated that if our present Ordi
nal was vaUd, nevertheless we had no spiritual
jurisdiction. Now jurisdiction is both habitual
and actual. Habitual is the result of ordination,
actual is in the nature of a prohibition, confining
the action of each minister to a certain territorial
area. Now, Archbishop Matthew Parker, being
validly consecrated, had habitual jurisdiction.
The actual jurisdiction of metropolitans comes
from their comprovincials. It is like unto the
actual jurisdiction of the Pope. When a Pope
dies, the little canopies, umbrella like, over each
Cardinal's seat, are unfolded. It shows that the
jurisdiction has fiowed down into the College of
Cardinals. On the election of a new Pope, these
canopies are refolded. Thus in the case of a Met
ropolitan, the actual jurisdiction became, on the

14
death of Matthew's Parker's predecessor, vested
in the comprovincials, some of whom gave their
actual assent, while the others refrained from any
protest, and so concurred. Thus Archbishop Par
ker had both habitual and actual spiritual juris
diction, which remains in his successors, the Arch
bishops of Canterbury, and the Bishops under
them. In conclusion, I would notice how very beauti
fully Peter's special and temporary leadership are
brought out in the one miracle recorded at Easter
tide. There Christ is represented as standing on
the shore as the Risen Lord. The fire supernatur-
aUy provided represents the Holy Ghost. The
burning coals formed from the wood symbolize the
Cross. The fish is always known as a symbol of
Christ. The broiled fish upon the living coals sets
forth His Crucifixion ; the bread connected with it,
the Holy Eucharist. Peter and his companions
are represented as having failed in their fishing.
This betokens the Jewish Dispensation. St. John,
the Christian herald, points out to Peter that the
person on shore is the Christ. The call comes from
the Master. Peter is in his unclothed, Jewish,
spiritual state. He believes, and wraps about him
the garment of faith. He plunges into the water,
which symbolizes Baptism. Then he draws the
Gospel net, which encloses the fish taken at
Christ's command through the water, which sym-

15
boHzes baptism, to Christ. The miracle tells us of
the special work of Peter, and which belonged to
him alone. He has no successor. The Church,
symbolized by the gospel net, as drawn to Christ,
has Christ for its Head. For the unity of the
Church lies not in subjection to a monarchical
earthly head, but to Christ represented in a collec
tive Episcopate, united by divine charity, and in a
common faith, as set forth by the received Ecumen
ical Councils and the common consent of Apostolic
Christendom.

AN ATTACK BY A ROMAN CATHOLIC
LAYMAN.
[Feom The Living Chttrch.]
"To the Editor of The Living Church:
"Appreciating the fairness with which you
have heretofore treated controversial articles, even
though opposed to your personal views, by giving
them space in your correspondence columns, per
mit me this time to make a few remarks on the
various matters quoted by the Right Reverend, the
Bishop of Fond du Lac, in an article appearing in
The Living Church for May 15th, entitled 'Ro
man Correspondence.' While I wiU endeavor to
be brief, the Bishop's correspondence necessarily
compels a somewhat extended reply.
"The writer quotes several uncomplimentary
phrases made ostensibly by Roman Catholics in be
half of his recent anti-Roman book, which, if I am
not wholly misinformed, was circulated 'free,
gratis, for nothing, ' as Senator Ingalls used to say.
A recent conversation with a rector of a local Epis
copal Church, who was the happy possessor of a

17
free volume, convinces me that some of the lan
guage used by the book's critics was unfortunately
more truthful than polite. Vituperative language,
however, proves nothing, and to criticise, by writ
ing the editor of a book written for a purpose, is
seldom of any avail. As a Roman Catholic, I most
humbly apologize for any rude remarks made by
my co-religionists.
"But is it not rather unkind to condemn a
whole nation, when some Irishmen waste their
time by 'calling names"?
"No sane Roman Catholic can object to the
term 'Papalism' if politely used; but such and sim
ilar terms are frequently applicable in various
ways. A Jew cannot reasonably be offended at be
ing called a Jew, but many Gentiles use it as a term
of opprobrium, when it is objectionable and offen
sive to polite intercourse.
"Is the Right Rev. Father Grafton not wholly
wrong when he calls an apostate 'the good old
priest"? The holy Scripture states, 'Let him be
unto thee as a heathen and publican. '
"Roman Catholic orders have never been at
tacked. They consist of Bishops, priests, and dea
cons. The Papacy is not an order, it is an office
held by the Bishop of Rome. But whether Angli
can or Roman, the attack does not prove the war
ranty. "The Anglican post-Reformation Church was

18
certainly fortunate in possessing no religious or
ders until recently. Thus it has been saved such
unpleasantness as the French court caused the
Jesuits. May she be even so fortunate in her fu
ture, more Catholic, life.
"If the good Bishop made up a 'long list of bad
and wicked popes,' he certainly must have hunted
them outside of Rome. There is no question about
one, or probably a few, who could be thus epito
mized. But if wickedness is a bar to the validity of
an official act, then Christendom has long ceased
to exist. "Does it not seem rather anomalous to be 'Prot
estant Catholic"? Of course, all Catholics, in fact,
all just thinking men, would protest against any
thing unfair or unjust, but such are not commonly
known as Protestants ; and, by the way, would not
any sectarian Protestant protest against 'Papal
ism,' on the one hand and the 'errors' of all other
sects on the other?
"To argue that St. Peter, or, as Bishop Grafton
is pleased to call him, like most non-Catholic Prot
estants, simply 'Peter,' was first only in the forma
tive period, is perfectly right. St. Peter lived in
the formative period, but when his Grace claims
that he (St. Peter) afterward ceases to hold that
place, he probably refers to the time after his
death. I am sure the good Bishop has an abun
dance of historical literature on the Christian

19
Church; among Protestant writers I would sug
gest the following, who oppose him : Mihnan, Leib
nitz, Whiston, Giesler. The Right Rev. Dr. Graf
ton is also in direct opposition to the views ex
pressed by St. Clement vs. Ustru, A. D. 96; St.
Victor vs. Asiatic Churches; second century, Ter-
tuUian writing about St. Zepherinus, A. D. 216 ; St.
Stephen vs. St. Cyprian in 256, and even St. Cy
prian himself (Milman says) 'did far more to ad
vance her (the Papacy's) power by the primacy,
which he assigned to St. Peter. ' St. Felix deposed
the Bishop of Antioch. In 274 Aurelian decides
against the Antioch claims for Church property
there, in favor of Rome. The Eastern fathers, SS.
Anthanasius, Chrysostom, and Cyril, appeal to the
Roman Pontiff. Pope Clement demands obedience
(even over the head of St. John, who was still
alive) 'to the things written by us through the
Holy Spirit, ' etc., etc. In the second century, Ig
natius of Antioch, Papias, Dionysius of Corinth,
Irenseus. The latter, A. D. 177, appeals to the
greatest, oldest, etc., known Church 'founded by
St. Peter, who delivered the office of the episcopate
to Linus. ' Ignatius looks upon the Roman episco
pate as 'presiding in love.' Gains, A. D. 220. And
thus one could quote, in support of (to say the
least) the Roman or Petrine primacy all through
the ages, but to do so would unnecessarily lengthen
my letter.

20
"In the next paragraph the Bishop claims the
Papacy to have been built up on the Forged Decre
tals. But is he here historically correct? If the
Papacy existed in A. D. 33, which is, I think,
abundantly proven, the Forged Decretals came
very late in support of the Papal claims. That
they did support the Papacy was not the fault of
the Papacy, and that they were proven forgeries
has and is not questioned by any intelligent up
holder of Papalism.
"The fact that a few— yes, very few— Episco
palians have recently seen fit to affiliate themselves
with the Roman communion is neither a disgrace
to Anglicanism nor a particular gain to the Roman
Catholic Church. It constantly happens that men
form convictions, right or wrong, for which they
would gladly die.
"There is probably more real unity to-day
among aU those of good will, be they Anglican,
Greek, or Roman, than there is among the bicker
ing factions in any of those communions.
"It is true that Roman Catholics, especially
those of the Southland, are excessive in their ex
pressions. If a Spaniard says, 'My house is
yours, ' he has no intention of conveying to you his
title-papers. It is merely an exuberant expression
of welcome. In like manner, Roman Catholics fre
quently are guilty of extravagant, yes, unreason
able, language, especially in the cult of the Blessed

21
Virgin. But the real Roman Catholic view is so
thoroughly in harmony with the Anglo-Catholic
view, that an article in the May issue of The
American Catliolic (an Episcopalian paper), on
the cult of the B. V. M., could without any hesi
tancy be reprinted in any official Roman Catholic
organ. "I fear, Mr. Editor, my article is already too
long. Trusting to your fairness, you are at per
fect liberty so to shorten it that the sentiment is
not altered. "Yours very truly,
"Philadelphia, May 17, 1909. F. J. Voss."

REPLY TO THE FOREGOING BY THE BISHOP.
[Feom The Living Chuboh.]
"To the Editor of The Living Church:
"As the party attacked, and in the place of the
defendant, I have a right to a final reply. I must,
however, apologize to your readers for doing so,
lest it be supposed the ordinary intelligent Church
man would need any help in answering such a pro
duction. But there are a few persons who think
if an article is not answered it is because it is diffi
cult to do so, whereas, in the present case, it is a
very easy matter.
"F. J. Voss' article is not wanting in Christian
civility, but it is characterized, as Roman contro
versialists ' papers often are, by a mixture of poor

22
logic and obvious inaccuracy. In his anxiety
to make a point, he censures me 'with most
non-Catholic Protestants' for omitting the letter
' S. ' before the Apostle Peter's name. Most persons
—seeing how often I have used it, and as it is well
known how our Prayer Book always gives the saint
his title, and that it is the common usage indeed
amongst Anglicans— would have taken the omis
sion either as an accident or as the fault of the
printer. It is difficult to measure the littleness of
a mind that would seek such a foolish weapon.
It would be like a soldier in battle throwing back a
snowball in answer to a bullet.
"Again: I am censured for calling an apostate
'a good old priest.' I did not do so. Here is a
great want of accuracy. A Roman priest wrote
me that LeCourayer died an apostate, and that
therefore his works were destitute of any author
ity. My reply was that though LeCourayer gave
up the Christian faith, it did not follow that the
works which he wrote when a Christian were
worthless. 'This good old priest,' viz., the one
who had written me, not LeCourayer, I said had
simply made a blunder in his logic. Mr. Voss
states that no sane Roman Catholic can object to
the term 'papalism. ' They cannot well do so, when
we have shown that it was used by so distinguished
an officer of the Church as one of the presidents of
the Council of Trent, and who said he gloried in it.

23
We do not use it as a term of reproach, but as an
accurate definition. It marks a difference between
Catholicism and papalism. The true Catholic ac
cepts all that the Holy Church has from the begin
ning held and authoritatively taught. The Roman
Catholic believes in what has the imprimatur oi
the Bishop of Rome. They believe what he says,
even apart from councils, because he says it. Our
Anglican brethren may well push this issue to the
front. A distinction between Catholics and non-
Catholics, when applied to Anglicans, is a mislead
ing one. The real distinction between us is a dis
tinction between Catholicity and papalism! Are
you a Catholic or a Papist? 'For which king,
Bezonian ? ' Papist or Catholic, which will you be ?
"My opponent says that Catholic orders have
never been attacked. I pointed to the fact that the
papacy has been attacked many, many times. In
Dr. Littledale 's Petrine Claims a long list of Popes
is given who obtained their office through simony,
which was destructive of its validity. And as to
there being as stated 'three orders in the Roman
Church, consisting of Bishops, priests, and dea
cons, ' I have again and again read in Roman theo
logical books that the order of Bishop and priest
was but one, the Bishop being regarded as the com
pletion of the priesthood. If then the Bishop of
Rome is not an order, then there are not three
orders. If he is an order, it has never been trans-

24
mitted by a successive consecration of one Pope by
another. "Again the papacy shows not only a few bad
Popes, but quite a number of men filled with vUe-
ness and wickedness and crime. We have never
contended that wickedness is a bar to the validity
of those official acts which are not dependent on
the sanctity of the actor. But for the discrimina
tion of the differences between truth and error,
and the delicate points which arise in cases of
heresy, a man, to decide them, must have the super
natural gifts of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the Holy
Ghost cannot dwell in bad and reprobate men, the
decisions of these bad Popes cannot be trusted.
Balaam's ass could be made to bray, by way of
warning, but not to decide a point of theology.
"Most theologians will admit that a certain
precedency had grown up in early times about the
Bishopric of Rome. We deny, however, that the
Blessed Peter had any jurisdiction given him over
the other Apostles or the Church, and there is no
record of transmitting any such privilege to the
Bishop of Rome. We admit that the Bishop of
Rome had achieved a certain precedency of honor
and dignity in the early times, but it is absolutely
certain that he had not, and did not claim to have,
the powers said to belong to the modern papacy.
The modern Pope claims to be distinct from the
episcopate, to be the monarch of the Church, the

25
source of all jurisdiction, to have the appointment
of all Bishops, to bring about their removal at
pleasure, to make decrees binding on the faith, and
to have the whole government of the Church in his
hands. It is an awful power, and utterly unlike
that which the Bishops of Rome exercised in early
times. The statement that the Papacy existed in
A.D. 33 is absurd. The position of the Roman See
during the first five centuries is as different from
its modern claim as a republic from an absolute
monarchy. No father ever dreamed that the Pope
was infallible, and the Church never acted as if
she thought so.
We could answer one by one the citations
of Mr. Voss, but all put together, they do not go to
prove the Bishop of Rome has, by divine right, the
supremacy. This supremacy is the outgrowth of
unpatristic interpretations of Scripture, the
Forged Decretals, and the awful spirit of worldli-
ness which has been a characteristic of that See.
If the Popes were not very bad men, a large num
ber of them were very worldly and unconverted
men. As the papacy in early centuries was very
different from what it is now, it is a sound argu
ment to show how the Forged Decretals helped on
its development. "I can but call attention to the final argument
of your correspondent. He defends the devotions
to the Blessed Virgin Mary on the ground of the

26
natural extravagance of the Spaniard who says
'My house is yours' without having the least inten
tion of conveying it. Certainly, to treat our Blessed
Lady in this way of unmeaning compliment is not
to honor her. But here we wiU join issue with Mr.
Voss. The devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary
and God-bearer put her in a position the Gospels
have never known. Rome calls her, 'the Neck of
the mystical Body of Christ, through whom aU
graces pass from Him to us." This gives her the
office of a co-mediatrix. We quote also from New
man's Tract 71, where we find Roman writers
claiming that Mary can and should be supplicated
to command her Son. Albertus Magnus says:
'Mary prays as a daughter, commands as a
Mother.' Again in the Eucharist we must go to
Christ in His justice but 'we must go to a Sacra
ment solely of mercy, and this sacrament is the
Blessed Virgin.' Thus the late Pope declared, 'We
know very well 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 accord
ingly we may know that if there is any hope in us,
any grace, any salvation, it redounds to us from
her, because such is His wiU that we should have
everything through Mary. ' In the Glories of Mary
we read, 'If my Saviour drive me off because of
my sins, I will go and cast myself at the feet of
His mother. ' In the Roman Church, not only are

37
appeals made to Mary for her supplications, but
resort is made to her as a source of grace. The
Blessed Virgin is said to be ' superior to God Him
self,' who is subject to her in respect of the man
hood He received of her. 'But when the justice of
God saves not, the infinite mercy of Mary saves by
her intercessions.' 'It is safer to seek salvation
through her than directly through Jesus.' How
ever it may be urged by Roman controversialists
that their prayers to Mary are not more than ask
ing the prayers of the faithful, yet, as Pusey says,
'it is plainly more, as no one would ask those in the
flesh to protect us from the enemy, receive us at
the hour of death, and lead us to the joy of Heaven,
heal our wounds, and bestow upon us the gifts of
grace. ' It is the practical development of the sys
tem, which imder the authority of the papacy and
its promulgation of the immaculate conception of
Mary, stamps the Roman system as papal, in oppo
sition to Catholic.
' ' ' The most startling part of this system, ' says
Pusey, 'is its completeness.' A minute parallel is
drawn between the offerings of Mary and those of
Jesus. She has been called ' the complement of the
Blessed Trinity.' The theory held among the
poorer people in Rome, that in the Eucharist, not
only our Lord, but His Mother, is present, has been
defended. 'We maintain the co-presence of Mary
in the Eucharist. This is a necessary consequence

28
of our Marian theory, and we shrink from no con
sequence. We maintain the Blood of the Lord and
the lac (the milk) of His Virgin Mother are both
present in the Sacrament.'
"Now, in the presence of this, what shall we
think of the efforts of Roman controversialists to
gloss over the whole matter, as merely the exag
gerated compliment of the Spaniard? We will
make no comment upon what the judgment of our
readers would be.
"The walls of this papal Jericho, are, we be
lieve, beginning to totter. The doctrine of a penal
purgatory, where faithful souls are obliged to suf
fer, to satisfy the justice of God, is as terrible as
the extreme doctrine of Calvinistic predestination.
The money making system of Indulgences, so op
pressive to the poor, fills the treasuries of the Ro
man Church. The Holy Sacrament, which for 1,000
years was given in both kinds, and still is in the
Eastern Communion, has been taken away from
the laity. A service not in the language under
stood of the people is contrary to Apostolic
teaching. "The enforced celibacy of the clergy has led, by
their own confession and statement, to innumer
able sins. The modern monarchical papacy,
founded on wrong interpretations of Scripture,
the False Decretals, and an awful spirit and love
of worldly power, has rent the Church of Christ

29
asunder, and in the southern nations of Europe in
fidelity has largely taken the place of the ancient
spirit of devotion and faith. Not till a thorough
reform takes place in the Roman Communion can
we ever look for, or desire, a union with her.
"C. C. Fond DU Lac."

CRITICISM FROM THE ROMAN CATH
OLIC JOURNAL, "AMERICA."
"bishop graeton''s vain plea for his orders.
"A writer in The Churchman, May 15th, cites
with approval an argument of the Episcopalian
Bishop of Fond du Lac, Wis., in defence of An
glican orders. Here is the citation: 'The an
swer I gave (for the validity of our, i. e., Anglican,
orders) was that of Christ, "By their fruits ye shall
know them. ' ' I cited the effect of our sacraments
as seen in the increase of grace in those who had
joined us from the world, and the lack of such ad
vance, according to their own testimony, of many
who had gone from us to Rome. The marvelous
spiritual vitality of the Anglican Church in the
last 300 years, assaulted as it has been within and
without, and the rise in it of the religious life, is a
demonstration of the efficacy of our sacraments.'
' ' This proof of the validity of Anglican Orders
is, in brief, that the fruits of sanctity as shown in
the holiness of Episcopalians in general can be ex
plained only by the admission of a valid priesthood
among them. If this argument proves anything

32
it proves too much, for Baptists and Methodists,
Presbyterians and Quakers, to say nothing of Uni
tarians, may appeal to a like spiritual vitality ; yet
they claim no priesthood, no Apostolic succession,
and explain whatever sanctity their church or
its members possess without any reference to
orders or sacraments. There are men who see
'higher and nobler vestiges or semblances of grace
and truth in Methodism than there have been
among Episcopalians,' who go 'to Wesley and such
as him' if they wish 'to find the shadow and the
suggestion of the supernatural godliness which
make up the notion of a Catholic Saint.' "
My reference to the effect of our Sacraments
was in the nature of, not a primary, but a corrobor
ative, proof.
I have been criticised by the Rev. Jesuit Father,
the Rev. E. Spellane, S.J., for an inconsistency in
claiming that the effects of the Sacraments are an
independent proof of our orders, and also styling
them a corroborative one. As in respect of the be
ing of God, there are two great lines of proof, the
philosophical and the experimental knowledge of
Him. As in respect of Christianity, it has its objec
tive proof in the facts of Christ's life, and its sub
jective proof in its effects on individuals, so it is
in regard to our orders. There is the historical
and theological proof, and the proof from the ef
fect produced from the grace of the Sacraments.

33
There are thus two independent lines of argument,
and by each the validity of our orders is indepen
dently established. But the effect of the Sacra
ments has also a corroborative value in the way of
proof, and thus, by two concurring witnesses, a
greater strength is given to their separate demon
stration. I do not think it inconsistent therefore to
hold both their independence and the corrobora
tive value of their sacramental efficiency.
OUR ORDERS.
Every portion of the Catholic Church must be
possessed of the three orders derived through a
succession which begins with the Apostles. I had
shown in my book. Christian and Catholic, and
elsewhere, in my pamphlets, the grounds of belief
in the validity of our orders. In a condensed form
they are as follows :
All our Anglican Bishops trace their orders to
Archbishop Laud, who was, by the way, offered, so
he made record and informed the King, a Cardi
nal's hat. Now, Archbishop Laud combined in
himself three distinct lines of Episcopal orders.
The Archbishop of Spalatro, de Dominis, left
the Roman Church and became Dean of Windsor,
and united in the consecration of two Bishops,
and to him Laud traces his succession. Again:
some Irish Bishops, formerly in communion with
Rome, conformed. Among these was Archbishop
Curwen, and Laud traces his succession, thus.

34
to one whose orders no Roman makes objec
tion. Moreover, he traces his orders to Arch
bishop Matthew Parker, of the English line, who
was consecrated by four Bishops, two of whom
had received their orders under the Roman
Pontificale. As all these four Bishops who con
secrated Dr. Parker Archbishop of Canterbury
said, according to the official record, the words of
consecration, and were thus co-consecrators, there
seems to be no doubt of the validity of his con
secration. I added, in confirmation of our orders, the
effect of our Sacraments. The reply made was
that the argument proves too much, ' ' for Baptists,
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, to say
nothing of Unitarians, may appeal to a like qual
ity." Now, my own experience of a great many
years, and that of many hundred of our clergy, is
this : that on persons coming from the sects, under
the influence of our Church and its Sacraments,
they advance from one spiritual level to a
higher one. They become more spiritually en
lightened in the apprehension of the Catholic
Faith. Thej^ become empowered by divine grace,
and attain to a higher union and gifts than that of
the mere peace of conversion. If we contrast the
spiritual writings of sectarians with those of the
Roman communion and ours, we see that the same
high level of spiritual teaching is found in both of

35
our communions and is wanting in most of the
writings in Protestant bodies. This is a demon
stration of Rome and ourselves possessing sacra
mental grace.
My critic is most unf ortimate in the citation of
Wesley as an example of equal or superior sanctity
to that found in the Church, for Wesley was a
priest in Holy Orders in our Church, and spiritu
ally lived on its sacraments, and received none
other. Besides, a number of those who left us for Rome
either returned or left the Roman Church; like
Messrs. Capes, Palgrave, Hemans, Thomas Ar
nold, Mivart, Cornelly, W. Nevins, Addis (in Eng
land) , or Dr. Forbes, Professor Clapp, Dr. Lloyd,
and others in America, together with DoUinger,
Herzog, Reinkins, and Schultz in Germany, and
with 100,000 Old Catholics. Some of those who
have left us for Rome have borne their testimony,
as Ff oulkes did, that they did not find a higher life
in the Roman communion than in the Anglican
one, and in a number of cases those who left us
for Rome obviously deteriorated. " If I had to die
for it," wrote Ff oulkes to Manning in his pamph
let. The Church's Creed, or the Crown's Creed, "I
could not possibly subscribe to the idea that the
Sacraments to which I am admitted week after
week in the Roman communion— Confession and
the Holy Eucharist— confer any graces essentially

36
different from what I used to derive from these
same sacraments in the Church of England." "I
have been engaged constantly, since I joined the
Roman communion, in instituting comparisons be
tween members of the Church of England and
members of the Church of Rome generally, and the
result confirms me in the belief that the notion of
the Sacraments exercising any greater influence
upon the heart and life in the Church of Rome
than in the Church of England is not merely pre
posterous, but contrary both to faith and fact."
"What people say of those generally who have be
come Roman Catholics, is that they have deterior
ated generally, rather than they have advanced."
Surely no one who has read the lives of Manning,
Newman, and others of the best converts to Rome,
wiU say that they had improved, or were in spirit
ual advance of such saintly men as Pusey, Keble,
and Carter. Some are known to have given up
the Faith entirely, and to have become agnostics,
while in the English Church there has been a re
markable development of saintly character and of
the technical Religious Life, which Lacordaire said
could not be produced outside the Catholic Church.
An appeal therefore to the fruits or effects of the
Sacraments shows that we possess them.
Again, we are thus criticised :
' ' The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Fond du
Lac is unfortunate in his appeal to the text, 'By

37
their fruits ye shall know them.' It is the very
text which St. Augustine uses against the schis
matic PetUianus. Properly understood and taken
in the context, the text indicates the signs by which
the sheep shall recognize the true shepherd from
the hireling and not the marks which point out the
true fold. Christ said, 'Beware of false prophets
which come unto you in sheep's clothing, but in
wardly they are ravening wolves; and ye shall
know them by their fruits.' And it was by this
sign that Augustine recognized the schismatic Pe-
tUianus. ' If you should ask of me by what fruits
we know you to be ravening wolves, I bring against
you the charge of schism, which you will deny, but
which I will straightway go on to prove ; for as a
matter of fact, you do not communicate with all
the nations of the earth, nor with those churches
which were founded by the labor of the Apostles. ' ' '
I am said to be unfortunate in the use of the
text, "By their fruits ye shall know them," as it
is claimed to apply to the signs by which the sheep
shall recognize the true shepherd from the hire
ling, and not the marks which point out the true
fold. But Our Lord certainly gives this test of the
fruit as one of general application, for He said (St.
Luke 6: 43, 44), "A good tree bringeth not forth
corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his

38
own fruit." It is not I who am so unfortunate in
m.y citation from Scripture as my critic. The
saying that is quoted from St. Augustine, "You do
not communicate with all the nations of the earth,
nor with those churches which were founded by
the labor of the Apostles," singularly applies to
Rome of to-day as not being in union with the
Apostolic Churches of the East. Rome stands
therefore in an isolated position.
Again, we are thus faulted :
"How awkward would be the application of
this text in its legitimate sense to the Bishop of
Fond du Lac and his confreres among the Episco
palian Bishops! You are not shepherds, says St.
Augustine, but ravening wolves, and the proof is
because you have cut yourselves off from the
Church of the Nations. ' '
The Roman Church, as we see, had done this.
The Anglican Church formally declared that it had
not separated itself from the Catholic Churches of
Western Christendom, and had no intention of do
ing so. In one of her canons she said: "It was far
from the purpose of the Church of England to for
sake or reject the Churches of Italy, France, Ger
many, Spain, or any other such like Churches."
No new Church was made, though the old was re
formed. It reformed itself, upon the Catholic
principle of an appeal to antiquity and submission
to an Ecumenical Council. The Anglican Church

39
is in friendly intercourse with the Eastern
Churches today. She is willing to receive at her
altars all Christian members of Apostolic Com-
mimions. Before the action of Pope Pius V. with
drawing his followers, in 1570, from communion in
the Church of England, they all worshipped to
gether. Rome made, by the Pope's action, a new
Church organization in England, which has rightly
been called "The Italian Mission." How would
not St. Augustine's words apply to this intruding
body, which claims papal sanction but not the
authority of all Christian and Catholic nations ?
Let us consider the Roman Catholics' next
charge :
"The Bishop boasts of the marvelous vitality
of the Anglican Church in the last 300 years, but,
waiving the question of heresy, it is clearly schis-
matical ; it is not Catholic ; its sole expansion dur
ing that period of 300 years has been within nations
that owe or once owed allegiance to the British
Crown. The ordinary graces communicated with
greater or less prodigality to all mankind— for
God 'will have all men to be saved and to come to
the knowledge of the truth'— it has, but to the
presence of these extra-sacramental graces it can
not appeal in proof of its Apostolic Succession, or
of its inherent sanctity or the certainty of its
priesthood, as even Russian schismatics may do,

40
much less can it claim to be the One, Holy, Cath
olic, and Apostolic Church. ' '
We make reply :
The Anglican Church does not claim to be the
' ' One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, ' ' as Rome
does, but claims only to be a part of it, and so her
legitimate care is for those, wherever they may be,
who have been given her, by God's Providence, to
care for. Consequently, she ministers especially
to all English-speaking peoples, and sends out her
missions everywhere throughout the world, to the
heathen. Unquestionably, grace is given to all
men, but the endurance of the Anglican Com
munion in spite of all the attacks made upon her,
both within and without, and her recovery of the
Catholic Faith in its integrity, in practice and
worship, shows that she is not a branch cut off
from the body of Christ. While sectarians have
been ever disintegrating, and losing more and more
hold of the ancient faith, the Anglican Communion
has ever been recovering it. She lives today with
a greater vitality than probably any other branch
of Christendom. Such struggles as are within her
are not like those of a dying church, but signs of
reviving life.
Again, St. Augustine is appealed to by our
Roman critic :
" 'What does it profit them,' says the Bishop
of Hippo, addressing earlier schismatics, 'if they

41
have both the voice of angels in the sacred mys
teries, and the gift of prophesying as had Caiaphas
and Saul ? If they not only know but even possess
the Sacraments, as Simon Magus did ; if they have
faith, as the devils confessed Christ; if they dis
tribute of themselves their own substance to the
poor, as many do, not only in the Catholic Church,
but in different heretical bodies ; if, under pressure
of any persecution they give their bodies to be
burned for the faith which they like us confess;
yet because they do all these things apart from the
Church, not "forbearing one another in love," nor
' ' endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the
bond of peace, inasmuch as they have not charity,
they cannot attain to eternal salvation, even with
all these good things which profit them not." ' "
In reply to this I submit that it cannot be said
that Anglicans have not charity towards all other
apostolic bodies of Christians. We love them all.
We put no barriers in the way of their communion
with us. But is it so with Rome ? St. Augustine
was condemning the Donatists, who claimed to be
the true Church, and had separated themselves
from all others. This is the position Rome takes.
She claims to be the whole Church, and declares
those to be in schism who are not in her communion.
Now schism, as a sin, has its material and formal
sides. Wherever there is separation there is ma
terial schism. But how shall we know who is

42
guilty of the sin of schism? The canon law of the
Church declares that he who is guilty of demand
ing wrong terms of communion, i. e., wrong, by
being uncanonical or unscriptural, is the party
guilty of schism. He it is who makes the quarrel.
He it is who drives the other party out. Rome, by
its demand for submission to the absolute mon
archical power of the Pope, as the source of all
jurisdiction, and to himself as judge of doctrine,
imposes on the faithful uncanonical and unscrip
tural terms of communion. He, therefore, is
guilty of schism, and the Roman Church therefore
is in schism everywhere.
"Granted," it is said, "that the Anglican
Church has sacramental power, it still remains for
the Bishop of Fond du Lac to prove that, together
with the possession of the Sacraments, etc., it does
not possess all these things apart from the Church.
His Church could have seven sacraments, and not
be the true. It could have an acknowledged and
not more than doubtful priesthood, and for all that
be really schismatic, and consequently not the
Church that Christ has established on the earth."
Our reply is that this assumes the necessity of
being in communion with the Pope to be in the
Church. We would refer our readers to Fr. Pul
ler 's Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, to
Dr. Bright 's The Roman See in the Early Church,
and to Littledale 's Petrine Claims, as showing this

43
cannot be maintained. Saints, admittedly such by
Rome, have died out of the communion of the
Roman Church. We recall the names of St. Cy
prian, St. Meletius, and St. Hilary. In the great
schism St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent
Ferrar were on different sides. But, moreover, we
do not claim the Anglican to be the one sole Church
that Christ established, but only a part of it. We
have shown that it is not schismatieal, for it does
not demand uncanonical or unscriptural terms of
communion, as Rome does. In its Prayer Book,
which is its authoritative formulary of doctrine
and worship, is to be foimd the Catholic Faith, or
that which has been everywhere preserved through
out all portions of Christendom, and which by all is
declared to be the Faith. She has preserved the
apostolic orders of the priesthood, and furnishes
her children with the sacraments necessary to sal
vation.

THANKS FOR THE PAPAL DENIAL OF
OUR ORDERS.
And here we will say a word to our Roman
friends. Along with others I am very thankful
your Pope did not acknowledge our orders. It
was one of the greatest providential gifts our
Church has ever received. It was brought about
by the influence of an English coterie, who feared
the effect of a contrary decision. But Rome never
made a greater mistake. Had she declared the va
lidity of our orders, the greatest barrier which
keep us from uniting with Rome would have been
taken away. There would have been a great out
burst of good feeling in respect to Papal authority.
And in these troubles which beset the English
Church, many, we believe, would have passed to
the Roman Commimion. But Anglicans know, by
argument and experience, that their orders are
valid. I, myself, hold there is no better proof for
the existence of a God than, admitting the fact of a
revelation from Him, there is of our orders. If
we were forced to disbelieve in our orders, logic
ally, we ought to give up Christianity. When,

46
therefore, the Pope declared our orders were not
valid, and we had not sacramental grace, we were
certified that he was not an infallible guide. So
God overruled his decision, and the effect was to
unite more strongly the various schools of church-
manship in England's Church together, and has
made individual conversions to Rome more and
more unlikely. We are glad, therefore, of every
attack that has been made on our orders, which we
know absolutely are true, and which cannot be
denied by secession without great sin.
We have also a word to speak to our Anglican
friends :
The real question which divides the com
munions, i. e., the papal supremacy, is one which
can only be properly determined by an Ecmnenical
Council. For any individual to sit in judgment
upon it, is to assume the powers of the Council.
An Anglican, therefore, cannot properly, with
safety, go to Rome. If it should be that Rome
was in the right, he could not be condemned by
God for not going thither, seeing that no Ecumen
ical Council has ever proclaimed the papal su
premacy, with its attached doctrine of a papal in
fallibility. He could plead and plead successfully
in his defence for not submitting to Rome that he
was too humble of mind to usurp the powers of
the Council with which God had not entrusted him.
On the other hand, if the Eastern Churches and the

47

Anglican are in the right, and Rome is in the
wrong, to submit to Rome would involve the denial
of sacraments received, be a desertion of his post
of duty, and a crime.

REPLY TO THE JESUIT FATHERS.
Since beginning this paper, I have seen the ar
gument of the Rev. E. Spillane, S.J., in the paper
America, of July 10th. I had said in a former
pamphlet that a number of Roman Bishops and
priests had at one time admitted the validity of
our Orders. The Rev. E. Spillane, replying to
this, says: "We are told that quite a number of
Roman theologians had upon this evidence ad
mitted the validity of Anglican ordinations. Since
they are so numerous it would have been easy to
give the names of a few, with proper references to
facilitate inspection. Certainly, no one, as far as
we know, has done so with full evidence, and if he
has, so much the worse for him."
I gave in one pamphlet quite a list of them and
my reference is to Rome's Trihute to Anglican
Orders, by the Rev. Montague R. Butler, Third
Edition, published 1894. He cites, amongst others,
Bossuet, the Bishop of Meaux ; Bishop Strickland,
D.D., Bishop of Namur; Bishop Henry Stonor,
Bishop Apostolic in England; Monseignior Col
bert, Bishop of Montpelier ; Bishop Milner, Bishop

50
of Castabula ; Bishop John Doyle, Bishop of Kil-
dare and Leighlin; Archbishop Murray, Arch
bishop of Dublin ; the Rev. Nicholas Sander, S.J. ;
the Very Rev. Chris. Devonport; Fr. Francis of
St. Claire; the Rev. Serenus Cressy, O.S.B. ; the
Rev. Dr. Stephen Gough, Oratorian, Chaplain at
one time to Charles I.; the Rev. John Skidmore,
Titular Prior of the Catholic Church of Canter
bury ; the Very Rev. Peter Walsh, Professor of Di
vinity; the Rev. Gregorio Panzanni, subsequently
Bishop of Mileto ; the Rev. Pere de Girardin, Doc
tor of the Sorbonne; the Very Rev. Francois Le
Courayer, Professor of Theology; the Rev. Pere
D. Arnaudin, Censor ; the Rev. Pere de Fontaines,
Inspector of Divinity Books ; the Rev. Pere Calda-
guez; the Rev. Pere Desmolets; the Rev. Pere de
ViUiers, Censor ; the Rev. Pere John Le Gris ; the
Rev. Sir Harry Perowne; the Very Rev. John
Moehler, D.D., Dean of Wiltzburg; the Rev.
Henry M. Oxenham ; the Rev. E. S. Ff oulkes.
Of other than Roman divines, Butler cites the
Rev. Dr. von Dollinger, who says: "I have no
manner of doubt as to the validity of the Episcopal
succession in the English Church." The Rt. Rev.
Dr. Reinkins, Old Catholic Bishop, said: "I gladly
believe that the Anglican Church possesses a true
succession of Bishops, as also a priesthood duly
consecrated." The Rt. Rev. Dr. Herzog declared:

51
"The Old Catholics do not doubt the validity of
English Orders."
Of the Eastern Prelates, Butler cites the Patri
arch of Alexandria; Sophronius, Archbishop of
Cyprus; the Archbishop of Xante; Lycurgus,
Archbishop of Cyra and Penedos, who said:
"When I return to Greece I will say that the
Church of England is a sound Catholic Church,
very like our own."
Some of these authorities may be foimd also in
Dr. Lee's book on Anglican Orders. I can also
bear personal witness of the kindly reception made
to me as a Bishop by His Eminence Antonius, the
Archbishop and Metropolitan of St. Petersburg;
Vladimir, the Archbishop of Moscow ; Bishop Ser-
gius of the Academy; and a number of Russian
prelates. Dr. Butler, in his book, gives the very words
of his authorities and the places where they may
be found, and they all distinctly declare their be
lief in the validity of Anglican Orders. They had
the evidence before them, and were not deceived,
as the late Pope was, by a misstatement of facts.
Fr. Spillane went on to say, referring to the
late Pope's decision : "The Church has settled this
dispute." But the great Jesuit Order refused to
remain satisfied with the decision of Pope Clement,
which suppressed them, nor has the decision of
Pope Eugenius IV., that the delivery of the Instru-

52
ments was essential to the conveyance of Orders,
been sustained. If a papal decree may be altered
in one case, why not, especially if there has been a
mistake of fact, in another? A Paulist Father
told me that the decision of the late Pope on our
Orders did not belong to the class of the infallible
utterances and was only binding in his lifetime.
We regret to see that the Rev. Father
quotes in favor of papal authority, as so many
Roman controversialists do, the phrase assigned
to St. Augustine, ''Roma locuta est, causa finita
est." Now St. Augustine never wrote this sen
tence ! It has been manufactured by Roman con
troversialists in the interest of the Papacy. In a
tract on Roman misquotations by Dr. Bright, pro
fessor of Ecclesiastical History, and the Rev. H. P.
Liddon, Canon of St. Paul's, it is said : "This is an
old misquotation, and one of the most scandalous
in all literature."
We submit we have answered Fr. Spillane 's
call for the names of Roman theologians who have
admitted our orders and noted his giving circula
tion to one of Rome's popular and deceiving mis
quotations. ANGLICAN ORDERS— THE JESUIT OBJECTION TO THEM
The Rev. Father repeats the two old objections
against, first, the intention and, secondly, against
the form of Ordination used in the Ordinal at the
time of Matthew Parker's consecration. In proof

53
of the lack of intention, he refers to the opinions of
Cranmer, Ridlej", and others who had charge, he
says, of the ecclesiastical ordinations in the time
of Edward VI.
We reply that, granting, for the sake of argu
ment, that their notions were defective, the private
opinions of those who drew up the Ordinal have
nothing to do with its interpretation. It is one of
the common mistakes of the clerical mind, unin
formed in the principles of legal construction, to
suppose that the opinions of the authors of a stat
ute, canon, or law govern its meaning. You can
not, in a Civil Court, cite the speeches made on
either side of the majority or minority of the legis
lature, to show what an Act means. The reason is
that a statute is the outcome of a conference and
struggle between many minds, and the outcome
may be something different from what any one
person or party had in view. We have thus to
make the distinction between the opinions and
mind of the law-givers and the mind of the legis
lative body.
It is so with the Ordinal, which was the work of
Convocation. It is therefore not of the slightest
consequence what were the individual opinions of
the Commission that compiled it. They may have
had one or different intentions, and the mind of the
Church, as expressed in the Ordinal, might be en
tirely different. What the intention of the Church

54
is, must be determined by its own pronouncement.
The meaning of a statute, as the lawyers say, must
be determined within its four corners. Now in this
case, the intention or mind of the Church is explic
itly declared in the Preface to the Ordinal. She
there declared that her intention was, that by the
Ordinal that followed the ancient Order of
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons was to be "CON
TINUED." What they were before in ancient
times, that they were to continue to be. They did
not use these words, "Bishops, Priests, and Dea
cons," in any Erastian sense. They did not keep
them, as Dom Gasquet claims, out of any necessity
to conform to the law of the land. When they used
the word "Priest" they used it in its sacerdotal
sense. One proof of this is, that in the Latin form
of her articles the word "Priests" is translated
'^Sacerdotes." The same term is used today in the
American Book of Common Prayer, in the Institu
tion office, where the relation of priest and people
is spoken of as a "sacerdotal" connection. The
Church having thus explicitly declared her inten
tion of retaining the ancient orders in the ancient
sense, her intention could not be changed by the
private opinions of those ministers, who were
agents in administering the Sacrament of Ordina
tion. We have thus a right to assert that the in
tention of the Church in giving Holy Orders was
to preserve them as they formerly were, and to

55
claim that the only legal and honest way of inter
preting the Ordinal is to construe it in accordance
with its explicit intention.
But lest the above be thought to be a technical
reply, we make this further answer:
The new Ordinal was drafted by six Bishops,
and, as stated, "by six other men, learned in God's
law. ' ' The names of them are not now known, save
with the exception of Cranmer. He is known to
have varied in his opinions, and by assenting to
the book. The Necessity of Christian Doctrine,
showed that he recovered his belief in the Catholic
doctrine respecting Holy Orders. This is declared
by Burnett in his History of the Reformation,
wherein he gives us his opinion that Cranmer 's
Protestant opinions did not affect the Ordinal.
"He had laid aside his peculiar conceits six years
before the penning of his orthodox Preface to the
Ordinal." Be this as it may, as the names of the
Commission are unknown, save Cranmer 's, it is
an unwarranted assumption to claim that their
animus was against the accepted teaching of the
Catholic Church. It is something that cannot be
proved. But after aU, and here we quote from a treatise
on the Bull ApostoUcae Curae, published by the
Church Historical Society, the real question is, not
by whom the Ordinal was framed, but by whom it
was adopted and brought into use. It is the Bish-

56
ops who adopted it and brought it into use— not
the persons who happened to be the compilers— who
are really answerable for it. Out of the 21 Bishops
who were then administering their Sees in Eng
land, one only. Heath of Worcester, refused to ac
cept the new Ordinal, whilst no fewer than nine
of those who accepted it, viz., Thirlby, Sampson,
Kitchen, Goodrich, King, Chambers, Warton, Sal-
cott, and Aldrich, continued to administer their
dioceses under Mary, and to acquiesce in all her
changes. And one other Bishop at least, who ac
cepted the Ordinal, Skipp of Hereford, is known
to have been addicted to the old learning, but died
before the new Queen's accession.
There is, therefore, no reason whatever for
suggesting that there was any intention hostile to
the doctrine of the Priesthood, even as now under
stood by Rome, in the minds of those who were re
sponsible for the Ordinal.
In respect of the form used in the Ordinal :
Two objections have been brought up against
the Form in our Ordinal :
1st. That the Pre-Reformation form used in
England was changed.
2nd. That the words "Receive the power of
offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and
the dead" were omitted.
As to the change made in the Ordinal, it must
be remembered that no one form has ever been in

67
use in all parts of the Church in the bestowal of
Holy Orders. Fr. Spillane argues that the forms
of Sacraments cannot be changed. This is very
true in the case of Baptism, which he cites as an
illustration, because the form of administering
Baptism is explicitly given by our Lord. But
there was no form given by Him of Ordination,
unless, as some suppose, it was in the words, "Re
ceive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye re
mit, they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye re
tain, they are retained"; and this was the form
which was used in the Anglican Ordinal.
But we contend that there was no one form of
universal use in the Church, for it varied from
time to time, and was different in different coun
tries. What we may fairly say is that Ordination
has ever been accompanied by an imposition of a
Bishop 's hands, with prayer ; and that in the case
of the Ordination of Bishops and Priests, the form
must make it clear that the imposition of hands is
intended to convey these Orders.
There must be the Orders stated which are to
be conferred. The Order may be designated by
name, or by a statement of a function or power be
longing to the Order. This is all that has been
gathered and certified by Catholic historians from
the ancient Liturgies. See Ordinals Past and
Present, a Witness to the Validity of English
Orders, by Batnbridge ; Smith, Parker & Co.

58
In the Ordinal used we have the laying on first
of the Bishop's hands. Throughout the offices,
there is the designation of the Order to be con
ferred. The Rubric requires that in the ordering
of priests the Precentor shall say to the Bishop :
"Rev. Father in God, I present unto you these
persons present to be admitted to the Order of
Priesthood. ' '
Then the Bishop shall say :
"Good people, these are they whom we purpose
to receive this day unto the Holy Office of Priest
hood." Then the Bishop prays :
"Almighty God, mercifully behold these thy
servants, now called to the office of Priesthood."
Then the Litany is said, with a proper suffrage,
"That it may please thee to bless these servants
now to be admitted to the Order of Priests." The
Bishop then solemnly enquires, "Do you think in
your hearts that you are tridy called to the Min
istry of Priesthood?" Then, after examination
made and invocation of the Holy Ghost, prayer is
made over them, as having been called to the same
ministry Christ established, and the Bishop, laying
his hands on them, says, "Receive the Holy Ghost.
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

59
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." The Bishop then delivers to each the
Bible, saying, "Take thou authority to preach the
Word of God, and to administer the Holy Sacra
ments." The Priesthood or Sacerdotium is thus
clearly designated. The words at the moment of
Consecration give a power for the exercise of an
office which none but a priest can perform. In
the consecration of a Bishop, the Order was
as clearly designated, and the words used in con
ferring Episcopal order were those used by the
Council of Trent in designating the Order of the
Episcopate. There can therefore be no reasonable
doubt that the form of the English Ordinal was
a valid form for Bishops and Priests.
Now we have been asked, "Why was the Ordi
nal recast at the time of the Reformation by the
Church of England?" The answer is that the old
form had become so confused that it was difficult
to know at what point of the Service the Ordinand
was made a Priest. The difficulty remains to this
day. There are two layings-on of the Bishop's
hands upon the Ordinand. At the first, at the be
ginning of the service, no words are said. At the
end of the service, the Bishop lays his hands on
the Ordinand, and says, "Receive ye the Holy
Ghost," etc. But between these layings-on of
hands, the Ordinand is made a co-consecrator with
the officiating celebrant of the Holy Eucharist. If

60
he is made a Priest by the last laying on of hands
and the gift of the Holy Ghost, how could he conse
crate the Eucharist? If he is made Priest at the
first imposition of Episcopal hands, nothing is said
to designate his office, and he is still called
"Ordinandus," or one to be ordained.
Now as there was no formula given by Our
Lord for the Sacrament of Ordination, and no
formula established by common custom, the Eng
lish Church, in revising her Liturgy and Ordinal,
made clear by the laying on of the Bishop 's hands
and by the use of Our Lord's own words to the
Apostles, when in the service the Priest was
ordained. The Priest, at the laying-on of the
Bishop's hands, was given the Holy Ghost and
power to administer the Holy Sacraments, which
covers that of offering the Holy Eucharistic
Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. The form
conferring the sacerdotal power of forgiving sins,
the Archbishops, in their reply to the Pope, said,
"was suitable to no other ministry of the Church
but that of the Priest, who has the power of the
Keys and who alone has fuU right, dispenses the
Word and Mysteries of God to the people."
I submit, therefore, that, as so attested, the
form of the Church's Ordinal is a valid one. The
full powers of a Priest are designated in it, and
the Liturgy which the English and the American
Priest uses is a Liturgy which shows the Eu-

61
charist to be, not a mere Communion, but a
Sacrifice. But ' what with much sorrow we are further
obliged to state, is, that the Pope omitted in his de
cision all that is in the Ordinal after the words
"Receive ye the Holy Ghost," and then declared
that these words by themselves were not sufficient !
Those who prepared for him the paper he signed
omitted the words which declared the Sacerdotium
or priesthood. They omitted the words, "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.
Amen." The Pope was thus led astray, and
deceived on a matter of fact. So far as I my
self am concerned, it increased, I am sorry to
say, my lack of confidence in the Papal Curia.
It seemed in accord with the deceit and fraud
which has so often marked its character and ren
dered its decisions untrustworthy. This decision
is as bad as that of Pope Eugenius, which made
the delivery of the Paten and Chalice of the es
sence of the Sacrament; a decision which would
invalidate Roman orders, as the delivery of the
instruments was not of use for nigh a thousand
years.

REPLY TO FR. BROSNAN, S.J.
I gladly aclaiowledge the scholarship that
marks the writing of the Jesuit Fathers. I have
not replied to the gossiping stories of Fr. Van Rens
selaer about Dr. Bright or Bishop King. They
were trivialities not worthy of attention.
As an apology for entering into controversy, I
may say that I was led in consequence of prosely
tising efforts made on dying Indians to write my
Letter to the Oneidas. I wanted to protect those
Redmen who had so long been under the teaching
of our Church from falling away from their re
ceived faith. I have never sought to break down
the faith of convinced Romans, for though reject
ing the Papacy, I believe in Catholicity. By
Catholicity in doctrine, I believe that which the
Apostohcally-descended Church has from the be
ginning, through all the ages, believed, and what
aU its branches concur in believing today. I can
not think our Lord was a Divine Teacher and yet
taught His doctrine so imperfectly that practically
four-fifths of His followers would fall into any
serious error. He gave to His Church the Holy

64
Ghost to dwell in it, and bring to its remembrance
all things it had heard of Him, so that from the
time of the Apostles it could say, "We have not
shunned to declare unto you the whole Counsel of
God." The faith thus once delivered and en
trusted to the hands of faithful men, we believe
has been preserved throughout the ages. This
faith has been protected in times of assault by defi
nitions made by Councils, guarded in Creeds, and
certified by the common consent. All this I humbly
believe, as the Word of Christ speaking through
His Church.
But I am also a liberal Catholic, for what has
not been so delivered and certified to us, as matters
of Christian dogma, I relegate to the class of opin
ion upon which Christians may lawfully differ.
Rome's position differs from this in that it assigns
to the Pope the office of Supreme Doctor of the
Church, and who apart from the Council can de
cree dogmas.
Again : in respect to the divisions of Christen
dom, I have had a hope that they might be healed,
and I have prayed daily for over half a century for
the union of Christendom. Believing that the
Pope is, in the way of precedence and honor, the
first Bishop in Christendom, I had prayed for him
daily at my Eucharist along with the Patriarchs
of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusa
lem, and the Holy Governing Synods of Greece and

65
Russia. But governing my interpretations of Holy
Scripture by the Fathers, while I am a Catholic in
doctrine, I am not a papalist.
Fr. Brosnan begins with the following state
ment: "The Bishop makes a comparison of the
Church of Rome with that of England, always
against Rome and in favor of that of England.
In the present paper we shall make no comparison.
It will not be necessary. But we shall put a like
question, and give one answer to it. One will be
sufficient. Secession to the Church of England—
What does it mean and involve ? Our answer is—
Hopeless confusion of doctrine."
Now, I think I can give an answer to one of his
questions that I believe he will consider satisfac
tory. I have not asked any Roman priest to leave
his Church. For his own sake, and I think for
ours, he had better stay where he is. I venture to
hope that some, at least, of the intelligent Roman
priests wiU cease from the unscholarly and vulgar
attack upon us as being a Church created by
Henry VEIL If a Roman is conscientiously con
vinced that the Papacy is not of divine origin, and
he can no longer teach the doctrines concerning
Purgatory, the Papal Infallibility, the Immacu
late Conception of the Blessed Virgin, he will
probably deem it his duty to leave. In the same
way, if an Anglican priest becomes convinced of
the divine right of the Pope to what he now claims.

his duty is to leave us for the Roman Church. But
if a Roman priest can conscientiously stay where
he is, let him do so, and honestly work for reform
within his own body.
Surely it is not necessary nor fair that the
Church should be governed by a body of Cardinals
about four-fifths of whom are Italians. It is not
quite in accord with the Gospel teaching of our
Lord that His Kingdom should be a worldly
one or the Pope to claim to be a temporal king.
It is not quite straightforward and honest to repre
sent the Holy Father as a prisoner of the Vatican
when his freedom is guaranteed to him by the
State and the sum of $625,000 annually is appro
priated for his support. It is somewhat in the na
ture of an unwise and unnecessary cruelty to de
prive the clergy of the Sacrament of Marriage. It
would be more in accord with the direction of St.
Paul that prayers should be in a language under-
standed by the people than kept in the Latin
tongue, which is not, as it once was, the language
of educated Europeans. It would be a return to
the Catholic practice of the first thousand years
if the Blessed Sacrament were given, as it is in the
Eastern Churches, in both kinds, and the Chalice
were not withheld from the laity. It would cer
tainly tend to the carrying out of our Lord's
prayer for union if the proselytising efforts of a
certain class of ecclesiastics ceased. It would be

67
more to the honor, the dignity, the increase of the
Roman Church, if some of these reforms were in
augurated. This, then, is my answer to the ques
tion, "What does secession to the Church of Eng
land involve ? " It is— " Stay where you are ! ' '
In order to prove that in the Anglican Church
there is a hopeless confusion of doctrine, a quota
tion is made from Fr. Clark, S.J. :
"Each Anglican clergyman is of necessity his
own Pope as regards the religious conviction which
he holds to be true. If he professes to accept his
belief on authority, it is not on the word of any
living authority, but on that of some authority in
the past, which he chooses for himself, and of
whose utterances he is his own interpreter, whether
it be the Bible, or the three Creeds, or what he calls
the 'Undivided Church,' or the Anglican Church
before the Reformation."
Now this is not true. What the Anglican
clergyman, who is loyal to his own Communion,
teaches, he teaches on the authority of the living
Voice of the Catholic Church. He does not teach
aU that a Roman teaches as matters of faith, like
the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
or the Papal Infallibility. But what he does teach,
and he teaches all that the Early Church taught, is
on the authority of a living Voice. So far as hav
ing authority behind him, the Anglican has the
authority of the whole Church, while Rome has

68
for its special doctrines, only the authority of a
fraction of the Church or of the Pope.
Let me make this clear by showing how the
Church is preserved in her office as the Infallible
Teacher and Guide. Our Lord preserves His
Church in its prophetical office in two ways: He
bestows a gift upon the Bishops of enlightenment,
so that when they come together in Council they
may rightly define the Faith once delivered. But
God does not move the Bishops as if they were
mere mechanical agents. It may therefore be that
through ignorance, or imposed on by False Decre
tals, or placed under duress, or controlled by un
worthy influences, they may go wrong. Then God
preserves the Church in its prophetical office by
His providence. When He sees that the Bishops
in Council would go wrong, or that there is no ne
cessity for further definitions. He allows divisions
to take place in the Church. He prevents, in that
way, an Ecumenical consent being given to false
doctrine. It is thus by divisions that the infalli
bility of the Church is preserved. God may either
open the mouth of the Church to speak, or He may
lay His hand on the mouth of the Church and pre
vent her speaking. Thus, though divisions may
take place, as each portion of the Church proclaims
the Faith which was once received, and has had
Ecumenical consent, it safely performs its teach
ing office. Today, as the Eastern Church, and the

69
Latin, and the Anglican declare the Faith thus
concurrently approved, they teach the nations with
infallible authority. It is upon this living author
ity and voice that the Anglican Church rests, and
her loyal clergy teach the Faith.
I venture here to relate an incident which oc
curred to me in ^^ears gone by, when living in Lon
don. I visited the Jesuit house in Farm street,
and was courteously received b}^ the rector. He
asked me what I believed. I felt I was no match
for this famed theologian, so I cautiously said I be-
heved in the Nicene Creed. "But," said the Father,
"where did you get it?" I saw he would put me
in the same theological dilemma in which Newman
once found himself. Newman, in his writings, had
appealed to the authority of the early Church or
Fathers, but he was met with this difficulty in his
own mind, "What, then, is the difference between
yourself and Protestants? The Protestant ap
peals to the Bible, you appeal to the Fathers. Is
it not better to go to the original source ? Are you
not resting on your own interpretation?" New
man did not see the answer to this, and it was one
help Romewards. So when the Jesuit Father
asked me where I got the Nicene Creed, I replied
to him that I had heard it in church that morning.
It was promulgated sixteen centuries ago, but it
had never ceased to be uttered. It was not, like
the decision of a court, to remain on paper. It

70
had become, by its continual utterance daily and
at every altar, a living utterance. It had gone on
increasing in volume and in evidential strength for
many centuries. It was an ever-living utterance,
like that of the roar of Niagara. The Faith which
we hold thus comes up behind us, as a living voice,
saying, ' ' This is the way, walk ye in it. ' '
As bidding her priests govern themselves in
their teaching by the authority of the whole
Church, and declaring the Faith as guarded by
the Creeds, and in expounding the Holy Scripture
according to the ancient Fathers, the Anglican
Church does not leave her clergy to follow their
own opinions, but gives them a rule by which they
can declare the Faith which from the beginning,
throughout all the ages, has been preserved.
Thus the same Convocation (that of 1571)
which put forth the Articles, instructed the clergy
that they should "never teach anything but what
is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New
Testament, and collected out of that very doctrine
hy the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops."
Romans cannot condemn our Book of Common
Prayer as heretical, when according to Camden,
Pius IV. promised Queen Elizabeth that he would
confirm the English Liturgy by his authority, pro
vided she would join herself to the Church of
Rome and acknowledge the Primacy of the Ro
man See.

71
Lord Chief Justice Coke, in his charge at the
Assizes at Norwich (August 4th, 1606), said,
"The Pope wrote a letter to Queen Elizabeth, in
which he consented to approve the Book of Com
mon Prayer as used among us, and that he would
authorize us to use it, if her Majesty would receive
it from him and upon his authority: and this is
the truth touching Pope Pius IV. which I have
often heard from the Queen's own mouth. And I
have frequently conferred with noblemen of the
highest rank in the State, who had seen and read
the Pope's letter on this subject, as I related it
to you. ' ' THE ARTICLES.
In order to show that there was no authoritative
teaching body in the Church of England, Fr. Bros
nan appeals to the 19th and 21st Articles of Re
ligion. Now as the Church of England is only a
part of the whole Catholic Church, we have only
an authority subordinate to the authority and
voice of the whole Church. It is to the latter the
Church bids her loyal clergyman primarily to look
and rest upon. The Articles referred to do not
contradict this. Article 19 says that certain
Churches have erred, and the 21st Article states
that General Councils have sometimes erred. Yet
neither of them state, and it is an important dis
tinction, that an Ecumenical Council, or a General
Council, lawful, and received by the whole Church

72
can err. The loyal priest of the Church of Eng
land has, as we have seen, a living authority for
his teaching. But he makes a distinction between
what is of faith, as having been so decided by the
whole Church, and what, being not so decided, are
matters of pious opinion.
Fr. Brosnan next appealed to the 22nd Article,
which declares that the Romish doctrine concern
ing Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints, "is
a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded on no
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to
the Word of God." "Here we find Bishop Grafton
beginning to rend the Rock of Faith, by standing
for that which is repugnant to the Word of God,
by praising the Roman Catholic Church for its
loving recognition of the Intercession of Saints."
Now the Anglican Article was promulgated be
fore the Council of Trent discussed the question of
Purgatory. The Article therefore, as Bishop
Forbes states in his explanation of the Thirty-nine
Articles, "cannot be strained into a condemnation
and contradiction of that which did not exist at the
time." There was a popular doctrine concerning
Purgatory which made it a place of material tor
ture, which faithful souls had to undergo to satisfy
the Justice of God. The Article did not deny, nor
has the Anglican Church, a state of purification,
fitting souls for the Beatific Vision. She not only
allows Prayers for the Dead, but when she of-

73
fers the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar she prays for
the "whole Church," which includes the living and
the dead.
xVrticle 25 states that there are two Sacraments
ordained of Christ in the Gospel, and that the five
commonh' called sacraments. Confirmation, Pen
ance, Order, etc., are not to be counted as Sacra
ments of the Gospel. If we read the whole Ar
ticle, we see that it makes five assertions with re
gard to the Sacraments. I. They are sure witness
of grace, and God's good will towards us. II. They
are effectual signs of grace, and the word "effect
ual" means they effect what they signify. III. By
the Sacraments, God works invisibly in us. IV.
By His Sacraments, He quickens, i e., makes liv
ing, our faith in Him. V. By Sacraments, He
strengthens and confirms that Faith. "There is
no point of Catholic teaching," says Bishop
Forbes, "on the subject, which is not amply and
explicitly contained in these words. ' ' The Church,
however, makes a distinction between the Sacra
ments which it calls the Sacraments of the Gospel,
as being universally necessary for all men's salva
tion, and the five other which are commonly called
Sacraments. But although these two great Sacra
ments are severed off from the other five, it has
been observed that so far from denying them to be
Sacraments, the writers of all the Commentaries
acknowledge or imply that they are so.

74
The Father quotes Article 28 on the Lord's
Supper, as denying the Real Presence of the Body
and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. The Arti
cle reads: "The Body of Christ is given, taken,
and eaten in the Supper, only after a Heavenly
and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the
Body of Christ is received in the Supper, is
Faith." Now we submit that the manner in which Our
Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, are
communicated to us, is not after an earthly, or car
nal, but in a heavenly and spiritual manner. Every
Catholic, we think, would agree with this state
ment. But so far from the Article denying the
Real Presence, it asserts it. For it states that the
Body of Christ is given in the Sacrament, and if it
is given, it must be there by the Consecration, in
order to be given. It asserts hereby the doctrine
of an objective Presence. What the Church de
nied was a then popular doctrine called Transub-
stantiation, which implied the nonexistence after
consecration of the material substances, which
the best modern Roman theologians have aban
doned. The following is a statement by Cardinal New
man (1877) of the authoritative Roman doctrine
of the Real Presence :
"Our Lord is in loco in heaven, not (in the same
sense) in the Sacrament. He is present in the

Sacrament only in substance, snhstantivc and sub
stance does not require or imply the occupation of
place. But if place is excluded from the idea of
the Sacramental Presence, therefore division or
distance from heaven is excluded also, for distance
implies a measurable interval, and such there can
not be except between places. Moreover, if the
idea of distance is excluded, therefore is the idea
of motion. Our Lord, then, neither descends from
heaven upon our altars, nor moves when carried in
procession. The visible species change their posi
tion, but He does not move. He is in the Holy
Eucharist after the manner of a spirit. We do
not know how; we have no parallel to the "how"
in our experience. We can only say that He is
present, not according to the natural manner of
bodies, but sacra ment ally. His Presence is sub
stantial, spirit- wise, sacramental : an absolute mys
tery, not against reason, however, but against im
agination, and must be received by faith." We
believe most Anglicans will agree with this.
Fr. Brosnan states that in the 31st and 36th Ar
ticles of Religion we find what is supposed to be
the doctrine of the Church of England on the Sac
rifice and Priesthood. Here the Father falls into
the mistake that the Articles are by Anglicans
taken in the same way in which the decisions of
Trent are by Romans. The Articles do not set
forth our Faith as the Council of Trent does for

76
Roman Catholics. Our Faith is to be found em
bodied in the Book of Common Prayer. The Ar
ticles were established in the interests of peace.
They do not set forth our Faith, but for peace's
sake, the clergy in their teaching may not deny any
doctrine therein explicitly stated. This was the con
tention of Dr. Newman, in his Tract 90; of Bishop
Forbes, in his Thirty-nine Articles, and of Santa
Clara, or Fr. Davenport, a Roman Catholic, who
wrote a treatise showing that the Articles, prop
erly construed, did not contradict Trent. Now so
far as the 31st Article is concerned, the Article is
directed against the unscholarly and heretical
doctrine of the Reiteration of Christ's Sacrifice in
the Eucharist. We did not renounce a Propitia
tory virtue to the Eucharist. "I am not aware,"
said the Bishop of Exeter, "of our Church having
anywhere condemned such a doctrine." It con
demned thus the sacrifice of Masses, but not the
sacrifice of the Mass. This has been the teach
ing of her great theologians from Ridley to Pusey.
Bishop Overall says: "If we compare the
Eucharist with Christ's sacrifice made once upon
the Cross, as concerning the effect of it, we say
that that was a sufficient Sacrifice ; but withal that
it is a true, real, and efficient Sacrifice, and both of
them propitiatory for the sins of the whole world. ' '
Bishop Cosin says: "In the celebration of the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist God's Son and His

77
Son's death are re-presented by us to God the
Father, and by the same re-presentation, commem
oration and attestation is offered and that for the
living and for the dead, i.e., for the whole Church."
Bishop Sparrow says: "For the Holy Euchar
ist, being considered as a Sacrifice in the re-pre
sentation of the breaking of the bread and pouring
forth the cup, doing that to the holy symbols which
was done to Christ's Body and Blood, and so show
ing forth and commemorating the Lord's Death,
and offering upon it the same Sacrifice that was
offered upon the Cross."
Bishop Taylor says: "As Christ in virtue of
His Sacrifice on the Cross intercedes for us with
His Father, so does the minister of Christ's Priest
hood here. And therefore our Blessed Lord was
pleased to command the re-presentation of His
Death and Sacrifice on the Cross should be made
by breaking bread and effusion of wine."
Nelson says: "When our Saviour Jesus Christ
celebrated the Jewish Sacrifice of the Passover,
He substituted the Sacrament of His Body and
Blood as the true Christian Sacrifice, in the room
of the Passover."
Bishop Wilson says: "May it please Thee, O
God, who has called us to this ministry, to make us
worthy to offer unto Thee this Sacrifice for our sins,
and for the sins of Thy people. (See Doctrine of
the Priesthood, Rev. T. T. Carter, pages 47 to 51.)

78
Article 32 allows for the marriage of the
clergy. The proposition that the celibacy of the
priesthood is not jure divino is absolutely Cath
olic. The condition of the Roman Church in the
Middle Ages was something terrible. In the be
ginning of the 15th century it was said for certain
that clergy of the Roman Curia had their concu
bines without shame. That century closed with
the thirty years of Sixtus IV., Innocent VIIL,
Alexander VI., and Pius II. We gladly cite the
action of the Council of Nice. When it was pro
posed there to forbid clerical marriages, it was
vehemently resisted by St. Paphnutius as "a
heavy yoke, which ought not to be imposed on con
secrated men. ' ' Marriage, then, among the clergy,
remained unforbidden. The Articles therefore,
rightly construed, do not condemn the doctrines of
the Catholic Faith, or that of the Priesthood and
Sacraments. And this is proved in the Commen
taries on the Articles by her most learned and
scholarly theologians. This position is not invali
dated by the utterances of some extreme "low" or
"broad" Churchmen.
But I will bring to Fr. Brosnan 's notice a fact
of which he evidently is not aware. He attacks me
by name for not agreeing with his interpretation
of the Articles. I am an American Bishop. I be
long to the American Episcopal Church. I owe no
allegiance to any other, save in it to the Catholic

79
Church as a whole. Now the American Church
has removed the Articles from being a part of the
Book of Conmiou Prayer! They are still bound
up along with it, but form no part of the Book
itself, and the American Church has ceased to re
quire any subscription to them. They would not
stand therefore in the way of any Roman Priest
who might desire to join our Communion.
The Father makes himself somewhat merry on
the result of the Commission in England concern
ing the ceremonial of the Church. It does not fol
low that the Church is a City of Confusion, either
because she is liberal in the matter of allowed opin
ions concerning doctrines which are not de fide, or
allows of a minimum and maximum use in her cere
monial. There are different schools within the
Anglican Communion, commonly known as the low
Church, high Church, and broad Church. There
are members of each of these schools who carry
their views to extreme limits. So long as they do
not contradict the authorized formularies of the
Church, they are allowed to entertain their opin
ions. If they overstep them, they may subject
themselves to discipline, and be removed, as was
lately Crapsey, also Colenso, and others ; or borne
with, for a time, in hope of their obtaining a better,
and more balanced judgment. We are willing,
however, to admit that our Church's discipline is
not as strict as it might be, and that in the recover-

80
ing of her Catholic heritage there is necessarily
some contest or conflict. But as Churchmen, we
hold together, united in the use of our Prayer
Book and in the faith it set forth. Superficially,
we look to be divided, but we are divided as the
waves are, yet one as the sea. Every Priest, how
ever, who is loyal to the Church's direction, accepts
the faith which is witnessed by the whole of Chris
tendom, and declares it. The Church of England
is thus no City of Confusion, for she teaches what
was taught by the early Church. She does not
leave any doctrine an open question which was not
so left by the Catholic Church in the first ages.
She does not tolerate any teaching which the early
Church condemned. She does not deny anything
which the early Church affirmed. To those who
know her and live within her, she is not a City of
Confusion, but one in which the sunlight of Truth
shines and is made known. She is not founded, as
the Papacy is, on the Forged Decretals and un
patristic interpretations of Scripture. It must
not be forgotten that the Roman Catholic Arch
bishop Kenrick declared that the popular Roman
interpretation of the text, "Thou art Peter,"
could not be proved from the Fathers. Preserv
ing the ancient Faith apart from Roman traditions
or sectarian subtractions, and requiring no un
canonical or unscriptural terms of communion, the

81
Anglican Church is neither heretical nor schism
atieal. We do not contend that she is perfect, l)ut that
she is a true portion of the Catholic Church ; and
that the recognition of this fact will best tend to
that union of Christendom for which Christ
prayed.

REPLY TO FATHER O'HERN.
The Rev. Fr. O 'Hern, of the Paulist Comnnm-
itj", wrote a reply to my Rejoinder in The Catho
lic World of August, under the title "Is Bishop
Grafton fair?"
Like the barrister who having a bad case at
tacked the opposing attorney, he attacked me by
trying to throw suspicion on my sincerity and so
influence our readers against my arguments.
Now I do not object to having my faults
pointed out. I am aware of some of them. I am
only thankful to those who reveal others, as it gives
me an opportunity to pray for my censors, and
strive to overcome my errors. I can only say that
I try to be sincere, and judicially fair, and not the
mere advocate of a party or side.
The opinion of the three persons belonging to
the Anglican communion, but of very unequal abil
ity, whom Fr. O'Hern cited as favoring the Pa
pacy, I regarded as of little value in contrast with
the large number of great Anglican scholars who
rejected its modern claim. It seemed to me like
putting grains of sand on one side of the scale

84
against pound weights in the other. There was
nothing unfair or insincere in this.
I was censured for quoting the Roman Catho
lic Professor Launay who gave a summary, after
an exhaustive search of the Fathers' exegesis of
"Thou art Peter." He may have been in error on
the doctrines of predestination and grace, sympa
thising with the Jansenists, but this does not prove
that his summary is an incorrect one, nor does it
prove me guilty of unfairness and insincerity for
quoting him, when the late Roman Catholic Arch
bishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, did so.
Following others, I quoted Du Pin, as a
"learned Roman Catholic historian." I confess I
did not know he had been removed from his profes
sorship in the Sorbonne. This would detract from
his authority among Roman Catholics, but not nec
essarily among scholars. He said "It cannot be
inferred from this passage (St. Matt. 16) that St.
Peter received anything which was not given to
the other Apostles {De Antiq. Ecc. Disc. p. 309).
He also wrote : ' ' There is not a word of any pri
macy of St. Peter in the writings of Justin, Iren
seus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria,
and the rest of the more ancient Fathers." As it
does not appear that he renounced communion
with Rome, or was excommunicated, I considered
myself justified in calling him a Roman Catholic.

85
Was there anythmg insincere, or unfair, in do
ing so ?
"The pre-eminence of St. Peter," says our
critic, "again arouses the question of his unfair
ness." I have admitted that blessed Peter was
"first" among the Apostles. He was their spokes
man and leader. He was first of the rocks, laid on
the Rock, which was Christ. And a special honor
and dignitj" and position was given him thereby.
He was given the Keys authoritatively to open the
Kingdom to Jews and Gentiles. It conferred upon
him a special office. He is by the Fathers rightly
caUed the "First," the "Prince," the "Chief," the
"Head" of the Apostolic College. But his office
did not give him a jurisdiction over the other
Apostles. The Apostles themselves— as is seen by
their conduct after Pentecost, when they sent
Peter and John to Samaria, and gave to Peter the
charge of the Circumcision, and to Paul the care
of the Gentiles— evidently did not understand our
Lord's words in the modern Roman sense. Our
Lord Himself, when there was a question amongst
the Apostles as to who should be greatest, did not
say "I have already appointed Peter," but forbade
any supremacy of authority, saying : " It shall not
be so amongst you." St. Peter's office was thus
peculiar to himself, and did not require a suc
cessor. I have called attention to the contrast between

86
the three Apostles, St. Peter, St. John, and St.
Paul, in my book Christian and Catholic. Fr.
O'Hern tries to throw discredit upon the result
thereby obtained, that St. Peter was the repre
sentative of the Old Dispensation and St. John of
the New. He quotes me as saying that St. Peter
was the married man, and St. John the unmarried,
as if this was all the evidence I produced to estab
lish my thesis. But in my book I have not omitted,
to my knowledge, any facts concerning the lives of
all the three Apostles. It was not only from one
contrast, but from the whole series that my deduc
tion was made. And as being made from a full
consideration of the events of all the lives of these
three Apostles, I submit that the interpretation
was a fair one. The result so completely fits in
with all the circumstances of the three Apostles'
lives that its truth is thereby demonstrated, and I
humbly believe that the Holy Spirit enlightened
me to see and to state this for the benefit of the
whole Church.
In this manner of interpretation, I have fol
lowed the spirit of the ancient Fathers. This, Fr.
O 'Hern, I am sorry to say for his own sake, stigma
tises as Swedenborgianism ! "Now, while no one
probably," says Liddon, "would now indulge in the
exuberant mysticism of the school of the Saint
Victors, it is true that TJsum non tollit, abusus; and

87
that an inner or mystical meaning is to be found
throughout the whole Word of God, is answered in
the affirmative by all the exegetical schools of an
cient Christendom ; by literalists as well as by alle
gorical writers and mystics ; by Antioch, as well as
by Alexandria ; by St. Chrysostom and Theodoric,
no less than by Basil, S. Ambrose, and the Grego-
ries." I have thus shown the significance of St.
Peter's leadership, and its temporary character.
Concerning the text "Thou art Peter," my con
tention was that Our Lord did not say ' ' Thou art
Peter, and upon you I will build My Church, ' ' or,
' ' Thou art Peter the Rock, upon which I will build
it." But he said "upon this Rock" apparently re
ferring to St. Peter's confession of Him as the Son
of God. When in reply to the argument that there
is a difference of genders in the words used, it is
argued that our Lord spoke in Syriac, I must reply
with Cardinal Wiseman, who, when a like objec
tion was made to the words, "This is My Body,"
said that "Greek is the language of inspiration,"
and we must be governed by it. As a Catholic, I
govern myself in the interpretation of Holy Scrip
ture by the Fathers. Now the Fathers for the first
six centuries, when explicitly interpreting this pas
sage, say this Rock refers, either to Christ, or
Peter's Confession of Christ, or Peter personally.
None of them says that an office was hereby given
to Peter which he was to transmit to a successor.

88
Fr. O'Hern brings up six authorities, St. Cy
prian and Origen, St. Ambrose, Tertullian, St.
Hilary, and St. Basil. It is still a matter of con
tention among scholars as to what extent St. Cy
prian's words have been interpolated. The writers
of Janus trace the fabrication of some of these in
terpretations to the Popedom of Pelagius II. An
account of their literary history is to be found in
the Oxford translation of St. Cyprian, by Newman,
Vol. I. p. 151. St. Cyprian regarded St. Peter as
having been solely addressed by our Lord in order
to make him the representative Apostle, the symbol
of his brethren's corporate unity. "But," we
quote from Canons Bright and Liddon, "that the
primacy which he does recognize in Rome was not
its supremacy, is plain enough, not only by his con
duct towards Pope Stephen, but from the letter to
Pope Cornelius, in which he asserts the supremacy
of each Bishop, and insists that no complaints
against African Church authority should be enter
tained at Rome." He also said "Assuredly, the
rest of the Apostles were also the same as was St.
Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of
honor and power. ' '
Origen is quoted as saying that Peter was by
the Lord called a "Rock." But this does not im
ply that he had supremacy of jurisdiction over the
Apostles, or was in any way superior to them.
Origen said: "But if thou think that the whole

89
Church is built by God on Peter alone, what then
doth thou say of John, Son of Thunder, and every
one of the Apostles?" "Or shall we dare to say
in particular that the gates of hell will not prevail
against Peter, but that they were to prevail against
other Apostles, and perfect ones?"
Fr. O'Hern quotes St. Ambrose as saying
"Where Peter is, there is the Church"; but St.
Ambrose is there thinking of the great Apostle as
having been in his confession of faith, the founda
tion of the Church : and in a passage in his chapter
on the Incarnation, he speaks of Peter as holding a
primacy or rather, as taking the first place "in
confession not in office in faith, not in order."
Fr. O'Hern quotes St. Basil as saying "One also
of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock
the Lord promised to build His Church." Un
doubtedly he was one of the Rocks. But while a
Rock gives support to that which is above it, it does
not imply that the Rock has any other power or one
of control over those that rest upon it.
Fr. 0 'Hem quotes Tertullian, saying, that when
a Catholic he wrote that St. Peter was called the
Rock upon which the Church should be built. But
Fr. 0 'Hem has fallen into an error in supposing he
wrote this as a Catholic. It was written in his
treatise, De Praescript. Haeret. XXII. , when, as it
is alleged, he had fallen into the Montanist heresy.
He also insisted strongly and at length, "that the

90
privilege of St. Peter died with him, and was in
capable of transmission." Although a Montanist,
it does not follow that in this he was not giving
utterance to the Church's tradition.
Fr. O'Hern quotes St. Hilary as saying that
"Peter was the first confessor of the Son of God,
the foundation of the Church, the doorkeeper of
the Heavenly Kingdom. ' ' To all which we agree,
but is assigns to him no place of authority and
jurisdiction over the other Apostles.
St. Jerome, in his loyal devotion to his diocesan,
said: "I, following no chief save Christ, am
counted in communion with your blessedness, that
is with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know
the Church is built. ' '
But St. Jerome said also: "Christ is the Rock,
who granted to His Apostles that they should be
called Rocks. ' Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock
I will build My Church. ' Upon this Rock the Lord
founded His Church. From this Rock the Apostle
Peter derived his name. The foundation which
the Apostle as architect laid is our Lord Jesus
Christ alone. On this foundation the Church of
Christ is built."
Having cited these seven Fathers, Fr. O'Hern
says we have now examined Dr. Grafton's chief
witnesses amongst the Fathers, and find that they
are all in perfect accord with Catholic teaching!
We submit that none of those he has cited sustains

91
the claims of the modern or mediaeval Papacy.
They do not prove that blessed St. Peter had any
jurisdiction or power over the other Apostles, or
that he was made anything but a rock, or that he
had any office given hhn which he was to transmit
to a successor.
Again: these were not my chief witnesses, as
Fr. O'Hern says. My witnesses were the whole
body of the Fathers, ante and post-nicene, none of
whom declared that a special office or supremacy
was given by our Lord to Peter. In this we were
confirmed by the statement of Archbishop Kenrick
of St. Louis, that the interpretation of St. Matt. 16,
by the Fathers can not sustain the Roman claim.
Concerning the Forged Decretals, Fr. O'Hern
says: "No writer to-day, except Dr. Grafton,
holds that the Papal Supremacy was built up upon
them ! ' ' We could cite a large number of historians
and jurists to show that the present Roman canon
ical law, including the supremacy of the Pope,
rests largely upon these forgeries. Bishop Gore,
in his Roman Catholic Claims, p. 107, says the
Roman system depends largely upon forgeries for
its superstructure. The Lord Chancellor of Eng
land, one of the greatest jurists of the last century.
Earl Selborne, wrote: "The Decretals were the
true source of all the subsequent encroachments
of the spiritual on the civil power, and on the inde
pendent rights of national Churches. Upon them

92
the entire edifice of mediaeval and modern suprem
acy was built up." This is a common view and an
accepted judgment of jurists and historians.
Along with Pere Gratry, I cannot think God needs
man's lies for the development of His work.
Fr. O 'Hern claims in defence, that ' ' the Papacy
was in full bloom centuries before the Decretals
were thought of . " This is a statement no unpreju
diced scholar can admit. The modern Papacy is
claimed to be (see TJrbs et Orbis, by Humphrey,
S.J.) a monarchy in which one person alone is in
possession of supreme power. The plenitude of
power includes the legislative, judicial, and coer
cive power. The Supreme Pontiff alone has power
to make universal law, and to bind the universal
Church. He is the supreme Judge and interpreter
of law, from whose judgment there is no appeal.
He has coercive powers. He holds the two swords.
He has claimed and never repudiated, the right to
depose sovereigns and absolve subjects from their
allegiance. He appoints the Bishops throughout
the world, and withdraws from them at his will the
right to exercise their office. By his own power,
he can add articles to the received Faith. He
claims that not to be in Communion with him is to
be outside the Church.
Now for any one to say that such was the power
exercised by the Bishop of Rome before the publi-

93
cation of the Forged Decretals is to utter what is
ridiculously untrue.
In answer to my assertion that there is "slight
evidence" of St. Peter's being at Rome, Fr.
O'Hern submits the names of a nmnber out of his
own communion who believe that St. Peter was in
Rome. He may add, if he wishes, my name to the
list. I think it quite probable that the Apostle was
martyred there. What I stated was that there was
little evidence of his being there, and that is so. It
is only a matter resting upon probability, and can
not by evidence be demonstrated as a fact. Our ob
jection then is this : that you cannot build a system
which asserts itself to be infallible, upon a basis
which is only probable. It is illogical. Moreover,
as every fact embraced in the Creed is assured to
us by explicit statement in Holy Scripture, the
lack of such evidence as to Peter being in Rome is
fatal to the Roman claim. We cannot suppose that
God would make our salvation dependent upon be
ing in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, who
is said to be the successor of St. Peter, when we are
never explicitly told that St. Peter was in Rome.
If by Babylon Rome is meant, then the conceal
ment of it shows no importance was to be given it.
Even if he were in Rome, it is essential to the
Papal claim that St. Peter, if he had any special
privilege, should have transmitted it to his suc
cessor or the See, and such transmission should be

94
capable of proof by testimony. It is a matter of
canon law, that a privilege or power cannot be
transmitted unless the power to transmit is stated
in the original grant; and if transmitted there
must be submitted the evidence of the transmis
sion. This is wanting in the Roman claim.
In respect of Anglican orders, I was asked to
give the names of Roman Catholics who had be
lieved in their validity. I have given a long list of
them. Fr. O'Hern now says, these are simply
opinions of private individuals. Of course they
were. It was as such that I cited them. The state
ment copied from Dom Gasquet that the validity
of our orders had been passed on unfavorably by
the Greeks and Russians and Jansensists and Old
Catholics, is unfounded. Our orders have never
been formally denied, but by the Pope. The spir
itual results of our sacraments corroborate the va
lidity of our orders. It is one independent proof.
The statement made that our Reformers did not
believe in the Sacrifice is answered by their reten
tion in its ancient sense of the word "Priest,"
which is translated sacerdos; by the retention un
der the Ornaments Rubric of the term Altar; a
term which never ceased to be used in the public
forms of dedication and consecration of churches ;
is found in the canons of 1640, and is used again
and again in the office of Coronation. It is fur
ther proved by the retaining of the word sacrifice.

95
In our Holy Liturgy we pray God to accept "this
Sacrifice as our bounden duty and service." As
the equivalent of the Sacrificiuni Eucharisticmn
of the Sarum Missal, we call our sacrifice "the
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." Ridley,
the reformer, in his last words proclaimed his be-
hef in it. "What say you to that Council where
it is said, that the Priest doth offer an unbloody
sacrifice of the Body of Christ? I say it is well
said, if it be rightly understood. It is called un
bloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and
in a mystery, and as a re-presentation of that
bloody Sacrifice, and he doth not lie who saith
Christ to be offered." A long line of Anglican
divines bears witness to our Church's belief in
priest, altar, and sacrifice.
Rome by its last pronouncement, that with
exception of the word ' ' day, ' ' the three first chap
ters of Genesis must be taken in a literal and his
torical sense, has placed itself in opposition to the
discoveries of science, as it did in the days of Gal
ileo. The intelligence of the twentieth century
must necessarily break with Rome's leadership.
We submit to our readers that we have dealt
fairly and sincerely with our opponents and in the
spirit of divine charity, and we commend the whole
matter to their thoughtful consideration and
prayers. We here make an end. Against our will, we

96
have been drawn into this controversy. We have
no other feeling than that of Christian love to
wards our opponents. We have written for Christ's
sake, and in Him, and by aid of His Holy Spirit.
Our desire has been that by the elucidation of the
truth, the two Communions may be brought to bet
ter understanding and respect of one another. We
believe that it would add to the dignity and influ
ence of the Roman Church if its Bishops and
Priests should, though informally, recognize our
Catholic position. We know that we ¦have many
defects, and wounded by the sad divisions of Chris
tendom, are striving to recover in its fulness our
true Catholic heritage. Surely, instead of warring
upon one another, we should pray for one another,
cultivate Christian charity, and so hasten the sec
ond coming or "unveiling" of Our Blessed Lord.