A Correspondence between the Rt. Rev. Bishop of Fond du Lac and the Rev. the Rector of St. Patrick's Church, Fond du Lac.
Fond du Lac: The Daily Commonwealth, 1909.
An Eirenicon, or Olive-Branch
Many good Christian people will say about this or like correspondences, "What a pity it is that clergymen should indulge in such discussions. It does no good. It does not convince anyone. It only widens the breach between Christians. It arouses hot, perhaps angry, feelings. It disturbs the peace of the inner life. Let us live together in peace, without fault-finding criticisms!"
There is much of truth in all this. To a devout person, a controversy is always a painful matter. The divisions in Christendom must be weakening to Christianity, and painful to our Lord. But we must remember that, as each one must, as St. Paul declares, give a reason for the faith that is in him, the duty of investigation rests upon all. Our Lord bade His hearers search the Scriptures, and see if these things He taught were so. It will not therefore do for us, any more than for the Jews, to say we were brought up in a certain faith, and therefore will not inquire. Whatever the Holy Spirit has taught us by experience, as for instance our conversion, if a Methodist, or the Real Presence, if a Roman Catholic, we should not reopen. But many questions which divide Christendom, we should, in the spirit of charity, be willing to investigate.
 Ought we not at least to try to understand one another? Sad as are the divisions of Christians, is it not likely that each body stands for some truth or practice, which has either been overlooked, or disproportionately stated? In the love of Christ which should bind all Christians together, we should strive, not to exaggerate, but to minimize our differences. We must remember that all who are baptized are members of Christ, and so of His Church. And as the Holy Spirit, given to all at Pentecost, dwells in the whole body, we ought to be willing to learn from one another.
Now we must all admit that Christ's Church, which was founded at Jerusalem at Pentecost, and has extended throughout the world, has become rent. The Scriptures testify that this would come to pass. The bones of the mystical Body would be out of joint, the outer garment of Christ would be rent, the net of the Church would be broken, the Gospel ship would suffer shipwreck, the sun and moon would be darkened, the stars would fall at the end. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it, but would wound it. We must face this prophesied and existing fact. For the first 1000 years the Church remained practically united. Thus Christ's prayer for unity and union was answered. Then the four Patriarchs in the East separated from the one Patriarch, or Bishop of Rome, in the West, and the two portions of the Church have ever remained apart. The Roman Western [4/5] Church says to the East, "While we acknowledge your orders and sacraments, nevertheless you are in schism, because you do not recognize the Papal Supremacy." The Eastern Church replies, "You set up a supreme Pontiff. This you cannot prove from Holy Scripture. The great Pope Gregory condemned the title as a profane thing. The traditions of the Fathers we have received are against it. As for being in schism, the old ecclesiastical maxim is, ‘Schismaticus est qui schisma causat, non qui separet.'" (Not he who separates is the schismatic, but he who causes the schism.) By demanding unscriptural and uncanonical terms of communion, such as the Supremacy and the new dogmas, the East charges Rome with being schismatic.
Then came another division in the West between the Anglican and the Latin Communions, between the Church in England and the Roman Church. Now it is most untrue and unscholarly to say that the matrimonial adventures of King Henry VIII were the cause of the Reformation in England in the sixteenth century. The need of a Reformation had been growing for some 200 years, backed up by the College of Cardinals, and the Council of Constance, and a general movement throughout Europe. It eventuated in the Council of Trent, which was a reforming Council, and in the Reformation which took place by the provincial synods of the Church in England. The Church in England,--preserving her continuity, the three holy orders of the ministry, the Sacramental system, the Catholic faith as held by the Fathers, the holy Eucharistic sacrifice, and the allowed ancient ceremonial,--reformed herself. She put the Mass into English, restored the sacrament of marriage to the clergy, gave back to the laity the completed sacrament in the Chalice of the Precious Blood, preserved the ecclesiastical year, and made sacerdotal confession voluntary. We may be willing to say that there were some losses as well as some gains. These losses she is gradually removing.
If Christian fellowship, which is most desirable, is to be established between us, the unhistorical statement that our Church was founded by Henry VIII should cease. On our side, the old Puritan mode of attack--which called Romans idolaters, because they had images and pictures in their churches; were formalists, because they used rosaries as helps to prayer; were in error because they believed in the Real Presence; did not trust in Christ's merits, because they went to confession; did not venture to read the Holy Scriptures, --should cease. There are devout and holy Roman Catholics, and blessed Religious, and Rome is the Mother of many saints.
Corporate reunion, or the amalgamation of the two bodies is now a practical impossibility. [6/7] The Papacy is controlled by the great Jesuit Society, and cannot alter its policy, nor is it conceivable that the Anglican Bishops, having recovered their freedom and full episcopal jurisdiction, would ever again submit to the Papacy. It is as impossible as that England should vote herself back under the Tudor tyranny, or our blacks vote to return to slavery. But it is possible there might be a restored recognition, and a peace-loving Christian fellowship. What stands in the way of such restored recognition and fellowship is first the non-recognition of our orders by Romans. We are sure of them. Many Roman Catholic theologians have acknowledged them, but a late papal pronouncement was against their validity. We know that this decision is not regarded by some Roman Catholics as an infallible utterance. It is thought that eventually it may be changed, just as the decision of the Pope Eugenius, that the essence of the transmission of Holy Orders lay in the delivery of the Instruments, has been recognized as erroneous. The feeling among Anglicans is that the late papal opinion was obtained more by political influence, to please a certain coterie in England, than by the weight of theological arguments. The Pope signed an opinion which was prepared for him, and was misled by certain misstatements of facts. The decision was led to turn on the form used in the Edwardine Ordinal. It was stated that the only form used in the laying [7/8] on of hands by a Bishop at an ordination of priests was "Receive the Holy Ghost." It was alleged that the office for which the Holy Ghost was given was not stated, but as a matter of fact the office was stated again and again, and the ordained was presented to receive the office of priesthood, and when the Bishop's hands were laid upon him, an exclusive work of priesthood was designated. The words were, "Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost retain: they are retained. Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His Holy Sacraments." Again: the Holy Father was misled by a false or an abbreviated quotation from the Bull of Paul IV, which allowed Cardinal Pole to recognize these ordinations under Edward as valid. The condonation of ecclesiastical irregularities was thus stated: Pole was to condone the irregularities of persons, who in a way which is "nulliter and de facto obtained various grants, dispensations, favors and indults concerning orders as well as ecclesiastical benefices." Of this clause the Holy Father had that part only which is italicised laid before him. Now the adverb "nulliter" as its context clearly shows, had no reference whatever to the validity of ordinations, but to the way in which they were obtained. And Ducange, a great authority in ecclesiastical Latin, gives as the various meanings of "nulliter" in mediaeval [8/9] Latin, "unjustly," "extra-legally," "illegitimately." The phrase means those who had been irregularly yet defacto, ordained.
Frere, in his "Marian Reactions" (S. P. C. K.) states as one of the results of his search into every extant Diocesan registry of Queen Mary's reign, that no record was found of deprivation for nullity of orders.
As the Pope was misled thus by misrepresentation of fact, there is a possibility that his erroneous decision might be reversed. Concerning Archbishop Parker's consecration, no real objection can be raised against it, as he was consecrated by four bishops, two of whom had been consecrated according to the form of the old Roman Pontifical, and all of whom, when they consecrated him, said the words of consecration. Their "intention," as formally declared in the Ordinal they used, was to continue the ancient orders. Parker succeeded Cardinal Pole, on his death, as Archbishop of Canterbury. Habitual jurisdiction, as all theologians know, comes with consecration. Actual jurisdiction, which is the restraint of it within certain limits, came in the legal and orderly way of his recognition by his comprovincials, and without protest on the part of any others. Archbishop Parker was rightly consecrated and succeeded Pole. It only harms Rome to deny our orders, and it would [9/10] be greatly to her advantage if she recognized them.
On the other hand, what stands in the way of our submission to Rome is the papal monarchical supremacy. It is stated that all executive and legislative power and jurisdiction is with the Pope. The Bishops can only speak as lie speaks, and they hold their jurisdiction from him. Now the Eastern Churches, and we ourselves, and the Anglicans, would probably be willing to accept a canonical primacy, but not the mediaevally developed and monarchical one with its personal infallibility. We believe that the power claimed is different in kind from that which existed in early times. We know how it grew up in the Middle Ages under the Feudal system, which it made use of, and the Forged Decretals. We have on one side such Roman Catholic trained scholars as Dellinger, those who wrote the letters signed "Janus," Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, Launoy the great Gallican theologian, and others, who have said, "The Supremacy cannot be proved from Holy Scripture." Upon the spurious decretals was built up the great fabric of papal supremacy over the different national churches, a fabric which has stood after its foundation crumbled beneath it. For no one has pretended to deny during the last two centuries that the imposture is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages to credit. And concerning jurisdiction, Bossuet [10/11] wrote, "That very late invention, that Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, and are, as it were, vicars of him, ought to be banished from the Schools, as unheard of for twelve centuries."
In conclusion: our duty as Anglicans is clearly to remain where we are. We have the Catholic faith and the Sacraments. It is ours to labour for the regaining of anything we have lost. We can wish well to our Roman brethren. Can they too not labour for reform in their own body? Can they not repudiate the doctrine of development and Manning's position that appeal to history was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Can they not, as Catholics, return to the position of S. Vincent de Lerins, and labour together with us for the restoration of the Vincentian Rule of Faith--"that is to be held which from the beginning, at all times, and by all, has been received?" Would it not add greatly to their development in America, if, as some of them wish, they could substitute English for Latin in the Mass? Might they not formally declare in favor of Catherine of Sienna's doctrine of the joys of the Middle state, instead of dwelling upon the tortures of purgatorial fires to satisfy the justice of God? Could they not restore the ancient method of giving the Blessed Sacrament in both kinds to the laity? Could riot the Sacrament of Marriage be allowed the clergy, as it is already recognized by Rome in uniat churches? It is in pity and [11/12] charity we subjoin the following extract from the Church Times, of Dec. 18th, 1908: "At an assembly of the Bishops of Latin America, held in Rome in 1899, statistics were submitted to Pope Leo XIII, which showed that the secular clergy numbered about 18,000; of these 3,000 were married men living in wedlock; about 4,000 were living in open concubinage; and about 1,500 were regarded as open to the charge of immorality of an even worse description. (See acta et Decreta, Concil. Plenar. Americae Latinae, Romae, 1900.) "
No honorable man, Christian or otherwise, thinks hardly of these unfortunate clergy, but condemns the system. May God bring about a Reform in Rome and may God in His mercy, draw all parts of the separated body together, if not outwardly, yet inwardly, in Christ.
C. C. Fond du Lac.
REV. FR. J. J. KEENAN CRITICISES BISHOP GRAFTON'S PAMPHLET ON "PRO-ROMANISM"
Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 19, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:
We have had profound religious peace in this community for many years, each one offering his devotions to his Heavenly Father as his conscience dictated to him, and an entire generation of our citizens have gone from Fond du Lac to the throne of their Creator without a ripple of religious strife or contention. Our good Bishop Grafton must have had a twinge of rheumatism or a kink in his brain for he has become fidgety of late, going around with a chip on his shoulder, and publishing spurts in the press on a variety of old religious subjects that have been thrashed over, time and again, in each generation for the past three hundred years. Up to the present time I thought the bishop was sincere in his belief and actions, but from his late writings I can see his duplicity and insincerity.
He has lately issued a pamphlet called "ProRomanism," in which he severely scores the clergy and sisters of his church who left him to become members of the Catholic church. The bishop shows anything but a Christian spirit when he [13/14] compares their leaving the Anglican communion to "squeezing out pus"--that is the expression he applies to his own old friends and associates who had labored with him sincerely for a number of years. If we had a choir boy who would use such a degraded comparison about respectable people, we would box his ears and make him do a good, long penance on his knees.
Some of the objections he cites against the Catholic church are so trite and have been answered so often that I cannot conceive that the bishop is ignorant of the explanation. Take his objection in regard to what a certain catechism says pertaining to papal infallibility. The bishop knows right well that that catechism was published before the promulgation of that doctrine, and prior to that no one was bound to accept it.
What gives the bishop a nightmare in particular is the thought of the Pope. He is worried that the Pope gets so much money and that he wields so great a power. In every century, certain persons have been affected by brain storms at the mere mention of the Pope. In England some centuries back, "To hell with the pope," was a customary salutation among a certain class of the people. We can well understand why Bishop Grafton is disturbed at the mention of the supreme head of the Catholic Church. The Holy Father, the successor of St. Peter to whom Christ said, “Whatever you shall bind upon earth, shall be [14/15] bound also in heaven," has decreed that the orders of the Anglican church are invalid, that the clergy of that church cannot validly confer the Sacraments; that is, consecrate and absolve, which are the chief powers of the priesthood. This decree of the Pope, no matter how drastic it may appear, is more permanent and enduring than the laws of the, Medes and Persians. Bishop Grafton should remember that his ancestors for many centuries prayed for and helped to support the Pope as all Christendom did. The last Peter's pence sent by England for that purpose amounted to forty thousand pounds sterling. Whatever mite the forefathers of the Bishop gave was included in that sum. This proves one thing definitely, that they were at one time good Catholics and loved the Pope.
At the commencement of our Civil War there was considerable excitement and prejudice against the Holy Father, as some were stating in the public press that he was favoring the Southern Confederacy. At that time there was held a mass meeting in Amory hall. Among the speakers was our honored fellow citizen, General E. S. Bragg, who addressed the assembly. In speaking of the feeling which existed, he used about the following words: "Fellow citizens, the old man over in Rome is not going to injure us." We would like to apply the same words to Bishop Grafton. The Pope is not going to injure the Bishop. It is very [15/16] probable he has never heard of him or his diocese, but he has to defend the unity of faith throughout the world. It is wonderful how the grace of God works in different persons. About a year ago a gentleman came to me to get a book that would explain the Catholic faith. I gave him a copy of the same catechism that Bishop Grafton criticises. Last week I received a letter from him thanking me and stating that on next Sunday he was to receive his first Holy Communion. That man used the same catechism the Bishop is criticising. The Grace of God directed one--pride deterred the other.
In closing his pamphlet, the Bishop states that he prays frequently for the union of all Christians. Why does he not set the example? The Catholic church did not separate from Anglicanism, but vice versa--the mountain did not go to Mahomet.
Every one knows that the Episcopal or Anglican church originated with Henry the Eighth, king of England. I know right well that most of the adherents are ashamed of its origin, but let them shuffle, shift, and distort matters as they please, they cannot change the plain and accepted statements of history. If we consider the circumstances, we can more readily understand the hateful events that took place. History tells us that King Henry was six feet and four inches in height and four feet broad--about twenty-five cubic feet [16/17] of animal. This monster fell in love with a maiden attached to the court--the maiden's name was Anne Boleyn. Although the king had been married nearly twenty years, he had the effrontery to ask the pope to dissolve his legitimate marriage: that he might be united to young Anne.
Had the Father of Christendom consented to that foul request the Catholic church would long ago have been wrecked on the rocks of human passion.
Besides being ashamed of their origin the Anglican body is afraid of history and truth. As the writer was entering Westminster Abbey some years ago, there was a fakir at the door calling out "Buy a history of the abbey." I asked him when that history began according to the pamphlet he was selling. He answered about 1630. I told him that the abbey was erected more than a thousand years before that date, and I did not wish airy garbled statement of historical facts. Let us come back to Henry and view the trend of events after the Pope had refused a divorce. Kings are always surrounded by flatterers and courtiers who will do anything to gain favor in the eyes of their sovereign. These say to the king, "Are you not master; pay no attention to the Pope, be your own Pope, and marry the person of your choice." Henry followed that advice, cast aside the authority of the church, cut himself off from the See of Rome, and became his own pope. With that step [17/18] taken began the Episcopal, Anglican, or what you want to call it, church.
I don't want to go thrashing old straw. Pusey and the tractarian movement are dead. What have we got to do with them? They never had an inception worth investigating.
I would make this suggestion to the Bishop. In his "Pro-Romanism" he states a dozen subjects he is disgruntled about. I wish he would write on one of those subjects each week in the public press, state his views and objections, and I will answer the following week.
THE BISHOP THANKS FATHER KEENAN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 20, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:--
Among the clergy of our city none stands higher in public esteem than Father Keenan, and I thank him for affording me by his communication the opportunity of presenting him publicly my sincere and respectful regards. He proposes we should enter into a discussion together. I am willing to do so, but I think it would tend more to general edification if you, Mr. Editor, would ask one clergyman of each of the religious bodies to give on Saturdays a short summary of their respective church's government and belief. We do not know each other well enough, and that keeps us apart.
Father Keenan censures me for breaking the peace which has so happily been maintained in our good city among Christians. But while writing a pamphlet chiefly for my own people, I have not written to the public newspapers save in reply to Roman attacks.
Father Keenan censures the use of an expression of mine and from his own viewpoint he is in the right. But I had knowledge, which he could not have, concerning the conduct of the seceders; [19/20] yet because I deemed it harsh and unfair, I withdrew it, and it is not to be found in the pamphlet he criticises.
He thinks I am disturbed by the papal decision on our orders. On the contrary, I was much pleased with it, for to us Catholics who know that we possess Orders and Sacraments, it was a demonstration that the Pope was not infallible. A Pope once decided that the essence of ordination lay in the giving of the Chalice and Paten to the ordained. But this decree has been set aside, and for one reason, because it would have invalidated early Roman Orders themselves.
Some years ago, Roman writers used to bring up the fable called the "Nag's Head Consecration" of Archbishop Parker. But they have given it up with regret that it was ever used. A like change might take place concerning the present papal decision, for an able religious Roman priest told me it was not ex-cathedra or infallible. Father Keenan thinks it will stand better than the law of the Medes and Persians. But as the laws of the Medes and Persians have long ago passed away, so may this decision. It does not affect us. God acknowledges the validity of our Orders and Sacraments, and we prefer to take God's testimony to that of the Pope.
My reference to Keenan 's Catechism in which it stated in the last century that the papal infallibility was no dogma of the church was to show [20/21] (which Father Keenan admits) that the papal infallibility was not till 1870 a dogma of his church. Believing as I do as a Catholic that the faith was once for all delivered, to be indeed capable of definitions, as was our Lord's divinity, but not of additions, I can not accept as a Catholic, the elevation of opinion into dogma. I would here put in evidence the great book called "Medievalism" by George Tyrrell, twenty-six years a Roman priest in the Jesuit society, and I would utter the word St. Augustine heard and which led to his conversion, "Lege tolle."
Father Keenan reminds me that our Lord said to St. Peter (S. Matt. 16.19:) "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." This is very true. But it is also true that He said (S. Matt. 18.18) the same to all the Apostles. In which case it does not seem to be any solitary gift to Peter. Indeed it seems impossible, if any such was given, and transmitted to the Roman see, that, on a matter so vital to the church, no statement is made in Holy Scripture that Peter ever went there. We are told that St. Paul was bidden to go to Rome, why not Peter if our salvation is dependent on our being under the jurisdiction of that see?
I can regret along with the Father the evil spirit which led men in past time to say, "To hell with the pope," and I believe he will agree with me in also regretting the same evil spirit [21/22] manifested in our day by a Roman Catholic priest who said "Hell will not be full till all the Paulist Fathers get there." The remark is sad as showing such a lack of harmony.
Father Keenan says, "The Anglican is afraid of history and truth!" This is an amusing and extraordinary assertion. Why, the Reformation was based on an historical appeal to authority. There has been no church that has produced so many and great church historians. These writers have shown again and again that the Roman church has departed from the ancient faith. Our rule of faith has been, not the Roman one, what the Pope decrees, but the Catholic one of St. Vincent de Lerins, "that which from the beginning at all times and by all has been received," is to be held.
The main point in Father Keenan's communication is to be found in his statement that our church was established by King Henry VIII, who broke with the Pope because the Pope would not grant him a divorce from Queen Catharine of Arragon. It will really help on Christian charity if the intelligent Roman laity will disabuse themselves of these false notions. King Henry was a bad man, but he was no worse nor as bad as many popes have been. Baronius, the Roman Catholic historian, said: "In this century the abomination of desolation was seen in the Temple of the Lord. How hideous was the face of the Roman church [22/23] when filthy and impudent and bad women governed all at Rome and changed sees at their pleasure, gave away bishoprics, placed their gallants in the see of St. Peter." Of John XII, it is written (see Milman, Lat. Christianity, III Vol., p. 181) that he was guilty of adultery, incest, and made the Lateran palace a brothel. Of Benedict IX, it is said that "though a boy in his teens, his vices were the vices of a man, and of a man utterly lost to shame. He perpetrated adultery, murder, and every kind of abomination with impunity." (Reichel's Middle Ages, page 121.) It is impossible, says Tyrrell, that the knowledge and infallible interpretation of tradition should be lodged in an utterly ignorant boy Pope like John XII or Benedict IX.
Now concerning Henry VIII. 's separation from Queen Catharine, the story is interesting, but in no way reflects credit on the papacy, as Father Keenan seems to think. The facts are thee: Henry's elder brother Arthur was married to Catharine. Arthur died, and King Henry VII applied to the Pope, Julius II, for a dispensation to allow his son Henry to marry his deceased brother's widow. Archbishop Warham protested against this marriage on the ground that it was contrary to divine law as set forth in Leviticus, ch. xviii. But the Pope granted the dispensation and Henry, after some hesitation, married. The king had been trained for the church and was a [23/24] theologian, and came to have scruples, especially as the French king objected to a matrimonial alliance with his daughter. It was before he saw Anne Boleyn that he professed to be disturbed by the connection. Subsequently he applied for a divorce. The Pope, Clement VII., according to Henry's letter to him, seems to have promised it. Henry, when he wrote to him, says: "We should have wished that all things should have been so expedited as corresponded to our expectations, not rashly conceived, but according to your promises; but we have been so often deceived by your Holiness' promises that no dependence can be placed upon them."
Clement proposed to try the case by a Legatine Commission in England. (See the Divorce of Catharine of Arragon, Froude, pages 67, 69, 84, 85.)
But while Pope Clement gave his legates a special commission in which he declared the marriage of Catharine and Henry void and ordered them to give judgment for the King, at the time notifying the King what he had done in the matter, he at the same time gave the legates secret instructions to burn the decretal letter, and on no account to act on it. But the paper was not burnt, but shown to some of the King's councillors, whereupon the Pope, learning of this, was very angry, and said, among other things: "They can do as they please, provided they do not make me [24/25] responsible." The conduct of the Pope was certainly dishonorable. The trial before the legates having failed of arriving at a decision, King Henry was advised to appeal to the doctors of the universities throughout Europe for an opinion whether the Pope had the right to set aside such a divine law or not. They almost universally decided he had not. The case was then tried in the Ecclesiastical Court in England, and by Bishops in communion with Rome. They decided against the Pope's dispensatory power, and consequently that there had been no valid marriage between King Henry and Catharine. As there had been no marriage there was no necessity to apply for a divorce from it, and so the King was free to marry. If the account reflects no credit on the King, it certainly puts the Pope in a bad light.
Now as to the founding of the Anglican church, King Henry had as much to do with it as Pontius Pilate with the founding of Christianity. A short story of it is this:--It was founded in Britain, apart from Rome, in early centuries. "The British Church," says Blackstone (IVch8) "by whomsoever founded was a stranger to Rome." Pope Gregory sent in 597 a missionary, named Augustine, thither, but it was not till a century after that the old British Church and the Roman Mission were united. The British Church came into communion with the Roman one but the Papacy was not then what it subsequently was in the [25/26] Middle Ages. The Papacy developed, it is well known, under the feudal system, and the influence of the forged decretals. When the Papacy became oppressive and tyrannical the English Church renounced the Pope's jurisdiction, and resumed its old independence. It took the same position towards the Papacy that the Eastern Churches had taken. No new church was started, but the old reformed. The proof of this is seen in the Acts of Parliament where there is no word to the effect that any change had taken place in the identity of the church, and in her statements made again and again that she did not intend to depart from the Catholic Faith.
In the great statute 25 Henry VIII.-ChI, it is stated that "nothing shall be interpreted or expounded to vary in anything concerning the very article of the Catholic Faith in Christendom." "We must assume," says the great historian Freeman, "because the facts of history compel us to assume, the absolute identity of the Church of England after the Reformation with the Church of England before it." "Nothing was further from the minds of Henry VIII or Elizabeth than the thought that either of them was doing anything new. Neither of them ever thought for a moment of establishing a new church." Gladstone said, "I can find no trace of the opinion which is common in the minds of unthinking persons that the Roman Catholic Church was [26/27] abolished in England at the time of the Reformation and that a Protestant Church was put in its place." Again, "the Church of England," he says, "is the same church that existed from the beginning. There was no new church in the reign of Henry VIII." The great judge, Sir Robert Phillimore ruled, "It is not only a religious but a legal error to say that a new church was introduced into the realm at the time of the Reformation. It is no less the language of Our Law than Our Divinity that the old church was restored and not a new one instituted. "(See Anglican Brief, Moore & Brinckman, page 428. It is certainly very significant that out of about 9,000 clergy who had been under Queen Mary, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth and the putting forth of our Prayer Book, all but about 200 beneficed clergy conformed. They would not have done so had they thought a new church was being formed.
We may now ask what is the origin of the present Roman Catholic Church in England? No division took place till the reign of Queen Elizabeth in the year 1570. Then the Pope called on those who were his followers to withdraw. A small body went from the old established church and formed a body by themselves. They had no settled bishops under ordinary jurisdiction, and it was not till 1850 that the present Roman dioceses in England were established. Thus Rome in England went out from the church and the Italian [27/28] Mission was founded there. Humphrey says: "We are a new mission straight from Rome." (Anglican Brief --Moore 86 Brinkman, pages 479 to 483.) "The Roman Hierarchy now in England is confessedly a modern body created by Pope Pius IX., 1850." We hope these statements will refute the notion that the Anglican Church was founded by King Henry VIII.
My good friend, Father Keenan, perhaps misunderstands me or he would not think me insincere. I recognize my littleness, my incapacity and my feebleness of attainment in sanctity. It is of little account what I am, but I believe I am a Christian and a Catholic. An evangelical Christian, believing and trusting in Christ's merits only for salvation, and a liberal Catholic, holding as faith that only which is certified by the universal consent and experience of Christendom, and relegating in charity all other matters to the realm of allowed opinion.
C. C. Fond du Lac.
Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 28, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:--
In the friendly discussion between Bishop Grafton and myself, I wish to thank him for the genial spirit and kindly disposition he displays. I surmise that if the Bishop did not hold as honorable and lucrative a position as he does, I could [28/29] without difficulty make a good real Catholic of him. I was particularly pleased with his suggestion that the clergy of each church in the city write an account of the origin or founder of their church which will lead to a more general understanding, and at the same time be instructive for the people. This can be done without any jarring or contentions, and I think this will be the first city in the whole country that ever attempted and carried out such an idea. The Bishop suggested this and I trust he will write to the other clergy to carry out the plan.
I do not know whether the Bishop intended the few remarks he made in his last communication concerning the origin of the Anglican church as his subscription to this plan. If so, he is altogether too vague, too indefinite. Each church has originated in some place and by some individual or society. We do not want any mythology or fairy tales. We have had definite history ever since the time the Savior came on earth and in recording the existence of any society we desire historic dates. For similar reasons, I have criticised some so-called Catholic shrines: for instance St. Anne in Canada and "Holy Hill" in this state. I can not find any valid data why they should be patronized as special places of devotion.
I would advise the Bishop to write to the Propaganda in Rome, where he can obtain more [29/30] reliable data and learn much more about the early history of Christianity in England than he has furnished.
Let us take the Bishop's account. He quotes a certain writer called Freeman, as follows: "We must assume the absolute identity of the Church of England after the Reformation to be the same as before." Is that the best authority you can produce in an all-important matter like the founding of Christianity? If the Church of Christ rested on "assumption" how long would it last? This "assumption" is the first and about the only reason he gives for the foundation of the Anglican church.
Let me make a suggestion, Bishop. The Catholic Church is much older than the Anglican and she has preserved the account that Joseph of Arimathea, who assisted at the burial of Jesus, with twelve of his disciples were the first to introduce Christianity into England, which in the time of Pope Eleutherius had spread so much that at the request of King Lucius he sent them Fugacius and Damian, who baptized the King and many of his subjects, consecrated many churches and established several bishoprics. Constantine and the sainted Helena who lived about this time and shed so much luster on the church and state, were faithful and obedient children under the Holy Father at Rome.
Some of the authorities the Bishop quoted [30/31] are not of a reliable character. His chief historian appears to be Froude whose history has been proven to be full of errors and misrepresentations. He is the man, when challenged to a joint debate in New York a few years back, ran away to England, and since that time made no public display of himself in this country. Ex-priest Crowley of Chicago, is another one whose works he commends to be read. The old proverb: "Show me with whom you go and I will tell you what you are," is true all the time.
When the Bishop stated that "no new religion was founded in England" after the defection of Henry VIII., I lost my breath and was so amazed that it took some time to get over my astonishment. The Bishop might safely make a statement of that kind to a class of new beginners in history, or to the Indians in the Oneida settlement, and it would be accepted, but in a city like ours, where we have a noted high school and a number of learned editors, clergy, professors, lawyers, and a public of more than ordinary intelligence, for the Bishop to come out with a flatfooted statement that there was no new religion founded at that time, is so brash--so jarring, that I cannot find words to express my amaze-merit. Bishop, put your hand on your heart, and say that you meant that, and see if it don't gag you. Why, Bishop, there were twenty or more new sects started just about that time. The [31/32] church established by law, which was one of them, had an act of parliament passed which forbade any one to write or preach in defense of the Catholic church, and severe penalties were imposed upon any one doing so for nearly two centuries. This accounts to a great extent for the fact that English literature is so permeated with mis-representation and prejudice against that church.
History tells us for not conforming to that new church, there were put to death two Cardinals, three Archbishops, eighteen Bishops and Archdeacons, five hundred priests, sixty superiors of religious houses, fifty canons, twenty-nine peers, three hundred and sixty-six knights and an immense number of the gentry and people. This was all done to establish a new religion. Go through England, Ireland and Scotland today, and note the vast number of churches, convents and monasteries in ruins. The religious were driven out or butchered and their possessions given to the adherents of the new cult--what can we think of the Bishop's statement, "There was no new church established at this time."
Let me advert to some statements of the Bishop. "God," he says, "acknowledges the validity of our orders." What proof do you give for that statement, Bishop? On what occasion has the miracle taken place? He likewise speaks of priests who stated to him that the decree of the [32/33] Pope concerning Anglican orders is not binding, and something about the Paulists and hell. Those priests were jollying you, Bishop, and their private opinion has no weight with us.
We have not time on this occasion to comment on what you wrote about the Popes. We shall cover those points when we write in a future communication on the Papacy.
Bishop's House, Dec. 2, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:
First let me thank Father Keenan for the Christian spirit of his reply. I am sure he will let me point out some minor mistakes into which he has inadvertently fallen.
He objects to my quoting Froude's History, which I did not quote, but his book ''Catherine of Aragon," which was written some thirty years after his history. No one has disputed his facts concerning the Pope's equivocations in the matter of Henry VIII., and which are proved from other sources. The Pope, instead of being a champion of the sanctity of marriage, in that ease appears to have been influenced by mere worldly considerations. He allowed of the divorce of Napoleon and Josephine on very trivial and unscriptura1 grounds and has violated Scripture in other cases.
 The Father says I quote from a certain writer called "Freeman." I do so, for Professor Freeman of Oxford University, England, is regarded as one of the first historians of the last century, and is esteemed a scholar of great authority. But Freeman was not my sole authority. I also quoted a great statesman, Gladstone, also a celebrated ecclesiastical jurist, Sir Robert Phillimore, and I might have added to these, to show that no new church was made at the time of Henry VIII., the testimony of a distinguished and intellectual unitarian. In his Hibbert Lectures, Dr. Charles Beard says, "There is no point at which it can be said, here the old church ends, here the new begins."
Father Keenan censures me for quoting the Rev. Jer. Crowley's book. Father Crowley was formerly, and is now I believe, a Roman Catholic priest of Chicago diocese. His book contains an account of the had Popes, John XI. and XII., John XXII., Urban V., Pius II., Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Calixtus ending up with Cardinal Antonelli, who, he says, when dying, refused the sacraments, saying he never believed in their efficacy. Many scandals are exposed in this book, especially some which have arisen in America, an.d it is prefaced by an -endorsement of Crowley by the Most Rev. Archbishop Katzer, so I naturally concluded I was warranted in quoting from it.
 I quite agree with Father Keenan in saying that when it comes to history we don't want fairy tales. Strange enough, he begins with a recitation of two fairy tales respecting the foundation of his church in Britain. The story that Joseph of Arimathea introduced Christianity into England and that the King Lucius sent over to Pope Eleutherius asking him to send missionaries, are both now rejected fairy tales. Modern scholarship with its new critical tests, has destroyed the credibility of these stories which were told us in our youth. (See Early Eng. His. by Prof. Bright, the great Oxford. Historian, p. 2.) The story of Joseph of Arimathea, is he says, "a beautiful medieval romance. The statement about Eleutherius is traceable to Rome in the fifth century, and is evidently unhistoric. The historian Burton denounces it as a fable." We quote also Cutt's "Turning Points of English History," p. 12, who says: "The whole story rests on the interpolated note in the catalogue of Roman Pontiffs (it was this that deceived Bede) and cannot be received as historical." In Short's History of England, page 3, he states that "so many improbabilities have been engrafted on this narrative that the whole tale has with much reason been questioned." No scholarship of the present day believes in the legends of Joseph of Arimathea or in that of Eleutherius. We must put away these fairy tales.
 Do you not also see, dear Father Keenan, if you rely on these legends for proving the foundation of your church in Britain, in what a dilemma it places you? History tells us that Pope Pius IV. in 1570 called on his followers to leave the Church of England, which they did, but they did not become a regular diocesan church organization till 1850! So either the present Roman Church in Enm1and, is as Cardinal Newman said, "a new one," having no connection with the ancient church founded by Joseph or Lucius, or the ancient one came to an end, and so the gates of Hell prevailed against it. While the Roman church today in England is thus "a new mission straight from the Vatican" as the Jesuit Father Humphreys says, the Church of England is the ancient church, only separated from the jurisdiction of the monarchical Papacy and reformed. It is the old Catholic Church.
Doing away with fairy tales, and turning to solid historical facts, we find that the Church or Christianity was founded in Britain in the second or third century, for we find the names of three British Bishops as present at the Council of Arles in France in 314. The Church was thus founded with its Episcopal government and held the Nicene Faith, as its presence at subsequent councils proves (Bright, Early English History, page 12) In 597, Pope Gregory sent over the monk Augustine as a missionary. A conference took place [36/37] between himself and the British bishops. He required them to give up all forms and customs which differed from Rome. This they refused to do and replied they had their own Archbishop. (Parry's Epitome of Anglican Church History, page 16. Cutt's "Augustine of Canterbury," 143.) This goes to show the independence of the ancient British Church of Rome. Eventually, when the Heptarchy passed away, and England became united under one king, the two communions were united, the Church regarding Rome as the first bishop in Christendom by way of honor, and the western patriarch, but not regarding him as supreme, the source of all jurisdiction and a monarch as he subsequently claimed to be.
We believe it to be clearly shown by history that the Papacy developed, in the Middle Ages, from a patriarchate into a supremacy especially under Pope Gregory or. Hildebrand, and Innocent III. As the patriarchate had arisen from conformity of the church to the system of the Roman Empire, so the supremacy came about through its conformity to the feudal system. Its power increased by virtue of the Feudal system, and also by the forged decretals. There were two sets of these forged papers, one in 850, the other in 1000, and by them great theologians, like Thomas Aquinas and Melchor Carni, in the west of Europe, were deceived. I fear the Roman Catholic laity do not realize these facts. They are not fairy [37/38] tales. The teaching of the forged decretals entered into canon law in 1140 and was made part of it by the great jurist Gratian. These letters were proved to be forgeries, and have been admitted to be such by the Roman Catholic authorities, and by the Pope himself. But the Papal power, gained by them, continues to exist till this day, just as an arch built upon a temporary scaffolding remains when the framework is put aside. If the supremacy and monarchical power of the Papacy were of divine origin, would God have need of forgeries and man's lies to establish it? This is a very bad fairy tale indeed.
Father Keenan says it took his breath away on reading my statement that no new church or religion was founded in England at the time of the Reformation. This I believe to be a cold and solid fact. Sects arose in Queen Elizabeth's time, but the old English Catholic church continued. There was a great difference between the Reform Protestant Movement on the Continent and the reform in England. In England, the church herself, through her bishops and convocation and in a legal way, reformed herself. The protest in England was first directed against the usurped Papal jurisdiction, then against the unhistorical Catholicity of the Middle Ages, not against the ancient Catholic Ministry and belief. In one of the great anti-Papal Statutes, 25 Henry VIII., it was set forth that by the changes in the relations [38/39] with Rome, "It was not intended that the Church of England should be regarded as declining or varying from the Catholic Church and faith of Christendom. " (Anglican Brief, page 364.)
No new church has been started, but in the way of reform, she translated the old office books, and put them, as St. Paul says, in a language understood by the people. She did the same thing with the Communion service, which in the Prayer Book of King Edward VI., put forth 1549, she called "The Mass." She restored the giving of the chalice to the laity, as has been the Catholic custom for 1,000 years. In her discipline, she retained the three ancient orders of the ministry:
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and formally declared in her Prayer Book, that as they had been, they were to be "continued." She maintained the necessity of Episcopal ordinations by accepting the ordinations of Roman priests when they come to us, but requiring ordination of sectarians, however eminent they may be. And in our office for the sick, we pray that we may die "in the communion of the Catholic Church."
The bishops stated in 1662 that the church had been careful to put nothing into the Liturgy but that which is "either the Word of God, or had generally been received in the Catholic Church." See Anglican Brief (Moore & Brinckman.) In her canon the church said it was far from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and [39/40] reject the churches of Italy, France, Spain and Germany, in all things which they held or practised, save as they departed from ancient customs." (Canons of the Church of England, page 45.)
She allowed of the marriage of the clergy, made confession no longer obligatory, but voluntary as souls might feel the need. But that no new religion was made was seen by the great fact that the large number of the clergy who had been under Queen Mary, when the new Prayer Book, as it now is, was put forth by Queen Elizabeth, accepted it and only about 200 or 300 of the beneficed clergy of the 9,400 refused to conform. (Frere, Ch. His. Socy. Series, page 111.) "It was computed that only 177 or about 250 (according to Cardinal Allen) refused the Oath." Moreover, and perhaps a Roman Catholic will be convinced by this, the Pope himself, according to a statement by Chief Justice Coke made at Norwich and found in Colliers' History, was willing to accept what was done, provided the queen would acknowledge his supremacy.
Again:--I stated on the subject of our orders that God had recognized them, and His authority was more satisfactory than that of the late Pope, whose decision, contrary to what Bossuet, and many Roman theologians had said, was evidently a political one. God has put His seal upon the validity of our orders and sacraments by the grace [40/41] known to be given through them. I have, in my long life, seen many come from the world under their influence and been spiritually changed. 'Upon those who have left our church for Rome, there has been seen no mark of increased sanctity. A number have gone back to the world, some of the ablest returned, and it could not be said of those who remained Romans that the lives, such as those of Manning and Newman were any holier than Pusey and Carter and a whole host of Anglicans.
The Holy Eucharist has been accompanied by miracles of healing, but the great spiritual miracle of the transformation of life is conclusive of the validity of our sacraments. Lacordaire said “the fairest fruit of the Catholic church was the religious life," and without valid sacraments it could not be sustained. But in all its beauty and supernatural power it is with us.
In respect of persecutions, Father Keenan cites no authority for the long list which he gives. Unless we know the author of the statement he quotes and the names of the two cardinals, two archbishops and others who were put to death in the times of Kings Henry or Edward or Queen Elizabeth, we must, as prudent people, hold his assertion as made unproved. We, however, admit that the property of the monasteries was taken away, the like of which has been done by every Roman Catholic country in Europe, and that [41/42] wicked persecutions were made by Henry VIII., who put to death persons for not believing in Transubstantiation, or for not accepting his marriage with Anne Boleyn. The number of executions of Romanists, under King Henry was 82. See Calton, "Attitude Towards Roman Catholics," page 88.
On the other hand, we must remember the persecutions made by her who has received the name of "Bloody' Queen Mary. Three hundred persons were burnt in her short reign of about five years and four months, and we cannot forget the sack of Cesena by Cardinal Robert, who became Pope Clement VII., when thousands were put to death amidst rape and bloodshed which even shocked those times. (Mil. His. Lat. Chris. vol. VII., p. 222; also Creighton, Papacy, vol. I, p. 65.) Nor must we omit the awful massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, for however politics may have entered into it, the Pope struck off a medal in its honor and Rome rang the bells of the churches with joy. The history of the Inquisition in Spain reveals an awful condition of cruelty and persecution and tyranny, and the scenes described at the opening of the Inquisition prison in Rome, when, in our day, the inmates became free, are most pathetic.
The fact is, to the disgrace of Christianity, all parties have persecuted in defiance of our Lord's rebuke to St. John: "Ye know not [42/43] what spirit ye are of," but while Protestantism of modern times has openly regretted this spirit, we find no official acknowledgement of guilt on the part of Rome, and we have personal knowledge that many of the Jesuits today defend it.
Then as to our belief: we are Catholics resting on the broad platform of Catholicity. Our Lord said, "Hear the Church," and we believe this to be a safe and prudent rule. But he also forbade His people to follow any one man and take him for their master, however able he might be. This has been the source of all heresies and schisms.
Now the modern Roman system requires the laity to believe the priests, and the priests the bishops, and the bishops to speak "in union with the Pope," so the foundation of the Roman Rule of Faith is the Papacy. While, therefore, I am a Catholic, believing in the teaching of the universal Church, you, dear Father Keenan, are a Papist. Thank you sincerely for your loving regard for me, and desire I should be a real Catholic. To return the compliment, I desire that you may become, not a better Christian, for I don't think you can become that, but less of a Papist, and more fully a Catholic.
The good Father seems to imply I am held where I am by my "lucrative" position! When I was converted, as a young man at Harvard, I gave myself entirely to the service of Christ and [43/44] humanity, determining to part with everything, save what was necessary for shelter, food and raiment. With all my imperfections, I have so continued to this day. I can only say to good Father Keenan, I am sure he will regard it as private and confidential, that my present salary as bishop is $300 a year! I don't know what Father Keenan's is. But will he swap?
C. C. Fond du Lac.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:--
In reply to Bishop Grafton 's communication, I desire to thank him for the generous and kindly remarks he bestows upon the writer.
Our discussion is becoming too scattered, we cover too much ground at one time. We could both keep quoting so-called authorities from now till the crack of doom, or, until the editors and general public, wearied by monotonous quotations, that they do not often understand, would at last exclaim: "Why don't they give us a rest! Get the hook!"
At this time I shall touch upon some of the points of the Bishop's last article. Of course. he has thus far quoted only Anglican authorities among whom me may include ex-priest Crowley. It is untrue, according to the words of Archbishop Katzer himself, that he ever gave his approval to Crowley's works.
 The main object of this discussion is to learn where the Episcopal or Anglican Church originated and by whom it was begun. History says it commenced at the time when Henry VIII. left the Catholic Church when excommunicated by the Pope. Our good Bishop Grafton objects to this and he takes us back to a synod of jangling bishops in the fourth century, who were mostly Arians. The reason the Bishop selects that assemblage of church men is because there were a couple of bishops from England assisted at the synod and from that semi-Arian body he wishes to develop the Church of England, etc. I did think before I investigated carefully that possibly the Bishop could find some grounds for claiming apostolicity for his sect, but history shows that claim falls to the ground.
To clear up what I wish to come to, let us begin with our churches, Catholic and Anglican, as we find them existing just now here in our city and trace them back to their origin, I think we shall accomplish more than chasing about in the wilds of France to look for the origin of the English Church. Let me take my own case. I am pastor of a Catholic Church in this city. Who appointed me to this charge? The archbishop of Milwaukee. Who gave him his authority as archbishop? The Holy Father, the Pope, who is the two hundred and sixty-sixth successor of St. Peter, the first Pope, to whom Christ has said after he [45/46] (Peter) had acknowledged him to be "The Christ, the Son of the living God." "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in Heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven." I might quote page after page from the Fathers of the Church, showing that in every age the Pope was acknowledged the Prince of the Apostles, the head of the church and the infallible judge of all things pertaining to faith and morals. For this reason all ages have acknowledged the Latin saying: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia." Where Peter is, there is the Church.
Now, Bishop, what I want you to do is to begin here in Fond du Lac, with yourself and trace back the origin of your sect, showing what authority placed you there and where your superiors received their authority. You remember, Bishop, in my last article, I asked you what proof you had that your orders were valid, and your only answer was that you felt they were valid. If you answer all important questions as vaguely as that, I do not wonder that your young clergy leave you, or seek for a more logical foundation for their faith.
 Right reason tells us that the Saviour must have left a guide for humanity in things spiritual and that guide must be infallible in teaching religious truths.
I do not know why it is that your church has not even a fixed name. In England it is called The Church Established by law; in the early days in this country it was designated the Episcopal, then again the Anglican Church, and lately they have the effrontery to call it the Catholic Church. The notorious Dowie had the boldness to name his church in the same way, but we know how far he succeeded. Bishop, you know in your heart that your church does not possess the qualifications to be called Catholic. With all your twisting and contorting you get back to a little synod in France in the fourth century. There is a big jump still left of a few centuries to get back to Christ and his Apostles. There appears to be nothing definite or settled--there is no head that can show a divine commission--everything is human and changeable; for example, the very name of your sect is unsettled. When I was a boy in southern Wisconsin I knew it as the Protestant Episcopal; in after years the word Protestant was stricken off and it became known as the Anglican Church; and now you are trying to adopt the name Catholic. The infamous Dowie tried to attach that venerable name to his fake [47/48] movement. As we have said above, we know how far he succeeded.
Bishop, you know in your heart that your church does not possess the qualifications to be named Catholic. The word Catholic is derived from the Greek and means universal both in time and territory. Your church is not universal in either way. It is found only in a few parts of the earth, notably English-speaking nations, and conceding everything you claim, it does not go back to Christ and His Apostles, therefore, lacks the two essential qualifications to possess the name Catholic. Be honest, Bishop, and drop what don't belong to you.
The Bishop desires to know if I will swap positions with him. Why Bishop, that is the most generous of all your offers. Most certainly, I'll swap, provided I'm not required to change my religious views because I feel absolutely certain of the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church, as our Savior promised to send the Holy Ghost to guide her and that He himself would remain with her all days till the consummation of the world. Let us suppose, however, we did exchange places. What would happen? I can only answer for myself. If I were installed in your residence on Division street the first questions I would ask would be, Who is boss here? Has anyone a right to define for me what I must believe and teach? If anyone claimed that right I would [48/49] demand of him to prove to me that he cannot deceive or misdirect me. If he could not do so I would refuse to accept his teachings. Why should I leave a church which is founded on the promises of Christ, which St. Paul calls "the pillar and ground of truth," whose teachings are clear aid definite, the same that our forefathers for untold generations have followed during their pilgrimage on this earth; and get into a mist of doubt and uncertainty without a guide to lead me securely to the Great Hereafter.
P. S. Bishop, if that be true, what you said of your income, you should demand a raise in your salary. Idem.
Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 15, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:
Father Keenan is strong, as many Romans are, in assertion, but weak in evidence and accuracy. He states that Archbishop Katzer never gave any approval to Father Crowley. Now Father Crowley in his book quotes the Most Rev. Archbishop Katzer as saying: "I am convinced that Almighty God brought Father Crowley to America to save the Catholic church, and that the present scandal in Chicago--the most terrible that ever occurred in America--was permitted by Providence to bring to a climax the reign of [49/50] rottenness, that it might be unearthed, exposed and wiped out."
Father Keenan states that in England our Church is called "the Church established by law." This is not its name and never has been. In pre-Reformation times and in legal documents, like Magna Charta, it is called the "Ecclesia Anglicana," or Church of England. So in Edward III. time, 1350. It was never known as the Roman Catholic Church. Its name now is the same as it was before the Reformation, for it is the same church.
Again: I quoted Keenan's Catechism that belief in the Pope's infallibility "was a Protestant invention." The Catechism went on to state that no decision of his could bind unless it "be enforced by the teaching body," i. e., the Bishops of the Church. Now this is denied by the late Vatican decree. In 1757 the Irish Romanists declared that infallibility was not an article of the Catholic Faith, and in 1810, the ten Irish Roman bishops, in a synodical declaration, affirmed infallibility was no part of the Roman Catholic religion. This declaration was made to the British government to secure the passing of the Emancipation act. It was clearly an affirmation made to the British government to the effect that infallibility was not then a dogma of the church, and was not intended to become a dogma, otherwise, as Gladstone says: "They were guilty of practising upon [50/51] the British crown one of the blackest frauds in history."
Father Keenan quotes as a generally received Patristic saying, "Where Peter is, there is the church." This was a saying, not of all the fathers, but originally of St. Ambrose. And as Canon Liddon and Dr. Bright, great scholars, have written, St. Ambrose was merely saying that it was "the great apostle's confession of the faith which was the foundation of the church," and Ambrose speaks of Peter as holding a "primacy," or rather, as taking the first place "in confession" not "in office, in faith, not in order."
As showing a lack of evidence, when we called upon Father Keenan to cite the names of the two Roman cardinals and three archbishops, and others who were put to death at the time of the Reformation, he failed to do so. He did not give his authority or the names of the cardinals and archbishops and twenty-six bishops. His statement therefore remains an unproved one. Can laymen rely on a writer who does not cite authorities and is so inaccurate? Can the blind lead the blind?
Father Keenan misquotes me in saying I refer to Arles in 314 as a French council, and as the point from which I wish to develop the Church of England. I quoted it for no such purpose. But having refuted the Father's fairy stories, I pointed to the historical fact that the presence of [51/52] these three British bishops showed that the church had been early founded in Britain, and it does this. I also cited it as a fact showing that this old British church was not founded by Rome, nor under its authority, as seen by the rejection by the British bishops of Augustine, the Roman emissary's demands of submission to him.
Another inaccuracy of the Father's is this: There were three bishops, not two as he says, at the Council of Arles, as the three signatures to the councils show. Nor was the council a French one, as Father Keenan states but one for the "Western Church." It was called by the Emperor Constantine. It was not Arian, another mistake, but called to meet the Donatist schism, which, in its exclusiveness and claims to be the only true church, is so like the Church of Rome.
Father Keenan asserts that in answer to the question what proof I have for our orders, my only answer was I felt they were valid. This is again an inaccuracy. The answer I gave was that of Christ, "By their fruits ye shall know them." I cited the effect of our Sacraments seen in the increase of grace, on all those who had joined us from the world, and the lack of such advance, according to their own testimony, of many who had gone from us to Rome. The marvelous spiritual vitality of the Anglican Church in the last 300 years, assaulted as it has been within and without, and the rise in it of the religious life, is a [52/53] demonstration of the efficacy of our Sacraments. It was this I asserted, and not merely that I felt the effect myself. It proves our case.
Again: Father Keenan wants me to trace back the origin of our church and orders. Now we trace them, with mission and jurisdiction, through a succession of bishops, up to the Apostles and Christ himself. The list of bishops has been given time and time again, and no less by the great ecclesiastical historian, Dr. Stubbs, late Bishop of Oxford, in his "Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum." Other scholars have given a list of our bishops up to the time of Peter and Paul and a list hangs up in our own Cathedral.
In respect to our orders all our Anglican bishops trace their spiritual descent from Archbishop Laud. Now Archbishop Laud combined in himself three different lines of Episcopal consecration, first, the English line of Archbishop M. Parker, that goes up to Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 668, consecrated by the Pope Vitalianus, and so up through the Roman line to the Apostles, Peter and Paul.
It may here be noted that while the Roman succession in this country for a long time was derived from Bishop Carroll, who was consecrated in Lulworth Castle, 1790, in England by one bishop only and two priests (in contradiction to the Nicene canon, which demands three bishops,) English history shows what remarkable care was [53/54] taken in the case of Matthew Parker, who was consecrated by four bishops,two of whom had been consecrated by the old Roman Pontifical, and all of whom, in the act of consecration, said the consecrating words. A fac-simile of the official record of consecration, photo-zincographed is in my library. It is probably not known to Father Keenan that the Roman Catholic Archbishop Antonius Dedominis, the Archbishop of Spalatro, Italy, joined the English Church, became Dean of Windsor, and united in the consecration of our bishops, and Laud traces his consecration to him. Moreover, Laud traces also his descent to the blessed St. Patrick, consecrated in 432, Archbishop of Armagh. For at the time of the Reformation all the Irish bishops, save four, conformed; and John Howson, Bishop of Oxford, who traced his consecration through the Bishop of Armagh, consecrated Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1633. So if the blessed St. Patrick was a Catholic bishop we are true bishops. Well may Archbishop Bramhall say, "If there are any good orders in the world, they are in the English Church."
Authority and mission were not given by Christ to Peter alone. Christ said, to all the Apostles as one body, "Go ye out into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." He thus gave them mission and jurisdiction. It was given to all the Apostles collectively, and they [54/55] collectively, transmitted it to their successors. From them our own bishops, by direct descent from the Apostles, and as being part of the true episcopate, received, and have exercised it, in conformity with the canon law of the church.
This is my answer about orders and authority to Father Keenan.
The assertion is made that our church was founded, and by law, by King Henry VIII. If so, will Father Keenan please cite the statute by which the old church was destroyed and the new one made? There is no such statute. The King Henry VIII. and our reformers moreover declared it was not their intention to form a new church or to depart from the Catholic faith. It was not a new church founded by them, for the government of the church by the Bishops and Convocation remained as it was before, save that they rejected the Papacy. In all the acts of Parliament, there was not a single word that implied that any change had taken place in the identity or the essential organization of the church itself. If, as Father Keenan says, the old church was done away with and a new one established by law, it was no more made a new church, than the reforms, wrung from King John in Magna Charta, made the nation a new nation. In 1688 there was a revolution in England that changed the dynasty of England. England, however, did not become a new nation, because she had a new line of kings. [55/56] What was done at the time of the Reformation was to reject the supremacy of the Pope, as being unscriptural, but not to do away with the ancient faith, as instituted by Christ and found in the Holy Scriptures. That the church after was the same church as before the Reformation is also proved by the fact that in ecclesiastical trials, the old pre-Reformation laws are now cited and regarded as binding, because the church is the same. It is the Roman mission in England that is the new church. Up to the year 1571, no split took place in England. It was not till 1571, in Queen Elizabeth's time, that the Pope Pius V. calling upon his followers to leave the old church, began the formation of a new one, which did not take Diocesan form till 1850! Thus we establish the fact that the Anglican Church was not founded by King Henry VIII.
Father Keenan refers to the text, "Thou art Peter." All Romans do, but they often misquote it. Our Lord did not say, "Thou art Peter, the Rock on which I will build my church," but "upon this Rock," I will build it. Now what does the pronoun "this" refer to? Does it refer to Peter or to Christ'? Against its referring to Peter is the fact that the two words are of different genders. This is the case in the Latin, the Vulgate, in the Peshitta Syriac, in which our Lord may have spoken, and in the Greek, which is the language of inspiration. As Peter is a man and of [56/57] the masculine gender; this "Rock" which is feminine, cannot refer to him. But the Roman laity go on ignorantly repeating it just because they are told to do so.
Again, the word "Rock" in the Old Testament is a synonym for "God." It is so used a great many times in the Bible. "Their Rock (or God) is not as our Rock" (or God) "Of the Rock that begat thee, thou art unmindful." "He forsook God, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." "For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a Rock, save our God?" Consequently, the Apostles when Peter had confessed Christ to be the Son of God, would naturally take “this Rock" as referring to Christ the Son of God. Moreover, Our Lord takes this title to Himself, when He says that those who act on His words are builded and founded upon a Rock.
In interpreting Holy Scripture, it must also be remembered that the Council of Trent bids us take Holy Scripture as interpreted by the "unanimous consent of the Fathers." Now the larger number, 44 of 69, when giving a formal explanation of this text, take this word "Rock," as referring to Christ, or Peter's confession, while some 17 take it of an office given to Peter. But I do not know of any of these latter, who ever interpreted it as an office which Peter was to transmit to a successor. Peter might be the "Primate," "the first," "pina," "head of the Apostles," but [57/58] he had no successor. This is the real issue and in this Rome fails.
In reply to the Father, I can lay my hand on my heart and say to God, "I believe ours to be a true branch of the Church, holding the orthodox Faith, and possessed of valid sacraments, and one which in love recognizes all baptized and faithful souls as Christians.
We reject the terrible penal punishments of a Roman purgatory. We give the Blessed Sacrament as Christ commanded, and as was done for the first 1000 years to the laity in both kinds. We do not enforce the celibacy of the clergy, which has led, and still leads, to so much scandal, especially in tropical climates; and we do not interfere with the rights of the laity.
Rothe, we hold, by demanding unscriptural terms of communion, is in a schismatical position, and by additions to the ancient faith, is uncatholic in her teaching. Surely the time must come, when her intelligent laity will call for reform, or else hear Christ saying, "Come out from among them and be ye separate"--for you can be Catholic without being Papal.
C. C. Fond du Lac.
Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 26, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:--
I trust that the communications of Bishop Grafton and myself, if they do not instruct, will [58/59] at least, be a pastime for the general public. There are so many points developed in a discussion of this kind, covering centuries of time that it is difficult to keep things clear. We are all somewhat affected by our training and surroundings. There is an old gentleman living in our city who is a confirmed atheist. The old man has spent his entire life in seeking proofs for the non-existence of a Supreme Being and that feeling has worked itself into the marrow of his bone. I am afraid my good friend, the Bishop, has spent so much of his life in looking for clubs to annihilate the Pope that his mind has become warped on that particular point. Although a bishop, he draws a line on Christian charity when it comes to writing of the Popes. He knows by heart all the evil sayings any writer has ever uttered against the long line of supreme pontiffs. "Alas, for the rarity of Christian charity."
I am afraid, Bishop, that you have read and studied only Anglican writers and authorities. Have you ever read "Cobbett's History of the Reformation?" He was an Anglican and would not therefore be unfair to you. Read also Kendrick on the "Primacy of the Apostolic See," and you will learn many things you do not seen to know. I would be glad if you'd tell me of some book that would clear up the points we are writing on about Anglicanism. In regard to the Crowley affair, I would again repeat that it is [59/60] contrary to common sense that the late Archbishop of Milwaukee would approve of such a mass of foulness. There is living proof that he did not.
You claim that your orders work miracles, in bringing to grace the wayward. I know a few cases where they failed. Look over the archives of your diocese and tell me what good did you effect with those ex-priests, Maglone, Lichner, Herbst and Ryan. Could you retain one of them? They might take your church as a place of refuge for a time when they are in "hard luck" but you cannot give them a logical foundation for their faith. It is still true what Dean Swift said in his time: "When the Pope weeds his garden he throws the weeds into our (Anglican) lot." Bishop, it is like pulling a cat upstairs by the tail to get you to go back and give a clear statement of the origin of Anglicanism. We brought you back to the synod of Arles in the fourth century. Now, Bishop, I dislike to push you back any farther, because beyond that you will find nobody but Popes, and it is not friendly to push you in among them. You can not doubt their genuine Christianity, however, as twenty of the Popes of the first three centuries, died as martyrs for the faith of Christ. And the same faith your forefathers deserted at the time of Henry VIII.
I wonder it does not strike you as unreasonable to ask me, or anyone else, to go to your Cathedral and examine a chart of succession you have [60/61] made up and placed there. You could go in there any night and change that chart to suit yourself. To see the apostolicity of the Catholic church, you need but look in Appleton's new Encyclopedia under the title Pope, and you will find an unbroken line from Peter in the first century till Pius the Tenth in the twentieth century. You did not make any effort in your last letter to prove your claim to Catholicity. You know you cannot. You need not go far away to prove the universality of the Catholic church. Go to the diocese immediately north of us, Green Bay, the word of God is preached every Sunday in seventeen different languages, in that diocese. That is what is meant by Catholicity. The Bible tells us that on Pentecost day, St. Peter preached to people of eighteen different countries and languages, and he converted eight thousand to the church became Catholic from the first, including all nations.
Let us go back to the Bishop. What I sincerely desire to learn from him is, during the reign of what Pope did his church start an independent existence? Who was the leader or prominent one in this separation? What was wrong with the church that they left her? Did they not err in leaving a church that had the promise of Christ, that He would remain with her all days till the end of time?
The Bishop states again there was no new church founded in the time of Henry VIII. And [61/62] asks me to give the act of parliament by which it was established. King Henry did not need an act of parliament for anything. After leaving the Catholic church he became supreme head of both church and state, and any poor wight that opposed either his animal lust, or his desire for power, his head was taken off.
You ask what authorities we have to show that cardinals, bishops and priests were put to death to establish the new religion under Henry VIII. I would refer you to "Liguori's History of Heresies," page 338, also "Varillas," t. 2. I. 16, p. 98, or, any fair writer of any nation, who has treated on that subject.
Let us take some of the objections you make. You assert the Pope granted a divorce to Napoleon. It is not pleasing to me and, I feel it in my bones, that it is not pleasing to my readers, to hear me continually calling back names. But what can one do? Here is a man calling himself a Christian bishop, who, I fear, knowingly and designedly falsifies the well known facts of history. A spade must be called a spade and I tell Bishop Grafton boldly, not that he is mistaken, but that he is wilfully prevaricating when he has the effrontery to assert that the Pope granted a divorce "a vinculo matrimonii" to Napoleon I.; yea, or to any one else.
Pope Pius VII., who at this time was a prisoner of Napoleon I., never granted--"or approved [62/63] of what had been done," to said emperor a divorce from the Empress Josephine. And Bishop Grafton knows this full well, if he knows anything. If you are ignorant of this fact, all I can say is, that you are shaky in your Modern History. I would advise you to read up some. Napoleon was married to Josephine Beauharnais, March 9, 1796, by a civil ceremony only. On December 1, 1804, the day preceding the coronation of Napoleon, Josephine mentioned this fact to Pope Pius VII., who had shared the common belief that she had been married according to the laws of the church. Napoleon, who desired to be free to contract another marriage in hopes of an heir to the throne of France, was greatly displeased at this disclosure. Yet he hoped still to have a loop hole in the religious marriage ceremony, which was performed on the eve of the coronation by Cardinal Fesch, by purposely incurring the impediment of clandestinity, which required the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses. The Pontiff, however, granted to Cardinal Fesch the necessary dispensation from this impediment, so that the marriage was valid. Thus, Prince Jerome Napoleon in 1887--"Napoleon and his Detractors" wrote: "Napoleon and Josephine, who had been only civilly married in time of the Directory, were united religiously by Cardinal Fesch, in order to satisfy the scruples of Josephine, on the evening preceding the [63/64] consecration in the presence of Tallyrand and Berthier, in the chapel of the Tuileries. I know this from the traditions of my family." The tribunal which declared the nullity of this marriage, therefore, acted on false testimony which denied the religious marriage, and exercised an authority it did not possess, "for the Pope is the proper Judge in such cases." The Pope, a prisoner then, had nothing whatsoever to do in the case. It never was brought before him. My authority for all this? Any and every work of respectability treating on this episode. Another Grafton lie laid low.
As Bishop Grafton seems to be not a little exercised over, if not grossly ignorant of the number of bishops essential to a valid consecration of a bishop, I presume to advise him to read "Van Espen," quoted by Estcourt, pages 111-112. There he will find the true Catholic teaching on this subject.
Most undoubtedly in the establishment of the American hierarchy, and in the consecration of the first bishop of the American Colonies to which Bishop Grafton seems to take exception, there was nothing hostile or repugnant to the spirit of the apostolic canons or practice of the Christian church, there was nothing done furtively or clandestinely, or without the knowledge, approval and assent of the clergy of the province and the universal church. Bishop Grafton did you ever hear tell of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop Cox of [64/65] Western New York, or of Dr. Ryan, bishop of Buffalo, same state? Now, good sir, this man Cox, too, found the same fault with American Catholic succession that you find. In fact, Cox, let us say, in the simplicity of his heart imagined that, in this matter, at least, he had Dr. Ryan up a tree. Poor dupe--"et tu Brute."
If you have not perused Dr. Ryan's work, "Apostolic Succession," allow me to advise you to procure it and to read it, nay to study it closely. It will open your eyes on this and many other topics, if they are at all openable. You will then see, know and understand the difference between canons of discipline and canons of faith.
Only the prefervid, fertile, imaginative, perhaps, poetic brains of Grafton, Cox & Co. could invent such ludicrous nonsense as has been belched forth on this topic. How about Parker, Barlow & Co.'? Were they Christian bishops'? Bishops of any kind in an Ecclesiastical sense'? Can you prove it'? If you can you'll have done what no one up to you has been able to do. Never mind the Pope. Wash your own dirty linen. You'll find more than enough to do. What is easier than to compile a list of names and hang it up "in our Cathedral!"
Bishop your request for the names of the martyrs under Henry is a foolish one. It would be an endless task and of no special interest to the general public to give a categorical list of the [65/66] English and Irish martyrs--of the Catholic men who generously, unhesitatingly, willingly laid down their lives for the Catholic faith under the brutal, licherous Henry VIII. and his equally infamous bastard daughter Elizabeth & Co. Their names, instead of the few mentioned in a former article, is "legion." Do you greatly desire names? Read then, good sir, the "Lives of the English Martyrs." You'll find this work in any reputable book store. Glance at Spaulding's History of the Protestant Reformation or any other honest work treating upon this subject, and they are many. I feel assured that after this reading you will blush for shame if you are capable of blushing. The recital of the cruelties employed to establish your monstrosity of a church in both England and Ireland would bring tears to the eyes of the most hardened. Bishop, in all sincerity, I now look upon you as a first class quibbler.
"For at the time of the Reformation 'all' the Irish bishops, save four, conformed"--Ita Grafton.
I have, in my time, again and again heard of "Thumping English lies," but this outrageous lie out-lies the father of lies, the devil, himself --"All the Irish bishops save four, conformed." Great God in Heaven!! And this man has the audacity to dub himself a "bishop"!!--a minister of Jesus Christ. With Cicero, I may truly exclaim, "O tempora! O mores!!" No wonder is it, that we see [66/67] so many lapse into deism and infidelity when we perceive to what depths of untruth, deceit and double dealing, even some of those calling themselves ambassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus can descend.
Of "all the Irish Catholic bishops," says Archbishop M. J. Spalding, in his "History of the Protestant Reformation," only "one" and he an Englishman--a mere creature of Henry VIII., who had been appointed on account of his mean subserviency to the policy of Henry's "Vicar General, Cromwell," gave his vote to the change of religion. This was Brown of Dublin; he was a royal tool, more than a true Catholic bishop. The other bishops in a body, with Cromer, archbishop of Armagh, at their head, unanimously resisted the innovation." Why, Sir, this so-called religion of yours which you strove by fire and sword and famine and every species of deviltry to foist upon us Irish was so odious to us that we boldly and heroically took the field under Fitzgerald in defence of our ancient faith.
Later on, Myler Magrath, Archbishop of Cashel, was found to stain his soul with the awful guilt of apostacy from the faith of his fathers; and, good sir, let me inform you, so great was the indignation of his people thereat--ever loyal, gallant, faithful, fearless, heroic "Tips" all--that they rose as one man in tumult and compelled him to flee from Cashel and seek safety in England [67/68] Vide Spalding, McGee and others. None of your foul Elizabethian religion for Ireland. To Peter and to him who sits in Peter's chair, Ireland, priests and people, has ever, thank God, been loyal and with God's help, ever shall be. "Semper et ubique Fideles" is our well earned, glorious motto. So much for Irish conformity to the lustful Henry's establishment.
Bishop, you talk as if no one else had a right to interpret the meaning of the words of Scripture except yourself, whereas, I know right well, from your late writings, that you are not only fallible, but exceedingly tricky and dishonest in your statements. May our good Lord assist the people who are depending upon your direction. Do you presume to compare your feeble effort at thinking and reasoning to the united consent and decisions of the learned in every age of Christianity which we find expressed in the teachings of the Catholic Churches over which Christ the Savior promised to preside till the end of time--that is unbounded pride--remember the fate of Lucifer. You put yourself up as a pope without any promise of divine assistance. You criticise and interpret everything to suit your whim and the occasion. This is surely a case of the "blind leading the blind." This article is already long enough, but as I promised before, I shall on some future occasion write on the Pope and some of the subjects treated of in Pro-Romanism.
Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 30, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:--
It is surprising how a little thing like the sting of an insect will irritate some persons. I referred to a book written by a Father Crowley, which while revealing many existing scandals in the Roman Church, called on the laity to defend our public school system. He prefaced his book with what was stated to be a commendation by Archbishop Katzer. He gave his words. Father Keenan says the bishop could not have, said this. This denial is like positive proof to Father Keenan's mind, but it has nothing to do with me.
Father Keenan denounces me for my remark about the Pope's allowance of the ,marriage of Napoleon to Marie Louise of Austria. The pope, I knew, was in duress, but I did not know that that should close the mouth of God's specially appointed guardian of the Faith and morals. If I am wrong about the details of the matter, it was because I had for my authority Guizot. In the seventh chapter of his history of France, page 390, he says that Cardinal Fesch who celebrated the marriage, "declared that the Pope had granted him full Dispensation."
Father Keenan taunts me with the names of four bad Roman priests, who he says, came to me and were not benefited, i. e. converted. We evangelical Christians do not claim to convert any, only God can do that. But because those who [69/70] enter any church from wrong motives are not spiritually benefitted, it does not follow that those who come from right ones are not blessed. But as Rome has nothing more to give than our church, we do not find, as a rule, any spiritual advance made by the converts from us to them. Usually the seceders say they have found peace, which comes in virtue of an ordinary psychological law from throwing off responsibility. Their spiritual sense becomes smothered by the act of submission, and then sinks into the torpor of a delusive peace. But as to these four priests named, three I never received into my Diocese. The Roman bishop wrote me of one that, if he were put into any of our missions, his evil life would be publicly exposed. I got rid of him. I see by the papers he is now officiating at a Roman altar.
In respect to the efficacy of our sacramental means of grace, I gave my testimony along with that of hundreds of our clergy of their transforming effects on those, who from the world, had come under their influence. And from the written testimony of some, like Dr. Foulkes, who had left us for Rome, but returned, it seemed that the converts had not spiritually advanced. If Rome has Sacraments and we have not, a marked improvement should be seen in the converts to her. But no one who knew their lives would say that Manning or Newman were any holier than Pusey or Keble, if as holy.
 Again: --I am charged with want of charity to the Popes. Now, it is not by Protestant historians that the criminally scandalous lives of the Popes have been exposed. The official annalist of the Roman church, "Baronius," gives a most terrible account of the degrading bestiality and viciousness of Roman pontiffs. The Apostolic See became a sewer of crime and filth. There were Popes whose lives were stained with every crime and vice known to man. Henry VIII. was a sensual and vicious man, but he was almost a saint beside some of these Popes. Why should not those who are so sensitive about their wicked and carnally minded Popes exercise the claimed for charity towards him? For my own part, I believe along with St. John the Baptist that not to condemn wicked men in high places, but to hide their wickedness is to be disloyal to God.
But our real point is this--"How can these godless Popes be the organs of the Holy Ghost?" Fr. Tyrrell, the great ex-Jesuit writer, whose words are stirring all Europe, writes (Medievalism 89) "Your Eminence a boy in his teens, as ignorant as he was morally vicious, was once elected to be Vicar of Christ. He had not at the moment of his election, the most rudimentary knowledge of his Catechism." "The knowledge and infallible interpretation of tradition by a totally ignorant boy-pope like John XII. or Benedict IX., would be an effect without a natural [71/72] cause." God might open the mouth of an ass to make sounds which the hypnotised prophet might translate to his disordered brain, but the blessed Holy Spirit cannot speak through Godless souls.
I pointed to the historical fact that the Roman succession, in this country for a long time depended on the consecration of Bishop Carroll in England in Lulworth Castle, by one bishop only. I have a fac-simile copy of the original account. I did not say it was invalid, though Ligouri holds such consecrations doubtful, yet it was not in conformity with the ancient canon which requires three bishops. Dr. Challoner in 1741, Dr. Sharrock 1780, Dr. Gibson 1790, were also consecrated by one Roman bishop. It stands in contrast with the care taken in England where four bishops united in the consecration of Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, over whom, it is of record, that all the bishops said the consecrating words.
Our orders, as I have stated, are traced up to the Apostles through three lines, first, in the English line through Parker, the Roman Italian line through the Archbishop de Dominis, and through the Irish line. It is a fact that some of the Irish Roman bishops at the time of Queen Elizabeth conformed. In Macbeth's History of Ireland pages 166-168, he states that only two bishops "refused to accept the new order of things." This is stated by other writers. Subsequently some, as Hugh Curwen, Archbishop of Dublin conformed, [72/73] and these joined in the consecration of bishops in England. All three lines met in Archbishop Laud, and all of the Anglican Bishops are spiritually descended from him. The list of bishops with their consecrations is given in Stubbs, the great ecclesiastical historian and in others. Archbishop Laud was himself offered a Cardinalate by the Pope and refused it. The then Pope also called on Queen Elizabeth to send bishops to the Council of Trent.
Our orders and Sacraments have been moreover acknowledged by Roman Catholics. By Bossuet, Bishop Strickland of Namur, Bishop Stonor, Vicar Apostolic, Bishop Doyle of Kildare, Bishop Ryan of Limerick, Archbishop Murray of Dublin, the Very Rev. Charles Davenport, D. D., the Fr. Francis of St. Clare, the Rev. G. Panzini, an Oratorian who said: "The orders of the Hierarchy remained the same." The Very Rev. P. Walsh, Professor of Divinity, who wrote, "I concur with those who doubt not the ordination of Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the Church of England." A very much longer list might be cited (See Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders.) We need not and do not appeal to them, for God has placed His seal upon our orders. The late Pope who thought otherwise was deceived as to a matter of fact. He was told that the "form" used in the ordinal used was only, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost!" But words implying the sacerdotum [73/74] or priestly power were united to these. The Pope did not know this.
Again:--We, who are true Catholic churchmen, don't object to a primacy of precedence and honor, confirmed by tradition and canon law on Rome, but to a mediaevally developed supremacy, which makes the Pope the monarch of the church, Vicar of Christ, infallible apart from the church's councils, and sole arbiter of doctrine. One, whose claims are based on misinterpretations of the Fathers, misunderstood texts of Scripture, by claims developed through greed of power, and the forged decretals. See concerning these forged decretals Janus 94-150. Roman writers all admit their forgery. Pope Pius VI. in 1789, said: "Let us put aside this collection and let it be burnt." And here I would quote the words of Kenwick, the late Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis, who in his speech prepared for the Vatican Council says, "The primacy of the Roman pontiff, both in honor and jurisdiction, I acknowledge, primacy, I say, not Lordship." He accepted the primacy, as based on tradition. "But that it can be proved from the words of Holy Scripture, I deny. It is true I held the opposite view when writing the "Observations," but on a closer study of the subject, I judge this interpretation must be abandoned."
I have answered the question when our church was founded. It was founded by Jesus Christ [74/75] and on the day of Pentecost. Christ did not found many churches but one. His church gradually extended throughout the world. No one knows the exact time when it reached Rome or Britain. We know from Holy Scripture that St. Paul labored in Rome, and probably as tradition says, he went to Britain. What is certain is that the church with its three orders of ministry was early established in both places, and the early British Church was in communion with western Christendom, as evidenced by the British Bishops' presence at Western Councils. In 597 Pope Gregory sent to Britain a missionary by the name of Augustine. He did a small work in the southeastern corner of Britain now called Kent. He and the British Bishops did not agree in some matters of discipline, which is only interesting as showing a certain independence of Rome. Subsequently under Archbishop Theodore, sent by Rome, the two Communions were governmentally united, and it became known as the Ecclesia Anglicana, or Church of England. This was the sole Church in England till the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Then the Church, while retaining its organization, its three orders of ministry, bishops, priests and deacons, its ancient creeds, the sacramental means of grace, liturgical worship, rejected the developed mediaeval papacy. She continued to be the old Catholic Church and to hold the Catholic Faith. Her principle of reform was to [75/76] retain the teaching and discipline of the early and united Church, ere the Church had by the assumption of Papal supremacy been rent into Eastern and Western Christendom. She put the Liturgy into the tongue understood by the people, gave back to the laity the reception of the Precious Blood in the Holy Communion as had been our Lord's command and the custom for 1000 years, restored the Sacrament of Marriage to the clergy of which they had been deprived, made confession to the priest a voluntary not an enforced obligation. No new church was made. The old Catholic Church was continued. It was not the work of King Henry, but of the Church herself, reforming herself, and continuing as she professed to be, the Catholic Church in England.
Father Keenan says I gave my own interpretation of the text, "Thou Art Peter." I did not give my own, but that of most of the Fathers. The authors of the work called Janus, who were Roman Catholic professors, after an exhaustive search in history, declared that none of the Fathers, for 500 years, in interpreting this text ever held that here was an office or power given to Peter that was to be transmitted to a successor. They left the Roman Communion.
Father Keenan may not accept my evidence, but he cannot refuse that of Archbishop Kenwick of St. Louis, who says the Papal claims cannot be proved by Scripture. "We are compelled to [76/77] abandon the usual modern exposition of the words, ‘On this rock will I build my Church.'" He says that only seventeen Fathers refer "This rock" to Peter, and none of these according to Janus say that it was an office in which he was to have a successor. The Archbishop says forty-four Fathers refer the Rock to Peter's faith, sixteen to Christ, and 8 to all the Apostles. He concludes therefore that the Papacy cannot be proved by the Scriptures according to the Rule of Trent which requires the unanimous consent of the Fathers for their interpretation.
There are two points to which in conclusion I ask the attention of my fair-minded readers. First, quite irrespective of the king's cause, a Reformation of the Church was needed. It must have come, king or no king. There had long been an urgent, nay passionate cry within the church for reform. The need of it had been recognized by the Council of Constance in 1414, and a committee was formed under the title of the Reformation college. In 1425, Henry VI. of England addressed a paper to Pope Martin V. for hastening a council for the Reformation of the Church. The Pope Adrian VI. by his nuncio acknowledged the need of it. In 1538 Pope Paul III. appointed a committee concerning it. The need of a Reformation is admitted by Roman authorities such as Bossuet, Schlegel, Muhler and Cardinal Bellarmine. The latter sums up the case thus:--"A few years before the [77/78] heresies of Luther and Calvin, there was according to the testimony of contemporary writers, neither justice in the ecclesiastical courts, nor discipline in the morals of the clergy, nor knowledge of sacred things, nor respect for them, in short, there was scarcely any religion left."
From the report of the Committee of Cardinals we learn that the German princes complain that by "the exemption of ecclesiastics from jurisdiction of temporal courts they were enabled to commit all kinds of crimes with impunity. Amongst the specified crimes alleged as common are coining, theft, abduction, adultery, rape, arson and murder, while even when bishops were willing to bring such offenders to justice, their chapters hampered them so they could not. "
The Cardinals report that "the root of all the evils of the Church was in the Roman Curia." They said, "If the Pope wants reform, he must begin at home." They add that "the simony of the Roman Church was intolerable, that men of the most abandoned character were freely ordained; that the Sacraments were openly sold for money, that the conventual orders had become so grievous a scandal that they ought to be summarily abolished; that the theological seminaries were at once schools of immorality and scepticism; while in Rome the divine service was celebrated in a sordid and irreverent fashion by ignorant priests. "See Littledale, Plain Reasons 211-212.
 These elements of evil in England were testified to by the notable sermon preached before Convocation by the great Dean Colet in 1500. But it was not the moral evils only that cried out for reform. The laity felt the oppression and injustice of the Papacy. When a bishopric was vacant, the Pope claimed its whole income for a year! The appeals to Rome in the cases of wills were expensive. More money went to Rome than to the support of the king. Political as well as moral motives effected the great reform needed for spiritual advancement, and the freedom of men's minds.
There certainly was need of a reformation, and in England it proceeded in a churchly and legal way. It is foolish to say it was the act of the King. Henry might be a tyrant, but he always acted in conformity with law. The Church in England, acting according to her authority derived from Christ Himself, rejected the usurped unscriptural power of the monarchical papal supremacy, corrected abuses and re-affirmed the ancient faith. The right of provincial synods to decree in matters of faith and to reform abuses, was ever recognized by national and provincial synods. Thus the Council of Gangra, about 325, condemned Eustatius for holding marriage to be unlawful. The provincial Council at Carthage, 343 condemned rebaptism. The provincial Council at Aquileia, 381 condemned Palladius and Secundinus for Arianism. A second Council of Carthage [79/80] dealt with and decreed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Council of Melis in Africa condemned the Pelagian heresy. A provincial Council of Orange in the fifth century dealt with the controversies about grace and free will. So the third Council of Toledo 589, handled many articles of the Faith, and declared if there happens a cause of faith to be settled, a historical synod shall be held. In like measure, repudiating the Papal claims, but acknowledging and appealing to a General Council of the whole Church, the Church of England, acting within her rights, reformed herself, and that these reforms were wise has been proven by experience.
In concluding my part in this correspondence, I will say that the calling of one names, only makes one rejoice, as being thus made like the Master. It has never been my aim to seek victory in controversy, but to bring out the Truth. I am as willing to be corrected in my mistakes, being but human, as I am glad to help others out of theirs. What I have proved is that our Church was not founded by Henry VIII., and that such a statement is unscholarly and untrue.
C. C. Fond du Lac.
Any person wishing a copy of Bishop Grafton's "Letter to the Oneidas," may have one by applying to the author, 101 East Division street, Fond du Lac, Wis.