"M ^V' ^r^^^wym-^ ^^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) k A {./ ^ A u. A* y ^^ -..> v^^ 1.0 1 1.1 11.25 m ■ 40 125 ™ 13.6 ^^ us u 1 2.0 -» • Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 33 WBT MAIN STRUT WIBSTH.N.Y. M9M (716) S72-4903 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Cana'^San Institute for Historical Microrepioductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ^ ' ;V Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Note* techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checlced below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peiliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gtegraphiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ^ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pagps blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exomplaire qu'ii iui a it4 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une imege reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. n n D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^os Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dteolortes, tachettes ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachtes Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inAgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriei supplAmentaire I — I Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieliement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At* filmtes A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meiileu>-e image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux dm rjiduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« hat b««n r«produc«d thanks to tha ganarosity of: L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grflca A la ginirosit* da: University of Windier University of Windsor Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha baat quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Las imagas suivantas ont 6t6 reproduitas avec la plus grand soin, compte tanu de la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film«, at an conformity avadas conditions du contrat da filmaga. Original coplas in printad papar covara ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad beginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha iaat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvarture en papier est imprimAe sont fiimte en commenpant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la darniAre paga qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par la darniire paga qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un dee symboles suivants apparaitra sur la darniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: la symbols -^ sign^fie "A SUiVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, platea, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one expoaure ara filmad beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames aa required. The following diagrama illuatrata the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmto it des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document esi trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui cliche, il est film* A partir de i'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut an bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^ V' T€. > J THE OF ANGLICANISM r"- — BEING — An Examination of the Articles of the Church of England. ' '-^ - By T '-i TOBONTO: >^ >. It \Tj- fi t" "■ - -^ ■ ■ Lt.* » - I ^ .vii^^a? ' * ■! - . i-^y V\f\ ! •••! A' TABLE OF CONTENTS. Prefftoe . Chap. I. •( II. «i » III. it IV. «« V. ti VI. •( VII. . 350, who denied obedience to Pope Co^eUus, Ae an exainple of the former, and the Donatists, i^p^ 320, n^ho reiused obedience to the Bishop of Carthagd^afi^^an ^ampl6 of the latter. St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, saySv^Of^ali^chujms, that whereby obedience is withdrawn frotn ihfe 3i^]reme ^ - Pontiff is the most dangerous to the Catholfe^-Ciujij^/' ^. {Epist.jad Cornel. Pap.) Both schism and heresy Diirsr~ asunder, as much rs in them lies, that essential bond of between oi. st and His Mystical Body,— -the union Church. Therefore, they who are guilty of either, become as withered branches, having no vital upion with the parent trunk. That the Anglican Church is founded in Heresy and Schism, is evident from the fact that many of her articles of faith are diametrically opposed to the doctrines held by the Church Catholic from the begin- ning, and because many of these articles are undoubtedly heretical and schismatical. Some of her articles contain the very same doctrine as is held by the Catholic Church, and these I pass by. In clinging to these doctrines An- glicans act wisely, but, alas ! they hold them without spiritual profit, for the reason that they are devoid of charity, which is essentially requisite, and charity can have no vital existence where the bond of union between Christ and His Church is wanting. Speaking of that charity, St. Augustine, A. D. 395, says : *• It is the pecu- liar gift ot Catholic unity and peace " (Tom. 7, lib. 3, cap. 16.) Others of these articles contain doctrine which is peculiar to the Anglican Church alone, and therefore they render her distinct and separate from the Catholic Apostolic Church. To these I shall chiefly con- fine myself. As a general thing, the Thirty-nine Articles will be found to deserve the same notes of censure as were passed by the Council of Constance, A.D. 1414, upon the tenets held by that arch-heretic, John Wickliff. I will now enter upon a brief and necessarily superficial examination of the principal articles of Anglican faith which contain doctrine peculiar to the Church of England alone, and which is diametrically opposed to that doctrine 10 PREFACE. delivered by Christ to His Church, and which has been handed down to us through the Catholic Apostolic Church from the very first ages of Christianity. I would here respectfully say, that I defy any member of the Anglican Communion, lay or clerical, to take up each article I arraign, and successfully clear it from the charge of falsehood or heresy, as the case may be. Disputation is cot my object or desire, but simply the vindication of the truth and justice of Catholic teaching. The claims of Anglicanism are fraudulent, aad if they are not, surely some one, a east, of the sentinels on their watch-tower,, will have the Christian charity to logically prove their genuineness. . T. D. \ ♦tst sr TaT"* THE GLAIMSofANGLIGANISMM I. THE SIXTH ARTICLE. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION. " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canon- ical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority, was never any doubt in the church," etc. This is one of the articles of faith of the Church ol England, iwhich contains doctrine peculiar to her alone, and renders her distinct and separate from the Catholic Apostolic Church. It is made up of two principal pro- positions, which must be each examined separately. The first of these propoistions is, ** Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvaition," t c The second pro- position is, "In the name of the Holy Scripture," etc. The first of these propositions, as is plain, is directed against the teaching of the Church Catholic, on " Tradi- tion." It is radically false tor many reasons, among which, I may mention the following. In making Holy Scripture the standard, or rule of faith, for mankind, the Anglican Church not only destroys the raison d'etre of the Church founded by Jesus Christ ; but she likewise fiatly contradicts the whole gospel narrative itself. As a matter of fact, it is indisputable that the Church wa? prior in point of time, to the Scriptures themselves. She received and fulfilled her commission long before a single line oi •ex * M 13 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. the New Testament was written. Hence, it follows, that the first converts of Christianity either had no solid rea- son for believing the gospel as preachen to them by the Apostles, or they derived their faith therein, through that medium alone, denied by the terms of this proposition. The command of Christ was, — " to teach and to preach." He Himself never wrote a single word of that Scripture we are now told was to be the rule of faith for men, nor did He ever command the Scriptures to be written. The iniant Church received the law of the gospel by the oral teaching of Christ, and she, by oral teaching alone, converted the world. Wherefore, as Holy Writ itself tes- tifies, the Church, by her very constitution, is alone the medium, or rule of faith, whereby mankind is to learn the law of Christ. Wherefore, also, the very nature of the case requires that the true Church of Christ be, essentially, a church of tradition. Anglicans can never give sound and logical reasons to reflecting minds, sufficient to con- vince them, that what they call Holy Scripture is such in reality. We nowhere find that the Apostles ever wrote for the purpose of handing down the entire Christian doctrine. They simply wrote for the purpose of supplying, by writing, what they were unable to accomplish by preaching. Were it even the case, that we had in our possession the entire writings of all the Apostles, it would not, by any means, ioUow that we had, then, the entire revelation of Christ, unless we were at the same time in- fallibly certain, that they (the Apostles) did actually write that revelation in its entirety. It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church, that there are many things in the deposit of faith which were never entrusted to writing, but were delivered viva voce^ or by tradition. Tradition, in the Catholic sense, is, "a// that body of truths derived from the very mouth of our blessed Lord, and which the Apostles have not necessarily com- mitted to writing, together with all that the Holy Ghost — the spirit of truth dictated to them, to be delivered to the Universal Church " (John i6 : 13.) To deny the truth of tradition in this, the Catholic sense of the term, is to deny the words of Christ Himself. It is to introduce those baneful principles which, since the so called Refor- mation in the i6th century, have been fast undermining THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 13 the very foundation of all faith, and dragging so many noble souls into the dark abyss of blank infidelity. St. Chrysostom, A.D.390, in his commentary on the words ot the i^postle. '* Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the tratitions which you have learned, either by word of mouth, or by our epistle," says : " Hence it is clear that they (the Apostles) did not deliver all things by epistle ; but many things also which were not written, and the latter are equally worthy of faith as the former. For this reason we believe the tradition of the Church also to be worthy of faith. It is tradition, enquire nothing more " (Tom. 4, Comment, in Thess.) St. Epiphanus, A. D. 400, says : " We are obliged to use tradition also ; for all things cannot be learned from Divine Scripture. Wherefore, the Apostles delivered some things in writing, others by tradition, which St. Paul himself affirms, say- ing : * As I delivered them to you,' etc. (Lib. 2, Contra Haeretic). Theophlactus, A. D. 170, commenting on the same passage, says : " From those words, it is evident that St. Paul and the other Apostles by no means committed to writing all the precepts which they delivered to the people. (Comment, in i Cor.) In his commentary on the second chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians, the same saint says : " Hence, indeed, it is clear that St. Paul delivered most things to the Thessalonians unwritten by exhortation only, that is, by word of mouth and not by epistle. For otherwise the one would not be equally v/orthy of faith as the other. Let us therefore consider the tradition of the Church so worthy of faith as to re- quire no further evidence." (Comment, in 2 Thess.) St. Augustine, A. D. 395, declares *' that the baptism of in- fants rests on the authority of Apostolic and Divine Tra- dition," and also " that it is by Apostolic Tradition we know that persons validly baptised by heretics are not again to be re-baptized." (De Bapt. Contra Donat.) St. Iraenus, A.D. 290, says : " Suppose the Apostles had left us no writings, would we not be bound to follow the rule of doctrine which they delivered to those to whom they committed their churches ? To this rule many foreign nations assent, — people who believe in Christ — who with- out letters or ink have salvation written on their hearts by the Spirit, and who, diligently guarding the ancient I\J\ 14 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. tradition, believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth and all things therein, through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who through transcendent love for His creatures took upon Himself that substance which was from the Virgin ; He by His own power uniting the humau to the divine nature, suffering under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, was received with glory into heaven, and is to come as the Saviour of the good and the Judge of the wicked, and will cast into eternal fire the per verters of the truth and all who despise the Father and His own last coming. They who have held this doctrine without the aid of letters, although wholly ignorant of our language, opin- ions, customs and mode of life, yet, because of their faith, whereby they are truly wise, walking in the paths of justice, chastity, and spiritual prudence, are pleasing in the sight of God." (Lib. 5, cap. 4, Contra Haeret.). I cannot forbear giving,, in conclusion of this subject, the striking words of St. Basil, A. D. 350, on the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church on tradition, in oppo- sition to the manifest heresy contained in this article. He says : '* Of the dogmaw preached in the Church we have some transmitted in writing ; others, which were delivered in mystery, that is in au occult manner, we have received by means of Apostolic tradition. Both ar& equally efficacious in promoting piety, neither does any one who has even the slightest pretensions to a knowledge of ecclesiastical rites object to them. For, if we proceed to reject as of little moment, such points as are not transmitted in writing, we shall by our impudent daring also condemn those things necessary to salvation which are contained in the gospel ; nay, we shall reduce the whole preaching of the faith to a mere name." (Lib. de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27.) Such testimonies as these pro- claim the truth of the teaching of the Catholic Roman Church, and stamp the doctrine of the Anglican Church in this article with the brand of falsehood and heresy^ wherefore the living, infallible voice of God's Church, and not the Holy Scriptures, is the divinely appointed guide for mankind, and this first proposition is therefore untrue in every particular. God's Church and not Holy Scripture being the depository of His revelation, it follows that she can pronounce judgment upon whatever has THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 15 been revealed, independently of whether the same was by the Apostles entrusted to writing or not. II. THE SIXTH ARTICLE.— Cow/tuu^rf. mer, we The second proposition of this 6th article is, — " In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." It then goes op to enumerate the Books to be considered as Scripture, or, in other words, to declare the Anglican Canon. As was seen already, Christ's Church was prior to Holy Scripture, and was commissioned by Him to be the sole medium whereby men should learn His revela- tion. Wherefore, from the very nature of the case, she must be the depository and custodian of all Scripture,, and it pertains to her alone to define the meaning thereof^ Hence, it is plain that, so far as concerns the Holy Scrip- ture, it, in itself, is simply a faithful record of the events it contains. No record can authenticate itself. For this there is required some extrinsic witness, or voucher, and every record can possess only the selfsame authority as does its voucher. In other words, the authority of the voucher for any record, and the authority of the record vouched for, must necessarily be equal. The Anglican. Church does to-day and always has repudiated the very idea of her own infallibility. Wherefore, when in this article she vouches for the Books of Scripture comprised in her canon, she does so simply as a fallible human in* stitution. These books can have none but fallible au- thority, and on their contents Anglicans can build none but fallible or human faith, which is essentially repug- nant to Divine infallihle faith in Christ'^ revelation ► (Mark 16 : 16.) By the principles laid down by the Church of England in this article, Anglicans can have at most only mere opinion for the truths of revelation ; but the faith required of Christians, by its very nature, excludes opinion^ and must be based on absolute certainty itself. Wherefore^ i6 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. "Without an infallible witness, or voucher, all belief in the truths of Christianity becomes the jest and the sport of the scoffer and the infidel. What I here say must be evident to every man who knows the essential requisites of Divine faith. It is true th::t the Anglican Church, in her 20th article, says : — " The Church hath power to de- cree rites, and ceremonies, and authority in controversies •of faith ; and yet, it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it bo expound one place of Scripture, that it be re- pugnant to another." The question must here arise, — who is the judge of the Church in thus acting, and who is to decide whether her actions are conformable to Holy Scripture or not ? The answer to this question is, and must be, that it is the individual who is the judge, both of the action of the Church and of the teaching of Scrip- ture. Wherefore, the Anglican Church, on her own prin- •ciples, reduced to their ultimate analysis, rests on the very same basis as do all the heretical sects of the day — namely, on the private judgment of the individual. It is said, — " that those books are canonical of which there never was any doubt." In the early ages of the Church, very many doubted the canonical authority of the Book of Esther ; yet it is accepted as canonical by the Church of England. Among the learned men who so doubted were St. Athanasius, A.D. 320, St. Gregory, Nanzianzen, A.D. 376, and before them, Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, as we read in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, A.D. 350. The same St. Gregory, Nanzian- zen, and the Fathers of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 350, doubted the canonical authority of the Book of Revela- tions, and yet it also is accepted as canonical. How this glaring contradiction between the words of this article, and the acceptance of these Books can be reconciled, I leave to others to decide. In framing her canon of Scrip- ture the Anglican Church followed rather the repudiated Synagogue of the Jews, than the Church established by Jesus Christ, — which is, as St. Paul says, and the ground of truth." St. Iraenus, A.D. " But, whatever is of the Church, that we must already love, and must hold fast to the tradition of truth " (Mb. 3t cap. 4, Contra Haer.). I'he Christian Church did not "the 190, says pillar THE CLAIMS OP ANGLICANISM. ir receive its canon of Scripture from the synagogue, for it is an historical fact that the Jews themselves had no per- manent or fixed canon until long after they had entirely rejected Christ. Did the Anglican Church properly under- stand the essential requisites for Divine faith in th? truths of Christianity, she could not consistently accept the canon of the synagogue without attributing to it the prerogative of infallibility. By this article are rejected the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the two Macca- bees, and others, which the Church Catholic has placed in her canon. In this 6th article it is said,— " t^st those books (as Heirome saith) the church doth read for ex- ample of life and instruction of manners." The inference here conveyed is, that because St. Jerome had doubts of their authority, they, therefore, should form no part of canonical Scripture. If this reason were logical, it should also apply to thof:'? books referred to above, which un- doubtedly were considered doubtful, until they had re- ceived the seal of Holy Church. The truth of the matter is, that this testimony of St. Jerome is in no way pertinent to the case before us. This is plain from the fact, that the canonical authority of the books of which he speaks was not decided by the Church in his time. It has al- ways been a fixed Catholic principle, that unity should exist in all things fixed and defined, liberty in things un- defined or doubtful, and charity in all things in general. Hence, it is evident that St. Jerome and those of his day could lawfully doubt of the canonical authority of these Scriptures, so long as the Church had not as jet passed her final decision upon them. Once such a decision wa* given, then it was no longer lawful to doubt them. It must, moreover, be kept in mind that these Scriptures were never so doubted but what there were always found many Fathers, and learned men, who regarded them as canonical. Wherefore, the tradition descending from these Fathers gave the Church, in process of time, suf- ficient material for determining the question, and for framing, under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, an in- fallible decree as to their canonicity. The Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, to the decrees of which the great St. Augustiiie subscribed, pronounced them canonical. So also did Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492. Isodore of Hispalis, r i8 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. A.D. 424, attests, '' that before his tiire they were so de- fined by the Church." Pope Innocent, A.D. 402, testifies to the same thing (Tom. i,Conciiiorum, Epist. Innocent, etc.^ None but those inflated with the spirit of pride cculd possibly reject such high authority as this. The Anglican Church, in rejecting these books, has consequently rejected the genuine Word of God. Wherefore, in this article she has made herself as uncatholic and as Protest- ant as is every other sect in the Protestant world — down to the senseless and infidelizing Salvation Army. III. THE NINTH ARTICLE. OF ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN. " Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person bom into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regen- erated; whereby, the lust of the flesh, (called in the Greek phro- nema sarkos) which some do Expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there la no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet, the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin." on The doctrine of the Catholic Apostolic Church, original sin," was first attacked by Pelagius, A.D. 420, in his fourteen books on the Epistles of St. Paul. It was principally owing to the energy of the great St. Augustine that the Pelagian heresy was formally condemned by the Church, in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. In oppo- sition to the heresy introduced by Pelagius, the Anglican Church in this 9th article rightly maintains that every man naturally engendered of the offspring of Adam is born into this world stained with the guilt of original ' '' She most grievously errs, however, in herein main- sin. THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 19 taining, with Luther and other so-called reformers of the i61h century, "that this sin remains in those who are re- generated in the sacrament of baptism, and that concupis- cence really is and remains a sin in those so: '•generated." It has always been the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church, that man was originally created in a super- natural state, in a state of original justice, which Holy Scripture calls "the likeness of man to God" (Genes. 1:27). In this supernatural state, all the faculties of man were much more excellent than they are now. His mind was enlightened by spiritual knowledge, infused into him by the word of God, his will was perfectly regulated and subject to God, his body was created incorruptible, and his whole being was protected by the sanctity of his soul irom all the miseries and afflictions which now make this earth a prison and a place of banishment. God, who created him a perfectly free agent, promised to Adam, and in him to all his posterity, (should he prove faithiul to His command) to superadd to the supernatural life of grace during his trial on earth, the supernatural life of glory in eternity. Adam unfortunately sinned, and by so doing lost for himself and his posterity, both the super- natural life ol grace and that of glory. Wherefore, the transmission of sin to us from Adam, consists in the non- transmission to us of that origiual justice, or supernatural state of grace, in which he was originally created. After the fall of Adam, God in His mercy still ordering man to a supernatural end, gave to him the grace of our Re^ deemer. In the new law this grace is applied to our souls, in the first place, through the Sacrament of Baptism. By this sacrament, all sin both original and actual, to- gether with all the penalties due thereto, are entirely washed away. '* I believe in one baptism for the remis- sion of sins," says the Nicene Creed. Although all sin is washed away by the sacrament of baptism, not so are all infirmities. Hence, evil concupiscence, by which the flesh lusteth against the spirit and which we must con- stantly resist, remains in the oersons baptised. Concupis- cence, according to St. T^cnas, is *' the appetite which tends to the gratification of the senses." This tendency, in sCf is neither good nor evil. It is determined by its object. The word concupiscence, however, is frequently 20 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. I il It ■ used for that appetite which exists in fallen man, and is not sin itself, but an incentitive to sin. It did not exist in Adam until after his fall, and from him it has passed ta all his posterity. It remains after baptism, so that all, even the greatest saints, have to wage constant war against it without being able to eradicate it. The re- formers in the i6th century, starting from the false prin- ciple "that man's freedom was destroyed by the sin of Adam," maintained, as does this gth article, tiiat concupis- cence (even when the will resists it,) has the nature of sin- Catholic teaching always was and is, " that human actions, to be moral or immoral, essentially depend upon the free will of the agent." Wherefore, when the will resists it, concupiscence cannot possibly have the nature of sin. Of itself, then, concupiscence is not sin, but is only the effect of the sin of our first parents. Where this gth article says, that St. Paul confesses that concupiscence has of itself the nature of sin, it utters a glaring and unmitigated falsehood. St. Paul confesses no such thing, nor does the passage from Rom. 8 : 7 afford any apology for the flagrant error therein introduced. The wisdom of the flesh of which St. Paul speaks, does not refer to the incentitive to sin, which he says is in himself and other holy men, but to the consent of the will to that incentitive. The wisdom of the flesh, as St. Baul speaks of it, pertains not to oiiginal sin, but to actual sin. He attributes it only to sinners who follow what is earthly and walk according to the flesh, as may be seen by consulting Rom. 8 : 5, 6, 7, 8. It is a frequent practice in Holy Scripture, to give the name of sin to things that by no means have the nature of sin. For example, sacrifices for sin are called sin (Osee. 4 : 8.) Because Christ was a sacrifice for sin, God says, •* He was made sin for us," (2 Cor. 5:21). So also is concupiscence in the regener- ated, called sin by St. Paul (Rom. 6: 12). To omit many similar testimonies from the early Fathers, I shall content myself with here giving, in the first place, an extract from the writings of St. Augustine, A. D. 395, wherein he beautifully sums up the Catholic doctrine on the subject before us. He says : "Concupiscence is called sin in this sense, because it originated from sin, though now it be not, of itself, sin in the regenerated. As the language THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 21 which the tongue .pronounceth is called, a tongue ; and the writing which the hand executeth is called, a hand ; so, in like manner, concupiscence is called sin, because if it prevail, sin is the consequence. Just as cold is called sluggish, not because it proceeds trom the sluggish, but because it renders people sluggish. Concupiscence of itself is not indeed a sin in the regenerated, so long as the will does not yield its consent to illicit acts, and the mind, which possesses the sovereignty over the members, suffers them to perpetrate what is unlawful; so that if that be not done which is written, **thou shalt not covet," this, at 'east, may be done which we read elsewhere, "thou shalt not go after thy concupiscence" (Eccl. i8: 30). But whereas, by a certain manner of speaking, concupi- scence is called sin, because it originated from sin, and if it prevail, makes us guilty of sin ; the wicked propensity arising therefrom influences every person born into the world. This propensity, the grace of Christ through the remission of all sins in the persons born again by baptism, doth not suffer to prevail, provided we obey it not, when it may be said in a certain manner to com- mand us to commit evil deeds "(Lib. i, de Nupt. cap. 23). St. Gregory, A. D. 590, confirms also the doctrine of the Catholic Church, "on original sin," in opposition to this article of Anglican faith. He says : •' If fhere are any who may say that in baptism sins are effaced superfidallyy what greater infidelity than such an assertion ? Wnereas, the soul radically freed from sin by the sacrament of faith adheres to God alone " (Lib. 3, Regist. Ep. 30). St. Augustine, A.D. 395, also says : "In baptized children the guilt of concupiscence is remitted,concupiscence itself is left lor probation " (Lib. i, De Peccat. cap. 39). " In baptism the guilt of concupiscence is pardoned, but the infirmity remains" (Lib. i, de Nupt., cap. 23). Such has always been the doctrine ot the true Church of Christ, "on original sin." Wherefore, when the Anglican Church, in this 9th article, proclaims its very contrary, she goes against all antiquity, and therefore proves herself to be a false and heretical church. t9 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. IV. THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE. 1 , OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. " We are acco'inted righteous before God, only for the merit of our L')rd and Saviour, Jesus Christ, by faith and not for our own works, or desirings ; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification." In this article are two grave errors, both directly op- posed to the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church from the beginning. The one, whereby all inherent jus- tice in the cause of justification before God is denied ; the other, whereby it is maintained that the sinner is jus- tified by faith only. Justification is the translation of the sinner from the state of sin to the state of grace, as seen in St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians (i : 13). "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the son of His love." It consists in these two things, namely, in the expulsion of sin and in the in; . lion or acquisition of jus- tice. The very same as the heU, by which a person from being cold is made warm, consists of two things, namely, the expulsion of cold and the acquisition of warmth. At the time of the so-called Reformation in the i6th century, one of the principal disputes was concerning the way in which man became justified, and the Anglican Church embraced the errors then introduced. The con- stant doctrine of the Church of Christ — the Holy Catho- lic Church — and that introduced by the Reformers may be better illustrated by an example : A certain poor man, who is grievously afflicted with scabs, ulcers, mortifica* tion, and other vicious humours, goes to a doctor to be cured, and the question is, what must the doctor do to cure him ? If he would act as the Catholic Church al- ways has taught and acted, the doctor will do these three things, ist. He will prescribe certain dispositions, or preparations on the part of the afflicted man for the more e!^sy and sure cure of his disease. 2nd. He will give to him a draught, not only medicinal, by which the body is cleansed and the humours expelled, but a salutary and vivifying draught, by which his strength is re-established THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 23 le merit of )r our own faith only t, as more jctly op- j Cliurch jrent jus- ; denied ; ler is jus- slation ol grace, as (i •• 13)- :ness, and )n of His ly, in the on of jus- rson from 1, namely, warmth. the i6th rning the Anglican The con- y Catho- ers may oor man, ortifica- Itor to be or do to Ihurch al- lese three tions, or the more I give to body is ary and ablished and his former health is restored ; and, 3rd, he will advise caution and preservatives, so that the afHicted man may not again fall into disease, and thereby lose his regained health. This is what the Church Catholic has always taught takes place in the justification oi the sinner, or in the cure of the soul diseased by sin. The sinner whose soul is filled with the filth of sin, desires to be cured by God. God prescribes three things lor him : — I St. The motion of faith, hope, contrition, love, purpose of future good life, as dispositions or preparations on the sinner's part for the cure of his soul. and. He infuses into the soul grace, or sanctifying justice, by which his sins are blotted out, and his lost spiritual health is re- stored. 3rd. He prescribes for the soul caution and preservatives by good works and the keeping of the Commandments, so that the regained spiritual health may not again be lost. Should the doctor follow the teaching of the Reformers he will take a different course entirely from this. He will merely oflfer to the afflicted man a beautiful, ornamented, elaborate and magnificent cloak. He will exhort him to take the cloak, and put it around him,andthuscover his diseased body. Then he may go with confidence into the presence of the King, who will be unable to recognize the filth of the body on account of the beautiful cloak which covers it. This is exactly the case in the justification of the sinner, as taught in this article of Anglican Faith. According to its teaching the sinner — on account of the number and enormity of his sins, dares not go into the presence of God, and he asks help from Christ, as from a doctor. Christ offers him His own justice and satisfaction, as a beautiful and magnificent cloak. He exhorts him to take it by faith and, as it were, cover his crimes and iniquities, and then with confidence and audacity to stand in the presence of God. Then the Omnipotent Being, without any doubt, will declare him pure and innocent, although in reality he is not so, but a hideous object of the filth of sin. Justification is a free and gratuitous grace on God's part. St. Paul says : — " You have been justified freely " (Rom. 3 : 24). The primary object in the whole of this epistle is to show that both Jews and Gentiles have been called to the faith by a free grace on the part of Alnjighty God. There is no such y iii 24 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. thing as necessitating grace. Therefore, man is always at perfect hberty to accept or reject the proffered justifica- tion. Should he will to accept it, the sinner is thus pre- pared or disposed for it. Believing in the revelation and promises of God, he fears His Infinite justice, — hopes in His Mercy, — and trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake. He then begins to love God as the fountain of all justice, and hates and detests the sins which have separated him from God. To this incipient love of the sinner, God responds by His own Love, as it is written — "I love those who love me" (Prov. 8 : 17). Thus it is, that the saying of St. Augustine, A.D. 395, is verified — " The house of God is founded by faith, raised up by hope, and crowned by charity " (Sermo. 28, cap. 4). When charity or sanctifying grace is infused by God inta the soul thus prepared, then is the sinner made really just in God's sight, and as such is loved by Him. This sanc- tifying grace diffuses itself in the soul like a gentle unc- tion, and renders it pure and holy in proportion to the disposition with which the heart co-operates with it^ Concupiscence, or the tendency to sin, still remains after justification, but so long as the will withholds its consent from its evil suggestions, it cannot deprive him of his justice. From what is here said, and from the example given above, it follows that for our justification it is not only >ecessary that God should anticipate us by His grace, mt it is also necessary that we should on our part conseni and co-operate with that grace. Wherefore, St. Augustine, A.D. 395, has rightly said, — ** He who created thee independently of thyself does not justify thee inde- pendently of thyself" (Sermo. de Verb. Apost. cap. 11). Hence, it is plain that this article of Anglican Faith is erroneous in teaching " that the sinner can contribute absolutely nothing to his own conversion, — that faith in Christ is to be attributed solely to the working of God, and His Holy Spirit. The Catholic Apostolic Church has always strongly condemned the denial of the sinner's co- operation in his own justification. Seeping in view the example given above, it will be seen that where the Church Catholic has always taught that justification is the renewal of man's moral nature by grace, the Angli- can Church takes it to mean dnly the remission of hissins> THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. af and the imputing to him the justice of Christ by faith ; where that by justification the sinner becomes really just, and as such pleasing in God's sight, the Anglican church says no, — he is only reputed, or accounted just, the merits of Christ being simply made over to his account ; where that justification is effected by grace inherent in the soul, the Anglican Church says no, it is some- thing external, — it is a sentence merely pronounced on the soul by the Divine Judge. Since she erred so grievously on the question of original sin and concupiscence, (as was proven when examining her gth article) it is little wonder that the Anglican Church errs thus grievously oti the question oi justification, so intimately connected with the former. The second error in this article is — *' that man is justified by taith orly." The false and pernicious doctrme here laid down is sufficiently refuted by what is said above ; and as Anglicans profess*great regard for the Holy Scriptures, I shall merely refer to them, as in them God Himself teaches far otherwise. St. James says — *' Do you see, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (2: 24). Penance is required as well as faith as we read in Isais i : 16. St. Luke says, — •' No, I say to you ; but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish" (13: 3, 5). Christ Himself taught that Baptism, besides faith, was necessary. After Christ St. Peter taught the same doctrine — " But Peter said to them, do penance, and be baptized every one of you, m the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins " (Acts 2 : 38). •* I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins," says the Nicene Creed. Every sane man must admit that mortal sin debars ^from the glory of Heaven (i Cor. 6 : 9-10). St. Paul tells us that they who are justified, are also glorified (Rom. 8 : 30J. Now, therefore, if men can be justified by faith alone, tnen many guilty of mortal sin and dying in that state, will be both justified and glorified, because, from the very nature of faith, although mortal sin destroys living faith, it does not de- stroy the true faith. The true faith of itself avails not to salvation, and can, and in many cases does exist, without charity. Wherefore, it is evident how senseless, and utterly erroneous is the principle "that man is justified 26 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. by faith only." Sufficient is here said to prove, beyond doubt, that this nth article of Anglican Faith is abso- lutely false and heretical. .■•''' V. THE THIRTEENTH ARTICLE. OF WORKS BEFORE JUSTIFICATION. " Woiks done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to Gor*, forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ : neither do they make men meet to re- ceive grace, or, (as the school-authors say) deterve grace of con- gruity : yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed^ and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." In the examination of this article, I must first draw the attention of the reader to the false and groundless insinu- ation contained therein, directed against those it calls •'the school-authors." The reference is here, of course, to Catholic Divines. When the Anglican Church insinu- ates, (as she does in this article), that Catholic Divines ever taught.with the sanction of Holy Church, that works done by the mere force of nature alone, deserved the merit of congruity, she insinuates what is simply a base calumny. This was one of the errors of the great Pelagian Heresy, A.D. 420, which was stronglycondemned by the church Catholics, especially in the Council of Trent (Sessio. 6). It has always been the teaching of the Church of Christ, that the beginning of justification comes from prevenient grace ; that the dispositions ta justifying grace commence when man, moved and as- sisted by Almighty God, begins to believe; and that na man, if not aided by God's grace, can, by the force of nature or knowledge of His Holy Law, love Him, or bring forth worthy fruits of penance. The principal error, however, to which I would more particularly refer,, is where this 15th article maintains, '* that all works are sins, which are done before the grace of faith and of Christ." The finest instincts of human nature naturally revolt against this cruel and monstrous doctrine ; and THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM, 27 they, as naturally, incline to the teaching of the Catholic church on this point. That rational and Christianlike teaching is this, although works of this kind are not so meritorious in the sight of God, as to render us just and holy, and conciliate His friendship, and thereby render us worthy of heaven, nevertheless, poor human nature (bad as it is) has not become so utterly depraved by the sin of Adam, as that nothing (food can come from it. All the prmciples of good, ergralted in the heart by a kind Creator, have not become so completely eradicated, as that man's free will, without the grace of Christy but of its own natural and inherent force, can effect nothing but sin. Man's free will has certainly been greatly effected by the sin of Adam, yet, from what remains of its original excellence, it has as certainly produced many useful things, founded on industry and practical wisdom, and beneficial to mankind in general. These thing?, in as much as they are good in themselves, and productive of good to others, cannot by any means be said "to have the nature of sin." The testimony of all antiquity fully corroborates the Catholic doctrine on this question. St. Jerome, A.D. 380, commenting on the words, ** To reveal His Son in me" (Galat. i : 16), says, — "VVherei c, it is manifest that the knowledge of God is by nature im- planted in [all, and that no one is born without Christ ; but that all have within them the seeds of wisdom, justice, and the other virtues ; consequently, many per- sons without the faith and Gospel of Christ act wisely and holily, in some respects, — such as obeying parents, relieving the indigent, not oppressing their neighbours, or plundering the property of otherF, and these become more obnoxious to the judgment of God, because, having with- in them virtuous principles and the seeds of God, they do not believe in Him, without whom they cannot exist" (Tom. 9, lib. I, Comment in Galal). St. Augustine, A.D. 395, commenting on Rom. 2 : 14, sayF, — *' But, though they who naturally do the things that are of the law, are not, as yet, to be reckoned within the number of those whom the grace of Christ justifieth ; still, we either read, or know, or hear of some acts of theirs which, according to the standard of justice, so far from meriting censure, deservedly call forth our applause. 28 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. If we, however, discuss the ends for which these acts are performed, they will not be found to merit the praise or vindication done to justice" (Tom 3, cap. 27, 28). Again, the same St. Augustine says, — " For, as venial sins, with- out which this life is not spent, do not preclude the just man from eternal life ; so good works, without some of which the lite of the most wicked is scarcely found, avail not the impious to eternal salvation " (Tom 3, De Spiritu, ad Marcell, cap. 27). In one word, it is evident to every man, that there are v/orks which, in themselves, are naturally good, and therefore, merit a natural reward from a just and omnipotent God. It is more than preposter- ous to say, that such works have '• the nature of sin." This is clear from the nature of sin itself; every sin com- mitted deserves punishment, and renders man worse and worse by its commission. Let us apply this evident truth to many examples in Holy Scripture, and we shall see at a glance the perfect absurdity of attributing ** the nature of sin" to all works performed by unbelievers and, consequently, before "the grace of faith," and ** of Christ." 'I'he barbarians showed marked courtesy to St. Paul and his companions when shipwrecked (Acts 28). Servius desired greatly to hear the word of God (Acts 13). Cyrus and Darius ordered the Temple of Jerusalem to be rebuilt (i Esdras. i : 6). Pharoah and Abimeiech surrendered Sarah to Abraham, and enriched him with many gifts (Gen. 20). If the doctrine of the Anglican Church in this article were true, these works of unbelieve- ers had the nature of sin, and therefore deserved punish- ment, and rendered them more wicked. The same absurdity is apparent from the pages of profane history also, wherein we have innumerable examples of unbe- lievers, and really wicked men who, acting from natural commiseration alone; gave alms to the poor and needy ; or who, simply following the dictates of our common reason itself, faithfully performed theirobligations,honoured their parents, and obeyed the laws under which they lived. Wherefore, from what has been said, it is clear ihat the Anglican Church in this 13th article has not only laid down doctrine which is manifestly heretical, but doc- trine which, if true, completely justifies the bold stand taken by such numbers of professed Infidels in the THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 29 acts are »raise or . Again, ns, with- the just some of id, avail Spiritu, every i^es, are rd from eposter- of sin." in com- )rse and evident ve shall ributing elievers md **of itesy to iCts 28). 1 (Acts usalem melech n with nglican >elieve- }unish- same listory unbe- natiiral dy ; or eason d their lived, at the y laid doc- stand the Protestant world, in this, so-called, eminently enlight- ened 19th century. If mere naturally good works could have the nature of sin, they would then necessarily be sinful, and make men worse by their performance. Such a doctrine may suit a spurious human institution, but, thank God, it has not, nor never had, any place in the teaching of the church of Jesus Christ, — the Holy Catho- lic Roman Church. VI. THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE. OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION. " Voluntary works, besides, over and above God's commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cai ot be taught without arrogancy and impiety ; for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required ; whereas, Christ saith plainly, ' When ye have done all things that are commanded to you, say, we are unprofitable servants.' " The very interesting question to be decided from the examination of this article, is the question of the Evan- gelical counsels. The Catholic Apostolic Church has always taught that the law given by Christ embraces both precepts and counsels. These two are distinct in themselves, and cannot be confounded except by the wil- fully blind and ignorant. The commandments of the Gospel oblige under pain of sin, while the counsels do not, or, as St. Jerome says, " When a counsel is given, the wiU is left tree ; when a precept, strict compliance is required " (Lib. Contra Jovian). The observance of the counsels is entitled to a reward, while their non- observance does not merit punishment. When the Law of the Gospel was imposed upon us, Christ, in His mercy, did not require from us in justice ail that He could require, or even all that we could easily do. He gave us, as He Himself says, "a sveet yoke and an easy burthen," which, aided by His Divine Grace, we can easily bear and discharge, and to which, by the same grace, we can even superadd. Most certainly, if we only consider the ■mm 30 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. benefits conferred upon us by God, we can never render to Him an equivalent, much less supererogate by our works, but if we also consider the verynnild law imposed upon us, then we can by His grace do more than His law requires, and, therefore, we can fulfil His counsels also, or perform works of supererogation. Wherefore is evi- dent the falsity of this article in saying, " that such cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety." The Anglican Church here insinuates that Catholics, when they observe the counsels, as well as the precepts of the Gospel, believe and boast, as it were, that they are doing a compliment to the Almighty, and are to be looked upon by Him as something more than unprofitable servants. Such is far from being the case. Catholics know, and fully believe, that for their eternal salvation they are both able and obliged to do what God commands. Al- though Holy Church exhorts us to labour by our good works, '* to make our election sure" (2 Peter i : 10), yet no Catholic boasts that he himself has fulfilled the law or places his chief reliance on it, or teaches it to others. The Church of Christ teaches that all our works are, one day, to be thoroughly scrutinized, not by a human, but by a Divine Judge. Wiierefore, even the most learned and most holy Catholics constantly will walk with deep humility and a most pious fear, often repeating from the very depths of their repentant hearts with holy David, ** Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified." They have too much cause to remember and to follow the advice of St. Augustine, A.D. 395. " Dread calling thyself just, unless thou hast the words in some other Psalm, than that wherein it is said, ' enter not into judgment with thy servant.' Woe to whoever liveth, even though he live justly, if God enter into judgment with him." (Com- ment, in Psal. 42). In giving extracts from the Fathers on this and every other question of Catholic doctrine, I must necessarily be as brief as possible. When, therefore, I quote from antiquity, it must be remembered that I pass over very many similar testimonies, all bearing on the same sub- jects. St. Jerome, A.D. 380, says, " Why has he not a precept of the Lord concerning virginity ? Because THE CLAIMS CF ANGLICANISM. ai render by our m posed His law ds also, I is evi- t such " The ;, when 5 of the e doing :d upon irvants. )w, and ley are Is. Al- ir ^ood lo), yet he law others, re, one m, but earned 1 deep 3m the David, in thy ve too of St. unless that thy live Com- every sarily from very i sub- lot a :ause that which is not forced, but freely offered, is entitled to a greater reward." (Epist. de Custod. Virginit.) Again commenting on these words of the Apostle, " Trusting in thy obedience I have written to thee ; knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say," he writes : •' Wherefore Philemon is deservedly praised by the Apostle, for by his works he exceeds the commandments and can exclaim, * Accept, 1 beseech thee, the free-will offerings of my mouth, O Lord.' He, by doing more than was commanded, shall rise above those who have only done what was required of them, and who are ordered to say, — ' We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we ought to do.* Vir- ginity is crowned with a greater reward for this reason, also, because it is enjoined by no precept of the Lord ; and it soars above what is required by the command- ments" (Comment, in Epist. ad Phil.). St. Augustine,A.D. 395 says, — " In the gospel our Lord hath not given us a counsel, but a command to love our enemies. A counsel is one thing, a commandment another. A counsel is given us to preserve virginity, to abstain from wine, to sell all and give to the poor ; but a commandment is given us to practice justice, to turn away from evil, and to do good. In a word, respecting virginity it is said, * He that can receive, let him receive it ; ' whereas, respecting justice it is not said, ' He that can receive, let him receive it,' but ' Every tree that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire.' He who willingly hears and obeys a counsel shall enjoy a superior degree of glory, but he who doth not fulfil a command- ment cannot possibly escape punishment, unless he be released from it by penance " (Sermo. 6, de Temp). St. Ambrose, A.D. 370, showing the difference between a counsel and a precept, says, " That you may understand in what a precept differs from a counsel, remember the young man to whom it is first prescribed in the gospel, * Thou shalt do no murder,' * Thou shalt not commit adulterjV ' Thou shalt not bear false witness,' for a precept is contained where the punishment for sin is at- tached ; but when the young man replied that he had observed the commandments, a counsel is given him to sell all that he had and follow the Lord. For the latter is not enjoined by precept, but given by way of counsel » hi. i 11 [ir 32 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. (Lib. de Vid.). In support of its groundless condemnation of the Catholic doctrine on works of supererogation, the Anglican Church in this article ialsely interprets these words of St. Luke, — " When you shall have done all things that are commanded you say, we are unprofitable servants" (Cap. 17: 12). To show the falsity of the interpretation put upon this text, I shall omit all other proofs, and shall simply refer to an unanswerable extract taken from the writings of that eminent Father of the €arly church, St. Ambrose, A.D. 380. He says, " Where* fore, they who fulfil the commandments can say, * We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we ought to do.' This, the virgin does not say ; he who sold his possessions does not say this, but expects, as it were, the rewards which he stored up, like the blessed apostle who saith, " Behold, we have left all things and followed thee ; what, therefore, shall we have?' (Matt. 19 : 27). He did not, like an unprofitable servant, say ' he had done all things which he ought to do ; ' but as one profitable to the Lord, as one who multiplied the talents committed to hini by the interest he acquired, who is confident within himself and sure of his merits, he expects the reward of faith and virtue'' (Lib. de Vid.). In a word, the Catholic Apostolic Church has always insisted on the distinction between what is commanded in the Law oi Christ, and what is merely of counsel. The more the Fathers ot the Church are studied on the sub- ject, the more apparent will be the entire falsity of this article of faith of the Anglican Church. ■:•>■• J • iiW .•f ' ■arj VII. THE NINETEENTH ARTICLE. .-., v' OF THE CHURCH. i^>iri .,'*:. *'The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacra- ments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 35 emnation ition, the 3ts these done all )rofi table y of the all other i extract ir of the ' Where. * We are ve ought sold his irere, the stle who followed 27). He done all table to litted to i within ward of always nded in The le sub- of this I I n althful sacra- , in all 1, have erred ; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." The definition given in the first section of this article '*of the church," is radically false and defective. The church founded by Jesus Christ must, of her very nature^ be something more than is here laid down, or, she is nothing at all for which any logical mind can have the least respect. It is glaringly false to say " that the Church of Christ is merely a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordi- nance in all these things that, ot necessity, are requisite to the same." Two things are here predicated of Christ's Church, namely, the " preaching of the pure Word of God ; " and ** the administration of the Sacraments." For the preaching of the pure Word of God, it is abso- lutely requisite that Christ's Church be an infallible Church. This is p.ainly evident, for if she be not infal- lible then she may preach what is not the pure Word of God, or, she may leave unpreached what in reality is His pure Word. In either of these hypotheses men could never arrive at Divine Faith in the revelation of Chnst, for the simple reason that there would always be 'room for doubt. But when there is room for doubt there can be no Divine Faith, as it and doubt are essentially incompatible. Wherefore, in order that the pure Word of God be preached in Christ's Church, it is absolutely required that she be an infallible church. For the administration of the Sacraments there is necessarily required an authorized ministry to administer them, and this authorized ministry must, of necessity,. tJerive its authority from the authorized bod)» of the church. Wherefore, the Church of Christ must be a body, duly authorized to promulgate and administer the Law of Christ, but not herself to make that law. We see in Holy Scripture itself, that Christ, in founding His Church, did not make it merely a congregation of faithful men or believers, but, as St. Paul says, •' And He gave some apostles and some prophets, etc.," (Eph. 4: 11, 14). Wherefore, to those who hold the ministry, Christ has given authority to teach and to rule His Church, and therefore, in founding His Church, Christ constituted her ^^s 34 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. !!' i an authorized body and made communion with that body an indispensable condition of communion with Himself. In another part of Holy Scripture we read, *' Going therefore, teach ye all nations, etc." (Matt. 28 : 19, 20). Here we see that Christ appointed a perpetual ministry with authority to teach. If that ministry had authority from Christ to teach, then all are strictly bouns. to believe what it teaches, for there can be no authority to teach where there is no obligation to believe. The two are correlative. Wherefore, they who reject this authority simply reject Christ Himself. Anglicans claim to believe in the Nicene Creed, wherein they make a pro- fession of faith, " in one Catholic Church." Wherefore, they therein make a profession of faith in the unity of tlie Church. This unity by its very nature must extend, not only to the true faith in Christ's revelation, but likewise to the authority, competent to d'jclare what that true faith is. That is to say, they must believe not only in the unity of faith, but also in unity of authority. They who break the unity of authority are just as much guilty of schism, as they who break the unity of faith. At the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, when Anglecans broke away from the author- ity of the Roman S'^.e, on account, as they vainly say, of its manifold corruptions and superstitions ; at that time the Roman Church was just what it was for centuries before, and what it is to-day. The whole Christian world looked up to her as that one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which bad come down unbroken, even from the time of Christ Himself. Her authority at that time was either a usurped authority, or it was a perfectly legiti- mate authority. If it was a usurped authority, then it was equivalent to no authority at all, as is plain, and there was, therefore, at that time no such thing as the Church of Christ in the known world, nor had there been for ages before. In this hypothesis, Christ was simply what the many Infidels of to-day say he was — a mere myth — and His many promises to His Church were of no account whatever. If, at that time, the authority of the Roman Church was a legitimate authority, then it must ot neces- sity have been from Christ, for Christ is the one and sole source of all authority in the Church. To resist that !i : ill irith that lion with we read, ^att. 28 : perpetual istry had ly bouns. authority ve. The ject this ins claim ke a pro- herefore, ty of tlie tend, not likewise hat true ly in the hey who h guilty 5f faith, ixteenth author- say, of at time enturies world 30stolic rom the me was legiti- then it d there Church en for y what yth— ccount ^oman neces- d sole ■t that THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 35 authority was, therefore, to rise in rsb'^llion against Christ Himself, and consequently to be guilty of the heinous crime of Schism. Although Anglicans foolishly proclaim that the Catholic Roman Church was buried in damnable idolatry for the space of 800 years, or more, nevertheless, they admit that she was originally the true Church of Christ, and that, even yet, salvation is attainable in her bosom. If salvation is attainable in the Catholic Roman Church, she must therefore have all the requisites for salvation. The true faith in the revelation of Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation ; wherefore, she must have, and always must have had that true faith, and, con- sequently, there can be given no substantial justification for withdrawing from her jurisdiction. Again, if salvation is attainable in the Catholic Roman Church, then she must necessarily be in communion with Christ ! If in communion with Christ she must, of necessity, be the Church of Christ, for that church can be by no possibility but one, as Christ and God are one. Wherefore, to sepa- rate from her was to separate from Christ, and to found a mere heretical human institution. The Anglican Church boldly proclaims and prides herself for having separated from the Roman Se«^ ; wherefore, out of her own mouth is she condemned in the eyes of every man who dares to use his reasoning faculties. The second section of this article is sufficiently refuted by what is here said, and by what will be said when examining the 37th article. In the Nicene Creed, a profession of faith is made in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. No church in the Christian world ever could or can to-day make good their claim to these prerogatives, except the Catholic Roman Church ; wherefore, she never did, nor never could err, but remains to the end of time the only true Church of Christ. To prove the faith of antiquity, on the Catholic Roman Church, in opposition to the heresy contained in this article, I shall content myself with giving but simply one testimony, and that ^ om the profession of faith of Pope Agatho, concerning the Roman Church, accepted and approved of by the council of Constantinople, A.D. 680. (Acts 8, 13, 17, 18.) "He, (namely, Peter) after three recom- mendations, received the feeding of the spiritual sheep of IH i I I' ii l^'l' '!i:v t I ii 'II II !!hP[ liM Ii! 30 'IHE CLAJMS OF ANGLICANISM. the Church from the Redeemer of mankind, in conse- quence of whose aid and protection, this, His apostolic Church, hath never swerved from the way of truth, even to the least particle of error ; but the whole Catholic Church of Christ, and the universal synods faithfully em- bracing her authority, as that of the Prince of the Apostles, have invariably followed her in all things ; and all the venerable Fathers and holy orthodox teachers, joyously receiving her apostolic doctrine, whereby the most re- nowned luminaries of the Church of Christ became illus- trious, have revered and followed it ; whilst heretics persecuted her with false accusations, malevolence, hatred, and detraction. This is the rule ot the true faith, which, both in prosperity and adversity, this spiritual mother, the Apostolic Church of Christ, hath vigorously maintained and defended. For she, endowed with the grace of the Omnipotent God, will be proved never to have erred from the faith of apostolic doctrine, or de- pravedly succumbed to heretical innovations, but as she hath received this doctrine from her founders, the Princes of Christ's Apostles, so doth she retain it pure and un- alloyed to the end ot time according to the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour Himself, made in the sacred gospel to the Prince of His Disciples, when He said, ' Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.' Let your clemency, therefore, take into calm consideration how the Lord and Saviour of mankind, the author of faith who promised Peter that his faith should not fail, admonished him to confirm his brethren, which duty every one is aware hath been at all times confidently performed by my predecessors, the Apostolic Pontiffs ; of whom I, though their inferior, yet, because of the ministry conferred on me by divine author- ity, desire to be the humble follower." (Tom. 2. Concil- orun Concil Constant.) Could I have space to enlarge upon the subject of this article, proofs innumerable could be brought forward confirming what I have here advanced. Sufficient has been said to prove the falsity and heresy of this Anglican article of Faith, and to disprove her absurd claim of being in any way the original Catholic Church. THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 37 in conse- i apostolic ruth, even 5 Catholic :hfuily em- 3 Apostles, nd all the s, joyously I most re- :ame illus- >t heretics ilevolence, true faith, s spiritual vigorously i with the i never to ne, or de- but as she he Princes re and un- le promise le sacred He said, lave you d for thee, onverted, fore, take aviour of eter that mfirm his ten at all sors, the irior, yet, author- Concil- enlarge le could vanced. eresy of ve her atholic VIII. THE TWENTY-FIRST ARTICLE, OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, '* General Councils may not bs gathered together without the commandment, and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (for as much as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore, things ordained by them as necessary to sal na- tion, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be takin out of Holy Scriptures." In this article the Anglican Church falsely teaches " that the Church of Christ cannot assemble in council without the command and the will of the Secular Princes ; that when assembled in council she is liable to err, and has actually erred ; and that it is not possible for her to decide upon anything but what is formally contained in Holy Scripture." This doctrine is, no doubt, quite consistent in a church which is merely a human institution, and the' slave and creature of the State, but it is essentially repug- nant to the very constitution of the Church which was' founded by Jesus Christ. The Church of Christ, being by her nature a perfect Spiritual Kingdom, must of neces- sity possess within herself all the power of a kingdom. In every kingdom the power is vested in him who holds the supreme authority to assemble together the persons to whom is entrusted the care of the affairs concerning that kingdom. It is His province not only to assemble such persons by his command, but even to enforce their attendance. In the Spiritual Kingdom on earth of Christ — the Church, the Roman Pontiff (as will be proven when examining the 37th article) is His Vicar or earthly Spiri- tual King. Wherefore, it pertains to the Roman Pontiflf nlone to command, and to will, the assembling of the Coun- cils of the Church. This is also clear from the fact that Councils of the Church are spiritual assemblies, in which are treated spiritual affairs, over which things mere secular princes cannot possibly have any legitimate jurisdiction. One of the reasons for the condemnation of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, by the Council of Chalcedod, A.D: 451, was because he had arrogated to 38 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. himself this peculiar power of the Roman Pontiff, and because he had, as Lucentius said, *'the audacity to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic chair, a thing that never had been and never could be lawfully done.'* When the Catholic Bishops through their legate asked the permission of the Emperor Valentian to assemble to decide a doctrine of faith, he replied as follows, as i& related by Sozomen, A.D. 440 : *' It is not lawful for me, a laymen, to intermeddle in such matters ; therefore, let the Priests and Bishops to whom such concerns appertain, meet apart by themselves whenever it is their pleasure.'* (Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, Cap. 7). The Council of the Holy Apostles, which in a manner, can be called a General Coun> cil, and likewise the various councils held in different parts of ^he world for the first 300 years, were most cer> tainly astsembled without any authority or will on the part of mere secular princes. If the Roman Pontififs convoked no General Councils during that period, it was not because they wanted the authority of doing so, but because the open tyranny of the secular princes pre- vented them. Pope Marcellus, A.D. 308, in his Epistle to the Bishops of the Province of Antioch, says : " And at the same time, they, (the Apostles and their successors) by the inspiration of the Lord, established that no coun> cil should be holden without the authority of the Roman See." Pope Julius, A.D. 34c, in his Epistle to the East- ern Bishops in the cause of St. Athanasius, says: ** More- over, it was formerly decreed by the Apostles and their successors, in the forementioned statutes, to which the holy and universal Apostolic Church doth still adhere, that councils should not be celebrated without the con- sent of the Roman Pontiff." (Tom. Concilioruni, Marcel, et Jul.) Besides this there is not in the whole nistor., of the Church, an instance where a General Council was convoked by the command and will of an3rmere secular prince, and without the command, or at least the consent, of the Roman Pontiff. His approval has always been absolutely necessary to constitute a council legitimate. Without that approval, no matter how numerous the attendance may have been, it is by no means a General Council of the Church, but a mere cabal. To this it is often objected by Protestants, *' if what is * St'. THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICAN'.SM. 39 Dntiff, and ity to hold c chair, a ully done." gate asked ssemble to lows, as is ful for me, erefore, let appertain y pleasure." f the Holy leral Coun- n different B most cer- mil on the ain Pontiffs riod, it was >ing so, but »rinces pre- his Epistle lys : " And successors) it no coun- the Roman o the East- " More- ls and their which the [till adhere, t the con • m, Marcel, lie iiisto?., 1 Council any mere )r at least )roval has a council iatter how is by no lere cabal, lif what is here said is really the case, how i : it that different Em- perors not only employed their authority in convoking certain ^councils, but were also sometimes earnestly re- quested by the Roman Pontiff to do so ? The answer to this objection is this : Church and State are not two mutually antagonistic, but two mutually dependent powers. It is the duty of each to assist in carrying out the laws of the other, each in its own proper sphere. If it be taken into consideration, — the enormous expense incurred in assembling these councils or the protection necessary to secure them against violence ; that the cities in which they were generally held were Imperial Cities, and many other things that required the protection and the munificence of the Emperors, — it will be found that, humanly speaking, they could scarcely have been held by the authority of the Roman Pontiffs alotie. Against the latter false doctrine in this article, the Church of Christ has always taught that the decisions of the General Councils, confirmed by the Roman Pontiffs, in matters affecting faith and morals, are irrevocable, because they are certain and infallible, and that such decisions are the decisions of the universal church. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, calls the decision of a Plenary Council "the consent of the whole church." (De Bapt. Contra Donat). St. Atha- nasius, A.D. 370, says, " and this was the reason why the "whole wotld assembled in council," etc. Epist. de Synod Armin. et Seleuc.) St. Leo, A.D. 440, considered the consent of the Council ofChalcedon to exclude all further doubt or question and denies that they who rejected its decrees could be classified as Catholics. He says, " Enow then beforehand, venerable Emperor, that they whom I pledge myself are to proceed from the Apostolic chair, alfbe directed not to enter into conflict with, or dispute iigainst the enemies of faith. For we dare not meddle with the things defined, as it hath pleased God, at Nice and Chalcedon, as if what have been fixed by so high an authority under the guidance of the Holy Ghost can be doubtful' or unsettled." (Epist. ad Leo August). St. Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 424, says, " Come let us see, if you please, what the heterodox imagine to be wrong in those things now brought into question, and which were formerly defined in the Holy, and most numerously 40 THE CLAIMS OF x\NGLICANISM. id m: attended Council cf Nice. For whosoever chooseth to maintain the faith which hath been defined and explained most correctly, and with the assistance of God, by that holy and great Synod, — the stay and firm prop of our souls, he indeed will proclaim the truth, obtain glory with Christ, and shine forth as a faithful and true adorer." (De Sanct. Trinit.). That the Church of Christ can by her very constitution pronounce upon whatever is in the Deposit of faith, independently of whether the same was committed by the Apostles to writing or not, has already been sufficiently proven when I examined the 6th and igth articles. Hence it follows from what has been said that the Anglican Church in this article contradicts not only the very constitution of the church founded by Jesus Christ, but likewise, contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning. v^!W IX. THE TWENTY-SECOND ARTICLE. ' ■ ;-•• I I OF PURGATORY. " The Romi h doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worship- ping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relic?, and also' Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." This article treats of considerably more points of Catholic doctrine than its title would seem to indicate. It treats not only of Purgatory, but also of indulgences, the respect and veneration due to sacred images and relics, and of the invocation and honorary worship due to the saints. As it condemns them all without a word of explanation and in general terms only, I shall briefly treat of each specifically and offer a few words of explanation and defense of them from the testimony of antiquity. In opposition to the doctrine laid down in this article, the Catholic Apostolic Church has always taught that the souls of men who depart from this life, neither so wicked as to deserve the punishment of hell, nor so true as to be THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 'ou will remember me at the altar of the Lord, wherever you may be." (Lib. 9, de Confess.) St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says : ** It was not in vain, ordained b> the Apostles, that in celebrating the tremendous mysteries mention should be made for the dead, fur they well knew that much benefit would thence accrue to them. For, when God beholdeth the whole assembly of the people with hands uplifted to heaven, the sacerdotal choir also, and the venerable sacrifice lying on the altar ; how can our prayers for the dead help to prove efficacious with Him ? But this we say of such as have departed in the Faith." (Sermo 3, Comment in Phillip.) St. Ephraem, A.D. 370, says : ** Do not, I beseech you, bury me with perfumes, give them not to me, but to God. Bury me with lamentations, and, instead of a sweet odor and perfumes, assist me, I entreat you, with your prayers, always remembering me in them." (Page 321.) St. x^ugustine, A.D. 395, says: *'When, therefore, the saciifice of the altar or alms are offered for deceased Christian?, in regard to the very good, they are acts of thanksgiving ; for the imperfect, acts of propitia- :|i '1' THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 45 9» was ing for ould the to able the m we o 3. Do em land, eat m. en, for are itia< lion ; and though to the very wicked they afford no relief, yet are they so many consolations to the living. And such as are aided by them obtain either a full remission or, at least, a mitigation of their sentence, that is, of the temporal pains for the remission of which the suffrages of the living are offered." (De Civit. Dei.) In the same work he also says : " Some undergo temporal punish- ment in this life only ; others, after death ; and others, both here and hereafter ; yet, all before that most severe and last judgment. But all who suffer temporal punish- ment after death do not go into eternal torments, which shall be the portion of some after the general judgment. For what we have said above, what is not forgiven to some in this world is forgiven them in the world to come, that they may escape eternal torments." Again, the same Augustine says : ** Since this is the case, let us not imagine that they avail the dead, for whom we feel concern, unless we solemnly offer, in their behalf, the sacriuce of the altar, or prayers, or alms-deeds — though these things be not available to all the persons for whom they are offered, but to such only as secure, while in this life, the advantage of their being rendered beneficial to them. And as we cannot discern which these are, we must offer them for all Christians, in order that none be neglected to whom these benefits can, and ought to, extend. For it is better that they be superfluous as regards those whom they neither injure nor serve, than that they should be wanting to such as they relieve. Yet, each performeth those duties the more diligently for fais own friends, that the same, may, in turn, be done for himself by his." (Lib. de Cura pro Mort, cap. i8.) ^^ ,;.., If the Anglican Church heretically rejects the Catholic doctrine on Purgatory, these, and hundreds of other testi- monies, prove that it has been the universal teaching of the true Church of Christ. Hence, again, it is absolutely impossible that the Anglican is the original Catholic Church in its purity. :rr«'»=v ■7i'' ^ww.- ■ 44 >(' THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. X. THE TWENTY-SECOND ARTICLE— Continued. i I'' If OF INDULGENCES. We have the clearest evidence in Holy Scripture, that Chris*-, for the good of His Church, gave to His Apostles^ and to their successors, the power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Among other passages see Matt. i6: 19: 18: 18; also 2 Cor. 15: 10. It belongs to the very nature of this power to enjoin condign satisfaction on Penitents. Wherefore, it pertains to it also to remit,, on reasonable grounds, either entirely, or partially, the satisfactory punishment due. Such a remission is what Catholics call "an Indulgence." The technical meaning of the word itself is, — San amnesty," — "a pardon," — "a remission." The theological meaning, and that in which it is used by the Church Catholic is — "a remission of the punishment which is still due to sin, after Sacra- mental absolution, this remission being valid in con- science, and before God, and made by an application of the treasure of the Church, on the part of a lawful Supe- rior." From this definition, it is plain to the world — that a Catholic Indulgence is neither the remission of the guilt, nor of the eternal punishment due to sin, — much less is it, a permission to commit sin. (Which even certain Anglicans do not Llush to affirm.) It is plain^ that before anyone can gain an Indulgence in the Catholic Church, the guilt of his sins must have been already washed away, and the eternal punishment due to them must have been already forgiven. The logical conse- quence of this plain truth is, — that an Indulgence instead of being an encouragement to sin, is, on the contrary, a powerful motive to repentance. When the guilt, and the eternal punishment due to sin, have been duly remitted,, a temporal punishment may still remain. This is evident from the nature of sin itself, — from the testimony of Holy Scripture, and from reason also. This temporal punish- ment which is due to sin, is cleared off by an Indulgence or the application of that power, ''ofbinding and loosing,"* which was given by Christ, to His Apostles, for the good of His Church. Wherefore, an Indulgence is not only the THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICAXIfM. 45 the |ted^ lent [oly |ish> ice )Ocl Ithe remission of the Canonical penance, formerly imposed by the Church upon all penitent sinners, but it also avails before the justice of God, for the temporal punishment due to sin. It is a juridical absolution on the part of the Church, which includes both the admission of, and the payment for, the debt due for sin. To understand prop- erly what an Indulgence is in the Catholic Church, one must have a proper knowledge "of the power ol the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," given by Christ to the Apostles. It is the blind and wilful ignorance of so many Protestants on this point (Anglicans included) which causes them to make perfect simpletons of them- selves, when they begin to speak concerning Indulgences in the Catholic Church. The beliet of the Church on her treasure of merits, from which Indulgences to the faithful are granted, may be seen, among other numerous testi- monies, in Tertullian, A. D. 200. (Dr. Pudic. 22.) In the early ages of the Christain Church very severe pen- ances were imposed for the satisfaction due to sin. These were frequently relaxed, or in other wordp, an Tn- dulgenee was granted for them, to those Penitents who displayed sufficient sorrow. This truth is vouched for, among many others, by St. Cyprian. A. D. 250. (Epists. 15. T7, 33.) Particularly, in the times of persecution, W£ X customary for Confessors to the Faith awaiting death, to send letters to tl e Bishops in favor of those un- der penance. The Bishops, if satisfied of their sincere contrition, restored them to the peace of the Church, — granted them an Indulgence. St. Paul, himself, excer- cisedthe power of granting Indulgences, as is plain from (2 Cor. 2 : 6. 7.) The portion of which the Apostle here speaks, was simply a Catholic Indulgence, concerning which he adds : — "And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything for your sakes, have I done it in the person of Christ. That we be not over-reached by Satan ! For we are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Cor. 2: 10, 11). By these words, — " in the person of Christ," St. Paul signified t^^t he received from Christ, and exercised in the person of Christ, this power of granting pardous^ or Indulgences. The very same, as he before testified, that it was ** i" the name " of Christ, he had delivered up 46 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. >■}■ 1^ t the incestuous Corinthian to Satan (i Cor. 5 : , That such is the meaning of these words of St. Pp . follow- ing testimony plainly proves. St. Chrysor A.D. 390, says, — " For, not because he is worthy, < .lath shown sufficient repentance, but because he is weak, doth the Apostle say, ' I think him worthy of pardon.' " And for the same reason he adds, *' Lest, perhaps, such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." But this language declares the Corinthian's vehement repentance, which Paul did not suffer to grow into despair. For it was not as one perfect, who had purified himself, that the Apostle said,-^ *' I have received him," but it was, on the contrary, because he felt apprehensive of his falling into a state still more grievous. By the example which the Apostle here sets, we are taught that the penance must be regulated, not only according to the nature of the sins, but also accord- ing to the dispositions and habits of the sinner ; for the Apostle took all these considerations into account in the instance * before us" (Homil. 4, cap. 2, Comment, in 2 Cor.). It would be too tedious to give extracts from the many various Councils of the Church, on Indulgences. They one and all enacted strict canons regulating the granting of them. I shall confine myself to giving the iol- lowing Irom the Council of Carthage, A.D. 397. *' Peni- tents are to be admitted to reconciliation, sooner or later, according to their earnestness or negligence; and that anyone reconciled during sickness shall, if he survive, be subjected to the established laws of penance, so long as the priest, who prescribed the penance ior him, shall judge proper'' (Tom. Conciliorum, Concil. Carth.). Wherefore, from what is here said, an Indulgence in the Catholic Church is not v'hat this Article says it is, — ** a vainly invented thing, founded upon no warranty of Scripture." On the contrary, the power of granting them is both scriptural, and resides in the constitution given by Christ to His Church. Anglicans should hang their heads with very shame, when certain of their rev. ministers come before an enlightened public to palm off their Church, which makes such glaringly false doctrine as this, on Indulgences, in this 22nd Article, an Article of Chris- tian Faith, — as the one true Church of Christ, founded by Him, to preach His true and unadulterated Gospel to the end of time. THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 47 XI. THE TWENTY-SECOND ARTICLE --Continued. :^..>tv.' Kj ' ill' -..'V. OF THE RESPECT AND VENERATION DUE TO SACRED IMAGES AND RELICS. ' The Catholic Apostolic Church has, from her very earliest years, by her example and teaching, inculcated the duty of Christians to respect and venerate sacred images and relics. The truth or falsity of this Catholic doctrine depends entirely on the truth or falsity of the princi pie upon which this devotion rests. I here give, in a few words, that principle, and would merely remark that, until its falsity is demonstrated, Anglicans, and Protes- tants in general, act the part of the veriest fools, in bring- ing forward their many calumnious charges against these specific acts of devotion of Catholics toward the sacred objects in question. In the English language the words, — *• worship," — ♦' adoration" are generally re- stricted to that specific worship which is due to God alone. Not so in the Latin language — the language of the Catholic Church, wherein the words, cultus, — adora- tio, — veneratio, have the same extension. If Protestant translators could only grasp this simple grammatical truth, it would save them often from displaying a vast . amount of culpable ignorance, when treating of the Faith- and practice of Catholics. As the very nature of the case demands, Catholic divines have always distinguished three specific kinds of adoration or worship, ist. Latria, which is a technical term used by the Church for that supreme worship which is due to God alone, on account , of His own Divine uncreated excellence. It is used in this sense by St. Augustine, A. D. 395, and by the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. 2nd. Dulia, which is that secondary, or honorary, worship or veneration paid by Catholics to the saints and angels, on acouut of their created superna- tural excellence. This honorary worship is expressed by St. Cyril, A. D 42 (Catech. Myst.). Between these two specific kinds of adoration and veneration there is, as is plain to any intelligent man, the same relation as is between God and the creature. God we worship, with 4S THE CLAIMS OF AXGI.ICAN'ISM. i^ that supreme worship, the giving of which, to any crea- ture, no matter how high exalted, would be the abominable sin of idolatry. The saints and angels we venerate, or honorary worship, with a relative worship only. From this plain and evidently reasonable Catholic principle it follows that the respect and veneration which the Catholic Church gives to sacred images and relics can be only a relative respect and veneration. That is to say, Catholics respect and venerate them on account of the relation existing between them, and those they represent. There is also another distinction necessary in the case of the Blessed Mother of Gcd, which is called by divines — Hyperculia. As it is merely a sub-division of Dulia, and . refers exclusively to the Blessed Virgin, I shall pass it here without further notice. That sacred images and relics were always held in respect and veneration, is evident from the testimony of antiquity. St. Basil, A. D. 350, in his profession of Faith against Julian, the Apostate, says, — " I, also, invoke the holy apostles, pro- phets and martyrs, who supplicate God on my behalf, that through their mediation our most benign God may be merciful to me, and freely grant me the remission of my sins. And for this reason I publicly honour and venerate their images. For this usage which has been handed down from the blessed apostles is not to be for- bidden ; but, on the contrary, we erect their images in all our churches," etc. (Tom. 2 Concil. Epist. Adrian, ad Const.) In the same epistle Adrian, speaking of the apostles Peter and Paul, says : — " The Church, therefore, . preserves and venerates their figures, and our sacred edifices are, even unto the present day, decorated with, and conspicuous for, their venerable images ; just as the holy and blessed Pope Sylvester testifies to have been the custom among the primitive Christians of the ortho- dox Faith." Venerable Bede, A. D. 720, speaking of St. Augustine and his companions, who converted the Anglo-Saxons to the Faith, says : — " They came bear- ing a silver cross as their banner, and a picture of our Lord and Saviour ; and singing hymns, they suppli- cated the Lord for their own and the eternal salvation of those for whose sake and unto whom they had come " (Eccl. Hist. lib. 2, cap. i). Gregory the Great, A. D. THK CLAIMS LF ANGLICANISM. 49 590, writing to Secundinus, says, " I know, indeed, that you do not seek the image of our Saviour to worship it as God, but that, through the recollection of the Son of God, you may be inflamed with love for Him, on contemplating His image. For we by no means prostrate ourselves be- fore it, as before the Divinity, but we adore Him whom, by means of the image, we remember, either in His infancy, in His sufferings, or now seated in glory on His throne. And whilst the picture itself, like writing, recalls to our mind the Son of God, it either filleth our souls with the joys of His resurrection, or melteth them with pity for His bitter passion. We have therefore directed to you two packets, containing the images of God the Saviour, of Holy Mary, the mother of God, and of the blessed Apos- tles/Peter and Paul " (Epist. ex Regfistro, lib. 7, cap. 55). The second Council of Nice, A.D. 787, passed the follow- ing decree on the honorary worship due to sacred images, *' We define with the utmost diligence and care that ven- erable and holy images, after the manner and form of the venerable and vivifying cross, fitly made of colours and of mosaics, or any other material, are to be dedicated, placed' and kept in the holy temple of God, also on the sacred utensils and vestments, on the walls and tablets, in private houses and in the public ways, but above all the image of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, next that of His in- violate mother, those ot the venerable angels, and then those of all the saints. That thus, by surveying the painted images, all who contemplate them may^ thereby, be reminded of the prototypes, and brought to the desire ot imitating their example ; that they may pay them re- spect and honorary adoration, not the true Latria, wl'.ich, ■according to our Faith, is suited to th6 Divine nature alone, but such as is paid to the type of the venerable and vivi- fying cross, and to the holy Gospels " (Tom. 2, Concil., Concil. Nicen. 2, Act. 3). Regarding sacred relics, St, Jerom., A.D. 380, says, •' We do not worship and adore, I say not merely the relics oi the martyrs, but neither do we worship or adore the sun, moon, angels, archangels, the cherubim, seraphim, or anything that can be named in this world or in the next, lest we serve the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. But we honour the relics oi the martyrs, that we may adore Him, -I ■i } p (.■:'■ i; 50 ./' THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants, that the honour paid the servants may redound to the Master, who saith, " He that receiveth you, receiveth Me " (Epist. ad Ripur. adv. Vigilant.). Hence the falsity and perfect absurdity of Anglican teaching on the honour and respect due to sacred images and relics. From the testimony here given of the practice of Christ iaus of hundreds of years ago, any one can see the silly pretentions of the An- glican Church, which is but the thing of yesterday. :■■'■' \! ■:■::■■■'' ■ : .. j.'O )^-^.t.. ^HVO XII. THE TWENTY-SECOND ARTICLE— Continusd. : *> ' OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Keeping before our view the Catholic principle on which rests our respect and veneration for the saints and sacred things, the immeasurable distance between the worship due to and given by Catholics to God alone, and the ven- eration (or honorary worship) due to and given to the saints, must be plainly apparent to every one with the least particle of intelligence. The Catholic Church, as she always has taught, teaches to-day that the most damn- able oi all crimes is to give the smallest particle of that adoration and honour, which is due to God alone, to any creature whatever, no matter how exalted for sanctity amongst his fellow-men, or how highly exalted in Heaven amid the hierarchy of angels, or the choir of the blessed saints. The same Catholic Church which has always taught her children to honour and venerate the saints, has always taught them that the saints can assist them by their prayers, and that it is serviceable to invoke them. In a few words, this is the sum and substance of the whole matter before us : That the saints, reigning with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men ; that it is good and profitable to invoke them, and have recourse to their prayers and assistance, in order to obtain favours from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, who is our only Re- deemer and Saviour. No saint, not even the blessed Vir- THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. SI gin, the Mother of God Herself, is pleasing to God, except through Jesus Christ, nor can the prayers of any nor of all of them avail anything, except through Him. Where- fore Catholics, in invoking the saints, do not invoke them as gods, or as the authors of the blessings they seek, but that, through their prayers, they would make intercession for us with God, the Author of all good. By doing this we by no means ask the saints to usurp the place of the one Mediator, Christ, or even to assist Him, but merely to befriend us and assist us by uniting their prayers with ours, and offering them to God, through Christ, in our be- half. That such was always the doctrine of the Catholic Apostolic Church is clear from the testimony of antiquity. St; Ambrose, A.D. 370, says, " The angels who are given us as our guardians must be iotvoked ; so likewise the martyrs, whose bodies seem to be left us as a token that we shall have the benefit of their patronage. They, who with their blood washed away every stain of sin, if aught they had, can now implore forgiveness of ours. For they are the martyrs of God ; they are our guides, and the in- spectors of our lives and actions. Let us then, weak mortals, not blush to have recourse to these intercwtors^ who themselves experienced the infirmity of the flesh, even when they gained the victory over it" (Tom. i, lib. de vid.). St. Jerom., A.D., 380, says, " Hail ! O Paula I and now assist by thy prayers an old and devoted servant. Thy faith and thy works associate thee with Christ, and being present with Him, thou canst the more easily obtain thy request " (Epist. ad Eustoch.). St. Iraenus, A.D. 290^ says, " As Eve, through the discourse of a fallen angel, was seduced so as to flee from God, having transgressed His word, so also Mary, through the discourse of a good angel, was evangelized so as to bear Gqdf being obedient to His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was pursuaded to obey God, that the Virgin Mary might be- come the advocate of the virgin Eve. And, as the human race was bound to death through a virgin, it is saved thrc ngh a virgin, the scales being equally balanced — vir- ginal disobedience by virginal obedience " (Lib. 5, cap. 19, adv. Haer.). St. Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 380, says, *' May we be placed within Paradise, being strength- ened through their intercession (the 40 martyrs), unto \tf^ :f,S ij i i 52 THE CLAI)^»S OF ANGLICANISM. Sir the good confession of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Tom.f 3, Oratio 2). St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says : " And'^ thou, therefore, when thou perceivest that God is chasten- ing thee, fly not to His enemies, [the Jews, lest Jthou enkindle His wrath the more against you; but to His' friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleas- ing unto Him, and who have great power with Him." (Tom. I, Orat. 8, adv. Judae.) St. Gregory, A.D. 590, says : " Behold, Jesus is about to come as a rigorops judge ; the terror of the mighty council of His angels p A Archangels is being prepared. In that assemblage our cause is to be discussed, and yet we do not seek, as pat- rons, those whom we may have on that day as advocates. The holy martyrs are ready to become our defenders; they desire to be canvassed, — in a word, they seek that tliey may be sought. By your prayers, then, seek their advocacy ; engage them as defenders of the charges ' against you ; for the very judges wish to be supplicated, lest it should become their painful duty to punish you for your offences." (Lib. 40, Homil. de diversis. Lect.) St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says : ** May he, therefore (St. Cyprian Martyr), by his prayers assist us still labouring in the mortality of the flesh as in a darksome cloud ; and may he supplicate, that, through the beneficence of our Lord, we may be enabled to imitate his virtues." (Tom. 9, Tract 54, Exposit. Evangel. Joan.) In the same work he again says : " We do not, at the altar, pray for martyrs as we do for the rest of the faithful departed, because they have evinced that love, than which our Lord has declared no man can have greater. But we rather beg of them to pray to God that we may follow in their footsteps." The Church of England completely stultifies herself by both teaching an J repudiating at the same time the invocation of the saints. That she practises, on a small scale, this Catholic devotion, is shown fronj the words in her service on the Feast of St. Michael and the Angels. They are these : " Mercifully grant that, as thy holy angels always do Thee service in heaven, so, by Thy appointment, they may succour and defend us on earth." (See Book of Common Prayer.) I will close my testimony^^ from antiquity on the truth of the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the invocation of saints, by an extract from THB CLAIMS OF ANGUCAMl&M 53 an early Christian poet on the subject. St. Prudentitis, A.D. 350, writes : " That God of fearful majesty, whose sway Is mercy-guided, FcUx, for us pray That unto prayers and merits such as thine, For ail our faults He would a pardon sign. And when to thee, amid the sacred band, Tis given around the Spotless Lamb to stand r O, sue that we amongst His sheep be placed. Not mid the bamished left-hand goats disgraced ; And thus shall we a second time be blest By heaven's mild sentence at thy kind behest." From the little said on the subject it is plain that, when the Anglican Church condemns the invocation of^ the saints, she flies in the face of the teaching of ^the true Church of Christ from the beginning. XIII. THE TWENTY-FOURTH ARTICLE. OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION IN SUCH A TONGUE AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH. " It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the cus- tom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." Although this Article of Anglican faith is opposed to no doctrine of the Catholic faith, but is merely opposed to matter of her discipline, nevertheless it is false and scandalous' and without foundation. It is, of course, directed against the practice of the Catholic Church in her use of the Latin tongue in her public serv?ces. When duly examined it wiii be found that the use of the Latin language is neither repugnant to the Word of God nor to the custom of the primitive church. There are in Church the Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Hi 54 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. I . 1 i I' Armenian rites. The liturgies have come down from the first ages of the Church, and the languages in which they were written have never changed, although the people for whom they were drawn up, and who use them to the pre* sent day, do not understand them in their original form. It is sufficient here to say that the use of the Latin lan- guage by the Catholic Roman Church is founded on both utility and necessity. In using it she follows the example of the ancient Jewish Synagogue. From the commence- ment up to the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebu- chadnezzar, genuine Hebrew was the only language known to the Jews. The service of the Temple was then in the language common to the nation. During their seventy years' captivity m Egypt, the Jews completely for- got the ancient Hebrew and adopted the Syriac or Chaldaic as their language, yet,^ on their return to Jerusa- lem, no change was made in the language of the service of the temple, although the people no longer understood it. To this present day the ritual of the Jews is still per- formed in ancient Hebrew, and certainly the Jews of to-day neither speak it nor understand it. Christ Him- self did not condemn this custom of the Synagogue, wh ich he would have done were it improper or wrong. On the contrary, He even publicly approved of it by frequenting the Temple when it was observed. Nothing could serve ihore to show the perfect absurdity of the condemnation implied in this article than to suppose a poor Anglican to have been present at the awful sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. There was then being performed the grandest religious service that the world ever behold, and yet Christ, the High Priest, prayed therein in an unknown tongue. When about expiring. He exclaimed : " Eli, Eli, lamna, sabacthaui." The people, mistaking the genu- ine Hebrew word '* Eli," for the name of the prophet, said, ** This man calleth Elias." (Matt. 27 : 46, 47.) The employment of the Latin language by the Church is most consistent from the very nature of her chief act of public service. In the Jewish dispensation the public ser- vice of the Temple was sacrifice. In the Christian dis- pensation the public service is also sacrifice. In it no office is assi^ed to the people. It is offered by the priest in their name and on their behalf. The whole '^.«1 4 THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 55 action is between God and the officiating priest. So far from the people being obliged to understand the language of the sacrifice, they are not permitted to hear the most solemn and most important part oi it, and in the Eastern churches they are not permitted so much as to see either priest or altar. The people attend to pray as the crowd did when Zachary was within the Temple (St. John i : lo), but they do not act, they do not say the prayers of the priest, they have nothing to do with the actual per- formance of the sacrifice. By this the people suffer no prejudice, for all pastors are bound to instruct the faithful in all that pertains to the sacred mysteries, so that they know perfectly well what is taking place ; their devotion is enkindled, and in their hearts they elicit acts of adora^- tion, thanksgiving,, and repentance, although they may not understand the prayers being said by the priest at the altar. To cover the groundless attack on this practice of the Catholic Roman Church, Holy Scripture is referred to, as condemning it. The passage implied is found in i Cor. chap. 14. Like the doctrine of the Church of England on many points, so is her inter- pretation of Holy Scripture, — quite faulty, and even ridi culous. St. Paul, in this passage, does not as much as even throw out a hint concerning the Liturgy of the Church. His words, instead of condemning, actually approve of the custom of the Catholic Roman Church. Every Biblical scholar knows that St. Paul in i Cor. chap. 14 refers to two different unknown languages used by the Corinthian > in their religious assemblies, both equally unknown to the people. The abuse of the one he condemns, and the use of the other he approves of; nay, even commands. The purport of St. Paul is to re- prehend the abuse of the gift of tongues, which was com- mitted by some, who, from idle ostentation, delivered sermons and extemporary prayers in unknown languages, which, for want of an interpreter, from being an edifica- tion became a disedification to the Faithful. In the Catholic Roman Church, however, all exhortations, ser- mons, etc., were always delivered to the people in a lan- guage they understood. There are none of your modern extemporary prayers preached at God, but an ancient public Liturgy is performed, which, from daily use, has I .it • If I 11 _^ J?.. »7'",''i 56 THE CLAIMS Of ANGLICANISM. w not only become familiar bat is well known by the people in general. The Faithful have the entire service trans- lated for them, and there is no want of interpreters, for all pastors are strictly bound to explain the mysteries to- them« The use of the other equally unknown tongue St.. Paul did not condemn when used with devotion, but on the contrary, he approved of it, and even requires that ,such custom, under proper restrictions, should not be for- bidden. This is plain from 14 : 59. *' To speak with tongues forbid not." The truth of the matter is, the Protestant translation of this chapter of St. Paul's epistle is most faulty and untruthful.. There is added to the original Greek text the word, *' unknown," in. verses 2, 4, 13, 14* 19 and 27, but in verses 18 and 39, where he approves ci a language, although an unknown one to the people, there is not inserted the word — "un- known," although the self-same phrase occurs in the Greek original as in the former verses. St. Cyprian^ A.D. 250, testifies that in his day the mass was offered in Latin. (Explicat, Orat. Dom.) St. Augustine, A.D. 396,, also testifies that in his time mass was offered in Latin in Africa (Lib 7, de bona persev.). That the Latin lan- guage was used in early days by those under the Patriarch of Constantinople, in both their public services and in the administration of the sacraments, is plain from the follow- ing : Pope Nicholas, A. D. 858, in his epistle to the Greek Emperor, Michael, says : ** Behold, in the beginning of your letter you style yourself • Emperor of the Romans,' and yet you are not ashamed to call the Roman a barbar> ous language. Behold, you daily, nay more, even on your principal festivals, you blend with the Greek — as a some- thing precious, this language which you term barbarous,, and Scythian, as if it would be discreditable to you should you not use in your obsequies and offices a lan- guage which you but imperfectly understand. And moreover, if you entertain such an abhorrence for the Latin language, make it your business to endeavourto dis- card it from your churches. For they say that the church, of Constantinople first recites the Lessons of the Apostles and Evangelists in Latin, and then, indeed, translates them in Greek, for the benefit of the Greeks. But as- this Solitary impiety is thought to be the only one 3ret TKB CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. ^ 57 wanting to the chprch df Constantinople, in order to com- plete the measure of its iniquity, it remains for you alon^ to effect -.its accomplishment." (Tom 2. Concil. Epist. l^ichol. ad Michael.) Numberless other testimonies can be given in proof of the propriety and justice of the use of the Latin language in the service of the Church. Her grand and majestic Ritual is not a thing of to-day. It extends back to the ^rst ages of her existence, so that the study alone of its Jiistory and development is an overwhelming proof of the falsity of this article. The very fact that Latin is the language of the Church stamps her as coming down to us from those ancient times when the Latin language was >the language of the learned world. The Anglican Church tnay well vent its feeble spite against the use of Latin by the grand old Church of antiquity. She herself, and the language of her stolen Ritual, are but of to-day when -compared with the one and only Catholic Church — the Catholic Roman Church. ^! - ^~'H i /!•! -H \i fit I • '■k s : I ■■i -if! XIV. THE TWENTY-FIFTH ARTICLE. OF THE SACRAMENTS. " There are two sacraments ordained of Christ, our Lord, in the -Gospel ; — that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. These five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, — Confirma- tion, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures ; but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." This the second section of the Twenty fifth Article of Anglican Faith, contains most false and heretical doc- trine in saying that Christ has left in the New Law two :sacraments only, whereas. His true church has always taught that He left seven sacraments, neither more nor less. The visible universe is the type, the figure, the I ■;h ^•t! wigm ^^^■""^•T" «yi; I ■: ^J^^T'-V ss THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. preparation of the unseen world beyond. By analogy we can judge of the supernatural from the 'natural. Where- fore, from the natural requirements of mankind,, both as individuals and as society at large, we can form a perfectly correct judgment of their supernatural require- ments under the same point of view. We know from revelation that Christ has left in His church every possible requisite for supplying the supernatural, wants of men». either as individuals or as forming society. Were this not so, then His church would be but a very imperfect work, and could never exact the reverence and obedience of rational beings. Man is born of the race of Adam inta this world according to the laws of nature. He must be born of the race of Christ in order to be a Christian.. 'Hence the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism to supply that supernatural event. When born into this world according to the laws of nature, the child is weak and delicate and requires some means to attain to strength and vigor. When born of the race of Christ through baptism, the child is weak and delicate spiritually. Hence the necessity of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Alter its natural birth the child must eat to live, otherwise it will die of starvation.. Aftet its supernatural birth it must be furnished with spiritual food, otherwise it will die of spiritual starvation.. Hence the necessity of the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist. Our natural lives are subject to disease and sickness of many kinds, and we frequently require the services of the physician. Our supernatural life is also often exposed to spiritual disease and sickness, through temptation and sin, and we then stand in need of a spiritual physician. Hence, the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance. When our natural bodies have l^een reduced through disease, and sickness, and scars, and wounds, the phy-" sician must remove all traces of disease, and of every blemish, before these bodies can put on their pristine strength and vigour, and we ourselves can stand forth as perfect men as before their infliction. When our super- natural life is s^bout to end in this world, after we have suffered from the scars and wounds of sin, and it is necessary for us, before being admitted into the presence THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 59 of our Heavenly Master, that we be restored to the first strengtH and vigour we had formerly received through the Sacrament of Baptism, and to become as pure again as we were before their infliction, then there must natur- ally be expected some means in the hands of our Spiritual Physician to remove all spiritual blemishes, and thus restore us to our original purity and spiritual beauty, received when we first received our spiritifkl life itself through the waters of baptism. Hence, the necessity of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. These are the wants of mankind considered as individuals. Now, con- sidered as forming society, and society being made up of individuals, mankind must necessarily require some authorized ministry to administer to them, as individuals, these different Sacraments. Hence, the necessity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Both civil and religious society being made up of individuals, these are constantly dying off, and others must take their places, otherwise civil society and Christ's Church herself could hare no existence. Hence, the necessity of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Having before us these different wants of man'^ind, considered as individuals, as forming society at large, the natural promptings of the human heart itself would suggest to us that, if Christ really did leave a church in this world, in that church there should be seven channels to supply these seven wants in mankind. That He did leave these seven channels in leaving in His Church the seven sacraments, has always been the teach- ing of the Catholic Apostolic Church, in opposition to the heretical doctrine in this Article. That the five sacra- ments rejected by the Anglican Church are really and truly sacraments in the strict sense of the word, will be apparent to every candid mind, from a brief examination of each of them. A Sacrament is a visible sign of invis- ible grace, instituted for our justification. The visible sign is efficacious, or it really effects the grace it signifies. Truly, certain conditions are required, but these are not the cause^ but only the condition^ of the grace imparted. In this lies the difference between a Sacrament and every other religious rite whatever. It is plain as noon-day* that no creature that ever came from the hands of God* could make earthly things the channels of Divine grace. :l [.!! 1. TfJ' I" 60 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. No one but God Himself could do this. The Church has no power to alter the substance of the Sacraments, nor do their matter and form confer grace of themselves, nor do they possess power to do so. This power depends solely on the will of Cod, who has made His promised grace depend on the use of certain words and things, so that if they be essentially altered, there can be no Sacrament. The reason of the rejection of five of the Sacraments by the Anglican Church is because of the errors she em- braced in the sixteenth century, on the question of man's justification. In her Book of Common Prayer the Angli- can Church gives substantially the same definition of a Sacrament as given above. It will be found in their short Catechism, before the order for Confirmation, and is as follows, — " It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." In this definition we have the essential requisites of a Sacrament. Whatever has the essential attributes of a certain thing must necessarily be that one thing, and cannot be anything else. I would ask the reader to keep before his eyes this definition as given in the Book of Common Prayer, fori purpose shew- ir^ from their own definition that the Sacraments re- jected by the Anglican Church are really and truly Sacra- ments in every sense of the word, and cannot be anything else. Then will appear the depth of the perfidy of the Anglican Church in rejecting the Sacraments established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which have been handed down to us in the Catholic Apostolic Church, from the moment Christ founded His Church, and gave her author- ity and power to rule and govern His elect. XV. THE TWENTY-FIFTH ARTICLE— Contmued. OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION. As has been said, it is not only necessary that we should' be born into supernatural life through the Sacrament of THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM* 6l K ,1 Baptism, but we must also attain to spiritual strength and vigor, or, as the apostle puts it : — <* To be strengthened with might by the Spirit unto the inward man." (Ephes. 5 vJ6.) That this spiritual strength and vigor is imparted by the Sacrament of Confirmation, has always been the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Wherefore it is truly and properly a sacrament, and no mere rite or ceremony. Keeping in view the definition of a sacrament as given in the Book of Common Prayer itself, it will be found that confirmation has the three essential requisites for a sacrament, and therefore from the very nature of things must be such in truth and reaUty. In the Catholic Church confirmation has always been looked upon as *' a sacrament by which grace is bestowed on baptised per- sons to strengthen them in the Faith." It is called con- firmation because it confirms the grace received in baptism. St. Paul alludes to its effect when he says, — *' Now He that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and He that hath anointed us, is God." (2 Cor. i : 21.) In Holy Scripture it is called " The sacrament of the imposition of hands," from the rite by which it is celebrated. (Heb. 6 : 2.) Christ promised the grace of this sacrament to His . disciples (Luke 24 : 49 ; Acts i : 4,8). The grace im- parted to the apostles (Acts 2 : 1-4), was not confined to the mere gift of tongues, but it was grace confirming and making them strong in their faith, as is evident from the words : — *'But stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24 : 49.) Wherefore, they who before the reception of this grace were timid, ignorant, ambitious, and always ready to desert their Master and return to their nets, were after it bold and courageous, and armed with contempt of life, even to martyrdom. That confirmation is a real and true sacra- ment, in the strict sense of the word, is evident from Acts 8. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (6 : 2), it will be observed that the laying on of hands is numbered among the elementary articles of religion, and is placed in close proximity to baptism, in order to distinguish it from the other laying on of hands, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In the 8th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we have all the essential requisites, even according to the Protestant definition, for the Sacranient of Confirmation. It is here '11. • M ■ .:% ■■••PI I'll ■4 IPPP ^ 62 THE. CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. * narrated, — ** That when Philip had baptized the Samari- tan converts, St. Peter and St. John, going down from Jerusalem, laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." In this passage there is the manifest distinction between baptism and confirmation. Tb«se converts had not received the fulness of the Holy Spirit, before the laying on of hands, for they had only been baptized. Herein are all the essentials for the sacrament. I St. There is the visible or outward sign, namely : ^ The laying on of hands." and. There is the inward grace, namely : <* The communication of the Holy Spirit in greater fulness than had already been received in baptism;" . and 3rd. There is the institution of Christ, because the apostles being mere creatures, they could never impart the Holy Spirit, of themselves, through such a channel, and it would be both impious and sacrilegious for them to even attempt such a thing without that Divine institu- tion. In St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, (6 : 2), we see that this sacrament was to ever continue in Christ's -Church. The Anglo Saxon Church, being united to the chair- of Peter, always recognized comfirmation as a real saerament, down to the time of the Reformation. Origi- nally it was the custom to administer it immediately after baptism, but when it became the custom to give baptism at all times and in parish churches, then the bishops had to make confirmation an important part ol their annual visitation. This we see was the case in the time of St. Cuthbert, A.D. 650, vfho in his journey had often to erect a tent in secluded hamlets to give all requir- . ing confirmation the opportunity of receiving it, *' placing his hands on the head of each and anointing them with the chrism he had blessed." (Beda. Opr. Min. page 277.) St. Cornelius, A.D. 251, speaking oi Novatian, says oi that schismatic, " that alter his baptism he had not been presented to the Bishop, to receive from him the sacred seal which alone gives the Holy Ghost." (Eusb. Eccl. Hist. cap. 43.) The prelates of the Church still do, says St. Augustine, A.D. 395, '* what the apostles did when they laid their hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Ghost upon them." (De. Trint. lib. 15, cap. 46). St.' Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 363, has devoted his 2 1 St Catechesis to developing the Catholic doctrine " on THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 63 anointing or^confirmation." St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, says, ** As, they ha'd been lawfully baptized and thereby made members of the Church, it was not necessary that the sacrament be repeated, but the only thing which they needed was done for them by Peter and John, who by prayer and the imposition oi hands, invoked and poured upon them the Holy Ghost. The same thing is also done by us at the present day, when they who are baptized in tne Church are presented to the Bishops, (hat through our prayers and imposition of hands, they may receive the Holy Ghost and be made perfect by the seal of the Lord.'*^ (Epist. 73, ad. Jubaiun.) Tertullian, A.D. 195, says, ** The nesh indeed is washed (in baptism), that the soul may be cleansed. The flesh is anointed (in confirmation), that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed,, that the soul may be strengthened. And in order that the soul may be illuminated by the spirit, the body 16 over- shadowed by the imposition of hands." (De Resurrect. Carnis. cap. 8) St. Ephrem, A.D. 570; St. Ambrose,. A.D. 385 ; St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390 ; St. Gregory,. A.D. 370, all say, " that confirmation is a sacra- ment and gives to us the Holy Ghost." St. Clement, A.D. 217, says: "All should hasten, without delay,, to be born again to God, and then to be signed by the Bishop, — that is, to receive the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost ; for, as has been handed to us from Peter, and as the other apostles taught, in obedience ta the command of our Lord, he who culpably and volun* tarily, and not from necessity, has neglected to receive this Sacrament, cannot possibly be a perfect Christian." (Epist. 4, ad. Julian.) The Anglican Church completely stultifies herself on the matter of having her Bishops ta confirm her laity. She has a decree, as may be seen by consulting her Bov/k of Common Prayer, whereby her Bishops are instructed to administer it every year. The candidates are to be presented by their sponsors. The Bishop, in a prescribed form, administers it to them once only, and on their knees. Before imposing hands he prays that God may strengthen them with the Holy Ghost, and increase His manifold graces in them. After . the imposition of hands, the Bishop declares that he, after the example of the apostles, laid bis hands on them, in • 1 ' -.1 p. I ■■*J I "64 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. order that, by this sign, he may secure for them divine grace and favour. If anything more ridiculous than the empty ceremony here presented can be imagined, I, for one, fail to see it. By her positive teaching the Anglican Church rejects the Sacrament, and yet she has her Bishops to sacrilegiously attempt to secure God's grace and favour through a channel which she confesses is without any divine appointment whatever. There is here either unpardonable hypocrisy, or the empty ceremony they perform is nothing less than an impious mockery of God Himself. Hence, from what is here said, Confirmation is a true and proper Sacrament in every sense of the word, and the Anglican Church, in rejecting it, has proven her- self heretical. XVI. THE TWENTY-FIFTH AiiTlCLE.^Continued. OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANXE. As men, after being born into this natural life, are subject to disease and sickness, so, in like manner, after being born into supernatural life by the Sacrament of Baptism, they are also subject to spiritual disease and sickness from temptation and sin. To supply an adequate remedy to these spiritual disorders the Catholic* Apostolic Church* has always taught that God, in His mercy, has left in His Church tl\p Sacrament of Penance. It, therefore, must be a true and proper Sacrament in every sense of the word? in opposition to the heresy laid down in this v25th Article. Here, as elsewhere, I shall, as much as possible, discard all theological and scriptural proofs of the Catholic doctrine, and shall confine myself principally to the testimony of antiquity. The word " Penance,'* in its original signification (that in which it is used by the Church), signifies self chastisement. It corres|)onds to the common scriptural expression, " age poenitentium," ■** do penance." It, and the Greek word ** metonia," originally meant the same thing ; but they have both been greatly modified by usage, the latter word now meaning THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCANISM. 65 in Greek Liturgies, among other things, simply a prostra- tion. Wherefore, may be seen the false position of those Protestant controversialists (Anglican included) who build their opposition to Catholic teaching on the modified, rather than on the original, meaning of these words. The Sacrament of Penance, as always understood by Christ's Church, is '* A Sacrament instituted by Christ, in the form of judgment, for the remission of sins committed after baptism ; this remission being effected by the abso- lution of the priest, joined to true supernatural sorrow, true purpose of amendment, and sincere confession on the part of the sinner." It was principally^ instituted when Christ, after His resurrection, breathed upon His dis- ciples, and said : ** Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retaiped." (John 20 : 22, 23.) Gregory the Great, A.D. 590, says : *' It is delight- ful to reflect on the sublime glory to which the disciples, called to duties so humble, have been exalted. Behold t not only are they rendered secure as regards themselves, but they also receive power to loose the bonds of others. The sovereignty of the heavenly judgment is allotted to them ; so that, acting in the place of God, they can retain the sins of some, and loose those of others." (Homil. 24, de diver. Lect.) By the very constitution of the Church,, the power conferred by Christ upon His disciples has been transmitted to their lawful successors in the ministry. St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says: "Temporal princes pos- sess, it is true, the power of binding, but this power is limited to the body, whereas the sacerdotal chain of which I speak reacheth the soul and extendeth even to heaven. So that whatever the priests do here below, God ratifies above : the Master confirms the sentence of His servants. For, what can you call this but a complete power over the concerns of heaven, granted them by God ? * Whose sins ye shall retain,' saith our Divine Lord, 'they are retained.' What power, I ask, can be greater than this ? " (Lib. 3, de Sacerdot.) St. Jerom, A.D. 380, commenting on the same passage, says : " As our Lord' hath pronounced that he who will not hear the Church is to be regarded as * A heathen and a publican,' and as he who despiseth his brother may secretly think ^ 1 •■n' I M ^y il v'H ^^^^■w»w»w 66 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. within himself, or perhaps reply, if you despise me, I also despise you ; and if you condemn me, you shall likewise stand condemned by my sentence; for this reason it was that Christ gave the above power to His apostles, in order that they who are condemned by them, or their suc- cessors, may know that the human is ratified by the divine sentence ; and that whatsoever they bind on earth is equally bound in heaven also." (Lib. 3, Comment, in Math. cap. 18.) This power being a delegated power to the apostles and their successors in the ministry, it follows that it cannot be exercised at their mere will or pleasure, but according to the will and pleasure of Christ, who gave it. St. Gregory, A.D. 590, says : " Then is the absolution of the priest effectual, when it is in accor- dance with the will of the Eternal Judge." (Homil. 26, de div. Lect.) From the nature of the bestowal of this power by Christ, it is His will that all who desire the' remission of their sins, must disclose them to His priests, as to their judges. Wherefore, it is evident that penance is a real and true sacrament of the new law, since, even according to the definition of a sacrament in the Book of Common Prayer, it has all the essential re- quisites of a sacrament, and therefore cannot be anything different. From the constitution of Christ, it requires an outward or sensible sign of grace, namely, repentance, on the part of the sinner, revealed to the priests by signs, and. also the grace of the remission of sin annexed by Christ to this efficacious sign, and which is obtained by the absolution of the priest. Although the efficacy of the sacrament of penance is principally in the absolution oi the priest, as beiilg its form, yet there are acts on the part of £he sinner, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which' in a certain sense constitute itc matter. Since these acts on the part of the sinner are required by the institution ol Christ to complete the sacrament, and to render the pardon full and perfect, they are therefore called parts of the sacrament of penance. To understand them better, I here treat briefly of each. Contrition, in the sense of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, is ** Grief of mind, and detestation of sin committed, with a firm purpose of amendment in future." Since^contrition is an internal act, it is necessary that it be externally signified in order to THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 67 constitute a part of the sacrament of penance. Certain essentials are requisite for true contrition, ist. The sin- ner must detest, not certain sins in particular, but all mor- tal sins in general. St. Gregory, A.D. 590, says, " The way to do penance is to weep over the sins we have com- mitted, and not again to commit those things that shall require our tears. For he who bewaileth some sins in such a manner that he still committeth others, either falsely pretendeth that he is doing penance, or as yet he knoweth not how " (Homil. 34, de diver. Lect.). 2nd. It must, like King David's, who is a perfect example to all penitents, be a bitter and sorrowful contrition (Psalms 37, 7, 9 and 18. St. Augustine, A..D. 395, says, "He healeth the contrite of heart, He therefore healeth the humbled of heart. He healeth those who confess, and those who, ex- ercising a rigid judgment upon themselves, become their own punishers " (Comment, in Ps. 146). 3rd. It requires a conversion to God, as the object of our supreme love, and that we prefer him to all things else. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says, " No man doth penance effectually who doth not entertain a hatred for sin and a love for God. When you so repent, as to dislike in your heart what was before agreeable to you in life, and feel grieved in your soul at what was before delightful to you in the body, then you may justly cry out to God and say, * To Thee only have I sinned, and done evil before Thee ' " (Sermo. 7, de Temp.). 4th. It must include a firm resolve of amend- ment in future. This is plain from the testimonies of the Fathers just quoted, and from many passages in Holy Scripture. See (Psalm 33: 15; Isais. i: 16, 18, and Ephes. 4 : 20, 23) where St. Paul says, newed in the spirit of your mind. And man who, according to God, is created in justice and holi- ness of truth." The ancient Anglo-Saxon Church fully believed in the reality of the sacrament of penance. The missionaries in England, no matter from what country they came, inculcated the doctrine of the Roman See on every occasion. They (the Anglo-Saxons) believed in the sacrament of penance as we Catholics of the present day, as the following testimonies of their Faith prove : *' We cannot be saved unless we confess sorrowfully what, through our negligence, we have done unrighteously." '* And be ye re- put on the new i. 7 111 I -^l!^i ■ 'i, ::tl: i. .11 i , Ml 1^. -I wi^l^lfff^Kf^^mmf^fl^rfrrwwi-m,^.fm,l" ■•'•' ■ - ■■ 'v' 68 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. '* All hope of forgiveness is in confession/' ** Confession, with true penance, is the angelic remedy of our sins."' "Without confession there is no pardon" (Whelock, pp» 341, 343, 423). " The medicine of a sinful man is that he confess and ao penance, and sin no more " (Thorpe, voU 2, p. 330- XVII. THE TWENTY-FIFTH ARTICLE.— Continued. OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. The necessity of confession of sins committed, to a duly authorized Priest, follows from what has already been said on the Sacrament of Penance. St. Paul (in i Cor. 6 ; Galat. 5,) teaches that all mortal sins, committed after baptism, exclude the sinner from the kingdom of heaven, and that the right to heaven cannot be recovered until these sins are remitted. Since Christ saves mankind only through His Church, and since He is its centre of life and action through whom alone sinners can return to justice, it follows that there is no other mode for them of obtaining forgiveness except in the tri- bunal of His Church. The sentence He pronounced is a universal one and admits of no exception. " Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20 : 22, 25.) St. Leo, A.D. 460, says, " God, in His manifold mercy, has been so considerate with regard to the weakness of human nature, that not only through the grace of baptism, but also by the medicine of penance, may the hope of eternal life be recovered. Thus they who have abused the bless- ings conferred on them in baptism can by a voluntary self-condemnation obtain the remission of their offences ; yet, the Divine goodness hath so arranged as that this concession of God can be obtained only by the supplica- tion of His Priests. For the Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, gave to the rulers of His Church the power of prescribing acts of penance for those who confess; and also the power of admitting them m THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 69 through the gate of reconciliation, when purified by a wholesome satisfaction, to a participation of the sacra- naents. And in this work our Saviour Himself is unceas- ingly engaged, neitheris He ever absent from those duties, the discharge of which He committed to His ministers^ when He said, " Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Epist. 91. ad. Theod. Epis.) St. Augustine, A.D. 395, has well answered, 1500 years ago, the prevalent Protestant silly objections of today, against the necessity of sacramental confession. He says, " Do penance such as is done in the Church, that you may have the prayers of the Church. Let no man say to himself, • I do it privately,' ' 1 do it before God,' ' God, wLo pardons me, knows that I doit in my heart.' Was it then without reason that Christ pronounced, * Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven ?' Was it without reason that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Church of God, etc." (Homil. 49. Lib. gunguagint. Homil.) Christ, by the power given in John 20 : 22, 23, constituted His apostles, and their lawful successors in the ministry, judges of all those who desired the remission of their sins. They could not possibly act as judges in a case they did not hear and mvestigate. Nor could they prescribe suitable penance, as the very nature of sin requires, if the sinner was only to declare his sins in a general manner and not with pre- cision and each one separately. Wherefore it is the wish and institution of Christ, that a sacramental confe^iSion of all mortal sins committed be made to His priests. This has been the universal teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church from the beginning. St. Clement, A.D 89, tells us that the Apostle Peter taught the doctrine of Sacramental Confession. He says, " He (Peter) taught that man should keep a perpetual watch over the actions of his life, and have God ever present before his eyes; that he should firmly believe that wicked thoughts entertained in his heart give immediate offence to Christ, and are to be disclosed to the priests of the Lord." (Epist. i. ad. Jacob. Frat. Dom.) Origen, A.D. 230, says, " There is,* besides, a seventh, but.it is a severe and arduous mode of obtaining the remission of sin, namely, by penance ; when the sinner washeth his couch with his tear?, when his ^■J ■ i i !l n n "I ■■■}M 11 i^MManmnHPipam 70 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. tears make his bread day and night, and when he blushes not to lay open his sin to the Priest of the Lord, and seek for medicine, but when, like King David, he exclaims, * I -said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord ; and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my -sins.' " (Homil. 2. Super. Levitic.) St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, says, "Dearest brethren, I implore you all to confess your faults, whilst that God whom you have offended still spares life to you, whilst confession is still within your> reach and whilst the satisfaction and remission granted by the priest are yet acceptable in the sight of God." (Lib. de lapsis.) St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says, "And^ I tell you moreover, that not only should a man ^ keep himself free from those vices after penance, but like- wise before it, while he is in health ; for if he delays his conversion to the end of life, he knoweth not whether he shall be able to receive penance, and have it in his power to confess his sins to God and a priest." (Homil. 4, de vere Poenit.) Satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament of penance. It is necessary on account of the temporal punishment that may still remain after the guilt of sin is remitted. That a temporal punishment is due to sin, is plain from the very nature of sin itself, from the testimony of Holy Scripture, and from the constant belief and practice of the Church. Satisfaction for the punish- ment due to sin is the desire of appeasing an offended God by voluntary punishment, and other pious works, offered to God as a kind of compensation for the injury done to Him b}' sin. Of course, it is evident that, no matter what works the sinner performs, he can never offer satisfaction to God, according to perfect justice, because the si':iner is a mere finite creature, whereas God, who is offenued by sin, is infinity itself. Wherefore, all the satisfaction the sinner can offer can derive its merit only through Christ Jesus. True penance includes satisfaction, for God Him- self, through the Prophet Joel, describes penance by satis- faction — ♦* Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, in weeping, and in mourning," etc. (Joel 2 : t2, 13.) The same is taught in several other passages of Holy Scripture, for example, 2 Cor. 7 : 11 ; St. James 4 : 8, 9, etc. The works of the early Fathers abound in innumer- able testimonies to the teaching of the Catholic Church THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 7K Ion is Iby Ihe list on satisfaction. . As they one and all proclaim the self- same truth as is proclaimed to-day by the Church Catholic, I shall content myself with merely referring to the testi- mony of St. Augustine, A.D. 395. Commenting on these words of the Psalm, ** For behold thou hast loved truth ; the dark and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me," he says, ** Thou hast loved truth, that is, thou hast not left unpunished the sins even of those to whom thou grantest pardon. Thou hast loved truth, thou hast gratuitously shown mercy, yet in such a manner as to preserve truth. Thou pardonest the man who con- fesses, but thou grantest hi ^ the pardon when he under- taketh to punish himself. lus, by this means are the claims both of mercy and truth reconciled. Of mercy, because man is absolved from his sin ; of truth, because sin is punished in man." . . . ** For it does not suffice that the sinner alter his conduct for the better, and depart from his evil works, unless by a penitential sorrow, groans of humility, the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and the co- operation of alms-deeds, he make satisfaction to God for his past offences." (Homil 50, Quinqua^ Homil). It plainly follows, from the little I have said on the Sacrament of Penance, that it, even according to the defi- nition in the Book of Common Prayer, has all the esserA- tials of a true sacrament, and is, therefore, a sacrameut in reality ; that the Anglican Church, in rejecting it, re- jects the teaching of the Catholic Church from the be- ginning, and is, therefore, before the world, guilty of the crime of heresy. XVIII. THE TWENTY-FIFTH Contiiiued. ARTICLE- m ■ -M • I, a i OF THE SACRAMENT OP EXTREME UNCTION. To everyone who seriously considers the perfect provi- sion made by Christ in His Church for every possible supernatural want of mankind, and the never-failing love He showed when on earth, especially to such as were 72 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. sick and diseased, the truth *of the constant belief of th& Catholic Apostolic Church, ** on the reality of the Szctsl- ment of Extreme Unction/' must be openly apparent. Under the very eyes of Christ, and assuredly by His com- mand, the apostles went forth and " anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." (Mark 6 : 13). That the sacrament here intimated was, by the Divine institution of Christ, a true and proper sacrament, is plain from St. James (5 : 14, 15). We have here all the essentials for a Sacrament, and, therefore, really one in every sense of the word, ist, there is the outward sign,, namely, " the anointing with oil, accompanied with prayer ; " 2nd, the grace attached to that sign, namely,. *' the Lord shall raise the sick man up, and his sins shall be forgiven him " ; and 3rd, the Divine institution, as is evident from the words, ♦* And let them (the priests) pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord,'^ that is, by the authority of the Lord, and by virtue of th& rite instituted by Him. That this is the meaning of these words of the Apostle is clear from many similar passages of Holy Writ, for example, from Acts 10 : 48 ; 19 : 5. The Apostles could not confer grace of themselves, nor could they annex it to any particular rite. St. James, in positive terms, promises grace to those who make use of this rite, a thing no one can suppose him to have done had it not been instituted by Christ. Extreme Unction may be defined — "A Sacrament in which the sick, in danger of death, are anointed by a priest, for the health of soul and body, the anointing being accompanied by a set form of words." All antiquity confirms the Catholic teaching on this Sacrament. St. Augustine, A. D. 395, says : — **As often as sickness at- tacks, let the sick man receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and then ar4oint his body in compliance with the follow- ing commandment of the Scripture : ' Is any man sick among you,' etc. (James 5 : 14, 15). See, brethren, how he who in sickness has recourse to the Church, deserves to receive health of body, and have his sins forgiven him." (Sei mo. 215, de tempore). St.Gregory, A.D. 590, to whom the Anglican Church is so much indebted for its Liturgy, not only describes the manner and form of con- secrating the oil, but also the form and rite of adminis- THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 73 tering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. (Lib. de Sacra- ment). St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, when extolling the •dignity of the priesthood, compares Extreme Unction, as to its effect, with the Sacrament of Baptism. He says : ^' For they (the priests) obtain the power of forgiving us our sins, not only in baptism, but afterwards too." •* Is any man sick amongst you ? Let him bring in the priests of the Church," etc. fHomil. 2 Super. Levitic). A thing also which I should make every intelligent Anglican reflect, is, that the schismatic Greek Church, although separated for 90 many centuries from the Roman See, still holds Extreme Unction to be a true Sacrament of the New Law. Such learned men as Estius, Bellarmine, and others attest, " that when Hieremias, then Patriarch of Constantinople, was consulted by the Lutherans res pecting Extreme Unction and the other Sacraments re- jected by the Anglican Church, and by Protestants in general, h6 most positively declared that the doctrine held and taught by the Greek Church was identical with that of the Roman See." Bellarmine says :]" Hieremias states in reply to the Confession of the Lutherans, cap. 7, * that there are seven true and proper Sacraments, and there are neither more nor less.' He ranks Extreme Unction amongst them, calls it ' a Divine Sacrament,' and says * it was fully and clearly unfalded by the Apostle James.'" ^Lib. de Extrem. Unct.). A very prevalent and specious Protestant objection against Catholic teaching on this- sacrament is, " that the words of St. James (5 : 14, 15) refer to the miraculous gift of healing, which they acknowledge to have existed in the Church at the time of the Apostles, but which they maintain ceased with them." The perfect falsity and ab- surdity of this objection can be proven by many argu- ments deduced even from this very passage in St. James, ist. The use of the anointing in this case is confined to such as have received baptism. " Is any man sick amongst you ? " says St. James ; that is to say, amongst the faith- ful. This expression, « amongst you," is in the language of the Church applied only to those who have received baptism. St. Innocent, A.D. 402, says, '* that these words of St. James should be received and understood a^ having reference to the faithful in their corporal necessities ' (Epist. ad% Decent). i Ji 1 II m 4 ^ip 74 THX CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. Ob the other haod, as is evident from Acts 28 : 8, 9^ the gift of healing was applied to infidels and persons not baptized, and, moreover, was used rather in favour of un- believers than of others. Wherefore, we find that St. Paul, who healed the father of Publius, and many people in the island of Malta, did not heal Timothy, who was- sick (i Tim. 5 : 23), or Epaphroditus, who lay dangerously ill (Philip. 2 : 27), or Trophinius, whom he left sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4 : 20). 2nd. St. James savs " the priests oi the Church are to be brought to the faithful when sick;" but the gift of healing was a special gift not given to all priests, nor to priests exclusively ; wherefore, according to this Protestant theory, St. Tames should not have said, " let the sick man bring in the priests of the Church,*' but rather, ** let him bring in such as possess the gift of healing diseases." 3rd. The gift of healing was confined in its effect to what was corporal. It extended to the health of the body only, whereas the effect of the anoint- ing prescribed by St. James is principally spiritual, "and if he be in sin, his sins are foreiven him." The Catholic Church has always understood the expression, ** And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man," and " the Lord shall raise him up," as regarding the health of the soul in the generality of cases, and that of the body only occa- sionally, and when expedient for the soul. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says : <* The great and salutary object of the Sacraments pertains more to the hope of future than to the retention or gaining of present benefits." (Tom. 3, cap. 66, ad Laurent). 4th. By the gift of healing, the Apostles and others net only healed the sick, but likewise the lame and the blind, whereas St. James desires the sick alone to be anointed. Finally, as is evident from what has been said, the principal object in anointing in this case is moral, and perpetual in its efiect. Since, then,, the object for which it was instituted constitutes the soul of the institution, it therefore follows that while the soul remains the institution lives. If to what has been said we add, that all the other institutions mentioned by St. James regard the Christians of all times, it will be plain that this institution was far from being intended to be merely temporal, lasting scarcely a single century. Another Protestant objection, ** that St. James ascribes. THE. CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 75 M the remission of sins to the prayer, and not to the anoint- ing/' may be fully answered in a few words. St. James ascribes the remission of sins to the prayer and anomting together. To the anointing as to the matter, and to the prayer as to that in which consists the form of the sacra- ment. " And let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.'* Here, evidently, the prayer and the anointing are united. The apostle, it is worthy of remark, does not say, " let them pray /ar the sick man, but " pray over him." He simply ascribes, by a well- known figure of speech, the efifect to the form, as to the superior part. The old Anglo-Saxon Church held the doctrine on this sacrament as is held to-day by the Catho- lic Church. Her children received it under the same con- ditions as do we of this nineteenth century. That such is the case may be seen from the Canons of Aelfric, A.D. 1030 (Thorpe, p. 354). Wherefpre, it follows that extreme unction, having the three essential requisites for a sacra- ment, is one in reality and in truth, and can by no possi- bility be merely a simple religious rite. Hence, again, the falsehood and heresy of the Anglican Church. 4 f .ill) rjll XIX. THE TWENTY-FIFTH ARTICLE— Cowawu^d M OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS. That Christ, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, made ample provision in His church, not only for the supier- natural wantsof each individual in particular, but also of so- ciety at large, has always been the teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church. It may be defined, — •' A sacrament of the New Law, by which spiritual power is given, and grace conferred for the performance of sacred duties." The word " order," in its original signification, means rank in general. Like many other words, it has become modified by usage, and is now principally used to designate the priesthood, as distinct from the position of laymen. An unanswerable demonstration of the truth of Christianitj^ ■m . 1? I 1"! 76 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. is supplied in the study of the history and characteristics of the Christian Priesthood. The word *' priest," as understood not only by Christians, but by all people from the beginning, both Jews and Pagans, cannot be explained except through Jesus Christ, God made man. A priest is a sacred, inviolable being, separated from the rest of man- kind by the sublime character of his iunctions, called by God Himself, consecrated by an heavenly anointing, offering salutary sacrifice and drawing from his character of sacrificer supreme spiritual authority over other men. The great Pagan philosophers, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, speak of the priesthood " as the most important ministry of society." *' The well being of all," says Cicero, •' is <:ommitted to his hands." Through the whole history of both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the priesthood is placed above all the gifts of nature, the pretensions of ambition and the prerogatives of the temporal power. It is evident that a vocation, or call from God, must precede sacerdotal consecration if His grace is to accompany the rite. T^e Divine High Priest of the New Law, Jesus Christ, instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders, or the Chris- tian Priesthood, a few hours before He entered upon the last scene in His work of Redemption. To prepare for this sublime institution He some time before chose seventy-two disciples ; He raised the twelve apostles to a higher position and admitted them to His familiar friendship. Among the apostles He distinguished Peter above the rest, and made him the rock on which He was to build His Church. Thus it was did He establish the hierarchical order. As if wishing to bestow His first h6nours on that order He prostrated Himself before, and washed the feet of the apostles; and then, having changed the bread into His sacrificed body, and the wine into His out -poured blood, He admitted them by Holy Com- munion to participate in the great sacrifice He was about to offer, and gave them the power and the right to offer it themselves, saying, "Do this, what I have done, in commemoration of Me" — (Luke 22: 17-20), and as St. Paul adds, '* As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until He come " (i Cor. 11 : 26). TBI CLAIMS or ANQUCAKISM. 7» That the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a true and proper sacrament, and that it confers grace by the very institu- tion of Christ, has always been the doctrine of the Catho- lic Church. Numerous proofs from Holy Scripture, and from ecclesiastical writers in all ages, can be given for the truth of the same, but the following will suffice with every candid and enlightened mind. Keeping in view the defini- tion of a sacrament given in the Book of Common Prayer, I say that, even according to it, holy orders is a true sacra- ment in every sense of the word, for it has all the essentials there laid down. ist. There is the visible, outward sign, namely, the imposition of hands. St. Paul says, '* Neg- lect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the priest* hood " (i Tim. 4 : 14). 2nd. There is the grace annexed to this outward sign, for the same St. Paul says, " For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir upHhe grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands " (2 Tim. 1 : 6). 3rd. There is the institution of Christ ; for, as neither the apostles, nor any other mere creature, could confer or annex grace to any particular sign, it is evident from Holy Scripture that this rite of the imposition of hands was instituted by Christ for the conferring of grace. Holy Writ tells us that the apostles not only made use oi the power of ordination themselves, but they also trans- mitted that power to their successors. St. Paul says to Timothy, ** Impose not hands lightly on any man " (i Tim. 5 : 22). The same truth, of the reality of this sacrament, is also proved from the constant practice of the Church, who, after all, is the best and only legitimate interpreter of Holy Scripture. St. Leo, A.D. 440, in his epistle to Dioscorus, of Alexandria, teaches that, according to apostolic doctrine, both they who confer and they who receive the Sacrament of Hely Orders, shall be fasting at the time, in order, says he, — '^'that we may understand what should be the devotion of thos^ who confer, and of those who receive them ; and also the extreme caution with which we should guard against so blessed a sacra- ment appearing to be accomplished in a negligent man- ner." (Epist. 81, ad. Dioscor.) St. Augustine, A.D. 395, writing against the Donatists, compares the Sacrament of 111 78 THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCANISM. Holy Orders with that of Baptism, Jind to any enlightened man his testimony alone disproves the Anglican theory. He says : " The Sacrament of Baptism is that conferred on the person baptized ; the Sacrament of Ordination is that which gives the right of baptizing. And as he who, after baptism, forsakes the unity of the Church, does not thereby lose the Sacrament of Baptism ; so, in like man- ner, whoever forsakes the Church after ordination loses not the sacrament whereby baptism is administered ; for no sacrament can suffer injury. If he departs from the society of the wicked, the sacrament, too, departs ; if he remain among the wicked, that, too, remains. Since it is then admitted that he who has departed irom unity could not lose his baptism, it, therefore, follows — as his departure from unity destroyed not his right of administering it — that the validity of the baptism given by him must likewise be admitted. For as they who received baptism before their separationare not bap- tized on their return ; so they who are ordained before their separation, are not re-ordained on their return. So far from this being the case, they are allowed to dis- charge the same offices in the ministry as they before discharged, provided it be for the good of the Church ; and though they should not act in the capacity of ministers, they yet retain the sacrament of their ordination, and therefore, hands are not again imposed upon them before the laymen. For when Felicianus deserted us, together with Maximianus, he lost neither the Sacrament of Baptism, nor that of Orders ; but now we have both him- self and those whom, during his separation, he baptized in the Maximian Schism." (Lib. de Bapt. Contra Donat.) Such testimonies as these abound in the early Fathers, and in the canons of councils, both general, and partic- ular. That the old Anglo-Saxon Church believed and practised the doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Orders of the Roman Church, msCy be seen in Anglo-Saxon anti- quities, page 150. Not only did the Church of England reject this sacrament, but since the Reformation she has had no valid ministry becauce no Sacrament of Orders. This is a testimony from one of the most profound scholars oi the 19th century. ** It is my sincere and firm convic- tion that, independently of all historical questions, the THE CLAIMS OP AN Anglican ordinations are nul, . Wiseman. valid." I ^Cardinal XX. THE TWENTY-FIFTH A^tjCL?— Con«wiM«(/. >; OF THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONYT*^*^ That Christ provided, in His Church, not only for the supernatural wants of the faithful in general by the Sacra- ment of Holy Orders, but that He also provided lor the growth and expansion of the Church itself by elevating marriage under the natural law to the dignity of a sacra- ment, has ever been the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. For the full under- standing of the beauty and dignity of marriage in the Catholic Church, one should have a proper idea of the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is on that sacred type of the union of God with man, which union produces the supernatural birth of humanity, that Christ in the New Law established the union of man with woman as the means of generating that same humanity. Since we are born in order to become Christians, He established that the natural alliance through which we are born according to the flesh should find its model, its conditions, and its laws in that supernatural allfance through which we are born according to the spirit. Wherefore, everyone'can see the reason of the constant,, jealous care of the Catholic Church over everything, no matter how remotely connected with the great and holy Sacrament of Matrimony. The Incarnation began in Nazareth, and is to be completed amid the joys and splendours of heaven. That union of God with man finds its fulness — its complement, in the union of Christ with His Church — His Bride. The grand and beautiful laws which govern the Incarnation and the union of Christ with His Church, are made by Him the type and the model of Christian marriage. (Ephes.~5: 22, 32.) In the face of this incontrovertible truth no church can J "i iii li ^^! 'T -<:»' 80 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. be the true Church of Christ which denies the reality of the Sacrament of Marriage. Strictly speaking, marriage was, neither in the state of innocence nor that of fallen nature beforeChrist, a sacrament conferring grace. In the state of innocence there was neither sin nor concupicence, and therefore there was no need of a remedy to counter- act them. In the state of fallen nature before Christ polygamy and divorce were permitted by God Himself, and both these are essentially opposed to this sacrament. Neither is there anything in Scripture or tradition to show that before the coming of Christ it was established to confer grace. Besides, at that time there did not exist that union of Christ with His Church spoken of. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says : " Marriage is a sacrament only in the Church." (Lib. 6 Contra Jovin.) Marriage being in itself a natural contract between man and woman, it is necessary to make a distinction between marriage according to natural law, and marriage as a sacrament. Heathens and such are united in true mar- riage, which is blessed of God because He is the author of nature as well as of grace. But these have no sacrament of marriage. It is diflFerent with baptized Christians, for with them there can be no marriage whi'*,h at one and . the same time is not~^a sacrament. Marriage is a real and true sacrament according to the institution of Christ, because He expounded and enforced the natural law of marriage (Matt. 19 : 4, 9), and recalled men to its original idea as given in Genesis 2 : 23, 24. It is a visible and outward sign, because the contracting parties must signify by signs their consen"- and acceptation of each other, and because the union thereby established between them should be on the model of the union of Christ with His Church. Finally, it is an efficacious sign of grace when contracted in the faith of Ctirist. {Ephes. 5: 31, 32; 1 Tim. 2: 11, 15.) From this latter passage it is concluded that marriage in the new law confers grace, for the following reason. Although St. Paul excludes women from the public ministry of the Church, yet he assigns to them another very honourable ministry — they are to save their souls by tl e faithful dis- charge of their matronly duties, and to be the source of the growth and expansion of the Church. The Church . ^ THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 8l id IS w could no more exist without marriage than it could with- out the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Wherefore (as was proven in last article), as a special grace is given in holy orders on account of its necessity for the faithful in genera), so also in marriage a special grace is given on account of its necessity tor the very existence of the Church itself. The doctrine here laid down is fully confirmed by the testimony of antiquity. St. Cyril, A.D. 310, says : " Christ was present at the wedding in Cana that He might sanctify the principle of man's generation » drive away the old sadness of child-bearing, and give grace to those who were born." (Lib. 2, Comment in Joan.) St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, comparing the mar- riage of Jacob with Lia to Christian marriage, says : " Is it not absurd that we who have received so great grace and mercy, and are partakers of the tremendous and un- speakable sacrament.-?, should, in this respect, be inferior to Laban, who was as yet addicted to the worship of idols ? Or, do you not hear the apostle Paul telling you that marriage is a sacrament, and that it is the image of - that love which Christ declares towards His Church." ' (Homil. 56, in Genes.) St. Innocent, A.D. 402, says : — , " That marriage is founded on Divine grace." (Epist. ad Probum.) After an exhortation on conjugal fidelity, St. ? Ambrose, A.D. 370, thus concludes : '• We know that God ; is the High Priest and guardian of marriage, whosuffereth • not another's bed to be defiled. Whoever does so, forfeits the grace of God by sinning against Him and violating His law ; and because he sins against God, he forfeits all participation in this Heavenly Sacrament.'' (Lib. de Abrah. Patr.) Should one take all such testimonies of the early Fathers as these, and all the Canons of the different Councils, especially of the Council of Trent, an unanswer- ' able arcfument is found against the plainly heretical doc- trine of the Anglican Church on marriage. The Greeks, and the many Eastern schismatics who separated from 'he Roman See many centuries before the so-called Re- formation, still retain their belief in marriage being a true and proper Sacrament of the New Law. This alone is a most powerful argument for the truth of Catholic teach it.g on this point. Having now brielly examined the five Sacraments rejected by the Church of England, I confi- .4 I'll 4 S2 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 4ently leave it to every candid mind to say if they are not (even according to the definition of a sacrament in the Book of Common Prayer), one and all, sacraments in the true and strict meaning of that word. It were more consistent did the Anglican Church entirely reject all the seven Sacraments, without any exception. Having no valid orders, she cannot possibly have the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Blessed Eucharist, and as for Bap- tism, it is merely the shuttle-cock of the whims and fan^ cies of her spurious ministry, as witness the celebrated Gorham case of a few years ago in England. Yet, this is the Church that intrudes herself so insolently before the enlightened intelligence of this 19th century, as the pure, unadulterated Church of antiquity. " Tempora / O Mores!'' '.;■;.■ •,»-- •■iJ> '.v., >( - .: r XXI. THE TWENTY-EIGHTH ARTICLE. X' ;, • J OF THE lord's SUPPER. " Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over- throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or wor- shipped." These, the second and fourth sections of this 28th Article of Anglican Faith, are the parts to which I shall call the attention of the reader in this paper, in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are false and heretical. The subject of the former of these sections is the vital and interesting subject of Transubstantia- tion in the Catholic Apostolic Church. It embraces not ~ only a deep question of Christian faith, but one of philo- sophy also, concerning which, by the way. Bacon has well said, — " A little philosophy carries its possessor from reiigion, a great deal of philosophy leads him to it." The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the Blessed Eucharist, -'n THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 83 .\ . ■v being, from the institution of Christ, both a sacrament and a sacrifice, it must be considered under that two-fold aspect. As a sacrament, the Blessed Eucharist, is '* the true Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine." Like all the other sacraments, it was necessarily instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. Like them it has the external part, namely, — "the appearance of bread and wine," and also the internal part, namely, — ** The Body and Blood of Christ, with the graces they impart to those who worthily communicate." As the Anglican Church seems to admit the reality of the Sacra- ment, and impu{^ns rather the Catholic doctrine on Tran- substantiation, I shall confine my remarks to this latter subject. The word Transubstantiation, the most fitting one to correctly express the Faith of the Catholic Apostolic Church from the beginning, in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, first came into use in the time of Berengarius, A.D. 1030. He was the first notable per- son to deny the universal Catholic doctrine on the real presence. The errors of the early heretics, noted by the Fathers, were not so much directed against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as against the reality of His assumption of true flesh. Wherefore, we find St. Iraenus, A.D. 290, by the argument of the re- ality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, refuting those who denied " the resurrection of the flesh" (Sermo. de. Coena. Doro.). St. Leo, A.D. 440, by the same argument refutes those who denied ♦* that Christ assumed flesh " (Sermo. de. Jejun.). The first General Council of Ephe- sus, A.D. 431, refuted Nestorins, who denied that Christ was both God and man, by the following argument : " The Eucharist could not give us life if it were the flesh of man only, and not also the flesh of the Son of God " (Tom. Conuil., Epist. ad. Nestor.). The word traLSubstantiation implies a truth, beyond the mere fact of the real presence. It not only implies the reality of Christ in the Eucharist, but at the same time it also implies a substantial change in the bread and wine itself. Herein lies a deep philoso- phical question. We know from philosophy that a sub- stance is '* that which naturally stands by itself, without any subject in which it inheres," and that ** an accident is that which naturally inheres in a substance, as its ob- m m m M •i.r 1 84 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. ject." We know also that all bodies affect us through our senses. When fully examined, the whole philosophical question must be reduced to this one, " Does God^ the cause of the connection between bodies and our sensi- bility, suspend the general laws established by Himself^ governing bodies and our sensibility, in the case of the blessed Eucharist, wherein there is a body which does not affect our senses ? " That He can do so, no sane man will deny ; that He actually does so we have on the veracity of God Himself. In the other sacraments, their elements undergo only an accidental change ; for example, the water used in baptism still remains water. It only re- ceives, through the decree of God, a new power to wash away sin ; so on in the other sacraments. But in the Eu- charist there is a substantial or essential change. The substance of the bread and wine ceases to be, for it is changed into the body and blood of Christ. This change in the Eucharist is different from all other substantial changes in this, that in the Eucharist, after the change of the sub- stance of the bread and wine, their accidents remain un- altered. While the accidents of the bread and wine re- main, so long does the body and blood of Christ remain. Philosophy can never demonstrate the impossibility of the truth of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. The only conclusion it can arrive at is, that if that doctrine be true, then is the Eucharist an astounding, standing, public miracle of the omnipotence and goodness of God towards men. This is precisely what the Catholic Church says it is, and this cannot be denied except by the man who is prepared to deny the possibility of all miracles. Where- fore, the complete falsity of that common Protestant ob- jection, " that our senses are deceived, if the Catholic doc- . trine be true." Our senses are not deceived, for it is not in the'province of our senses to pronounce upon the essence or substance in any body whatever. This office is of our reason, or judgment. Our senses are perfectly correct in the case of the Blessed Eucharist. Our reason, or judg- ment alone, is simply corrected by our faith in the truth of the words of Christ. It is by the fact that the acci- dents of the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist, that it is a sacrament at all. They constitute he visible or outward sign of that sacrament. The Catholic doctrine THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 85 on the Eucharist must be true, for Christ (who could not possibly tell a lie) said of that which He gave to His apostles at His last supper to eat and drink (although it had a different appearance), " This is my Body," *' This is my Blood " (Matt. 26 : 26, 28). Lest any man might imagine that the word ** body " could be understood of any other than the one in which He actually suffered for manV redemption, He added, ** which is given for you," and lest the word " blood " might be imagined to signify anything, else than His real blood, which He actually poured out on the cross for the remission of our sins, He added, *' which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22; 19, 20). If these words of Christ do not convey the absolute truth of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, in opposition to that of every possible Protestant sect in the world, then words have no meaning, and Christ was simply what so many professed infidels in the Protestant world say He was, a charlatan and mere impostor. From these words of Christ, it plainly follows that in the Eucharist there cannot be bread and wine pro- perly so-called, for things which are essentially dif- ferent, cannot be reciprocally predicated of each other. Wherefore, of that of which Christ said — '* This is my Body," it cannot truthfully be said — " This is bread " ; and, in like manner,of that of which Christ said, "This is my Blood," it cannot truthfully be said — ** This is wine." From this simple grammatical truth, evident to anyone of even less than average ability, the Catholic Church (when the truth of it was denied) formally defined the self-evi- dent truth of Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, their accidents alone remaining. To better understand the sense of Christ's words, and the Catholic doctrine on Transubstaniiation, it must be observed that the enunti- ate words of Christ (such are these quoted) are of two kinds : The one consists of such words as have a signifi- cative force only, for example — " The world hateth me" (John 7 : 7) — " Lazarus is dead" (John 11 : 14). Proposi- tions of this kind presuppose the things signified; but they do not ej^ect them. The other kind of propositions con- sist of such words as have an operative^ or effective force, for example — "Womanjthou art delivered from thy in- a 4 *s ^Mfp mmmmi^rm^ 86 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. firmity " (Luke 13 : 12) — " Thy son liveth " (John 4 : 50). Propositions of this kind do not presuppose, but they ej;ect the things signified. These words of Christ quoted are of this latter kind, for, of their very nature, they must have an elective force. Wherefore, that which the demon- strative pronoun points to in the proposition — " This is my Body," is obvious from this explanation. The pronoun (this) does not point to the bread, but to that peculiar thing with which the attribute truly agrees when the pro- position is finished, and that peculiar thing is the body of Christ. The same is also to be said respecting the pro- position — " This is my Blood." The testimony of all antiquity fully confirms the truth of the doctrine of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church on the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, and, therefore, at the same time, the truth of her doctrine on Transubstantiation. ' ,, . . ■;,.-, ^■v."::; XXII. THE TWENTY EIGHTH ARTICLE— Continued. -i All antiquity teaches, on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the self-same doctrine as that always held by the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. Therefore all antqiuity teaches her doctrine on Transubstantiation. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, A.D. 363, explaining to his cate- chumens^the nature of that Sacrament, says : — *' As, then, Jesus Christ, speaking of the bread, declared and said, * This is My body,' who shall ever dare to call His word into question ? And, as speaking of the wine, He posi- tively assured us and said, 'This is My blood,' who shall doubt it and say that it is not His blood? Once, in Cana of Galilee, He changed water into wine by His will alone, and shall we think it less worthy of credit that He changed wine into His blood ? Invited to an earthly marriage. He wrought this miracle ; and shall we hesitate to confess that He has given to His children His body to eat and His blood to drink ? Wherefore, with all con- THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 87 V *»• iidence, let us take the body and blood of Christ, for under the type or figure of bread His body is given to thee, and under the figure of wine His blood is given, that so being made partakers of the body and blood of Christ you may become one body and one blood with Him. Wherefore, I entreat you, my brethren, not to consider them any more as common bread and wine, since they are the body and blood of Jesus Christ, accord- ing to His words ; and, although your sense might suggest that to you, let faith confirm you. Judge not the thing by your taste, but by faith assure yourself, without the least doubt, that you are honoured with the body and blood of Christ, This knowing, and of this being assured, that what appears to you bread is not bread, but the body of Christ, although the taste judge it to be bread ; and that the wine which you see, and which has the taste of wine, is not wine, but the blood of Christ." (Cat. Mystag., vol. 4, pp. 320, 321). Theophylactus, A.D. 170, says, '* In this which you receive, the bread is not merely a figure and similitude of the body of the Lord, but it is iionverted into the very body of Christ, for the Lord says : — * The bread which I will give is My flesh ; ' He did not say, *is the Jigure of My flesh,' but, 'is My jiesh,' And again our Lord saith, < Unless you shall eat of the flesh of the Son of Man.' ^ o ** Do you ask me, why then is not the flesh visible ? Because of our infirmity, O man ! For as bread and wine are of those things to which we are accustomed we feel no abhorrence for them ; but were we to see the flesh and blood set before us we could not endure the sights we should turn from it in horror, and therefore it is that a merciful God, condescending to our infirmity, preserves the appear- ance indeed of the bread and wine, but virtually changes the elements into His flesh and blood." (Comment, in Evang. Marci., cap. 14.) St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says, " They who are consecrated by divine mysteries under- stand what I say. And again our Lord took the cup and said, 'This is my blood, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.' And Judas was present when Christ said, ' This is my blood.' Speak, O Judas ! is this the blood about which you had already made your bargain with the Pharisees — the blood which a H H ^ /- \ , z% THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. you sold for thirty pieces of silver ? Oh ! the mercy of Christ ! Oh ! the madness of Judas ! Judas had been bargained with for thirty pieces of silver, and yet Christ presented to Judas ih$ very bhod which he had sold in order that he might obtain the remission of his sins, if even then he would abandon his impious purpose, for Judas was- present and partook of the communion of the glorious sac-^ rifice." (Homil. de Proclit. Judae.) St. Augustine, A.D» 395, expounding the title of Fsalm 33, ** And he was car- ried in his own hands," says, *' Brethren, who can under- stand how this is possible to be done by man ? For what man is carried in his own hands ? A man may be carried in the hands of others, no man is carried in his own hands. We find not how it can be literally understood even of David ; but we do find how it can be understood of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands when, commit- ting to us His body. He said, * This is my body,' for He then bore that body in His own bands." (Comment, in Psaln> 33.) St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, says, '* The bread which the Lord handed to His disciples being changed, not in its appearance but in its nature, was made flesh by the omnipo- tence of His word. And as in the person of Christ His humanity was visible, and His divinity lay concealed. So in the visible sacrament a divine essence hath ineffably infused itself in#orderthat we should regard the sacrament with religious devotion." (Sermo. de Coena Dom.) ' '^ _i It were useless to multiply further testimbnies from the early Fathers of the Church, as both one and all would be but a repetition of the same plain doctrine as is given by these Fathers here quoted. The truth of the Catholic doctrine on Transubstantiation is not only clearly laid down in the writings of every age from the beginning ; the same is also attested in the canons of councils, both general and particular, in each and all of the ancient liturgies, and in the paintings and inscrip- tions in ancient churches and burial places, particularly in the renowned catacombs of Rome. For unanswerable proof that the ancient Anglo-Saxon Church was always one in belief with the Roman see on the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation the reader can consult Dr. Rock, (Eccl. Patrum vol. 1-15). Dr Adam Clark, himself a THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANtSM. 89 Protestant scholar of eminence, frankly admits that as early as A.D. 140 Transubstantiation was an article of Christianity. (Analysis. Apolog. Justin Mart.) Wherefore, from what has been said, it is evident that Christ's Church always taught that in the Eucharist, Transubstantiation, .or a change in the substance of the bread and wine, is effected. Wherefore, it follows that this doctrine is not, >(as this 27th article says) — *' repugnant to the plain words of Scripture," nor does it, " overthrow the nature of the Sacrament," nor does it ** give occasion to any super- stition." The doctrine of the Anglican Church on the Eucharist, and that of every Protestant sect in the world lor that matter, is based on the foolish attempt to reduce the law of faith to the standard of human reason. Both these are distinct, but not mutually antagonistic. Faith is simply the fulness — the complement — of reason. These* Protestants, poor philosophers, and still poorer logicians, should keep before their eyes the example of •men, than whose intellects none deeper were yet bestowed on man. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, says, " The very same power which brought forth through the virgin womb of an inviolate mother the limbs of the Infant, afterwards, when He had becoms man, introduced those limbs through the door, though shut. If reason be appealed to respect- ing this, it will not be wonderful ; if an example be de- manded, the instance will not be a solitary one. Let us admit that God is able to do what we must confess our- selves unable to investigate. In such cases the whole cause of the thing done consists in the power of Him who ' does it " (Epist. 3, ad. Volusian.). St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says, " Grant, I beseech you, that His sense and His reason are superior to ours. Let us acknowledge this in all things, but particularly in mysteries, not confining our view merely to the things that lie before us, but also hold- ing to His words. For by His words we cannot be de- ceived, whereas nothing can be more easily deceived than our own senses. His words cannot be false ; our senses are over and over again deceived. Since, then, Christ has said, '* This is my body," let us entertain no doubt •of the fact, but believe it with the eyes of our understand- ing " (Homil. 83, in Matt., cap. 26). Could any reason- able man want anything further than .these beautiful tes- 90 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. timonies from antiquity to the truth of the teaching of the Catholic Roman Church on transubstantiation, or the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist. The same is her teaching to-day, and will be to the end of time. I feel confident that no intelligent man can come to any other conclusion than that/ in this Article, the AnglicaO' Church has plainly rejected on the Blessed Eucharist the doctrine handed down from Christ Himself. ■ *••- « V ^ XXIII. THE TWENTY-EIGHTH ARTICLE— Continued, -i.i^-,r * ^ ;' • OBJECTION ANSWERED. ■}■ ^'' ^ As a matter of course sectaries are accustomed to bring forward objections against the doctrine of the Church on die question of Transubstantiation , as they are against every other Catholic doctrine, but they seldom or never pause to reflect that no arguments, erroneously imagined to be deducible from Holy Scripture or reason, if seriously and dispassionately examined, can ever invalidate the con- stant teaching of the Catholic Apostolic Church. Some pretend that St. Paul contradicts the dogma of Transub- stantiation because he asks this question, — '^ The bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord?" And again because he says, — "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you [shall show the death of the Lord, until He comes." Here, say these sectaries, St. Paul, by calling the Eucharistic species bread, evidently did not hold as the Roman Church does, on this question of Transubstantiation. I would simply reply to this specious objection — that St. Paul, if they examine his words closely, *by no means speaks of ordinary bread in the passages of his Epistles referred to. He makes particular distinction between common bread, and the bread of which he is speaking. He does not say, " The bread which any one breaks," or again,r— ** As often as you shall eat bread," but he lays THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 91 particular stress on his words, and makes a^marked dis- tinction by saying, "The bread which wtf break," "as often as you shall eat this bread." At the conclusion of each sentence he shows the distinction between the Eucharis- tic species and common bread and wine. He plainly says, " That the chalice which he blesses is the communion of the blood of Christ," "and that the bread which he breaks is the partaking of the body of the Lord.'* In order to warn us against any profanation of this heavenly banquet, he thus exhorts us, — ** Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice ; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning.the body of the Lord." (i Cor. 11 : 27, 28.) In these passages St. Paul positively says that the real body and blood of the Lord (not the figure), are present in the Eucharist, and that everyone receiving the same, be they worthy, really and truly eat and drink of them, whenever they receive the Sacrament. Now, real flesh and blood cannot, at one and the same time, be real bread and real wine; therefore, St. Paul clearly ter"hes,* that what was bread and what was wine are, by the bless- ing uttered over them, transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ ; and while, indeed, the acci- dents of the bread and wine remain after the change, and thus our senses pronounce them to be what they appear, they can with propriety be still called bread and wine, although inwardly and really they are converted into the body and blood of Christ. It is common in Holy Writ to call things which have been changed, or transub- stantiated, by the name of that material which origin- ally constituted them. For example, in Exod. 7 : 10-12, although the rod of Aaron was changed into a serpent it is still called a rod; and in verses 20-21, although the water had been converted into blood, it is still called water, and that the Egyptians could not drink of it. In St. John, 2 : 9, the Evangelist still calls the wine by the name of the water from which it had been made by a miracle of our Blessed Lord. In St. Matt. 11 : 2-5, where our Lord says, " the blind see," '*the lame walk," etc., 'il m il IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) k // ^/ ^ A *.*■ ^^t ^ ^ ^o 1.0 I.I Ui|2£ 125 £f L£ 12.0 u vt I IL25 IW 1.4 I 1.6 ^ HiotDgrapliic .Sciences Corporation f\ 4"^ <^ 23 WIST MAIN STMIT WnSTIR,N.Y. I4S80 (716)«73-4S03 ^'^\^'^ '^^ '^ s PpiPW^WPpi^iPiPf^^fP^ 0^::,'.'- r - \-r h 9a THC cyam 6r AMCUCAmsic thQ same thing occurs. It is self-evident that the man who is blind does not see, nor the one who is lame does not Walk, nor does the deaf man hear; Christ here simply signifies that they who formerly had been blind, now see; they who had been formerly lame^ now walk, etc. These examples in Holy Writ would have warranted St. Paul I0 have said of them : '* This rod is a serpent;" "this water is win^;" the dead Lazarus lives, the dumb man speaks," etc. ; nor would his auditors have taken occa- sion from such expressions to insanely look upon them as authority to deny these miraculous events. On the con- trary, they would have looked upon such expressions as a strong declaration on St. Paul's part in their favour. While, therefore, St. Paul, with the greatest propriety of Scripture language, did declare, — ** that the bread which he broke was the body of Christ," etc., such a manner of speaking, instead of weakening, fully confirms the Catholic docirine of Transubstantiation, because, while we are assured by him that Christ's real body is in the Eucharist, the material is noticed from which it is trans- formed. The term bread is therefore used by him, not to signify that it is real, common bread, but to signify that the Eucharist is formed from what originally was bread. It would take up too much space in a weekly newspaper to answer the many other ill-founded objections against this and other Catholic doctrines. Suffice it to here say that no possible objection can be brought forward from any quarter whatever but what can be easily an4 success- fully answered, on principles supplied by the Catholic Church alone, '*the pillar and ground of truth," the truth and reasonableness of which must be necessarily confessed by every intelligent man who studies the matter. All objections spring from one or the other of these causes^either the teaching of the Church on the point is not properly understood, or the passages in Scripture supposed to militate against her are falsely interpreted. From the little said on the point before us, it is plain that the doctrine of the Anglican Church in this article is false and heretical. Wherefore, on this question of Transub- fitantiation, as on so many other essential points of doc- trivit, the Church of England is at variance with the true •V nn CLAIMS or axoucahism. 93 Clmrch of Christ from the beginning. I give only a few extracts from the testimony of antiquity, but these, few as the^ are, completely destrojr her pretensions to being the original Catholic Church in its puritv. Were she found wanting in only one single point ot true doctrine, that one point alone would condemn her. What can any sane man say of her when she is proven false, not on one point alone, but on so many ? Poor Anglicans 1 You are the unconscious dupes of a tottering human institution, instead of being children of the Church of Christ^the Holy Catholic Church. - XXIV. THE TWENTY-EIGHTH ARTICLE— Continued, The second proposition of this article to be examined is, ** The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." It is a fundamental principle, inherent in the veiy constitution of Christ's Church, that she, being a perfect society or kingdom, possesses within herself aU necessary pdwer and authority to make laws and regula- tions concerning her own internal affairs. Wherefore, the Church has, and always has had, the right to make rules and modifications (as she judges best) most befitting the Sacraments, not, of course, touching upon their substance. Let us appiy the principle here laid down to the proposi- tion now before us. With respect to the first assertion,^ it may be answered that the Church of Christ, from the very time of the apostles, has always honourablv reserved the Blessed Eucharist for the Viaticvim of her aving chil- dren. Hence we Catholics can most justly conclude with the great St. Augustine, A.D. 395 : ** Whatever the uni- versal Church holds, what was not instituted by Councils, but hat^ been always retained, is most properly believed to be founded on apoitoUe wUhorUy alone." (Epist. de papt Contra Donat). ^^^^^ WIF 94 THE CI.AIM8 OF AMGUCANISM. To the second assertion, — the Catholio Church has never taught that the custom of carrying about the Blessed Sacrament in public processions was the ordin- ance of Christ ; but she simply approves of such, as very suitable for public testifying to that d'sep gratitude which all true Christians should feel, for the great benefits con- ferred upon them by Christ in that adorable Sacrament. We have, in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testa- ment, the type, or figure, of this beautiful Catholic cere- mony. It used to be, sometimes by the command of God Himself, and at others, by the devotion of the priests, king and people, carried in solemn procession for the purpose of imploring the Divine aid and mercy. (Josue. 5 : 3, 16 ; 6 : 6, 8 ; Kings 4 : 3, 4 ; 4 : 14 ; 18 ; 6, etc.) That the Ark of the Covenant was a type of the Blessed Eucharist is evident from the passage in the 95th Psalm, — ** Adore His footstool." St Ambrose, .' D. 370, and St. Augustine, A.D. 395, both teach — '* that what was literally under- stood of the Ark of the Covenant, is mystically declared of the Blessed Eucharist." The third assertion, the elevation of the sacred Host, (which properly belongs to the Sacrifice of the Mass) hav- ing its origin in Holy Scripture itself, even if not of Christ's ordinance, is, nevertheless, both rational and pious. The elevation of the wnbloody sacrifice in the Mass at this pre- sent day, represents the bloody sacrifice onc^ elevated on the altar of the Cross, just the very same as the elevation of the serpent by Moses in the desert, mystically repre- sented the sacrifice of Calvary, long years before Christ offered Himself on the Cross. The fourth assertion is directed against that supreme honour and worship which the Church Catholic has always given to Jesus Christ, really present in the Blessed sacra- ment. The necessary distinction between worship and adoration as given when treating of the 21st ^ticle, should be kept well in view. From what has been said it is plain to every candid mind, that the blessed Eucha- rist is really ana truly the body and blood of Christ. Wherefore, the Eucharist, or the Son qi God in the Eucharist, should be adoi^ed with Divine worship, or adoration (Latria). Holy Scripture commands that Ckritt be worshipped, (z Cor. zi: a6.) It also abounds in in- mmm^m^iifmmmmmmiffm THX CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISlf. 05 Stances of Divine worship (Latria) being given to Him. (Matt., caps. 2, 8, 14, 15, 25 ; Luke, cap. 24). His bodv and blood, soul and humanity should be adored with Divine worship (Latria) in the Holy Eucharist, as well as out of it. Here is the key to all these different Catholic devotions respecting the sacred humaqity of Christ, for example, the devotion of the Sacred Heart, the Precious Blood, Holy Face, etc. Catholics worship with supreme adoration (Latria) those different complements of the humanity of Christ, not as mere physical complements, but as being united to the Divinity in the Incarnation. This Catholic principle was solemnly defined in' the General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. No one alone of the complements of Christ's humanity, is, of course, Christ's person; the same as neither the hand, nor the foot, nor the head alone, is the person of the king» Yet, as he who kisses or strikes the hand of the king is truly said to kiss or strike the king, so he who adores the body or the soul of Christ, or His humanity sepa- rately, or altogether, truly adores the Son of God Himself, for these subsist in the Pertoh of the Son of God and they can have no subsisfence different from Him. Where* fore, when the Jews wounded, and spat upon, and cruci- fied the body of Christ, they wounded, spat upon, and crucified no other than God Himself, since the person- ality of Christ was that of the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son. Hence, St. Paul says: "They crucified the Lord of Glory" (i Cor. 2:8). St. Augustine, A.D.395, writing against the Eunomians and Arians, says — " But they (the heretics) will reply to these arguments and say, why do you adore, together with the Divinity, Hisfleaht which you do not denv to be a creature ? I adore (says St. Augustine^ the flesh of the Lord, nay, the perfect humanity in Chnst, because it was assumed by the Divinity and united to the Deity ; so that I do not acknowledge it to be different but one and the same God and Man, the Son of God. In fine, if you sep- arate man from God, as Photinus or Paul of Samosata did, then,! never will believe in or serve that God. For suppose any one amongst us were to find the purple or th^ royal diadem lying on the ground, would we attempt to worship them ? (Dulia.) . But when the king is clothed "• - -Jfc-^" 96 THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCANlilL io them, whosoever cpntemptuouslv refuscis to worship them, together with the king (Dulia), incurs the danger of death. So in like manner whosoever contemptuously refuses to adore (Latria) in Cliirist our Lord, not His bare humanity alone but united to His Divinity, the Son oi God, true God, and true man, the same shall suffer the pains of eternal* death." (Sermo. 58, de verbis Dom.) St. Ambrose, A.D. 370, commenting on the passage in the 98tH Psalm, "And adore His footstool,'* says, ** Neither does the Scripture tell us to adore anything except God ; for therein it is written, * The Lord thy God shalt thou adore and Him only shalt thou serve.' How then could the Prophet (Isais), who was reared under the Law and educated in the Law, give a commandment contrary to the Law ? This, therefore, is no trifling question, and consequently we should employ the utmost diligence in considering what the footstool is. For in another part of the Scripture we read, ' The heaven is my throne, and the ea|;^h is my footstool.' (Isais 56.) But we must not adore the eartn, for the earth is the creature of God. Yet, let us see whether the prophet does not tdl us that that earth is to be adored which the* Lord Jesus took upon Himself^ in the assumption of the flesh. By the /ooutool, therefore, is understood the earth, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which flesh we this day adore in the mys- teries, and which (as we have said above) the aposnes adored in the Lord Jesus." (Epist. ad Gratian, de Sanct. Spirit). So also says St. Augustine. (Comment, in Psalm 98.) St. Chiysostom, A.D. 390, says, ** The Magi rev- erenced this body in the stable, and ungodly men and barbarians, after they had completed a long journey, adored it with a profound fear and awe. Let us then, who are citizens of heaven, imitate, at least, these barbar- ians. For they, though they only saw the Body stretched in a manger in the stable, and beheld none of the things which you now do, approached it with the highest rever- ence, and with devout and trembling fear. Whereas, you behold the Body of Christ, not lying in a manger but upon the altar; you see, not a woman holding it, but a. Priett present before vou, and the Spirit most abundantly diffused over the sacrince. And when you behold the Bo:rue mean- ^ : / 98 THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCAMISM. ing, and jaade them convey a doctrine which he never held, but on the contrary abhorred and repudiated, I shall here prove beyond contradiction. To anyone who atten- tively reads the writings of St. Augustine it is plain that,, according to his doctrine (which is also that of tiie Church Catholic), the eating of the body and the drinking of^he blood of Christ is twofold : the one sacramental, and the other spiritual According to St. Augustine, all, without an^ possible exception, are said to eat the body and to drink the blood of Christ sacrammtallif, who receive them in the blessed Eucharist, wherein His body and blood are really present under the appearance of bread and wine, whether they receive them worthily, and to their greater glory in heaven, or whether they receive them unworthily, and to their greater damnation in hell. By him those persons are said to eat the body and to drink the blood of Christ spiritually f who, by faith and charity, are united to, and incorporated with, and made living members of Christ. According to this latter, or the spiritual mode of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, St. Augustine constantly teaches that unbelievers and the wicked do not eat His body and drink His blood. This same is the doctrine of the Church Catholic to-day, and always has been ; for, without faith enlivened by charity, no man can be incorporated with Christ, and made a living member of His mystical body. On the other hand, ac- cording to the former, or sacratnental mode of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, St. Augustine in- variably teaches (as also does the Church Catholic) that the wicked, and those devoid of living faith, do really and truly receive in the blessed Sacrament (although un- worthily^ and to their damnation) not the mere signs only, but the things signified — the real and true body of Christ. To prove conclusively that such is the teaching of St. Augustine I here give a few extracts from his writings on this subject, to which I would respectfully call atten- tion, particularly that of our AngUcan brethren. He says, concerning the. traitor Judas: *'The Lord bears with Judas, a devil, a thief, and a seller of his Master. He permits him to receive among his guiltless disciplee that which the faithful know to bo the price of ow redimptUm" yfrf^m^^^ftf^^mjifmmmmmmmmm THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 99 (Epist. x6^, Exposit. in joao.) Again, in writing against the Donatists on the subject of baptism, he fully confirms what I have said above. Here are his very words : " For as Judas, to whom our Lord handed the little portion* did not by receiving what was bad, but by badly receiv- ing it, afford a habitation to the devil within him," so in like manner whosoever receives unworthily the Sacrament of the Lord does no*:, because he is himself bad, render the Sacrament bad ; neither does it follow that because he receives it not to his salvation, he therefore receives .nothing ; for the body of the Lord and the blood of the Lord ■ were also given to those of whom the &postle said : " He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.' " (Lib. 5, cap 8, de Bapt., Contra. Donat) vAgain, when expounding the words of the 21st Psalm, ** All the fat ones of the earth, haVe eaten and have adored," he says: "In this passage of Scripture, by the fat or rich ones of the earth are to be understood the proud. And, indeed, this distinction is by no means made in vain, for of the poor the Scripture had already said : 'The poor shall eat, and shall be filled;' but here it saith, *AI1 the rich ones of the earth have eatisn and have adored.' And they have adored because they have drawn nigh unto the altar of Christ, and have received of His body and blood ; yet they adore only, they are not likewise filled, for they do not follow His example." ^Epist. 120, cap. 27, ad Honorat.) These and similar numerous other passages in his writings fully corroborate what I have said on the distinction made 'by St. Augus- tine between the sacramental and the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist. I will now give, entire, the extract referred to in this article, so that all can see the deception and perfidy of the Anglican Church in so monstrously distorting the meaning of St. Augustine's words. Commenting on the words of the gospel, — ** He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him," — he^ays, -*-*' To eat His flelhjand drink His blood is, therefore, the way by which to abide in Christ, and to liave Christ abiding in us. And, consec^uently, he that abideth not in Christ, and he in whom Chnst doth not abide, does not, it w^^. lOO iIhI CLAIIfS OP ANOUCAlflSlf. is certain, eat His flesh or drink His blood tpirituaUjfp though tamdUy And vkiblff he press with his teeth the sabrament of the body and blood of Christ. But rather doth that man eat and drink to his own condemnation the sacrament of so great a thing ; because he, whtn uneUan^ presumed to approach the sacrament of Christ, which none receive worthily but they who are clean, — ^regarding whom the Scripture saith — * Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.'" (Tract. 26, Eposit in Joan,^ In the face of the base deception, on other points of doctrine, practised by the Anglican Churchy it is impossi- ble Ut suppose, that the framers of the Thirty*ninQ Art- icles had any other object in view, in thus distorting, in this 29th article, these plain words of St. Au^stine, than to deceive the unwary, and those to whom it is impossible to have recourse to the original documents. Such con- duct is to their owi^i lasting disgrace, and to the shame and Confusion of that Church of England which only makes herself the more ridiculous, the more she c nes before the world with her silly pretensions of being in any way part or. parcel of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. LLi^ XXVI. THE THIRTIETH ARTICLE. • OF BOTH KINDS. ''The cyip of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people, for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance aad commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike," T|iB whole question at issue in this article is simply one of discipline, and not of faith. It is one in respect to the administration of the*Blessed Eucharist, either under the Species of bread only or under the species of wine only; The Eucharist, by Christ's inetitution, includes two things, the one whereby it is a saeramtnt, the other whereby it is a.t0eri/i^t. The question here mooted does not affect the sacrament at all, but only the sacrifice. The Euchari8t» ediii^ntiially requires that it be celebrated under both brdad an4 wine, in order to complete the sacrifice, the mystla ^' i ■ THR cixiMS OF ANGMCAKtSM tOI oblation of Christ's Body, and the shedding of His Blood upon the cross. To ptfrfectly and expressly accomplish the commemoration and representation ot the bloody sacrifice on Cal vary » the priests of Christ's Church, to whom He, in the person of the apostles, said, *< Do this for a commemoration of me,'^ must of necessity, by the very command oi God, offer up and receive the Eucharist under both kinds. Not so in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which, although it commemorates also the death of Christ, does not require from its institution to expressly represent that death. Wherefore, it follows that in the sacrament the Eucharist is not required to be administered under both kinds. Besides, whether we con- sider the nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist, or the fruit derived from it, we can most truly say with the Council of Trent, '* That the whole and entire Christ, and the true sacrament, are taken under either kind singl> ; and therefore, that as to the fruit, they who receive one kind only are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation " (Sess. 2x) The administration of the sacrament under either one, or both kinds, simply regards the mode of its. administration, but not its substance, and is therefore mer«lv a matter of discipline, which can be changed by the Church when she sees fit. The Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ (as has been proven), and. He being now a glorified Body, immortal and impassable, His Blo(^ cannot be separated from His Body, nor His Body from His Blood. This separation is essentially impossi- ble. Wherefore, the person who receives His Body neces- sarily receives with it His Blood also, and vice vtrsa. This -Catholic truth is plain in many passages of Holy Scripture (John 6 : 52, 58, 59, etc.). Being merely a matter of discipline, the Church has, from the beginning, according as circumstances demanded, permitted both modes of receiving the Eucharist. In early days, children received the sacrament under the species of wine only (St. Cjrril, A.D. 310, de Laps). Those who were sick received under the species of bread only, as testified to by Tertul- lian, A.D. 200 (De. Orat. 19). From the very times of the apostles it was customai^in the Church to administer the Bu<^arist under the species of bread only. In the time of persecution the faithful were allowed to carty the ifj .1, J ^ «• ■w:»>a». 5^ •FT TT'^i:-?^ y^iviip^ *'• ;T^\i"tvj. : .«!• r^ T I02 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. consecra|ed bread to their homes, and to those about to die for the faith. Tertullian, AD. 200, refers to this cus- tom when exhorting a Christian woman not to marry a pagan husband. He says, " Will lie not know what vou receive in secret, before you take any food ? And ii hc^y shall perceive bread, will he not believe it to be what it is ; called ? *' (Lib. ad. Uxor. cap. 5.) This custom existed at Rome in the time of St. Jerom., A.D. 380. He says, *' I know that it is the custom at Rome, for the faithful in-^ variably receive the Body of Chnst. This ciistom I nei*,^ thercensure nor approve, for each abounds in its own sense" (Lib. adv. Jovin.). In early times it was also customary to administer the - Eucharist to the dying, sometimes under the species of bread and at other times under the species of wine. St. Ambrose, A.D. 370, received the Viaticum under the species of bread only, as is related in his life by Paulinus. The schismatic Greeks, who separated from the Roman See in the ninth century, censure the Latins for the cus- tom of consecrating the Eucharist in unleavened bread, but they do not censure them for administering it under the species of bread only. Any one can see that in those early days of the Church the faithful knew perfectly well that Ciirist was really present, whole and entire, under, either species indifferently. Nothing being then done by '^' the Church in the way of formulating a special law on the matter, their customs of administering the Eucharist were both permiissible and lawful. Now, however, owing to the special legislation, it is not lawful to administer the Eucharist to the people, except under the species of. bread only. The present custom began to become general in the 12th century " but it was not until the Council of Con- stance, A.D. 1414, that the present law became authori-. tatively promulgated. In this council the canon waa enacted, " that as the Body and Blood of Christ were wholly contained under each species, the general law thenceforth should be as at present.'' This general law was most opportune, and even most necessary at the time of its promulgation, for it was then that the notorious John Huss, and his deluded followers, began to introdi|ce that groundless and Ben^less error, *' tnat the cup was absolutely necessaiy.'*' Should circumstances so requir^^ 7tf. • V; <■■« THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 103 it the Church, no doubt, would again change her discipline. That she cap do so, no one but he who is unable to com- prehend the necessities in the very nature of Christ's i^hurch, will- deny. She would again do what she did under Pope Gelasius, A.D. 492, and insist upon the faith- ful receiving the Eucharist, not under one, but under both kinds, if any of her members abstained (as the Mani- chaeans did) from the cup, through mere superstition. Wherefore, from what has been said, it follows that the teaching laid down in thid ^ ^.h Article of Faith of the. Anglican Church is both false .and groundless. Her whole error lies in not knowing what the Eucharist really is^- in eonfounding the sa^ament and the sacrifia. XXVII. THE THIRTYFIRST ARTICLE. OP THE ONE OBLATION OP CHRIST FINISHED ON THE CROSS. *' The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, proplttatioB, and satisfaction for all the sins ot the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin bat thkt fjone. Wherefore, the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was^mmonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous febles and dwngeroos deceits.** TntL heretical doctrine embraced in this article of Angli- can faith is directed against the holy sacrifice of the I%iass in the Catholic Aoostolic Church. As was said already, the Anglican Cnurch grievously confounds the blessed Eucharistf in its twofold character of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, although both these are by the institution of Christ Himself. .That the holy Eucharist is both a sacra- ment and a sacrifice has always been the teaching^of the true Church of Christ, The denial of the necessary dis- tinction between the two has been the cause of the Angli- can Church confounding, or rather denying, the blessed Eucharist under the point of view of a sacrament and of a sacrifice. We have already seen that the Eucharist is 164 TMB CLAIMS or ANGLICANISM. ratUy ft 8ftcrftm«Dt. We shall now set that k is also reaUy a sacrifice, and was so always considered by the Catholic Apostolic Church. As is certain, the Jewish dispensation was simply Christianity in embryo. It was the preparation, the type, the figure of what was to ha^e its perfection under the Law of Grace. Sacrifice was'the chief public act of divine service under the Mosaic Law. So, therefore, a more perfect sacrifice than then offered must necessarily be the lief public act of divine service under the Law of Christ. This perfec*. sacrifice was mi- nutely prefigured and foretold by the prophets in the Old Law. It will not do to say that the bloody sacrifice on Calvary is that perfect sacrifice alluded to, because the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which was offered only once, in one particular place, at one particular point of time, is not, by any means, that clean oblation foretold by the prophets, which is to be offered to God from the rising to the setting of the sun. Scripture being witness,, Christ was, and is forever, a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Therefore, if there be truth in Holy Writ, Christ must continually offer sacrifice to His hea- .venly Father after that order of priesthood of Melchise- dech, but in a more perfect manner than he (Melchise- deeh), who offered to God merely bread and wine. It is Jn the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass alone that Chriv^t is a Priest forever according to the order of Mel-/ chisedech. Take away, therefore, that holy sacrifice of the Mass and you make p liar of Holy Writ, and you de-^ Stroy the means, or channel, of the application of the metitf of Christ's Passion to the souls ot men. If, as un- doubtedly was the ease, the Jewish religion was given by God Himself, in order to prepare men for the more perfect religion of Christ, it is something incomprehensttiie how He could so strongly inculcate in the minds of men (as Ho did) the duty of offering sacrifice continually, if, under the New Law, men would not be bound tow offer more per- fect sacrifice continually. If what Anglicans, and Pro- testants in s^neral, say about sacraments be true, then th^e was neither sense nor reason in the ^labors!te pre- paration made by God Himself for Christianity uhderthe Old Law. The meaning of sacrifice is»** TKe obhi^tion of a sensible thing made to God through a lawful minister CLAIMS OF ANOLICAMISM. ^«S by a rtal change in the thinig offered, to testily God's ab- aolute dominion over us, and our entire depen4snce upon HiatseUi" In sacrifice the existence of the tiling ofiesed «s stt^tituted for the life, of those in whose name it is of- iiered The thing offered must he visible, beaause sacrifice pertains to external worship. It is only in a metaphorical or figurative sense that prayers, etc., can be called sacri- £ce8. Sacrifice being the chief act of religion it can, therefore^ be offered to none but God alone, for He is Lord and Master of life and death. The act of sacrifice must •effect a change which destroys, or tends to destroy, the victim offered, because, without such a destruction, God's supreme dominion over us would fail to be confessed by an external act — the very object for which sacrifice is of- fered to Him. The Sacrifice of the Mass is that public act of divine worship, so beautifully foretold and prefigured in the Old JUaw. Upon the Cross Christ offered Himself in sacrifice for our redemption. From that moment all the sacrifices <>f the Jewish dispensation ceased to be pleasing to God. It does not follow from this, and it is a grievous error to maintain, that with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary; and the abrogation of the sacrifices of the Old Law, tne worship of sacrifice thereby ceased entirely in the New I^aw. No, by the very institution of God Himself, the worship \>{ sacrifice is to last to the eqd of time ; and that worship of sacrifice is, and always will be, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic Chu -^h, from tho J:)eginDing, always taught that the Mass, which is a true and proper sacrifice, is offered for the living and the dead. The bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was all- £ufficie,nt to cancel the sins of ten thousand worlds. Of '4t St. Paul says: *VFor by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" ^Heb. lo: 14). And, again, ** Because in Him it hath well pleased the Fatlttr that all fulness should dwell, and through Him to repon- «ile all things unto Himself, making peace through the 4>lood of His Cross, both as to the tlungs that are on earth and the things that are in heaven." (Colos, i : 19, ao). Pro- testants mate a great show very often, in quoting the words of St. Paul, but his words do not teach that thece WMB not befsrs Christ's coming; nor is not now, any other ii IP W-/..C Xd6 THE CLAIMS Ot ANGUCAHIftlf. Mcrifice |Ai^ that of Christ on the Cross. St. Paul . simply tfaclies, that of all other sacrifices the blopdv sacrifice Ill^Clirist on the Cross is the only one which appeased the %rath of God hy U$ own intrip^k nurit, and is- therefore tili"-one peculiar and pre-eminent sacrifice* From the^ «o|ttmencement of the world, God Himself impressed on fiaen's minds ^under the law of nature), their ' duty of offering sacrifice in order that they might be partakers of the future sacrifice of His Son on Calvary^ 1 and transfer to themselves the fruit of the great sacrifice to be there offered. Under the Mosaic Law God or- dained different sacrifices, the use of which was not to reconcile men to God^ and purchase salvation, but to r^keep before their minds, by these external sacrifices, the reipollection of the promised future sacrifice on the Cross,, tpprofess their faith therein, and to enable them, through thi^ir faith and hope, to apply its fiiiit to themselves* 1 Another object of these sacrifices was that, as often as: they were celebrated, men should recall with gratitude the favours bestowed upon them, and reflect on their eternal salvation, which was to be obtained through the promised Redeemer. ,v Wherefore, as God, before the coming of Christ,, ordained certain sacrifices whereby men might remember :,the future sacrifice on the Cross, might have their faith confirmed therein, niiight have its fruit applied to their - -jsouls through belief and prayer, and might recollect aU 4he favours bestowed upon them; so also in the New' Law, by the institution of God, there was given to His Church the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, whereby we may constantly remember the bloody sacrifice on Calvary, and transfer to ourselves the fruit t>f that sacrifice by which, as St. Paul says t %*:* He hath perfected forever them that are sanctifies]." (Heb. lo : 14.) The chief duty of Christian worship is to keep Chist's memory constantly before the minds of men. liis memory is celebrated by commemorating His death and asking the heavenly Father to become reconciled to HSvthrou^ the merits of His Son's passion and death. . This supplication should be made, not alone by means of rvpcal prayer, but also by the mystic oblation of Christ' in the BwMd Eucharist. Prom this neeessarily brief ex- THE CCAIIIS or AltCtUCANrSM. X07 planatidh it is evident that the Catholic Apostolic Church nas always held that there are two sacrifices of Christ properly so-called, or rather the one sacrifice under a two- fold asgect Both these ai^e equal as to their substance, but different as to their object and manner of offering. The one Is the blopdv sacrifice of the Cross, the other the self-same sacrifice' wherein Christ, a priest forever accord- ^ ing to the order of Melchisedech, offered at His last supper His real body and blood to His heavenly Father in the £uch8.rist, and therleby instituted the perpetual sacrifice* of the New Law. This unbloody sacrifice of the New Law was committed to the Apcstles and their lawful successors in the ministry, to be offered up until the end~ of time in commemoration of ^Christ's passion and death,-*'* Do this what I do for a commemoration of me." (Luke 22: 19.) The manner of offering in these two sacrifices being different, so likewise is their use different. By His bloody sacrifice on the Cross, Christ purchased complete redemption for mankind. He instituted and committed His unbloody sacrifice to His Church, for the commemoration of that bloody sacrifice of the Cross. In the unbloody sacrifice of Christ (the Mass) we present Christ to His heavenly Father after an unbloody and impassable manner. We do not offer it in 'order to purchase anew the remission of sins and the redemption of mankind, but An order that through it the remission and redemption purchased for us on the cross may be applied to our souls. Our reason for so offering it is the command of Christ Himself. The Catholic Church has also always taught that the sacrifice of the Mass is truly a propi- tiatory sacrifice. When this holy sacrifice is offered to God with faith and devotion, His anger against us is appeased He confers onus His grace and the gift of penaooe ; He forgives us our sins and showers upon us the fruits of His bloody sacrifice on the Cross ; He can in no wise be offended thereat, nor is this sacrifice of the Mass in any way derogatory to Him, for it is by His own institution and command that we offer it to Him. The Catholic Apostolic Church has, also, always taught that the sacri- fice of the Mass is offered for the living and the dead. Those of jthe faithful who depart this life in the peace and friendship of God, being still living members of the mys- ■ \ \ it I ■mA i A ■ .: ^'■..*»; ^•/■':;'iR^a'';v;"7^'*-'^>^"!..r""'^->'^^ ■■'■'ipf^^'::^ ' ' • leS T9ft CLAIMB 07 ANOUCAMISM. tiettl Bodf of Cbn8t*-Ht8 Churclv— may still stafldin n«ft4 of the su&agts of their brethren yet living on earth, the saerificeof the Mats is offered for tnera, in order to obtain, as St. Augustine, A.D. 395, siiys, <* A full remission, or, at least, a mitigation of the punishment adjudged* them." (Tom. J, cap. 10, Enbhrid. ad Laurent.) Wherefore} it follows that according to the constant teaching of the true Church of Christ : ist That the Eucharist is a true- and proper sacrifice, instituted by Christ ; 2nd. That it is t^diy a propitiatory sacrifice ; 3rd. That it is mo^. pro- perly and most piously o£fered for the living* and the dead ; and 4th. That it is o£fered both to the greater glory of God, aiid the greater advantage of the Church. We shall now see that the Sacrifice of the Mass is really such as here explained, in opposition to the falsehood and heresy in this Article of Anglican Faith. XXVIII. THE THIRTY-FIRST ARTICLE.- Continued, • i In confirmation of the four conclusions from the doctrine always held by the Catholic Apostolic Church, as seen in last chapter, I will here briefly reefer to the testimony of an- tiquity. First conclusion — " The Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice.^' In the Old Law the prophet Malachias foresaw it and foretold it in these remarkable words : ** I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts ; and I wUl not receive a gift of your hand. For, from the rising of the sun, even to the going down, my name is great ' among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." (Mala- chi I : 10, 11). To every reflecting mind it must be evi- dent that the sacrifice here foretold by the prophet can- not, by any means, be understood of mere metaphorical, or spiritual, sacrifices, such as prayers, etc. These are pietultar to no one particular Law, but they are pomiQon to all times and all peoples/and have always been com- mon to the sacrifices x)f every ancient p«q;>ie. Th4i very THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCANISM. I^ order obMrvad by the prophet in the words here spoken hgr hior of itself proyet that he purposely speaks of apecislsnr and hitnerto unknown sacrifice, whkh is to succeed to the sacrifices then in vogue, on the abrogetion of the Mvisaic Law. These words plainly reto to the future seciifiGe of Christ. They canno*^ refer to His future sacrifice on the Cross, for that tremendous sacrifice did not take place among the Gentiles, but among the Jew9. It was not offered, as Mala^hi says, ** in every place/' bat, on the contrary, it was offered in one particular place -'-^n Mount Calvary, in Judea alone. These words of the prophet can absolutely have no meaning whatever, if they do not refer alone to the sacrifice of the Mass, that sacri- fice which the entire Gentile Church offer up everywhere throughout the world, from the rising to the setting of the sun, in order to commemorate the death of Christ on the Cross, and to apply to the souls of men the merits pur- chased by that death. St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says^^ when commenting on the passage, " I have no pleasure in you, etc** — ** See how beautifully and how clearly the prophet interpreted the my&tical Supper, that is, the unv bloody sacrifice. Me indeed calls the sacred prayers, which are offered after the tacrifice^ pure incense ; for the perfume which delighted God is not that derived from earthly roots, but that which is exhaled from a pure heart Let my prayer, therefore, ascend as incense in thy sight D070U see how it is allowed us to celebrate the angelic sac- rifice in every place ? You see no bounds set, either to altars or to canticles ; * in every place incense is offered to my name.' It is, therefore, the pure Host, — t)ie first indeed, — the mystic supper, — the celestial sacrifice,~-ther. Wherefore, from what is here, said, the Sacrifice of t!ie Mass is a true and proper sacrifice, in opposition to the heresy contained in this 31st Article. XXIX. THE THIRXY-FIRST ARTICLE.— Con/iniied. 2nd Condttsioo,— ** The Eochaiist, or Sacrifice of the Mats, is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.'' 'It has always been of faith in the Catholic Apostolic Church that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not only Eucharistic andcommemorativejof the death and passion . of Christ on the cross, but also that it is likewise a pro- pitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. It has always been, and is to-day, offered by.the priests of God's church for the remission of sin. The Church received this doc- trine through the Apostles from Christ Himself, who, ivhen about completing man's redemption on Calvarjs at His Lasi Supper instituted this sacrifice for the remission of sin and commanded that it be offered until the end of all time. * It is a base calumny to say, as so many Anglicans and other Protestants do, that in the sacrifice of the Mass Catholics believe that satisfaction is made to God for sin, as regards its guilt and its eternal punish* ment. No, they t^lieve in no such absurd thii]g,-^for in the sacrifice oi the Mass there is no passiour and it was by the passion of the Son, on the wood of the Cross^ that the Heavenly Father was pleased to be satiS' fied for Isin under this respect. The sacrifice of th^ Maes is dimply offered that, ttr^ongh it, the patsioa I#f''.. '■* •}k "I , ' ^ J-T!ii^ •V*«»'';"Wi *^lWjfllr « .T' ■' ^f, .■ "X,*. ;>^!^' '{.--f.iy.'.:; •n ">^ «12 TR^ CLAIMS or ANGLICANISM. of Christ on the Cross may b« sfwiiecl *• the payment and satisfaction for th^ guilt oi our sins and thtb punishment due to them. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A«D. 310, says: "When the great spiritual sacrifice is ^mi^leted, and the unbloody worship over the victim of j>ropitiation ended, then we supplicate God for the general peace of the Church, the tranquility of the world, the happiness of kings. We offer up the Christ who was «|aii^ for our sins in order that He who is infinite in His goodness may be rendered propitious, both to ourselves and to them." (Cateches Mystagog, 5.) St. Augustine, A.D. 595, >ays : "When, therefore, the sacrifice of the altar or alm^s-deeds are offered for all deceased Christians, they are acts of thanksgiving for the very good ; for the imperfect, acts of propitiation." fTom. 3, Enchirid ad Laurent, cap no.) St. Gregory, A.D. 590, says: **The sacrifice of ine holy altar, offered with tears and a well-dis- loosed ' mind, contributes in a singular degree to our absclution ; because He, who of Himself rose from the dead to die no more, still continues, by this oblation, to puffer for us in His own mystery. For, as often as we •offer to Him the sacrifice of His own passion, so often do we repew His passion for the attainment of our absolu- tion." (Lib. 40, Hbmil. rj, de Diversis Lect.) In the Liturgy of St. Basil, A.D. 350, we have the following beautiful prayer, proving conclusively the truth -of the ^doctrine of the Catholic Church on the sacrifice of the Mass: "Thou, O Lord, hast shown to us the great mystery of salvation ; Thou hast dignified us. Thy ^miserable and unworthy servants, to such a degree as . to be made ministers of Thy holy altar ; so now, by the virtue of Thy Holy Spirit, duly qualify us for this ministry, that, standing faithfully in the sight of Thj^ glory, we may offer to Thee the sacrifice of praise, for Thou art He who worketh all things in .all. Grant, O Lord, that our sacrifice be made acceptable in Thy sight, and be received by Thee in 4(tpnement lor all our sins and the ignorance c^ fhy people." (Basilii Missa, inter opera Basilik) Here I would pause and remark that it must oecMa- rily Strike ovary intelligent man who can appreoiate'these l^ei^Utiiul eiitr^ets horn eminent m^n of leaniiag of THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. Iljt kgo, M a sometking curious, to say tlitt least, that their sentiifieiits find expression nowhere else lu this n^ of Christtanity than in the Catholic Roman Church. C:puld' those men once more revisit this earth, they would find in* her alone the same doctrine as th^ themselves held w^en living in the flesh. This of itself should make all iq^]» outside the Catholic Church pause well, before havincp the presumption to palm off on a too-credulous world the vain and senseless productions of a few modern re«- formers, as the original Catholic Church in its purity;. The Church of England may be a passably respciietaW Parliamentary institution,* but, as to being the Cnurch of Christ in any shape or form, she is a huge swindle and a failure. She is to-day what she always was, and always will be, the creature and the slave of the State, the mere production of a few degen^ate and rebellious Catholics^, who, when they broke loose from the authority of the true Church, had no power to restrain themselves from^ going headlonjjf into all kinds of mad religi(^us frenz/- Wherefore, again, the Sacrifice of the Mass is proved by the testimony of antiquity, when Protestants concede thd- Church to have been pure, to be a real propitiatory sacri- fice. Hence the doctrine taught by the Church of Eng- land in thia Article is both false and heretical. 3 XXX. THE THIRTYFIRST ARTICLE— Conlwtf^d: 3rd Cimclnsioo.— '* Tkat the Saqrifice of the Mass is most pro- perly and piously offered for the living and the dead." Foa the proof of the truth of this Article of Catholic Faiths I would refer the reader to what has been said already^, when treating of the doctrine of purg: 4ory, Apy one who examines into the claims of the Ca&olic Roman * Churth cannot help but be convinced that She, and she alobe, is .the true Church of Christ, aod^, as St Paul says (i Tim. 3.*^ 15), *< The pillar and the ground of truth/' That o&i^ aijicf only- true Church of Christ has taught^ ■:m 1^' I'-i'j^Jl.i .^ ■ ■ '.F^ /"M -fT-i-' ?> .T ■ «I4 THE CUIUS OF ANOUCAMISIf f' ., ^;. v-i and does to-day teach, that* according to Divine tradition descending from the apostles, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful in this life, but also for the faithful departed who are yet detained in the state of purgation, and who are not as yet so fully i purified as to be able to take their places amio the angelic "> choirs in heaven. St. Augustine, A.D. 395, thus speaks - of the death of his mother, St. Monica : ** For when the^^ •day of her dissolution was at hand, she occupied not lier thoughts about the sumptuous covering or embalming of her body ; neither did she desire a monument of a -singular description or feel any anxiety to be deposited in faer paternal sepulchre. Concerning such things as these :she gave us no commands ; but she was anxiously and ardently desirous, — and of this alone was she desirous, — that remembrance of her should be made at Th^ altar, where she had attended without one day's intermission ; knowing that from the altar is dispensed the Holy Victim by which the hand-writing that stood against us hath been cancelled.'* (Tom. x. lib. 9, Confess, cap. 12, 13.) St* Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says, '* It was not unadvisedly ordained by the apostleSf that commemoration should be made for the dead in celebrating the |remendous mys; teries. Because they knew that much gain and much advantage would arise, to them therefrom ; for when the entire people stand with uplifted hands, when the priest comes forth in the plenitude of his functions and when the tremendous sacrifice is offered, how is it possible that our prayers can fail of propitiating God in their-behalf ?" (Tom. 5. Homil. 69.) St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, A.D. 310, ^ays, " Then we pray for the deceased holy fathers and ^ishops; and, in short, for all who are departed this life, iu our communion, believing that b^ the supplication of this holy and tremendous sacrifice which is placed upon the altar, the souls for which it is offered receive the greatest relief. After the same manner we also invoke obd on the part of the deceased, althou|[h th^ were sinners ; not, indeed, by weaving for Him a erown, but by offering unto Him Christ, who w^ main fof bur sins,, that He who is infinite in Hw bounty may be ren- THE CLAIMS Of ANOUCANISM. I '5 i *'> Mytttgog. 5.) In the foUowiDg beautiful prtver before Mass, composed by the great St. Ambrose, who lived so far back' as A.D. 370, the Catholic doctrine of this 19th century is fully expressed — ** We also beseech Thee, O Holy Father, on behalf of the souls of the faithful de- parted, that this great Sacrament of Piety may be to them eternal salvation, perpetual rest, and never-ending joy and felicity. I humbly entreat Thy clemency, O Lord, that the fulness of Thy Divinity may descend on this bread and on this ck lice. Grant likewise, O Lord, that as the invisible form and incomprehensible majesty of Thy Spirit in times past descended on the victims of the fathers, so mav it now descend on our oblations and convert them into Thy body and blood. Grant, also, that I, Thy un- worthy priest, be taught so to handle this so great mystery . as that Thou wouldst in Thy Divine mercy deign to accept the sacrifice from my hands for the salvation of all, both living and* dead." ^Tom. 4, Precatio. prima, missae.) Numberless testimonies such as these fill the pages of an^ tiquity. Su£Bcient have been given to invalidate the in- solent and pretentious claim of the Anglican Church. The Anglican and Protestant world of to-day entirely for- get that Aerius, A.D. 320, was numbered among the heretics for teaching " that the Sacrifice of the Mass was not to be offered for the dead." When they deny the' same to-day they are therefore following not the Church of Christ, — but one of the most reckless and abandoned of excommunicated out-casts. The fourth conclusion — " That the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered unto the glory of God and to the advantac^e of the Church," is self evident from what has already been said on the three former conclusions. It is plain that it is not possible for man to greater contribute to the glory of God than by ever offering, ta the Eternal Father who gave His only Son for our salvation, that same Son as a JBucharistic and commemorative sacrifice, and this by His own command. Nothing can be of more advantageto the Church than to constantly apply, by the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass, the ments of the bloody^ sacrifice •of the Cross, for the good and benefit of those for whoto that bloody sacrifice was offered. From the foregoing is piaiil the entire falsity of the he^retical doctrine eot' .'•■il > tl J S 'I I hi ■9 Tr.f ,«•■'■ ^vwif ^T^<^ 116 THE CLAIMS OF AMOUCANIBM. tained in this 3tst ArticU of the Anglicati Church, It i» pltin that the Saeriiice of the Mass is all I said it was» and that when this 3X8t article rejects and vilifies Catholic teaching, the An|[lican Church makes herself the laughing- stock of tiny sensible man, particularly when she claims to be **the original Catholic Church." XXXI.— THE THIRTY-SECOND ARTICLE. OF THB MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS. " Bithopt, priests and deacoas are not commanded by. God's law either to yow the estate of single life, or to abst|in from mar- riage ; therefore, it is lawful for tnem, as for all Clmstian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge *be same to serve better to godliness." It is now, and always was, in the Catholic Apostolic Church, merely a matter of discipline and not of doctrine, that bishops, priests, and deacons are bound, by the divine law, to abstain from marriage. This fact is evident from the Greek priests being dispensed from this obliga- tion by the Church. The Catholic Church deservedly condemns, as absurd in the highest degree and repugnknt to sound doctrine, the inferences conveyed by the Angli* can Church in this article. There is nothing plainer in Holy Scripture itself than that God exacts obedience, not only to His own laws, but also to the laws of His Church. Among other texts see Prov. i : 8 ; 6 : 90 ; Ma(t> 18 : 17. The true Church of Christ, from the days of the apostles themselves, has always insisted in her laws that those invested with the priesthood shall liye single lives, and that candidates for Holy Orders, if married men,^ shall not be initiated therein, unless they first promise to live therein as though they never had been married. The doctrine tau|(ht l^ the Anglican Church i^ this^ article amounts to a downright absurdity, for it tefl^jchee- that bishppsi. i>riests and deacons can^ lawfnOy qnarry i^t th^r plepisure ; and, therelore, it ^teaches that thci^ catii THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 117 lawfully, at their pleasure, despise the laws of God's Church. It also teaches a most impious and sacrilegious doctrine in maintaining that monks (men likewise bound by a solemn vrw of chastity) can also marry at their^plea- sure. It is obvious, from the practice and teaching of the Anglican Church, that this article refers to monks in the words, *' as for all other Christian men." The Catholic ChuEch judges that a life of celibacy in her priests is well calculated both to promote their own greater holiness and to preserve the honour and dignity of their high office. The ministry of the Anglican Church, in order to excuse their own incontinence in giving way to conjugal gratifica- tions, has always, as a matter of course, united in teach- ing that the marriage of the clergy is conducive to holi- ness. Anglicans, and Protestants in general, are continu> ally harping on the terrible effects among the Catholic clergy consequent on their not being allowed to marry. They seem to forget that it is a general thing for men to judge of others by their own standard, and that those persons, having no virtue themselves, are the first to deny any virtue in their neighbour. If one-half of the abomi- nations they attribute to the single life of Catholic priests be true, it is, to say the least, little complimentary to that numerous class, even in the Protestant ranks, the single young men and young women, the bachelors, widows and widowers. Condemn ;he single life of the priesthood and you must necessarily condemn the single life of all these — not a very pleasing topic, say, for a fond father of a grown up family of sons and daughters, to dwell upon. If the married state be the great panacea for the evils alluded to, it is passing strange that the world is every day, through the columns of the press, treated to the most disgusting escapades of hordes of married laymen and married clerical gentlemen. Whether we consider the canons of Holy Church or the weighty obligations of a solemn vow to God ; or whether we consider how well adapted is the single life for those who discharge the duties of a priest of God ; in either case, the doctrine con- tained in this article must be rejected by every intelligent man, as perfectly absurd. St. Epiphanius, A.D. 400, says, '* Those men who, upon the death of their wives, contract marriage a second time, have never, since the coming of I ,' i ■i ii8 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM Christ, been allowed to preach the Holy Gospel of God — because of the superior honour and dignity of the priest* hood. And doubtless the Holy Church of God, in observ- ing this custom, is actuated by pure and upright motives^ Moreover, she does not receive the husband of one wife, still co-habiting with her; but the man who has remained continent from one wife, or has lived in widowhood — him the Church admits to the order of sub-deacon, deacon^ priest, or bishrp — and particularly where the ecclesias- tical canons are sound and uncorrupted. The priesthood is for the most part composed of virgins, and if not of virgins, at least, of such 2;S lead a single life. But if they who lead a single life l can article of faith is also false and heretical and renders her distinct and separate from the Catholic Church from the beginning. XXXIV. THE THIRTY-wSEVENTH ARTICLE. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES. " The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm ot England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief gdvem- ment of all estates of this Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be sub- ject to any foreign jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome hath no juris- diction in this Realm of England." The comparing of the whole Anglican system with the teaching of antiquity must necessarily show to every unbiassed mind the entire falsity of that system. This- comparison also shows that between the Catholic Church of the 19th century and the .Catholic Church from the beginning, there is not even the least difference in faith or teaching. I should strongly recommend to our Anglican brethren to follow »up this line of examina- tion, and in doing so they cannot fail to be convinced that their vaunted church is, after all, but an heretical and schismatical human institution. This 37th article of the Church of England may be reduced to the three following propositions : ist. The Bishop of Rome has no jurisdic- tion in the realm of England ; 2nd. Ecclesiastical causes- pertain to the jurisdiction of those who hold the royal power of that kingdom ; 3rd. England is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. The first of THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM 125 these propositions is directly contained in the express words of this 37th article ; the second and third are the logical deduction from this paragraph. "The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other of her dominions, unto whom the chief govern- ment of all estates of this realm, whether they be eccle- siastical or civil, in all causes doth pertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction." Now, when we compare the first of these propositions with the teaching of antiquity, it will be found, as clear as- the sun in the heavens, that the Catholic Church, the true spouse of Christ, has ever and always taught : ist. That Peter was the chief pastor of the Church by divine ap- pointment, and Christ's Vicar upon earth. 2nd. That Peter received the office of chief pastor for himself and his lawful successors. 3rd. That the Bishops of Rome are the lawful successors of Peter in his office of chief pastor. To prove these Catholic statements, beginning with the last, I shall adduce the testimony, in the first place, of certain Latin Fathers of the first 600 years.. Anglicans all admit the truth and purity of the Catholic Church during that period. St. Optatus, who lived A.D. 365, writing to Parmenianus on the schism of the Dona- tists, says, ** You cannot deny that you know the Epis- copal chair was first established in the City of Rome by Peter ; that in it he sat as head of all the Apostles, whence he was also called Cephas ; that by means of this one chair unity was to be preserved amongst all ; so that he would now be a schismatic and a sinner who would set up any other chair in opposition to the chair of unity. Peter,, therefore, was the first who sat in the chair of unity, which is the highest of honours. To him succeeded Linus," etc. Then, after enumerating the occupants of the Holy See down to his own time, St. Optatus continues : " To Da- mascus succeeded Siricius, our associate and friend, who occupies it at the present day, with whom we, and the entire world, corresponding by circular letters, are united in strict communion. Let you now, who would fain arro- gate to yourselves the Holy Church, prove the origin o£ your chair." Further on the same St. Optatus, rebuking the chair of Victor of Garbia, says, ** If Victor were re- quired to state where he would establish his chair, he could S26 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. neither point out a person who preceded him there, nor show any chair unless one of pestilence. And pestilence buries amongst the damned, those who perish of its viru- lence. Hell is known to have its gates, against which the Scriptures tell us that Peter, who is our Prince, received the keys of salvation when Christ said to him, * I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and the l^ates of Hell shall not prevail against them.' How comes It, then, that you strive to usurp the keys of the Kingdom ? You who, by your presumption and audacity, sacrilegi- ously war against the chair of Peter." (St. Optatus adver Parmenianun, lib. 2). St. Jerome, A.D. 380, in his epistle to Pope Damascus, writes as follows : " As the £ast,seized with its inveterate religious mania, and distracted by in- ternal dissensions, tears into shreds the seamless garment of Christ woven from the top throughout ; and as foxes so prey upon the vineyard of the Lord,that amidst the broken cisterns that hold no water, it is difficult to trace out the fountain sealed up, and the garden enclosed, I have, there- fore, resolved to consult the chair of Peter, and the Faith lauded by the mouth of the Apostle, and now to demand food for my soul from that source whence I have already received the vestments of Christ. * * Therefore, though your greatness awe me, your humanity invites me. From the priest I demand the victim of salvation ; from the pastor the protection of the sheep. I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross. Seeking Christ before all things, I am associated in com- munion with Your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter, upon which rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this house is a profane man. Who- soever is not within the Ark of Noah shall perish amidst -the deluge." (St. Jerom. Epist. ad. Pap. Dam.) St. Au- gustine, A.D. 395, when speaking of the different con- siderations which kept him in the Catholic Church, says, " The succession of pastors from, the chair of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, com- mitted the feeding of His flock, down to the present Bishop, keeps me in it." (St. Augustine, Contra. Man. Tom. 6). Again, writing to Generosus, he says, " FOr if the order of Episcopal succession be regarded, with how much more certainty and real security for salvation do w< en bu 41 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 127 r 5 m S i 1 e s ? m r e i t o a e I- h we reckon from Peter, to whom, as representative of the entire Church, our Lord said, ** Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." After enumerating the different Bishops of Rome from St. Peter, the same St. Augustine continues, ** But even if into this long line of bishops succeeding each other from Peter to Anastatius, who now occupies the Holy See, another Judas should contrive^ to creep, yet that would not prejudice the Church, or her conscientious children, to whom our Lord, providing for such calamity when speaking of wicked bishops in St. Matt. 23 : 3,saith, * Whatsoever they command, observe, but whatsoever they do, observe not, for they preach and practice not.' " (St. Augustine, Tom. 2, Epist. 165, ad Generosum.) I li XXXV. THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE. - {Continued.) The primacy of Peter and his lawful successors in the See of Rome has always been recognized as residing in the very essence of the true Church of Christ. Take from the Church the Papacy, and her very existence is blotted out. Peter is the rock, the foundation on which the entire edifice stands. All antiquity testifies to this truth. 1 have already given some unanswerable references to this matter, and shall now continue to show from the same source, the absolute falsity of the heretical doctrine taught by this 37th Article of the Faith of the Church of Eng- land. St. Cpyrian, A.D. 250 in his treatise on the unity of the Church, exposes, in beautiful terms, the wiles of Satan. He thus writes, " Did Satan, on seeing his idols abandoned, and his seats and temples deserted by a people of too much faith, invent any new fraud, whereby to deceive the unwary, under the title of the Christian name ? Yes, he invented Heresies and Schisms, whereby to subvert the Faith, corrupt truth, and rend asunder 138 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. unity. Those, whom he cannot detain in the blindness of the old way, he eucompasseth, and misleadeth them in the mazes of a new path. He snatches men from the Church, and while they imagine themselves to have ap- proached the light, and escaped the darkness of the world,, he again spreadeth other darkness over the ignorant minds in such a manner, that they, not holding by the Gospel of Christ, and its observance and law, may yet call themselves Christians, and though, walking in dark- ness, may imagine they have light, owing to the blandish- ments and deception of the adversary, who, to use the words of the Apostle, * Transformeth himself into an angel of light,' and setteth forth his ministers as the min- isters of justice. Thus they go on boldly, imposing night for day, death for salvation, despair under the semblance of hope, perfidy under the pretext of fi«ith. Antichrist under the name of Christ, in order that, by propagating plausible falsehoods, they may frustrate truth by subtility» This is the case, most beloved brethren, so long as people do not return to the fountain of truth, or seek the head, or preserve the doctrine of our Heavenly Master. Which things would each weigh, there would be no need of long tracts and arguments. The proof the right Faith is easy by the compendious method of truth. Our Lord thus addresses Peter, * I say to thee thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, aiid the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' ',And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,' etc. And again, after His resurrection, our Lord said to the same Peter, ' Feed my sheep.' Upon him alone He builds His Church, — to him He commits the feeding of His sheep. And although ,^ after His resurrection, our Lord bestows on all the Apostles an equal power, when He says : ' As the Father hath sent me, I also send you,' etc., yet, in order to manifest unity. He established one chair, and ordained oi His special authority that the origin of its unity should spring from one possessor. The other Apostles, as well as Peter, were, it is true, endowed with an equal fellow- ship of dignity and power ; but the beginning proceeds from unity. The Primacy is given to Peter, in order that the unity oi the Church and the chair of Christ should be manifest.' * * Can he who doth not hold the unity of THB CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 129 the Church , believe he holdeth the Faith ? He who opposeth and withstandeth the Church, who forsaketh the Chair of PMert upon which the Church is founded, can he trust that he is in the Church ? " (St. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccl.) In his epistle, respecting the five schismatic priests, uf the faction of Felicissimus, the same St. Cyprian says — ** God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the Chair, founded upon Peter by the word of our Lord, is one. To establish any other altar, or frame any other priesthood, is not possible. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth. Whosoever is instituted by human frenzy, to the disarrangement of the Divine harmony, is adulterous, impious and sacrilegious." (St. Cyp. Epist, de quinque, Presbyt. Schis.) In his 45th epistle to Pope Cornelius, St. Cyprian calls the Roman Church " the root and mother of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine, A.D. 395, when writing to Pope Innocent, in conjunction ivith the Fathers of the Council of Milevis, says — << As our Lord, by a gift of His special grace, hath placed you in the Apostolic Chair. . . . deign then, we beseech thee, to apply thy pastoral care to the great dangers of the in- firm members of Christ ; for a new heresy, a most dan- gerous tempest of the enemies of the grace of Christ, hath begun to rage, etc." (St. August., torn. 2, Epist.92^. St. Chrysostom, A.D. 390, says — " For what cause likewise did the Son shed His blood ? Certainly that He may gain those sheep, the care of which He committed to Peter and his successors." (St. Chrysos. de Sacerdot., torn. 5, lib 2.) St. Cyril, A.D. 310, explaining those words of St. John, ** Lord, to whom shall we go, thou hast the words of eternal life ? " observes — ** Through him alone, who was exalted above the rest, they all make answer. It was, therefore, an act of prudence becoming Saints, to confer on him, who was superior in place and rank, the part of answering in the name of all." (St. Cyril, lib. 4, •Com. in Joan.^ Theodoret, A.D. 450, writing to Renatus, a Roman pnest, says — " j^ney have stripped me of my priesthood, and they now cast me out of the city, rever- encing neither my old age nor my grey hairs nurtured in piety. Wherefore, I beseech you to prevail on the Most Holy Archbishop (of Rome) to use his Apostolic power, and command me to hasten to your council ; for that ■I i 'I I % \ I30 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. Most Holy See hath, on many accounts, the headship over the churches spread throughout the whole world.'' (Theodoret, Epist. ad. Ren. Presbyt. Rom.) It would be easy to give other innumerable extracts from the early Fathers. These are sufficient to show the truth of the Catholic doctrine, in opposition to the heresy of this 37th article. I shall next refer to certain Councils of the Church on the same subject, confining myself, as I have hitherto done, for the proof of Catholic doctrine and the refutation ot Anglican heresy, rather to the testimony of antiquity than to any scriptural or theological proofs of the same. XXXVI. THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE— Continued, After having given a few, from the numerous testimonies of the early Fathers, on the primacy of Peter and his suc- cessors, in the See of Rome, I shall now refer to the action of some of the great Councils of the Church on the same subject, as opposed to the doctrine of the Church of Eng- land, in this 37th article. It is a plain and evident fact that no Council of the Church can add to, or take from, the deposit of Faith, once delivered to the saints. The Christian law was a perfect law when it came from the hands of our Blessed Lord. When the Church has ever, in Council, or otherwise, made a more explicit declaration of what is contained in the deposit of faith, she has by no means added anything new to what was first delivered. No more than a judge on the bench can be said to make a new law every time he gives judgment on a case coming under the same statute. The Council of Nice, A.D. 325^ in which was defined the full and consubstantial divinity of the Son of God against the great Arian heresy, made no formal decree on the primacy of the See of Rome, for the simple reason that the universal belief of the Church thereon had not as yet been seriously assailed. It, how> THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 13P ever, sufficiently defined that primacy, according to the wants then existing, by the very fact of the approval it gave to Pope Sylvester, then reigning, of his bestowing and preserving by virtw 0/ hit own proper authority the rights and privileges of the other patriarchs, namely, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It likewise sufficiently defined that primacy by the fact that the Fathers assisting thereat sent to the same Pope Sylvester an epistle asking His Holiness to kindly ratify and approve of the canons they had enacted. (Tom. i Conciliorum, epist. ad Sylvest.) The Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, in which the Enty- chean Heresy, maintaining but one nature in Christ, was condemned in a more explicit and decided manner as was then requisite, affirmed the primacy of Peter in his suc- cessor. Pope Leo. In the first session of this Council the Vicars of Fope Leo declared in more precise terms the power of the Roman See. Paschasinus, the Vicar of His Holiness, said before the assembled Fathers, " We hold in our hands the precepts of that most holy and apostolic man» the Pope of Rome, who is the head of all the xhurches whereby his apostleship hath deigned to comnaand that Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexander,sball not sit in the Council ; but be suffered to come in that he may obtain a hearing. This precept we must observe. If, then. Your High- ness so direct, let him retire, otherwise we withdraw." A little after it may also be read : " Lucentius, a Vicar of the apostolic chair, said, * he, (Dioscorus), must account for the judgment he pronounced ; for when he possessed not the office of judge, he surreptitiously crept into it, and had the audacity to hold a synod without the authority of the apostolic chair, a thing that never has been and never could be lawfully done.' " The third act of this Council, containing the sentence passed against Dioscorus, read thus : — ** Wherefore, the most holy and blessed Leo» Archbishop of great and ancient Rome, hath through us and the present holy synod,togetherwith the thrice blessed and all praise-deserving Apostle Peter, who is the root and pillar of the Catholic Church, and Uie foundation of the true faith, stript him (Dioscorus) of his Episcopal dignitv, apd also removed him from the discharge of all sacerdotal duty." Immediately after, it is said in this third article of the Council, Anatolius, Archbishop of i 4. » ' ■V i 3 4 €32 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. Royal ConstaDtinople, delivered himself thus : " Knowing all the particulars of the acts of the Apostolic Chair, I ^willingly agree to the sentence of condemnation passed upon Dioscorus, formerly Bishop of the great City of Alex- andria." After the other fathers had subscribed to the sentence, then Paschasinus, Vicar of Pope Leo, thus con- <;ludes : "I, Paschasinus, Bishop of the Church of Lily- boeum, presiding over this holy synod, in the stead of the Most Holy and Apostolic Leo, of the City of Rome, Pope of the Universal Church, have subscribed to the condem- nation of Dioscorus, with the consent of the Universal Council." {Tom. Conciliorum, Concil. Chalced. Act 3). The Council of Florence, A.D. 1438, with still greater pre- -cision and clearness, defined the Primacy ol the See of Rome. In the last session of this Council it was thus de- •creed : ** We, moreover, define the Holy and Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, to be possessed of the pri- macy over the entire world ; that he is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, that he is the true Vicar of Christ, head' of the entire Church, and father and teacher of all Christians ; that to him, in the person of the Blessed Peter, was committed by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, directing and gov- erning the Universal Church, even as it is contained in acts of the (Ecumenical Councils and the Sacred Canons." {Tom. Conciliorum, Concil. Flor. Sess. 8.) The Council of Constance, A.D. 1414, condemned as heretical the doc- trine of Wickliff, which was comprised in some forty-five articles, or propositions, of which the forty-first was this : ^' It is not necessary unto salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among the other churches." Were one to give a tithe of the testimonies on the primacy as well from the Fathers as the Councils of the Church, both general and national, a large volume would be re- quired to contain them. Sufficient proof has been given to convince every candid mind that when the Church of England denied, by this 37th article, the primacy of Peter and his successors in the See of Rome, it thereby made itself a more heretical and schismatical human institution. It denied what was plainly the doctrine of the Catholic Apostolic Church from the beginning, and by that denial separated itself from the Mystical Body of Christ, the real THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM 133 and vital union With which is absolutely necessary to secure from Christ the benefits annexed to the Christiaa dispensation. 1! XXXVII. THE THIRTY-SEVENTH Continued. ARTICLE.— The Catholic Apostolic Church, from her very constitu- tion, given to her by Christ Himself, must necessarily be a perfect spiritual kingdom, and must, therefore, possess within herself all power and authority to regulate all mat- ters pertaining to her spiritual jurisdiction. Whatever is purely spiritual, or has a spiritual end involved, comes naturally within her jurisdiction, and no earthly tribunal can lawfully meddle with such things, in so iar as they are spiritual. This power and authority being in the very essence of Christ's Church, they cannot possibly become the prerogatives of any mere secular rulers. To attempt to make them such, as does this 37th article, is to destroy, as much as in man's power, the Catholic Church, and to make of her a mere human institution, — the creature and the slave of the State. It is also to deny the constant belief of the old Anglo-Saxon Church, which was always one in doctrine with the Roman See, from the time of Pope Gregory, A.D. 590, down to the Reformation in the i6ta century. T;.«:^ the Anglo-Saxon Church fully recognized the ;«a^vrxacy of the Roman Pontiff in things spiritual is evident, among other very numerous testimonies, from the profession of faith made by all the bishops, at the Council of Cloveshoe, held in the eighth century, under the Archbishop of Canterbury. That profession of faith was as follows : — ** Know that the faith which we profess is the same as was taught by the Holy and Apostolic See» when Pope Gregory the Great sent missionaries to our fathers." {Wilk, page z6a). Were this second propo- sition true, It would destroy, not only the Church in Eng- f ■ ■'\ ■ 4. I; 134 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. land, but the Catholic Church at largenf for it strikes at what resides? in the very essence of the Church's consti- tution. The testimonies which I have already given on the truth of Catholic teaching, on the supreme spiritual juris- diction of Peter and his lawful successors in the Roman See, are of such a nature as should convince every candid mind that when the Anglican Church denied the Primacy, she denied what was universally believed by the Church Catholic from her infancy. St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine and Theodoret form a phalanx of deep and acute minds, than which none superior have yet left their mark on the history of the world. If we add to the testimony of Holy Scripture and of these learned Fathers, the testimonies of the numerous councils he!d, and if to these we add the fact that the Popes of Rome have always exercised the uncontrolled privilege of creating, restoring, and of suspending Bishops in all parts of the world; of passing judgment on matters involving persons of the highest earthly dignity, then there can exist no reasonable doubt but that the Primacy of the Roman See was universally recognized and firmly established from the very first ages of the Church. That Primacy, which the Anglican Church denied to Peter and his successors, the Popes of Rome, she sacrilegiously handed over to her mere temporal rulers, and by so doing reduced herself to the condition of abject slavery. True liberty consists of subjection to legitimate authority, — slavery, in subjection to usurped authority. Britons, whose constant refrain is, — •* we never shall be slaves " — are, after all, subject to the worst kind of bondage, — spiritual bondage. As a specimea of the humiliating and galling chains which poor Anglicans have to kiss, I here give a few extracts from that degrading and infamous law — ** The Law on the Royal Supremacy." " We decree that the Queen now hath, and that she, her heirs and successors in the Royal dignity, shall have, from hence- forth, full power of nominating and substituting whatso- ever persons they please; which persons acting in the stead, and by tneir authority, shall exercise the same ecclesiastical jurisdiction accordipg to their (the Royal) THE CLAIMS OF ANOUCANISM. 135 pleasure ; shall visit individuals, punish heresies, schisms, errors and abuses ; or exercise any other right or power which ever could or ought to be exercised by any Ecclesi- astical Magistrate." It is further decreed,— " That the clergy shall not assemble in any Synod on letters or man- dates, other than the Royal letters and mandates ; neither bhall they pass or execute any Canon, Law, Synodal, or Provincial Constitution, without the express consent of Her Majesty and her license for the making, promulgating, or executing of such canons, under penalty of imprisonment and fine, to be imposed at the Queen's pleasure." It is decreed, " that no one shall go out of the kingdom, and territories of Her Majesty, to any visitation, convocation or congregation, which shall be holden on the cause of religion ; but that all such shall be holden by Royal authority within the kingdom." It is moreover decreed, ** that the bishops shall not be created, by the nomination, or choice of any person or by any authority other than the Royal authority ; neither shall they hold or exercise episcopal jurisdiction and authority, unless at the plea- sure of the Queen; neither is their authority derived other- wise than through her, and from Her Royal Majesty.'' If in the face of these impious usurped laws Anglicans say ** they are free men," it is plain to the world that they know not in what true liberty consists. The very con- stitution of Christ's Church absolutely prevents such authority as is here claimed for mere temporal rulers, to be in any other hands than those of her own legitimate pastors. The self-same law governs the Christian Church, and was laid dowii by God himselt for the Jewish syna- gogue. ** The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." (Deut. 17 : 8-10.) To say the least, it is more becoming, and preferable in every way, that authority such as this should be exercised by a man whose very profession qualifies him to exercise it for the general good, than it should in the hands of one whose sex itself (the Holy Scripture being witness) dis- qualifies her from meddling in ecclesiastical matters. St. Ambrose, A.D. 390, in the end of his oration against Auxentius, says, " We must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. Tribute belongs to Caesar, this we do not deny. The 136 THE CLAIMS OF ANQMCANI^Sf. Church belongs to God; therefore it should not be handed over to Caesar, for the Temple of God cannot become the right of Caesar. * * « A good emperor is within the Church, not above it He endeavours to aid, not to coerce her." (Epist. ad. Auxent.) St. Athanasius, A.D. 320, says, " For if this be the judgment of bishops, what has the emperor to do with it ? But if, on the other hand| these decisions be concocted under the menaces of Caesar, what need have men of the title of bishops ? When, since the beginning of time was the like heard of ? When did the decision of the Church receive its force from the emperor, or when was the like recognized as a decision ?" (Epist. ad. vit. solit. Agent.) In the same epistle St. Athanasius says to the Emperor Constantius, " I beseech thee, and remember that thou art mortal — dread the day of judgment, — preserve thyself pure against that day, — meddle not with ecclesiastical matters, neither dictate to us on such subjects ; but rather learn these things of us. To thee God has committed the imperial sway ; to us he has entrusted what appertains to the Church. And as he yrho would traitorously decry your authority, as emperor, disobeys the divine ordinance ; so in like manner, do you beware, lest arrogating to yourself what belongs to the Church, you become guilty of a heinous crime. * Render,' saith the Scripture, * to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's.' Therefore, it is not lawful for us to possess temporal dominion ; neither have you, oh emperor, power over the incense, and sacred things." (Epist. ad. vit. solit. Agent.) Wherefore from the above the complete falsity of the 37 article is again apparent to every candid and unprejudiced mind. XXXVIII. THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ARTICLE.— {Continued.) The falsity, nay, even the glaring absurdity, of this 37t^ article, is evident to every man who has intelligence THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCANISM. 137 sufficient to grasp the proper idea of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. That Church, by the very essence of its constitution, must of herself have power and author- ity of an organized body. I»eing a perfectly organized body, she has her own central principle of life and action, which is Christ Jesus, whose mystical body she is. Christians, then, must draw their spiritual life from that central principle of life — Christ through His mystical Body — the Church. To do so, it is plain, they must be in union with, or under, the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church. As individuals draw their natural life through the human race from Adam, its founder, so also do indi- vidual Christians draw their supernatural life through the Church from Christ, her founder. Wherefore they who break that bond of union existing between Christ and the Church by withdrawing from her jurisdiction, lose the very source of all their supernatural life and action. The Anglican Church in this 37th article broke that bond of union between Christ and the Church. Wherefore she has been guilty of the terrible crime of schism, and is consequently fully accountable for all her subsequent heresies. Her denial of the universally admit- ted spiritual jurisdiction of |the Popes of Rome has made her a Branch, if you will; but a withered and rotten branch, on account of her separation from the parent stem. It has become somewhat fashionable with certain of our Anglican brethren to absurdly proclaim that the Church in the British Isles never acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Roman See. In doing so, they seem to forget that their groundless assumption flatly contra- 4icts the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon Church; the history of the thirty-nine articles, and the history of the law " on the Royal Supremacy." In this, however, they are as generally correct as they are when they likewise claim the great apostle of Ireland to have been a thorough-going Protestant. Here, too, they seem to forget that St. Patrick was a man of too great brain, intelligence, and solid piety to have followed (had he lived when Protestantism became the rage) what, in 00 poiiible shape or form, can, after all, be called BsUgion in the true sense of that term. However, this by the way. Leo the Great, A.D. 440, says, ** Whoever imagines li i v- 138 THE CLAIMS OF ANGLIC NISM. that the supremacy is to be denied to Peter, can in no wise derogate from his dignity ; but, inflated with the spirit of pride, that man plungeth himself into hell." (Epist. 89, ad. Epis.) St. Cyprian, A.D. 250, asks, *' Can he who forsakes the chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, be sure that he is within the Church?" (De Tjnit. Eccl.) As a specimen of that denial of Rome's juris- diction over the Church in the British Isles, claimed by certain Anglicans, of more presumption than sound know- ledge, I here give an eytract from the venerable Bede, A.D. 720, whose authority is above suspicion. Speaking of a council held in the seventh century, to settle the dis- pute on the observance of Easter, he says, '< Vilfridu's, a priest, argued thus against Colmanus, a Scotch bishop : * But if you, and your associates, disdain to follow the de- cree of the Apostolic See (Rome), nay, of the universal church, and these, too, confirmed by Holy Writ, doubtless you are guilty of sin. For, even admitting that your fathers were holy men, why should the few of them from one corner of a remote island be preferred to the Uni- versal Church of Christ, spread throughout the world ? And could your Columba, nay, and ours too, if he were of Christ, however holy, and adorned with virtues, be pre- ferred to the most blessed Prince of the Apostles, to whom our Lord saith, " Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build m^ Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- vail against it," and, *' I will g^ve to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." ' King Osvin, who was present, then said, * Colmanus, were these things really said to Peter by our Lord ? * Colmanus answered, * Verily, they were» O Kinff.' The King then said, * Can you produce any proof of such great power having been t>estowed on your ■Columba?' He answered, * None.' And again the King said, * Do you both agree that these things were said to Peter, as the Prinee, and that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to him by our Lord?' They answered,' *Yea, both.' Then the King con- cluded thus,— * And I say unto you, that he is the door-keeper to whom I am unwilling to oppose my- self; but his decrees, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I am desirous of obeying in all things^ lest, perhaps, on coming to the gates of the king- THB CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. 139 dom of Heaven, there should be no one to open them for me, he being averse who is proved to hold the keys.'" (Eccl. Hist. lib. 3, cap. 25). The Provincial Council of Cloveshoe, held in En^^^land in the eighth century, ac- kowledged in its acts the jurisdiction of the Roman See over the Anglo-Saxon Church. This Council, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was opened by the reading, in both English and Latin, of two docu- ments, *' from the Apostolic Lord, the Pontiff, held in reverence by the whole world, the Pope, Zachary." In these documents Pope Zachary admonished the Anglo- Saxon inhabitants of Britain, he expostulated with them, and exhorted them, and finally he threatened to cut off from the communion of the Church, by a sentence of ex- communication, all who should despise his warning, and persist in their wickedness. The Fathers of the Council promptly obeyed the Roman Pontiff, and passed the decrees necessary to meet his wishes. (Anglo-Saxon Antiq. page 150). No less than eight Anglo-Saxon Kings are recorded in history to have paid their respects in person to the Roman Pontiffs. Those who could not do in like manner, took care to solicit the Papal Benediction through their am • bassadors. (Epist. Coenulphi, ad Leon Pap.) When Pope Agatho, A.D. 680, became alarmed for the Anglo-Saxon Church, on account of the fast-spreading Monothelite heresy, he required (and was promptly obeyed) Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragan Bishops, to subscribe to a profession of faith in the first five General Councils, and to the condemnation of the Monothelite heresy, which was passed by Pope Martin, A.D. 649. This they did through the Papal deputy, John, Abbot of St. Martin's, who also subscribed with the Bishops, from whom he received a copy of the acts, which he forwarded to Rome. (Beda. Eccl. Hist. lib. 4, cap. i8») These, and hundreds of other similar testimonies, completely disprove the groundless assumption, '*That the Anglo-Saxon Church did not recognize the Primacy of the Roman See." Anglicans who make this assertion forget entirely that if what they say were true, then, never,in her whole history, was the Church in England in union with the Church founded by Jesus Christ. From what has been said on this 37th article, it follows that it was principally in it 1 fc, I [■■ f ■ t It4 I' I PIIW k4b THE CLAIMS OF ANGLICANISM. that the Anglican Church became both schismat' udt heretical, as it contains the rock, as it were, on ash& suffered ship-wreck. Having become a schisma. . .iil and heretical institution she has thereby broken loose from that bond which binds all Christians to Christ through His Church ! Wherefore, she can no longer draw any spiritual life from that central and only source of spiritual life — Christ Jesus Himself. Hence, it is evident that this 37th article is essentially false and heretical, and contradicts the constant teaching of all antiquity. It is directly opposed to the very essence of the constitution given by Christ to His Church. It would, if true, make her merely the slave and puppet of the State. Could the Church be subject to the mere tem- poral ruler, as this article says she is, she would deserve nothing but the supremest contempt from every intelligent man. The teaching of the Anglican Church in this article is consistent in a mere human institution, but it never had any part in the teaching of the one true Church of Christ,, who, always and everywhere, has repudiated the inter- meddling of the civil power in whatever is peculiar to herself. Therefore, it follows from the little that has been said on this important question, ist. That Peter and his- lawful successors, the Popes of Rome, are, by divine ap- pointment, chief pastors of Christ's Church. 2nd, That all spiritusil matters pertain to their exclusive jurisdiction alone, and, 3rd, That England, in withdrawing from their jurisdiction and setting up the Anglican Church in oppo- sition, has simply cut herself off from all vital union with Christ Jesus Himself, and has, in her National Church, so-called, simply a mere human institution, forming in no possible way a branch of the true Church, much less being '* the Catholic Church in its original purity.'* CONCLUSION. Thb manifest heresy and schism contained in the differ- ent articles of the iu^lican faith, so briefly examiaed in T0S CLAIlfS Of ANGLICAIflSll. 141 thesQ short papers, are in perfect conformity to the nature of a mere human institution, hut they are essentially repuf^ant to the nature of the Church founded by Jesua Christ. The Church of England is purely national, and therefore cannot possibly be in any shape or form part or parcel of the Holy Catholic Church. She is the creature jof England's Parliamelit, and is as much a department of the same as is the civil service itself. By her separation front Catholic unity in the i6th century, she lost all spiritual life and action, for she then withdrew from their only source and cause— Jesus'Christ Hiipself. Anglicans^ taken as they are, a mere collection of individuals, are a most respectable body of people as the world goes; but as far as being a Church in the proper sense of that word, the Anglican Church is a delusion and snare. This truth is plain from the little I have said on the points of doctrine peculiarly her own. The testimonies I haVe given from the early Fathers, (and which can be easily verified by a reference to their original writings), must carry conviction to every unbiassed mind. These prove conclusively that the doctrines held by the Anglican Church, as the pure unadulterated work of God, were un- heard of in the Christian world in the ages wherein Ang» licans confess the Church to have been free from corrupt tion. The belief of these e^rly Fathers is still the belief and teachingoftheCatholic Roman Church alone. Had I time and space to take each point of doctrine separately and ex- amine them in their scriptuaral, theological and historical bearings, I would publicly defy any member of the Angli- can communion, lay or cleric, to disprove the teaching of the Catholic Roman Church. As it is, I challenge any o£ them to take my statements of Catholic doctrine, with the- 8 roofs and references I have given, and logically prove lat one or all are false and groundless. The absurds claim of the Anglican Churdi as being the original Catholic Church in its purity, may well pass with persona either unable or unwilling to enquire into the matter; For others it can excite only a smile of ridicule and pityi I leave it to every fair-minded man to say if I have not eompletely disproved that absurd claim, u what I haire sttid be true. That it is fiedse in any essential partiouUi^ ) ^e^ any one in the Anglian communion or out of it» to ^^ ■' J ^^ - \ i4a THE CLAIMS OF ANOLrCANISM prove before a discerning public. I can speak thus inde- pendently because, thank God, I belong to that Churdi which alone possesses the truth in its fulness and integ- rity, and having the truth I know that no man, no matter how learned soever he may be, can disprove truth by falsehood. Catholics have brains and intelligence, and since truth is as natural to the intellect as light is to the eye,, they are, to say the least, just as capable of discerning it as are the enemies of the Church. Will any or all of those rev. Anglican clergymen of Toronto, who a short time ago urged the unfounded claims of their Church in the columns of the Toronto Muil, be kind enough now to make good their claim in the face of the truths I have advanced in these short papers ? I know there are many anxious souls pining for light on the important and momentous question before us. These gentlemen, from the very positipn they hold, as ministers of Him who came to enlighten the world, are supposed to be ever able and willing to come to the rescue of those in search of the knowledge neces- sary for eternal life. In the name of all such I ask these rev. pastors of souls for their true food — the bread of truth. I would, however, respectfully remind these rev. gentlemen that when I ask bread for these famishing souls I ask for true bread, — and not a stone. In now taking my leave of the kind reader I beg to say that in what I have written I have endeavoured to avoid everything calculated to wound individual feeling. If, perchance, I have unconsciously said aught so to do, I beg the kind forgiveness of each one. For Anglicans, as individuals, I have nothing but consideration and respect ; for Anglicanism, as a system of religion, I have nothing but scorn and contempt, because I am positively certain that it is but a snare and a sham. On behalf of the one only true Church of Christ in this world, the Catholic Roman Church, I respectfully ask an impartial study of her doctrines and claims. I have no hesitation in saying, that if the Catholic Roman Church alone is not the onlj^ true Church of Christ then Christianity is a perfect fafCe and Christ was nothing but an impostor. TotheLiah who studies the question of religion there can be no other alternative than Catholicity on the one hand» or open and avowed Atheism aa the oUier. Anglicanism, witn all its THE CLAIMS OF ANGUCAITISM. 143 luretensions, is only a phase of Protestantisn, and Protes- tantism itself, in its ultimate and logical conclusion, is fiimply pure and unadulterated infidelity. I glory in being an humble member (although a most unworthy one in every respect) of that Church of the present and the past— the Catholic Roman Church; and, knowing its ^absolute truth and beauty, I can only pra^ that Anglicans^ and others maybe led by degrees, by a kind Providence, to have their eyes opened to that truth and beauty, and that they may once again return in repentance to that kind Mother whom their ancestors, in the i6th century, forsook in a moment of madness and frenzy. I am, respectfully. Thomas Davis, Priest. Madoc, Ont., Nov. ist,(i887. x- 1 - ii