THERE is a kind of constraining power and agency inherent in Truth; "for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts iv. 20). Some may deem it wise not to startle the minds of settled persons by what they term a revolution in Religion. Some may deem it preposterous to oppose the rocky wall of the Church to the wild waves of a certain school of human science and researches. Some may deem it harsh and cruel to hurt the; feelings of friends, whose most sacred convictions we attack unreservedly. Oh! it is painful, I know, to disagree with those who are dear to our heart. But Truth is uppermost, and permits no bartering, no deference to circumstances whatever.

I found the Orthodox Church to be the only true Catholic Church, and, consequently, try to bring about a Reunion of the other Christian Churches (chiefly of the English Church) with the Orthodox. About a year ago I wrote a German book ("Die orthodoxe katholische Anschauung, &c," Halle, 1865) on this subject, and had the satisfaction to hear that it was directly circulated in two Russian translations. A Russian gentleman of high standing and profound theological learning wrote me a letter in which he states: "Mon coeur a été touché par cette franche et loyale confession de vos sentiments vraiment orthodoxies ..... Vous avez su parfaitement bien deviner les seuls moyens possibles pour l'union tant desirée entre l'Orient et l'Occident, et on PEUT ACCEPTER DE FACTO TOUTES LES CONDITIONS QUE VOUS [iii/iv] AVEZ PROPOSÉES." And another Orthodox, who is at the same time a well known theological author of great merit, wrote: "Ihre Ideen sind praktisch ausführbar, und desto kräftiger konnen sie auf die Gemüther der Freunde der Wahrheit wirken. Ihr Buch hat besonders in Petersburg und Moskau eine warme Aufnahme im Publikum gefunden."

Critical reviews came in, pleasant and unpleasant, as it usually happens in such cases. I only pick out two, one of the Protestant "Theologisches Literaturblatt von Dr. K. Zimmermann" [Darmstadt], which is a pattern of benevolent and gentlemanly dealing; and one of the Roman-Catholic "Chilianeum," whose anonymous author hides himself, as it were, "under the water," reminding me of the Ovidian frogs:

Quanquam sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere tentant.

The present book was, while I was writing it, simultaneously translated into Russ by kind and actively sympathizing hands.

I trust the English public will be indulgent to my feeble attempt to express myself in their language, and excuse a foreigner to meddle in their affairs. However, Religion is, I think, a common property of mankind, and nationalities may not form a bar in heavenly things, but are connected by a bond of solidarity comprising the whole Catholic world. To re-introduce the English Church into this Catholic Commonwealth was my aim in writing this book, and I hope God will bless my endeavours.

Reading, July 7th, 1866.

 Another party in the English Church, almost as strong as the Evangelicals, and daily gaining a greater ascendency, are the Broad-Churchmen. Their belief is like the rainbow, many-coloured, hazy, shaded, clouded, changing according to the temporary taste and fashion. While the Evangelicals are trampling on the Mitre and Crosier, attacking Baptismal Regeneration, Confession, and Real Presence, but fighting for the Bible and its Plenary Inspiration, the Broad-Churchmen pitifully smile at the Evangelical war against Popish trifles, concentrate their force against the Bible, and do not accept but a few " truths sifted from amongst a heap of rubbish hitherto considered as sacred relics." But, in the end, Broad-Churchism evaporates in Pilate's saying: "What is truth?!" Well, what is truth? I ask you. They shrug their shoulders and point to the light of Scientific Researches, shining forth from Preadamite human skeletons, from the vertebral knot of an ape's skull, from the extent of physical and ethnographical studies. Well then let us live [4/5] to see Christianity crumbling down under the hammer of such powerful miners! They have already, by their watery arguments, quenched " the fire that never shall be quenched," changing eternal punishment into temporal correction. Judas Iscariot, nay, Satan (provided they admit his real existence), will be saved one day. They will be able, I expect, to wield the Cyclopean hammer, forging thunders more effectual than those of the Vatican, in order to smash the Church to pieces. They will be able, I expect, to climb and force, with Titanic bravery, the pinnacles of heaven in order to dethrone the good old Christian God, and to replace him by their weak sentimental phantom of a Deity moulded out of goodness without holiness and justice, a Deity encompassed by a Magna Charta of human rights, versus divine usurpations, a Deity of "limited liability." Broad-Churchism strikes at the very root of Christianity. And do you think, after this, that Broad-Churchmen really care a bit for Intercommunion between the Orthodox and English Churches? They like to be left alone; they have no wish to be bothered in their state of perfect ease and comfort; and if they do wish for any Intercommunion at all, it is not with Christians only, not with Jews and Mahommedans only, but with Parsees, Hindoos, and Zulu-Kaffers (as soon as properly educated). Why should we intrude upon Churchmen who consider it the greatest glory of the English Church, that she is so spacious as to accommodate all shades of religious opinions; that she is not so narrow-minded as to exclude any [5/6] newcomer, or to ask him after his Christian credentials. This forcibly reminds me of the large barrack-like Parisian "Cités" which accommodate hundreds of families without any other mutual bond but the bare walls of the building.

There is, however, a grand and prominent feature in Broad-Churchism, the undoubted merits of which claim our just appreciation. The Broad-Churchmen are the only consistent Protestants as opposed to the Evangelicals. They alone can boast of standing on the genuine ground of the Reformation, sticking fearlessly to the right of Private Judgment, which Luther so emphatically claimed for himself, but denied to others.

Si fractus illabatur orbia,
Impavidum ferient ruinæ.

  Never mind the ruins they make; the ruins are but the necessary process of dissolution. Bishop Colenso speaks out what he thinks, and he may do so, for Protestantism has no lawful authority to restrain Private Judgment. The Evangelicals lament the awful mischief which this modern school of unbelief produces. And so do we. They invite us to combat our common enemy. And so do we. They call their opponents traitors to the Protestant cause. And we do not, for Broad-Churchmen arc the only true Protestants. They bewail the decline of belief, but glory in Protestantism. We bewail the decline of belief, but still more bewail Protestantism as being the real parent of this unbelief. They pray God to protect and uphold Protestantism. We consider such prayer a blasphemy, [6/7] and pray for the destruction of Protestantism. We hail Broad-Churchmen as the destroying angels of Protestantism. We congratulate them on every breach they make in the Protestant stronghold, not for their sapping the Christian belief, but for bringing the malady of Protestantism to a wholesome crisis. Dr. Strauss and Dr. Schenkel fling contemptuous inconsistency into the face of their Evangelical opponents. The Evangelicals produce the Bible, but their adversaries challenge them to demonstrate its genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration, but they cannot, on Protestant ground, stand the force of their opponents' arguments, they resort to the Church and its Traditions, call History to their assistance, viz. Church-witnesses. The Broad-Churchmen reply: "That is foul play! Don't apply to the Church, the pillars of which the Samsons of the Reformation have effectually shaken and upset!" Thus the Evangelicals dwindle away into nothingness, execrate the enemy with unctuous animosity and stubborn fanaticism. Voila tout! Arguments they have not on Protestant ground, but holy indignation, prophetic thunders, and cheap sneers.

Difficile est, satiram non scribere.

 The Evangelicals float in the air without any solid ground to rest upon. The Bible they have purloined from the Church. Therefore it is a lifeless and deadly letter in their hands, a letter which they twist according to their moderate measure of understanding or misunderstanding. Not two Evangelicals together understand the most important [7/8] passages of the Bible in the same way. They slide over precipices, unwilling to expose themselves in sounding the depths. And then they swear the clearness and sufficiency of the book, which they have overclouded by a mist of human effusions. The mist they like, it is true, because they cannot reach the ground under their feet. Visionary prophecies and sublime hallucinations about them fill their souls, but the true ground they lose sight of.

 This true ground is the Church, the one Catholic and Apostolic Church which historically continued since Pentecost. From this Church Protestantism snatched the Bible, but lost (together with the Church) its legitimation and the key to its understanding.

And now, what are our hopes and expectations from these two parties of the English Church?

The Evangelicals scarcely will yield by themselves to any plan of Orthodox Intercommunion. Their inveterate self-conceit can only be broken, as it were, by a wonder. They display great activity, have a fervent love for the Bible, and a fervent hatred of all that contradicts their opinions. They do not love the Bible, but their Bible. After having infused into the Bible their misconceptions, they like this their subjective Bible, cherishing in the Bible nothing but their own conceited self, fondling their biblicized Calvin. They read the Bible, are fond of the Bible, as being their home-made book, not as the God-sent Church-book. I call this an egotistical worship; I call this--Bibliolatria. They love Christ, and Dr. Pusey forgives them a great many errors on account of their love of Christ. But " if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not; for there shall arise false Christs." I openly confess that I dislike a Calvinistic Christ, and that I do not " go forth into the desert to see him." I only like the true, historical Christ of the Church, not the heretical phantom of Christ, preaching Calvin's doctrines--and awful doctrines they are--subverting the very foundation of all Catholic truth, haunting poor mankind and [9/10] hunting them into despair for three centuries past. Such a Christ Aras not crucified for us; he cannot atone us, because he sprang from the brains of Calvin, but did not descend from heaven. "But they intend at least to love the real Christ, and their good intention will save them." I hope so myself, however the idolater also intends to worship the real God, not the brass or ivory idol, but the hidden God, represented by those images, and still nobody doubts his idolatry. I will not carry this momentous question any farther, but content myself with hinting how deeply Protestantism has uprooted the Christian truth.

The Broad-Churchmen are quite bewildered, frightened out of their wits, haunted by our "portentous" notion of an "infallible Church." And how could they catch the idea, after having lost the Personality of the Holy Ghost? Church-infallibility is, therefore, in their eyes associated with priestcraft on the one hand, and with outright folly on the other hand. They write on the Church doors:

Per me si va nella città dolonte:
Per me si va nell' eterno dolore:
Lasciate ogni speranza voi, che 'ntrate.

  Still they cannot refrain from staring at this imposing fabric of astounding consistency. "Consistency" is the spell which charms these men and introduces them into the study of the Catholic Church. They study, grow more and more interested in the matter, and finish by finding the commensurability of our notions, their rationality, their cogency. How many earnest Rationalists have [10/11] joined the Church, even some of their most desperate leaders, e. g. Daumer! Others are paving the way to the Church, e. g. Bruno Bauer. In this question experience can only show on which side there is a greater hope for the Church; and I think, experience points to those wanderers, poor in belief, whose lives are spent in seeking the truth, not in enjoying the riches of self-made truths. The honest Rationalists are nearer the truth than the boastful Evangelicals, who do not search the Scriptures but for finding supports of their own tenets; and when Scripture clashes with their preconceived notions, Scripture must yield to the most painful contortions. The Evangelical is the rich and pious Pharisee, the Broad-Churchman is the poor, needful, doomed Publican in our Saviour's parable. Hence you will scarcely see a determined Evangelical join the Catholic Church, but he rather associates with the Irvingites or the Plymouth Brethren or any other mystical sect, tired even of the easy shackles of the English Church.

One finds, however, among Evangelicals a band of truly humble souls, poor in spirit, without bitterness and animosity, not spasmodically clinging to a sectarian creed, but open to the light from above. These are dear to our heart, and we pray that, as they already implicitè belong to the Catholic fold, God in his mercy may soon lead them to the visible communion with our Church.

 On the contrary, there is a large class of Broad-Churchmen, chiefly consisting of young worldly people of loose morals or superficial scientific [11/12] pursuits, who use or rather abuse religion as a cloak which one needs in good society; or who use Religion as a butt for their abortive wits and loathsome sneers. There is no human hope for these, but the heavy hand of God's merciful providence may, in due season, find its way to the heart of those whom we consider now to be castaways.

The third party of the English Church is called High-Church. They form, so to say, the Conservative body of the Church, whereas the Evangelicals may be termed to a certain extent the Liberals, and [12/13] the Broad-Churchmen the Radicals. These High-Churchmen lay a stress upon the Church, connect the Bible with the Church, respect the old Church-observances, e. g. the vigils, the feast and fast days, which have fallen into utter desuetude with the other parties of the Church. They like to style their clergymen " Priests," and themselves to be considered a branch of the Catholic Church. The Church is their aristocratic pride, and they contribute large sums for building, beautifying, restoring, endowing churches. Hooker's Church Polity is their standard work. You will find on the shelves of those among them who profess theological learning, the works of their Bishops Andrewes, Laud, Beveridge, Bramhall, Overall, Nicholson, Wilson, Cosin, Bull, &c. The Dissenters and their Chapels they disdain, and feel sorely grieved at the Evangelical dissent creeping into the Church. Of the Broad Church they are ashamed, and feel deeply the defect of the English Church in not being able to excommunicate them. They love both the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles, either not perceiving the deep gulf between both, or bridging it by interpreting the Articles by the Prayer Book, as the Evangelicals interpret the Prayer Book by the Articles. No wonder that both parties, although building on the same substruction, come to a very different result. The chief glory of the High-Churchmen is the boasted Apostolical Succession of their Bishops. They profess not to entertain the least doubt about the same. Still neither the Romish nor the [13/14] Orthodox Church recognize it, and the Protestants do not care for it. Thus the English Church remains insulated. Again, Insulation naturally creates uneasiness, doubt, peevishness. How is it that such an immense number of books are written about the Validity of English Ordinations? If the matter is so evident, as you say, it is but time and labour lost to write ever and anon on the same subject. And dangerous it is too to speak so much about a matter till one begins to doubt, who never thought before of doubting. Is it not the same with a defendant who asserts his innocence but cannot come to an end in asserting it? At last people begin to think there must be a hitch in the business, he cannot feel re-assured himself, else he would not continue re-assuring others. It is a sad thing to be insulated, without relations, friends, or acquaintances. In fact, it is so uncommon that one feels obliged to ask, why is it so? The Protestants alone are the only persons who offer their friendship and intercommunion, but you refuse for fear of embarking in an affair by which you might lose your Catholic claims. Thus all the Catholic world refuse Intercommunion with you, re-ordain your priests who join their Church, and have continued doing so for the last three centuries? A long time indeed! Is it not hoping against hope to flatter oneself with finally obtaining a favourable decision in a controversy pending so long, a controversy which in its practical bearing has been decided in the negative? For how could the Catholics re-ordain your priests unconditionally, if they entertained even [14/15] the remotest doubts about the Invalidity of your Ordinations, or if they did not consider the question as finally and peremptorily settled? However, you have one small friend, the Moravian Episcopal Church. You recognize each other, consequently you adopt the full Protestant creed of the Augsburg Confession, on which the Moravians rest. Now we want another Newman to show the harmony of the Thirty-nine Articles and the Augsburg Confession. It would not be difficult, I am sure; at least not so difficult as that clever feat to harmonize the Thirty-nine Articles and the Tridentine Confession. At all events it would be worth while trying to reconcile the Augsburg with the Tridentine Confession by the instrumentality and mediation of the Thirty-nine Articles. Romanism and Protestantism, fire and water reconciled!

  There exists a Caricature representing an elderly, sleepy bishop on the box of an omnibus, driving on slowly, very slowly. On the opposite side you see the Baptist Spurgeon, riding on the steam-engine of an express-train, with flying hair, riding and preaching all along. It is not very pleasant, indeed, to be joked at, but as long as the joke is not a mere calumny, there is some truth at the bottom which one ought to mind.

Ridendo dicere verum.

 Lord Palmerston had a very fine collection of his caricatures, and, no doubt, he had improved by them, the legitimate legatees of the prince's jesters. Let us now inquire into the truth of the picture. The Baptists, the most active, restless, turbulent [15/16] Dissenters, essentially akin to the Evangelicals within the pale of the English Church, represent the stirring element in the religious world, stirring, ever stirring, without settling. It is interesting to see a high-spirited youth rushing out to conquer the world. By his noise he arouses people from sleep; by his endless talk he molests quiet men and compels them to lift their voices; by his importune questioning he drives one mad, but in the end you answer his questions, in order to be relieved from the inquisitive young man. His voluble tongue utters a great deal of trash, of florid nonsense, it is true, but among the rubbish you will find sometimes a hidden pearl, a word which strikes home, arousing the heedless sleeper from a dangerous security. The young man rides off on the steam-engine, but your sleep is gone, you feel uneasy, unsettled, doubts have entered your mind. .... That is the Providential Mission of the Dissenters and their Evangelical friends in the English Church, to awaken their brethren from a sound, but dangerous sleep. They rested on the downy pillow of an unattackable, unconquerable Church, providing for them plenty of food, both spiritual and corporeal, plenty of truth, plenty of salvation --and all this at the cheapest prices, i. e. with the least trouble and exertion.--Once the English Church was a spell--now this spell is broken--it is like a rich man who in the midst of his riches feels poor and troubled in the very hall of his mediaeval palace, surrounded by his glorious ancestors gazing from the gilt-framed pictures!

[17] The watchword of the Conservative High-Churchman is: "Rest and be thankful!" An infallible Church and strong Church-authority would be just the thing for them. Unfortunately this authority is invested in a king or queen who may possibly follow Broad-Church advice or listen to Evangelical schemes. This authority is limited or rather exercised by the Parliament, full of hostile elements, eager to weaken or destroy the Church. The soul of the Parliament is the weather-cock called "Public Opinion," a rather inconstant regulator of divine things. But is there not the National Church Council "Convocation" discussing Church affairs? Yes, it is discussing--that is all. Binding resolutions it cannot issue, save by act of Parliament. And in this Convocation Low, Broad, and High-Churchmen are sitting and debating, truly a most unpromising mixtum compositum of heterogeneous principles.--Let us pass by this ominous flaw in the Church-fabric!

There was a time when the English Church possessed a strange, unenvied power, viz. the "Vis inertiæ," slumbering on into broad daylight. The Dissenters were moving and stirring--infidelity, indifference, immorality revelling--Wesley crying and pulling his mother-church, till she awoke; but more than one third of the Church was gone. She awoke imbued with new life, ever since keeping up with the times--but this life was, like sectarian life, merely individual. However, this High Church displays a show of Church-life, which points at least to a want of real Church-life. The High Church [17/18] combats manlily heretical teaching in the teeth of Low Church (Gorham case), Broad Church (Essays and Reviews, Bishop Colenso), and Parliament; and although defeated, repeatedly defeated, legally defeated, she glories in her defeat for Christ's sake. Alas, it is the Constitution of their Church which allowed them to be defeated by heresy. Do you not see that you are fighting against your own Church, which has become a refuge of heresy? Or is there any safeguard of sound belief within the Church? Can you disown the heretical Churchmen sitting at your side in the Council of the Church, preaching from your pulpits, teaching your children, thus instilling the venom of heresy into the hearts of the rising generation in whose hands lies the destiny of times to come? These heretical Churchmen are protected by the law; they live on your loaves and fishes, and would laugh at your attempt to excommunicate them. Again, let us pass by this ominous flaw in the Church-fabric!

Now let us inquire into the claim of the Anglo-Catholics to be members of the Catholic Church.

I. Do the Anglo-Catholics possess the full Catholic belief?

If we must decide in the negative, it will be sufficient to prove that some of the fundamental Catholic truths are not held by the Anglo-Catholics, without entering into an examination of the other unsound doctrines.

In acceding to Archbishop Manning's charge, that "the Church of England rejects much Christian truth," we specify this charge by singling out the most advanced believing party of the English Church, showing that even those cannot claim Catholicity of belief.

1. What is the relation between the Bible and the Church?

 In order to simplify this question, let me propose the respective Orthodox Catholic view.

[23] Jesus Christ taught his Apostles, during his lifetime and from his Resurrection to his Ascension, all the Catholic truth, founded the Church, to be guided infallibly by the indwelling Holy Ghost, "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." THIS CHURCH IS "THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF THE TRUTH,"--and I add most emphatically--the only pillar and ground of the truth. The Apostles deposited this truth in their several Churches, consecrated bishops to be their successors and preservers of the truth deposited. Of this "depositum fidei" part was occasionally written, part orally transmitted (2 Thess. ii. 15), but both the written and unwritten word of God formed but one and the same faith, the faith of the Church. This One Word of God, as contained in Bible and Tradition, cannot be torn asunder without making the Bible a storehouse of deadly weapons, a refuge of heresy, a hand-book for the use of Satan (St. Matt. iv. 6). The Bible is neither the complete nor sufficient source of Christian truth, but explicitly points to the contrary. To the apostles Jesus Christ "shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts i. 3). What did he speak during those forty days? "About the things pertaining to the kingdom of God," i. e. about the Constitution of the Church and Church-doctrine. And quite natural it was, for the foundation of the Church was close at hand. Of this teaching we find fragments scattered about in the Epistles, [23/24] as occasion required it, but nowhere is written down the complete account of the preparatory instruction which Christ gave his Apostles in the days between his Resurrection and Ascension. Still the Church rests on this instruction, completing what we do not find in the Bible. For instance, nobody can satisfactorily settle the important question of the Baptism of infants from the Bible. Without the teaching of my Church I certainly should be in this point a Baptist. Again, according to Catholic Church teaching, the seven Sacraments are instituted by Christ himself; but, in the Bible, you can only find two sacraments instituted by Christ. Therefore you make the heterodox distinction of two essentially different classes of sacraments, viz. the two real sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and five sacramental rites of minor importance. Consistently you can attach to the latter class only an "operatio ex opere operantis," and if you still assert an "operatio ex opere operato," it is but one of the many inconsistencies which overcloud Anglo-Catholicism vibrating between Church and Bible. We have the Church including the Bible, both forming but one Unity. You have the Bible and the Church, forming a Duality disparaging either of the two. Now as you hold the genuine Protestant belief of the self-subsistence of the Bible, not considering the Bible as a fruit of the Church in the full Catholic meaning of the word, exclusively belonging to the Church, to be interpreted only by the Church--you cannot find the proper position of the Church, but place her under the control of the Bible. I [24/25] say, you do not fully consider the Bible as a fruit of the Church, which fruit, as soon as ripe, i.e. canonically completed and universally recognized, was detached from the tree, became self-supporting and sovereign, though not directly hostile to the tree which retains the office of keeping the Bible's Pedigree, after having been superseded by the Bible in all its other primitive functions. Before the Bible was ready, the Church was acknowledged to have been an absolute monarch; since the Bible is ready, the Church became (in the opinion of Protestants) a constitutional prince, lodged in a splendid palace, but bereaved of all rights, even of the right of Veto. The real power lies with the Magna Charta of the Bible, which every one twists as it pleases him. It is true, the Church is a most convenient armoury for the Anglo-Catholics to find weapons for defending themselves and combating Protestantism, but they forget that the primitive position of the Church is materially altered, since the Bible ceased to be the Church's helpmate, both (Church and Bible) being but one and the same organ of the Holy Ghost. Since the Reformation the Bible has to watch over the Church, and has to dictate the sound belief to the Church. Now I call this Protestant table-turning. Such a Church beside the Bible (instead of the Bible within the Church) may be useful, handy, comfortable, but she is not necessary, merely "un article de luxe." Wherefore the greater bulk of consistent Protestants exploded the antiquated idea of the Church as being both cumbrous and injurious to pure Bible-belief.

[26] The English Church teaches on this point in the 6th and 20th of the 39 Articles: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith (?!): and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation." Now I think this is Doctrina Protestantissima and I really pity those Anglo-Catholics who endeavour to interpret into these articles even the smallest amount of Catholic truth. [Jeremy Taylor inscribes the 2nd Section, Book I. Part II. of his "Dissuasive from Popery" (Oxford, 1836), p. 187: "Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation, which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant religion." The reason why the Scriptures are sufficient to salvation is too naive not to be given in the Bishop's own words (1. c. p. 188): "That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect declaration of the will of God, is therefore certain, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER."] Dr. Pusey candidly owns this Protestant doctrine, defends this Sufficiency of Holy Scripture (Eiren. pp. 38, 39), and, therefore, stands on genuine Protestant ground. Newman (Tract xc. 1865, p. 8), although acknowledging the meaning [26/27] of the above articles to be "that it (the Church) derives the faith wholly from Scripture," does not seem to agree with them, quoting a passage from Field's work on the Church (p. 11): "So then, we do not make Scripture the Rule of our Faith, but that other things in their kind are Rules likewise; in such sort that it is not safe, without respect had unto them, to judge things by the Scripture alone." And Newman himself sums up the result of his researches by the words (p. 12): "Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith."

2. The Anglican notion of the Church is not Catholic.

 Since Protestantism has nominally emancipated the Bible from the pretended bondage of the Church, the Church (i. e. their Church) lost the domain of authoritative doctrinal teaching, i. e. Infallibility. You may screw up the authority of the Church as high as possible, you never will attain Infallibility, because the quantitativè superlative of human authority is qualitativè differing from Divine Infallibility. The English Church never aspired to the doctrine of Church-Infallibility, but teaches the contrary, that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." Again, "it ought not to decree anything against the same (i. e. Holy Writ)," and "besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation." Of course any particular [27/28] Church is liable to error, but the 20th Article speaks of the Church in general, designating her as "witness and keeper of Holy Writ," which implies the whole body of the Catholic Church. And still this fallible Church is said to have "authority in Controversies of Faith." Bishop Mant (in his annotated edition of the Prayer-Book, p. 777, seq.) gives the following illustration of this Church-authority after the Bishops Burnet and Tomline: "It appears from the preceding Article, that it is not here intended to ascribe to the Church an infallible authority ..... But this, however, we may observe, that, without any pretension to infallibility, and without any infringement of the right of private judgment, the Church has power to declare Articles of faith, provided they be authorized by Scripture. . ." Now fancy Articles of faith framed by a fallible Church, introducing heresy and schism. But are not the particular Churches, composing the great One Catholic Church, fallible in their decisions? Yes. Still here see the difference of the Anglican standard. The particular Catholic Churches commune with each other. Their decisions are, by their sister-Churches, tested on the common deposit of Catholic faith. If they stand the test, they are infallibly Catholic truths; if not, the respective particular Church must renounce its error, or will be cut off from the body of the Catholic Church. As to the English Church, it stands insulated, without any recognized Catholic sister-Church, disowned by the whole Catholic Church, unable to be controlled on the Catholic deposit of faith. Even [28/29] if all the particular Churches of Catholic Christendom would undertake the difficult task to examine the Anglican belief, their verdict would be invalid, since "things ordained by them (i. e. General Councils representing the whole Catholic Church) as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture" (Art. XXI).--It is quite right what Dr. Pusey says (Eiren. p. 40): "The authority of the Church was given to her by her Divine Lord within certain limits. 'Teach them,' He said, ' whatever I command you.' All must admit, then, that she could not command anything which should be really contrary to Holy Scripture. Nor must she contradict herself." But the plain words of the 20th Article imply that the Church (not one or the other of the Churches, but the Church) may occasionally "ordain something that is contrary to God's Word written," and "so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." This being the case, Church-Infallibility is impossible. If the Church cannot err in doctrine, consequently cannot "ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, &c," no sensible man would frame an article tending to preclude the Church from ill-using the Bible. What would you say, if any Church would make an article: "It is not lawful for God to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, &c.?" The negative wording would be true, though unmeaning. Now the Church is the organ of God the Holy Ghost. It is, therefore, not a harmless, but a blasphemous [29/30] supposition that the Church may teach errors, and contradict or misinterpret the Bible. It is all very well that Dr. Pusey (1. c. p. 37, seqq.) pleads the Divine authority of the Church, but in doing so he unintentionally censures the 20th Article which "lays down certain limits to it" (p. 39)--human limits to Divine authority!--human safeguards to Divine usurpation! It is awful to think, how many and momentous errors sprang from the vicious notion of the Church which the Reformation introduced, and which the English Church faithfully preserves in her 20th Article. No Anglo-Catholic can honestly elude its meaning, nor deny its bearing on the whole Anglican system of belief.

3. The Invocation of Saints a binding Catholic doctrine.

 I select this point of difference between the Catholic and English Churches for two reasons: 1st, because it illustrates the Catholic principle that the Bible is not sufficient to teach all the Catholic truth; for from the Bible alone nobody can satisfactorily substantiate that doctrine; although, in the light of the Church, there may be easily found a confirmation in Scripture; 2nd, because it is just now earnestly ventilated in Anglo-Catholic circles. "We know there are many Anglo-Catholics who hold this doctrine, treated in an exhaustive manner by Bishop Forbes in his "Considerationes modestae" as early as the beginning of the 17th century. But some of those who hold this doctrine, do not hold it to its full extent; some hold it only [30/31] theoretically, but dispense with it practically; some deem it true, but a ticklish question too captious for the understanding of the people, and easily leading to superstition; some regard it as private indulgence--but all Anglo-Catholics treat the matter as an open question, deny the vital importance of this question, and the necessity of holding and practising it. They refer to the Council of Trent (whose authority the Orthodox Catholic Church does not recognize), which only requires to acknowledge that the saints may be invoked profitably, leaving the practical consequences to the discretion of its votaries. But the Orthodox Catholic Church, knowing that no doctrine has been revealed to remain barren, requires with the belief also the practice which only shows that the faith is real and not fictitious. If any one holds the Invocation of saints to be salutary, but does not practise it, unbelief or a want of conviction lurks in the background.

 There has been talked a great deal of nonsense upon this subject by persons who did not know the Orthodox-Catholic doctrine. They speak of primary, secondary, oblique Invocation, Comprecation, &c, barricading themselves against a foe who does not exist within the walls of Catholic Orthodoxy, which always opposed popular superstitions. The whole controversy could have been easily settled, and more deeply understood and valued, if they had only viewed it in the right light, that is to say, if they had seen the connection of this doctrine and that of the Communion of Saints, which is almost a dead [31/32] letter to Protestants, who do not care for the departed, and only stick to the Church Militant.

Let us, therefore, give the outlines of a deeper view of the doctrine.

 The Church is the Body of Christ (Ephes. i. 23), and "we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (Ephes. v. 30). Christ is the true Vine, and we are its branches. But this union is not to be understood of a hidden and invisible Church, for "every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away" (St. John xv. 2). Hence the withered branch was also a branch, and consequently the Church, which is spoken of as the body of Christ, is the visible Church, whose members are incorporated in Christ by Baptism, and bound to believe his doctrine, and to observe his commandments. This body of Christ is mystically but really (not only figuratively) animated by Christ's Spirit (hence the Church's Infallibility), pervaded by his own sacramental powers, defended by his Almighty arm. The Church is, as it were, a continued Incarnation of Christ. The Church is "der fortlebende Christus." Christ is her head, her only head (which needs not the paltry representation by a Vicar on earth); she feeds upon Christ; in her veins circulates Christ's blood. Such an aspect of the Church as Christ's living Organism must show at once, how the poor, miserable idea of a Zwinglian or Calvinistic Lord's Supper could scarcely find an understanding with the Catholics, who require infinitely more for the support of their life in the Church. Even Luther's Christificd Bread, or [32/33] Impanate Christ, was sure to be exploded by the Church as a kind of Eucharistic Monophysitism.

 This Church is tripartite, the "Ecclesia Militans" on earth, the "Ecclesia Triumphans" of the departed saints, and the "Ecclesia Laborans" of those who "have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. St. Basil the Great in his prayers for Pentecost says, that the Lord vouchsafes to receive from us propitiatory prayers and sacrifices for those that are kept in Hades, and allows us the hope of obtaining for them peace, relief, and freedom" (The longer Russian Catechism: on the eleventh article of the creed).

 This triune Church is inseparably linked by A "SOLIDARITÉ" OF INTERESTS, so that if "one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another" (1 Cor. xii. 26, 25). Such is the wonderful, mysterious vitality of the Church in Christ and through Christ, that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. [Remark the pregnancy of the expression en Cristw (where you would expect eiV Criston), which superficial commentators interpret as Hellenism instead of eiV; e. g. 1 Cor. xv. 19: hlpikoteV esmen en Cristw--the hope arising from the incorporation in Christ.] Such is her Penetrancy, that neither Heaven nor Hades (i. e. Purgatory in the Orthodox meaning of the word) can form a wall of partition. Only between the Church and Hell (where the damned souls, the [33/34] withered branches, are finally gathered) "there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence" (St. Luke xvi. 26).

  This is the substance of the doctrine of the "Communion of Saints" a doctrine the bearing of which is boundless, by far exceeding the reach of human thought; a doctrine so comprehensive, so consolatory, so encouraging to Christian energy, and at the same time instilling the deepest humility, that every true Catholic must feel most deeply indebted to the Lord for this his inestimable benefit, so much the more so, as the Protestants have rent the Church which Christ knitted together by an indissoluble bond, have broken the intercourse between the two worlds, and confined themselves to the poor help which the sinful pilgrims here below bring one to another. They say: "God is our only help; Christ is our only mediator; we need nobody else." But who ever doubted the truism you advance? Or do you doubt it yourselves, perhaps, because you ask your brother to pray for you and with you? Or cannot God himself help mankind, since he sends his angels to minister to them? Is it not an unjustifiable mistake of Christ when speaking of the offence of despising the little ones, to point to the Angels, saying: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven" (St. Matt, xviii. 10). Ought Christ not rather to [34/35] have said: "Fear God's anger"? And how can the Angels see or know our offences, while they behold always the face of their heavenly Father? Are they perhaps omniscient or omnipresent? I expect you will answer to the effect: "The Angels will know the offences through God anyhow." Now it is the same answer I give you with regard to the Saints. How they hear our prayers and supplications, our thanksgivings and praises, we do not know, but they will hear them through God anyhow. But a more serious question is started: "Why do you invoke the saints at all? Is it not sufficient to pray to God and Christ? Nay, is it not derogatory to his supreme honour, to seek a secondary help, as if he was either too austere a master, or changeable and more accessible to clever advocates?" My friend, you are sentenced by your own words, since you ask your brother here below to pray for you and with you. Or is the invocation of saints wrong because the saints have cast off sinfulness, whereas the Scripture allows you to ask the intercession of sinful men? But the original cause and principal reason of the Invocation of Saints is unknown to you, as you are ignorant of the true notion of both the Church and the Communion of Saints.

This chief reason is the "Solidarité" (alluded to above) which engages the individual members of the Church to each other, so that they may not and cannot be unconcerned at any loss or gain, joy or sorrow, activity or sloth of any member. If "one member suffer, all the members suffer with [35/36] it, &c." "Likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance" (St. Luke xv. 7). [You see they are better informed in heaven about our spiritual affairs than we may fancy. Protestantism is awfully anxious to keep heaven at a distance, and to deprecate its intermeddling with our affairs; but it is of no use denying or ignoring a bond which de facto exists, although you decline to reap its fruits and to avail yourselves of its blessings.] This mutual engagement obliges the Church to work on towards the attainment of her great end, viz. God's glory and honour; that He may be all in all. The pilgrims here below assist each other on their way home. The saints above, although personally safe, having reached their happy home, do not, by merely changing places, discontinue their being partners in the Church-work. They encourage and push on the traveller by word and example, which they left behind them, on their departure. They intercede incessantly for the success of the travellers, pleading before the throne of God, as a friend does in the case of his friend. Meanwhile we "Viatores debiles et lassi" stretch out our hands to the heavenly regions where good wishes for our welfare are entertained and prayers offered up by our friends and associates. However, both the "Viatores" here below, and the "Victores" there above feel a common sympathy for their faithful companions detained in the prison of Hades, both joining their efforts to release them. Thus the Church work goes on briskly below and above, every member co-operating with the others, on the grand plan [36/37] which Christ, the head of the members, laid down to God's honour and our eternal bliss. Thus this great Co-operative Society prospers in Christ, with Christ, and through Christ. Now, how is it possible to speak of dishonouring Christ by invoking his saints? Does not the whole turn on Christ, as the body on the soul, as the accidents on the substance? Is the Church not both cristoforoV (bearing Christ) and cristoforoV (borne by Christ)? On the contrary, they dishonour Christ who deny this co-operative character of Christ's Church. In fact they quite misapprehend this efficacious Union of the triune Church, where no sound member ever dies or is severed from the others, no sound member remains solitary or destitute. Giving they receive, and receiving they give. Here you have the genuine type of Divine Socialism, aped and caricatured in the modern Phalansteres. St. Simon's reveries are but the abuse of a deep truth; and Lamennais transferred the qualities of the Catholic Church on the People universally.

Indeed it is rather unpleasant and tedious, after such a lofty aspect of the Communion of Saints, to review the frivolous objections of its opponents.--Mr. Archer Gurney, in a letter to the Editor of the "Union Chrétienne" (7 Jan. 1866), indulges in speculative fancymongery about the Catholic Church, intended to be what the Germans call "eine pragmatische Geschichtsauffassung," but what is in reality nothing but a novel visionary aspect of the Church, deprived of any objective basis. He says, [37/38] "qu'avec le temps une grande apostasie, c'est-à-dire une grande corruption de la foi se montrerait (as the Scriptures predict) au milieu de l'Église catholique, et elles (the Scriptures) nous en donnent trois marques distinctives. . . La seconde marque de la grande apostasie, c'est... le culte secondaire, tant des âmes des morts que des anges et des images." As to the great apostasy, it will certainly take place "au milieu de l'Église," but the Church must and will directly secrete the apostolical element which will be henceforward "hors de l'Eglise." A Church tolerating Apostasy in her bosom! is an idea which only a Protestant can conceive, who has ever so many new-fangled churches pullulating from the brains of those unshackled thinkers. Abbé Guettée very appositely remarks that the Church must preserve "le dépôt de la doctrine divine, et que tous ceux qui voudront posséder cette vérité complète devront s'unir à elle; nous croyons que cette Église ne peut exister qu' à la condition d'être une réalité et non une chimère, comme cette Église idéale que l'on a inventée en Occident, dans ces derniers temps, afin de pouvoir se persuader qu'on est dans l'Église chrétienne, même en n'y étant pas." With regard to the Invocation of Saints Mr. A. Gurney will allow us to give him some hints: 1st, to study a little more carefully the Bible, which plainly stigmatizes only the pagan Hero-worship; 2nd, not to swagger about the Fathers of the Church. St. Epiphanius speaks of the Antidicomarianites or Collyridiens who adored the Holy Virgin as a real Goddess. I very much doubt whether Mr. Archer Gurney read [38/39] the passage alluded to in the works of Epiphanius, at least he did not read it at full length (as he ought to have done), and if so, I leave it to the judgment of my readers, how anybody can bonâ fide advance Mr. A. Gurney's charge. Let him consult the Paris edition of St. Epiphanius (1622), p. 1003: "Just as the perverse views of some heretics denying the Godhead of the Saviour, and severing him from the Father, drove others to the opposite error, and provoked them to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were one and the same person; so the unworthy doctrines reflecting on the Virgin, drove some to the opposite extreme, and provoked to pay her divine worship; making her a deity, offering cakes (kolluria) in her name, and striving to honour her beyond due measure;" p. 1064: "God the Word ... clothed himself with flesh from the Holy Virgin; but nevertheless not a virgin to be worshipped, nor that He might make her a deity; not that we might offer in her name; not that after so many generations women should become priestesses . . . Let Mary be in honour; but let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be worshipped. Let no one worship Mary (Thn Mariam mhdeiV proskuneitw) ... These silly women offer to her the cake, or they take upon themselves to offer it in her behalf. The whole thing is foolish and strange, and is a device and deceit of the devil. . . Let Mary be in honour: let the Lord be worshipped (o KurioV proskuneisqw)." À propos de "cent et mille citations (which Mr. A. Gurney says he could furnish) de Saint Irénée, de Saint Augustin, de Saint Ambroise, de Saint [39/40] Jean Chrysostome, d'Origène, de Tertullien et de bien d'autres qui affirment ou qui semblent (!) affirmer que tout culte appartient exclusivement à Dieu;" --I defy the learned gentleman to give me one, fancy, only one, passage of any Father of the Church against the Invocation of Saints, i.e. in proof of the unlawfulness of the Invocation of Saints.

This leads me to an observation I have made in reading books written by Anglo-Catholics. You will meet in the same with a tolerable amount of true Catholic teaching founded on the Fathers of the Church; but as the standard of the infallible Church is wanting, the amount varies according to the subjective disposition of the individual; so that also in the Anglo-Catholic denomination there is no Unity of belief, no more than in the rest of Protestantism. By "Unity of belief" I do not mean Unity in School Opinions, but Unity in dogmas (all of which the Church indispensably requires to hold), e. g. in the dogma of the Invocation of Saints. The Catholics are bound necessitate fidei, i. e. under penalty of forfeiting their eternal salvation, to hold all the dogmas (dogmata explicita sive declarata) without any difference, as among the dogmas none are optional or adiaphorous. Now the English Church, e. g. neither teaches nor enforces the dogma of the Invocation of Saints; and no Anglo-Catholic asserts more than that the English Church cannot object to it: CONSEQUENTLY in the English Church (even in the Anglo-Catholic sub-division) there is at least one dogma wanting, but the want of one destroys the Catholicity of the Church as much as the want [40/41] of all. Therefore the Anglo-Catholics are, MOST DECIDEDLY, no Catholics, but Protestants, although Protestants inclining hopefully towards Catholicism. [We are desirous to hear what the Anglo-Catholics can reply to this my statement of facts. I do not expect to hear attempts to show the little importance of this dogma (the contrary to which I showed above), or the advisability of excluding its practical bearing-- the only question on which my argument turns is the double unquestionable fact. 1. That the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is, avowedly, a dogma of the Orthodox Church; 2. That those who do not hold all the dogmas, are by the Orthodox Church considered not to belong to the Catholic Church.] It is astonishing how the zealous Intercommunionists dive into the depths of Orthodox learning, rove in the remotest districts, compile the minutest arguments, while they overlook the chasm at their feet. They most ingenuously demand "de ne pas faire de cérémonies," and to join hands all at once--to join hands over the vast deep stretching out between them!

But to return to our review, we find Mr. S. C. Malan engaged in a controversy with Dr. Fraser on the subject of Intercommunion between the English and Orthodox Churches. In his words there is no double dealing, no Jesuitical tortuous ways, no childish wish of attaining the end without employing the means, no anxious hastiness implying the fear of closer examination of this case, which might cause the cherished idea to fall to the ground. I like men of the stamp of Mr. Malan. There is something attractive about such [41/42] straightforward and manly characters, and you like to deal with them. By the way, the Evangelical party has many such characters, and I ascribe chiefly to this circumstance the present vitality of that party.--Mr. Malan asks (Churchman, Sept. 28, 1865) Dr. Fraser one question: "When we talk of union with the Eastern Church, . . what is to be done about the worship of the Virgin and of the Saints? I have travelled extensively in the East--a better land than the West--and I have also spent a long time at Rome. . . . The result of my long experience is, that the Church of England is better than either the Greek or the Romish Church; that the Greek comes next; and that the Romish Church is unquestionably the worst of the three, but that as regards the worship of the Virgin and of the Saints, there is very little indeed to choose between the Eastern Church and that of Rome. This has prevented me from joining the Eastern Church Association, because I have too much experience not to be very matter-of-fact in such matters. Two we know cannot walk together except they be agreed, and there can be no union without like feeling and like faith. I have one Mediator between God and myself, and I want no more. The Virgin and the Saints are practically and to all intents and purposes additional Mediators for the members of the Greek and of the Romish Church. What, then, is to be done as to union in this case? Had we not better settle this first?" Thus Mr. Malan declines the dogma of the Invocation of Saints on the ground of its being liable to be abused by popular superstitions. This fear of [42/43] Superstition lies at the bottom of the opposition. In fact, the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is to one half of the English Church a stumblingblock, to the other a bugbear, but to none a magnet drawing towards the Church. What Mr. Malan says about the "additional mediators," is satisfactorily repelled by Dr. Fraser's reply to the above article (The Churchman, Oct. 12,1865): "Will not Mr. Malan admit that a very decided sophism lurks in the double meaning of the word 'Mediator'? Is not he himself a mediator, as well as every other Christian, whenever he says 'Forgive us our trespasses?' If any Christian may be a mediator thus, it is possible--I say no more--that the Saints may also be so in the same way. No Greek, nor even Roman, Churchman would consider the Saints to be mediators in the mode in which our Saviour is 'our only mediator and advocate,' as partaking of the natures of both God and man, and so being a fit 'daysman' and intermediate between both." The reply is good, but Dr. Fraser, although a most decided Anglo-Catholic, cannot proceed beyond the 'possible.' This plainly shows that the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints is the sore place of the English Church, the real touchstone of Catholicity. As soon as you touch upon this subject, you will find the Anglo-Catholic sensitive, reserved, timorous. This is the reason why I thought it my duty to enlarge upon the matter beyond the due proportion of this pamphlet. Dr. Fraser (and with him by far the greatest number of Anglo-Catholics) has not yet come to a clear understanding on the matter at issue. He openly [43/44] confesses: "On the subject of the question which Mr. Malan addresses to me, I feel many difficulties. I hope that they may be solved as the desire for union increases; but I am not myself casuist enough to decide at what point diversity of practice or of opinion should become a bar to unity." This is just the signal mistake of Dr. Fraser, that he considers the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints an opinion and not a dogma. The Orthodox Church is most explicit in this matter, much more than the Council of Trent. Has Dr. Fraser never consulted Kimmel's Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae Orientalis? There he may read in the "Confessio Orthodoxa," p. 300, seq.:

  "We implore the Mediation of the Saints with God, that they may intercede for us. . And we need their help, not as if they assisted us by their own power, but that they may apply in our behalf for grace of God through their prayers. . . Yea, if we despise the mediation of the saints, we most grievously irritate the Divine Majesty, not honouring those who unblamably served it (i. e. the Divine Majesty)." Moreover I refer to the acts of the Synodus Hierosolymitana, chiefly the VIIIth Decree (OroV) of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and to the XVIIth [44/45] Chapter of the Confession of Metrophanes Critopulos. Remark in this Orthodox teaching the unequivocal decidedness and precision of language. What a gratifying contrast with the tame style and subdued voice of the Romish teaching in the Council of Trent, which seems to be made for entrapping converts, presenting the minimum and hiding the maximum. Let our course be the contrary, laying before the reader the strongest language of the Orthodox formularies, representing the practical working of the system. Can you heartily adopt this mode of thinking and living? If so, it is all right. If not, do not think of joining or constituting the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is nothing but a hoax of Orthodoxy. I saw the other day a strange little book, "Private Devotions as enjoined by the Holy Eastern Church, for the use of her members." London, J. Masters, 1851. It is apparently the work of an Anglo-Catholic who took the trouble to clear the original of the stain of the Invocation of Saints, as the compiler ingenuously confesses in the Preface to the work: "We must also plead guilty to having, in one particular, adapted them (viz. the prayers) to English use, by substituting, wherever an invocation to the saints or to the blessed Virgin occurs, the words 'for Christ's sake,' or such like." If the compiler had intended the book for English Churchmen, we would have less to object, although also in this case he ought to have put on the title-page "revised and adapted to the use of English Churchmen;" but as he expressly writes "for the use of her members," i. e. [45/46] those of the Orthodox Church, I find the proceeding unjustifiable and downright Jesuitical. Is it not intended to level, in this insidious way, Orthodoxy with Anglicanism, in order to bring about a Union on the ruins of Catholicity?

But to proceed to the strong language of the Orthodox formularies, I choose a few pages of the

  "We all fall down before [46/47] thee (O Virgin); by thy mighty protection save us all." p. 545: Maria . . kaqarison . hmaV, "Mary, purify us."--These passages will produce, I am sure, a most painful feeling on the sensitive nerves of Protestants, and will confound the Anglo-Catholics in the eyes of their Evangelical brethren, as they prided themselves to hold the same faith with the Orthodox. But I appeal to your common sense. If a man, destitute and unhappy to the utmost, approaches you, falls down, embraces your knees, conjuring you to help him, and, after you have helped him, calls you his only helper, should you consider this man a blasphemer, and his proceedings derogatory to God's honour? Neither you nor the man thought of interfering with the honour of God. You would say, all I approve that the man has said or done, for, humanly speaking, it is true and right. Why should we always expressly repeat that the Mediation of the Saints is only a secondary one? I think every one knows that by himself. St. Augustin owes his eternal salvation to his mother Monica, since she was the chief instrument, by which God operated on him. God can and does operate without intervening medium, as the case of St. Paul's conversion shows. But the rule is that God operates and dispenses His grace through the medium of His saints. The reason is obvious, as soon as you have well understood and weighed the living and working triune Church. Jesus Christ founded his Church to be a living and efficient Organism, which can only subsist by and through mutual co-operation. I showed above, how deeply [47/48] St. Paul understood and entered upon this vital characteristic of the Church. Now if the intercourse between the Triumphant and Militant Church were stopped, it would paralyse the whole Organism; in fact, it would destroy the same. Look round yourselves; does God not operate upon us through our fellow-members of the Church? Does He not dispense His grace chiefly by their hands? And still His arm is not shortened; He needs no assistant in his work. But to kindle faith, hope, and charity in the body of His Church, He appoints the members of His Church to be the channels of His grace to each other, in order to cement the Church, which is the mystical body of Christ.

Such a faint and dull shadow of the Church, as Dr. Fraser and the other Anglo-Catholics confess, cannot be very hopeful. I do not accede to Mr. Geo. Potessaro, who thinks, "if many Anglicans felt like him (Dr. Fraser), the union of churches would soon be a reality" (the Churchman, Sept. 28, 1865). I wish not to be misunderstood; for personally I highly esteem both the character and zeal of Dr. Fraser. It is the same with Dr. Pusey, who has not the slightest idea of the vital importance of the dogma of the Invocation of Saints; otherwise he would not say: "I have on different occasions in public, and very often in private, spoken against, discouraged, and prevented the use of any devotions except to God Alone" (A letter to the Bishop of London, in explanation of some statements contained in a letter by the Rev. W. Dodsworth. Oxford, 1851, [48/49] p. 100).--Very poor indeed is Tract xc. on the matter. All it says is contained in the phrase: "Now there was a primitive doctrine on all these points (viz. Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, &c),--how far Catholic or universal, it is a farther question,--but still so widely received, and so respectably supported, that it may well be entertained as a matter of opinion by a theologian now" (p. 23).

The deepest and conclusive reason of the aversion to this doctrine, even with the most advanced Anglo-Catholics, is the fear of superstition which might attend the practice of this doctrine, and which de facto has attended it. However, in innumerable instances the indefatigable censurers grapple with shadows, awfully misinterpreting the respective passages, so awfully that it reminds me of Hamlet's words:

Wise men know well enough,
What monsters you make of them.

The right interpretation of most of the censured passages or expressions does not want a great amount of learning, but merely common sense. The same expression you find fault with as a divine, you use, perhaps, an hour later in every day life, unmindful of your own inconsistency. Still

 Since the fear of superstition will be the greatest difficulty to be overcome by English Churchmen, both in this point and on the whole in the work of Church union, let us add a few words

On Superstition.

 Superstition is a prolific relic of the old serpent's poison. Although we are by Baptism cleansed from the Original Sin, the "fomes peccati" still remains. Every one of us has some inclination to superstition. But the more true religion, the less superstition, not (as people commonly fancy) the contrary. You may find [50/51] Atheists trembling for superstitious fear; and such a practical Atheist invented the verse:

Timor fecit Deos.

It is very true what Disraeli said in the Sheldonian Theatre (25th November, 1864): "Man is a being born to believe, and if you do not come forward--if no Church comes forward, with all its title-deeds of truth sustained by the tradition of sacred ages, and the convictions of countless generations to guide him, he will find altars and idols in his own heart and his own imagination." It is just the unbeliever who is practically most addicted to superstition, he who

tremblant de faiblesse,
Attend, pour croire en Dieu, que la fièvre le presse;
Et, toujours dans l'orage au ciel levant les mains,
Dès que l'air est calmé, rit des faibles humains.
Car de penser alors qu'un Dieu tourne le monde,
Et règle les ressorts de la machine ronde,
Ou qu'il est une vie au-delà du trépas,
C'est là, tout haut du moins, ce qu'il n'avoûra pas.

 Why did, just in the last years, Swedenborgianism gain ground and attract the attention even of the higher classes of English Society? Swedenborgianism is but bare Unitarianism decked with some prophetic and mystic rags, a fine combination of unbelief and superstition. What do you say of Spiritism, Spirit rapping, Spirit correspondence, Table turning? Nil novi sub luna. A few years ago, when reading Tertullian's Apologeticus, I fell in with the following passage in the 23rd chapter (edit. Ritter. Elberfeld, 1828, p. 73): "Porro si et [51/52] magi phantasmata edunt, et jam defunctorum infamant animas; si pueros in eloquium oraculi elidunt; si multa miracula circulatoriis praestigiis ludunt; si et somnia immittunt, habentes semel invitatorum angelorum et dsemonum assistentem sibi potestatem, per quos et caprse et mensæ divinare consueverunt: quanto magis, &c." From this one sees most clearly that the human heart yearns for communion with the other world, and if you preclude the lawful way of the Invocation of Saints and of the Prayers for the Departed, superstition will pour in through a hundred loop-holes. You think it better to abolish doctrines liable to superstitious abuses. Had you not better first remove Knife, Rope, and Sword, and empty the Ocean to prevent their ravages? Had we not better discard the Bible, which, torn from the body of the Church, creates heresy and schism? As long as Religion is conveyed in "earthen vessels" (2 Cor. iv. 7), faith will be mingled with superstition, wheat with tares, divine excellency with human frailty. Now the true Catholic Church may never teach, nor support, nor tolerate Superstition, but it is her province always to oppose and combat it. Döllinger (Kirche und Kirchen, p. xxxi.) expresses this thought masterly: "Auch das haben wir anzuerkennen, dass sich in der Kirche der Rost der Missbräuche, des abergläubischen Mechanismus, immer wieder ansetzt, dass die Diener der Kirche zuweilen durch Trägheit und Unverstand, das Volk durch Unwissenheit, das Geistige in der Religion [52/53] vergröbern und dadurch erniedrigen, entstellen, zum eigenen Schaden anwenden. Der rechte reformatorische Geist darf also in der Kirche nie entschwinden, muss vielmehr periodisch mit neu verjüngender Kraft hervorbrechen, und in das Bewusstsein und den Willen des Klerus eindringen."

But to come nearer to the question, you point to Roman Catholicism and its superstitions fostered by the Popes and their votaries. Well, I have nothing to contradict; but suffice it once for all to state, that Papism has apostatized from Catholic Orthodoxy, and has involved itself in Heresy and Schism. Thus we have nothing to do with Papism, and consider it not only a mistake but a blunder of Dr. Pusey and of the large majority of Anglo-Catholics to long for a union with Rome. Let us not defile the pure Catholic deposit of faith, as preserved by the Orthodox Church, by shaking hands with Rome. NO TRUCE WITH PAPAL ROME! No compromise with Rome, before the Pope renounces his pretended Divine right, before he restores the pure Catholic faith and canons. The Romish tendencies within the Anglo-Catholic body are most pernicious to the development of this body. If mere aggrandizement is aimed at, you will do well to join Rome; but if the pure Catholic faith is your great mark, look to the rising sun: "Ex Oriente lux!" Does not Elijah's voice ring in your ears: "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And [53/54] the people answered him not a word." Either--or. Will you be Romanists, then you can never be Orthodox Catholics.

Are there superstitions to be found in the Orthodox Church? Yes. Are these superstitions taught, supported, or tolerated by the Orthodox Church? No. If you deny my statement, bring proofs to the contrary; but remember, all that you call superstition, is not therefore real superstition. Ponder my explanation given above, extracted from the writings of Orthodox authorities.

 There is one Orthodox Church to which I wish chiefly to draw your attention, for two reasons: first, because its reputation is most undeservedly aspersed; secondly, because its prospects are bright, and its destiny great. I mean the Russian Church. Placed by Providence between the East and the West, it forms, as it were, the natural ligament of both. Not too proud to recognize and appropriate the scientific progress of the West, it is able to enter into the thoughts and feelings of the West. It knows and studies both Romanism and Protestantism. It knows and studies them, from choice and necessity, as it is, politically, in contact with both. It is eminently the vital and formativebildsam) element in the Eastern Church, in contradistinction to other merely conservative bodies. Within the Russian Church there are superstitions, no doubt; but these are not superstitions of the Church, but against the Church. The Church continued to explode them, thus forming the "Raskol" (schism, heresy) without herself. Consult the Official [54/55] Documents of the Raskol (Sbornik pravitelstvennych svedenii o Raskolnikach) compiled by Kelsieff, and you shall see how these sectarians are almost all mystical visionaries, grown in the native soil of superstition. The Church cut off those withered branches in order to preserve her own life, and by cutting them off showed her life and health unimpaired. The Russian Raskol is not to be compared with the English "Dissent." The Dissenters left the Church by their own accord; the Raskolniks were driven out by the authority of the Church. All shades of Dissent may openly remain in the Church; no Raskolnik may, and if he does, he can only do so surreptitiously and hypocritically. The Raskol is therefore the dark background, from which Orthodoxy sets off so much the brighter. The Dissent, on the contrary, is the living reproof of the deliquium of the English Church. Still there is one event which might seduce the superficial reader of Russian history into the belief that as early as 1551 the Russian Church sanctioned superstitious usages. I allude to the "Stoglaff" or the Council of the hundred chapters, held at Moscow under the 40th Metropolitan Macarius, of which A. N. Mouravieff (A History of the Church of Russia. Oxford, 1842, p. 104 and 105) relates: "Though the object of the Council itself was to eradicate superstitions and abuses; yet, notwithstanding all this, the prejudices and ignorance of the dark ago of John showed themselves in some of the acts of this council, because there was no enlightened eye which could impartially overlook its [55/56] decisions. . . . They did not apply to the oecumenical patriarchs to approve the Council of the Hundred Chapters. In this way it came to pass that certain superstitious customs and local errors were clothed with the sanction of authority, and taking root in time among the people, produced those pernicious schisms with which the Church is even yet afflicted..... Its acts were never confirmed by the subscription of the Russian bishops; and not only has the original copy of them not been preserved, but none of the chronicles even so much as mention it, before the times of Nikon; and the metropolitan Macarius himself is silent concerning the council, in his Books of the Genealogies, in which he has related the history both of State and Church affairs." Since 1860 we possess the text of the Council published by Trübner, London [Stoglaff--Sobor byvshii v Moskve pri velikom gossudare tsarei velikom knäze Ivane Vassilyevitshe (v leto 7059)]. (

In finishing this first point we come to the conclusion that Anglo-Catholicism cannot lay claim to Catholic Orthodoxy; not only because it is part of a body composed of omnigenous Protestantism, but on the ground of its own inherent Protestantism. Let us conclude with a sweeping passage from Mr. Allies' work: "The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism." Second Edition. Oxford, 1818, p. 506 seq.: "Farewell, indeed, to any true defence of the Church of [56/57] England, any hope of her being built up once more to an Apostolical beauty and glory, of recovering her lost discipline and intercommunion with Christendom, if she is by any act of her rulers, or any decree of her own, to be mixed up with the followers of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingle: with those who have neither love, nor unity, nor dogmatic truth, nor Sacraments, nor a visible Church among themselves: who, never consistent but in the depth of error, and the secret instinct of heresy, deny regeneration in Baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation and Orders, and the power of the keys in absolution, and the Lord's Body in the Eucharist. That is the way of death; who is so mad as to enter on it? When Protestantism lies throughout Europe and America a great disjointed mass, in all the putridity of dissolution,

 The English Church claims Apostolical Succession for her bishops, and valid Ordination for her ministers. If both were granted, the sacramental character of the English Church would be settled, even if labouring under schism. There is a certain correlativeness between both, but it is rather negative and one-sided. By this I mean: a valid ordination cannot be made by an invalid bishop; it pre-supposes, therefore, Apostolical Succession. But a valid bishop can make an invalid ordination by not observing the proper "materia et forma sacramenti." It is not our mind to settle the historical question about the unbroken line of English Bishops.

Non nostrum est, tantas componere lites.

 Within the pale of the English Church this seems [60/61] to be an undoubted fact. Beyond the English Church both Catholics and Protestants find the question considerably intricate, and so beset with difficulties "that the orders are, to say the least, exceedingly doubtful" (Milner's End of Controversy. 8th edition, p. 211).--We propose only to collect some little stones lying in the way--"scrupulos congerere"--and are anxious to know, how the Anglicans will be able to clear them away.

 The celebrated Hooker was an eminent Anglican divine, "perhaps the most profound and accurate amongst them" (Milner, 1. c. p. 208). He says: "There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop. Where the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain, in case of such necessity the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give place. And therefore we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination." (Quoted by Macaulay in his Review of Gladstone's "On Church and State." London, 1851, p. 50.) Have you ever heard anything more un-Catholic? Fancy one of these priests not ordained by a bishop, and therefore (on Catholic principles) mere laymen, elevated to the rank of a bishop, and ordaining priests! Would one such lay-bishop not break through the Apostolical line of bishops and annihilate the claim of Apostolical Succession?

 "Hundreds, both in King Edward's and in [61/62] Queen Elizabeth's reign, ministered in the Church of England as legal pastors, who had no episcopal ordination" (Protestant Ordinations examined by the Rev. H. Smith. London, p. 48). Hooker (Eccl. Pol. Book VII. p. 285) says: "The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain: howbeit, as the ordinary course in all things is ordinarily to be observed, so it may be in some cases necessary that we decline from the ordinary ways."--Hooker (Eccl. Pol. VI. 8): "Let the bishops continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church, having so long found it good to continue under the regimen of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regimen of bishops. Their authority is a sword, which the Church hath power to take from them." On Hooker's views, Warburton, a no less learned divine, remarks, "The great Hooker was not only against, but laid down principles that have entirely subverted all pretences to a divine, unalterable right in any form of Church government whatever."--Bishop Cosins, who, upon the continent of Europe, took the Lord's Supper repeatedly in Presbyterian Churches, says, "Are all the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Germany, France, Scotland, in all points, either of substance or circumstance, disciplinated alike? [62/63] Nay, they neither are, nor can be; nor yet need be, since it cannot be proved that any set and exact particular form is recommended to us by the word of God" (Ans. to Abstr. sect. 18, p. 58).--Field says: "Who, then, dare condemn all those worthy ministers of God, who were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches, at such times as bishops, in those parts where they lived, opposed themselves against the truth of God?" (Book III. c. 37.) Francis Mason, an enthusiastic defender of the Anglican Church, says: "If you mean by Divine right, that which is according to Scripture, then the pre-eminence of bishops is jure divino. . . . But if by jure divino you understand a law or commandment of God binding all Christian Churches perpetually, unchangeably, and with such absolute necessity that no other order of regimen may in any case be admitted, in this sense neither may we grant it, nor yet can you prove it to be jure divino." The same Mason says (Def. of Foreign Ord. Oxford, 1641, p. 160): "Seeing a Presbyter is equal to a Bishop in the power of order, he has equally intrinsical power to give orders."--Stillingfleet (Irenicum, p. 10) says: "I doubt not but to make it evident, that before these late unhappy times, the main ground for settling episcopal government in this nation, was not any pretence of Divine right, but the conveniency of that form to the state and condition of this Church at the times of its reformation."--Bishop Hall, who is found in Dr. Pusey's Catena, says: "Blessed be God, there is no difference in any essential matter betwixt the Church of England and her sisters of the [63/64] Reformation. We accord in every point of Christian doctrine, without the least variation. Their public confessions and ours are sufficient convictions to the world of our full and absolute agreement. The only difference is in the form of outward administration, wherein also we are so far agreed, as that we all profess this form not to be essential to the being of a Church" (Peacemaker, sect. 6). We should feel greatly indebted to Dr. Pusey if he would give us a Catholic interpretation of such a specifically Protestant passage of one of the most prominent Anglo-Catholic Doctors of the Church!!--Archbishop Bramhall (Works, fol. 164) writes of the Presbyterian Churches: "Do I ... account them formal schismatics? No such thing. It is not at all material, whether episcopacy and priesthood be two distinct orders or distinct degrees of the same order."--Archbishop Usher writes: "For the testifying of my communion with these Churches, which I do love and honour as true members of the Church universal, I do profess that with like affection I would receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Dutch (i. e. presbyterial) ministers in Holland, as I would do at the hands of the French ministers."---Archbishop Wake (the same who transacted with Du Pin, under sanction of Cardinal de Noailles, on the Intercommunion between the Romish and English Churches) writes: "I should be unwilling to affirm, that where the ministry is not episcopal, there is no Church nor any true administration of the sacraments; and very many there are among us, who, zealous for episcopacy, yet dare not go so far as to [64/65] annul the ordinances of God performed by any other ministry."

The last twelve passages are quoted by Dr Cumming in his "Lectures on Tractarianism and Popery," Third Edition. London, p. 58-61. I need not add that I consider those lectures to be nothing but "geistreicher Flugsand," interspersed with such startling "inventions and discoveries" that the author ought to take out a patent for the same. Thus he has found out that "Cain was, in principle, the first Roman Catholic priest; and Abel, in principle, was the first Protestant martyr" (p. 29). Still the quotations (as far as reliable) are useful materials for better purposes. Here we may collect from the same:

1. That the "Anglo-Catholic Fathers" were, on the point of Apostolical Succession and its needfulness, not so strict as Dr. Pusey and the modern Anglo-Catholics, but held rather Latitudinarian views subversive of the whole fabric of the Church;

2. That the boasted Unity and Concord of Anglo-Catholicism, even in essentials (to which the Hierarchy belongs agreeably to Catholic teaching), is a specious illusion;

3. That Anglo-Catholicism is genuine Protestantism decked and disfigured by Catholic spoils.

  The Catholic Church never recognized ordinations made by presbyters. It is notorious that, when the Arians charged St. Athanasius with having ill-treated the priest Ischyras, the synod of Alexandria declined this charge on the score of [65/66] Ischyras not being a priest, because he had not been ordained by a bishop, but by the schismatic priest Colluthus, who had ordained many, all of whom the Church considered mere laymen.

Hooker's exception would destroy the whole fabric of an Apostolic Church. But what Hooker made an exception, Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Barlow made a rule. For they answered to the question:

"Whether in the New Testament be required any consecration of a bishop and priest, or only appointing to the office be sufficient?"

Cranmer. In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop, or a priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient.

Barlow. That only the appointing is necessary. Macaulay therefore concludes justly (1. c. p. 52): "We do not pretend to know to what precise extent the canonists of Oxford agree with those of Rome as to the circumstances which nullify orders. We will not, therefore, go so far as Chillingworth. We only say that we see no satisfactory proof of the fact that the Church of England possesses the apostolical succession."

"There is the same necessity of an apostolical succession of mission, or authority, to execute the functions of holy orders, as there is of the holy orders themselves. . . . Conformably to this, Dr. Berkley (in his sermon at the consecration of [66/67] Bishop Horne) teaches, that 'a defect in the mission of the ministry invalidates the sacraments, affects the purity of public worship, and therefore deserves to be investigated by every sincere Christian'" (Milner, 1. c. p. 213). Now Dr. Berkley cannot have considered this Mission as being implied in the consecration as modern Anglicans use to do, who feel the difficulty of deriving the Apostolical Mission from the State. And still it is so. "Authority of jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal," says the statute of 1 Edward VI. c. 2, "is derived and deducted from the king's majesty, as supreme head of these churches and realms of England and Ireland." Elizabeth undertook to place Matthew Parker in the See of Canterbury, "supplying, by her supreme authority" any defects or impediments to his ordination, and then declaring it valid by the agency of her obsequious parliament. [Parker was never considered by the Catholics to be a bishop. Even Le Courayer admits of this: "Il est constant que sous Elisabeth les catholiques anglais refusèrent de reconnaître Parker pour évêque, aussi bien que ceux qu'il avait consaerés: Sanderus, Stapleton, Harding, et tous ceux qui ont écrit contre les anglais, on fournissent des preuves authentiques."] In him she laid the foundation of a new fabric, which she herself modelled and constructed, "the church by law established," which subsists to this day (Kenrick: The Primacy of the Apostolic See. 3rd Edition, London, 1849, p. 266).

 The consecration of Matthew Parker was invalid because the forma sacramenti was insufficient. This forma, or the words used in conferring the episcopal dignity, were:

[68] "Take the Hollie Gost, and remember that thou stirre upp the grace of God, which is in the, by the imposicion of handes, for God hath not given us the Spirite of fear, but of Power, and love and soberness."

[Dr. Pusey (Eiren. p. 232, seq.) seems to intimate that this form was the same or similar to that used in the consecration of Archbishop Chichele ("It has indeed escaped observation, that the form adopted at the consecration of Archbishop Parker was carefully framed on the old form used in the consecration of Archbishop Chichele, a century before--as I found by collation of the Registers in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, now many years ago--"). We should feel extremely obliged to Dr. Pusey, if he would tell us the exact wording of Chichele's consecration, i. e. the form said to be identical or equivalent to that used with Parker. If both forms proved to be the same (which I very much doubt), the consequence would be that Chichele's consecration was simply null.]

This form might be used with just as much propriety in Confirmation, since we find in it not the slightest allusion to the sacrament of order. Now I apply, not to a deep canonical learning, but to plain common sense, if it is not unheard of to confer an office without even mentioning it? The Anglicans themselves felt this want, and introduced in 1662 the still existing form: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands, &c." This alteration is not so insignificant as the Anglicans would like to make us believe, but it is an alteration of the utmost importance. For slight reasons fixed religious forms are not altered. But they discovered a flaw in the form of consecration and tried to repair it; but, unfortunately, the [68/69] preceding consecration of bishops could not be made valid by the later improved form. Had Parker been consecrated conformably to the present form the case would lie quite differently. But as Parker's consecration was invalid, the Apostolic line was broken off, irremediably broken off. The Anglican difficulty lies, if not solely, at least chiefly in the deficient form of Episcopal Consecration. Perrone (Praelectiones theologicae. Paris, 1842, tom. I. p. 484, seq.) says: "Quodsi invalidae censentur ordinationes Anglicanae, non ideo est, quia ab episcopis haereticis et schismaticis conferuntur, sed tum ob defectum successionis episcoporum, tum ob vitiatam essentialiter formam." Liebermann (Institutiones theologicae. Moguntiae, 1861. Editio nona, tom. II. p. 731) says: "Praecipuum controversiae pondus in quaestione juris est. Certum est, Parkerum a Barlowio ordinatum fuisse juxta formam ritualis ab Eduardo VI. editi. Videndum igitur est, an hic ritus ea habeat quae ad substantiam sacramenti pertinent. Imprimis de forma ordinationis quaestio instituitur." Dr. P. G. A. Grosch (Grundzüge des Kirchenrechtes der Katholiken und Evangelischen. Breslau, 1845,p. 148, note): "Nur die Weihe, welche von einem ausserhalb der Kirche zugleich aber in ununterbrochener Succession von den Aposteln stehenden Bischofe in dem vorgeschriebenen Ritus ertheilt worden ist, erkennt die Kirche als gültig (valida) an. Daher sind die Weihen der griechischen Bischöfe gültig, dagegen die der englischen Bischöfe, welche bei Ertheilung der Weihen von den ursprünglichen Förmlichkeiten abgewichen sind, ebenso ungültig, resp. nichtig, wie die der dänischen und schwedischen Bischöfe, deren Succession unterbrochen ist."

 In order to obviate the objection, which might be made, that the authorities cited above are Roman-Catholic: I beg to remark that the Roman-Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of order, and the practice based thereon, are perfectly Orthodox; and Rome never disagreed in this point with the East. True Episcopacy and sacramental operation in both churches form the mysterious bond, in spite of strife and antagonism. Rome, although degenerated from what it was in happier times, when the East and the West were still undivided, when the Bishop of Rome held still the Primacy without affecting the Supremacy--Rome, I say, is and ever will be infinitely nearer and dearer to the heart of the East, and the East to the heart of Rome, than Protestantism ever can be. We rejoice at the traces of Orthodoxy which are still left in the Church of Rome, and consider them the stepping-stones which mark the way back to the primitive purity which the East so providentially preserved. Ear from us the wild cry: "Rather Protestant than Papist!" Certainly, neither of the two, but least of all Protestant.

Rome's dealing with the Anglican clergy who went over to her, is a true pattern of Orthodox dealing. If Rome considered all ordinations by Parker and his successors, i. e. the whole present English Episcopate and Clergy, to be invalid, null and void, and, consistently, re-ordained all those converts [70/71] who wished and were fit for orders: the Eastern Church can but imitate her proceedings, as both follow, in this point, the very same principles. [Liebermann (Institutiones theologicae, Tom. II. p. 370) says: "Neque illud omittendum, quod potuerimt ad ecclesiam accedere, qui se dicebant ab episcopis haereticis ordinatos, de quibus an characterem episcopalem habuerint non constabat; quippe fortassis se ipsos multitudinis tumultuantis impetu intruserunt. Aut incertum erat, an legitima forma aut cum debita materia administratum fuerit sacramentum. Ejusmodi ordinationes dubiae iterabantur, et quidem sine conditione: id enim per mille et ducentos annos in usu ecclesiae non erat ut conditio adjiceretur."] Yea, it is noticeable that Rome, though in many respects guilty of the Jesuitical bias of eager Proselytism, yet, in this point, continued rigorously Orthodox. Rome's recognition of Anglican orders would have been a successful bait to allure English clergymen into her communion. But she resisted firmly the temptation, and, by her practice, cut off for ever the remotest thought or faintest hope of yielding to the contrary. This Impossibility of yielding Dr. Newman seems not to be quite prepared to affirm, but I fear his opinion stands very solitary, and will create uneasiness and dissatisfaction among his co-religionists. The fact of "re-ordination" is the final and conclusive verdict on the Invalidity of Anglican Ordinations. By this fact all further controversy is broken off and indisputably settled.

Finally, I cannot refrain from quoting the admirable passage from Froude's History of England (London, 1863, tom. VII. p. 174): "A Catholic bishop holds his office by a tenure untouched by the accidents of time. Dynasties may change--nations may lose their liberties--the firm fabric of [71/72] society itself may be swept away in the torrent of revolution--the Catholic prelate remains at his post; when he dies, another takes his place; and when the waters sink again into their beds, the quiet figure is seen standing where it stood before--the person perhaps changed--the thing itself rooted like a rock on the adamantine basements of the world. The Anglican hierarchy, far unlike its rival, was a child of convulsion and compromise: it drew its life from Elizabeth's throne, and had Elizabeth's throne fallen, it would have crumbled into sand. The Church of England was as a limb lopped off from the Catholic trunk; it was cut away from the stream by which its vascular system had been fed; and the life of it, as an independent and corporate existence, was gone for ever. But it had been taken up and grafted upon the State. If not what it had been, it could retain the form of what it had been--the form which made it respectable, without the power which made it dangerous. The image, in its outward aspect, could be made to correspond with the parent tree; and to sustain the illusion, it was necessary to provide bishops who could appear to have inherited their powers by the approved method as successors of the apostles."

is the great word echoed from certain quarters of the English Church, hailed by fervent believers and devout souls. It is a watchword, implying the [72/73] joy of expectation and the power of pressing forward--but, alas! implying in the same time the sad want of the thing longed for, the melancholy consciousness of an ill-omened deficiency. The Insulation of the English Church, which is not recognized by any Catholic Church, may escape the observation of those Churchmen,

Qui reposaient la nuit et dormaient tout le jour;

but weighs heavily upon the minds of those who look beyond the average distance. Intercommunion is but another word for Unity restored; and Unity is one of the characteristics of the Catholic Church. There is no Unity in the Church without Intercommunion of the Churches. The "invisible Unity" is the poorest expletive of Theology in a fix. Unity refers to doctrine and to the fundamental constitution of the Church. Two Churches may disagree in discipline (e. g. the paschal controversy) without loosening the bond of Unity. Two Churches never may disagree in dogmas, as the English Church opposed to the Catholic Church does. Or is our above-made statement, based on the acknowledged doctrine of the Orthodox Church, and substantiated by passages from her Church-books, an illusion? No, there is no tergiversation; you may not hold the complete Orthodox doctrine, as long as you remain in the English Church; and if you do so, you are no upright Churchmen, you are Anglican hypocrites. Dr. Pusey does not hold the complete Catholic doctrine, and we are glad that Dr. Pusey has spoken out his full mind; and we sincerely hope that no one will in future suppose [73/74] him to be a whit less Protestant or more Catholic in opinion than he has now declared himself to be" ("The Month," December, 1865, p. 621). The Evangelicals and the Broad-Churchmen will understand me and fully appreciate my words, while they will condemn the Orthodox Church as unscriptural or un-protestant. Their condemnation is consistent with their views; and consistency I like as much as I detest disingenuous manipulation. Why do you wish for a forbidden fruit? Do you perhaps think, Orthodoxy would enter into a compromise with Anglicanism, throwing overboard the treasures she has jealously watched and kept for eighteen centuries past? Let us for a moment grant what is impossible, viz. that the Orthodox Church sacrificed half the lot of disagreeing doctrines, and requested you to adopt the other half. What would you do? Convocation is impotent and incompetent to settle doctrines. Parliament is unwilling to heighten the standard of belief; or would defer the matter "ad Calendas Graecas;" or would enjoin a Creed by Act of Parliament! Thus no hope is left, but sheer despair!