Third Lecture

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIII, Issue 33, 13 December 1895, Page 7 (Supplement)

Third Lecture

" Oh, Father, I pray for them whom Thou hast given me because they are Thine. Sanctify them in truth. That they may all be one, as Thou, Father in me and I in Thee, that they may also be one in Us : That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." St. John, xiv., 9 and 21. Such, dearly beloved in Christ, was the dying prayer of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Such, too, should be

Conception was the work of the Vatican Council. With all his boldness even Litteldale would hardly have dared to make such an assertion. I always thought that the Decree of the Immaculate Conception was pronounced by Pope Pius IX., pronounced too, at the unanimous request of the Catholic Kpiscoprue, priesthood and laity, long betore the Vatican Council was held. In paragraph („)," p. iO,i o , the author of 'Hindrances" again attacks the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and declares that:—" The worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the custom of offering prayers to her directly is a development of Spiritual and Catholic Truth, and puts her in the position which }esus Christ, her Divine Son, has occupied from the time of His Ascension." May God in His mercy forgive him for such an untruthful assertion. Why will he persist in speaking of what he knows absolutely nothing? Were he to procure a little Catholic Catechism he would find therein a clear and concise exposition of the great and infinite difference in the Catholic devotion to Mary, the mother of God and the worship or adoration due and given to Jesus Chris\ her Divine Son, God Himself. Any Catholic child could tell him that as Mary is the highest and holiest of all God's creatures, she is to be honoured above them all,— that whatever be the enthusiastic outpourings of love, honour and devotion from the hearts of mankind they are as nought compared with one single act of love and veneration offered to her by her Divine Son during the thirty years He loved and obeyed her as the b:st of sons loved, honoured and obeyed the best of mothers.

As to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Catholic theologians prove it from the very words of God to our first parents and many other texts of Holy Writ, as well as from the writings of the Fathers in all times, even the most remote, bar from being a new-fangled dogma, we believe it to be as old as ( the human race. I challenge the author of " Hindrances to show me one of the Fathers positively stating that Mary ever contracted the stain of original sin. I would not of course be satisfied with his reading them through the spectacles of Dr. Littledale. Has he never heard or read what the earliest writers have said and written of the spotless, the Immaculate Mary ? Let him hsten to St. Cosm ,s, ot Jerusalem declar.ng i 2oo years ago that: " Every tongue fails to celebrate worthily, even heavenly minds grow dim in thy praises, 0 Ueipara ; yet in Thy goodness receive our homage, for Thou knowest our God inspired desire. Thou art the champion of Christians we magnify Thee." Again : " With pure hearts and undented lips we magnify the Immaculate and wholly pure Mother of Kmmanuel, through her and from her offeringDivine worship to her Son." The Apostle St. Andrew made a profession of faith before the pro-Consul F.geus, as recorded in the celebrated letter to the priests of Patras. The authenticity of the letter is asserted by Lumper, Gallandi, Morcclli, and others. And the Protestant Woog, who first published the Greek, vindicates it against all assailants. Gallandi says that it was used very early in the Offices of the Church. Hear the Profession of St. Andrew Because the first man was created of Immaculate earth, it was necessary that the Perfect Man should be born of an Immaculate Virgin, through whose means the Son of God who had before created man, might repair that eternal life which had been lost through Adam." Surely the author of "Hindrances." without consulting Ur. Littledale, will find no difficulty in admitting that God could as easily create Mary without sin as He did Kve the mother of mankind ? Does he find it harder to believe that the Almighty «as able to work a miracle to preserve H,s own beloved mother from the taint of original sin than to create man out of nothing by His only word ? Did he never read of the glowing terms m which Luther and Mahomet speak of the greatness and glory of her, whom they declare to have been created Immaculate? Does- he not know that the Collect for Christmas Day as read in his own Book of Common Prayer, says : Almighty God has given us His only Begotten Son to take our nature upon Him. and to be born of a pure Virgin ?" S, 3S f^ eVQ \ rCad nowni3 own Bishop Hall exclaims, »O Blessed Mary ! He cannot bless thee, he cannot honour thee too much who deifies thee not. Would he not agree with Bishop Jolly when he said, speaking of the Blessed Virgin ■ Certainly the highest honour that can be paid to a creature is due to her ? Will he not believe Jeremy Tax lor as soon as Dr. Littledale when he sa\s of Mary: ''She was full ot grace, and God penned on her a full measure of honour. . . As there uas no sin in the conception, so neither wis there in the production for there was nothing m tnis buL the , anctifkallon of a vein's womb . . that gate not having been opened by which the curse always entered !" Why, even the Homil.es proclaim n, at ' 'Jf?-" 9 ■ ' St d ' d take ll P° n Him our fr "' nature in the Blessed Virgin s womb, and that of her undefiled subsiance " (Homily on repentance). 1 .< A u- l j thC lnfaillbllit >' of the Pope, which the author Hindrances pronounces a new-fangled doctrine too, any Catholic could inform him that, though defined as an article of faith at the Vatican Council, the infallibility of

the Visible Head of the Church was always believed, otherwise it could never have been defined. Cathol.cs believe that if the visible Church of Christ is infallible, her vis.ble head must necessarily be. info be too. They find no more difficulty in admit ing the infallibility of the Pope than they do that of the Apostles. lhe General Councils, to which the author of Hindrances refers, gave unmistakeable proofs of their belict in the Popes supremacy and infallibility too. Had not the faithful known the Pope to be infallible, no Council would or could have made him so. The proclamation was made at the Vatican Council, at the urgent request of the venerable bishops gathered thereat from all parts of the world From my reading, and from what I have heard, I venture to affirm that never was such unanimity displayed as in that great Assembly known as ihe Vatican Council. Never was such unanimity witnessed in an assembly made up of men of so many different tribes, and tongues, and nations. Out of the eight hundred and more bishops assembled on that memorable occasion from all parts of the earth, men of different races, men who had travelled for weeks to answer the summons of the Old Man of the Vatican, out of these eight hundred bishops, not one, I repeat, denied the definition. All, with the exception of four or five, besought the Holy Father to proclaim a dogma which had been the belief of Catholics in all ages I repeat, had not the faithful always considered that infallibility was vested in the Sovereign Pontiff, no Council would or could have made him infallible.

I beg to inform the author of "Hindrances" that Roman theologians are not "hopelessly at variance as to the very serious question : When does the Pope speak ex-cathedra or infallibly?" Every Roman theologianprovided he be a Catholic—knows well that the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, when he speaks, first, as Supreme Teacher ; second to the whole Church ; third, when he defines a doctrine to be held by the whole Church ; fourth, when he speaks on a subject regarding faith and mora's.

As to the power ot the Keys, given by our Blessed Lord to St Peter, and through him to his successors, we prefer the plain and obvious meaning of the inspired pages to the erroneous views of the author of " Hindrances," Littledale, or Canon Gore. When we go back to the early Church we find that the very contrary ot what the author (I presume on the authority of Dr I ittledale and Canon Gore) asserts is the fact, viz., they affirm that St Peter was the rock upon which Christ founded His Church Dr Ryder, in his reply to Dr Littledale, proves this to a demonstration. Father Luke R.vmgton and Father Richardson do the same against Canon Gore.

Having mentioned the name of Canon Gore, I may tell you what one who knows well says of him •■— " He is a disciple of Dr. Pusey, although the bent of his mind is far more rationalistic than that woi thy man would have approved of. He has no sympathy with Dr Littledale or with ' plain reasons ' (I have the be,t of reasons for knowing it). But is he not the principal of the 'Pusey House' founded ior the very object ot stopping conversions, of keeping young Oxford from ' going over to Rome?' " Speaking of Gore s Roman Claims, trom which the author of "Hindrances" acknowledges his indebtedness for much valuable mloimation, trie same writer, who knows him well says • •' It is the work of a scholar, of a man of talent and reading but it is not the work of a theologian." No Catholic student who had for five years sat on the benches of our schools of Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology could make the assertions regarding our doctii.ies which this talented man does, or misunderstand terms which are taught to the seminarist during his first year of theology. Many of those stated m Mr Gore's work as the " Roman Claims" are not claims of the Church at all, and would be repudiated by every Catholic theologian. J J

Not one bather of any weight has asserted that St Peter was not the rock on which Jesus Christ founded His Church. Catholics believe to-day what their forefathers in Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, and the whole world always believed, viz , that our divine Lord appointed Peter and his successors, the Popes of Rome, to guard the Church, to feed, guide, rule, and direct it unto all truth. They believe that the divine prayer that Peter's faith might never fail, but that he should confirm his brethren in the episcopate is ever being heard, and that it will be heard to the end of time.

In reply to the gratuitous assertion that St James and not St Peter was the president ot lhe first Church Council, the C ouncil of Jeiusalem, ' 1 will merely give a quotation of St Jerome on thus point. « And all the multitude held their peace' and St James, the Apostle and all the ancients fpresbyteri) together adopted his sentence/ i.e., St. Peter's. And he adds that besides this proof ot St. Peter's authority. "So high an autnonty was Peter that Paul wrote in his letter : ' Then three years alter I came to Jerusalem to see St. Peter, and staved with him fifteen days.' " Had not Peter been looked upon as the Supreme Head no notice would need be taken of the rebuke which, with the authorit) of the Gospel, St Paul deemed it his duty to make St. Peter.

Is the author of "Hindrances" aware of the following facts?: — (1) That Canon Gore admits with us that our Blessed Lord promised to build His Church upon St. Peter, and that St. Peter himself is the rock. (2) That our Lord's words gave to St. Peter a headship among the Apostles that he was the Coryphaeus, the leader of the Apostolic band (3) That the Fathers, even the early Fathers, generally accord a certain primacy to the bishops in St Peter's See, not merely because of the secular importance of Rome but because they connect the position of its bishop "with the words of our Lord to St. Peter, if only as a symbol of unity. We have shown the contrary of what the author of " Hindrances " asserts as to " St. Peter never imagining he had any supermacy." He always acted as the chief, with consciousness of the supremacy, because he believed that our Blessed Lord meant what He said when He bade him confirm his brethren, when He assured him that his faith should never fail, because He, Eterr.al Truth, had prayed that it might never fail, that he might be the head and guide of the whole flock committed to his keeping, shepherds as well as sheep.

The author of " Hindrances," repeating the assertions of his masters, Littledale and Gore, affirm* that St Victor, Bishop of Rome, in 192 approved of the heresy called Montanism. I challenge him to produce any authority for this assertion except the discredited account of Tertullian. Let the author of " Hindrances " give us proofs of the condemnation of Popes Liberius and Honorius. As usual he makes gratuitious assertions on the authority of Dr Littledale and Canon Gore. We know the worth of the former, and the latter follows too blindly his master, Dr Pusey, who rests his supposition of the Pope's fall on the disputed letters of St Hilary, and a half quotation from the letters of St Jerome. The learned Bishop Hefele has ably refuted the errors prejudiced writers have fallen into with regard to the alleged heresy of these two great Popes. He has utterly demolished the " Fragments of St Hilary's Letters," and shows that St Hilary was an ardent admirer of Pope Liberius. I might add that had not the whole world, before the so-called Reformation, always looked upon the Pope as infallible in their teaching and ruling of the Church of God so much notice would never have been taken of supposed mistakes, which I repeat have never been proven. No proof has ever yet been given that any Pope defined aught contrary to faith.

Then the author of "Hindrances" says: "We find that the Western Church, on its own authority, deposed five other Popes, one John XXII I. as a simoniac, sorcerer, schismatic and heretic. And what are we to say of the time when there were rival Popes, sometimes as many as three at a time — excommunicating one another '■'" Has he never heard what is done when rival claimants appear in the State? or put forth their right to some property? Has he never read of pretenders to the crown ? Does he not know there can be but one true owner or claimant ? Are not the rest practically deposed? Does he not know that though there may be great delay justice is generally done at last to the lawful heir ?

In the next paragraph the author of " Hindrances " tells us: — "In no way is the absurdity of the modern Roman claim of an infallible Pope shown more strikingly than in the fact that the decree of 1870 is directly opposed to the utterances of Pope Gregory the Great, who speaks of ihe ' blasphemous sin ' of ascribing either tv the Roman Pope or any other person the title and office of Universal Bishop, and so the decree of 1870 expresses its own disbelief in the very doctrine of Papal infallibility which it so loudly asserts." We answer that out of humility Pope St Gregory the Great chose as his title one which his successors have always since used, '• Servus servorum Dei." He refused the title of CEcumenical Patriarch. Why? The ambitious Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, claimed the title of CEcumenical Patriarch. St Gregory declined the honour of the title but never did he shrink from the duties and rights imposed by the title of Supreme Pontiff. Otherwise how could he write, " As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother the Bishop of that city " (Lib. IX., Ep. 12); and again, " If any fault is found amongst Bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to the Apostolic See."

The author of " Hindrances " declares that the Church of England, whilst refuting the infallibility of any one man, has always held, in obedience to her Lord's words, the infallibility of the Church, and so accepts the first four General Councils, at which Bishops from every part of the Church were present. Does he not know that at the fourth ot those Councils--that of Chalcedon, held in 451, at which Bishops from every part of the Church were present — the Fathers oi that Council made public acknowledgement of the Papal supremacy ? Here are the words as given by Harduin 11., 660 :—": — " In the person of Peter, our interpreter, you preserved the chain of faith by the command of our Master descending to us, wherefore, using you as a guide, we have signified the truth to the faithful ; not by private interpretation, but by unanimous confession." If

" where two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ He is there in the midst of them," how must He have been with 520 ministers? " Over these, as the Head over the members, you presided by those who held your rank ; we entreat you, therefore, to honour our decision by your decrees; and, as ive agree with the Head, so let your Eminence complete what is proper for your children." The author of " Hindrances "says: — " Now supposing that the Roman claim about Peter being the Vicar of Christ was true, we should at once find evidence for it in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles." Does he find in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles evidence at once of all the claims of the Church of England, nay, of the Catholic Church, of which he thinks it to be a branch ? Still, I may ask, is not St. Peter's name always prominent in the Acts of the Apostles? Is not the first miracle recorded of the Apostles that of Peter? On the memorable occasion on which he converts three thousand souls is Peter not the first to address the Jews at Jerusalem, whilst his brethren in the apostolate stand respectfully around him ? Is he not the first to convert the Gentiles in the persons of Cornelius and his friends ?

At page 15 of his pamphlet the author of " Hindrances" brings forward from the New Zealand Church News for 187 1 the "great speech" of Bishop Strossmayer "against the innovation of Papal infallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870." With a feeling of pride, the author of " Hindrances" proclaims that the conclusions of the Primate of Hungary on this important matter of Papal infallibility are very nearly his own (the author's) conclusions. Unfortunately for our learned author, the great speech in which the Primate's conclusions by a remarkable coincidence are so nearly his own is no more to be relied upon than the misstatements of Dr Littledale. What are those remarkable conclusions? (1) That Jesus had given to His Apostles the the same power that He had given to St. Peter ; (2) that the Apostles never recognised in St. Peter the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the Church ; (3) that St. Peter never thought of being Pope, and never acted as if he were Pope ; (4) that the Councils of the first four centures, whilst they recognise the high position which the Bishop of Rome occupied in the Church, on account of Rome, only accorded him a pre-eminence of honour — never of power or jurisdiction ; (5) that the holy Fathers in the famous passage, " Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church " never understood that the rock was built on Peter (super Petnim) but on the rock (super Peiram) — that is, on the confession of faith of the Apostle. Doubtless it were a great triumph for the Christchurch orator if the orator of the Vatican believed as he does, though we might well ask, what is one Bishop or a single Primate amongst eight hundred or more who declared their adhesion to the decree of infallibility? But, unhappily for Christchurch, the great speech of Bishop Strossmayer is a mere m>th. I am not the proud possessor of a valuable copy of the New Zealand Church News for 1871, but I do possess the whole of the deliberations, acts, and decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and I find in those acts that Bishop Strossmayer, though he, with a comparatively few other Bishops, at fir^t thought the time for the definition was inopportune (whence the name they received of Inoppor tunists), subscribed to that same definition, and this in the very hands of the Infallible Pontiff Pius IX., of happy memory. As to the speech wherein the conclusions of both orators are so identical, the misfortune is that it was never delivered — it was not the work of Bish >p Strossmayer. " When the speech had gone the round of Europe in a polyglot form," says the late Cardinal Manning, " Bishop Strossmayer denounced it as a forgery, and his letter has been printed again and again in England. Nevertheless the speech is reprinted continually to this day at Glasgow and Belfast, and sown broadcast by post over these kingdoms." Had the illustrious prelate been aware of the existence of the New Zealand Church News he might have added New Zealand to the list of countries where this notorious he had been propagated. I have in my possession a copy of the very letter of repudiation written by Bishop Strossmayer to a lady, who still possesses the original (Miss O'Connor Morris, now Mrs William Bishop) :—": — " Mademoisselle, — I hasten to reply to your letter received yesterday. The discourse attributed to me is altogether apocryphal. This calumny has been several times reproduced in the German papers; I solemnly contradicted it, and contradict it now; giving you, by this letter, full power to contradict it everywhere in my name. Receive the assurance of my esteem. — I am your servant, Strossmayer, Bishop. Rohic, July 1, 1873."

When clergymen speak from the pulpit we expect them to state what is true. When they assume to teach their own and other people the doctrine of a Church to which they do not belongthe laws ot justice and equity should oblige them to study those doctrines beforehand fiom some reliable souice. When they dare state facts which give rise to issues of grave importance, we expect them, at least, not to make such assertions without first taking the trouble to ascertain whether they are founded on truth and whether they are accurate. The author of " Hindrances " has suffered himself to be the dupe of others.

We willingly acquit him of the fraud of which they have made themselves guilty. Nevertheless, as a teacher, he has placed himself in a very false position and one in which he cannot be pronounced free from fault — a fault which is no slight one either. I mean that of a too credulous reliance on authorities which are not only second-hand but also ill-informed.

At the close of my lecture last Sunday evening- 1 said that the whole question of the reunion of Christendom narrows itself down to this: Was the Church of old England Catholic in communion with the Apostolic See — the See of Rome ? This too narrows itself down to this plain, unmistakeable issue : Did the preReformation Church in England recognise the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals of the Pope of Rome? The author of "Hindrances " affirms that it did not. But he affirms it ; he reiterates his bold assertion without a shadow of proof for his denial, except the testimony of witnesses that we have seen must be put out of court. We, on the contrary, with history for our guide, have proved that no Church was more Roman in faith and practices than the Church of England before the Reformation. We have seen how the Popes long wielded authority over the Church in Great Britain— in authority which the civil laws of the land publicly recognised.

Let us, in conclusion, give a summary of a few historical, indisputable facts which will corroborate all we have said, and suggest more that time alone prevents us from bringing forward in proof of the same :— St. Augustine and his successors in the See of Canterbury for nearly a thousand years went, or sent, to Rome for the Pallium, an investiture that conveyed with it " vicarial powers" (vices agere) from the Apostolic See. The great Archbishop Theodore, who finally organised the English Church into its existing framework, was chosen, constituted, and consecrated Primate of England by the Pope in 668. Before the Council of Hertford he declared himselt " appointed by the Apostolic See." St. Wilfrid, when deprived of the See ot York, appealed three times to the Holy See, and in deference to its award was finally received with honour, and had given him the See of Ripon and Hexham. " This is the will ot the king and of his princes that to the commands of the Apostolic See, and to the directions of King Alfred, we should render all obedience." Such was the manifesto of the King's representative in the final council in the affairs of Wilfrid. The liturgy of the English Church was the Roman rite, and for a thousand years the Pope was prayed for in the Canon of the Mass. The church music and services were faithfully modelled upon those of Rome, and books and vestments, and even choirmasters, were brought from Rome for the purpose. Peter's Pence was commanded by law to be collected and sent to Rome. Under King Off a, Lichfield was raised to the rank of an archdiocese, and its Bishop, with a number of suffragan Bishops, was exempted from the control of the See of Canterbury. In 802 both Lichfield and its suffragan sees were restored to their original condition. Both the elevation and the deposition, the exemption and the resubmission, were effected by the authority ot the Apostolic See, to whom both Bishops and Kings applied for the purpose. Westminster Abbey was built by Edward the Con lessor in obedience to a decision of the Pope "in virtue ot huly obedience" in commutation for the fulfilment of a vow. William the Conquerer was crowned by P.. pal legates, and was himself a suitor at the court of Rome. Papal legates carried out the reorganisation of the English Church in a number of councils presided over by them and summoned by authority ot the Roman See. Lanfranc caused two English Bishops (one an Archbishop of York) to go to Rome and surrender their pastoral staff into the hands ol the Pope. The transfer ot sees, as in the case of Lincoln and Exaer, was made by the authority ot the Pope. Disputed elections and more giave causes were decided by the court of Rome. The Protestant Bishop Stubbs admits that between 12 15 and 1264 there were no less than thirty ot them. The Archbishops and Bishops of England took publicly a solemn oath of allegiance to the Pope. " I will be taithlul to Blessed Peter, and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our Lord the Pope. . . The Roman Papacy I will be their helper to m intain against all men. . . The commands of the Holy See I will observe with my whole stiength, and cau^e them to be observed by others. So help me God and these Holy Gospels."

The constitutions drawn by up Papal legates and Othobon) lormed part of the canon law pleaded m the ecclesiastical court-, ot England. By the Canon Law ot England a whole class of sins and censures were reserved to the Holy See, and could only be absolved by the Pope. In 1246 the English bishops declared to the Pope that England had b en " ever specially devoted to the Roman Church," while the English abbots and priors protested that the " English Church has many glories, and has ever been a special limb (membrum) ot the Holy Church of Rome." In the same >earthe nobles and Pailiament ot England assured the Pope " Our Mother, the Church ot Rome, we love wiih all our hearts as our duty is ... to whom we ought always to Hy for refuge." For nearly two centuries before the Reformation the vast majority of bishops were appointed by Papal provision, namely, by the

direct authority of the Pope, and by Papal Bulls issued to that effect.

J 1 would be easier for the author of "Hindrances" to lift New Zealand out of the ocean than to remove these tacts from the structure and fibre of English history, or to give to these fares any other direction or significance than their plain historical meaning— that the ancient Church of England was one that held, and not one that denied, that " the Pope hath jurisdiction over the realm of England." Well might the writer of the " Liturgical remains of the Anglo-Saxon Church " exclaim, " learned men and antiquarians, both ecclesiastical and lay, entertained a notion that the Anglo-Saxon Church was Protestant in its teaching and doctrine, and that polemical capital against Rome might be made out of its books of devotion, as well as out of the writings of its divines. Had they read these theological remains, as well as collected them, they would have discovered how baseless such a theory was. ?> Again, speaking of the pre- Reform ition Church in England: " Roman in origin, owing its existence to the forethought of one of the greatest of Roman bishops, planted and fostered by Roman missionaries, the Church of England was consistently Roman in doctrine and in practice." " Make what theological inferences we choose," says the late illustrious Professor Freemantle in the Guardian, of 1888, " the Church of England is above all other Churches in Europe the child of the Church of Rome. We are the spiritual children of Gregory the Great." Forsooth this able historian went to other sources for his historical learning than Canon Gore, Dr Littledale, or the Church News for 1871. What a pity he had not even the inestimable advantages of our " Hindrances to the re-union of Christendom. Audi alterant partem, hear both sides, as Cardinal Newman justly remarks, is generally an Englishman's maxim; but there is one subject on which he has intractable prejudices, and resolutely repudiates any view but that which is familiar to him from his childhood. Rome is his Nazareth. " Can any good come out of Nazareth ?" settles the question with him— happy rather if he could be brought to imitate the earnest inquirer in the Gospel, who, after urging this objection, went on, nevertheless, to obey the invitation which it elicited, "Come and see." Canon Gore, Dr Littledale, and the N. Z. Church News for 1871 aside, let the sadly mistaken author of " Hindrances to the re-union of Christianity" follow the exhortation ot the inspired writer whose words I have chosen for one of my texts, let him " remember the days of old," let him learn to think for himself, not second-hand upon every generation, let him ask the Fathers, his elders, they will tell him the unvarnished truth, and they will tell him that he has not the faintest shadow ot a claim to belong to the Primitive Church, the Church of our Fathers. Let him ask himself seriously before God and his own conscience, whether it be safe to belong to a Church "by law established " only. Let us one and all cry out from the depths ot our heart, " O, Father, I pray for them Thou hast given me, because they are Thine. Sanctify them j n truth. Let them all be one, as Thou, Father in me and lin Thee." This should be the earnest prayer of each and every one of us, the earnest desire of our lives.