IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // § V . V ^ / .% ij: 1.0 I.I IIM M 2.2 M 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 "^ 6" — ► v. <^ /a o el e e, ^; ^^.% #>. O ^h / 7 /A Photogiephic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY 14580 (716) 872-4503 k MP. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filminy, are checked below. □ D D D D n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le litre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documeiits / I Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer dr I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et6 film^es. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D D D D D D n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages detachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality inegale de I'impression includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont eti' film^es d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grace d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are thai best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending or the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with 9 printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commencant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — *> (meaning "CON- TINUED '), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 .4 5 6 1 THE CONTINUITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AMI THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL APOSTOLIC/E CUR/E. BY The Venerable HENRY ROE, D.D., D.C.L.. ArcVideacon of Quebec. PRINTED VT THE " MOUNIXO CHRONICLE" OFFICE. 1897. Price 10 ots. 1^ A'- ^i THE CONTINUITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL APOSTOLIC.E CUR.E. UY The Venerable HENRY ROE, D.D., D.C.L., Archdeacon of Quebec. PRINTED AT THE "MORNING CHRONICLE" OFFICE. im'. To The Most Reverend John Travers Lewis, D.D., L.L.D., AUCIll'.lSIIOl' (ir O.NTAUIO AND Min'Horol.l'IWN OK TIIK i:(( l.l-.SI AS'CICA I. IMJOVINCI': dl' lANAHA, TO WIIOSI'. WISI)(>>t AM) l'OI!i;sl(illT, AM) Allll-ITY IN DEWKNCK (II' ni:i! im:incii'I,ks, riiH riiiKcii i.\ t'AXAPA OWKS SO MUCir, Till''; I)i:fi:n(1"- oi' tiii: oui)i:hs ok tiii'. ciuhcu KK KM.l.AM', liKiTHMsiiKi) liY HIS i:N(n)rKA(i:;.Mi:NT and aim'koval, IS WITH ins (iHACK's CONSKNT UKSI'ECIl'UI.I.Y IXSCUIHKI). 1 PREFACE. The Paper wlilcli forms the first part of this pamphlet was prepared at the request of the Executive Commit- tee of the Rural Deanery of St. I-Vancis for the annual December Conference of the Deanery Hoard. The Bishop and the Clergy and Lay members present joined in the request that the Pai)er should be printed for oen- eral circulation In the Diocese. It was accordingly sent to the Montreal S/ar, and, b\- the kindness of the Editor, appeared in that extensively circulated journal in its issues of tlie 27th I'Y-bruary and 6th March. Some of the positions taken by the writer were contro. verted by a correspondent of the S/ar under the 710m dc plume of . / Cafholic Tlicolooiaii. This led to the correspondence which forms the second part of the pamphlet. The whole is reprinted in accordance with the following Resolution of the Diocesan Synod of Quebec : — Moved by the Rev. Lennox Williams, Seconded by the Rev. G. H. Parker, and Resolved,— That the Lord l>ishop be requested to name a Committee to consider the advisability and best method of reprinting, in permanent form, the Venerable Archdeacon Roe's valuable Paper on the continuity of the Church and the rai)al hjicyclical lat(,'ly put forth on Anglican Orders, and to report at this Session ol Synod. 'J'he Committee reported that " it is very desirable that Archdeacon Roe's Paper, toL^ethei" with the cor- respondence referrin*^ to it lately carried on in the Montr(;al Shn\ be published in pamphlet form." Where- upon it was Resolved, — That the Rei)ort be adopted and the Paper and Correspondence be published, and that the same Committee be reappointed to provide for the expense of publication. QuKBKc, June iSth, 1897. THE CONTINUITY oK TIIK CHURCH OF I'NGLAND T am nskod to spoiilc lo you lo-diiy upon the continuity of tho (Miurch of Enyland as iilloct.Hl by the lUill Apostolirip Curiv \aio\y issued hy Pope Leo XIII. I^rst, what do we inean by the continuity of tht^ Church ? In what do.'S it consist '^ On what does it depend V 1. It is our Lord's will to save us in this way, namely, by rnakino- us one by one members of His Divine Society — the Church. This membership is efiecti'd in our baptism, and is not merely admission to a share in a ureat outward organization, but is, in the most real and true sense, the making- us members, ])arts, limbs of our Lord's (»wn Body, of His human nature, " of His llesh. of His l)on(\s." This I do not f?o into ; I only state it, sublime and all-important as it is, and pass on. The Church, then, is composed of Christ's baptized people, and its continuity in the most obvious sense con- sists in the addition of members, one by out' by baptism, to the orig'inal personal disciples of our Lord Himself, on and on from that first day of Penti^cost to the end of the world. So far there is no controversy. The Church of Kome herself asserts — teaches dogmatically that no rightly- ordained priest or bishop is required to the making of Christians, to their being united to the Body of Christ by holy baptism. Anyone who uses seriously the right form 6 ol' Words niul the xratt'i-- aiiyoiH', hcli.vi'r or unl)t'li«'V»M', iiiiiii or \v(Hii;m, l)ii|)ti/t'(l or iiiiKupli/cd, luMilnn or Clnisl- i;in, ciin Mci'ordiiiu' to K'oiniin dochiii** iidiiiil a soul iiilo th«> Chrisliijn Chuicli by baplisni. Till'; NM«'i;ssi TV ok an Ai'dsToi.ic Mimstuv. 2. ]>nt this is ii(»t wliiil is nicnnl l»y the coiitimuly ol' tlic (^itholic Church in th»» subji-ct iissiirm-d to me to-ihiy. 'IMn» Lord, \vhih> op( nini:' the door ol' baptism into His Church with sucli arna/inn' lulucss aiisthood is the Apos- hitc. the twelve Apostles and their successors the P.ishops ol" the Catholic Church, 'j'his piiesthood — '• minisiers ol' Christ and stewards ol" the mysteri s ol'God " — is an essen- tial part of her divine ornfanization. This ureal principle, auain, we cannot discnss to-day ; I must hert> assume it. We hold it in coninxm with th(» Church of Rome and the entire <'alholic Church in all a^cs and countries ol'thc world. And wo agree with our lioman brethren that this is ol" the very essence ol'thc Church's continuity. IT this Apos- tolic succession l)e l)i'okeii. you may still have Cliristiaiis. Without tht\se lawl'ul pastors, as we have seen, we miuht liave a «>veat Hock of Christian Sheep, as many pm'haps as there are to-day, but wo should have no Christian Church. Such a Hock could i ver be the IJody oi' Christ as our Lord made it. Position assuaikd by the Roman Church. Now this is what the Church of Rome asserts that w^e are, — a mere disorganized crowd, a helplt^ss, shepherdless Hock of sheep. We have been so, they say, for three cen- turies, because we lost our lawful pastors at the beginning ol'lliiit period, unci by ccmscqiuMifo tiro no part of the <>no oiiiuni/ed Divino Society, the (Miur
  • ull under consideration his r»>aso)is for denyinn' the validity of our Orders. What is thk ici'I'Ta't ok acknow riKiuiiNt; or dknvino VAi.nur »)K OkdisRs. Of course we k\ nv V'ry welV let m<> sav in passinir, that if the decision nad been i'' • opposite of what it is. if the Tope had been advi^.-i (as il islhou^ht he hoped to t)e), and led to admit validity in the amplest terms, that would not have restored union aiul communion between the Ani^- lican and the Koman Churches. T'nere arc matters of the ii'ravest iniportanc<' uiuh'r prt'S.iit conditions, matters of faith and [)racticc. which do and would still separate us. 'fhe l']astcrn Churches are as really divided from th, K'oman as we are. and yet the Roman ( hurch does not (juestion the validity of their Orders. To us, of course, the validity of our Orders is of vital importance, and il makes much for our peace and comfort that wt^ should know and b(^ in a jiosition to examine all, if anythinu" there be, that can be said ag-ainst them. And this advantage we now have, so far as the Church of Rome is concerned. PorE Leo's Reasons. Pope Leo has told us why he rules our Orders to be in- xnWa — has given his reasons, not his own personal con- clusions only, but the reasons which are the outeom(>, he is careful to assure us, of a full, patient and painstaking in- vest ioal ion \\vm\o hy a connnission siM'ciiilly Mi>|)<>iiili'(I Wy hiujs(>ll". L(<| us proctMMl lo oxiimiiit' llu'sc vcmsohs in ns «":\n«li»l iiu'l cliiiril.iliN' ;i spirit ;is possiMc. ■1. I'opt* lit'o losis his «l(M'ision on two i^roujxls; ln« linds in our Orders I wo i';il;il (Itd'ccls, ;i (Icrci'l in l''orni ninl ii «1(>- ftM'l in InliMitii>n. Mm'TKIJ. V'oijm AM) Intkntion. Now. w»> ninsl ho t;\rid'nl io h.'nr in nnnd wlial is ni<';inl h\ lh(" \vi>rd " l'\nin " in lh('si> discussions. Tho word is ns(>d in \\\o S('ns(> uivm Io it in I1h< SrholMslic riiiloso|)hy. In t>\tMV S;n'r;nni>nt tlitM(> arc two i>!irls — The Matter and tlic I'orni. The luiU ^ cxjilains thai 1)\' t ho woid " MatliM' " is mcanl the part ol'thc Sacrament whii h is ceieninnial, and h\ the word " l'\»rni,"' the pail whicli is csstnitial. I'he word Sacranicni. iiowcvcr, is iiscll' nsiMi in two si uses. »Mther li> iiu'hidc or to cxclndt' tht' s^race which it sinniiies anil oonvvws In the lalt*M' scns(» it is nsed in the Unll. Hut when so nsi'd il siill nuist havt* the two parts, the Matter and the l'\)rni. Theonlward visihK> sinn is then the Matter: \\\o appointed words \ise«l in applyiiiii" the si^ii are the h'onn l\> use tht> words ol'our own llooktM*: "II tlial bi» si^paratcd which is secitM and that he consiih'rtMl alone which is seen, the nanu» o[' a Sacrament in snch speecin>s can imply no mort' than what the outward sul)- siance thcnnd' doth c«nnpitdieiul. And to make complete the outward substance o\' i\ Sacrament there is required an outward l'\>rm— which Form sacrnmcntal eUnneuts receive from sacramental words." t Xow, no fault is found with us in the lUiU witli respect to the Matter of the Sacrament. Pope Leo delines that " in (he Sacrament of Orders the Matter is the Imposition of Hands." t Hooker, Book V,, Cap. Iviii, seo. '2. •'II •sucli sul>- •vd ivn HM'I iiuls." 'I'll!': ('llUUdll (»!' U'nMK CnNTIlADK'TS HI,1{SK!,K. 'PIliN (Icliiiilioii, Ii(»\vr\ cr, is liopi'lcsKly jil \ ;tri:iiiic, I must )irr«> poiiil (Mil, willi <>l|ii'rr Iwimt'. 'riii'it' cMii !»•• no liiLi,lM'i' nutlioiilv <»M lliis (|iu'sli()ii llinii Hit' K'oirum r<»iililir;il, Imt iirconlin^- l(» il llic (trdiimlion ol" i»ri»'sls is rlh'dfd iiol l>y |Im> liiiposilion (»r ll;in\ liif j'oirt'ctinn ol liir I'luciiiiristir Vfist'is. lid mr icmiiul you of Ijir irliit ion in wliicli llit'sc I wo ccrmnonirs st;miM Ikonniii Ordinal with its pu//linn' iit;yloinci;ition ol' liti s iii('()rpo!;it' d l»y !in unsiirn' tilic liMiid." No words could inoir linppily d^-M iiIc it. 'riicrc III'.' ill the I'oiililiciil si-r'. ice lor tlic ordimilion of ])ri<'sts, iimoiiii" otiicr tjiiiius, two Impositions ()[ lliinds, one ill, Iht' very l)('<4iiiiiin<:' (d lln' st'iviti- aiid the otlit'i- !it. lln' very <'iid, iiriflici' ol' tlii'in in tin' pliwc w |ii'i-<' lli<' net ol' ordiiiiilioii cciild rcasoiiiihly he looked ioi'. 'riirif .uf two Vi'stiiiiis with llic Chnsuhl*', oiif in its niiliiiiii phnc, iiiid tilt' other (piilo iiniiit';niiiii«- iit tlif vmy 'iid of the scrviff. And, -what I spt'<'iallv wish to call youiatli-n- lion lo.— there arc two di.vtinci acts of Ordination, one un- doubtedly liKiliI to he taUi'li as the nrdiiialioii ,\it, as ^V0 KJiiill sec ill the sei'\ice itsell', ijiouiih a lals- and intrusive act; the other, tin? oiiuinal and true act, evidently onco in use hut now shoved out ol" its rijj^htl'ul place and so rondorod uieanineless, th(^ roriiier the Traditif)!! ol' the Ves- sels with the words : " Recei\c power to oiler saeiilioe to (rod, and to colel)rate masses iis well Cor the liviii'j^ as for the dead, ill the iiam(^ of tlie Lord. Amen." The latter, tho Imposition ol" Hands, with the words: " K'ccmmvo ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye shall fori^ixe. th(>y arc i'or- given them ; and whose sin.s ye .shall retain, they are re- tained," 10 The ruESKNT Pontifical makes the roRiiECTioN THE ESSENTIAL ACT OK OinHXATION. 5. The Tradition, or Porroction, as it is calK'd. of ihi^ l*]nfliaristie Vessels IS uiidouhtt'dly according to the Pou- tilieal Service" the Ordination itstdl— lor those reasons : First, tlie Ordination is incorporatod into the Mass. and in the Preface to the Pontihcal, llu> point in th • Mass at Avhich the Ordination Service coines in is eli-ariy stated. The Ordination of I'riests comes in immediately heibre the G-ospol, and as soon as it is comi>lete th*' Gospel is read. But the Gosp/1 is read immediately alter the Tradition of the Vessels, therefor." the Ordination is then (.-oinplete. Next, the Priesls-elect down to tht> Porreclion aivspol^en of as ordinandi, the desig-iiation is used ten times. JTence it follows that down to that point they aw not ordained : the g-ift of l*riosthood has not yet l)een conveyed to them. After the Porrection and before the Imposition of Hands they are styled ordinnti. ordinati Preshyteri, ordinati Sacerdotes, and PreshyttM'i, these titles Ixmiio- used lifteen times. Pefor.' the Porreclion they are ' pcM'sons to be ordained"; after it th.'y are 'ordained men,' 'ordained Presbyters,' 'ordained Priests,' and absolntely • J'rt'sbyters. Thirdly, imnnHliately after the Porrection of tlu^ Vessels. the Bishop is directed to " procei'd with the Mass," and '■ the Presbyters who have been ordained "' are directed to " say with the IJishop all the remaining words of the Mass." Also, " the Bishop is to say tht' whole of this Mass aloud so that the ordained Priests may be able to sav all with him, and especially the words of Consecration, which ouuht to be said at the same moment by the ordained as by the Bishop." This is called ''Comrlehrdlion.'' The men are now fully ordained and so qualilied to say ]Mass ; and they at once say it, " concelebrating- with the Bishop." If they were not fully ordained priests, this " concelebration " would be a sacrilege. I f 1 11 ICTION I, of .ho llio I'oii- oiis : [;vss. and Mmss at y stated. tdbv<' tho is road. (lit ion of ileto. iro spokou ;. lltMice :)idaiued : to them. of Hands ordinati ;'d lil'totMi S to 1)1' ordained shyttM's. Vessels. ss." and ei^ted to le Mass." ss aloud nil ^vith eh ought IS by the men are and they It' they ;bratiou " i TlIK DKFINITIOX OF Pol'l-: EUOKNIUS IV. And what we thus gather from a careful study of tlu' IVjiitilicnl is eonlirnied ])y the well-known dogmatif definition of ]\)j)e Eugenius IV. This I'ope, in conipliaiice with a petition presented to him at the close of the Council of Florence (A. J). 14-"5!'), by certain representatives of the Armenian chur( h which was then being reeoneiled to the Konum, praying that he would instruct them in the true adniinistralion of the Sacranu^nts, issued a letlei' in Aviiieh he gives full instructions respecting the seven Sacraments. Concerning the Sacrament of Holy ( )ideis, he says. ''The Order of I'riestiiood is conferred by the I'orrection of the Clialice with wine and the Paten with ])read. The Form of the Priesthood is this : "Receive powerof oll'erinu' sacriiiee in the Church forthe livingand ihedead. in the luiuieof the Father and of the Son and of the Holy (>host."=^ Here then we have Pope Eugenius IV, and the Poman Pontihcal actually now in use in the Poman Chnrcli, both declaring that the Porrection of the Vessels is the Matter of the Sacrament of Orders, and using it as such in all their ordinations ; and Pope Leo XllI, with the general voice of modern Poman sch(dars, dt'claring \\ith ccjual authority that the Matter is the Impo;;ilion of Hands. How is this palpable contradiction betwi'cn two iniallible authorities to be got over with honor 'f So much then for the Matter of the Sacrament. Tii!<: FoR.^r of the '"raa[e\t of Ouders. G. I now proceed to examine the objections raiscnl in the Bull to the validity of the Form in our Ordination of Priests. * The Decree of liugi'iiiu.i is gono iiitn iiiiiiL- fully in liu' letters printed below. 12 Tho Popo objects Ihal ncitlKn- tho words usod til tho Im- position of ITaiids nor any other words in our Ordination Sorvico, " delinitoly express the Sacred Ordfr of Prifsthood, or its i>-raee and po\ver " IIo objctts tliat wo say, Receive the Holy CJhost, hut we do not say for what? Nor do wo uive to our I'riests anywhi're in the service the {>ower of otlerini? the Kucliaristic Sairilice. TTore of course rises tlie (piestion, did theOrdinntion Ser- vice then in use in ]<]n<^h\nd need the revision it recived ? The words attachiul to the Porreetion of the l*]u('haristic Vessels, quoted above, claiming- to give the power of oller- inji- to God the sacrili^'cs of masses for the liviny and the dead, wen' certainly removed ; was this revision called for? Is it defensii)le? It is obvious that with tln> time and space at my conunaml, 1 cannot enter into~I can scarcely glance at that deience. rdUlM'PTIONS OF THK MaSS. That the Sacrilices of Classes had \)oon greatly corrupted in the AVestern C'hun^h. both iii doctrine and practice, no one denies. The corruptions in practic(> were so monstrous tliat all good nuMi cried out against them. Dr. I'usey in his ICirenicon quotes one bitter cry from an '• ultramontane Bishop, in the 14th century, a penitent iaiy of Pope Jolin XXIl," which may sulhce for luoof— though iiuleed the language oi the Council of Trent itself^ is scarcely less strong. " Our Church,'' says this Bishop, " is full and over full of altars, masses, and sacrilices, aiul therewith is, in the sacri- fices, full of homicides, sacrileges, uuclcannesses and simo- nies and other wickednesses, excommunications and irreg- ularities to the very utmost. For at this day so many * Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Decretum de oliworvandis et evilandis iu celebratioue niissre. vl thi^ Im- )r(liiiiiiiou ricsthood, 'for do wo powcv oi' lilt ion Sor- roc'ivcd ? iu'h;ivi.slic r (>[' oIltM'- j- and llio ■nlK'd Ibr ^ and spaco •ly i>lanco comiptod ii('li('t\ no nonslrons I'viscy in unonlano op(> John kUmhI tho rcoly It'NS :rr lull of tho sacri- ind sinio- md irro;;;-- so numy tivituiulis in 13 masses are xaid for g'ain or custom or complaisance or to cover wickednesses or for their own justilication, that both anioii^' priests and people the holy Body of the Lord is now held clieap . . . And now, throu^'h custom or rather corruption . . a mass pric'od at ashillini>- is bouL>'ht and sold by a blind people and by wicked simoniacal priests,'"^ False TKAriiiNi; won tuh SAcniiKiCK ok tuk Mass. Worse i)erhaps than th(>se practical (lorruptions was the false teaching respectini^ the relation of thi' Eucharistic Sacri- lice to the 8acrilice of tiie Cross, then maintained without re])uke in the Cliurch'.'s of the Itoinan obediiMice. One example will suliiee. that of the eminent JJominican Am- brosius Catharinus, as reported with indiunanl rejection by his fellow Dominican Melchi(n' ('anus, that " sins before ])aptism are remitted throu^li the sacrifice of the Cross, but all post-])aptismal sins throui'-h the sacriiice ol the Altar." f " Tho fact is,"' says an eminent Divine, " that exaggera- tion always produces reactionary understatement, and tho perversion of the true idea which led men to think of the iSacrilice of the Mass as really co-ordinate with that of tho Cross is largely responsible for the reticence of our Ordinal on this matter." AVhAT is the real liUESTION? 7. But, having said so much, I must remind you that to enter upon this proof at all is not necessary to the purposes of this discussion. Supposing that the old Ordinal called for no change and was only injured by every alteration then made in it, tho question would still remain the same, — * I'liscy'.s Eironicoii, A[»plftons, \. Vork, iSlili, p[i. lid, '.i~. Ktig. Eil. 1865, pp. •-';•, ;{o. t Sci' for this aiiil ollu'i' iiistaiiocs of like i',\tia\ agiun'L', l''atliur I'iiUlt's I'aper ill the Uaurdian of lith Octuljcr, iSlHi, p. 1074, or S. 1'. C. K., reprint, pp. 42, 43. 14 Were the changes made such as to invalidate the orders conferred by its use ? This is the question now before us. Now, no one can have gone at all deeply into the study of the Ordinals of the Ancient Thurch without discoverins; that for the livst thousand years after Christ there was not any one form of Ordination in general use or of exclusive authority. The only two points that were settled by Scrip- ture and universal tradition were, that ordination was effect- ed for all three orders of ministers by the Laying on of Hands and Prayer. As to what words were essential for this prayer, or what form the prayer should take, precative or imperative, or how the order which was being imparted should be indieated in the words of the prayer, there was no settled uniformity. The learned ritualist Murtene sums up as the result of all his researches as to what is essential for a valid ordination, according to the mind and use of the en- tire Catholic Church in both East and West for at least a th(ntsaiid years after Christ, that the whole essence of the C)rdinatiun oi'a Priest consists in the Laying on of Hands and accompanying prayers. " This alone all Orientals, this alone the ancient fathers, this alone the scriptures recognize." To this view, I may add, practically all learned Roman scholars in oitr day give in their adhesion.^ This, liowever, was long after the days of our Edvvardine Ilevisors, and the light of these learned researched' was wantiiiii' to them. 8. The first thing, then, which the commission of learn- ed divines had io.do, into whose hands the old Ordinal was put to be revised and ])ut forth in English, was to de- cide what were the essentials for the transmission of Holy Orders. They decided, rightly as all learned liturgists, i * Sefenoe of tlio Hull Apostolicif Cuiw, Lon- don : Ihowiiing, 1896, page 28. the orders before us, ' the study [liscoverinsf re was not )f exclusive d by Scrip. . was efFect- 'ing on of sscntial lor ', precative g imparted lere was no le sums up ssential for e of the en- at least a nee of the Hands and ntals, this •ecognize." 3d Roman Idwardine 'ches was of learn- dinal was as to de- of Holy liturgists, Cur.T, Lon- 16 Roman and Anglican, now ngn-e, that the essentials, the Matter and the Form, aie Imposition of Hands and rrayer.=^ Till': Edwakdixe Matter and Form and wheiie IT ("A.ME I'TIOM. Xow, whal I want you to tak(> in is this, that these essen- tial parts of Ordination, this Matb'r and this Form, the revisers did not hrinu' in from sonic outside source ; they found them, the Imposition of Hands and the Prayer, in the old ^^arum rontihcal, hen^ identical with the Roman, and they rotaincd th 'Ui uiuiltcred, simply turning the pray- er into English: • Keceivo the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost foru'ivi' they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained ; " only adding to it this exjiressive clause : " And be thou a faithful dis[)enser of the Word of God and of His Holy Sacraments in tht? name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Giiost. Amen." The Tradition of the X'essels with its Form of Avords was laid aside, lioman authorities depending on Fope Eugen- ius IV taught then and for long after that these were the Matter and Form of the Sacrament, an opinion they have since abandoned. (Hir revisers, guided by a divine instinct, went back, as we have seen, to the old Form. Ijut in place of the Vessels with Br< .d and Wine, they inserted tht^ Tradi- lion in Edward's lirs' book of the Ves-^els with the Bread and the Bible, in the ov. ,ond of the Bible alone, with these words : " Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments in this congregation where thou shalt be so appointed." This, then, is the Form which the advisiTs of Fope Leo make him declare to be so defective as to render all orders given by it null and utterly void. Let us look carefully into the grounds alleged for this conclusion. * They seem liowcvcr to luive iielil with all rjtiirgical Sdiolars of tliat (lay, that the Accipe Spiritum Sanr/iim was a necessary part of the Form. 16 Our Form quoted unfairly in' Leo's Bull. 0. First, however, we have just urouiul for comphiint that the writer of the Bull, in quotin<^ from our Ordinal the Form wliich he condemns, does not ([uote fairly. " The words," he siiys, " whieli until recently were held by Ang- licans to constitute the Form of Priestly Ordination were ' Receive the; Holy Ghost.' " Now, notiiing is more certain than that no Anglican ever held tht; words ' Receive the Holy Ghost " alone to constitute the proper Form. The words in our Ordinal have been given a})(>ve ; will any one deny that there are great and important dillerences betwen the full Form in our book and the words Acri/ie S/>iriln)n Siuictum alone V And ought not the writer of the Bull to have stated that the words adopted in ur Ordinal t thi're are 11 Form in tnnt alone V stated that simply the 3f Hands in oman Pon- JEQUENTLY afterwards etc." But perceived '. But (he e Form its a century Idwardine inct, there ifficient to re evident- ? last revi- il, as that the Ordi- nation of Priests and Bishoi).s was an unconscious roncos- sion tliat they are both one and the same order.^ 11. With respect to the Fonn (and coiiiiniiig ourselves to the Order (»!' Pri^'sthood), we have two objections to meet: one that our Ordinal doi'S not suiliciently indicate tbat it is to the Priest h'^od that th ■ ordinand is being admitted, the other that we do not coiiler upon him the chiel' power ol' his order, that ol" sacrilicing to God, but carefully exclude it. Now, if it be meant that the w ord Priest or Piie.^thood is not actually used in the form of words attached to and uttered with tlie Imposition of Hands in oiu- Ordinal, it is true; but neither is it so found in the Ivoman Pontilical. The reason why it does not appear in that form of words in our Ordinal, is that it does not appear there in the Pon- tifical, and our revisers were keeping strictly, at so critical a point in the service, to the lorm of words i)i the Ponti- H Ileal. This ought not to be ground of objection on the part ' of lioman theologians. It may l)e said in rejoinder that the Avords Accipr S/iiri- tiini Sanchnn, etc , in the Pontilical, do not constitute the Form in that service. But how do you know that? Bel- larmine, with many Uonum authorities, maintains that they do, and he insists that the Council of Tient so decides. f I * .Seo I})!. I'.iiiiK't'a tlisi. ol' liof. \'..l. -J, p. l4l. Kd. IfiSO. Dliui I'rid- 1 eaux's Kcrl.'s. (Trart.s) |)|). I."), SO, (I!) 7-, "-.'ii'l I'M- 171 •">. ainl CanhvoU's Coii- ' fi'ioiucs, PI), ;iS7.ss, I'M. ()\fi)i(l. ISIil. ;' + Sec r)i'llaniiim\ l>t Sic-rnni Oiil. \'<>l. I, cap. l.X. ('oiiri/iiiiii Tr'nh ^ ihiltii'iil, tioii- ii/-i/iii/. lie rcckoii.s four opinions as to the Matter «iui(l Kotni, the I'oiii I h opinion niaiiitainin;^ "a iloulihj .\1 . anil i'". , one part, the ileliveiy of the I'ateli. etc. ; the etiier part, Jinp^sition of Hands irilli lln I'unii. h'i'-i/i; the lloh/ (!h(it( ir/insi sins limn i/ijs/ f'ori/iri , ilr. liiis \ iew Delis iiold.s to lie the most prohalilo. It is iiotatile that lie liiids no ditili iilty ill the voni'ihhntlinii (nor does lieilarinine) \\!;ich seems so fatal an olistiiele * to this view. Let ine asU my I'eailers to note that hni nl husi of the most Or- ..£■; iliodox Itonian writers hold that the true l''oiiii of the Sacrament of Or, lets i.s if the Wdrds spoken in hotii the lionian Pontilical and the iMijilish Ordinal when the llishop lays on his liumls and says ; /oc. /(v ///( //. f.'., u-husi- ;int. Thi'ro is no authoritative (loilaration in tho Church (tf Home what, tlu' valid l<'oriii is, and yet oui" oi'tlers are deelai'ed imalid heoaiise our serviee has not the valid h'orii. ! " Aie these thiuLi's etjud .''"' Tlie Pitutilieal itself tells us plainly enouu^h what, neeordini;" to the minds of those who i;ave it its present slnipe, is the Matter, ;ind what the I'^orm, nanudy, the I'orreetion of the Vi'ssels with the words attiudied,— '• Ixeceive power of oll'erinu' s;i(U'ilice, I'ti." This d(diniti(»n of the Matter Mud I'^orm was for centuries hehl to he au- thoritativt' in the (!hureli of ivom ', h'lt it is now ahiindon- eil and is contradicted hvth'' present I'ope, who delines that the Imposition of Hands is the Matter. Some hold the opinion that the piayer called the I'refatiois the I'orm ; hut if so, what is the Matti'r to which it is attached:' It may j^ossihly be suj^'yested that the Prel'atio is the b'orm attached to the lirst Imposition of Hands; hut that cere- mony is ordered to he said '• in silence, with no prayer, said or sun^-. n'oing- with it." Moreover, the Council of Trent decree's : •' If any one shall say that thiouuh sacred ordina- tion the Holy Ghost is not li'ivi'ii, ami that the Ihsliops say in vain, Arcipv. S/>irif/n)i Sinrfuin; or that throUL»'h it Char- acter is iu)t confeired let him he anathema." The .Sacrament of Order, then, with Character, and the Holy (Ihost, is li'iven according- to the Council of Trent, when the words Accipe S/ifrilmti Sanrt/mi are said. This makes these words the Form. ThU seems coutdusive enough, only Leo XIII has said that Acci/ic S/iiri/tnii S'ii/cIndi in our mouths is not the Form ! f Here we art? quitt^ at sea, and our infallible pilot fails us. How are we to know wdiether we havt^ or have not the valid Form, which is " the essential part of the Sacranunit," unless our friends at Home agree among themselves what the Form is ? !i I :-M Bull what hisiM's !iro TlliTO is .omc u'hai i>il iiiviilid Am' IIk'so ily cuoiiiji'h pivc il its II, iiJVMU'Iy, lltiU'lu'll,— ; (loliiiilioii I to l)i» ilU- i' ;il):m(l()ii- lio dcliiics v)rrn' hold the I'oi'in ; ichcd .' II the Fonii thill C.OYO- •r;iV(M\ s:i,id I of Ti-i'iit I'd Old! 11 II- isliops say h it Chiiv- iKilhoina." I the Holy Mlt, Wlu'll lis makes ciiouoh, \/nit ill oar \t Tails us. not the hranieut," Ivos what 19 Ol'R ORDINAI- indicates AMn.NDAN'TI.V THAT IT IS V ri.'iKsT Will) IS iJKiNd ()i;nAi\i:i). 12. I have shown how it ram.' to ]i;iss thai lln' word Priest was not insiTtcd in our l"'iinii ; Iml does tin- ahsoiin; of the word thiM-e throw any douhl on what was nn'anl to be done ^ i )!' what other ordi'r hut the Priesthood could the words," Whose sin^ thou dost remit, they are remitted, ete.," l)e spoken ? Deacons are ineajtahle ol" this power; Dishops have it already. It remains that it must he spoken ol' one hcinii' made a Priest ;ind can h • of no one else. l»ut it the irin-'/ Priest or Priesthood is not Ibuiid in the I'^orm, it is I'ound over and over atain in the IJiti', and no one can (h'liy that, takiiii;' that Rile as a whole, it is al>undantlv clear that those (Uinauod in it are ordainini'' I'riosts. The Prei'ace to the Ordinal dei-lares the resolution ol' the Church ol' ICnulaiid to maintain and (continue the three Orders whieh have heen in the Church Iroin the days of thi; Apostles. The serviie is entitled, '"The L'onn of Orderiiif^ Prms'.s." The Archdeacon presents the ordiiiands " to he. admitted fo fhr OnhrDj' Priesthooil." The Bishop addresses the people and says : " Those be they whom we purpos*; to receive this (hiy fo Ihr IidIii of/icf of Pn'fst/ioofl.^' Then a special prayer is insiMted ill tin; Litany for them, with the words. " Mercifully heliohl thesi* Thy servants uovv called io the <>(/i re of Priest hood." Then the Bishop examines them, and among" other questions asks: "Do you think in your heart that you he truly called to the minislri/of Prii^fhooil ^'' Then, alter a very solemn prayer, " the Bishop, with ilie I'riests present, lay their hands upon the head of every one that receiveth orders, saying : " lieceive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, etc.,"' with the rest of the Form so often cited. They are ordained, that is, with matter and words taken from the Roman Ordinal itself, — the word.s being those which 1,0- I 20 wera held fov ages by the most distinguished Roman au- thorities to be the true Form of Orders, and ruled to be so, says IJellarmine, by the Council ol" Trent itsell". And that the order conlerred is that of Priesthood is lixed beyond question by the i)o\\ er of reiuitlinu' sins conferred, and is expressed in the serviee over and over again in name. And so on evei y ground we may be satislied of the {'utility of this objection. Till': iiI':ai< Oiuisotion is Tii.vr wv. no not intknd TO MAKE SACUIi'lCINd PinKSTS. l;'). l)Ul I cannot bring mys -If to think that Pope Leo, when he says that our ollice " does not delinitely express the sacred oul -r ol Priesthood,"' really nicanl that we d not say plainly enough what is being done. A careful study of the Ibill shows thnt its one point of serious objec- tion to our Ordinal is that in it we do not proiess to give those we ordain Priests 'the power of consecrating and otl'ering the true Body and Hlood of the Lord," but that on the contrary, ihey allciic, we ' have deliberately riMiioved from tln> servi«e every trace (»f the Eucharistic Saeriiice." And, they add, Ho this powir of ollering sacrilice is the chief ])0wer of the Priesthood, hy deliberately intending not to give that po.wer, we do not confer the order at all. 1 have gone to a certain extent into this (jueslion above. The answer given by our ri'pre.sentative divines and those responsible for the revision of our Ordinal is this : ' AVe do certainly intend, (they say.) to deny and reject the Koman Sacrilices of ^Liss(^s for the living and the dead as un- scriptural and un-Catholic, together with the dogma of Transubstantiation on which they were grounded.' The Church of Enmiland holds and te.\ches the TRUE EUCHAULSTIC iSaCRIEICE. 'The true Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, however, as held in the ancient and undivided Church, we liiii 'Jl Roman aii- ud to he so, And Ihiit cod I)t>vond rn'd, and is nanio. And l! rutility ol" INTKXn Pope Loo, tcly exprcN'^' that wo d A carolul .'lious ohjoc- loss to give crating and hat that on ly roinoved Sarrilic.o." lice is the intending or at all. tion ahove. s and those is : ' AVo do I ho Koraan oad as nn- i dogma oi' •d.' ^ :ilES THE ic Sacrifice, Church, we hold and vonorato. And thr I'^ucharistfc Sacrirni^ which our Lord insiilul -d and llis (!hnrch colohratod in h^-r pri- niitivo days is truly contaiMod in <>ur I'lu'-hiiristi.' K'ili'.' "With regard to the ohjectioii niado to our Ordinal as n*> longer giving our Triosls the power ol'sacnMlicinu'. thev niain- tained, that the true power ot'olU'ring the lilueharist Saerilice is inherent in the Priestly olliee itself, and that I>y f,>ntinuing, as the Church of Enyhind in her Ordinal ex[)ressly doelaros it her purpose to do, the ordtM" ol Triesthoodiis it luidaKvavs heen in the Church, she must l»e taken to convey in their oi'dination to those made I'riesls all the rights and powers 1)0- longing to their ollice, whether expressed in detail or not. and certainly among thorn the power of olfering the ICucharistic Sacrifice. P(nvKR Oi- oFFEin.Nci Sacuh'km: F..\.n:RssLY (Uvkn in NO OlJDl.N'Afi FOR XINK lirxnUKD VKMJS AFTlOii CllllIST. 14. But Pope Loo insists that our ( Jrders are invalid because we do not expressly give the power of Sacrifiring to our Priests in their ordination. And yet it is an unques- tioned fact that in no Ordinal of the Western Church until the tenth century was there any mention uiadi' of giving this power, nor is there any uiving of sui'h power in any Eastern Ordinal to this day. If OrdiM's in the AVesti'rn Church were valid for a thousand years al'ti'r Christ and Orders in the Eastern Church are counted \alid by the Church of Rome to this day, though in neither case is there any reference to giving the })ower of oilerinu' the Saeriih^o of the liody and Blood of Christ, why should our Orders be rendered invalid by the same omission ' If giving in ordin- ation in so many words power of oilering Sacrifice is essen- tial, the absurd conclusion must follow that there is not now a validly ordained Priest, Roman, Oriental or Anglican, in all the world. •)'> I ll:\\i' , iM'M MO ;nis\\< I lt» llils ;il";mili>lil , ^ lull I will uiiiKc oiii K'oniiiii lutMlircii ;i lursciil ol (iiic w linli li;is oci'uitimI lt> nil' in tlimkiu", (mci \vlii"lli.'r ;iiiy \\;iv toiiM possihU l>i' r«>uii(l oul ol II \\ li:il IIk'v uiiI'-I n;i\ III ;iii.';\\ or, I I Inn K, IN I his : ' 1 1 is I rno I linl I lie pow or orolloi iii<^ -Mciilico \\ MS nol moni loiio'l i n (irtl;iimn", i ii I ho U'onun or mi v < 'hnroh Ml iho woiM lill iho loiilh it'iiliirv. nor is in ;iiiv I'ImsIitii riiuroh l>> llus «|;iv : slill ih;it «loos not |iiillv ol in- oousistiMit \ 111 ro|0('l iM'V \ (»ni ( hijoi's (Ui I ho ;• roniid I li;il I his pow or is Mol ONpr.'ssoil lU oonloniip> I holll \ot lo Ii;;\ o ll, sod snoh woids holoro otuilro\ors\ ;iroso is n ilmi'v innoooiil ouou",!i . to ;il)olish fhom w hon il h;is miisoii w ilh Iho |uir|i<>so ol Mou viin.', ;i p;\i tii'ulnr tlo.i nno mill ;i pirl loiil.ir ni i n isl on; 1 1 powiT w luoh w 1' hold lo ho omdiiiid w omis ;i dilloioiil ms- pool rill' Isa^lonis h;l\t' :ll W :l\ s holiov od I lull Ihoir I'llosts roo.Mvo this pow.'i 111 Old iiuii loll, thou'di it is not spooiliod, ;llld lho\ ollorlho Holy S;101 l lii'(> oont in luil I V \ tUI lloithiT l>>'ho\i> 111 li nor ollor il lloiioo llioir (hdors iiro \;ilid, \ oni s ;no iii>f Till: I'nrKv'ii y Now this ;u;,;uinonl sounds IdniiidiiMo, hiil it is omsI- 1\ :ius\\(Min1 Our iuiswov is this; \\ o holh liolio\o in mid otiovllio Muv'luirisih Saonlioo. Thnt wo holiovo in il is pro\ od tivsi 1>\ llio i>\pross words ol our own ( ":iti>(liiMn, " \\ li\ w;is liio SaiMMiuiMil ol tlio Lord's Suppor ordaiiiod .■* Vov til' ronimual loinonihraino (ooiunionioralio) ol' Iho Saorilioo ol tho PtMlh orchiisi." And noxt, hv llio oaniosi piotostaiions ot' onr loadiim' lh\ inos iVoiu Craumor down to this day. Tins pap 'V is not a Tliooloiiii-al Trt'atiso, and to ix'wo In-rt* a iMtona ot'\vritiM"s atiinuiim' tho l*iiu'haristio Saorilioc is of oouvso out ol" tho qiU'sti(Mi. Lot th^ tostimony of (Mio suI- ' Siiuf \M itiu;. tlu' alunc. 1 li.ivo fiiuii.l thi' aiiswor I niiggcsi in si'\ cral Roman aiitlunitiis. 28 lull I will W lili'li li;is w ;i\ I'oiild III :illN\\('r, 11", -ucriliri' IMV < 'Iniirli ii\ I'lii^lnii lull \ n\ \\\ III lli:il Ihis > !i;i\ t> iiM'<| 'V I nil) Ill lit' |>lll 1>()XC iiiiiiisli'iiiil illi'it'iil ;is- ln'ir I 'licsls I Nl)lM'l!il'»|, iMI Ui'lllliM' > ;ir»' \;ili»|. 11 VKlsl'ie I ii is (>nsi- (•\ (' ill :ili)l t' III il is 'llUMllislll, • rdiiiiinl .' lo) oi' llu' If tMllU'sl UM- «l(>\vn ui\ o her*' ilici" is t>r >{' (>IU> sul- ^t ill scM'ial lii'i' \\ IliiSi' wmil'; llu- ('llllli h III' I'lliirhiU*! IiHH since riKlnlcd iiiiiii\ liiiii"; (i\i'r lliioic'li III.' I'lMiilli ol' III)' rmlhriil suiiH. Till" "KM I ,\ iijilii Imii l'i;iiiili;il I, \\ i il lii!> jii j H ..; Ill :iii,s\\i'r III ;i K'oiiDiii ( 'muI iii\ IT M;il 1^1 III 111 : i|;iy , H;iy,s : " \ oil f^;i y v.'i' li;i\r riiiuiiiH'iMl v III III \ ,il lull III il 11 yiiii iiiii|<'i'..j iiml ;iii- (•llii'i |irii|iil iiiiuis ii'iili"" (li.-.liii.l ri'itiii lli;il, :iii\ iii'W llli'l lliUliiIls Mil islili I mil lo i'in:\ ii| ;i|iv ll"\V SI I j tpli'lM" II I I'l I In- iiii'iils (il < "Il I I .1, W" r ■iiDiiiii I' \(iiir .'Mcrili"" iikI" il \\ «• pi 111" :. ;i I iilll llli'lllul :i I litll nl 111" , ;hlllii " ol ill" ' 'I'liHS ; ;i r.'|>r"si'l|l ilimi ul I liil ;.:i"lllii" l>> ( 111(1 III" r':il II"! , ;ili llii- pi'l l;ll lull <>t ill" li"il"lll 111' ll , ;iii ;i|»|i||i:it iDii id' lis \llhli'. 'I'o m;ik" II :i .ii|i|i|i'liil y ;:i"nli"" lu ,Mlp|il\ III" ili'li'ils uj llic s;iii ili"" iif I II" ( 'ill . , I liopi' liolli y"ii ini'l I iildior. ' V This (li'si'vinl mil ol lli" l']inli;iri lie S.niilii'i' ;is " m. cuiii- lii"liiiir:il l\ ", ri'pi"S"iil;il I \ r, I in p"l i ;il i \ <', ;i ppl lc;i ( i \(' sacri- lici' " li;is Id'cnih" :i riiiiimoii pliir in l'iii"li:li |)i\iiiily W'i'll, w li:il (Idiiiir ItDiniiii rii"ii(ls ;.;i V lo litis:' Ai" 111" OrdiTs of ;i ( 'Imiili wliirli Imld > and i"a"li"- .sii"li a. ai'ii- lii'c 111' I II" \ liar III I)" ill \ ajidali'd (»ii til" ^iiiiind llial sin- ri'jcrts I lial sacrilici' :* Tills is llii' 1 ii'il" III Our K'uinaii a-^-ailaiils : Hoiinin . \'iMir HidiTs an' invalid licraiis" voii liavr lainpcrcd willi and spnilcd lli" l^'onii ul' lli" Saiiaimail (d OrdiT. Aiii^/irtii/ : I'll' ^1, kind as lo lili us wlial is ih" l''oiifi, Mi'MiiliiiU' \\»' prolt'sl w" liavi' ill" saiii" loini V'-ii lia\i'. Hdiii'i// : -Hill v«»iii' ( )rdiiia I, I'V n ~o, "lii'cts nolhin^- Ix'- (■aus(> yuti do iioj uivc vmr I'lirst- I hi; po\V"r lo olli-r siicri- lictv Aii'^linui : Siipposiiiu' il \\ •!•" so, slill yii hold \ali(l thu Orders ol' ill*' Ivistcnis ill conrcrriiig whirli no muntioii is inad«' orsiicriiicc. * HnimlmirH Works, vol. 1. |i. M. Uohnn/ .' — True; but Ihoy l)elii'VO in the Sacrificr of tlio Altav and you do not. Anii'/ir,i// : — Yos, l)ut wo do. Wt> havt^ always protofiit.'d that wo do. ^Vo bidiovo and tcacli that thoro is and wo ollbr in tli(^ Eucharist a commomoratiA'o, loin'oscntativo, impotrativo, applicativo saovi(ie(\ Rom in : — That may 1)0, l)ul thai is not the ]')ropiliatovy sacrilifo of tho ^Mass. Anvjiran : — "Woll ; it is tho sam(> whicli is tauu'lit by your own Council of Trent, ^vhich dorlaros ^' that our Lord instituted tho TToly iMicharist "in ord(M- thai II(» niiuht loaA'o to His (Mir.rch a visihle saciihci^ uhcroby that bloody sacriiico, which was to l>c onco acconiplishtHl on tho cross, min'ht bo rcf>rfSi'///ci/ and its n^niior// abide to tho end of tho world, and \\ssa/tif.iir// e(/icnce in it ol'the ISody and r)lood of Chri.vt. aiul that you deny. Aii<>/ic:i// ; — What .■" When we tea
  • k)od of Chri.^t are verily and indi>ed taken and received by tho laithlul in the J^ord's Supper!" Roman : — But you do not oiler the Sacriiico. AVo have examined your l^ieharistic K'itt^ and we can Jiiul tinn'c no ollcrin"' to God of tho liodv aiul Blood of tho Lord. Anp;licn*i : — And yet it h there. Your own doctrine of what is (Essential to a tomplote and perfect sa(n'iii'H> ol'the Mass ought to have saved you from making' this objection. * Sessi')ii xxii, cii;). 1. t De .Mis,.^rt. Lit), i., c, 25. LV) crifici' of Ihe ays j)i'()}(»sti'(l Vi' is and wo i>in-('st'nlativo, ' pvopitiiitory uiQ'hl l)y your laf our Lord il II(^ mi^lij h(M'e1)y Hint li.slKxl on tho to I ho Olid of tln> roniission mioniorativo, •our grt'atost ho Mass roal nd I^lood of lildroii in Iho st arc vorily n tlic Lord's AV(^ Jiave nd tlitM'o no Old. doctrino of riiii-o of tho is objoctioii. What aro tho Gssontials ? Bolhirmino discusses the quostioii fully ^ and comos to tho conclusion that tho followinu-only arc essential to tho sacrilico : A lawful Lriosl ; Bread and AVino ; the act of Consecration ; consumption ])y the I'riost. That is, — a. priost consocratos tind partakes without anv act of oiroring', visibh^ or verl)al, and the sacrilico is coinphHo. But Dr. Pusov had hrouuhtthis to liuht lonij ano: " Where there is Apostolic Succession (says he) and a coiisccralicii in our Lord's own words, there, it is held by ]\oinan author- ities, is tho Eucharistic Sacridco." f "Why then have we not the luicharistit' Sacrilic(> :* " r>e- causo you have not tht^ Apostolic iSucci'ssion." ]]ut why have we not tho AjH>siolic succession ? " Because vou ha\'e not tho l']ucharistic Sacrilico."' Ves, that is what tho Ivonian case aii'aiiist us amount to; — a \icious roasoninu' iii a circle. So much, then, for tho alloii-od nullity of our Orders owino- to delicioncy of Form. C'ON.^ECRATIOX OV BlSIlOf.S. It). T have not treated separat( ly of tho consecration of Bishoi>s. Tho «>'rounds alleged for the nullit y ol their ( )rders are substantially tho same as those urged atiaiiist tho Orders of our I'ri>'sts. Tho one defect which Pope Leo finds in tho ordination of each is that our Ordinal does not bring out clearly and confer tho Sacerdotium. If I have failed to show tho futility of tho reasons alleged for pretending to nullify our Priests' Orders, it is mere waste of tini(> to say anything about the Episcopate. And, on tho other hand, il tht> valid- ity and sufliciencv of our ordination of Priests is inadoiz-ood. no one will raise any (juestion aljout tho consecration of our shops. AlLI'-.OED DeFKOT of LXTEXTIOIV. lY. Wo come, then, to our last point, tho alleged cA'/ec/ o/ Intention. This need not detain us long-, for incidental ly it has been fuBy considorinl already. * De Missa, Lib. ii., cap. 2". t Eirenicon, p. 33. 26 Wluii is menut l)y Iniontion is slaloJ cK'tirly cuouuli in tho l]all : " AVhtMi any ouo h;is ri^-h(ly and seriously niailc use of till' due Form and Matter riNjuisit;' I'or (Mrcclinu' tin- SacraniiMit, he is considered by the very la't to do wlinl tlu> Clmr(;h does" Tho Pope dei'lai'es that we have introduced a new rite, rojeeting \vh;it the (Miurch dues, nnd tliat, eon- se([uenlly, our intention is destructive oi'the Sacrament. All this has been fully considtM'ed. All lliat is essential i'oi- conferrinji' Holy Orders — so all ixoman Lituruists now iiii'rec — is the layinii" on of hands witli one prayer indicatinti' what is meant, and with the iniontion oi' doii. what (he (^liureh does.^ Is tliere no such prayer in our lulwaidine ( >rdinal ? That is the whole (juestion. I'Or lhf> Iiii[)o>iiion of Hands is there; and with resp(K',t to Iiilention, no one questions the seriousness of the Church of l*]n<>land in this matter; nor can any candid peison deny thai in the matter of conferring- Holy Orders the Chuich o! lOnnlaiul then iuteiuled to do, as she plainly says in th(^ Pi'cface to * Till' (|iii'Slioii (il ////'/(//!/// is ;il)ly iiml fully ilis('iis-;c(l in tin- tliiril ol tlio Ri'V. Of. Morlinicr's S/ . Marl.'s I'dficlihil Tnii'.<. (li'i'.'.". I.ncii-t Slri'Ct, I'liila- dcllilii.'i. lH' ,"ilV) Ik' i|U(itcs llii' liilldU iiiir iiui-;! iiii|M)itiiiit iiapsu'^c iVoiii llrllar- iniiic (\'(il. 11, Hook 1, Ciiii. L'TI : '' Tlic o|iiiiion oT Cinlmlit':; is iliat llu' iiilciiliiiii of (loiiiy; what llic Clmri'ii (loos is ir(|uiiui!. IJtit lioiu ci'itaiii tliiiins must lie noli'il. i'iist, a miiiisti'i isi not rciiiiiicl to have tho >roiioral iiitciitioii of iioin^- wiint the ("luirrli iloos in such a .sciisr that ho OMiiiiot have a |)ailioiilar iiiti'iiti;ai. Oil tho ooieraiy, it is lioltor to liavi' a ]iaiuciilai' intcnlioii. ot ooiitori in:;' llio Sac- raiiioiil of Haiilisiii, Alisoliitioii, ('oiiliiiuatioii, ("oiisoorali(>n of tho l-.uoliaiisi, etc., oto. Uiii it ho is not aoiiiiaintod with our mystorii's, it \:i snjh'cirnf if hi' in- toiiils ill a Lioiioral way to do what tho Chiircli cU)Os ; ami this llio Coniioils (of Floroi:co ami 'rroiit) toaoli. Sooomlly, ihoro is no ni'od tointond |to do] wiial llio Jxiiniiin Churoh does, hut what the lino ("liuri h doos, whatsoovor ( liuroli that may ho, ('/■ what ("iiiiisr insiiimod, n/- what Chrisiians do ; for tlioso all ooiuo haok to tho saiiio thinu'. ^'oa ask, Whai if any one iiitonds to do what soiuo imi'tioiilar falso Clinroli dois. which ho thinks to lio tho tiiio ("liuicli, such as tho Cliiudi of ( ioiiova, and iiitouds not to do what llio Kciiian ("hiii'oh doos? T lo- ply, this is snllu'ii'iit, for ho who iiitouds to do what the l^liiii'(di ot (ionova doos, intonds to do what tho iinivoisal ('hiiroh doos, foi- ho iiiti'inls to ilo what such a Clinioli dors hccaiiso ho thinks that Climcdi to ho a iiionihor of the tnio univorsal Chnrtdi, allhoiiLih ho is luislakon in his kiiowloil,L;o of tho true (.'hiircdi. Tho iriiir, howt'vor, of tho iniiiistor alumt tho Chin'oli doos not hiiidor tlioojlicaoy of tho Saciaiiii'iit, hut his dofoct of intonlioii." lioUanuiiio tlion ijoos on to say that liorotics such as Tiliuann and Choinuit/. fivlsoly say that tho Council of Trout has doliiiod that a Sacrainoiit is not valid iinloss tho iniiiistor intonds not only tho act luit also l/i" i n.l oi' tlio Saorainonl, '■ that is. iinloss ho intonds that on acooiuit of wliiidi llio Sacratnciit was iustilutod ; which cortainly is voiy dilforont troni our ()|iiniou. Hut this is a sinipio fulsohood (inoriiin inomlaoiuin) ; t'or tho Council (of Trout) in tho whole of ("aiioii XL does not spoak of tho 'ond ' of tho Sacrainent, nor doos tho Council say that tho min- ister ought to iutotul to do that which the Chiircli iiiU'inIx, but that wliicli tlio «. <■ 21 y (Miouo-h in ■iously iiia(l(» ollt'ctinii' til*' do wliiit th(» (' inlroducod 1(1 IhnI, von- •mnuMil. All essi'iitial lor Is now IlHTCC 1" iiidicaliiiy' wlial lin- ■ l'](l\vai'(liii(' } Iiii{)o>ilioii lion, no one iMiiilniKl in tliiii in llit> o! ]*]n must lie nlii'ii of iloiny- iil.il- ii]t('iiti:iii. ri'i iuL' I lie S:ic- tlii' iMH-liaii.-l, ci'/i/ if lii> jii- ■ ComiciU ((if i> lid] \v!l;ll Ihc ' < liiiicli tlinl licsi' all coiiic lid wiial sdiiii' I'll, siirh as the li ilnt'S ? r rc- (ii'iii'xa ildi's, > til lid what I' df till' triu> tnii' Cliiircli. Kt till' I'llic'acy "111 Clii'iniiitz is not valiil II' Sai'i'aiiu'iil, va- iiislitiitcil ; iipli' falsi'lidoil aiidii XL (loPs that the iiiin- tii whicii iho luM* Ordinal, whal tin* Catholic Church IVoni iho bon;inninp; hasdon(\ namely : to maintain and hand on wilhoiit chanii'c, and with all the spirituid i>o\vcrs I hey htive tdways pos- sessed, the three Orders of Bishops, Priests and Dettcons in- stituted by the Apostles. Archbishop Benson's Dying Messaoh to tiik Chdkcii ok Knot. and. I close this paper with a short extract iVom Archbishop Benson's messag-e to the Churc;h oi' Kntiiand which received its last corrections i'rom his hands innuediately alter his last communion and only a lew minulcs before God tof>k liiin, his message oi' reassurance regarding this Hull : — " liil'alli- ))ilily (wrote the Archbishop) has hapj>ily this lime ventur- ed upon reasons. Bui the subject, of ( )rders as nccdt'iil loa pcrlectly constituted Church litis been ;is jealously scrutin- i/ed in J*]ngland :is by Rome, and with much more knowl- edge of facts. Authorities of theirs have, till lalelv tit tinv Cluii'cli a])lisiii, w liii'li is Id take away orij^iiial sin. " ' if we ajijily these ileliuitioiis ol r>i'llaiiuine(ailils |)|-. Mm liiiiei) to llii' I'iilwanl- iiie ( liclinal. t licie can lie no iloiilit. tiist that the art was iloiie seriously, ami seeoaiUy, willi the intention ot iiiaKinir a Saeianielit. llial is nf 'loiiiLC whal thi' ("hiireh iloes. Tin' I'ojie edin|ilaiiis that tlir wonls " Iteeeive llu' lloi.v (Jiiosr ' eiTtainly lio not in tlii' Irast lielinitely exiuess tlii- saerid Onlvr iif I'liesthnoil iir its grace ami power. " That is, the I'ope says tlnit it is necessary that they slioiiM e.xpri'fis the thinl intention, that ol' the rii I nv iii''r/ dfthe Sacraincnt, /. i .. "its grace ami power," HellartiiiiH' saiil that this was what henties aicuseil the Ko- iiuin Church ot holilinf;, iiml that it was '' an iiiiniitiiiatril lii-." The wonls are IJi'llariiiine's, not ours. And he |iro\ es his iioini froiiilhe luacliee in reirind to Baptism, lie says the ancient Church did iiol relia]ili/.e those who had hecii liapti/.ed hy Pelagians, nor do we reliapti/c those who have licen liapti/.id liy /wingliaDS and Ciilviuisis, and yet in both cases we know ]ierlei'lly tliat then' •was no intention in rei;iud to the end ol'tlie Saciameiit, which is tiie leniission of original sin, because the I'dagians do not helieve in original sin. .\nd so this great ■Jesuit distinctly allirm.s that the intention leipiired is to make a Sacra- ment, lint not necessarily with any lifjiel in the end lor uhich it was instituted. The I'ope also implies that the intention to do what the ivomau Cliiirch does was wanting. Hiit again llellarmiiie says explicitly, " Tiiere is no need to intend to do what the Roinaii (.'linrcli does, lull . . ," what Ciiittsr inslitiiled, or what ("hristiatis do." And no one will deny that oer Bishops liad the inleiilioii to do wl'.al Ciiitisr instituted and what Christiaas do. Thus we find that the objections to our Orders bec.iiise of defect of intention fall to the ground.' 28 l*at«?, taug-ht mere ludicrous fablos about Eng-lish Orders, and Iho late Tapal document exhibits iiinorances of which their own scholars ;^'ia critics are as well aware as we. The result of scrutiny with that fuller knowledn-c was and is lo establish that our Holy Or.lcrs are identical with those of the whole Catholic Church. They are in ori<.-in, continuity, matter, I'orm, intention and all that belonu's to them, identi- cal accordingly with those ol the Chuich ol" Rome, except in the one modern i>oint ol'.subj'cclion to the Pope, on which point at the ]i\'lbrraation we deliberately resumed our an- cient concurrence with the whol(> Catholic world besides." g'lish Ortlors, ces of which e as we. The was and is (o vith those of 1, coiilinuity, thorn, ideiiti- Rome, except )pe, on which lined ouv an- ^vld besides." V ^3 ARCHDEACON ROE'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH TlIK CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN. For some time before Archdeiicon Ivoe's Paper printed above appeared in the Utar, a correspondence on the subject of the Hull Apoalolira: Ciiiir aiul Anglican Orders had been in progress between two genllenien f-igiiinjr themselves respertively Anirliraa C/erii'i^man of f/if /Jit)cese of Monlreal, and Calholir Theolo<:;iaii. In this correspondence the Arch- deacon had no intention of iuterveninu'. The Callio/ir Thei)lo^iaa, however, having challenged him by name on a point ])rought out in his Paper the Archdeacon was forced to reply. Hence the correspondence foUovvini^. I.— K XT 1 J ACT FIIOM A CaTIIOMC TllKOr.OGIAN's TlIIRU J.i<:ttkk in "Star'" of Maucii 1;jtii, 1897. " I have indicated [in a I'ormer letter] what the form is and when it is in-onouiiced. l'erh:ips I was not clear enough. Let us be very explicit in this important point. 1. What Wiis the ancient Koman Form ? 2. Whnt is the present Roman Form ? 1. The ancient Poman Form was the prayer cited at length by my friend [the Anglican Clergyman] in his last letter, a prayer recalling the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and l)egging for the ordinandi the plentitude of grace to acquit the functions of the Christian priesthood. 2. Now let us take the present Koman rite. Wherein does it dilier from the ancient ? In the explan- atory part it gives a more explicit exposition of the func- tions of the priesthood. "It behoves the priest to sacri- fice, to bless, to preside, to preach and to baptize." It 30 roi'iills ill liko mininor tlio s(»vonty chosoii hy Moses, but ciiipliasiztvs more slroiii>-Iy (,ht» comparison. " Yo in Irulh have hi'cu (li'siq-natiMl in (he scvcnly. Sui;h must you Umvu Io he that you Ito worlliily hy llic i^Taco, of (loci ohoscn unto llio lu'lp ol >ros(»s and of Iho twelve apostles, that is of lh(» Catliolic bisiiops who wiu'e ligunul hy Moses an Foi-m : '• Let us pray, beloved brelhreu, (lod the b'ather .\lmiuhty that IL> multiply His heavenly gifts upon these His servants whom H«» has chosen to th(» ollice of the prit^sthood, and that what tlieyare now receiv- iiii>" thi'ouu'h His mercy, they may attain by His help. Throuuh (Mirisl our Lord."' Now, wherein (b)es this rite, the Matter and th(> Form, diller iVom the aiu'ient ! Only in this that (as I luiderstand it) the deliuite words of the Form, " IJestow, we })eseech Thee, etc," w»M"e i)i()nounced immediately b Tore the imi>(»siiion ol hands in the ancient rit(\ while in the privseiit rite the Form is itronounced immediately alter. Then comes the ciu'cmonial part. Just as the Ordinal is exi>licil in proclaiminii' the powers and obligations of the priesthood before the ordination, so is it expli<'it in declaring the full sio-nilicanct^ of these powers and obligations now receivi'd and contiac:led. It inserts a thanksgiving prayer from the ancienl rite in its entirety and proceeds to clothe the new priest with the sacerdotal vestments. Let us remember that the new priest is to otler and consecrate with the Bishop. The Ordinal wishes him to be vested as a priest at the altar, and the powers he had just received i 31 r Moses, l)ut Yo ill tnitli Such must the i:;ra('(». of r I ho twelve WiTe ligurod llie eiiumer- kI. At this i:iiuls by Iho p about the I'tt'd over the ent. Imiuo- u of huiuls is tliuaudi, the I'd l)rethveii, lis luMivonly hoseu to tho ' now veeeiv- y His help. I the Form, understand we beseech b 'fore tho lilo in tho ly alter. ) Ordinal is ions of tho n declaring at ions now v'\\\^ prayer )rocoeds to lonts. Let consecrate >e vested as st received to be lullv re(M) bless anil consecrate. Then lullows the tradition ol tlie vessels^ the c liidice and paten, and the formal reco^iiiiiion of tin; sacrilicial i)()Wers in ihe new piiest. '^ Ndlhini;' is )iow wantini;', the ('hui'ch has manileslcd her mind: those ^vhom she has ordaiiunl are ordained to the sacrilicial ]n-iesthood : slie expresses it by word, and she exhibits it b\' i\^'y'<\, ami oul of the iulness and the n'ladness of her heart to coiiipli'te Iter act, she w islics the youny priest to exercise his sai-.-rdotal powers; he will oiler an K'onmn ritt\ ^ly iViend •' Anu'liian (Meruyman " implies t'nis in his last letter, (I ml it 's iii idr /Itr. s/zh/rrf of a s/itciii/ t/ies/'s in n iKijirr hi/ Archf/enco// Roe, of (Jiu'hic, /j.\!..',':-'i((/ in //irsr iv//fiiins. I bei>- to maintain th;ii it is the l'\)ini,th:U the porreclicm of tho instrunu-nts ;ind the formula ''l\ecei\e the jiower of olleriui"' sacrilice. etc.," are not the Matter and I'orm of Iho Roman Ordinal. Archdeacon Koe bases his ain'iuut'Ut on two liiounds: the i)rocedure of the I'ontilical aufl tln^ woids ol' I'hiuenius l\'. First, the procedure of the I'ontilical. Jle s;iys: 'The ordimvtion is incuiporated into the mass .... tho (ros[)(d is said immediatelv alter tho tradition of the vessels, theridbre the ordimition is then complett'." I answer: Since the new priests are to (.'clebrate mass, the ordimition and the cerenu)nies as explained above are completed before tho OU'ertory, where the real action of tho mass booins. * lint N. B., tlicre is not ii won! in tiic Poiitificul iihoiit /"'-'//((V/'/// olsonictliinj,' ahiMilv ri'i'i'ivcd. Tlic words mi' : Rfxv.w k /loirn- In niKr surriiiri , I'/c, ]',vt\>iv tiii' Poiifction llic iiowcr.s mill olilic,'fttion3 ol'llic I'li'-.^llsood two itidccd procliiinii'd • but ill tliL' t'oirei'tioii. they are con/erred [lleceir,: jiowei') not procUiiniHj, (Arclw deacon.) 32 2. He arijues from a distinction between the appellation "ordiiiiiiuli " down to the porreetiun of the vessels, and "ordinati "' afterwards. I answt-r : " Ordinandus" very properly desi^-uates the subject until the completion of tJie ceremonies, when he becomes formally ** ordinatus." 3. The conc<'lebrat ion with the Hisliop begins only after the porrection ot the instruments. The answer to this is already given above. ir. His next proof is drawn from the words of Engenius \V, which he asserts are a delinition of the Matter and Form of the i)riesthood, and herein he discovers a palpable contradiction ■leiween two infallihle authorities. A i)riori, it is not likely that one Pope would contradict the delinition of another Tope ! In i)oint of fact, are the words of Eugenius IV a doi'inalic delinition ? I fail to see how such an arijument can be set ui). These words occur in the Instruction to the Armenians at the conclusion of the Council of Florence. The Armenian Church sent delegates to negotiate union with the Uomau See. Eugenius IV submitted to them a document containing, as he himself declares in the last paragraph, -'capitula, declarationes, delinitiones, traditio- nes, praect^pta, statuta et doctrinam " in vigor in the Western Church, and which they were required to recog- nize. Now, what goes to show that these words of Eugenius anent the sacrament of Orders are a dogmatic delinition ? Nothing. On the very contrary, all tends to prove them to merely request the recognition of a cere- mony followed in the Roman ritual and not found in the Armenian. ITiey are not a dogmatic delinition, b>'cause if so they would involve the invalidity of all orders not con- ferred according to the true and essential rite, just as Leo XIIl's Bull declares the invalidity of the Anglican Orders. 33 ippollation s.sels, and g'liato.s tht3 when he only after Eiigeuius atter and I palpable 3on(radict us IV a irgument 'uctioii to Florence, te union o them a the last traditio- r in the to recoff- ►vords ol* logmatic tends to r a cere- id in the •cause if not cou- t as Leo Orders. T3ut siKih is not the ease, for (I) Euixeniiis IV had in that very Council ol' Florence recog-ni/cd the (I reck Orders, which are conferred hy only tlu; imitosition of hands and the i)ray('r ; (2) he recoLinixed tht> Arnirniaii ( )rd.rs whirli ai'c simihu'ly coiil'iTrcd, and did not *'x;u,'t reordinntion (ir an addition lo tlu-ir liiiud ; (3) his words have iirxcr been understood in th;it sense by the Chnrch which has unhesilatinii'ly recouiiixed all rites wanting in tht> tiadttion of vessels, I>ui otherwise sullicient. These wuids of l']ug('nius l\ are (»iily an exposition of an inte^•ral, not essential, ceremony ol the l\onian Kite. The Matter and Form, therefor*', of Holy Ordeis are the imposition of hands and the i)rayer ^iven above. And this F'orm, T again maintain, is a universal Form, found in all rites ('onfei'rinu' real sacriHeing powers. Once ag-ain I say : the Anglican Rite is delicient in this. It does not comey the idea of the Priesthood, of sacrilicial powers. Von My-] m<:ai;s it exci.udkd thI': veky xamI': oi' JMsiioi' oTi I'RiivST. This is the stone which the builders re- jected, and which has become the head of the corner. Therefore was the rite invaliil and during that si)aceof time did the Orders of the Fnglish Church lapse and become extinct. I am answered ihat the Edwardine Form is the I'orm of the Sarum, consecjuently as valid as the old F]nglish Kite. I think not. Examine it again : are not the candidates al. ready priests when these words are pronounced :" Have they not already received the Matter and Form of the Sac- rament, as in the present Uouian Kite ? How then can this formula b*' the form of ordination. =* Taking the Edwardine Form, therefore, it is insuliicient, in itself, indeterminate. Is there anvlhinii: in the rite that can supply this defect, determine the rite, convey the idea * (^imiiare with this llic ti'iiclunf^ of I'lcll.ii'iiiini' lunt Pricr Oons in tlic Coot- note un page 17. . 84 of sacvifioial poworn, and include tho ('onlonin«^' of r»'id rrii'sthuod ? IL'ir oinirH a i/ivrri>rii)r of opi/tintt luhnern nifi friend and Arclulniion Ron *■ Tlu' loruitT couct'di's tliat llu' idt'uol" Mass was abandoned all(ty<'tlii'i\ l>ii( claims Dial no more is it, cx- prt'ssiMl ill I lit' older lM)rins. I coikm*!!*' thai it is not in the very words of the {''onus theniselves, l»ut, I hold that it is ahiindantly and more in lh(» whole rite, in the ex|)lanation (•{'the order, in the prec.dinn' prayers, and in tin* very eon- eeptiou ol' the rricsthood. This is eminently enough to have a deliniti' and une(iuivoi;al meaninn' in the Form. Ar(did(Meon Koe, however, states that this was, and is tln^ eondition of the I'Mwardine Ordinal, that sarrilieial powers were meant to be eonfcrri'd, that the I'jin'haristic Saerihc*^ was believed in. .Vh ! tliat it were. Ihitthis is the lost uracc of a day loniv dead. What am I to contlude Irom the doc- trine of the Anu-lican Church ? What is the Lord's Supper ? .Article XXVIi I. says : " Tli> Hof/i/ of C/nisf is 'ii, Itiken (in priest to fhn .nnnnnnieinit is, as Id its MMiiut', lilt' siiiui' MJIcr tlif coust'cralion llint it f,-if,,if/ „f,f/ ^Viif* l»t'lor.'. vi/.., l>ri':i-ood." rd's Supper ? ^j^^j Hooker, T.ook V.. 7^, says : " The Cloruy are eitlior ^ '"".'! ^ pre.shvters or deacons. I rather term the one sort preshy- (Uid s/iinfN,U ^^,|.^ jjj.jjj p,.;,.^,^ hoc-uis,. the eminentest part l)oth ' ^"'''. '^ '*' ol the Heathenish and .Jewish Servici' did consist in sacri- >ie([Uiiesno Ij^^^ seeing then that sacrilice is now no loni^'cr part ol tVmimun- ^j^jl^^, ("hureh ministry, how should (iu' name of Priesthood remain still 1„. iher.Minto rightly apidied . . . As lor the people, may not 1)0 wdn'ii they lu'ar the narib' it drawelli no more their miiuls leca-ssitating ol' any cogitation of sacrilico than the w.inu) ol'senator or al- vors, indeed, derman oauseth them to think of old ago." ontinual ro- 'hrist." But I wish <'iily 'f> rcd'or to Aridideacon Farrar's paper on Sac- hov in God, ordotalism in the Contniipof'n// Reririr lor July, IsOj, for ed. Dublin, an array of authorities against tho assertion that Anglican liguro only. Clergy are sacrilicing piit'sts. stril)uted to . There is one aspect of the controversy that strikes mc they are not forcibly. How can it l)e contend -d that tlu; Ivlwardine Or- dinal contains the Matter and I'orm of the Sacrament oi iivciKcnce. The Holy Orders when the. Ontlnnl exvliuks Hohi Or//ers from the Kiicliiiristic Hue- ■' o m. -. ' iiuiuher of the Sacrunients ? There (ire on/// two barrnmrnts it 30 friiflics, Uap/isDi mid the. Lord's /S/////;r/-. Ilo^^ art' \v»» lo sup- pose (IimI Ihc I'sscMiliiU t'ltMiU'iils (»l ii S;u'rain«'Mt. csptTially in lliis one, wluT*' Wn" i>T.i\t'st coiisciHUMiccs lollow IVom llin .sliulilt'st (Icrcil, sliouM he sfdulouslv Milouuard*'*! and pro- tcch'd in llu'ir int«'i;i ily, wIumi (lii> rile was not a'U'onlcd llio slalus and nature of a Sananienl ! I cannot lak«^ lor urant- 0(1 that llu've was alwa\s valid matter, \aiid Ibrni and riiihl intention, tin' ess* ntial elements of a Sacrament, in a eeriMUony wliieli was noi reeo<;ni/ed as a, Saerainent. I would not i'eel sure of possessing' or- iprcially in IVom I III' (1 iind pio- I'ordcd llio ' lor unmi- Ibriii and niciil, in a amcnl. 1 lli'd undtM" clearly ex- lOlU lluMU sanilicini;- Anglican ch'tiiaslical iuins (() lulcd His I lis pray- in riit'c; may l>o- lliou hast no as wo l>ut wlioii iM us lu)po •mo I AN. dh Mavcli ho cones- 1 Caholic it iiev'es- 87 sai-y lo address lo you in drrcMcf ol' my l*a,por, 1 sliall l)o carcd'ul not lo d(» so. Tlio latlor <. iil Ionian, liowovoi', haA'inu," rtd'tMicd lo nic l»y name an'ia,n tells us, in words suliici(!ntly magisterial, vvliat the h'oiin is. The lirst, LayiuLT on oi' Hands, is the Matter, and the call to prayer which im- xiUHliato follows is the I'orm. But I dtunur. Unhss I he Catholic Theologian is tin! I'opo in disiiuise, his i//sr. tlixil. will satisfy no reasomiblo person. On what aulhoi-ily does he lay down this law 'i Has the Roman Church ever don'matically doclarod that this if 'Vo I'orm :* Or is the Catholic Theolo^•ian merely sotijig !. rill the opiinon oi' certain learned Jioinan T'" 'ines i 3. I know very well v/hat tho Catholic Theolouian will suy. Ho will say that after Ic.^ , nijuiry and controversy in hiss (%urch this has como to l)o tho opinio)i (as I havo said myself in my I'apt'r) of )»ra( tically all learned l^itur- gists in the Roinan Church. 4, But this is noiainj;" to the purpose in this controversy. Our oracle giv^.^ i^--' opinion when wo want authority. Opinions mus^ jsorve the purpose when we can get nothing 38 better. But wlieii iiii authority, clainiini;' to ])e inlallibli\ comes down upon us and says, You have ceased lor three hundred years to be a part of the Divine Society because you have for three hundred years hieked a valid L^orm of Oidination, surely \ve are ^vithin the limits of reason and common sense whrii Ave ask tliat infallibL' authority, riease to tell us what is the valid Form? If Roma I or. it I a eat, let us know when and wlun-e. Now, I trust we shall have a plain, straightforward answer to this <|uestion, and then we may have something to say. Till then I reserve the remainder of the C. T.'s criticisms upon my paper. 5. In the meantime let me sov liat the Church of England is not tied down to any j t. .ilirg- with words such as Matter and Form and Intention, any 'nore than was the whole Catholic Church for a thousand or more years after Christ. The Scriptures and the old Catholic Church have always held and taught that what is essential for conveying- Holy Orders is the Laying- on of Hands and Prayer. That our Ordinal satisfies these conditions as fully as does the Koman Pontilical, no reasonable person can deny. The Catholic Theologian tells us that in the old Koman Riti^ the Prayer was before the Imposition of Hands ; in tl^e )>resent Ivoman Pontilical it is after it. AVhich it is, he ho'^ - be inditlerent. In our Ordinal there is Prayer oeiV*". ihe Laying' on of Hands, and Tiayer at and with tli ti >. w nony. AVhy is not this Prayer as ellectual in our Ordinal .-i.. in t1'>e Pontifical? The C. T. hints that we do not in so many words in our prayers convey the power of (^li'ering' sacrilice. But why is he not fair here ? Hoes he deny or question that in no Service of Ordination, ]\oman, English or Eastern, for one thousand years after Christ, there is no mention, direct or indirect, of conveying su 'li power of offering ihe sacrilice of the Body and Bloo'l of ' "orist ? "Why had not the Church of England under YjL .ud ^/ 1 the right to go back to those earlier forms of Ordir.ation :' Let 39 )c infallible, ied ibr three ety because ilid Vorm of f rea^^on and I' authority, )iiia loriila est, vightforward e something- f the ('. T.'s Church of words such han was the ■e years after 'hurch iiave )r conveying" •ayer. That ' as does the deny. The nan Riie the the present ! hj'f's ■ . be oel'o!'. [he I' • V t nony. lal Ji.. iii \}'>e. in so many of otrering he deny or lan, English there is no I power of of f'hrist V . .ud \ i tlie ration ;' Let my friend, the C. T., whom we all love, answer these questions, and then if he silences us, well and good Hut in the meantime let hiiu not for«^et thai what we want to know first is. Has the lioman Church delined the Form of the Sacrament of Orders ? Henry Hoe, D.D., Archdeacon of Quebec. St. Greorge's rar.sonag'e, Windsor ^H^.s, March 15, 1897. III. Archdeacox Jvoe's Second Letter. To the Editor of (he S!iritual manner." lie adds, •' This requires no siicriRcial })ower.'' We shall see presoitly. Ihit for the extracted clause, he sei'ms to think it inconsistent ^vith the doctrine of the Real I'resence. But wluit does their grent champion Bellarmine say i He lays down (De Sac. Eucharist, Ijih. 1, Cap. II,) certain rules to guide Catholic Christians in speaking on this great mystery. In the 4th rule he says : — " Christ has not in the luicharist the mode of existenct^ of Bodies but of Spirits. And so we may say that Christ h in the Eucharist truly, really, substantially, hut ire miii// spiritun////, (IS S. Bernard dj/iri/is iJinl in (he Sacraiuehf /here is e.rhibileil /(> IIS /he /rue siihs/tinre of /lesh, but s/)iri/iii///i/ no/ cnriia////.^' AVell what does the C. T. say to that ! If Christ is not present corporally, nor carnally but only spiritually, how can He be eaten otlnn-vvise than in a Heavenly and Spiritual manner? But I need not have drawn the conclu- sion ; — here are the very words of their perhaps equally great authoi-ity, Cardinal Cajetan : — " The real Body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, //el not corporalli/ but spiritiurl/i/.'' '^ Oimsf, '|\nu •_', Tnii't "J tie Kiioli. c;i)). ."i. 41 nu'liciiii IJifo p." Theit' is ulimce al our ^s oic'ur in it o prove that, ii'ilice. which would s straiigv that t ifs vei'v "ood on, takoii and and si)i ritual li'ial power.'" ed clause, he •ctrijic ol' the ;it champion liarist, Lih. 1, Christians in le he says : — 1' existence of that Christ iii' Vl ll'f 111(11/ not 11/ spiritKnlli/, re is c.rltibileil ffiif ciiniull//.'" Christ is not ritually, how 'avenly ;uid 11 the conclu- haps equally 3al 13ody of trpofdUij but "This requires no satrilicial power," adds \\w C. T. Perhaps alter the abovt; hf will not Icel so conlideni. IT Christ is present as our sj)iritiial I'ood and sustenance. He is present also, the Roman Church teaches, as our iSacriiiic The matter and form ol" the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice are the same. V^ou cannot have tiic one without the other So says Bellarmine ; so says j'errone ; so say all Roman authorities. 4. But the C. T. is not satished. Ho will have it that we reject the Eucharistic Sacrifice nolens vo/ens. And so he proceeds to ask, " JJid Cranmer belirve in the l']ucharistic Sacrilice ?" and answers by an t^xlract which does not so much as mention the Sacrilice. If you, Mr. Editor, who have treated us wilh so much generosity as to your valuable space will allow us to subi« ct, I shall be "lad to meet the C. T. on the question of Transubstantiation also ; but in ihe nu'antime we had better keep strictly to our text, and not go olf on all sorts of side issues. C. T. then asks, " Did Cranmer believe iutht^ Eui-haristic Sacrilice?'" Well he allirms over and over again that he did, and C. T.. as a charitable Christian, ouyht io believe him. Thus in his answer to Smith's I'leiaci', he says : "The controversy is not whether in the Holy Communion be made a Sacrilice or not, for herein both Dr. Smith and I agree with th*- aloresaid Council at ]"4:)h('sus, but whether it be a propitiatory Sacrilice or not. 1 say there is a Sacri- fice ; but that the same is propitiatoiy neither I nor the Council do so say." And so he says over and over again in his controversy with Gardiner. Now I am persuaded that in their aflirming or denying the Sacrifice to be propitiatory, these two and many other divines have been really agreed, but differed only about a word. I have quoted Abp. Brandialls statement of the sense in which the Church of England accepts or rejects a 42 pvopitialovy ^^acnfioe in the luichiui.s.', aiui have shown that wluit Abi). Bramhall, with all our sii'xstMjucnt di- vines, alUrnis that wo boliovi', is ivord for jvord in (lii'ree- meiit tvifli flic Coinidl of Trent. Tiio Council says that " our Lord instituted the Sacrifieo ol' the Altar in order that His 8acrilici» made once lor all upon th<' cross miuht be repres- ented and its viemori/ remain to the end of the world, and its savini>' virtue ])e appliedy This is Rosnan doctrine and it is ours. I nhappily all Romans (pare (\ T.) and all Anglicans do not know what their own Churches really teach. But (\]T. will say, After all, you reject the jn-opitiatory Sacrilice. We answer : What do you mean by propitiatory Y Do you mean that the t^ae.riiice of the Altar adds anything- to that of the cross? Or do you inean with Bellarmine, with Veron, Avith I'errone, with all Roman theologians, that " the Euchari>tic sacrilict^ is .s-//// to l)e piopitiatori/, heraiise it ii)ipefrntes from God the upplic.alion of the inrrits of the pnx- sion of Christ'" '. These are Veron's words, a distinguished Roman theologian. If this is your meaning, we are heartily with you. Ihit it you mean that the Sacrilice of the Altar '^merits redmniition and the forgiveness of sins" — a state- ment which Bellarmine and Veron n^jeet — then we sorrow- fully turn away. But remmnber Relhirmine turns away with us, .saying : " Thi* Sacrilice of the Mass is proper/// itii- />e/m//re ()/////, because Christ is now immortal, and ran neither merit nor stitisfj/. But when it is said to be propitiatory or satisfactory it is bermise it im/ietrntes remission of guilt or punishment.'' Is it not clear that the controversy about this word })ro- pitiator// is very much a contest of words ! So it certainly was in the mouth of our great Divine Hooker. When he says, "We have no pro/x'r sacrilice," he evidently meant propitidtori/ in the bad sense. Rut now suppose, which I deny, that Cranmer did reject the true Eucharistic Sacrifice, —is the Church of England bound by everything Craumer said { \\\ E * U'e shown tMjlU'llt (li- / in a>^-ree- i t liat " our r that His be re/tres- vld, and its le and it is Anglicans c-h. " opitialory pitiatoiy Y > anything- nine, with ians, that •//, herauxe of the jhia- inguishcd i'o hoai'tily the Altar — a state- 'e sorrow- rns away uperli/ iin- an neither iatory or ' guilt or rord ])ro- (■ertainly i-Vhen ho y meant lid reject England 4'i The question is about our Ordinal, which is saitl to l)e invalid because its authors inti-nded to di'ny and iv'ject the Eucharislic Sacrilice. Ihit what proof is theit> of tills inten- tion ? Absoluttdy none. On whose authority does tlie Ordinal rest V On Cranmcr's :* (certainly not. It rests on the authority ol" the whole body of the P)ishops of the (.'hurch of I'higland then living and holdinu' rule in the Ohurch But many of these Bishops weic optMily aiul avowedly devottd to the '■ old learning," and would sooner have died than have given their sanction to a book intiMuled to deny the t^acriliee of ^"hc Eucharist. .\iul yet they both authorized and used the lildwardine Oidinal. Aiul when JJishop Gardiner was asked by the Council and the J'ro- tec!or what he held with n'gard to tlie Book of Comnion Prayer, of which th(? Ordinal was a pait, he ri'i)lied that. " notwithstanding he would not havt> drawn it up altogether in that manner himselt", yet that he could faiily reconcil(> it to his conscience, and, therefore, should ofHciate by it, and take care to bring others to the same confoiinitv." "^ Now I have done with the J-lucharistic Sacrilice. 1 am sorry I have b(^en so long, but this is the main point in the Pope's Bull. Our orders xwo invalid, he says, because we rejected the Sacrilicinii- I'riesthood. Is this tiue '. Is there any ground lor it ? Is there not abundance ol proof tlial the Kucharistic Sacrilice has been held aiul taught — notwith- standing the immense pn^judice which the shocking trallic inSacrilices of Masses for the sotds in purgatory has lodged so firmly in the minds of l*]nulishmen — has been held and taught by England's EccU'sid Dorenx liiinly aiul faithfully from the first day until now ? Is it not true that when great men like Bellarmine explain their meaning, and tell \is that Propitiatory in the Sacrilice of the .Vltar nieaiis Jin/iclrn/iofi and nothing else, our hearts gladly respond, and we eag(>rly say, " This Sacrilice all English Ohrisl ians hold and rejoice * ColUei's Ecc. Hist., vol. ii., fol. -".'l'. 44 in.'" And how then can ^v^^ with patience and without india- nation, read the words put into the mouth ol'a irreat and ven- erated Prelate, prochiiniing' to the whoU; world that we are no part of Christ's (Miurch hecanse we reject the Christian Trieslhood and the Christitni Sacrilice ? HENi{Y mm, D.l)., Aridideacon oi' Quebec. St. George's Parsonage, Windsor Mills, P. Q., 22nd Mareh, 1807. uii ni ev bi sii lit IT. Thk Catholic Theoloc.i.^n's Second Lettku in A.\S\* Elt TO AkCIIDEACON KoE. To the Editor oi' the Star : Sir, — Imperative dtMnands on my time have prevented me I'rom sooner answering- the (jucslions of the Venerable Archdeacon Roe. 1. I am requested to state whether the Catholic Chiirch has defined the Form of Holy Orders V Now, I answer that a definition of the Form is unneces- sary. I cannot admit the principle involved in this ques- tion, vi/.. that the doctrine of the Church must be taken from her canons only. If a truth has been called into doubt, it the sense of Scripture has been perv(>rted and the teach- ing of tradition misinterpreted until there is danger that the minds of men be led astray, in such a case, well and liood, we mav ask for a definition and count on a clear ex- planation ot the disputed point. But, when there has been no cjHlnuUrtion, no (/isforfion of the doctrine, no occasion for a definition,^ is it reasonable to demand this definition ? Now, as regaixls the Matter and P'orm of Holy Orders, is not the teaching of the Catholic Church sufficiently evident from her practice, from her liturgy, from perpetual arul The italics arc mine. IT. R. ^■? 45 lA'ithoutiiidio'. universal use, daily use, from the whole economy and si]^- irreat and veil- niiicance of her rite.'' Most assuredly. Roiim hxiild vat in Id that we are every ordination oi' a [)rii,'.st, in every consecration ol' a the Christ ia)i })ish<)p. , Not only does she express this in her own liturgy, but ••1)., she reiterates it when she recog-nizes valid orders in the of Quebec. lituryy of heretical and sehismatical Churches. Well, all orders recogni/ed by the Catholic Church are, liin a clear ex- What is the doctrine of the English Church ? In Holy ere has been Communion there are really, truly and substantially only occasion for (I Bread and Wine. "The Body of Christ is g-iven, taken nition? and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and 1 .X , . spiritual manner." '• The Sacramental Bread and Wine 'ly Ureters is ,1 .,' i remain still hi their very natural substances, and, there- ntiy evident a^l ^ u'petual and , '^1 * Of couissu the Aicli(le;iL'(iii said not oiio word liore or ol.so wliorc us to his I own viows or opinions. Pie .sets forth the teaching uf the Cliurcii of KugUuid I from hur own documents. 11. K. 46 Ibiv, may not ho adoivd." "That wiiich is n-iven l)y tho priest to tilt' (•<)tninuiii('anl is. as to its iiaturo, tho saincf alU'i' tlu' coiisccialioii that it was ^elbro, viz : lii'oad and Wine, only alliTcd as to its >ise and sig-niHcatioii." All this i(>,|nirt's lu) s;uTilici;il powers. To sum it up, as ("ajctan s:tys, " The real Mody of Chiist is eaten in the k^acvani.onl, yet not corporally l»ut si>iritually." To have th(> vci\\ body lu'cessitates r(>al saerilice and real priesthood. The I']iii;'lish ("hurch teaches: Real Ihvad and Wine (not the real Mmly) arc taken in the Saorai.ient, l)ut only a iigure ol" the liody and Hlood of Christ, and heconie a par- ticipati(»n of them by I'aith and in the receiving-/^ No real sacrilict^ is here aduiitti'd, nor the necessity of sacrilicial powers. To use my friend's own argniment, is his belief the leaehinii' of the l<]n<:iish Church, or only his own opinion? To-day does the i']nglish Church tt'ach this ! Ah, no, it is the belief of a <.t'n)up of her children ; and lifty years ago, a hundred, two hundred years ago, Avhat was her teaching on this point .■' How many held this doctrine? What were her practices ? How oft.'U hare I stood in the grand English Cathedrals, and along thi' highways and the by-ways in the ivy-clad Parish C.^hiuchcs where of old the altars were, and belore the tabernacles the lam[)s burned night and day ; where the wayl'artM', the viator, came reverently in, and kneeling in adoration before his Saviour, begged that whom he now saw veiled in the Sacrament, ho might see lace to face, — this and more came to my mind, and as I looked about rae, tears rose to my eyes and from my heart the complaint, " Why did ye do this? Why .did ye banish the Blessed Sacrament from this great and religious people ! " '^ '9 * Till' iniiitci- sii'uis to liiive niixcil iij) this luirn graph. The sense intended, houevor, CiUi lii' si'i'ii. II. 1{. '^ liven by the [•e, the same : Biejid and u." ) sum it up, \iteii ill the " To have 1 i)ri('stlio(Hl. (1 Willi' (nol l)ut only a I'onie a par- ^.^ No real of sacrilicial s beli(?r the ,vn opinion? Ah, no, it is years ag'o, a ler tearhinu; ine ? What Cathedrals, the ivy-clad , and belore day ; where lid kneeling lom hi> now e to lace, — d about me, 5 complaint, the Blessed ' !" sense intended, 47 Here and there the lamps are })eini>' lii>htt'<1 onc»> more, some princ(\s are come home auain, and as a lon^ scparMird mother Irom her child, the Church stretches out lu-r arms with ti'ars and smiles. And we are all praying". A CaTIIOLU' TllKOLOdlAN. \'. Ahcudkacox K(»k's 'riiiKD Li-:ttki{ in AjNswi<:i; to 'nil'] Catholic Tukoi/xjian. To th.' Kdilor ol'the Sfur : Sir, — Xo (Uic, I think, will say that my Iriend, lh«^ Cath- olic Theologian's Idler in your issui? ol' Saturday, u'ives sUc'h " a pliiin. strMinhtlbrward answer"' as 1 asked lor and had a right to receive to my question, whether the lioman Church has ever delincMl tlie Form ol the Sacrament of Orders ? However, 1 have elicited from him an acknowl- edgment of till' faet that no su then ask your readers to lak«^ in the irony — perhaps I should rather say the humour ol the situation. l'o[)t^ Leo deelares our Orders invalid o)i the ground of a defect in our l*\)rm ; ami whe)i we ask what is the trin' Form which we have failed to observe, we are answered that " it has never yet been deiined I " Is not this quite too absurd ? Does the C. T. suppose that all the rhetoric in the w^orld (and let me beg of him, in passing, to give us a little less rhetoric and a little more logic) can persuade any reasonable man that the position of the Pope in this matter is consistent with common sense, or common justice V This is the way the argument runs : — The C. T. — " You are no Church, because your Form is defective." Anglican. — " Inform ns what is the true Form ? " 0. T. — " I cannot ; it has never yet been defined." 48 I'lit our IVit'iid, tilt' ('. T., linds a way out of the dilUculty. Tllc P'oiiu liMs never yet heeii (loliiied, lie tells us, l)et';Ulse theio liMs iie\er yel been a call lor such a deliuitiou. " Tlio. deliuiliou is uiiiiocessary. Theie has hei'U no contradic- (ion, no occasion lor a delinilion ! " This fairly takes away my hrealh by the splendour ci' its audacity. Never yet any occasion or ground for tl jlinition of the Form in the Sacranu'iit (.f ( )rders ! Why. there is not a man w ith the smallest acijuaintance with the I'acts, whodo<'s not know that there is no point iu theolou'y which has been mori' <:ontro\ erted in the Roman schools for the last three hundred yi'ars than this. There is no point on which Ro- man divines ha\e ben less ayreed. Your readers will think this incredible alter the V. T.'s conlideni asseilion ; neviTtheless it is strictly true, as 1 shall now proceed to show. Hy a A cry curious I'oincidence, I n^ceived yesterday from sonn' anonymous charitable Chr "an anxious for my 'Ver- sion (:'). a ( opy oi' the Sepleii number of the Catholic World, the leading' Ronnm magazine, as 1 gather, for the V. S. A. and Canachi. The mauazine contains an article (to which the sender calls my attention) by " the Rev. C. .1. Powers,"' no doubt a distinguished Roman theologian, with the heading, 'Are .Anglican Orders Valid?" I should like to say a good deal about that artich', but I must not be drawn aside. I must, however, say that I appreciate the charity and good feeling of the gentleman who sent me the magazine, whoever he may be. On pages 81711, the writer discusses the Matter and Form of the Sacrament of Orders. After a brief analysis of the Roman Rite, he goes on to say: " The question arises as to the [)art of the (Hnnanony which confers the character of the Priesthood. On this point three principal opinions have been advanced by theologians. The first places the essential act in the second imposition of hands and the prayer, ' Di'arest brethren, let us ask God, etc' According ' (liincully. IS, hcc.iiusi' iou. " Tlio contradic- uk«'s iiway Never y<'t 10 Form ill lot a man ho does not I has been e hist thrt'o whieh Uo- .'aders will ; asseition ; proceed to Lcrday from L)r my 'Ver- ;he Cnlholk her, lor the I article (to . Uev. C. J. ogian, with should like lust not be ireciate the lent me the Matter and f analysis stion arises e fharacter al opinions places the Is and the According lo the seeuud oi)inioii, tlic hmidiri'j; fin instniintnls (vr Ihr Sa- rrifirr uikI flir (irr(>iiip(inf/ineen in the Church of Rome unbroken unity of faith and doctrine on this most grave question of the cssen- ^ tials of Holy Orders, or has there been for many hundred ;; years unbroken internal controversy ? What will satisfy !;itheC. T. ^ Will he have Bellarmine ? Shall 1 cite the "great Liturgical writers, Morinus, IMartene, I)e Lugo, Cata- lini ^ All these discuss the question at length. But let me rather select one great Itoman Theologian of our own cen- tury, Perrone, S. J., Professor of Theology in the Jesuit College at Home, whose works are in use, I understand, in all Roman Seminaries. 60 In his treatise on the Sacrament of Order (vol ix, cap. 4) Perron*' discusses lully the Matter and Form of that Sacra- ment. He says that about the Minor Orders, there is no controversy. " But a g'reaf. coiilenlion Mill /lonrishcs about the essential Mdlter and Form of the Hierarchical Orders. For nearly all the old Schoohnen held without doubt that it consists in the tradition of the instruments and the accom- panying' words. But after that a sounder criticism had in- vestigated all the recesses of antiquity, the more general opinion has now come to be that which holds that the Matter and Form of these Orders consists in the Imposition of Hands and Prayer alone." lie adds that the view is still maintained by some divines in the Ivoman Church that "the Porrection of the Instruments, and the words ' Receive power to offer Sacrifice, etc.,' is solely or at hnist in part the essential Matter and Form of the Sacrament.'' Well, Sir, w^hat does my friend C. T. say to this ? Will he still say, " There has been no contradiction —no occasion, for a definition ^ " But what about Eugenius IV's definition ? I must reserve that for another letter. Meantime, my letter on the Eucharistic Sacrifice still awaits C'.T.'s answer. HENRY ROE, D.D., D.C.L., Archdeacon of Quebec. VI. The Archdeacon's Fourth Letter. The Decretum of Eugenius IV. To the Editor of the St-tr : Sir, — I now come to the most importaat matter in this correspondence, the Decretum of Eugenius IV and its bear- ing upon the Matter and Form o{ the Sacrament of Order. 61 ix, cap. 4) lat Sacra- lere is no s about the lenn. For bt that it ho at'com- m had in- gonoral 1 that the m posit ion iow is still iirch that ' Receive n part the V Will he occasion, time, my s answer. O.L., Quebec. in this its bear - )!' Order. ]. Bnt first one or two words upon the Rubrics of the Pontifical. The C T. waves aside ray argument in sec- tion (I of my Paper from the use of Onfinaiulus and Ordina- tns, with the remark that " Orflinaridits very properly de- signates the subject until the completion of the ceremonies, when he becomes formally Ordinal us.''' But, besides that, such a slovenly use of words is altogether alien from the exactness of the I'ontifical, his theory, when tried on the other Rites of ordering in the same book, will not work. For example, in the consecraiion of Bishops, the candidate is called E/ertus, not till the ceremonies of consecration are over, but only till theact of consecration is complete. Then, in the midst of ihos.' ceremonies, while no less than six of them ;cmain to be gone through with before the saying of Mass is resumed, he is at once styled CotiserratuA. Mr, Powers, in the Cdfliolu; World, cites the same rubrical dis- tinction of Ordinaridus and Ordinnhts, and acknowledges the force of it. lie also shows how the great Schoolmen who maintained the Porrection to be the essential Matter met the dilliculty arising from the practice of the Easterns, who have never had this ceremony. They did not acknowledge that this absence of the Porrection from a valid Rite proved, as C. T. argues, that it could not be the Matter of Orders. They maintained none tlie less the certainty that the Por- rection was the Matter, and they invented another theory to account for the validitv of the Eastern Rite. Surely C. T. ought to have known all this, which entirely upsets his argument ; and, if he knew it, should have stated and met it fairly. 2. But to return to the Rubrics. AVe know from inde- pendent testimony, as ('. T. will not deny, that when the Pontifical received its pres.'ut shape, the prevailing— practi- cally the only — theory in the Western Church, was that the Porrection and the words annexed were the Matter and Form.# If so, how could any other view find expression * For proof of tliis position, see llio dit^cussioti of tlie tostiniony of S. Tlionms Aquinas and of Albertus .Magnus in the Archdeacon's last letter below. /. 0~t '\^- in the Pontificul ? Suppose it were otherwise, and the Rubrics said what C. T. wants to for-*? them to say, — sup- pose thoy said that the rorrcctioii is a mere instructive ce- remony and that the Laying on oi" Hands alone is the Matter, whai would be the result .'' Should we not say : There is evident Ibrg'cry here, lor no one in the Latin Church held this view when ihc I'ontifical attained its present shape ? For these are the facts, ^' ■^ -^ne denies them. " Nearly all the old Schoolmen (says \ .rone) held without doubt that the essential Matter and Form consists ol" the Forrection of the Listruments and the accompanying words." =^ With his own Pontifical, then, embodying this view, in his hands and constant use, and with the Church in his day holding no other view, how (;ould Eugenius IV say anything else when consulted than \^ hat he does say, that the iNlatter and Form of the ordination of Priests are the Porrcction and the words annexed ? B. Now, what does C. T. s;vy to the words of Fugenius i He is indeed in a great strait, electing as he does to set aside their plain meaning. One feels for so anriable a man trying to accomplish so impossible- a task as to persuade us that when lilugenius says IS he means IS NOT. " The Presbyterate /.s- delivered hi/ Ihe Porrertiuit of the Chalice \vith wine and the Paten with bread. The Form of the Preshi/lerdte is, Receive power of otlering Sacritice, etc." So says Eugcnius ; but what says C. T. ? ' According to Fugenius, the Matter is not the Porrection, but the Laying on of Hands is the Matter. The Form is r ♦ Tlio (3. T. iimiiitiuiis tliiit by ilu- wnnl Priritn; in tlio (iiij;in;ii latin of Uiis )iiss!im', FonoiK' tt'iiclii's tluU the HcIihuIuhmi iiciil tliat the I'orri'clioii luid llii> .iiiiiosition wciT '7'/'/^/// tin; Matter. Tl)i.>; is (lisciis.>s. What? Fugcnius lA's decree ni>V(M' understood in or by the Church ol" Home to be adclinition ol' the Sacra- ment oi Order :* This is certninly amaxing. Well, let us sec how the facts stand. Now, one fact is (juile enough to settle this whole ques- tion as to what Eui»enius un^\nt to teach— the fact that Ihu cntirv scclioii nj' /he Dcrrcliim upon //ir Sdcraniri/ls fs /(i/,fii />// Ev!.\ciiius irof'/ for i/'ord I'roDi Sf. 'HiDnios Aijninus. I have the two passages bclbre me and I will plac(^ them preseutly b 'fore the readers. But let nic sny. first, lh;it I am linding no fault with Top' lilugcnius fn- availing himsell' ol" St. Thoma.s' writings. How could he have don(» better ? When standing out an instrutter than use the words of so orcat an authority made ready to his hand, one whom the whole world had for nearly •JOO years looked on as the most trustworthy Christian teacher outside of inspiration ? This, then, is what Engenius did — he copied out St. Thomas' entire section upon the Sacraments and made it an integral part of his Instruction for the Armenians. u Now, suiviy no one will question that lilugeniiis moani; to adopt the sense as well as the words of St. Thomas, nor will anyone deny that St. Thomas was writino; dofrmatically. He expressly says so at the outset, that he is about to " summarize the true faith concerning the Sacraments and other fundamental points, exposing' the errors which are to be avoided." I will now set before the reader, for comparison in the original Latin, what St. Thomas says and what I'ope Eug'enius says upon the Sacrament of Order — extracting only what belongs to the Order of the Priesthood. The identity of the two will be seen at a glance, ErOKNirS TV. I ST. THOMAS AQIIXAS. Scxtimi Sacrjimcntiiiii est Otdi- iiis, ciii^is iiiiitcviii I'st illiul pci' ciijii.'^ tv.'iditioiH'iii confci'liir ordo, sifut Pi('sl)ytciatMs ti'aditur per Ciilicis cmii vino ct i'atcnac cuiu |)aiu' ]»()i-r('('t ioiH'in . . . lAnina Saci'i'dol ii talis est : .Afcipc polcs- tatciii ofVficiidi sacrificiuiii in Im-- cii'.^ia ])!•() vivis ct morlius in No- iniiic J'atri.s ct Filii ct Spiritu.s Saiicti. Kt sic dc alionmi Ordi- imni Poi-niis prout in I'ontificaii HoMiaiio late cDntiiicntui'. . . , Hd'cctiis. au;j;incntuni },Malia' iit ijiiis sit idoncu.s .Mini.stcr. Scxlumcst Sacraniciitiini Ovtli- iiis, .MATIOh'l A luijus Sacraincnti est iilnd inatciialc. per cujus tra- ditioncni conl'ci-t ur oido ; Siciit I'i-csl»\tci;it ns tiaditur per coila- lioneiii Calicis. . . . I'^OK.MA auteni iiujus Saevanieiiti est talis: Aecipe |)i()testalein olVei'cndi sa- (■I'iliciinii in hlrclcsia pro vivis ct niortuis. 1<',1 idem est dicendum in (•()nsinnlii)us ordinihus. . . . I']lli'('tus auteni hujus saeranienli est aiiginentiuu ti'ialia' aiit of oi'ih'r. The .Mattcrof thisSacra- m.'id is that material thing hy the deli\ery of which the Order is conferred, as the l'resi)yteratc is delivered hy the collation of the Chalice. . . iSiit the l-'orm of this Sacrament is ;is follows : lU'- ceivc |)ower of otVering Sacrilicti in the Church for the living .hhI tlKMli'ad. .\iid the same is to Im said in like Orders. . . . But the cll'cct of this Sacrament is the increase of grace to this end. that each one mav he a lit minister of Christ." us moaiit imas, nor natically. about to ents and eh are to [mil Ovdi- icrjiinciiti cujus tr.-i- lo ; Sicut ])('!• coll.-i- ("St talis: 'I'l'iidi sn- o vivis {'t (licc'iidiim IS. . . . U'l'aiiu'iiti ••kI lioc, ; iiiiiiisti'i' VAS. ■anient of lis Sarra- iiLC hy the Order is :terate i.-> nil of tile iM)l'Ill ol' )Ws : l{e- Saciilice iving and ' is to !)(• But the it is (he end, tiiat inister of Itow is it possible to get round these facts ? S. I'homas professes to set forth the Catholic faith upon the Sacraments. Eu^enius adopts tht- entire section of the great Schoolman's treatise, and gives it his formal authority. S. Thomas declares dogmatically what the Form and Matter of each Sacrament is. Eugenius copies this word for word. The Form and Matter of the Sacrament of Order in both is the Torrection and the words annexed. And this the whole Latin Church for several hundred years accepted as the true Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of Order. One letter more, unless I am called to answer fresh criticisms, is all that I shall need to trouble you with. In the meantime, thanking you warmly for your liberal treatment of us in this important investigation, I remain gratefully yours, Hknhy Roe, D.D., D.C.L., Arehdeacon of Quebec. St. George's Parsonage, "Windsor Mills, Que., April 20. 1897. VII. The Aecjideacoin's Fifth Letter. The Decree of Pope Eugenius can.not be set aside. To the Editor of the Slur : Sir, — I have shown : (1) From Perrone, S. J., that nearly all the old School- men h.dd the Matter and Form of th > Sacrament of Orders to be the Porrection a/oNe ^ with the words annexed. This carries us back to the' beginning of the thirteenth century ; (2) From S. Thomas Aquinas (died in 1274), that when he wrote no other view was held in the Latin Church, for he refers to no other ; and PeiToae's statement is fully discussed in the two following letters, q. v, 5ft (-'{) From l*op(' lilniit'iiins IV, wriling' in 14^39, two cen- turies later, that this still held good. (4) All Roman authorities inlbrm us that the samt^ \ ii^w ol' wluit constitutes the Matter and Formol' Orders has been held and taught by many in the lloman Church down to our own day, and that all who have so held, haA-e built, mainly, upon the Decrctam of Eugenius — so amazingly astray is C. T.'s assertion that " Etf<>('nins's irovf/^ trcre t/rirr so vn'Ierstood bfj the Chinrli." I now proceed with citation of authorities to show that C. T. cannot so easily as he thinks throw over the IJecre- tum of Eugenius. 1. Ik'llarmine (died A. I). 1021) deserv(>s the place of honor. Treating of the Matter and l^'orm oi Orders, he says that two opinions were held in the Church : The 1st, that the Imposition of Hands was a mere accidental ceremony, the Porrection alone being- essential ; the 2nd, that both were essential, each conveying a dili'erent gift — the Porrec- tion giving authority to ofler sacrifice, the Imposition ol Hands th<' power to forgive sins. This view Bellarmine adopts and defends. All who have held that the Porrec- tion alone is essential have grounded their view, he says, upon Pope Eugenius and the Council of Florence. P>ellarmine's view prevailed in the lloman Church down to the middle of the seventeenth century, when it was proved to be untenable by the researches of Morinus and the other great liturgists of that age. 2. The same double Matter and Form was maintaiiuxl by the Council of Trent as interpreted by its Catechism. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is of the highest au- thority in the Roman Church. I make two citations from this great authority : First, from De Sac. Ordinis, Q xxii (page 383 of the Paris ed. of 1869): "Order is really and truly a Sacrament. ^m i 6? Hence tho Bisho}), hiuuliiii;- to hiin wlio is bciiio- ordiiincd Priest a Cup coiitiuninii" wine iiiid water :m{l a I'aten with bread, says: Keceivf the power ol' oH'ci'Iiil;- Sacrilictv etc. ; 15Y WHICH WO-RDS THF, ('HT'i;rii HAS AI,\\ AYS TAldHT I HAT WHILST TH1-: Matter is ENuiinTKD. the powf.i; of cos- SECKATINO the EucHALMST IS C'ONFEI.'l.'I'.D. A CHAl! VCTI'.R. 13EIj\(J IMPRESSED IPriN 'lUVl SdUI^ TO WIIKll IS ATIACIIKD (IRACE FOIJ THE ITIE AND I-E(ilTIMATE l)lS('H\K'(iK OF THIS MlNlSTFvY, as the Apostie declares in these words: I put th(M' in rememl)ranee that tliou stii- n]> \ho ('s •"ilM. h), in which" the ceremonies of Oidination arc explained." These are ar- ranged under four heads, as ibliows : " First, the Bishop, with all the Trit^sts j^rt^scnt, lays hands on the candidate."' No comment is added, lor this is not the SdcnniHnilal Laying on of Hands. Next, the vesting with the stole is explained. Thirdly, the Bishop " anoi)its the Candidate's hands with sacred oil. Then h(> delivers the Chalice with wine and the Paten with a Host, saying, Receive power, etc By WHICH CEREMOMES AND M'ORDS \U'. IS C( )XSTrj'UTED AX L\- TERPRE'iEii Ais'D Mediator. 15ET\veen CJodand aiax. which MUST 15E DEEAIED THE PRliXClPAE EUXCTloX OF JllH I'l.'Il-'.ST- HOOD. Fourthly, But, at Hit', end. Ihe Ihi)ith heiinj; n seeon// lime laid vpon liis head. Receive, saith he, the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou dost forgive, etc., and ]5EST0WS tu'o.x him TH.AT heavenly POWER OF PEMITTLXG AND RETAIiNLXd SINS WHICH THE Lord cjave to His disciples." \i no\v becomes plain where the authors of the Catechism stand. They have so far forsaken th(> instruction of Eu- genius as it makes the Porrection the sole ^fatter, and have adopted the view^ maintained by Bellarmine that the Mat- ter is twofold, — the Porrection, vonvejjing the power of con- T iincfnh'fiii' (iHil off'rrinii; /lir Enrliin'iaf, in'/lt Clniracfer and the gift of iiraca ; (Uk/ fin lur,r.idlion ('lusni, that whih' the Matter, (tht's cup or PatiMi) is prt'smtod, tho power of consooratini>- tho Eucharist is coiilcrrcd." So, too, says J*]ugonius. But not so says C. T. " l^UdKNlIIS'tJ MOlirs WKK'E NKVEU SO UNIjEUSTOOD «Y THE CnuiicH." How is this Hat contradiction to bo oxplainiMl away ? AVc shall await V. T.'s explanation with interest. "The CllUK(^H HATH AIA\ AYS TAUGHT": "THE CHUKCH HATH NEVEIJ SO UNDEKSTooD IT:" — these tvvo must be made to agree. The " Always " of the Trent Catechism, the hiuhest Koman authority, b(>comes " never" as it, passes through C. T.'s lips. Come, sir, break thy silence. V^x- yihun to us how (iltfuiz/s can nuan ncrer. 3. There is one step more before we part with Kugenius IV. His friends still cling to him ; they iind it hard to give him up. If not the sole Matter and Form surely at least half! But the historical school, — the " sanior rriiira,'' in Terroue's words, pcrscrnhn/a riiinis oninis (inliainst Prior Robinson (an admirable treatisv-, brilliant, witty and full of solid learning), — Bramhall against do la Militiere, against Norris, the Jesuit, — Thornedike, — Burnet, —calm, good sense and solid learning, — in Gibson's Preservative — and I find the same one trusty weapon iu the hand of all Rome's champions : " Your Orders are invalid because you have rejected the Porrectio, and with it the Sacrificing Priesthood." And, on the other hand, there stand our bet- 00 tor instnictod {liviihvs, ]mliiiii>- tlio .TcMiils' vui niul tlirust ciiliiily aside with the true iiiiswcr lound lo-diiy in the inoulh of Ivomo itsoir, — " \'our I'orrcciio is no part ol' the Divino Sao.iaint'iil ; it is a mere* liuinaii ('tMcinoiiy, ii('\('r hoard oi' lor a tiioiisaiid yoars attrr Cliiisl." 'I. " Well," it will 1)0 paid hy my roadors, " youi' Komaii IViiMids havo at lonulh roacdiod sound and sale slandiiiL;- grouii '. Inivo thoy not, — in their loachinn- ahont Holy Or- ders— hiiniiliatini>' as thoir i)ro(oss of roachini>- il has hciMi." Yos, tho humiliation cannot bo denied. Here are tho stops, down which they have been loreod to retreat : (1) Tho I'orrectio is tho solo "latior oi' Order ; (2) It is not tho sole, but at least it is hall' the Matter; {'i\) It is not halt, it is no part ottho Matt:'r; (4) The Imposition ol' Hands aknie is tlu' Matter. And so l*]uii(Miius IV, with liis l)o(nvtum conlirmod bv tho Council of Vloronco, must stand down and '• lor e\'or hold his peaee,"-as ('. T. must bittt^ly lanuMit thai ho did not do lour centuries ago. ;"). And here, lot mo say in passing", that I rejoice to have met at last with a soul brave enough among- the theologians oi' our Roman friends, to come out and say candidly. Pope Engonius made a mistake. =^ 1 honor the courage and conscit>nec of this distinguished man, Father Hunter, S. J. — A friend has sent mo since my last letter copious extracts from this eminent Jesuit's Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, f The work, he assures mo, is of hiffh character in the Roman schools. In his full and learned discussion of this question, Father Hunter says : " A peculiar difficulty connected with the *A fuller acqmiintance with F. Iliiiitcr's book sliows that he does not say this lie ailopt.^ the ordinary mode of expliiinincr away the woi'ds of the Dccrduiii . My mistaice is [)oiiited out liy C. T. in liis next letter. f Longmans, Gieeu & Co., London, 1896. 61 Siicramont of Order arises from a docrcc init forth in 14:3rt ])y I'opc Eugoiiius IV, in the Council of Florence.' Ho proceeds to (juote the ])eci'e(^ ;is i^iven nbove, and adds to it tlie ar;^iinient from tlie use of ()i(/iniii/t//is, and Onliiidlii^, and then reniaiks : " I'^roni this ii niii;iit ^reni that tlie tradition of the instrnnieiits was llie essential Matter, and this, as we have sei'U, is the teaehinu,' of Tope lilug'enius IV to the ArnKMiians."* This candour is refreshing, rnitwhat will V. T. say V 0. '• Still, after all," our Konian friend may say, " the Imposition of Hands has always l)een in tht.' I'ontilical, and even when we (juite rt'jected it as no i>art of the essential Matter, it was used — though not with that intention, it must be confessed — and so our Orders were safe." But softly, my Iriend, Let us understand this matter clearly. There are two Impositions of Hands in the Vvw- tilieal, one at the beginning of the service and one at the end ; which oi these is the Matter of the Sacrament ? " The one at the end, of course, where the Holy Ghost is given, and the power oi forgiving sins," says the Council of Trent, says the Trent Catechism, says Ijellarmine. " Not so," say the Roman liturgists of our day; " that is impossible." What V Is there controversy here too? Is it then the first ? '• No," they answer, ■' it is neither ; there are three Impositions of Hands in the IMntihcal and it is the second." "Three? The second ?" I rub my eyes. I thought I knew the Pontifical. " Whirh are the three? " " The first is when the Bishop and all the I'riests lay their hands on the heads of the urdinandi in silence. The * The accurate reading of this rlau.=o is, — " and tlii?, as we liave .seen, is the teaciiiii>i couvejed l.iy the iiistiiictioii given by Pope Kugeniiis IV to the Armen- ians.'' T 62 second, vvhou tho l^ishop aiud cleru:y hold their haiuls ex- tciidt'd over I he on/ina/tf/i without touchiiij^ them, while tlic Hisliop invites llu^ people to pmyor. The third, at the end of the Mii.^s, when the Hi.shop iiloiie lays on his hands on the head ol' each and says, ' Aaijw Spiriditn Sanc/um, etc: ' "l?ut,"' we ask, "Why should not this last be the essential Matter and Form as the Council of Trent and its Catt>ehism say it is?" "It cannot he," we are answered, "because the ronre/e- hrdlion shows that the men have been ordained some time before. '" " Then, why should it not be the first of the three ? " " Heeuuse the first is done in silence; there is no Form of words to lix or determine the meaning of the Matter." "Then." we say, " here are all our old dilliculties and uncertainties back again ! " "Yes, we acknowledge that," says Father Hunter, says FatlKM- Powers, in the Calholic World, say all candid Roman divines. " The dilfteulty is," says Father Hunter, " to tell at what part of the ceremony the ordinand becomes a Priest." "What c«mstitutes the essential Matter and Form," says Father I'owers, "cannot be asserted so posi- tively as to leave no reason for question," " There has never been any quest!' II u "troversy call- ing for a decision," interpos. ^ setter informed friend C T. "AVell, but," we ask in am., menf "how do you prove it to be what you call the second ? " It cannot be the third," they ansv^^er, " it cannot be the first; therefc e it must be the second." O, shade of Aristotle, what amazing logic ! I , 68 " IJut, ' wo ptTsist, "(here is no srrofif/. AVliat yon tall llio s«'('()iul is no Iniposilion of IIjukIk ill all. Tlirri' is no ■ tdc/tis, no ol sus- pension and uncertivinty truly pitiahle. They a(knowled<«-(» that they do not know and cannot say with eei taint y what is the Matter and horm of the tSacranient of Order. Most, of them, but not all, think it is the Imposition of Hands, hut what Imimsition they do not know. They think it is the second, because it cannot be the first or the third, not- withstanding" that this second is no fm posit ion of Hands at all, only a holding the hands suspended in the air, thoui^h to call that an linpoaifion of Hands is indeed an Iminmlioii — an abuse of langnaue. They fed sure, too, that the l''orm must be a prayer, though, as to what prayer, there is the sauK' incertitute. Finally, they choose a prayer in the Pon- tiiical which is no prayer at all, only an invitation to pray- er, Owmvs y/7//rfS— Brethren, let us pray— lollowed by a real and beautiful prayer, which, why they do not assert to be the Form, seems sim[)le infatuation. Thus, there is, they acknowledge it, no ceutainty lv THE Church of Rome with respect to thh Matter AND Form OF THE Sacrament OF Order; no certainty WITH REGARD TO THAT VERY POINT FOR SOME PRETENDED DEFECT IN WHICH THEY RULE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND OUT OF COURT AS BEING ON THAT ACCOUNT NO PART OF THE Church of God ! The only point here on which there is certainty is that our Orders are invalid. 7. Let me briefly recall their argument : J?o»mn.—" Your Orders are invalid, because you have a defective Form." . 04 sUppos.K •.(Mih^lliiM'V I'imIpi'I Iiimh wincli il iMii (icr.M'l Wlml i'« (ll;U 1>>m|,s>| ihiu.. (h,. p.Ml.'. 1 l'"orm ' Hiil il is rniol lo ui'V ll\is ,jU.> -ihMi «^nl\ .) nn>in.'Ul iiit'o llii'ir l)os| int>ii li;»\ <' lolil 11 . 1 li.ii II,) , Mil' m ll\'' ( 'lim.>h .>r lumii' iMl;iiuiy. ('>Mil.l :iu\lluiu; l)i> iiiiiro iihsurd / "^ V«>'-. 1 (ImiiK (hof.> is soMi.Mliiii'V ^'lill more !il)siirt| 1,1'IU' ;lsK. \\ \\:\] 1-. .MM l''.-.nn W lllrli \«>\I pi OlliMI nci> i Id'iM'- n\(' ' r.>iM' l,i'(> \111 ;m-\\.M. ilii' «|U.'slioM (li'l iiH !;i\'o hun vM.slit r. \vlu»Io l''i>nn, (li.tinr|i 1\0 olli\ iil\ OS ;1 IrauuiiMlik ll 1> lu.rirr fhr Hn/i/ f,''((t.s7; i/'Visr Nf>y f'hh'i r('r~ nvo ' T!i,' (\mu\«m1 o\ V\o\\\. (ho Tr.Mil CmIim-Ihsiu. llclhir- n\iih> ;\n.l ;iil K\>m;ui iui( !ioniu>s tlow n Ixllio rrscinrluvs ol MtMinUs, (low !\ l.> 1 ;l,> \ni.l.ll.'. / /• , of (lie ,s,M t-Mlt'CMtll fi-n- mr\ . \\kAk\ ilns l-'oiin. ;is U st:\n.ls \\\ iIumi own ronlili.';!!, vnlui ,^ , ,-, \;ilul ..sUn- as il o;us. I'lioy lioM it, iikIc.'.I, lU.sUtil. UM\1, l>t'> nllsO I\>1>0 l\U'.ViM\lUs li:i,l lUlsl ,1 ki>M I V hiun'hl, ih'MH io hol,l (!>o /*)»»•,•,//. 1 io 1)0 ossoiilial Uul Hioy lioM \{ to ho //,;,'/ t ho (ruo l'\>i m nud so lai \,ilhl And whi-ii iho /\>»-.v'(7/.' wuh lis wovils ,-mno\oil \v:\s pro\oil |o ho no ,),/■/ Ol iho OsstMlll:ll M.UIor ;M1>1 l''onu, iliul so tll.s;ll>])0;iro(| IViMU iho ovMiipoiiuoii. ilioii iho huposiiion ol' Ihiiuls. with its /■<)?',.•; ; ,i>i>/rrii. . !,v //'/' S.'i. S.. i!r.. hoi'iimo ipso |';iclo Iho full ;\o,l Ov-iarploK* I'orm. uuKvssilio Coiuioil o[' Troiil mikI Its r:ilo> lusin aiul ]hc Topos \\ lio \ ouoii lor il, all woiil wvoul:' aiul >l(\'oi\oil 111 > t'huiA'h. ThiiJ IS ilio diiomma in w hu'h our K\>uian ha'ihioii lind thotusolvos; If o\u- form is dolo. ii\ »>, I hou iho (\)unoil of Tvont IS oon\ 1010,1 of onv*r. of liMravmu- rv FvTUi. On tho othor hand, if iho t'oun.il o[' Trout hoars tnio wuiioss horoin, thou all nu->doin Ivoiuaii tlu>olou'y has orrod fionulu' iruth hy rojootiim' iu iis t.>;\chiusi' tlio Tri- demuio Form :\ud M;,f;ov. and adoptiiia- auothor of iluMr own devising' lloro avo tho rounoifs words! : " Si quis T (If. • lixri il |n'r Kiiniiiii oiiljinilioiiiMii noti dmi S|. S , m. priindn rmHlnt I';|.iM.'..|M.:; .iJriMv. Am/,, Sf, S , hmI imt .-luti iiou nii|niiiii . Inn,,,. I.. inn , iiiinl lioiim, ,<\i"W Dcspnul.- .IImiIh llflV.« IxMMI IIIimIi. I.. ..xplillll lll|.; iiwity, ImiI so |(iii!r ;|M I||.< Tivnl Ciil.'rliiHMi mImimIh HihI I'.'mI will Ih« ii.i).ommiI»|(v | ''■•'\'' 'j""''''l "•" <'lll«'<-|liHMI rillly mIx.VM IoI IIIO |V|M'il,l, «nm.. ..r ,(n wmi.Im III II,,. niiniin.l LmIiii: A.| .-xIiv„ii(i„ (li'Mv IN lli.< hisf liii|>u.';iii(,ii .,1 IliiiMJ. ) V(.|.. iiiiiiiil.iiM rncKniM '■JIIM r.i|.ili ilii|M.MiliM. /\ni/,r ilM|nil ,S> .S'. ; ,,„n,/n,i ,r,m\rri^, ill- . •'i(|in' r!i'|..Ml.'m illiiiii, (jiiiiiri hiMiiiniiH «lific.i|.iiliH miuh "'''<•'' P'TCmIiI ivlllirlldi II.' DMIIIIIcImIi p(,|fHl!||f|„ |||(m||I"| lltMv, 111,. II. Mr l'j|il..r. I I.Nivc lliiHdiHciiKHioM, willi wiiiin lliMiikK l<» yuii loi voiir IuimI iiKJiilMv,,,.,. j,, ur!iiiliii;^r m,,. ko ImI'v II (ISO dl' y(,iir viiIiiiiMp r(.|iiirili!:. IT (' T. sImhiM re- liini In |||(. . liMi'Fv. I limy |i;iv<'lo mhI; yoiir |l<•^lrli^Ki'.H l(» N;iy miiiihMiiiio in icply. N<»r IIIIIV I nlllil I.I lliiilil; 1,1V kilMJ IVlflKJ lli.. (!;il|i.,||c, 'riirdlonillll lor III.. !..<.,, (I,.,,, .MH vvilli wllicll lie li;iM li;i ii'lLd • lit- I IitI s<»iiii'vvIi;iI lie wild. -red when I lliitih (d il,. Aim! Iiow chii wi« (dlln- ('liiii. h <,!' I'^mhind Ix- Hiidicicnl- l\ -liilid'iil l<> l'<.|„- I,..,, XIII, |,,r sriliii}..; lorll, in |,is r,it|| llic wlinlc K'.tiniiii cnsn jinjiiiiKJ our Orders, ;i)id ho ciinldinjjf n.-- io SIM' |Im> riijilily, II,.. .iiiiiizjii^' lliin/ini'ss, (A' hin idhi-k upon III. Mil ? Tims Iriidiii";' iis l(. w.', willi deep ||,;,.nkriiliM'HH, llic ccrliludr w<' poHNrsN (d" Ihc Khuidinn- o| our spirifniil Mollicr, llic ('liiircli of l., Archo ;acoM ol' r^iwibt-c. AViiid.sor .Mills, I'. Q,, April 2:i, 1X07. "♦ C. Trill. Sens, .txiii. ('anon iv. I Oiil. V. Tii.l., |., :!<);,, (]G VIII. The Catholic Theologian's Third Letter. It was my intention to avoid Archdeacon Roc's answer to the two very simple questions I asked him in the Star of April 24th, but his letter of the 2(3th May (2;5rd April) obliges me in that to return to the oft repeated assertion that Euuenius IV. gave a dog-matic dt'iinition and that the Catholic Ri/c is uncertain.^ This, however. I assure the editor, will be my last communication upon this subject. My venerable friend's method of argument has led him to totally displace the (juestion. Anglican Orders are con- demned not because the Ordinal does not copy the Pontifi- cal, Imt because the Anglican Church did not ordain tSacri- licing Priests. This is the point and the only point at is- sue. Certaiidy, the Edwardinc liite is declared invalid. Put why ? Because it consists in Imposition of Hands without Porrcction of Instruments :* Not at all. It is con- demned ])ecause nothing in it conveyed tin? intention of conferring sacrilicial powers. The trouble with this Kite is not how it was conferred, but as to what it cojiferred. This distinction is absolutely essi'iiiial, and in forgetting" it Mr. Roe has gone lar outside of the real question. I may say that in reading his last letter, I was astonish- ed ? My A'cnerable friend renews his contention that Eu- genius IV. gave a dogmatic delinil ion, and that consequently (>ither he or Leo XIII is in erroi-. I have already proved that Eugcnius IV.'s words do not and cannot contain a dojr- matic delinition, but are only the declaration of a ceremony in the Roman Rite. (Sfnr, ]\Iarch i-Uh.) My proof has gone unanswered ; it is unnecessary to r(>peat it here ; I will be content with showing that in asserting what he does, Archdeacon Roe contradicts himself. Every disputant should know^ his adversary's views. In a point of Catholic doctrine he should be conversant with Cath- m * Till! Arcliik'iii'oii saiil notliiiijj alKiut tlie Ifi/e \mntr iiiici'rtiiiii. The 1111001% tftinty of lliu /'o/w diid J/(/«tc is Uie i»oiiit uiiiiur ilisciiddioii. II. R. 67 olic beliof. That Mr. Tvoo ought to bo is manifost from the kiiowlcdgo he shows of Catholic works, the frequent quo- tations ho makes from Catholic theologians. He is extreme- ly careful to impress us with his having fully gone over Catholic teaching. "Well, if one fact, dogmatic fact, stands out in relief more than another, it is that a definition l)y a Pope is an end of all controversy. '• A sede apostolica re- scripta venerunt, causa finita est," as St. Augustin tersely puts it. How, thiMi, can ray venerable friend contend that Eugenius IV. defined dogmatically, and yet in the same breath maintain that the controversy lasted down to our day ? That the mnlrover^y ir/ii^ not ended tin Eugenia^" dertar- atiou U (in eindentfdct. Apply the Catholic principle, and the inevitable comiusion is : therefore Eugenius' words are not a definition. To contradii-t or ignore a definition is to lall under the charge of heresy. AVas any of the theologians who stood out for the Porreclion of the Instruments accused of heresy ? Certainly not. The foregoing is not the only cause of astonishment in m.y friend's letter and hitters, since I allowed points to pass un- noticed in his previous communications. In endeavouring to prove that the Catholic Church has continuallv erred con- cerning the Sacrament of Holy Orders, my venerable friend quotes from Catholic theologues. 1. He says (1) " I have shown from Perrone, S. J., that nearly all the old Schoolmen held the Matter and Form the Porrection ALONE with the words annexed." (.S7T«Nil coutrovcvsy exists coiu'.i'niiuii' the essential Matter and Form ol' hieran-hical (holy) Orders. I'or nearly all the old Sehoolinen do not hesitate to place it, 0(iually in the Porit'ction ol' Instruinc'iits and the accompanyin*^' \vords; hut al'ti'r a, sounder (•riti(;isui, etc." Veteres enim scholastiei lere omnes nou ambigunt eani in instrunien- toruni PAIUTl']h'. porroctioiie et, coucomitautihus earn ver- bis coustitutMidaiu t\ss «.) li is the word •' pariter," ociually, that entirely overthrows my iViend's aryumeut. I'errone does not declari^ that the Schoolmen a,ikiiowledi>"ed the I'orriH'.t ion ALONl'], as he asserts ; l)ut they pretended that the Torrection AS WELL AS the Imposition ol Hands, \vas the essential rite. I hav*> consul I I'd severa,l editions of PtU'rone, and even his Compeiulium (edited by iiimseH', Rome, IS,")!,) and e\ery one contains this word ''pariter." Its omission in Mr. h'oe's (juotalion is inexj^licable. II. Mr. Ivoe continues: "I havi' shown (2) from St. Thomas A(|uinas (died 1:274,) that when he wrott", no other view was held in the Latin Church, lor lie relers to no 01 her." {S/iir, May 2<)th.) This is erroneous. Not only does St. Thonuis in his Opus V., whence Mr. Roe takes his quotation, admit the Impitsition ol Hands, but in t Disp., i!5, (^. 1, art. 1 and i' t, art. o. he Ibrmally and exj>licitly teaches that the pleuituih^ of the yraec of the Priesthood is conferred by the Impositioe of Hands. So likewise teaches his master, Albertus Mayi.us, and belbre that Petrus Lombardus, and alt. rwards Scotus n:2U(J-l;)()8). III. Mr. Roe next relers to Eugenius IV, the laljacy of which argument 1 have already I'xposed, and proceeds to cite Bellarmine. " All who have held that the Porrection alone is essential, have g-ronuded their view^s, he (Bellar- mine) says, upon Eugenius IV, and the Council of Florence." In the hrst place, the only one holding- such a view whom Jjellaimine names is Doniinicus a Soto, Next, 60 owover, iin«'X('(l. >sseii(ial r nearly iially ill [iaiiyiiiu,' (>s (Uiiin (riuuoii- 'am vor- 0(|ually, Pt'vrono j,-i'(l the ricd thai ids, was lions of hiniscir, )aritoi-." roin St. lo othor rs to no lot only ae takes ut in I: lly and ! ol" the ids. So ;l be lore i(J-l;5()8). lUacy of ceeds to irrection (Bollar- incil of ^' such a , Next, wliy does not Mr. Roc iulmii that Bclhirniinc explodes the ari-nineMt dnivvn IVom jho iinlhority of this Council ol' Florence'? He proclaims "that it did not explain the whole Kite, but only a part." (K'espoiuh.o : Concilium Florontinum non exj)licuisse lotum rituni nM solum uiinni partem." Mr. Itoe adds : " IJell.irmiiic's view prevailed in the lioman Church down to tlie middle of the seventeenth century, when it was proved untenable by the liturgists of that age." As Bellarmine died in 1(121, th;it inciins only twenty- nine years, =^ and, as 1 shall explain shortly, his view did not prevail in the Church for twenty-nine years, or for a single dny. IV. Mr. l\oe gives two cil;ifions from the Catechism of the Council of Tr(>nt which is " of tlie highest authority in the Catholic Church." is iH)t my venerable friend con- versant (Mumgh with Catholi(; theology to bear in mind that tlie highest authority in the Church is llie deiinilions of the Popes Mild Councils/ The Cate(;his-:n of Trent is neither, consequently not of iln' highest authority. "Well, he may sny, of what authority is it/ That is wlial lie should have done ln-lon' making his svveei)ing affirmation. The Catechism is a i>lan of instructions, its dillerent i)arts being written by \arious 'i'heologians who therein ex- pressed (I) in deliniMl truths, the definitions of the Church; (1^) in controverted points, the opinions they personally adopted. Hence in th(>se latter the Catechism has precisely the authority of its composers, or rather the authority of the m(>n they (juote from; and in the older editions marginal notes give the source whence they draw. There- Ibre, as regards the question of Matter and I'orm of the Priesthood, it was of very little authority at any time, and now is of none at all. * Hut Iti'lliiitiiim- wroti> many ycnis bofbrc Iiis (ii'iilli, ami IjcsiilcH lie did not* orifjinate the oi)inion he iidoplod ; he (inotes Cimlinul Uosnier in its sniiport who lived more than a century earlier. 11. U. ■ 70 V. Mv. Ivoe iidducos Ihc tn.stinioiiy oT Iluiitov, S. .!., "a disliiig'uishod and Icanii'd man," '• whose work is ol" liig-li character in the Ivoinau schools." This is out' peculiarity of my Venerable friend's: whenever he chances to mei't with some view of a Catholic writer whicii he thinks can servt' his thesis, he at once confers upon him the titles of great, learned, eminent, etc. Hunter, he says, remarks : " From all this it might seem that the tradition of instru- ments was the essential matter (Mr. JvOi^'s quotation omits these words, " or at least part of it"— and maims the text), and this, as we have seen, is the teaching- of Tope lilugenius IV to the Armenians. " This," of course, refers to the latter part of the hypothesis.=^ Mr. Roe discovers herein a can- did avowal of Eugenius IVs erroneous teaching. ''This candour is refreshing. But what will L\ T. say V " Oh, C T. might say that he fails to perceive any imputa- tion against J']ugenius ; but, waiving that point, I will ask my venerable friend to rellect on the I'ollowing argument : If this quotation means anything to Mr. Roe, ii means that Hunter admits Eugenius to have erred in dognuitic teach- ing ; — il is in this sense that my friend uses it ; for, if not in dognudic teaching, then Hunter and I agree. Since he quotes ai'ainsl me, he must interpret it as a confession of error. Very well now. if Hunter admits such a thing he is not orthodox. Why, therefore, quote against mean unor- thodox work? It would be as fair to quote Dollinger. Mr. Roe's method of argument is not admissible. I hasten to explain that Hunter holds no such an opinion. As Mr. lloe has received copious extracts, and as Hunte^' gives exactly pages in 12 to the discussion of Matter and Form, I am at a loss to understand why this other view which Hunter presents was omitted. I ■*■ F. lIuiiliM-'s irfonMice sliows that ho cannot i)os.'^il)ly Iiave meant what the C. T- hi'iv ()Ut.s in liis month. In tlio section to whieli' F. II nnter refers hack, there is not a word ai)ont the two views set forth by the words, " the essential matter or at least a part ol it.'' 11. U. 71 This " As to the decroo of Eag-(>nius, it does not purport to be a complete tivali.se on the th'oloyy of the Sacnim.'iits, but seems intend 'd only to instruct the new converts as to the practice of till' Uoman Church, and there is in it an express declaration that is cont(Mits are in part disciplinary and not dog'niatii'. There is therefore no assurance that the PontilF intended to assert that the Tradition was essential ; but he called attentiou to a Itite used in Rome supplement- :; ary to that Imposition oi' Hands which the Armenians al- J ready employed. It is certain that Eugenius recognized I the validity of Eastern Ordinations," This is what should have been quoted ; its omission is unjustiliable on the part of him who furnished the copious extracts. Hunter's work is a good, clear, elementary manual, but, J as it is written in Eimlisii, it is certiiinly not in use in ]\,oman schools. Only Latin text-books are used there. I It is hardly necessary to follow up Mr. Roe's authorities 1 at greater length. I wish to brielly refer to the teaching of the Church concerning Matter and I'orm, and to i)oint for a last time whtu'ein consists the invalidity of Anglican I Orders, for Mr. lloe has lost sight of it. I have shown {Shir, April 17th), from Canons and Coun- cils and Decrees, that th<' perpetual and consistent teaching of the Church is that Imi)ositi()n of Hands with the accom- panying Prayer, is the Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood. Against this is alleged the fact of a controversy having arisen among the Schoolmen. Now, let us be precise. What was the exact scoi)e of this controversy '^ It was not, as Mr. Roe inclines to believe, the opinion of the School- men that the Ivite consisted in the Tradition of Instruments only. Not at all. They never abandoned the Imposition of Hands for the Tradition of Instruments; but, while al- ways admitting the Imposition to be essential, they claimed that the Tradititm was equally so ; it was thought to be half of the essential Rite, the other half being alw.ii/s the Imposition of Hands. n Now, how (lid this controversy practirally allbct the toaching of the Church V It did not Jilloct it in the slii-ht- est degree. This is easily demonstrated. 1. In the early ages, the Rite was only the Imposition of Hands, with the Prayer. There can be no question as to whal the teaching" of the Church was then. 2. I'he ceremonial was gradually developed and became more and more expressive oi" the Sacrificing Towers, and for several ages the Tradition of Instruments and vesting of candidates were practised with- out question as to what was essential ; for everyone must allow that the controversy arose after the adoption of these ceremonies, and not before. Well, up to the controversy, there was no change in the teaching of the Church, o. The controversy arose, some ^Schoolmen maintained, that the Tradition, as well as the Imposition, was essential. No/e irc/l : lliul on/// is vliaf Ike Sc/too/me// sa//. How did it affect the Church ? Did she drop the Imposition of Hands 1 No. Did she give it a less prominent place, a less impor- tant estimation ? Not at all. It retained the same dignity, the same prominence. Always the sohaiin Imposition l)y the Bishop and the assisting Clergy, just as before the con- troversy, and just as before the introduction of the ceremo- nial. Did the controversy induce any Pope or any (^ouncil to define the Tradition as essential, to recogni/e it as other than ceremonial ? No. Thi' teaching of the Church has always been uniform and invariable from the earliest re- cords to the Council of Trent and to Leo XIII. And since the controversy, has anything been? No. Does my venerable friend now perceive why I contend that the Church has never otherwise taught? And I bid him remember that this is founded on the definitions of the Church. One more point. A strange error is committed when the Imposition of Hands is spoken of as double. Anyone who has ever seen an ordination must credit the testimony of his sight that there is but one Imposition of Hands that I •J 78 Jlect the le slig'ht- tho eiivly with the teaching' ^radiuilly re of the dition of sod with- Diie must 11 of these itiovorsy, I. i]. The that the al. Nohi d it affect ITaiids ? ^88 iiiipov- e diunity, isition by llie (011- ceiomo- ^ (^ouncil as other iireh Jias irliest re- nd since contend nd I bid 3J1S of the when the y'one who iniony of inds that hists until the assisting Clergy has completely passed round the kneeling- band ot Ordinandi. =i^ Then, exclaims my friend, why deny the validity of our 0)ders since \vc have the Imposition of Hands ? My friend, it is not because you possess it that we deny the va- lidy of your Orders, but betause this Imposition does not ordain Sacrificing Priests. Why? liecause nowhere in the old Kdwardine IJite is there expressed the idea of Sacrilic- ing Towers ; on the contrary they are excluded, the Sacri- fice is excluded, the real presence is excluded. But, he ex- claims, why did you reproach us with omitting the Tradi- tion of Instruments ? AVe did not do that. "What v^-^e did was to ask you whether you had anything in your Rite to exi)lain what powers were conferred by it, as the text meant nothing ; jierhaps some ceremony might t'xplain it to confer the necessary powers and, for instance, the instru- ments. But no, you would have none of them, lor you would have no such powers, you rejected them. O, I am answered, I believe in Eucharistic Sacrilice if that is all My friend, 1 asked you to answer and explain tliat phrase, * I am ■■(t, .'I loss lo iiiiiU'i'Stand liiis slalciiiciit. Tlicrc aic 1\vo actiiiil linposi- tiiuis ol llaiiils ill llic ordiiialioii (iT every i'riesl, aeeoiiliiig" to the I'diiiiCical,- ■ (iiie at tlie lu'uiiiniiiii, and the oiliei-at tlie elose of the Service. There is aiiollier so-called iiiiiajsiiioti iiimu'diately t'ollowiiii; the first, namely : the aetioii of the oi'- daiiiiiitj Hishoii and as,-islaiit Priests lioldiiiir their hands extended in the air, wilhont hicliin, ov(>r tiie ordinands kneelini: belore them. Perhaps ('. T. eonsiders this aet no separate Imposition, Imt only .'i conlinnanee and jiart of the lirst Im- position. That uiinld he a not unreasonahli' view, oiilv nntortnnatidy it does not seem to he adofited by Roman authorities, eerlainly by none in my i)ossession. Thus, Peirone says: •' The .v/cc//-/ linpositu)n of Hands is the essential Matter, for the tirst is determined by no Form of words, and the third is conferred on those who ha\e oonc(del)rated, ele." F. I'o^veis, in the i'lilltulir Miii/mim', Se])t. ]^V7, 11. .sl8 : — " The tirsi opinion jdaees the essential aet in the sin, nil lmpositi,)n of Hands, viz., when tin- llishop extends his hands over the head of the subject of the Sacrament and s - the Prayer. ' Dearest brethren, let nsask(!od, etc' " F. Hunter. S. J., (p. :>7S) : " the first oiiinion holds that the Matter is the act of the iiishop, who stretches ont his hand niion the urouji of unlinaiids.'' So also Sidionp]ie, S. ,1., (vol. 2, p. in:!). The older authorities, snch as IJidl.irinine, the Tiont ('ateehism — -(atid the Council itself, as interpreted by Hellai'mine). the Knulish Jesuits as reported in our older controversial liooks, all held the Sacramental Imposition of Hands to be the third. They do not seem to have ever heard of any other. With them agfoea Peter Dens' See also Bp. Cosin, vol.4, pajre 'i^^>. where the Jesuit Prior says: "I admit, iril/i l/n' coiiinioii i>/iiiiion, that by the words Accijn' Sji. S., Holy Orders are ' his opponent. I never said what is here stated. I indeed sho\v<'d in my first paper liiat our Ordinal does reproduce the old Knulish or Saruni Pontilieal in important point.s, })ut I also made it as clear as possihle that the real point at issue is what. ('. T, here stale.s it to ])('. In the loth section of my paper I say : — "A carel'ul study oi' tlie Bull shows that its one point of serious ohjee- tion to our Ordinal is. that in it we do not jn'ofess to ji-ive those we ordain Priests the power of consecrating- and oti'er- ing- the true Body and Blood ol the Lord ; and that as this power oi' otlering- 8aerilice is the chief power of the Priest- hood, by deliberately intending' not to give that power, we do not confer the Ordi-r at all." I then proceed to answer this objection, alleging, in an argument covering more than a column of your paper, that thi' Church of hhigland main- tains, and always has maintained the Eucharistie Sacrifice, and has always intended to make her Priests Sacrificino- Priests. More than this; nearly the whole of my second letter, covering considerably more than another column of your space, is devoted to jmning. in answer toC. T.'s objec- tions, that the Church of England does hold and teach the Eucharistie Sacrifice not in word only, but in reality and in the true Catholic sense of the words. This strange misrt'i)resentation is of course not intention- al on the part of C. T. ; it is due to that over-fertile imagin- ation in our friend which plays so conspicuous a part in all his letters. The Euciiari.stic Sac'kifice in the Encyclical of ouii Akchbishop.s. 2. Now that C. T. has brought up again the Eucharistie Sacrifice, I may call his attention to the formal and official statement of our Church's doctrine made by our Archbish- 76 ops of ('jnit('vl)uvv and Vork in tluMrljit(> l''ncyolifal Ans\vc lico's Hull. I wisli I could viMiluro to ask you lor Kpact" (o (juotf the whole soction, hut 1 must ho conlcnl with two lini's. The Arcdihisiiops siiy : ''We {i.e. tiu' (Miurch of Knuliind) //•///// /r,ir/i ihr (Ini-lruirof the JCtn/Kiris/ic Sdrri/irr, an I ilo mil hr/irrr if /o Ar (/ • fii((/r ronimftnonifioii of the Sitcril'in' of Ihr Crosa,' an oi)inion which seems to l)e at- trihuti'd lo us." Suivly. this testimony ouglit to rejoice the heart of every true Catholic Theoi()i»ian. I note with reuret that our IViend C T., genial and warm hearted as he is, exhibits no joy or Ihankfuhu'ss when the Churcli ol" lilnaland is proxcd to hold, in tlu» vital matters we have discussed, true Catholic doctrine. Till': AncMCAX ClKIMIVMAN (l<]VAN(}KIil('AL) ASSEllTS TllK SAIMK >^A01!IF1(M:. Let me ask ('. T. also to noli' that his friend, Ainj;lir(in Clerjxi/nuni. thouuh evidently inclining' to the Evangelical school of thought (as ('. 'W docs to the Ultramontane), allirms in his last letter, as conlidently as I do, the truth ot the Kucharistic Sacrilice. This is not, as V. T. insinuates, our private opinion (who cares what our private opinions are ?), l)ut we are hearing witness, as j)nl)lic persons, to the oiiicial teaching of the Enu'lish Church. Futility ok attkmtts to ]:xplai\ away the Dfx'Ree OK Pope Eucexius. 3. The (\ T. sees very clearly and feels very keenly the hopeless dilemma the Ivoman Church is placed in by the Decree of Pope ]^]ugeiiius IV. He upbraids me for not an- swering llellarmine's argument, adopted and repeated by himself, Perrone and others. Well, but what was there to answer V The ai'gument in C. T.'s mouth is this : ' Eugen- ius was infallible, and therefore could not put forth an erroneous definition. But what he says is, in its letter, er- 77 rouGous, therolbn' ho could not have moiint il." ITow can one answer such an aryuuuMit as that ? It is no aruu- nu'ut at all, but simply a, ritliculous lallaiy to ovory one except those who believe in I'apal Inlallibilily. Ts there a IJonian Theolouini in tht» woild wh<» would listen tor a momtMit to a similar explanation ironi any one outside the Roman Church ? Suppose thi'iv were a passayv in our IJook of Common Prayer wliich read: "'There is no Siicrillce of the Body ol' Christ in the luieharist," and I should allirm and should try to prove by some soi)histioal sylloii-ism that the true meanini^' oi'the [lassa^e was "Tiiero is a true Sacrifice oi' the Lord's Body made in the Ji^ucha- rist,"— what should C. 'L\ say to that :* With what scorn and sarcasm should 1 be overwhelmed ! Then, why not mete out to Pope Eugenius tht^ same measure you mete out to mo ? Here, for the last time, is the case of I*]u (juitt; sale, he takes Irom S. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian of the Western Church. In it the Poj)e says : "• T/ir Pri's/>//l^.r(ifc is i/c/ivcre/l I)// flic Porrcdioii of the Chnltte. Tlu: Form of Ike Priesthood is this, Receive jiowir to oj/'er, elr.'' And we are re([uired to believe that he meant to say : '• The Porrection ami the words are uo essential jnirl of the Haennneiit but only an edifying ceremony in use in the Roman Chuich, which, though not requisite, it will do you no harm to adopt." I am chal- leno-ed to refute this lojiic ! How absurd I The statement of such an interpretation is its l)est refutation. The demand that wo should receive it is an insult to our common sense. No INCONSISTENCY IN THE ArCHDE.VCON's RE.\SONINO. 4. "But," says C. T., "Just look at the Archdeacon's inconsistency ! He maintains that Eugenius's Decretum 73 was a dog'matic dofiiiilion, and with the samobivath main- tains that a controversy about the substanco of the delini- tion has gone on to this day ! How coukl there be contro- versy in tlie Church after a Papal dehnition ? " So there was a controversy in the Roman Church after all, and is to this day ! Here is a chang-e of Iront with a vengeance ! In March, our friend scouts the idea ; in June, " it is an evident fact." I congratulate C. T. upoii the progress he has made, and I greatly admire the innoi'cnl air with whiih he carries otFthis Right- A.bout-Face. But if there bi^ inconsistency, it is not in me. These are simply two facts. It is not I who say that the Decree of Eugeuius was a dogmatic delinition, but an unbroken line of orihodo.x: Roman Divines from that day to this. This is one fact. The continuance of the controversy in the Roman Church is another. It is C. T. who makes the inconsi.siency by looking at Eugenius's day through IDth century spectacles and seeing Papal Infallibility reigning then as absolutely as it does now. Let me remind him that the promulgation of the Infallibility Dogma took place a little later. .Vnd C. T. will perhaps remember that Morinus, M'hose Saitior Critica pulled down the Eugeniau ediliee about the eurs of Roman Theologians, was a member of that Galilean Church always, to ultramontane apprehension, tainted with heresy. UnFAIK USK UF 8. AUGnSTIxNF'8 WJUDS. T). And here, in passing, I A'enture to ask our friend whether it is worthy of his high standing as a Catholic Theologian, to try to pass oil' upon us the scrap of Latin from ^^. Augustine, which he so innocently drops in passing, without explaining that it has been shown over and ,te classics of the. Enti'lish Universities, and they nil think 1 am riji'ht. Amon,i>' them is one of iln^ must brilliant scholars in Amer- ica, Dr. Bodv, Professor in the Oeneral Theolog'icai Semin- ary, N. Y., late Provost of Trinity University, Toronto. Dr. Body's judgnn nt is this: '' Variler, i. e., Likewise, The vel^rence is to the i)receding' statemeiit, tluit, in regard to I\Iinor Orders, the Matter was the Porrection of the In- struments. This is obvious to any one reading the whole passage, and is conlirmed, if confirmation be needed, by the word adttjuata (corresponding') in the Compendium, where the sentence runs : Dissent iunt autem Theologi in assignanda materia essentiali et adequata ordinum lli(>rar- chicorum. Scholastici veteres I'ere onines, qnibus non [)auci rccentiores Theologi assentiuntur, censuerunt earn pariter * [iitlloilalc's Pi'.THiNK Ci,Ai.M.s, iiiif;c2!l. "The AfViciu) Chuiclics iiii'l tlin (loinand (niiui<' I'V liiiioi-i'iil) tiy ciiaciiiit,' in A. D. I IS, tlic Canon which .stninif! ns No. l-.'i ill tlie ''<"/'■•'■ /vVc/^'.vv.t Af'/iraine, .•^I'lilent.'infr to <'.\coiniiiiinic,ition nil i5isli()]is, Priests iiiul Dcncons wiio siioiiltl iippeal lioyonil seas (lliat is. to [{omc) iiisU-ail of conU'iiliiig thciiisclvi'S with tin; clr( ision.s of African prinialis and Cduncils." 80 coiLsisloro in ius(rumeiitorum Ivaditiono. Commuiiior vero nunc ovasil illorurn opinio qui ciira eonslituunt in sola manuuni impo.sitiono." Thus Dr. llody holds Ihal the obvious ni<>aning' is that whicli I gave to it. namely, that nearly all tlic J^choohnon held that as the Matter of Minor Orders is the Porroction of the Instrumenis, so "likewise"' is the matter of the Hierarchical Orders the same. The parity of ]Matter is between the Major and the Minor Orders. But supposing it were the other way, and C. T.'s reterence of pari/er were right, Iiow would it alleet my arg'ument ^ It would not atlect it in any way whatever. The quotation Irom Terrone is in my third letter, in which 1 am refuting C, T.'s assertion, since recanted, that there never had been any controversy in the lvom;ui ^'i irch on the Form of Orders to suggest or call for a cI' 'cmatic delinition. To contradict this assertion, I lite Perrone as saying : ''A great contention still fiourishi'S about the essential Matter and Form of the Hierarchical Orders." A more emphatic contradiction of C. T cordd not be. But whether the Schoolmen held the Matter of Orders to be the Porreclion alone, or the I'orrection and the Imposition jointly and ei^ually, the assertion of " a great contention " in the Itonian Church remains the same. Well, this • Blot number one,' on being" looked into, turns out to be no mistake at all, but a strong conlirination of my position. Be it then remembered that no one now denies that there has "flourished a contention" within the Ohurch of Ivome for hu.ndreds of years respecting the Matter and Form of the Sacrament of Orders — a controversy which leaves it " uncertain," in the words of F. Powers, " what constitutes the essential Matter and Form of the Sacrament." Be it also remembered that Anglican Orders have been declared ]inll by the Bishoi) of l»ome, iirst for a defect in Form, wr 81 while at tho same time, after so long and bitter a contro- versy, his own Church has not been able to sett'e what the true Form of th(^ Sacrament of Order is. S. Thomas Aquinas on the I:\iposttion of Hands and THE roKRECTION. II. Next, (\ T. contradicts point blank my statement that " S. Thomas Aquinas mentions no other view as held in the Western Church than that the I'oriection was the Matter of the Sacrament of 0:'der." C. T. assi-rts that in the 0/w/s- ruhia 5, S. Thomas " admits the Imposition of Hands" ; and that in the Sinnina "he formally and explicitly teaches that the plenUude of the. s^race of the Priesthood is conferred by the Imposition of Hands." In answer to this, I reaflirm my statement, confirmed by the researches of a learned friend, that in the OpHf^ciiliia 5 S. Thomas says nothing whatever about the Imp'vsition of Hands under the Sacrament of Order. In the Sum ma, he does speak out formally and explicitly, but not in C. T.'s sense. Take first the passage C. T. refers to,— Quest 87, Art. 5, Taris Ed. 1877, vol. 7, p. 414. The Question discussed is, " Wliether rlianicfer is impressed upon the Priest in the actual Porreetion of the CapT The Conclu- sion arrived at is this ; " Since the chief function of the Priesthood is to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, Sacerdotal cliaracter is impressed in the artiud giving of the Cup ituder the appointed Form of words." It will save time if I quote here S. Thomas's definition of the Sacrament of Order : " Order is a certain Sign or Seas of the CUiurch hi/ inhich spiriti/af poirer is delivered to the one ordained^ The Collation of Power and the Impressing of Character are practically the same thing. So he says (p. 391) : " The inner character itself is essentially and princi' pally the Sacrament itself of Order.'' 82 So, " the Sticrament itself of Order /.s ii;iven in the actual giv- ing of the Cup!'' The reader will note that in, the (hfiintion of the S/wrameni there is no mention of the Imposition (f Hands. It is mentioned, however, in the discussion. S. Thomas conducts his discussions by stating- the Article to be proved, raising' all possible objections to it, and ansvrering' thera one by one. In this case, the Article to be proved is tliat the Act oi' Ordination is the Porrection ol" the ('halici>. To this an objection is raised that " the Lord gave to His disci- ples Sacerdotal power when He said, Ueceivo the Holy Crhost, etc. Bnt the Holy Ghost is given throngli the Im- position ol' Hands; Ihertforcin the artna/ Tm/iosilinn of fhu/ds is the eharacter of Order impressed ^ Now h(M'e is tlie issue put plainly and clearly : In which ol ih«' two is character impressed and the ordination eilected V Is it in Pn.rection, or in Imposition, or in both ? S. Thcmias's answer is this: "The llisliop in conierring Order does two things, — Im prepares i\n} ordinands tor receiv- ing Order, and he delivers the power of Order :^ He pre[)ares by instructing them conceniing the duties oi' (heir oihce, and by performing some work upon (hem (ct aliquid circa COS operando,) that they may be lit to receive the i)ower. This preparation onsists in three tilings, namely, benedic- tion. Imposition of Hands and Unction. By l)enedic(ion, they are bound over to (or, set apart lor), Divine du- ties. By Imposition of Hands, plenitude of grace is girrn through ivliicli the?/ mat/ hecomtjif for ureal dnties. By Unc- tion, they ar3 consecrated to hamlle any Sacrament, and lor that reason Unction is conl'erred on Priests alone who, with their own hands, touch the Body of Christ ; as also the Cup is anointed which contains the Blood, and the Paten which \i * I^et me arjk tho reftder to rcmeiuhei- thiit. aci-DiditiK to S. 'rininiMS tlic Sairamciit of Order is the Sis/n or Seal by wlueli S/iin'/iini I'OWKii /.v iii;i,ivK!iEi), and iiiaik how these words ik/ircri/ af jKiinr rueiir again nad attain all ihrouj^h his discussion of Holy Orders. :M- lal giv- :rameni ? ho mas )i-ovetl, V them is tliat CO. To is disci- 10 Holy die Im- /• Ilamh he issue haraeter reef ion, ll^en■ill^• »r iveeiv- prepares iv oliice, lid circa ;> 1)0 wer. Bt'iiedic- ediction, rine du- h Character of Order must be given in the Imposition." How does he meet it ? By saying that the Imposition of Hands is only a ceremony used to prepare the ordinand lor receiving (he Sacrament. The three cere- monies, Benediction, Imposition of Hands and I'nction arc a pari of the preparation for the Sacrament. Moreover, theisc three eei'eiiionies ai'e phired on absolutely the same footing, ihit ///rciiAUACTEi; of the /'m'.s//<(W, which is the heavenly gift itself, is impk'essed in and throiuui the ac- 'lUAL PitRRKCTIO.V OF THEChALIOE. 1)111 there is mnch more evidence^ in the writings ot" S. Thomas than even this. In (^u. Hs, Art. I, he proposes and answers ihe objection that the right of ordaining does not belong exclusively to Bishops, because Priests also join in Imposition of Hands. He answers it in these unmistakable words :-" In the Impo.^ition of Hands the character o/7//e Or'.lerof Prir^/hood is not (iiVEX, /;/// oriice aerordinii- to whieh /he// Hid// he fi/ /o perform the dutie^i of their order, and because they need th > amplest grace, theretore the Priests lay on hands with the Bishop." , /, I /A {^ . i>*»f«wev St "Ix TiiK Imposition ok H.ViNi'S thk ('ii.\ka( ri:H of OliDKR IS NO']' (!i\ i:.\ ;" how is it posfsiblc to got over tliis ? Van (V T. make an LS out of this IS NOT :" But ('. T. assorts that S. Thomas "Ibnnally and explicit- ly says tliat the i)UMiitudt' oftho Imposition of Hands." Not so. my IViond. You have interpolated a word hero which makos S.Thomas say tho contradictory of what he does say, — an interpola- tion for which after Avhat has i>-ono Ix^forc. I can lind no excuse. Sound against sense is the very l)ano of ([notation. AVhat S. Thomns says is, — '• the ph'nitudc of arace," not, '• the liiaee of the Priesthood." This is the very thing' he Ibrmally and explicitly denies. AVhat is given is " gratiam secundum (juam (u/ exiu/itfiK/inn ort/if/riii sinf it/onri :'' " grace to discharge the duties of the cilice," iu)t the gift of the oflice itself. So much, then, for 8. Thomas. But to his assertion respecting S. Thomas, T. adds : " So likewise teaches his Master, Albertus Magnus, aiul. he- lore him I'etrus Lombardus, and afterwards Scot us." One or two liiu^s in answer to this. C. T. gives no relerences ; but the lact is that Albertus jNIagnus is even more explicit than S. Thomas. In answer to the question, " What is the Matter of the Sacrament of of Order ? " he says, " T/ie Mailer is, IIiom' Unities irhicJi have been entonerali'd " (keys, candlesticks, chalice, etc. — varying with the dillerent grades of Order) " amJ arc porrerled ft) Ihe ordindiid hij Ihe Ins/iop." Peter Lombard makes no reference to Imposition of Hands in the Ordination of Priests, but mentions the various other ceremonies used, anointing of hands, giving the stole, also " the chalice with wine and the paten with hosts, that they may know they have received power oi olfering to God placabiles hostias." Here indeed the Ordiiiiition Act, the M tliis? sr, Miilter, is not conliiu'd lo Iho I'ovroetion : 1)iU it is ovidoiit that 11 IbuiKlntiou is laiil I'or the <'(lilici' rt-aivd lalcr on by Alboilus Man'iuis and S. 1'honias. Scolus, on Ihc olher liand, stavtinii' IVoni a radically dil- li'i-'nl di'linitidii dI' tln' Saeranicnt ol' OrdiT, is ox|dicil in niakinn' llio Mntti'v lo In' Ihc Iinposilion of Uands. Now it must be ( l(';ir lo every candid reader thai Popc^ I'iUiitMiius, haviuu' beloiv* him Ihese Ivvo divoi;<;'ent views of these two L;reat nuMi, Seotiis and 8. Thomas, shows clearly by the use he makes ol' ihe wrilinus ol tiie latter — borrow- ing-, t. r , ibr his Instruction to the Armenians, S. Thomas's entire treatise on tiie Sacraments — that he adopts his view and not that ol'Scolus. All ihis forms a denionslration that he did deline doi>inati('ally, il" ever there was a (h)u-mati«- delinilion, //la/ the Vorrrrlio run) J'ort/ni tiinii'.nt irns the. ISLilhr and Form of Itn Sdcninif/// of Oriiir. FaTIII<;K IlUNTEH, S. .T. III. C T. devotes hall' a < olumn to my compliment lo F. Hunter ( )!' course I am sorry 1 was misled, very naturally, into thinkinii' that he accepted l*]uL>'enius' decree in its natural s.'use. I have his book bel'ore nn^ now. and 1 find that in a vcrv cautiously worded paragraph he leaves a loophole Ibr escai»e lo those who are ibrced to say that /*• means /s n<>/. " Tlirrr i.< no ussnnuKi- llntt tin' Poi/tiJ/inlefu/ed to (Insert that tin- Ponrctiot/. is rssnitial!' Roman Theolog'ians are Ibrced by the n<'W douiua into a very light place, and one is sorry lor th'lie.st aiillioiity, and next the Councils— a va- lua])le piece of inibrniation. I llioiight that every one knew that when one speaks ol' a ])Ook or an author as •' Of the highest authority," one means are debating thi- Cate- chism is ol' " no authority at all." Come, come, C. T., thi^ won't do. You are not the only man in tiie world that is able to n\id. I have the Cate- chism in my hands, and it has the authority of two Po[)es — of whom one. I'ius V, whose own child it may be said to be, set his seal to it, not only on its publication ])ut also in four subsequent I'ulls ; — of S. Charles Boriomeo ; — of twenty Provincial Councils — Ihit what lun-d of all this? "Will any one be persuaded that, when in a matter of such prime importance as the doctrine^ of the Sacraments, we read respecting one of them, in a Catechism recomm.'nded to be used by all Koman Priests in the world in instructing their flocks, that ''the Church has ii/irdz/s liiiij^'hr\ — will any one who is not an idiot b.lieve that it is o])en to C. T. to say "that is a statenuMvt of no authority at all " { This is law- lessness with a vengeance. ()nt> of the stock ol)jections urii'ed au'ainst our Church bv Ivoman writers is that we allow the right of i)rivate judgment. Ihit with all our freedom, could you find an khiglish Churchman in the world who would say that anything in (mr Church Cate- chism is " of no authority at all "' ? "Whither are we dvilt- ing? Where is the Inquisition ? Wh(n'e is even the In- dex? Look at these two utteraiu^es: 1st. The Catechism of the Council of Trent : '' Tin; Clivirh has a/irai/s fani^hf that in the Porreclion, thi' power of consecrating the Eu- charist is conferred, character impressed, and grace to fullil it bestowed." 2nd. The Catholic Theologian : " The Chuvch has never so (a ugh/. This part of the Catechism is of no authority at all." Can we believe our eyes ? Or is C. T., 87 aftiM- all, only masqiiovading — amusiiisr himself trying- how many absurd and contradictory assertions ho can mak<' us swallow ? Well, sir, I must close, and part, much as I rog-rct to do so, with our estecm-d IVii'ud ( '. T., (liis rhetoric, which I have failed to cure, notwithstanding), to whose •' provoca- tion " I am more indel)ted than I can express for the op- portunity of saying' out, in the hearing of my Canadian i'ellow-couutrymen, what I have said in these letters in defence of my mother the Church of th.' English-speaking people of the world. To you, Mr. I'^ditor, we are all much indebted for presi- ding over the discussion with so much wisdom and impar- tiality ; but you had at your command the great power of sileuee. What a pK'asure it must be to you to look back over the six months' discussion now closed, and to be able to say that not one unkind word has Ix'cn uttered (notwith- standing some hard knocks given) which anv oni' would wish to recall. Farewell, sir I I'arewell, my gallant op- ponent, C. T. May I have the pleasure some day to see your face and to take you by the hand, aiul to feid that this controversy has drawn us closer to one another in Him \\ no is the Truth, and Whom truly to know is eternal life. Henry Roi:, D.D., D.C.L, Archdeacon of the Diocese of (Quebec. St. George's Parsonage, Windsor Mills, V. Q., June IG, ISOT. I I i i if •i 1^ TAliLI-: Ol' CONTENTS. Pa.1I-. 'riicnoci'ssity of an unl)r(.ki'ii AimslnliL' Siicffssioii tn the C'lPiitiimity of thu Cliuidi •^'- *• Attitude <.t tho Huuiiiii Climvli tuwarils Ahi^lu'an Oiduis and Ih.w it atlects tlieui '^ 7 Pojie Li'd'n ix'Hsuiis ;4ivL'n ami can l)o L.\aiuiiR'ii i Mulhr, Form, InU ntiiui, iiicaiiinj:f of ^ Homo's iiicoiisistoiifios as to tho tiuo Matter ami Fonu '.) Till' rvoiiian Poiititioal and Pope Eugeiiiiis IV make tiie Poirectioii \vith the words annexed tlie Matter and Form 10 pope Leo eontradiits tliis ; maken lm|)osition of Hands tlie Matter ; and giants tliat we have valid Matter 1", ' ' Corruptions of the Mass called for the changes made in (.ur Ordinal under Edward VI 1-. I'"' I'ope Loo's unfair ([notations and mistakes arising from ignorance respecting our Ordinal ''^ Oltjects to our Form as defective, while not venturing to deline the true Form ^^ Olijection answered, that English Ordinal does not make it clear tliat the Priesthood is Ijeing conferred P' Charge that tlie Church of England does not liold tho Euchari.stic Sacrilice and does not intend to make true Sacrillcing Priests r 1. 1 1') "0 '^•2 refuted i-'- -^^ "" Assei'tion of Defect of Intention refuted -" Tni'', AficiinKAcoN's Li:ttk,ks in a.nsw kus to aitaiks or a '• CaTHOT.TC TuKOLOifJAN.' The diiiholli: Tlu'oloiiv.ui attacks the Archdeacon's Pai)er on tlie !> .ints of the |{oman Form and the Eucharistic Sacrilice ol Letter I. Tlie Arciideacon answers C. T. and challenges liim to pro- produce tile Roman detliiitioii of tlie Form of Orders .'!<» C. T. acknowledges tliat the Form has never 1 een delined,. 44 Letter IL Arcluleacon proves that Cluircli of England holds and teaclies the Eucharistic Sacrifice •'•' The Clnn-ch of England acce[>ts i'.r.tinim IJraniliall 23, 41 Tlio C. T. contradicts the plain doi^niatic toachin;^ of his own Church. 42 Luttor III. The C. T's assertion tiiat the Form of Order has never been detintd by the Church of Home because no controversy al)out it, refuted from Roman authorities 47, '"iO Letter IV. The Decretinn of Pojie EuL,'enius, and the C. T's assertion that it was " never understood in the Church" as delining the Matter and Form of Orders, examined 50, 04 The />eiT«'H/;i taken word for word from S. Thomas A((uinas, who uni|uestionably meant it as doL,'matic teachin;^ Ij4 Letter Y. That the Dicrctum was understood to be a dogmatic defini- tion proved from liellarniino, and the Catechism of the Coun- cil of Trent 55, 05 Letter VI. The C. T's charges of mistakes examined and shown to be pointless 74, 87 The Euchai'istic Sacrifice asserted by our Knglish Archbi.sho[)s in their late Encyclical 75 Also by tlie Aniilifiiii Glcniiiman nf llir /^i'oiv.sv of Montreal 7<> Futility of attempts to explain away the Decree of I* ipe Evigenius. . 7'1, 7'* No inconsistci! jy ni Archdeacon's reasoning; he merely as.serts facts which the C. T, does not deny 7'S C. T.'s unfair use of 8. Augustine's words 7H The reference of Purilcr maintained by the C. T. if true would n