283 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Anglican 
 Church’s Claims 
 
 REV. INGRAM N. W. IRVINE, D.D. 
 
 Canon of St. Nicholas’ Cathedral 
 
 WITH A 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. FR. DANIEL I. ODELL, B.D. 
 
 Rector of the Church of the Annunciation, Philadelphia 
 AND 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 BY 
 
 THE RT. REV. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Bishop of Springfield, 111. 
 
 THE REV. RANDALL C. HALL, D.D. 
 
 Professor (Emeritus) of Hebrew, General Theological Seminary 
 
 THE REV. WM. J. SEABURY, D.D. 
 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical Polity and Law in the General Theological Seminary 
 
 AND 
 
 THE HON. NICHOLAS N. DE LODYGENSKY 
 
 Imperial Russian Consul-General 
 
 ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 
 ST. NICHOLAS’ CATHEDRAL* 
 Madison Ave. and 97th St. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
% 
 
 
 Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 , University of Illinois Library 
 
A LETTER 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Anglican Church’s Claims 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. INGRAM N. W. IRVINE. D.D. 
 
 Canon of St. Nicholas’ Cathedral 
 
 WITH A 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 BY 
 
 THE REV. FR. DANIEL I. ODELL, B.D. O O 
 
 Rector of the Church of the Annunciation, Philadelphia 
 
 AND 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 BY 
 
 THE RT. REV. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Bishop of Springfield, 111. 
 
 THE REV. RANDALL C. HALL, D.D. 
 
 Professor (Emeritus) of Hebrew, General Theological Seminary 
 
 THE REV. WM. J. SEABURY, D.D. 
 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical Polity and Law in the General Theological Seminary 
 AND 
 
 THE HON. NICHOLAS N. DE LODYGENSKY 
 
 Imperial Russian Consul-General 
 
 ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 
 
 ST. NICHOLAS’ CATHEDRAL 
 
 MADISON AVE. AND 97th ST. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
^ Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/letteronanglican00irvi_0 
 

 Ir- 
 
 J. ■ 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 T N VIEW of the assembling of a council of the Holy 
 ^ Orthodox Russian Church for the recasting of its 
 internal ecclesiastical affairs during the coming Autumn 
 and the approaching Fourth Lambeth Conference of 
 Anglican Bishops in 1909, it would seem pre-eminently 
 fitting that the letter of the Reverend Dr. Irvine, ‘‘On the 
 Anglican Church's Historical Claims, Doctrines, Disci- 
 pline, Worship, etc./' written to his Grace, the Most 
 Reverend Archbishop Tikhon of North America and 
 Aleutian Islands, shortly after the reception of Dr. Irvine 
 into the Priesthood of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, 
 should be reprinted ; with the earnest hope that the 
 cordial relations hitherto existing between the two 
 Churches may be restored and, further, that something 
 definite and explicit may be done by the Bishops of 
 the respective Councils which, under the controlling guid- 
 ance of the Holy Spirit, will make for righteousness and 
 the reunion of Christendom. 
 
 The unhappy position of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, as an integral part of the Anglican Communion, 
 in allowing herself to be constantly and continuously 
 classified with the Protestant bodies which have no His- 
 torical Episcopate, and scarcely ever, as she should, fear- 
 lessly asserting her Catholic and Apostolic heritage, has 
 
4 
 
 naturally permitted herself and the whole Anglican Com- 
 munion to be grievously misunderstood by the Holy East- 
 ern Church. And again, as Dr. Irvine most clearly points 
 outj she has never zealously and unitedly ‘'pressed her 
 claims before the four Eastern Patriarchates’’ during the 
 past “three hundred years.” The English Church and 
 her daughter churches, with the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, after drifting along all these years, apparently 
 content with herself and in the self-depending knowledge 
 of her own claims or, possibly, in a spirit of indifference 
 as to what others may think or say of those claims, finds 
 herself to-day in the unique and notable position where 
 she alone, amidst the entire religious world. Catholic and 
 Protestant, acknowledges and maintains her historical 
 claim of Catholic heritage and Apostolic continuity. She 
 has been unjust to herself, and her Episcopate is to-day 
 receiving the due reward of their own compromising 
 weakness and failure in not safeguarding the Priesthood 
 of their own Church, which looks to them for perpetua- 
 tion and protection. 
 
 In ordaining Dr. Irvine to the Priesthood of the Holy 
 Orthodox Church, his Grace, Archbishop Tikhon, acted, 
 
 ' as he was morally and canonically bound to do, in strict 
 obedience to the canonical and ancient usage of the Cath- 
 olic Church, and the ordination has not been held sacri- • 
 legious nor discourteous to the Anglican Church outside 
 of one or more irresponsible Church newspapers and some 
 individual ecclesiastics who wrote hastily and unfavor- 
 ably of the action as doing harm to the cordial relations 
 then obtaining between the Protestant Episcopal and Holy 
 
5 
 
 Orthodox Churches. Even the Presiding Bishop of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Tuttle, 
 in his individual protest to the President of the Holy 
 Synod, seems to have moved unadvisedly as judging the 
 act of Archbishop Tikhon intrusive and tending to dis- 
 turb ecclesiastical relations when, in fact, no inter-com- 
 munion really existed at the time or had ever existed. 
 
 The act of Archbishop Tikhon in ordaining Dr. Irvine 
 has fearlessly and clearly opened up all questions of dif- 
 ference between the Anglican and Holy Orthodox 
 Churches and boldly brings the chief and leading issues 
 straight before the Bishops of the Lambeth Conference 
 and of the Holy Orthodox Russian Church. 
 
 Have the Church of England and her daughter churches, 
 including the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America, a valid, lawful and unbroken succes- 
 sion of ministers from the time of the Apostles, and do 
 they explicitly hold and teach the Catholic view of Sacra- 
 ments and true intention of making Catholic Priests ? 
 
 The Roman Catholic Church denies, without condition, 
 the truth of any such claims made by the Anglican 
 Church, but has been irrefutably and successfully an- 
 swered in the noted '‘Response of the Archbishops of 
 England to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII on 
 Anglican Ordinations,’’ dated February, A. D. 1897, and 
 addressed to the whole body of Bishops of the Catholic 
 Church. Yet it has not been followed up by any united 
 organic action of the entire Anglican Church tending 
 toward effectual inter-communion, and so long as the 
 Anglican Bishops have not collectively and officially 
 
6 
 
 pressed her claims for recognition as ‘'part of the His- 
 torical Catholic Church/’ they cannot actively fault the 
 Holy Eastern Church for not having full knowledge of 
 her Catholic position; and until a conciliar and formal 
 judgment and decision shall be given upon the facts at 
 issue the Anglican and Holy Orthodox Churches will 
 remain estranged and separated. 
 
 The opportunity for mutual investigation and explana- 
 tion of all differences between the Anglican and Holy 
 Orthodox Churches is greater to-day than ever, and he 
 must appear blind who will not see the real bond of union 
 now existing between the Churches made reasonably clear 
 by the opportune and friendly letter of Dr. Irvine to Arch- 
 bishop Tikhon on “the Anglican Church’s Historical 
 Claims,” etc., in which he says : 
 
 “I would not do the Anglican Church a wrong. I 
 would not any more than I would cut off this hand which 
 holds the pen by which I communicate my thoughts to 
 your Grace in black and white, withhold one truth or hide 
 away one merit of which she glories. On the contrary, I 
 trust my very frankness may be the cause of stirring up 
 a spirit of interest on the part of the Holy Orthodox 
 Church so that the Anglican claims may be fairly and 
 quickly weighed and that the Saviour’s prayer so far as 
 the Anglican Church and the Holy Orthodox at least are 
 concerned, may be fulfilled — ‘that they all may be one.’ ” 
 God grant it, in His way and time. 
 
 Daniel I. Odell. 
 
 Rectory, Church of the Annunciation, 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Eastertide, 1906. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 The calm consideration of the points raised in my 
 letter to His Grace Archbishop Tikhon and the acknowl- 
 edgment of the fairness with which they have been pre- 
 sented, together with the call for the letter itself from 
 those dwelling in far distant lands as well from those 
 near by have been the primary reasons for its repub- 
 lication. 
 
 However, there are other reasons. ‘‘Church Unity” is 
 a necessity. It is a duty. But how can we have it ? 
 
 The different Protestant bodies can easily unite, for 
 neither has, much less deems necessary, an Historic Epis- 
 copate. They can form a confederation at any moment 
 and work in more or less harmony on some general prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 The Historical Churches in their present divided state 
 find the task very difficult, and for these causes : 
 
 1. The Roman Patriarchate’s monstrous claims. Su- 
 premacy, infallibility and other unscriptural and unhis- 
 torical doctrines are absolute barriers in the way. Her 
 idea of unity is that of submission to her supremacy full 
 and complete and an acceptance of all her additions to the 
 Faith. 
 
 2. The individuals or Church which should accept such 
 claims would deny the Faith, Order and Practices of the 
 Apostolic Church down to the end of the eighth century, 
 and besides would, in accepting the Papal pyramid of 
 
8 
 
 errors founded on presumption and perversions, encour- 
 age her in her pride and pretenses. At present no part 
 of the Historical Church of Jesus Christ could unite with 
 Rome and be true to the Saviour’s teaching or that of His 
 holy Apostles and the Fathers of the Early Church. 
 
 The difference between the Holy Eastern Church’s 
 method of unity and that of the Roman is that which lies 
 between the meaning of the words "^"^Co-ordination” and 
 ^"^’wt-ordination.” 
 
 The Holy Eastern Church desires union on an honor- 
 able, historical basis, namely: that each National Church 
 should maintain her own national Customs, Ritual and 
 Liturgy, but at the same time confederate with the four 
 Ancient Eastern Patriarchates and the different National 
 Churches which are in union with them. She neither de- 
 sires nor suggests any superiority over other Historical 
 Churches. She asks alone Dogmatic Unity and Ecclesias- 
 tical Co-ordination, 
 
 The Roman Church, on the other hand, demands “sub- 
 ordination.” She recognizes no equal. She claims, notwith- 
 standing undoubted, overwhelming apostolical and his- 
 torical evidence to the contrary, to be the whole Catholic 
 Church. She indeed has been the mother of schism from 
 the first. She to-day is an ecclesiastical maniac which, 
 though but a sister Patriarchate to the four great and 
 Ancient Patriarchates of the East, Jerusalem, Antioch^ 
 Alexandria and Constantinople, three of which antedate 
 her in existence, is subject to the hallucination that she 
 is their mother. She hides away the truth with the 
 shrewdness of those who have a disordered brain, viz., 
 
 '<y 
 
that St. Paul had as much to do^ if not far more, with her 
 foundation than St. Peter ; and that in no way, therefore, 
 can she set up claims of superiority over Churches planted 
 by him and other Apostles, and surely not over that 
 Patriarchate of Jerusalem over which presided no less a 
 saint than St. James our Blessed Lord's brother after the 
 flesh. 
 
 But while I speak thus in reference to the Roman 
 Church or fifth Patriarchate, I am only criticising her pre- 
 tensions — pretensions kept alive by an Italian Pope and 
 an Italian College of Cardinals, men who thrive on the 
 credulity of the deceived and revel in the wealth which 
 the pious of foreign lands pour into the Vatican Treasury, 
 while their own children are too often supported in the 
 Almshouses of the several States and Kingdoms. 
 
 I am not criticising her priesthood or her children. 
 I am dealing with principles and not men. Her clergy, so 
 far as the British Empire and the United States are con- 
 cerned, have no superiors. They are as a class magnifi- 
 cent men, noble, selfsacrificing and pious. They, too, are 
 broadminded, abreast with the age in learning, and purely 
 democratic in their ways. If the Italian curia were 
 not so perfect a system as it is, if it were not so terrible 
 in its methods of crushing, we could well look for signs 
 of unity in the Anglo-American Roman Church, but at 
 present, under the guise of love for the clergy and the 
 faithful, Italy holds them as in a vise by means of Vicars 
 Apostolic, etc. 
 
 There remain, therefore, but those four Ancient Patri- 
 archates, the Church of Russia, those other great Ortho- 
 
10 
 
 dox Churches confederate with them and that Historical 
 Church known as the Anglican, which can at present 
 fulfil our Lord’s prayer by entering into such a state of 
 confederation as will in no way deprive either of national 
 freedom and independence, yet cement them one and all 
 into Dogmatic Union, The Confederation of the Holy 
 Eastern Church has already this union. The settlement 
 now must be between those Churches of the East and the 
 Anglican Communion. It ought to take place without 
 delay. 
 
 I take issue with all of those of the Anglican Church 
 who speak of themselves as “being in the providence of 
 God in the Western Patriarchate.” (They are an uncon- 
 scious Romanizing party.) That Patriarchate never as an 
 universally acknowledged fact extended farther north 
 than the city of Milan. The Ambrosian Liturgy which 
 is sung in the Cathedral of St. Ambrose, Milan, once a 
 year is a witness to this fact. But granting Rome the 
 whole of Italy, all beyond that was procured by encroach- 
 ment on account of the political knavery of mediaeval 
 kings and other weak creatures and the ecclesiastical 
 pride of popes, based upon the distorted language of the 
 Church Fathers in an age which had no means of proper 
 investigation and criticism. 
 
 The Anglican Church is Eastern in her origin, Eastern 
 in her Liturgical foundation, Eastern in her appeal to 
 antiquity at the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth 
 century. She could well to-day be a Patriarchate of her 
 own, making herself the seventh — ^Russia being the sixth. 
 Why not? 
 
II 
 
 Careful consideration will prove that already there is 
 almost Dogmatic Union between the Holy Eastern and 
 Anglican Churches. All that is necessary to make it ap- 
 parent is for both great ancient divisions of Christendom 
 to realize the awful responsibility resting upon the shoul- 
 ders of each to hasten God’s Kingdom and fulfil Christ’s 
 prayer ‘'that they all may be one.” The Anglican Church 
 will surely admit that at the time of the Reformation and 
 on subsequent occasions she had not so much regard for 
 the way of expressing herself dogmatically so as to keep 
 in touch with the East as she had to appease ultra 
 Protestants. 
 
 You will say that there is much more than this. Let me 
 tell you that there is not. I will give you a proof of my 
 words. 
 
 I, personally, a student trained in the most distinguished 
 Theological Seminary of the Anglican Church, find that 
 as I had been taught by Anglican Professors hold the 
 actual doctrines of the Holy Eastern Church. I never as 
 an Anglican Student or Priest shaded those views with 
 either Roman or Protestant colors. I had ever kept close 
 to the line of doctrine as taught me by the Rev. Dr. 
 Morgan Dix, in Trinity Church, New York City, as a 
 boy, and in the General Theological Seminary as a stu- 
 dent. To me, who from childhood was an Anglican and 
 who now is a son of the Holy Eastern Church I see no 
 irreconcilable difference between the actual doctrines of 
 both Churches. Two authorized committees composed of 
 a few frank men from each side could draw up articles 
 in a few days on the basis of which the Anglican Church 
 
12 
 
 in her Convocations and Conventions and the Holy East- 
 ern Church in her Synods and Councils could come to 
 a very clear understanding, and in the providence of God 
 in a short time confederate with one another. 
 
 I consider, therefore, my own Confession the best ex- 
 planation of the Anglican Prayer Book. ‘‘Why, then,’’ 
 you ask, “did you leave the Anglican Church My an- 
 swer is because : First, the Anglican Church is not the true 
 platform of unity. She is too politi^l and diplomati c, 
 always compromising for expediency and shading like a 
 chameleon to attract each Protestant Sect. 
 
 Second, because the Anglican Church while she teaches 
 the true Faith as to the Creed and Sacraments still per- 
 mits the objectionable words to remain in the Nicene 
 Creed, Liturgy and Articles. 
 
 Third. Because she allows her Bishops in some respects 
 to be more papal than the Pope of Rome and gives to 
 her laymen the casting vote in Doctrine, Discipline and 
 Worship. 
 
 Fourth. Because I can do more good for Jesus Christ 
 according to the dictates of my conscience, and for the 
 Unity of Christendom in the Holy Eastern Church than 
 in the Protestant Episcopal. Yet in saying all of this I 
 speak in the frankness of love for my Anglican brethren. 
 
 Fifth. Because the Holy Eastern Church says just 
 what she means ; and means what she says. 
 
 Sixth. Because all of her Priests and children have 
 but one mode of conducting worship and believe exactly 
 in one interpretation of the Sacraments. 
 
 Seventh. Because God the Holy Ghost, on the morning 
 
13 
 
 of Whitsunday, 1905, in St. Mary's Church, Philadelphia, 
 of which the noble Rev. A. J. Arnold, M.A., is Rector, in 
 response to my soul inquiry, ‘'Lord, what wilt thou have 
 me to do?" commanded me in an irresistible way, “Go and 
 work for the Holy Eastern Church." And I was obedient 
 unto the voice. 
 
 This is my answer. 
 
 If, therefore, a catholic-minded Rector and catholic- 
 minded Professors taught me “the Faith once for all de- 
 livered to the saints," in the Anglican Church — and I have 
 never been accused of heresy — there is, so far as my in- 
 dividual self is concerned, dogmatic union between the 
 Eastern and the Anglican Churches. 
 
 The noble attempts on the part of a few faithful and 
 Christ-obedient men for the last fifty years to bring 
 about a reunion between the Holy Eastern Church and 
 the Anglican have been met with too much indifference. 
 It is only now that since something has happened as the 
 result of unhealed schisms a hue and cry has been raised 
 on the part of some, who by raising it have only magnified 
 the guilt of their spiritual fathers for not having brought 
 around such an intercommunion as would have prevented 
 the necessity of such an act, that this lack of union is 
 appalling in its consequences. 
 
 The Almighty has awful and signal ways of rebuking 
 those who are indifferent to His Only Begotten Son's 
 teaching. Let us, then, wake up to a sense of our duty. 
 Let us forget men and consider principles. The very 
 rebuke of God speaks of the nearness of His Presence and 
 the severity of the chastisement His great love for His 
 
14 
 
 Holy Church that she might see the bad consequences of 
 schism. Thus God spoke to the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church when I was received into the Holy Eastern 
 Priesthood. 
 
 To be still more fair and to show the magnificent love 
 and liberality of the Russian Holy Orthodox Church in 
 the United States, as impressed by her Chief Prelate, 
 Archbishop Tikhon, I have, as a Priest of that Church, 
 invited some of the grandest and most trustworthy char- 
 acters in the Anglican Priesthood to speak for their 
 Church. I had nothing to fear in doing this. Truth can 
 never suffer by being preached. All shades of true 
 churchly opinion in the Anglican Church are represented 
 by the writers. Western Catholicity as taught in Racine 
 College in the days of the great De Koven and in Nashotah 
 Seminary is borne witness to by that broadminded, 
 learned, brave and holy priest, the Rev. Fr. Daniel I. 
 Odell, B.D., Rector of the Church of the Annunciation, 
 Philadelphia, who has been kind enough to write the 
 Preface to my letter. That spiritual father of many Bish- 
 ops, the Rt. Rev. Geo. F. Seymour, D.D., LL.D., Bishop 
 of Springfield, 111., who for years was the honored and 
 great Professor of History in the General Theological 
 Seminary and also the Dean of that Institution, and who 
 to-day in his declining years is the noblest witness of 
 Anglican Catholicity in the Episcopate of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, has given an article on Henry VIII. 
 and the Church of England. The Rev. Randall C. Hall, 
 D.D., Professor Emeritus of Hebrew in the same Institu- 
 tion, who with Bishop Seymour stood for Catholic Doc- 
 
15 
 
 trine, Discipline and Worship as brother Professors, a 
 man to whom all of us who have had the honor of studying 
 under, look back with love and veneration, has furnished 
 me with a concise article on the doctrine of the Sacra- 
 ments as taught by the Anglican Church, while the 
 Rev. William J. Seabury, D.D., Professor of Canon Law 
 in the General Theological Seminary, has written on 
 Anglican Jurisdiction, etc. No name could be more 
 felicitous in the consideration of reunion than that of 
 Dr. Seabury, he being the great-grandson of the first 
 Bishop of the United States, the Rt. Rev. Samuel 
 Seabury, D.D. The same catholic and conservative 
 spirit, coupled with a loving heart and great learning, 
 which Bishop Seabury and the succession of Seaburys in 
 the priestly line have possessed, are the inheritance also 
 of the writer of this article on jurisdiction. (The short- 
 ness of time before publication on my part and the '^un- 
 usual press of duty at this particular time’’ on the part of 
 the Rev. Morgan Dix, D.D., D.C.L., the great and revered 
 Rector of Trinity Parish, New York, rendered it impos- 
 sible for him to write on a special subject. His article 
 would have been read with interest. At some future time 
 we may have it.) 
 
 I feel very gratified that I am permitted to copy from 
 the New York Tribune of June 2 a letter written to the 
 editor of the same, under the caption ‘'Suggestions Look- 
 ing Toward a Reunion,” by the Hon. N. N. De Lodygen- 
 sky. Imperial Russian Consul General in New York City. 
 The writer of this letter has greatly at heart “Reunion.” 
 There is no man, as a layman, who has a wider and more 
 
i6 
 
 thorough knowledge of historical and doctrinal subjects 
 bearing upon this point and in fact upon the whole range 
 of topics akin to reunion. Many of us of the clergy could 
 learn at his feet. His humble and loving spirit has en- 
 deared him to all who have met him, while his warm and 
 gentlemanly manner of approach is a welcome in itself to 
 those who visit St. Nicholas’ Cathedral, where he serves 
 as Senior Warden. 
 
 I have had these articles bound- up with my letter, so 
 that the Holy Eastern Prelates may hear from one of 
 their own sons as well as from the honored sons of the 
 Anglican Church the whole truth in reference to her 
 historical status and that also the Prelates of the Anglican 
 Church may feel it a duty to press their claims toward the 
 obvious conclusion, viz. : that of intercommunion. 
 
 All else in this matter I must humbly leave to God, the 
 Holy Ghost, excepting it be that of holding my pen ever 
 in readiness to write for that for which the Saviour so ear- 
 nestly prayed : ‘‘That they all may be one as Thou, Father, 
 art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us ; 
 that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.” — 
 St. John xvii. 21. 
 
 For any one who may desire to read up on the steps 
 taken by the Protestant Episcopal Church toward inter- 
 communion with the East through the Russian Church he 
 will find the Reports, etc., in the Journals of the General 
 Conventions (Protestant Episcopal Church) of 1862, 
 1865, 1868, 1871, 1874, 1877, 1880 and the personal re- 
 port of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Grafton in the Journal of 1903. 
 There is also very much interesting matter on the subject 
 
17 
 
 of union to be found in what is known as the Papers of 
 the Russo-Greek Committee. But it seems to me that 
 there has been more of the feeling of the pulse of the Holy 
 Eastern Church on Doctrine than the positive, outspoken 
 request to the Russian Holy Synod, the Patriarchs and 
 the Metropolitans that a committee be appointed on the 
 part of the Holy Eastern Church with power to act. 
 Now that the Russian Church is to have a Council and to 
 elect, it is hoped, a Patriarch, a better opportunity will 
 be offered for both her and other Churches confederate 
 with her to hear the Anglican appeal. It is therefore up 
 to the Anglican Bishops. 
 
 I have compiled a work for the use of the laity in which 
 is reprinted the Russian Holy Orthodox Catechism on the 
 Creed by the Metropolitan Philaret and also an explana- 
 tion of her services and vestments, by Archpriest Smir- 
 noff, etc. They may be helpful to the clergy as well as 
 to the laity who may not have access to such fundamental 
 principles tending toward unity. 
 
 Another work which will tend toward bringing about 
 a better understanding is the new version of the Russian 
 (Holy Eastern) Liturgy and other offices just translated 
 and now being printed. It will appear in form and dress 
 similar to that of the Book of Common Prayer of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church excepting that it will have 
 notes and illustrations. The work has been under the 
 watchful eye of the Very Rev. A. A. Hotovitzky and its 
 real merits as a valuable Liturgical work as well as a 
 witness in the English language to '‘the Faith once for all 
 delivered to the Saints’’ must be ascribed to his painstak- 
 
i8 
 
 ing and interest, both as a Liturgical Scholar and The- 
 ologian. 
 
 At present the Liturgy is said on appointed week days 
 in English and the Vespers regularly on Sunday nights. 
 When the translation of all the Services in a handy 
 form appears it will be most helpful to English worshipers 
 and be of great service to the American born members of 
 the Holy Orthodox Faith. 
 
 I. N. W. I. 
 
 Pentecost, 1906. 
 
A Letter on The Anglican 
 Church's Historical Claims, 
 Doctrine, Discipline, Wor- 
 ship, etc. 
 
 /O ^ 
 
 To the Most Reverend Tikhon, D.D. 
 
 Archbishop of North America and the Aleutian Islands 
 
 Your Grace: 
 
 Now that much of the excitement is over; and those 
 who have written bitter, foolish and untruthful state- 
 ments in reference to my reception into the Holy Ortho- 
 dox Church and Ordination to her Priesthood have 
 found but little sympathy from respectable people or 
 the great conservative portion of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, it may be just as well for me to speak, 
 tenderly yet honestly, concerning the Anglican Church in 
 general and her daughter the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in particular. 
 
 My object for doing this is three fold, viz. : 
 
 First: I know that your Grace is a warm advocate of 
 the unity of Christendom, and that in your heart you 
 
20 
 
 have great respect for the Anglican Church, her Bishops, 
 Clergy in general and Laity. 
 
 Second : I am aware of the great pain it has given you 
 that men of narrow views, of uncertain respectability, 
 'Vise in’’ their "own conceits,” who have had at their 
 command Church weekly papers, have poured out vitu- 
 peration and made unbecoming assaults not knowing that 
 you were acting within the provisions of your own Canon- 
 ical Law. Their ignorance of the Russian Orthodox 
 Church in particular, and the Holy Eastern Church, ex- 
 cepting in a general way, may be an excuse for misunder- 
 standing your Grace’s acts, but there is no palliation 
 which can be offered for their vulgar attacks upon you 
 and the Russian Church, and, in fact, the entire Holy 
 Orthodox Church. Indeed these men have become the 
 laughing stock of right thinking people for they have 
 claimed national jurisdiction for the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church to the exclusion of the Russian Orthodox Church 
 forgetting that the same argument would wipe out the 
 millions of the Protestant sects which have emigrated 
 to the United States, as well as those of the different na- 
 tionalities who make up the Roman Catholic Church in 
 this Country. 
 
 The United States happens to be one country where no 
 church is recognized, however numerically great, or influ- 
 ential, as having exclusive national jurisdiction. This 
 Government recognizes no Established Religion. Her 
 Chaplains in Congress are elected from no special Church 
 or Sect. The second paragraph of the "Declaration of 
 (the United States’) Independence” begins this wise: — 
 
21 
 
 ‘‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men 
 are created equal ; that they, are endowed by their Crea- 
 tor with certain inalienable rights; that among these are 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’’ etc. 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church recognized this reli- 
 gious equality, for in her Preface to her Book of Common 
 Prayer, page VI, she plainly says :“When in the course of 
 Divine Providence, these American States became inde- 
 pendent with respect to civil Government, their ecclesi- 
 astical independence was necessarily included, and the 
 different religious denominations of Christians in these 
 States were left at full and equal liberty to model and 
 organize their respective Churches and forms of worship, 
 and discipline, in such manner as they might judge most 
 convenient for their future prosperity, consistently with 
 the constitution and laws of this country.” 
 
 Each emigrant to the United States is entitled to his 
 religious views, and the State wherein he makes his home, 
 though he be not as yet a citizen, will protect him from 
 molestation in his house of worship, and this even goes 
 so far as to a worship of another than Almighty God 
 so long as his cult is not contrary to the Laws of the 
 State, or the Constitution of the United States. In fact, 
 the United States is the one field in God's universe where 
 all creeds and parties can look each other in the face; 
 where there need be no jealousies excepting those of pro- 
 voking one another to good works; where the Unity of 
 Christendom can be best promoted; and where the His- 
 torical Churches of Christendom should put forth their 
 best efforts and unmistakably set forth their teachings and 
 
22 
 
 proclaim their creed so that the gathering nations on this 
 magnificent Civil Platform may have an opportunity to 
 know the reason for the sad schisms ; and the true lovers 
 of Christ and His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church, however now divided, may strive by all that is 
 within their power in the spirit of love and truth on one 
 common missionary field to fulfill our Blessed Lord’s 
 Words ‘'that they all may be one.” 
 
 Third: The Anglican Church, and of late a repre- 
 
 sentative of her American daughter, in much earnestness 
 having made overtures to the Russian Orthodox Church 
 to consider her claims to recognition as an integral por- 
 tion of the Apostolic Church, it may be no harm for one 
 who has been born in that faith and has well nigh thirty 
 years possessed her Holy Orders of Priesthood to touch 
 upon her Peculiarities, Claims and Doctrinal aspects as 
 well as Ritual. I believe a study of her internal structure 
 and the causes of her influence, etc., may help toward un- 
 derstanding her the better. I know how ready and will- 
 ing you will be to help the good feeling to exist which 
 may pave the way for unity. Yet I realize the fact that, 
 and therefore I write, simply her claim that she has a 
 valid ministry is not sufficient to bring about unity. The 
 Roman Church has a valid Priesthood, but there is still 
 no unity between her and the Holy Orthodox Catholic 
 Church. Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship may one, or 
 all come in the way of preventing true unity. Even if 
 the Anglican Ministry were recognized to-morrow there 
 would be a long distance between both Churches so far 
 as perfect Doctrinal harmony was concerned. It may 
 
23 
 
 be in the providence of God, and I firmly believe it, that 
 my reception into the Holy Orthodox Church and Ordi- 
 nation in obedience to the canonical usage of the Eastern 
 Church will do more toward hastening reunion than im- 
 pairing it. If indeed pride on the part of some Anglicans 
 has been wounded, it shows that their spirit of Christian 
 Love has been less dominant than a desire for recogni- 
 tion of Ministerial Orders. Indeed, as I have said on 
 another occasion, ^‘they have mistaken the ho^itahty and 
 couTtes^of the Russian Church Authorities in Russia for 
 recognition of their ministry;’" and, the fact that equal 
 courtesy has been extended, in some quarters, to repre- 
 sentatives of the Russian Church by the Authorities of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church and accepted, has been 
 interpreted as an acknowledgment of a general under- 
 standing on doctrinal points between the two churches as 
 to all matters in controversy. Herein lies, perhaps, the 
 ground work for criticisms. It is well that at least this 
 superfluous idea of union has been swept away. 
 
 Now that there is an understanding that courtesy on 
 one side or the other is not unity, let us begin over again, 
 and still be courteous, and, above all, filled with love. 
 
 In the course of thought which I am now about to take 
 I beg of your Grace to consider that I am going to follow 
 a method of my own in the treatment of the subject be- 
 fore me. I mean to emphasize certain points and there- 
 fore, by almost displacing them from the order in which 
 another would smoothly put and write them, I will gain 
 the object which I, at least, have in my own mind, and 
 which is very dear to my heart, viz. : to give to the Angli- 
 
24 
 
 can Church all honest credit and to help the Holy Or- 
 thodox Church to see her in the light of one who, in love, 
 is honestly pleading her cause though in no way hiding 
 some of her faults. 
 
 I am aware that around my head the fiercest battles 
 and storms have raged and that your Grace, who has 
 felt that God’s will was to be considered rather than the 
 fleeting praises of men, has been assailed unmercifully 
 for my sake. But these things have come out of it all, 
 viz.: the grandeur of the Russian Gentleman and the 
 Christian forbearance of the Holy Orthodox Church’s 
 Chief Prelate. Americans, who are quick to perceive all 
 things, have been persuaded that the Russian Christian 
 Gentleman and the Holy Orthodox Faith are some objects 
 worthy of supreme respect and study. Far and wide your 
 Grace’s act has been commended. The millions of citi- 
 zens who have formerly shuddered at Protestant Episco- 
 pal injustice toward me though they know you not, say: 
 ‘‘Archbishop Tikhon must be a noble man.” There is a 
 great under current of respect flowing on with a mighty 
 force which, like every secret power that is good, will 
 produce in time God-given results. little leaven 
 
 leaveneth the whole lump'' — Gal. v. 9. 
 
 And now to my subject. 
 
 THE CAUSES OF ANGLICAN INFLUENCE. 
 
 An Eastern mind may feel somewhat surprised that a 
 body of Christians only consisting, all told, of about 
 thirty millions should have such wide influence in the 
 world. The Anglican Church, to-day, is not as large, 
 
25 
 
 comparatively speaking, as some of the ultra-Protestant 
 sects which have sprung into existence since the Reforma- 
 tion in England, or the Ecclesiastical Revolution in 
 Europe. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States has only about 808,000 members, yet the popu- 
 lation of this country is about 84,000,000. 
 
 You will observe that I speak of the religious upheaval 
 in England in the sixteenth century as a “Reformation'' 
 and that which took place on the Continent of Europe as 
 a “Revolution." My reason for so speaking is that I 
 may deal in a most honest way with the Anglican 
 Church and give her side, though briefly, of the war which 
 she has had to wage with the Roman Church, — a side 
 which Rome has always overclouded with misrepresenta- 
 tion arising either from prejudice or ignorance. 
 
 There is a fundamental cause for Anglican aggression 
 and influence. The British kingdom is composed of four 
 separate nations, viz. : the English or Anglo-Saxon, the 
 Irish, the Scotch and the Welsh or old British.^ These 
 nations have intermarried more or less. Taken as sep- 
 arate nations or as a body politic they possess more 
 largely than any other people the wide-awake elements 
 which prompt progress in things spiritual as well as those 
 which are temporal. Wherever the British flag floats 
 there, standing side by side, in her Army and Navy, in 
 her Established Church or in her business life, are men 
 
 ^Note. It is thought that the Irish and Highland Scotch were 
 originally the same people. The Gaelic spoken by the Scotch 
 Highlander is the same as Erse spoken by the Irish. The Piets 
 were Celts and were akin to the Welsh rather than to the Gael. 
 The Students’ Hume’s History of England, page 17. 
 
26 
 
 who have running in their veins strains of English, Irish, 
 and Scotch, or Welsh blood. 
 
 These different nations have a preponderating numeri- 
 cal strength in the United States over other nations of the 
 globe coming to her shores. It would seem, too, that 
 though the United States may be justly called 'The 
 American Nation,’’ and while containing largely peoples 
 from all over the earth, yet the historian Green rightly 
 speaks of her as "The Greater England” for, indeed, the 
 individual characteristics of each of the four nations 
 which make up the British kingdom may be found re- 
 markably apparent in American-born citizens. This ac- 
 counts for the striking intellectual, civil, business and 
 religious progress of the United States. And it must 
 be noted also that all languages or tongues become dead, 
 as it were, in an incredibly short time after foreigners 
 have come to the United States, particularly so, if those 
 who speak other than English mix with those who alone 
 use it ; while sons of different nationalities in a few years 
 — five or more — become enthusiastic citizens of a nation 
 Anglo-Saxon and Celtic in her origin and institutions. 
 If we but dwell a little on this last point we must confess 
 that there is something impregnating and magnetic in the 
 influence of the fourfold national combination to which 
 we have referred. 
 
 Now there have been two great instruments in the 
 hands of the British kingdom which have, more than her 
 temporal strength, helped to influence the western world 
 and the peoples of the East with whom she has come in 
 contact. She has two sublime, religious classics — the 
 
27 
 
 English Book of Common Prayer and the English Bible. 
 The prefaces^ of both books are worth reading. Indeed 
 without the aid of any other book of explanation or com- 
 mentary the Book of Commn Prayer to the English 
 speaking world has become a companion volume to the 
 Bible. Great Britain is pre-eminently a Christian gov- 
 ernment, and the four nations which are her central forces 
 vie with each other in Christian zeal and holiness. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND HER DAUGHTER- 
 CHURCHES. 
 
 The Anglican Church though being only now the Es- 
 tablished Church of England and Wales — a very small 
 part of the British empire — still retains by numerous spir- 
 itual cords and powers influence over her Colonial daugh- 
 ters so that even after years of existence in lands far dis- 
 tant, the daughter Churches are spoken of as ‘‘The 
 Church of England,’’ though they may each have an or- 
 ganic name and independent ecclesiastical government. 
 
 There are, however, two notable exceptions, viz. : “The 
 Church of Ireland” and the “Church of Scotland.” (The 
 Established Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.) But 
 when people desire to draw a distinction between the 
 “Church of Ireland,” and the “Roman Catholic Church” 
 in Ireland she is called by the name of “The Church of 
 England.” 
 
 *1 refer to the Preface of the King James’ or Authorized Edi- 
 tion of the Bible. The American Bible Society has removed 
 this Preface, and so has the Protestant Episcopal Church, from 
 her edition set forth by the General Convention of 1903. This is 
 indeed a gross wrong. 
 
28 
 
 It is strange but a historical fact that there never, per- 
 haps, would have been any subserviency on the part of 
 the Early Irish Church to the Papal See, but for England. 
 Henry II, King of England, 1155 A.D. coveted Ireland. 
 At that time Adrian IV, the only Englishman that ever 
 occupied the Papal Chair, fell in with Henry’s desire so 
 as to accomplish his own ends and thereby increase his 
 ecclesiastical tax (Peter Pence). He, therefore, issued a 
 Bull in which he assumed that to St. Peter were given 
 the Isles of the Sea and thereby he, as the alleged suc- 
 cessor of St. Peter, gave his blessing to Henry’s invasion.* 
 Within six months of Henry’s occupation of Ireland, in 
 the city of Cashel at an assembly of Bishops and Clergy, 
 he had enacted a law that ‘"all things shall in future in all 
 parts of Ireland be regulated after the model of Holy 
 Church, and according to the observances of the Anglican 
 Church.” (The Anglican Church was at this time in bon- 
 dage under the Papal See.) Thus was abolished the in- 
 dependence of the National Church which was noted orig- 
 inally for her learning, piety, numerous saints and mis- 
 sionaries."" In after years when the Reformation took 
 place in England, though indeed Ireland followed in the 
 train of England, yet the cruelties and wrongs which the 
 Irish people suffered from the English government gave 
 
 ®Plouden's Historical Review of the State of Ireland. Ap- 
 pendixes Nos. I and 2. 
 
 ^Pope Alexander III confirmed the former grant. He seems 
 very ignorant of the real state of the Old Church of Ireland for 
 he speaks of her as ^^that rude and disordered Church.” He, of 
 course, took his key note from Henry II, for Rome never until 
 his reign had jurisdiction over the Irish Church. 
 
29 
 
 the Church of Rome ample opportunity to hear the 
 Hibernian cry and step in and maintain a schism which 
 to-day in numbers is larger than the lawful and historical 
 ''Church of Ireland.” ® 
 
 "The Church of Scotland” is generally spoken of as the 
 "Episcopal Church of Scotland” in contra-distinction to 
 the Established Presbyterian Church. 
 
 After the American Colonies had declared their inde- 
 pendence, by some peculiar course of events, whereby the 
 Church of England had to assert both her protesting char- 
 acter against Rome and her apostolicity against Sectarian- 
 ism, she assumed the title "The Protestant Episcopal 
 Church.” This name, while it has gathered into her fold 
 thousands from the different sects of Protestants, yet it 
 has hindered her much in Catholic progress, for it has 
 been like a load of lead tied about her neck, and has 
 been the cause of more explanations, at times, than the 
 Apostles’ Creed, or some of her "Thirty Nine Articles.” 
 
 THE DIFFERENT NATIONAL EXPLORATIONS BROUGHT THEIR 
 OWN CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS. 
 
 Here we may well introduce a fact and that is this, that 
 the country now covered by what is known as the United 
 States was originally peopled in different sections by 
 those who differed in religious beliefs. The New Eng- 
 land States were chiefly Puritan (congregational in gov- 
 
 'Historical Sketch of the Church of Ireland, by Rev. Arthur 
 W. Edwards, M.A., in Essays on the Irish Church. 
 
30 
 
 ernment). The Louisiana and Mexican® Purchases, etc., 
 and extreme southern districts were occupied by Roman 
 Catholics. The Middle States by adherents of the Angli- 
 can Church and Continental Protestants of numerous 
 shades of opinion as well as Presbyterians and Methodists 
 from the British Islands. There never was a time, there- 
 fore, when the Anglican Church or her daughter ‘‘The 
 Protestant Episcopal Church’" had exclusive jurisdiction 
 in North America. 
 
 The folly, presumption, and ignorance of the editor of 
 ‘The Living Church,” “The Church Standard,” etc., and 
 some more of those whom a little learning has made 
 ridiculous can be clearly seen when we consider how the 
 different shades of Christian belief and practice both 
 Anglican, Roman and Protestant made up the original 
 Religious Life of the United States. In fact each nation 
 which made a discovery in this western continent brought 
 its own Church, and as in the case of the Puritans, too 
 often drove out and persecuted all who were not of their 
 religious persuasion. The Anglican Church had to battle 
 for existence like the rest, and, perhaps, on account of 
 having been once the Established Church of England 
 had a harder climb up the hill of fame for the reason 
 that much prejudice was against anything that flavored 
 of the British Kingdom against which the colonies had 
 rebelled. 
 
 The Louisiana Purchase was consummated between the French 
 and United States agents, April 30th, A.D. 1803. 
 
 The Mexican Treaty was concluded in the winter of A.IX 1847- 
 48. (Feb. 2.) 
 
31 
 
 THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES LEGAL AND CANONICAL 
 COJURISDICTION. 
 
 The Russian Orthodox Church, therefore, has a claim 
 equal to the Roman Catholic Church of Louisiana or New 
 Mexico or the Anglican Church in the United States. 
 For, as Dean Hotovitzky well pointed out, the Rus- 
 sian Orthodox Church occupied Alaska and was swept 
 into the great religious current which makes up the 
 Christian Church of the United States by means of the 
 purchase of that northwestern territory by this govern- 
 ment from the Russian Empire. 
 
 The United States has of late added millions of Roman 
 Catholics to her body politic in the purchases she has 
 made. The Philippine Islands, Porto Rico, etc., knew 
 of no Anglican Church as having had any tangible exist- 
 ence in their midst until after the Spanish war. Yet the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church is content to step in and, like 
 the different sects of Protestantism, follow the flag, and 
 not only try to care for her own people, but also take all 
 others under-ker ecclesiastical wing who may feel more 
 satisfied there. I have not heard of any protest coming 
 from Rome for she understands the political doctrine of 
 the United States that neither Pope nor Protestant has all 
 to say. The rule here is *‘live and let live.’’ 
 
 It is too late in the day then for the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church to order off the Russian Church. She 
 ought to have begun her protest if ever against the pur- 
 chase of Alaska, and given for her absurd reason that 
 that would endanger her (the P. E. Ch.’s), title to univer- 
 sal national jurisdiction by gathering into the Union a 
 
32 
 
 territory which had as a church, one holding the Holy 
 Orthodox Faith. Aye, indeed, the faith which gave to 
 England and the world the truths so fondly cherished 
 by all who name the name of that Christ Who was born, 
 Who taught the Gospel, suffered, died, rose and as- 
 cended into heaven in the East, and from the little spot 
 Palestine, which is pre-eminently and ecumenically de- 
 creed as being owned by the Holy Orthodox Church from 
 which all other Churches have taken their rise, their 
 truth, and their true light. 
 
 ANGLICAN CLAIMS. 
 
 The Anglican Church claims to be the Catholic Church 
 of England and in no way, shape or by pretense will she 
 permit that claim to be disturbed in what is known as 
 England and Wales where she is established by law. The 
 Church of Ireland claims Apostolic right to her jurisdic- 
 tion in Ireland, and the Church of Scotland, though 
 feeble yet still in healthy growth, in like manner pro- 
 claims her right to such a heritage in that land. Each 
 National Church claims to be an integral portion of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Traditions give as founders of Christianity in Britain 
 amongst many others Joseph of Arimathaea and St Paul. 
 Clemens Romanus (Bishop 92-101) is the authority for 
 the statement that St. Paul traveled to the bounds of the 
 West. If this be so then he must have preached in 
 Britain, for that country and the adjoining islands were 
 known in the days even of Solomon as the ‘‘Tin Islands.’’ 
 The odor et refers to St. Paul as bringing salvation to the 
 
33 
 
 "‘Isles of the Ocean/^ Bede, an early English Church 
 historian, claims that Lucius sent to Eleutherius, Bishop 
 of Rome, A.D. 137-199, for instructors/ Tertullian 
 (A.D. 150-200) tells us that “even those places in Britain 
 hitherto inaccessible to the Romans were subdued to 
 Christ/' Origen (A.D. 240) says: “The power of God our 
 Saviour is even with them in Britain who are divided 
 from our world." In the year 305 the British Church 
 gave to the Holy Catholic Church the celebrated martyr, 
 St. Alban, who was an officer of the Roman army in 
 Britain. 
 
 Historians inform us that Christianity was introduced 
 into Britain at an early period, some stating as early as 
 A.D 69, others in the first part of the second century, 
 still others in the second half of the second century. But 
 be that as it may as to the exact date, Britain accepted 
 the Christian Religion in either Apostolic or Sub-apostolic 
 days and long prior to any of the noted councils or synods 
 of the East or West. It is a recorded fact even by Roman 
 Catholic Historians^ as well as others, that British Bishops 
 took part in the Council of Arles in France held in the 
 year A.D. 314. We have even their names given, viz.: 
 Eborius of York, Restitutes of London and Adelfius of 
 Lincoln. The name of one of these prelates appears 
 among the signatures attached to the Synodical Letter. 
 
 ^Rome lays stress on Bede’s statement to prove Roman origin 
 for the British Church as well as Papal supremacy. This is too 
 weak a plank on which to erect such a great structure. 
 
 ^History of the Christian Councils to A.D. 325, by Hefele 
 (R. C.) 
 
34 
 
 And there are those who tell us that even British Bishops 
 were delegates to the Council of Nicsea, A.D. 325’. 
 
 ST. Augustine's mission. 
 
 There is no trace of the slightest assumption of su- 
 premacy on the part of the Romish Church over Britain 
 down to the year 596 A.D. and there was no attempt made 
 to overthrow the lawful spiritual authority of that country 
 by St. Augustine, who had received his episcopal orders 
 in France 597 A.D. though delegated as a missionary by 
 Gregory, Bishop of Rome, to assist the Old British 
 Church to convert the Saxons (who had almost anni- 
 hilated her and driven out the Britons from their homes). 
 St. Augustine became the first Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, but the mission which he had established had died 
 out in about a hundred years and never had extended far 
 beyond the limits of Kentshire and Essex in the south of 
 England. 
 
 Augustine worked in comparative harmony with the 
 British Bishops after he had been informed by them that 
 they neither had been under the Pope of Rome nor would 
 they be now. The Liturgy of the British Church was 
 Gallican^® coming to them as it is thought by some from 
 the Ephesian Liturgy through St. Irenaeus who was 
 Bishop of Lyons in Gaul 177 A.D. Yet it is clear that 
 they had a Liturgy earlier than this date. If, indeed, the 
 Church of Britain had a Roman origin the Liturgy nat- 
 
 ®Rev. C. A. Lane, English Ch. History, Vol. i, p. 17, etc. 
 
 Preface to the Prayer Book Interleaved by Campion and Bea- 
 mont, 1869. 
 
35 
 
 urally would have been that of St. Peter or the Roman 
 and not that of Eastern origin. But this fact is too well 
 established to provoke controversy. The conversion of 
 Scotland and Ireland to Christianity is certainly of British 
 origin; and long after England had accepted Romish 
 doctrines and discipline as well as worship, Ireland main- 
 tained her independence and purity of faith, which is a 
 proof of the British Church's early independence. 
 
 THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 
 
 The encroachments of the Roman Church were always 
 resisted by the English Church from the very first and 
 this resistance toward the sixteenth century must have 
 been very strong. 
 
 The Church as a whole must have been prepared for 
 Reformation and liberation from her ecclesiastical yoke, 
 to so successfully free herself in one moment, as it were, 
 when she took advantage of Henry VIIPs quarrel with 
 the Pope of Rome to once for all rise up to her ancient 
 prestige as a National Church, recognizing alone, in 
 things spiritual, Christ as Head of the Church without the 
 intervention of any human Vicar in Rome. The Con- 
 vocation of Canterbury, March 31, 1534 A.D., and 
 that of York on May 5, 1534 A.D., declared 
 
 these words (and the Universities and the Clergy 
 throughout the English realm gave without any difficulty 
 their assent to the same) '^that the Bishop of Rome has 
 no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in this 
 kingdom of England than any other foreign bishop."^^ 
 
 “ J. H. Blunf s History of the Reformation. 
 
36 
 
 The Irish church followed the Church of England in 
 the work of Reformation, but in the reign of Edward 
 VI the neglect of having the Prayer Book printed in 
 Gaelic as well as in English became a sore obstacle in the 
 way of spreading the teaching of the Reformed Church. 
 However, in the reign of Elizabeth all the Irish bishops 
 excepting two accepted the Reformed Faith. 
 
 The Scotch Reformation took a purely Calvinistic turn 
 under John Knox. Sacrilege and murder as well as vile 
 and abusive language were pre-eminently characteristic 
 of it. Cardinal Beaton was murdered and Mary, Queen 
 of Scots, slandered unmercifully at a later period. Even 
 the attempt of England to restore the Reformed episco- 
 pate in later years met with bitter opposition and those 
 who had been sent were disrespectfully treated and driven 
 out. The present Episcopate of Scotland has won its 
 way, but not as the head of the sect founded by John 
 Knox. It does not even occupy the cathedrals or ancient 
 church property. Presbyterianism, as an established 
 church, claims these. 
 
 Though an attempt was made during the reign of 
 Queen Mary through the efforts of that wise ecclesiastic. 
 Cardinal Pole, to bring back the English Church to full 
 and perpetual obedience to Rome, the thing failed to be 
 accomplished. The Council of Trent adjourned during 
 the reign of Mary. Her death, and shortly afterwards 
 that of Cardinal Pole who was Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury passed the succession to the throne over to Eliza- 
 beth and the Church into the hands of the lovers of 
 Reformation. 
 
37 
 
 ANGLICAN CLAIM OF CONTINUITY. 
 
 The Anglican Church claims that she has not violated 
 one Catholic principle in the work of the Reformation. 
 She falls back on the VIII Canon of the third Ecumenical 
 Council (Ephesus) to show that she had a right to cast 
 off the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, believing as she 
 does that St. Peter had no greater spiritual power or 
 jurisdiction granted to him by our dear Lord than any 
 of the other Apostles. She finds in the case of Naaman 
 the Syrian a type of herself and her relationship with 
 Rome, i. e., that as Naaman was a man of perfect health 
 and existed before his leprosy he continued to be the 
 same person subject to the disease and when he was 
 cleansed from the leprosy he was none other than the 
 Naaman before he had been afflicted. In like manner the 
 Church of England lost nothing of her identity during 
 her spiritual sickness arising from the errors of Rome, 
 much less when she threw them off and became spiritually 
 healthy again in A.D. 1534. Still it strikes me queerly 
 that she retained the ‘ffllioque’’ in the Nicene Creed which 
 was purely a Western papal interpolation of the Council 
 of Toledo, 589 A.D. and in strict violation of the third 
 General Council. She has not so far freed herself from 
 Rome, but is in bondage and has given quasi consent to 
 the fact that Rome can add to the faith without consulting 
 the Holy Eastern Church and is higher than the General 
 Councils. She further claims that she has retained all 
 the essentials of an integral portion of the Holy Catholic 
 Church, viz. : the threefold ministry : the Sacraments, the 
 
38 
 
 Ritual, Ornament and Vestments. But herein lies the 
 field for controversy. Rome has questioned her min- 
 istry claiming that the Ordinal of the Prayer Book of 
 Edward VI and also of Elizabeth was defective, etc. 
 
 THE ROMAN CHURCHES EXCEPTIONS. 
 
 In a general way I will put briefly Rome's real ob- 
 jections to Anglican Orders, as given by Haddan“ and 
 answered by him also. 
 
 1. England dropped some of the ancient ceremonies 
 connected with ordination. 
 
 2. England omitted certain words in the form of ordi- 
 nation, e. g., that between 1549 and 1662 the words priest 
 and bishop did not occur in the actual form of ordaining. 
 
 3. England restricted herself to words insufficient in 
 themselves to express the office of priesthood. 
 
 4. Passing over all objections the orders are claimed to 
 be invalid because of England being charged by Rome as 
 guilty of heresy and schism. 
 
 5. The denial on the part of the Anglican Church of 
 the Eucharistic sacrifice and a certain formal absolution, 
 etc., which infers the denial of the doctrine of Intention. 
 
 6. The lack of jurisdiction from a rightful source. 
 
 Leo XIII under the influence of the unwise and hasty 
 
 Cardinal Vaughn, Roman Archbishop of Westminster, 
 who furnished, it is supposed, the arguments against 
 English orders, issued a Bull declaring them invalid. The 
 two Archbishops of England replied to Leo XIII and, as 
 
 “Apostolical succession in the Church of England, page 243. 
 
39 
 
 it is thought in some quarters, successfully overturned his 
 argument and pointed out the perfect validity and regu- 
 larity of English Holy Orders and the sufficiency of the 
 Anglican Ordinal. 
 
 Rome has also questioned the English Church’s declara- 
 tions in reference to the number of sacraments of the 
 Gospel. The Catechism of the Anglican Church defines 
 her belief in the number of sacraments in her 
 answer to the question: ''How many Sacraments hath 
 Christ ordained in His Church?” by replying "Two only, 
 as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say. Bap- 
 tism and the Supper of the Lord.” In the Book of 
 Homilies of the Church of England which had once to be 
 read in churches instead of sermons she mentions five 
 others as being "commonly called sacraments,” that is 
 to say. Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and 
 Extreme Unction, but, strange to say, in Article XXV 
 of the "Thirty-nine,” she declares that these "are not 
 to be counted for sacraments of the Gospels, being such 
 as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the 
 Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scrip- 
 tures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with 
 Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not 
 any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” 
 
 Indeed, it must appear to the most unreasonable mind 
 that this Article XXV needs careful consideration, for it 
 is practically contrary to the teaching of the whole re- 
 maining portions of the Holy Catholic Church. 
 
 It is strange, however, that the Anglican Church has 
 followed the Church of Rome as to the age of adminis- 
 
40 
 
 tering confirmation, excepting that she omits the chrism 
 Yet I rather think the Anglican Church has separated 
 Confirmation from Holy Baptism for different reasons 
 from those of Rome and more to comply with a Protes- 
 tant idea of making a ''Profession of Faith/' In all of 
 this conduct on the part of the Anglican Church she needs 
 close examination, for it is a well-known fact of history 
 that from the very first age of the Christian Church both 
 sacraments were administered by a Bishop or Priest at 
 one and the same time and to infants as well as grown 
 Catechumens. 
 
 Whatever criticisms Rome may have to offer now in 
 reference to the Anglican Church, and her Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, especially her ordinal, we have the author- 
 ity of* Strype's Annals that overtures were made by 
 Pope Pius V to Queen Elizabeth of England to the ef- 
 fect that if the Anglican Church would recognize the su- 
 premacy of the Papal See, he, the Pope, would give his 
 approval of the Work of the Reformation and the English 
 Reformed Prayer Book. The Anglican Church's as well 
 as Elizabeth's flat refusal was followed by the queen's 
 Excommunication in the eleventh year*'' of her reign and 
 the immediate work on the part of Rome to create a 
 schism in the Anglican Church. The present Papal 
 
 “Note: There are isolated instances of the use of chrism now 
 in the Anglican Church, but there is no Rubrical authority for 
 the use of it. It is claimed that in the absence of Rubric it may 
 be lawfully administered. 
 
 “Strype’s Annals, 220. 
 
 “April 2f5, IS70. 
 
41 
 
 Church of England, therefore, had no existence in Eng- 
 land until the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth and what- 
 ever may be said to the contrary the English Reformed 
 Church had no separate body of Romish origin to con- 
 flict with her authority until then or with her jurisdiction 
 in the British kingdom/® 
 
 The question which naturally may be asked here is 
 this: 'To what extent, if any, in her work of Reforma- 
 tion has she wandered from the faith of the Seven Gen- 
 eral Councils, or sacrificed Catholic truth and principles 
 in either her aversion to Roman errors, or with the desire 
 to please the continental” ecclesiastical revolutionists who 
 were forever harassing her 
 
 BISHOP Grafton's doctrinal romancing. 
 
 I have read with great care the thesis or letter of the 
 Rt. Rev. Dr. Grafton, Protestant Episcopal bishop of 
 Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, U. S., published in the April, 
 1905, number of the Russian American supplement of 
 The Messenger. I fear that while the learned Bishop 
 Grafton himself believes all that he has written as being 
 
 Tn 1568 Rome had established in Douay a seminary for refu- 
 gee priests and from this after the Bull of excommunication 
 furnished Jesuits to run over to England and strive to under- 
 mine the Established Religion. Smith’s Students Hume, page 338. 
 
 ^’Nearly 800 refugee Puritans lived in Frankfort and other 
 cities of Europe during the reign of Mary. They were those to 
 whom the Reformers of the English Church showed deference 
 in compiling the first and second Prayer Books of Edward VI. as 
 well as those used previously. They now in Elizabeth’s time, 
 flocked back to England. This emigration was the beginning 
 of dissent in England. 
 
42 
 
 the doctrinal teaching of the Anglican Church it is but 
 his own interpretation of the same. Two-thirds of her 
 clergy and people would not assent to all that he says and 
 I am positive very many of the Bench of Bishops would 
 not agree with him in very many of his declarations. 
 
 I will say right here and now that there was a vast 
 difference between the Reformation in England and that 
 of Revolution on the Continent of Europe and the work 
 of John Knox in Scotland which latter were one and the 
 same in more or less degree of destructiveness as touching 
 all that was ancient and Catholic excepting that Luther, 
 Melanchthon and Oecolampadius were not such bitter 
 Protestants as the Calvinistic school of thought. The 
 Revolutionists severed all relations with Antiquity, 
 
 The English Reformers claim, as I have already said, 
 that they retained all that was necessary to bind them 
 on to the Apostolic Church of the First Centuries. Much 
 of the Anglican Church's present trouble arises from the 
 persecution in the Cromwellian period when she for thirty 
 years had her churches closed against her and a penalty 
 fixed against the use of her Book of Common Prayer, 
 of the observation of Christmas Day, Easter or the 
 Feasts and Fasts. And then, alas ! when she began again 
 to raise her head at the restoration of Charles II she once 
 more suffered from the deadness, indifference and pro- 
 fligacy both of the courtiers of Charles II, and the Geor- 
 gian period. 
 
 Let us take Bishop Grafton's letter and examine it with 
 respect and frankness. 
 
 (a) I have no hesitancy in saying and I firmly believe 
 
43 
 
 I will find the great majority of learned Anglicans agree- 
 ing with me that the Thirty-nine Articles are absolutely 
 compromises in many respects. The Reformed Church of 
 England desired to uphold that which was Ancient and 
 Catholic, but she was between two fires^* — that on the one 
 hand coming from those who were not willing to give 
 up altogether Roman views and practices; and on the 
 other that which proceeded from the Puritan element, 
 who went so far in matters of ceremonial as to object *'to 
 the wearing of the surplice, the sign of the cross, and 
 the office of sponsors in Baptism; the use of the ring in 
 the marriage ceremony, kneeling at the sacrament, the 
 bowing at the name of Jesus and music in the services 
 of the Church. They also objected to the ordination of 
 priests without a call by their flocks.’’^® And in doctrine 
 they assailed the Catholic view of sacraments and ordi- 
 nances, hating things even ancient or decent because they 
 were believed and practiced by Rome. They abhorred an 
 Episcopal form of government. 
 
 Now the Thirty-nine Articles which received the as- 
 sent of Convocation in A.D. 1562-3 are somewhat colored 
 in doctrinal views as well as in language by the influence 
 of such ultra-Protestants. Yet Elizabeth professed, and 
 no doubt was sincere in the declaration, that she ‘Vould 
 suppress the papistical religion that it should not grow 
 and would root out Puritanism and the favorers of it.’'""* 
 
 “English Book of Common Prayer “of ceremonies, why some 
 be abolished, and some retained.” 
 
 “ Heglyn’s History of the Presbyterians, 259. 
 
 ^®Strype’s Ecclesiastical Annals, iv., 242. 
 
44 
 
 Yet however true this may be, the Anglican Church has 
 always compromised. 
 
 For instance, the first Service-Book under Archbishop 
 Cranmer was submitted to the Protestants Bucer and 
 Martyr. Luther and Calvin also had a hand in the sug- 
 gestions. It must be noted here that Archbishop Cran- 
 mer and Bishop Barlow seemed to have held very loose 
 views concerning the power to consecrate a Bishop, for 
 both of them claimed that the King could make as good a 
 bishop as they themselves. The Archbishop’s position in 
 reference to the Holy Eucharist and which prevailed in 
 the Church of England at that time and afterwards 
 is summed up by Hardwick.*^ — Cranmer ''vigorously de- 
 nounced four positions, ( i ) that after the consecration of 
 the elements there is no other substance remaining but 
 the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood; (2) that the 
 very natural flesh and blood of Christ, which suffered for 
 us on the cross and ascended into heaven, is also really, 
 substantially, corporally and naturally, in or under the 
 accidents of bread and wine; (3) that evil and ungodly 
 men receive the very body and blood of Christ; and (4) 
 that Christ is figuratively offered daily in the mass for the 
 remission of sins, and that the merits of His Passion are 
 thereby distributed to the communicants.” He argued 
 that Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, and 
 spiritually in them that worthily eat and drink the bread 
 and wine; but, on the other hand, contended that our 
 blessed Lord is really, carnally and corporally in heaven 
 
 ^^Hardwick on the Reformation, 2 ed., pages 226-7. 
 
45 
 
 alone, from whence He shall come to judge the quick 
 and the dead/’ 
 
 Indeed, all arguments to the contrary — ^passing over 
 all revisions of the Book of Common Prayer — the words 
 used at the time of the delivery of the elements are 
 a compromised formula. It may teach the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation; the Real Presence or the basest doc- 
 trine of Zwingli, who believed and taught, to coin an ex- 
 pression, the real absence^ that is treating the Holy Com- 
 munion as a mere remembrance of the acts of Christ in 
 His death and resurrection for us. The exact words are 
 as follows: 
 
 “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given 
 for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. 
 Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for 
 thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanks- 
 giving:^ 
 
 “The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed 
 for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting 
 life.** Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was 
 shed for thee, and be thankful." (The italics are mine.) 
 
 At one time we do not find the words in italics in the 
 communion service. They are not in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer of A.D. 1549^ which, by the by, is a very 
 Catholic book in many respects. As they now appear 
 
 ^Communion Service Book of Common Prayer, English or 
 American. 
 
 “Ibid. 
 
 ““The Book of Common Prayer, 1549, commonly called the 
 First Book of Edward VI to which is added the ordinal of 1549 
 and the Order of Holy Communion, 1548, with an introduction by 
 Morgan Dix, S.T.D., rector of Trinity Church, N. Y.'' 
 
4b 
 
 they were finally settled upon in the Revision under Queen 
 Elizabeth and as Bishop Whately says ‘‘both these forms 
 were enjoined to be used (as we have them still) to please 
 both parties/^^^ The Scotch Prayer Book does not have 
 the latter half. Its communion office is very Catholic. 
 
 But again: I fear the Anglican Church has more than 
 compromised in Article XXXI. Here she has not only 
 condemned the Romish Doctrine, viz., “the sacrifices of 
 masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest 
 did offer Christ for the quick and dead to have remission 
 from pain or guilt,” but also has dangerously expressed 
 herself when she says that the Eucharist has not “a pro- 
 pitiatory virtue.” Indeed to deny the “propitiatory virtue” 
 of the Blessed Sacrament is almost one and the same as 
 a denial of the fullness of the expiation of the sacrifice 
 of Christ which is memorially offered on the Altar. 
 
 Now we must read these facts into “The Thirty-nine 
 Articles” viz. : a desire to hold on to the truth, but still 
 a tendency to please both parties which, indeed, though it 
 may be generous, is a very dangerous course of conduct 
 and is a barrier in the way of a quick solution of the 
 Anglican question. 
 
 Indeed, we find commentators writing on both sides of 
 the question. And theological seminaries which exist on 
 the support coming from the pockets of men holding a 
 Catholic, a conservative or a Low Church view of doc- 
 trine.^® There was even a time in the General Theological 
 
 ^'Whately on the Book of Common Prayer, Oxford, 1846. 
 
 g. Catholic — Nashota. Low Church — Virginia Seminary, 
 Philadelphia Divinity School. Conservative — Faribolt, General 
 
 Theological Seminary, Berkeley Divinity School, etc., etc. 
 
47 
 
 Seminary of the United States that the faculty was 
 composed of men holding different views. The Rev. 
 Professors George F. Seymour, D.D., and Randall C. 
 Hall, D.D., were Catholics, while the others were either 
 Conservative or Low Church. I would to-day rather 
 take Doctor Seymour’s opinion on what was the teaching 
 of the Anglican Church than that of any of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Bishops. He is by far the most learned 
 prelate and though he now modestly presides as Bishop 
 of a poor diocese like that of Springfield, Illinois, his 
 word and knowledge as a Catholic, as well as a Theolo- 
 gian and Historian have never been disputed. In any 
 reopening of the question of reunion his name ought to be 
 first on the Anglican Committee. He is perfectly hon- 
 est, possessing no guile; or as we in the United States 
 say '‘He is not tricky.” 
 
 I well remember during my own student days in the 
 General Seminary"*^ that the sight in the classroom of 
 the work which Bishop Grafton quotes from and recom- 
 mends as the proper voice of the Anglican Church on 
 "The Thirty-nine Articles,” was a sure sign of war. The 
 Professor of Systematic Divinity, the Rev. Dr. Samuel 
 Buel — denounced Bishop Forbes’ work as a Romanizing 
 Commentary. And when the Rev. Dr. DeKoven de- 
 fended the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence in the 
 General Convention we were treated by the said Dr. 
 Buel with a course of written lectures combating that 
 doctrine and denouncing DeKoven.^* 
 
 "*A.D., 1871-1874. 
 
 “'‘Eucharistic Adoration,” etc., by Rev. Samuel Buel, D.D., 
 professor, etc. Thomas Whitaker, New York. 
 
48 
 
 The regular text book on the ‘‘Thirty-nine Articles’’ 
 prescribed by the authority of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, was that by E. Harold Browne, B.D., afterwards 
 a Bishop in the Established Church of England. It is 
 a very Conservative work, but of a different line of argu- 
 ment from that of Bishop Forbes’ Exposition. 
 
 I will say, however, that while Bishop Grafton’s state- 
 ment in reference to doctrine is, or ought to be, the true 
 Anglican faith, still that Church, claiming to be a via 
 media* between Romanism and Protestantism, finds her- 
 self misunderstood by the Holy Eastern Church, and nat- 
 urally so, for her own children do not agree between 
 themselves on some of the most essential dogmas. There 
 is no definition of doctrine extant in the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church coming from her House of Bishops or 
 General Convention covering the actual belief of that 
 portion of the Anglican Church in reference to contro- 
 versial points excepting The Thirty-nine Articles as ac- 
 cepted by the General Convention on the 12th of Septem- 
 ber, A.D. 1801. 
 
 Second : Bishop Grafton says . . to arrive at 
 
 an understanding of the faith and practice of the Angli- 
 can Church other books besides that of the Common 
 Prayer should be taken into account. Besides the latter 
 there is in America the authorized Hymn Book and in 
 England that of most use is the Book known as ‘Hymns 
 Ancient and Modern.’ ” 
 
 The only difficulty about trying to prove anything defi- 
 
 **Preface to the King James version of the English Bible. 
 
49 
 
 nite from the Hymnals is this : That no priest need use 
 these books if he can supply their places with anthems 
 taken from Holy Writ. While the Hymnal contains 
 beautiful pieces of devotion no man is compelled by 
 Rubric or Canon to use any special hymn so as to bring 
 out thereby any doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. There is as wide an interpretation of any doc- 
 trine permitted in the use of the Hymns of the American 
 Hymnal as there is in some of the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 Furthermore ‘‘Hymns Ancient and Modern’’ of the 
 Church of England are only used by one school of 
 thought in that Church. The hymns which Bishop Graf- 
 ton quotes as expressing the Anglican teaching of the 
 Holy Eucharist, of its reception, of the adoration of our 
 Blessed Lord’s Presence, the declaration that the Holy 
 Eucharist is a Sacrifice, that those who are baptized are 
 New Creatures, that Confirmation is something more 
 than an assuming of one’s Baptismal vows, that Apostol- 
 ical succession is a Divine Institution, that Auricular 
 Confession is encouraged, that Holy Matrimony is a Sac- 
 rament, or the Visitation of the Sick is Extreme Unction ; 
 surely the good Bishop must have forgotten that the 
 Hymn Book from which he quoted is repudiated by every 
 ''Low Church'' Bishop, Priest, Deacon and Layman of 
 England, and that this Book cannot be lawfully used in 
 any congregation of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 without the permission of the Bishop. 
 
 The absolute truth is this, that if any man desires to 
 know what the Anglican Church teaches he must con- 
 fine himself chiefly to the “Book of Common Prayer” and 
 
50 
 
 when he finds himself in doubt as to any doctrine therein 
 expressed he need not expect any special comfort in con- 
 sulting authorities for there is permitted a wide variance 
 of opinion as to the doctrinal interpretation thereof in 
 the Anglican Church. 
 
 Third: Bishop Grafton says the Anglican Church 
 
 keeps ''in its spirit the rulings of the Seventh Ecumenical 
 Council.’' No doubt whatever, the Bishop himself and a 
 certain school of thought in the line of the late Rev. Dr. 
 Percivar of Philadelphia believes that there was a "Sev- 
 enth (General or) Ecumenical Council,” but he must re- 
 member right well that the Anglican Church has stopped 
 short at the sixth. She even has declared in her Pan- 
 Anglican Conference^^ held at Lambeth, London, Eng- 
 land, with the same cautiousness for fear of entangle- 
 ment with conflicting religious opinions, that her doc- 
 trinal teachings, etc., must fall within the limits of the 
 ^'undisputed'' general councils; and she only recognizes 
 four general councils — making the second and 
 third of Constantinople supplementary — she permits, 
 however, the title of ecumenical to the Fifth and Sixth, 
 that is, the Supplementary Councils of Constantinople. 
 The Rev. Prof. W. J. Gold, S.T.D., in the "Church Cyclo- 
 paedia”“ under the head of "Councils Ecumenical,” writes 
 "Six Synods alone have been universally received by the 
 
 ^Tercival on the General Councils and Synods, etc. 
 
 Pan- Anglican Conference, 1867. 
 
 *^The Church Cyclopaedia, etc., designed especially for the use 
 of the Laity of the P. E. Church, edited by Rev. A. A. Benson, 
 M.A., 1884. 
 
51 
 
 Catholic Church,'' Dr. Gold®® now dead, was one of the 
 Catholic school in the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 Fourth: The truth is that while the Anglican Church 
 may hold all that Bishop Grafton believes to be her doc- 
 trine she does not demand absolute acceptance of those 
 doctrines in the same sense in which the Bishop expresses 
 them. She has always '‘a loop hole’’ for ultra-Protes- 
 tants. Take for instance the Ordinal®* of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church. Here we find an alternative form of 
 words which the Bishop may use according to the views 
 which he holds of the Priestly powers. I herewith sub- 
 mit them both so as to be perfectly fair. The first Form 
 reads as follows: 
 
 ‘'Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of 
 a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee 
 by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost for- 
 give, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, 
 they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of 
 the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments. In the 
 Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, Amen.”®® 
 
 The second Form reads: — 
 
 “Take thou Authority to execute the Office of a Priest 
 in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the Im- 
 position of our hands. And be thou a faithful dispenser of 
 the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments: In the 
 
 ®^Rev. Dr. Gold was a professor in the P. E. Theological Sem- 
 inary of Chicago. 
 
 ^^Ordinal Book of Common Prayer, page 509. 
 
 ®®Ordering of Priests, 522. 
 
52 
 
 Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, Amen.’’ 
 
 Here I may note for the benefit of Bishop Grafton that 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church expunged from her first 
 exhortation notifying the people of communion the word 
 "^absolution.”^"* This can be found in the English form, 
 but for fear that the Protestants of the United States 
 would be offended by the invitation to come to Auricular 
 Confession and receive there ‘^absolutions she struck out 
 the word to which I refer and invited them to come for 
 godly counsel and advice if they could not quiet their 
 own consciences privately. She (the P. E. Church) has 
 with one stroke of her pen wiped out of existence both 
 the Rubric to confess in the Visitation of the Sick as 
 well as the Form of Absolution.” It may be noted also 
 that in the English Ordinal there is not an Alternative 
 form for Ordination of Priests. The first one is alone 
 used, so in that respect it is more explicit than the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church. 
 
 NO AUTHORITATIVE, BUT IN FACT CONTRADICTORY, TEACH- 
 ING IN REFERENCE TO INDELIBILITY OF HOLY ORDERS IN 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Now while I am considering this matter of the Ordinal 
 I may be permitted to refer to the doctrine of the “Indeli- 
 bility of Holy Orders” in the Anglican Church. But as 
 
 ^Compare last paragraph of first Exhortation in Protestant 
 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, page 240, with the like one 
 in the Prayer Book of the Church of England. 
 
 ®^Compare English Prayer Book “Visitation of the Sick,*' with 
 that of the P. E. Church. 
 
53 
 
 I am most concerned with the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the matter of Ordinal, I had better confine my 
 remarks chiefly to her teaching on the subject. In her 
 canon 39 of A.D. 1832, under section one she says: ‘‘No 
 degraded minister shall be restored to the ministry.’' 
 She now provides canonically for the restoration of a 
 degraded minister; that is, she tells how that restora- 
 tion^® may be effected canonically, viz. : ( i ) by the consent 
 of the Diocesan; (2) the unanimous consent of a mixed 
 committee of clergymen and laymen known as a Stand- 
 ing Committee; (3) by the consent of four out of the five 
 adjoining Bishops. But after all these have consented 
 there is not one word as to how the cleric is to be re- 
 stored; that is, receive again his Faculties. There is no 
 provision in the way of service prescribed by Canon, 
 nor is there any form in the Liturgy or Common Prayer 
 Books of England or America. Indeed, any bishop not 
 believing in “the Indelibility of Holy Orders” may again 
 lay hands upon the Cleric so restored canonically, but 
 not liturgically. I ask what canon, or rubric, or rule 
 of the Protestant Episcopal usage is there to prevent? 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church does not regard an- 
 cient usage or even Biblical usage where she desires to 
 the contrary, nor can she boast of having regard espe- 
 cially for the Ancient Canons.” For instance, contrary 
 
 “Digest of Canons. The General Convention, 1904, under ‘^Dis- 
 cipline.’’ 
 
 “ It is an appalling fact, but true, that if the Apostolical Canons 
 were put in force as to the whole Anglican Priesthood, not one 
 bishop, priest, or deacon, who has entered into the state of holy 
 matrimony after ordination is entitled to serve at her altar, but 
 is a subject of perpetual suspension, in fact, of excommunication. 
 
54 
 
 to the Seventh Apostolical Canon her bishops can marry 
 twice after consecration. Some have married three times 
 — yes, four. There is no law whether the wife shall be 
 virgin, widow, brother’s wife, or the possessor of a 
 divorce from a former husband if she be the innocent 
 party. And the Bishop, too, may have the same right 
 as to divorce, all of which is contrary to Canon i8 of the 
 Apostolic. The hue and cry then as to my ordination 
 after a deposition by a Protestant Episcopal Bishop is not 
 serious when especially the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 has never defined in Council assembled what her doc- 
 trine is in reference to the Priesthood and its Indelibility. 
 In fact, to be very honest and explicit, there is a wide, 
 very wide variance of opinion. The saintly Bishop of 
 Pennsylvania, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Ozi W. Whitaker, told me 
 years ago in the Diocesan House in Philadelphia that he 
 did ''not believe in the Indelibility of Holy Orders.” Then 
 according to his belief the Canonical consent of the three 
 parties, viz. : the Diocesan, Standing Committee and four 
 Bishops, would not give the restored any spiritml powers 
 to exercise the Office and Work of a Priest and in that 
 case surely relaying on of hands, or as it may be called 
 by some ‘V^ordination,” was necessary. Otherwise the 
 man Canonically restored was still a layman having only 
 the consent to have his name on the Clerical list without 
 spiritual power. 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church before it criticises 
 any portion of the Holy Catholic Church, or the action 
 of any bishop of the same not in union with her or not 
 recognizing her must surely first set her own ‘‘house in 
 
55 
 
 order/’ and declare her doctrines in some explicit way in 
 order that not only others but her own children may 
 know what she believes. She is synodically silent on the 
 ''Indelibility of Holy Orders” Besides, however Catho- 
 lic the Protestant Episcopal Church may believe herself 
 to be yet by her acts and negations, by her lack of as- 
 sertion as well as her denial by action of ancient canons 
 and usages, and above all by her lack of provision for the 
 proper administration of Sacraments and Rites as an- 
 ciently administered, she lays herself open to just criti- 
 cism from both the Eastern and Roman portions of the 
 Holy Catholic Church. 
 
 There is a private book in the Church of England used 
 by the different schools of thought, that is known as the 
 ^‘Priest’s Prayer Book.” It is an unauthorized appendix 
 to the ''Book of Common Prayer,” but its universal use 
 gives it quasi authority. In it can be found a "Form of 
 Degradation from Holy Orders’”® and also an "Office for 
 the Reconciliation of a Lapsed Cleric.”" In this latter 
 there is actually a form of r^ordination for the Bishop 
 lays his hand on the Cleric's head, and both releases him 
 "from spiritual censures” and restores him to his office 
 or grade. He also blesses him and prays that Christ may 
 make him "a Priest unto Him for evermore.” But 
 I have said that these offices are not authorized by the 
 English Church, that is by convocation, or by any part of 
 the Anglican Church in council, but they show the mind of 
 
 *®Priesf s Prayer Book, page 288. 
 “Ibid, page 291. 
 
56 
 
 the Church on different points. The best and now the 
 most celebrated authority of the Anglican Church is the 
 Rt. Rev. Charles Gore, D.D., a Bishop of the Church of 
 England.*^ He writes, . . it is quite certain that 
 
 the early Church did not draw the clear line which was 
 drawn later between the reality of the Priesthood and its 
 regular exercise. The deposed priest was really regarded 
 as a layman, (Italics mine.) And in the same way ordi- 
 nations, which later would have been regarded as un- 
 canonical, were in early days regarded as invalid. Mori- 
 nus expresses the matter admirably by saying, 'Moraliter 
 magis et civiliter de istis philosophati sunt,’ They 
 thought of ordination, that is, in connection* with all its 
 moral and social associations, as part of the whole life of 
 the Church ; thus very naturally, 'they did not regard the 
 validity of the ordination as lying merely in the charac- 
 ter of the act, but they took into account also the authority 
 of the Church and questions of moral expedience.’ ” 
 There is, I know, a diversity of opinion between wri- 
 ters of the Ancient Church as to the "Indelibility of Or- 
 ders.” But there is one thing certain the whole Catholic 
 Church of the Seven General Councils ordained, or if 
 any man wishes to say "reordained” every man coming 
 to her from any religious body not recognized by her as 
 a part of the Historical Catholic Church of Christ. The 
 Anglican Church has not as yet satisfied the Holy Eastern 
 Church as to her unbroken succession of ministers from 
 the time of the Apostles. The individual acknowledg- 
 
 ^^The Ministry of the Christian Church, published 1889, page 
 
 191. 
 
57 
 
 ment of any Eastern Bishop of the validity of the Angli- 
 can ministry is not the decision of the whole Eastern 
 Church, "’^nd even if the Russian Orthodox Church 
 alone should accept Anglican orders she would have 
 thereby to cut herself off from the remaining portions 
 of the Holy Eastern Church — she, too, would place an- 
 other barrier between herself and the Church of Rome. 
 The whole matter is circled with many weighty considera- 
 tions. The Protestant Episcopal imprudent and disap-| 
 pointed advocates who have resorted to vulgar coerciv^ 
 methods have certainly disgraced their Church. 
 
 Still surely in a case where a Church, however liturgi- 
 cally correct she may be, is not in union with those por- 
 tions of the Holy Catholic Church whose mode of admin- 
 istering Sacraments has never been questioned as touch- 
 ing their validity and regularity and which have a Canon 
 demanding reordination of non-Catholics, or in absence 
 of a Canon no other means of admitting a person coming 
 to them from that Church not recognized by them and 
 questionable as to doctrine, how can that Church be justly 
 charged with sacrilege? 
 
 THE LACK OF UNION WITH THE EASTERN CHURCH IS THE 
 FAULT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Three hundred years have elapsed since the Anglican 
 Church has parted with Rome. She surely has had 
 plenty of time to have pressed her case before the four 
 Eastern Patriarchates. She even in the Protestant Epis- 
 copal portion of the Anglican Church since her reorgan- 
 ization under the ‘‘Declaration of Independence’' of the 
 
58 
 
 United States might have taken active steps in her Gen- 
 eral Convention and pushed the matter to some decisive 
 end. She has made very strong overtures to Protestant 
 sects in this country. She has almost pleaded with them. 
 She has lost no opportunity to send committees to their 
 Confederate gatherings.*^ Why has she not gone out of 
 her way before now to the Holy Eastern Church? 
 America has had no chain around the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church’s neck to say ‘'you must have nothing to do 
 with Russia.” In fact the United States, to the contrary, 
 has pushed the Holy Eastern Church right up against 
 the Protestant Episcopal in the person of the Russian 
 Church, for she purchased Russian territory. A thou- 
 sand times has the Protestant Episcopal Church been in- 
 sulted by the Protestant Sects. A thousand times has 
 she unintentionally insulted them. They now are getting 
 more polished one toward the other. I am glad to see it. 
 Bishop Doane, though he does not believe in Presby- 
 terian orders, invited a Presbyterian minister into the 
 sanctuary of his cathedral and permitted him to preach 
 the Gospel after the Presbyterian fashion to Episcopal 
 clergy and laity.** What, is not this sacrilege? Suppos- 
 ing the Presbyterian preacher should have poured out 
 Calvinism and heresy and perverted some of Bishop 
 Doane’s sheep, lambs and under shepherds? I myself 
 
 committee was appointed by the General Convention of 
 1904 to attend the Confederation of Protestant churches in York. 
 This committee attended and welded the P. E. Church to the 
 Confederation of Protestants in matters not affecting Doctrine. 
 
 ^^Bishop Doane was one of the committee to the Protestant 
 Confederation. 
 
59 
 
 have listened to the Presbyterian, Rev. Dr. John Hall, 
 preach in the Rev. Dr. Stephen Tyng’s Church*® (St. 
 George’s, New York). The Holy Eastern and the Roman 
 Catholic Churches are more careful. They guard their 
 flocks by permitting only validly and regularly ordained 
 Priests of their churches to speak for them in their sanc- 
 tuaries. 
 
 I have little doubt but that the Holy Eastern Church 
 will give a speedy and decisive answer to the Anglican 
 Church the moment the latter proves her claims as being 
 an integral portion of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church founded by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 and as well explicitly defines her doctrinal status as being 
 in accord with the faith of the first seven General Coun- 
 cils. But the Holy Eastern Church, while she will always 
 be courteous, desires no side approaches or quasi authori- 
 tative talk on such important subjects. The matter is too 
 serious to play with. The Committee which comes to her 
 must bring the proper credentials and be ready to meet 
 squarely and frankly all controversial points. She is 
 willing to welcome such a Committee. Her claims for 
 respect as the Mother Church of Christendom deserve 
 better treatment than the insults given by the disrespect- 
 ful journalists of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Her 
 membership of about one hundred and twenty-five millions 
 of devoted children of God count themselves not a whit 
 behind in honor to the eight hundred and eight thousand 
 
 *®The funeral service of Chief Justice Chase. Dr. Hall wore a 
 Calvinistic gown and sat until he began to preach within the 
 chancel rail. 
 
6o 
 
 members of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Yet it is 
 most strange that every Bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church remained silent while their newspaper 
 minions poured forth their lies and folly. Why such 
 silence? Any true part of the Holy Catholic Church 
 would have disciplined such audacious editors. But there 
 is no such thing as real authority in the Protestant Epis-. 
 copal Church. Bishops may crush an outspoken priest 
 so long as he has no money to ''back him up/' but some 
 Episcopal Bishops w^ill never fight that which they can 
 use so long as it has financial support. The god of wealth 
 and worldly influence is a powerful deity in Protestant 
 Episcopal political economy. 
 
 The Prelates of the Holy Orthodox Church, who have 
 been the guardians of "the faith once for all delivered to 
 the saints," may not be acquainted with all "the western 
 ways," but to a man they are conversant with the Doc- 
 trine, Discipline and Worship of the undivided Catholic 
 Church. They are heroic Christians — gentlemen of the 
 highest standing, filled with the love of Christ for all 
 who serve him in sincerity and truth. They will do what 
 they believe is right and just, even if the heavens should 
 fall as a consequence. They are of that metal of which 
 the Apostles were cast. Let us hope, then, that when 
 the day for reunion comes, when God's ways are known 
 the Anglican Church will not have occasion to feel pained 
 over the "reordination" of one who was once a Cleric in 
 her active ministry. She may rather bless God and your 
 Grace for wakening her up to a sense of her long ne- 
 glected duty for not only proclaiming herself as possess- 
 
6i 
 
 ing a Catholic heritage in the midst of Protestantism, but 
 also for not proving her claims so that no question may 
 remain to be settled in the eyes of the great historical 
 Churches of Christendom. 
 
 THE ANGLICAN CHURCHES DISREGARD FOR ANCIENT 
 CANONS. 
 
 Yet, I greatly fear, your Grace, that the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church does not see herself as others see her, 
 
 • or as she appears in the light of antiquity, especially Avhen 
 she appeals to the Ancient Canons when she has been a 
 little disturbed by the canonical action of a great his- 
 torical Church. If any one were to compare her conduct 
 of life, her discipline, her administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, etc., with the ancient canons and usages, he would 
 be astonished to find that the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church which has criticised the Russian Church as act- 
 ing contrary to the Canons of the General Councils is 
 herself the most daring and reckless violator of Apostolic 
 and Ecumenical Canons and usages amongst bodies 
 claiming to be historical on the face of the globe. 
 
 I hold that the Russian Church obeys all Ancient 
 Canons in dealing with all the acknowledged parts of the 
 Holy Catholic Church. She also observes all of the an- 
 cient ceremonies connected with the administration of 
 the Seven Sacraments during the period of the Seven 
 General Councils, and indeed, to be still more ancient, 
 during the period of the first four. She has no apology, 
 therefore, to offer to any Christian body, however re- 
 spectable, for violation of any rule that is ancient. 
 
62 
 
 But now turn, your Grace, please, to the Canons bind- 
 ing upon the whole universal Church. I find that there 
 are twenty-four (24) Apostolical Canons which the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church disregards, and they seem to be 
 such necessary rules of the Ancient Church and of the 
 Church of to-day, that those parts having a respect for 
 antiquity observe them. And while the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church is quite emphatic on the Ecumenical in her 
 so-called regard for the Canons of the General Councils 
 I also notice that she disobeys without even a blush or 
 an apology or an explanation nine of the Canons of 
 Chalcedon, one of Constantinople and four of the Council 
 of Nice. To be more explicit she disregards Canons 6, 7, 
 9, 10, II, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 
 46, 48, 50, 54, 59, 64, 74, 75 and 81 of the Apostolical. 
 Also Canons 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21 of the Fourth 
 Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) Canon 6 of the Second 
 Ecumenical Council (Constantinople) and Canons 3,. 
 5, 17 and 20 of the First Ecumenical (Nice). If she has 
 any regard for the Canons of Neo Caesarea, Antioch and 
 Laodicea, she disobeys of the first. Canons i, 2, 3, 7 
 and II, and of the second. Canons i and 21, and of the 
 third, Canons 6, 10, 20, 30, 3 B 33. 4B 48, 5^, 54 and 55. 
 
 Surely then we may well be surprised at the late con- 
 duct of the Protestant Episcopal Church. There is an 
 old proverb which runs : ''Those who live in glass houses 
 ought not to throw stones.’’ The Russian Church has not 
 been attempting anything of this kind of a foolish game, 
 but she is well able to pick up and throw pretty heavy 
 ones against the panes of glass of which the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church’s ancient or late edifice is erected. 
 
63 
 
 Now indeed as she has convulsively appealed to an- 
 tiquity, it may be your Grace’s privilege to nail her to 
 the past. By doing so you will have done more for her 
 than many of her own sons. You will have helped the 
 Catholic party within the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 You will have been the angel on earth to carry out the 
 answer of our dear Lord to the prayers of all those 
 blessed saints whose names are mentioned in the calen- 
 dar of the Churches of England and Ireland, and all 
 other portions of the Anglican communion, but which 
 have been ruthlessly struck out by the hands of those in 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church who loved to cater to 
 ultra-Protestantism and have far departed from the an- 
 cient paths of piety and reverence trodden by those who 
 now, as ever, plead before Christ’s throne for His Holy 
 Church on earth. 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL INDEFINITENESS. 
 
 But I will proceed, your Grace, to another point to 
 show you that though the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 believes in the Trinity without the slightest question — 
 possessing even a most gloriously arranged service for 
 the proper worship of the Divine Majesty — yet she fool- 
 ishly has, as in the Ordinal, an Alternative Preface at the 
 Holy Eucharist for her Trisagion. Indeed if she had not 
 had some trouble with one of her leading clerical sons in 
 her early days and at the present time was not sur- 
 rounded by Unitarianism this might not mean anything. 
 If even the Church of England had an Alternative Pre- 
 face we might be able to trace through the Mother 
 
64 
 
 Church some relationship between it and the past, but 
 no, she stands alone for not even in the Scotch Com- 
 munion Service, on the model of which her own Com- 
 munion Service was framed through Bishop Seabury, 
 can be found anything but one bold and unequivocating 
 proclamation of 'The Trinity in Unity, and Unity in 
 Trinity/’ 
 
 Her first Form of Preface*® is unmistakably clear as 
 to teaching, viz. : — 
 
 "Who art one God, one Lord; not one only Person, 
 but three Persons in one Substance. For that which we 
 believe of the glory of the Father, the same we believe of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference 
 or inequality.” 
 
 While her other Form*^ not found either in her Mother 
 Church’s Communion Service or in any of the Sister 
 Churches, reads thus: 
 
 "For the precious death and merits of thy Son Jesus 
 Christ Our Lord, and for the sending to us of the Holy 
 Ghost, the Comforter: who are one with thee in thy 
 eternal Godhead.” 
 
 I do not intend to be too critical or captious, but I am 
 persuaded this latter preface was put in to please those 
 who did not care to be forced to recite a clear and dog- 
 matic statement of the Blessed Trinity. There have been 
 such in the Protestant Episcopal Church of old, and alas ! 
 
 ^®Book of Common Prayer, page 234. 
 
 *’Ibid. 
 
65 
 
 there are some to-day/® But they cannot be removed so 
 long as their bishops are satisfied with their apologies 
 and explanations, however heretically inclined they may 
 be/^ 
 
 I have given your Grace a few fair specimens of the 
 Anglican Church’s way of doing things and of express- 
 ing herself. She defines and is explicit for those who 
 desire explicitness and leaves herself nebulistic enough 
 for those who do not care to be dogmatic. Thus within 
 her fold there can be gathered members from every sect 
 of Protestantism who are willing to accept two Sacra- 
 ments as generally necessary to Salvation, that is to say. 
 Baptism and the Supper of Our Lord.®® All that is re- 
 quired of a layman as a test of Faith, is to believe in the 
 ‘'Apostles’ Creed.” This is used as the Baptismal Sym- 
 bol but in reciting this he may say of Christ instead of 
 “He descended into hell” the alternative “He went into 
 the place of departed spirits.”®* He, too, has permission 
 
 “Bishop Seymour preaching at the consecration of Bishop 
 Gailor said that the Church was ^‘honeycombed with infidelity/’ 
 Great protests were made against the election of Phillips Brooks 
 to the episcopate of Massachusetts. 
 
 “Rev. Dr. Heber Newton of New York City, and the Rev. Dr. 
 Crapsey of Rochester have both had the protection of their 
 Bishops. The Rev. Dr. Rainsford of New York City has been 
 cut off from preaching for the St. Andrew Brotherhood, on the 
 alleged charge of denying the necessity of the Atonement Bishop 
 Potter, however, has not inhibited him, nor Bishop Whitaker. 
 Since writing this note the Rev. Dr. Crapsey has been tried and 
 condemned for heresy. 
 
 “^Church Catechism of the P. E. Church. Book of Common 
 Prayer, page 270. 
 
 ®Tublic Baptism of Infants, Book of Common Prayer, page 248, 
 also in all of her forms of Baptism. 
 
 ®^Morning Prayers P. E. Church, page 1 1 ; also in Evening 
 Prayers, page 25. 
 
66 
 
 to compel the Priest to omit the sign of the Cross“ in the 
 administration to him or to his children of Holy Bap- 
 tism, and if he has any further scruples as to the mode 
 of the presence of Our Dear Lord in the Holy Eucharist 
 he may be told that, while the Church of England says 
 in her Church Catechism that Christ is Verily and in- 
 deed taken and received’’'^^ therein the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church uses a milder expression to wit : ''Spiritually 
 taken and received,’’ which expression may suit any sect 
 or party. 
 
 THE ANGLICAN CHURCH AN ANTITHESIS TO CHURCHES 
 AROUND HER. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that the Anglican Church is 
 never colored by the religion with which she comes in 
 contact. She rather forms an antithesis. For instance: 
 In Scotland coming in contact with Presbyterianism she 
 is ‘‘High Church.” In Ireland she has had to contend 
 with Romanism, therefore, she is “Low Church.” In 
 England until of late she has been quite Eusebian, that 
 is, somewhat condescending — ^looking down with painful 
 solicitude upon the Dissenters who indeed caused her 
 some anxiety because of their missionary zeal amongst 
 the lower and middle classes. Now, however, she is 
 awake to her mission and trying to regain the ground 
 that was almost lost to her in some quarters. Her Catho- 
 lic party is filled with holy and zealous members who 
 
 “^Public Baptism of Infants, page 249, and in all other forms of 
 Baptism. 
 
 “^Compare Catechism of the Church of England with that of the 
 P. E. Church, page 270, Book of Common Prayer. 
 
6 ; 
 
 come very near to the souls of men while her Evangelical 
 or ‘'Low Church'’ party expound the Gospel with Apos- 
 tolic earnestness though lax in Ritual Observances. 
 Those who now are subservient to State influence in 
 England are of the “Broad Church" party — but their 
 breadth of thought consists chiefly in trying to shatter old 
 time respect for the miraculous in religion and the tradi- 
 tional reverence for the Bible. The Church in the United 
 States, though having the three schools of thought in her 
 midst, is remarkable for the fact that the “Low Church" 
 as well as “the High" observes the Fasts and Festivals 
 and so also does “the Broad Church" party — and, strange 
 to say, within the last twenty-five years in nearly every 
 church the Western Colors have come to be used for 
 vestments, at least the stoles, and altar hangings, etc. 
 Congregations in the United States are frequently found 
 to be more Catholic than their Rectors — ^but the whole 
 tendency of the Church is to be “High" and devoted “to 
 decency and order" in public worship. The Protestant 
 Episcopal Church is marked by much zeal in the United 
 States and comprises within her fold a greater amount of 
 wealth than any other religious body. 
 
 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. 
 
 I may as well explain just what I mean by “High 
 Churchmanship," “Broad Churchmanship," and “Low 
 Churchmanship" and indeed it would be well to add, per- 
 haps, “Ritualists" in the list. 
 
 ''High Churchmen' are those who are strenuous de- 
 fenders of “the necessity of Sacramental Grace, and of 
 
68 
 
 Apostolic Orders.’’ They are not necessarily Ritualists. 
 In fact such men as Pusey and Keble in England, so far 
 as vestments were concerned, would appear almost on 
 the list of ‘'Low Churchmen.” The great body of the 
 clergy of the Anglican Church to-day are High Church 
 and have a great tendency toward Ritualism*. 
 
 ''Broad Churchmen'' first came into view at the Restor- 
 ation of the Royal Power in England in the days of 
 Charles II. They have had in their midst in the past and 
 there are not wanting now, men of very great ability. 
 They aimed and still aim more or less to keep out conten- 
 tion by specially dwelling on great moral truths and pass- 
 ing almost entirely over doctrinal teaching. Of late the 
 "Higher Critics” are chiefly "Broad Churchmen” and are 
 looked upon with suspicion so far as their respect for 
 miracles and inspiration is concerned. 
 
 "Lozv Churchmen" have been and are still successors 
 of the Puritan school of thought. They are either Cal- 
 vinistic or Zwinglian in views. The Holy Communion 
 to them is "the reception of consecrated Bread and 
 Wine,” which only puts them "in mind of Christ.” "Ab- 
 solution” is with them merely declarative. Baptism is gen- 
 erally disassociated from all idea of sacramental grace 
 and is regarded only as a ceremonial admission into the 
 visible Church. The three Orders of the Ministry Low 
 Churchmen have maintained to be convenient but not in- 
 dispensably necessary to the existence of the Church. 
 
 A Ritualist is one who lays special stress upon the so- 
 called right performance of the Mass. The members of 
 this school are a wing of "the Catholic Party,” but they 
 
69 
 
 are not men of great depth. They frequently drop into 
 the Roman Church. 
 
 The Catholic Party of to-day are the High Churchmen 
 of olden days who have combined with a right view of the 
 Church and her Sacraments a proper regard for an ornate 
 service in obedience to the Rubrics of the Church. — ^Un- 
 like the Ritualist they do not ape after Rome, but observe 
 old Anglican usages. 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH MOST LAX IN 
 DISCIPLINE OF THE LAITY. 
 
 Of all portions of the Anglican Church the Protestant 
 Episcopal is the most lax in discipline. She exercises 
 scarcely any discipline whatever over the laity, though 
 she has Rubrical provision for the same. The laity 
 practically govern the Church and the Bishops defer as 
 a general thing more to the wishes of the rich laity than 
 to those of the clergy. A man had no need of being bap- 
 tized or confirmed to be a member of the vestry of a par- 
 ish in most of the dioceses some years ago, and it is so 
 to a great extent still. In fact delegates being elected from 
 vestries to Diocesan Councils, an unbaptized man if chosen 
 as one could have the privilege of voting on the most 
 vital doctrinal or disciplinary subject and have a voice 
 in the selection of a Bishop. !5uch a layman, too, could 
 be a ^Tank heretic.’^ 
 
 The Rector or Parish Priest in the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church holds frequently an unenviable position. He 
 must be a good yachtsman to steer clear of trouble, and 
 alas, too frequently, a moral coward or a time server. 
 
70 
 
 There is a peculiar game which can be well played by a 
 bishop and layman and in which the Parish Priest in- 
 variably finds himself defeated. If, for instance, a Rector 
 displeases a rich person in his congregation it is soon 
 found out that he has ‘'lost his influence and if he does 
 not feel that God needs his services elsewhere and seek 
 and accept a call from there he is “frozen out’^ or “starved 
 out"' while his Bishop looks benignly on. Or there is an- 
 other way. A Canon some years ago was passed in the 
 General Convention whereby a Priest or Congregation 
 could appeal to the Bishop for the dissolution of pastoral 
 relations. It has caused much trouble for the Rectors for 
 invariably the disgruntled layman can thereby find the 
 ear of the Bishop who, in but few exceptions, stands by 
 the Laity and gives the Rector a limited time to with- 
 draw to another field of labor. 
 
 A successful Priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 is not necessarily a man who has gathered in Christ’s 
 scattered sheep and has fed them with sacramental life, 
 but the Rector, who without offending the influential, has 
 increased the finances and kept his Parish out of debt. 
 
 HER JUDICIAL SYSTEM DEFECTIVE. 
 
 Until of late years A.D. 1904, the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church so far as her judicial system was concerned was 
 looked upon as the most unjust, cruel and unchristian 
 religious body on the face of the globe. For fear that 
 I should be misjudged in this statement I prefer to give 
 the words of others (of her own sons) covering this 
 point. The great scholar, and thorough Catholic of his 
 day. Rev. John Henry Hopkins, S.T.D.,®® son of a pre- 
 siding Bishop, says : “In all our dioceses, except the three 
 in Illinois, the systems of Church courts for the trial of 
 
 ”'‘The Church Cyclopaedia — Appellate Courts.” 
 
71 
 
 priests, deacons, and laymen, is incomplete, providing for 
 the most part, for only one formal trial. In nearly all, 
 no trial can be entered upon unless the bishop con- 
 sents. In nearly all, the Bishop has so large an agency in 
 the formation of the Court — which is a Court appointed 
 for the special case — that it is quite possible to organize 
 it to convict or acquit, as he may prefer. . . . 
 
 If injustice were done there could be no possible remedy. 
 
 . . . His oppressor might be deposed, but he him- 
 
 self would not be in the slightest degree relieved from the 
 consequences of that oppression.” The Rev. Francis 
 Vinton, S.T.D., D.C.L.,®® Professor of Canon Law in the 
 General Theological Seminary, writes: ‘^The Presbyters 
 and Deacons who suffer the misfortune of being con- 
 victed after trial by Ecclesiastical Courts in a Diocese in 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, are the only men on 
 the face of Christian Civilization who are deprived of 
 the human Right of Appeal.” 
 
 I could give more expressions of thoughtful and great 
 men, but these two will suffice because of the prominence 
 and learning of the writers. Since they have written on 
 the subject chiefly on account of the ^Trvine-Talbot” case 
 which emphasized the need of a Court of Appeals, there 
 has been one provided. Still, in making this provision the 
 formation of Courts of First Resort is open to the same 
 defects as those to which the Rev. Dr. John Henry Hop- 
 kins refers. A Bishop may still with others conspire®* to 
 
 Francis Vinton’s “A Manual Commentary, etc. Canon Law, 
 P. E. Ch.,” page 153. 
 
 ^Report No. 5, House of Bishops Journal of the General Con- 
 vention P. E. Church, 1901. 
 
 “Though conspiracy was condemned by the Fourth General 
 Council and Canon XVIII passed to that effect with a pen- 
 alty, the P. E. Church has neither canon nor penalty. In fact 
 her Bishops may conspire if they please to crush and depose a 
 Priest. 
 
72 
 
 depose his Presbyter or Deacon. If the case is well tried 
 and the compact of conspirators cannot be overthrown in 
 their evidence, the Court of Appeals cannot help the 
 convicted for this latter Court can only review the legal 
 aspects of the case. And furthermore the poor clergyman 
 who, perhaps, may be on the verge of starvation may 
 find himself financially unable to meet the expenses of an 
 appeal. No one can be punished for swearing falsely in 
 an Ecclesiastical Court against a clergyman. Evidence 
 will be taken from the most disreputable person.®* The 
 State has no penalty for perjury other than that com- 
 mitted in her own courts. 
 
 The Canon which now stands for the trial of a Bishop 
 is actually a Canon how to prevent the trial of a Bishop. 
 
 THE REASONS FOR HARMONY IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Now it may be asked ‘‘How is it possible that there is 
 such apparent harmony in the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church when there is found within her midst such dis- 
 cordant elements and so much heterodoxical opinion?’’ 
 
 The Anglican Church as a whole is an exceedingly 
 elastic as well as liberal body. Her pendulum in the 
 performance of the services may swing from the most 
 ornate Ritual following as closely as possible that of the 
 Roman Mass to the ultra-Protestant baldness and sim- 
 plicity of worship. 
 
 The Church of England declared and the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church®® adopted her words and incorporated 
 them into the Preface of her Book of Common Prayer 
 the following: Seeking to “keep the happy mean be- 
 
 The Fourth General Council in Canon XXI rules against in- 
 discriminate testimony, but with a P. E. ecclesiastical court it is 
 a matter of discretion. She has no canon on the subject. 
 
 ®®Preface to Book of Common Prayer, page 5. 
 
73 
 
 tween too much stififness in refusing and too much easi- 
 ness in admitting variations in things once advisedly es- 
 tablished, she hath, in the reign of several Princes, since 
 the first compiling of her Liturgy in the time of Edward 
 the Sixth, upon just and weighty considerations her 
 thereunto moving, yielded to make such alterations in 
 some particulars as in their respective times were thought 
 convenient; yet so as that the main body and essential 
 parts of the same (as well in the chief est materials, as in 
 the frame and order thereof) have still been continued 
 firm and unshaken/’ The only thing that there has been 
 any special controversy over in England so far as the 
 performance of the service has been is that which has 
 arisen out of the proper interpretation of what is known 
 as the ^^Ornaments Rubric/'^^ This Rubric reads as fol- 
 lows : ^'And here it is to be noted, that such Ornaments 
 of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times 
 of their Ministrations shall be retained, and be in use, as 
 were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Par- 
 liament in the Second year of the reign of King Edward 
 the Sixth.” The Protestant Episcopal Church has fortu- 
 nately shifted the responsibility of settling this matter 
 upon the shoulders of the Mother Church by saying in 
 the Preface of her Book of Common Prayer®^ ‘'this 
 Church is far from intending to depart from the Church 
 of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or 
 worship, or further than local circumstances require.” 
 The present Episcopal Robes generally worn by Amer- 
 ican and English Bishops are those which were and are 
 still used by English Lord Bishops in the upper House 
 of Parliament. Properly speaking Anglican robes ought 
 
 ®Tound immediately before the ‘‘Order for Morning Prayer,” 
 in Prayer Book of the Church of England. 
 
 ®*Preface to Book of Common Prayer, page VI. 
 
74 
 
 not to differ much from those of the Church of Rome. 
 However, the former robes are more graceful in shape 
 and as a general thing richer in fabric though more mod- 
 est in ornament. There were and are still certain 
 characteristic vestments of each of the Western Churches 
 of which there is no necessity to speak. I am only trying 
 to show how the Anglican Church (and especially the 
 American daughter) leaves her Bishops and clergy in 
 general to decide for themselves within certain limits. 
 While this has some virtues about it, yet it certainly has 
 also many defects and is the cause of some confusion to 
 the mind of a stranger who may pass in one day from the 
 service of a Low Church Priest to that of a Ritualistic 
 one. 
 
 Now this so-called liberty is one reason for the notice- 
 able harmony in an Episcopal Congregation, Diocese or 
 General Convention. No man is forced to accept a set 
 rule of Faith (excepting the Creeds) or mode of perform- 
 ing the worship as prescribed by the Prayer Book. The 
 latter has Rubrics and the Ritualist sees in them the 
 ‘^shair’ of absolute obedience, while the Low Churchman 
 reads between the lines a ‘^matter of discretion’’ in fact 
 ‘‘non-essential” so long as the words of the Prayer Book 
 are said. And indeed the Church, too, does not require 
 the minister to have two whole hands to administer the 
 Sacraments or two legs to stand upon. Men with crip- 
 pled hands, wooden or deformed legs, men deaf and 
 dumb now serve as Priests at her altar. Yet taking the 
 clergy as a body they are some of the most high-toned 
 gentlemen and best scholars of the English speaking 
 people. Your Grace has been assaulted in the Church 
 papers by those who are not counted refined. Of course 
 there can be found exceptions therein as in the great 
 churches of the East and West. The greatest fault that 
 the Protestant Episcopal ministry has is its miserable 
 
75 
 
 servility to wealth and fashion and which, indeed, is apt 
 to crush out true spirituality and also tenderness toward 
 the poor of God’s Church. 
 
 And there is another reason for harmony and that is 
 the great love which all schools of thought in the Angli- 
 can Church have for the Book of Common Prayer. The 
 Prayer Book and Bible with their collection of beautiful 
 hymns form a spiritual trio of inspiration which electri- 
 fies all schools and parties when they assemble in Church 
 or in Council. In fact you can find the Book of Common 
 Prayer in the homes of very many sectarians. I mean 
 Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. The Sects even use the 
 Marriage and Burial Services of the Anglican Church 
 and adopt very much of the contents of the Prayer Book 
 in their public worship as well as copy much Anglican 
 Church ornamentation and ceremony. They, too, now 
 observe many of the Festivals and Fasts prescribed by the 
 Book of Common Prayer. I personally, have seen almost 
 a revolution in the last thirty or forty years in these 
 respects on the part of the numerous Protestant Sects. 
 
 Of course it must be remembered that these sacred 
 books of the Anglican Church are all in the language 
 spoken by the English speaking world. Besides, the 
 marked intelligence of the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon races 
 demands a book in the hands of those who worship. 
 They grow tired of looking on. They are too nervous 
 a people to keep their mouths shut. They are too active 
 to either sit a long while or stand. They, therefore, have 
 a form of worship prescribed by the Book of Common 
 Prayer whereby not only every faculty of manhood, but 
 also every limb or member of the body is engaged in the 
 worship of Almighty God. 
 
 The Anglican mind does not like repetitions in Prayers 
 or Litanies, and while the structure of her services is 
 always the same yet she has left wide margin for enrich- 
 
76 
 
 ment with hymns, chants, and anthems taken from Scrip- 
 tures. She prides herself on her chanting and instru- 
 mental music. Her theory is that everything that is 
 good ought to be turned to the glory of God. This, in- 
 deed, may account for the very great number of ‘'nominal 
 Christians,’’ or, as I had better say “nondescript Chris- 
 tians” and in fact bare moralists who attend her services. 
 They delight in the dignity and richness, yet simplicity 
 of her worship. 
 
 She has one apparent fault to one who likes explicitness 
 viz. : the absence of the same in dogmatic statements. In 
 other portions of the Holy Catholic Church there is but 
 one interpretation of a doctrine and one way of per- 
 forming the service. Each child of that portion of the 
 Church knows just what the other believes. It is not 
 so in the Anglican Church. Yet strange to say in the 
 same pew may be sitting or kneeling five persons each 
 holding a different view of the Holy Eucharist and yet 
 each equally reverent and reading out of the same Book 
 of Common Prayer. And, too, I have seen men in the 
 same chancel wearing different colored stoles — some 
 black, and some white, red or green, and furthermore 
 you may see in one church the chasuble and alb with the 
 other Eucharistic vestments worn, while in another there 
 may be found only the cassock, surplice and stole, and 
 yet in another the Genevan “Black Gown” with bands 
 or the Black Friar’s Robe during the delivery of the ser- 
 mon. However, the great majority of clergy and churches 
 are adopting more settled customs and greater harmony 
 in “non-essentials” as they speak of all things excepting 
 “the Creeds” and “Liturgy” or Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 I may be pardoned at this point to briefly call your at- 
 tention to the fact that the Book of Common Prayer is 
 chiefly a compilation so far as morning and evening 
 prayers are concerned from the “Book of Hours,” and 
 
77 
 
 thus it has some undercurrent of magnetic influence in 
 drawing together those who are specially fond of the 
 ancient ways, prayers and supplications as well as the 
 Te Deum and Doxologies, while on the other hand there 
 is much that is modern in these services or at least old 
 prayers are modernized and therefore those who may 
 love the past and its sacredness as well as those who be- 
 lieve in being ‘'up with the age'^ have no difficulty in 
 using this Book. She also has aimed to gather into her 
 Prayer Book the best from all the “uses’’ common in 
 England before the Reformation “in saying and singing,” 
 viz. : from those of Salisbury, Hereford, Bangor, York 
 and Lincoln, Perhaps it is this example of diversity in 
 unity that has set her children the example of unity in 
 diversity. 
 
 Your Grace, I have written to you in great length 
 without any intention of literary merit. My letter after 
 all has had only one intention, viz. : to point out to you 
 the actual state of affairs so far as I know of them 
 within a Church which claims for herself Apostolicity 
 and Catholicity. 
 
 I would not do the Anglican Church a wrong. I 
 would not any more than I would cut off this hand which 
 holds the pen by which I communicate my thoughts to 
 your Grace in black and white, withhold one truth or 
 hide away one merit of which she glories. On the con- 
 trary I trust my very frankness may be the cause of 
 stirring up a spirit of interest on the part of the Holy 
 Orthodox Church so that the Anglican claims may be 
 fairly and quickly weighed and that the Saviour’s prayer, 
 so far as the Anglican Church and the Holy Orthodox at 
 least are concerned, may be fulfilled — “that they all may 
 be one.” 
 
 Meanwhile (may I be pardoned for even suggesting?) 
 the Holy Orthodox Church under your Archiepiscopal 
 
78 
 
 government has a great and blessed work to do in the 
 United States. Of all parts of the Holy Catholic Church 
 the Holy Orthodox Church’s work, let me emphasize, is 
 THAT OF THE MOST IMPORTANT. She is the Mother 
 Church of Christendom. Her lamps, therefore, ought to 
 be kept filled, the wicks trimmed and always burning. 
 Her priests to a man ought to be conversant with the 
 ways, language and all things of the Western world. 
 Here is the table land for unification. Here is the plat- 
 form where with one tongue the diversities of languages 
 of Babel shall be driven forever away as marks of divi- 
 sion, or reasons for a lack of love one toward another. 
 
 In the Providence of God you. Most Reverend Sir, have 
 been selected as the loving, gentle shepherd whom we 
 of your fold revere and love and follow in humble and 
 childlike godly submission for we feel that, though you 
 are our gentle Chief Shepherd, still you are our firm and 
 masterful as well as intrepid leader. 
 
 May God spare you length of years ; and oh, may he pro- 
 long your days in the midst of this Western World until 
 you have truly fulfilled the mission unto which Christ has 
 appointed you, for not unto Rome, but to Constan- 
 tinople must the world look for the old, well beaten path 
 which leads to the Jerusalem on earth where Christ died, 
 rose, and from whence He ascended to the Jerusalem 
 which is on High — the Mother of us all. 
 
 Realizing that I am the least of your children in the 
 faith, still I beg to have the honor not to be a whit behind 
 the greatest in love and obedience as 
 
 Your son and servant, 
 
 Ingram N. W. Irvine. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 HENRY VIII. AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 By the Right Rev. George F. Seymour, D.D.^ LL.D., 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield. 
 
 Springfield, 111 ., May 26, 1906. 
 Rev. I. N. W. Irvine, D.D. 
 
 St. Nicholas’ Cathedral, 97th St., 
 
 New York City. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Brother: — In response to your re- 
 quest for an article for your review, I send the enclosed. 
 I am as anxious for Christian unity as any one could pos- 
 sibly be and hence, at your request, I place the enclosed at 
 your disposal. 
 
 With best wishes. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 GEORGE F. SEYMOUR. 
 
 The Church of God has its genesis directly from God. 
 The eternal Son, after He had risen from the dead and 
 shortly before He ascended into Heaven, gave to His 
 Church its charter and vested its government under Him- 
 self as the Head in a corporation of eleven men. 
 
 The Holy Ghost, through St. Matthew, has pre- 
 served for us the ipsissima verba of the charter, and they 
 run thus: (St. Matthew, xxviii. 18.) ''All power is 
 given unto me (our Lord is the speaker), in heaven and 
 in earth. Go ye therefore (addressing the apostles), and 
 
8o 
 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you ; and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of 
 the world/’ 
 
 Here we have the principles of the polity of the Church 
 luminously expressed and wonderfully condensed, as only 
 God could do it. We have the Head of the Church before 
 us in the person of Jesus Christ, clothed with our hu- 
 manity in its glorified condition, filled with all divine 
 power in heaven and in earth. 
 
 Second. — We have him as the Head, the glorified Son 
 of man, filled with all divine power from the Godhead. 
 
 Third. — We have the work laid out for them to do, 
 namely, to teach and to minister the sacraments ; to teach 
 all nations whatsoever He, the blessed Lord, had com- 
 manded, and to baptize them, which implies the authority 
 to minister all other sacred rites. 
 
 Fourth. — We have the extent of their jurisdiction, ‘‘all 
 nations.” 
 
 Fifth. — We have the duration of their ministry, “unto 
 the end of the world.” 
 
 Sixth. — We have the limitations under which they 
 were to teach and labor, namely, as to the former, “What- 
 soever Christ had commanded them,” as to the latter they 
 were to work in co-operation as a corporation, a solidarity, 
 and not on their own individual lines. “Go ye,” “baptize 
 ye,” “teach ye,” and the promise of official continuity and 
 perpetuity is to them as a body, and not separately, or to 
 one alone — St. Peter. The plural number is used 
 throughout, placing the apostles before us as a band of 
 brothers held together on the same level by the radii 
 which united them to the same centre, the divine Head, 
 presently to ascend to heaven and seat Himself upon the 
 throne of God. 
 
8i 
 
 Ten days after the ascension of our Lord, His Church 
 was born on the day of Pentecost, and the apostles began 
 to act under the charter which their divine Master had 
 given them, and thus we are enabled to see how they 
 understood it. Nay, more ; since they were inspired, how 
 the Holy Ghost meant it to be understood. The blessed 
 Spirit sheds His bright beams upon the first believers who 
 were instructed and guided by the very men who received 
 the charter from Christ’s own lips, and this is the account 
 which He gives of them: ‘‘They (those baptized on the 
 day of the Church’s birth) continued steadfastly in the 
 apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of 
 bread, and in prayers.” (Acts ii. 42.) Here we have the 
 polity of the Church of God which protects the faith, the 
 discipline, the sacraments and the worship. It is the 
 apostolic government ; not under one, St. Peter, but under 
 all the apostles as a corporation, as the charter prescribes. 
 It is the apostolic government again as against those who 
 refuse the apostolic rule, as continued and perpetuated in 
 the episcopate. 
 
 In view of these facts it will be seen at once that no 
 man can found the Church of God. It was founded once 
 for all ‘'on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Jesus Christ Himself being the head corner-stone,” and it 
 will last until the end of the world. 
 
 When it is asserted, therefore, as it often is, that “the 
 Church of England was founded by Henry VHI.” (A. D. 
 1509-1547), the assertion is meant to carry with it the 
 denial that the Church of England and our Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States, which is derived 
 from her, are the Church of God. The statement is in- 
 tended to discredit our claim to be a part of the body of 
 Christ, and to reduce us to the condition of a sect which 
 had its origin in the reign of Henry VHI., about A. D, 
 1534, and is an appeal to popular ignorance and prejudice 
 against us. 
 
82 
 
 I address myself, therefore, at once to this allegation, 
 and inquire on what does it rest for support and what 
 misconceptions give it the faintest shadow of plausibility ? 
 It rests simply on this: That Henry VIII. (A. D. 1509- 
 1547) happened to be the monarch on the English throne 
 when the Church of England drove Rome, a foreign 
 Church, out of the land, and refused any longer to sub- 
 mit to her exercise of jurisdiction within the realm; and 
 Henry, for personal reasons having their root in the 
 usurpations and corruptions of the Popes, Julius IL, who 
 granted a dispensation from what he, the Pope, held to be 
 the divine law, for the English King to marry his brother 
 Arthur’s widow, and Clement VII. , who wore out the 
 patience of the King by deceit and treachery in dealing 
 with the divorce asked for by Henry from his wife 
 Katharine of Aragon ; for these reasons, I say, Henry 
 VHI. was moved and stimulated to give the royal con- 
 sent to the enactment of canons and statutes which gave 
 full legal force to legislation in Church and State which 
 made the Church of England once more, as Magna 
 Charta declared she was, ‘Tree !” 
 
 The connection between Rome and England which 
 was thus broken, was purely ecclesiastical, and was a 
 growth which had its origin in the sixth century, when 
 the monk Augustine came to Kent in A. D. 597, and 
 with the aid and influence of what was then the civilized 
 world, helped to plant and build up Christianity, in the 
 eastern part of Britain. 
 
 Augustine found Christianity in Britain when he ar- 
 rived. It had been there since a very early date, so early 
 indeed that Tertullian and Origen before the year A. D. 
 200 allude to its presence, and others a little later give 
 more detailed information of its occupancy of the island. 
 
 It is more than interesting, it is reassuring against the 
 claims of Modern Romanism, that Britain is indebted for 
 its Christianity to both the East and the West. 
 
83 
 
 First to the East through Gaul, where if not planted 
 directly by Apostolic hands, strong with Pentecostal bene- 
 diction from Palestine, it came within a hundred years 
 after the Ascension from those who had known the 
 Apostles. 
 
 And secondly to the West at the close of the sixth cen- 
 tury, when the Italian Mission came to the heathen 
 Saxons, who had supplanted Christianity in the eastern 
 and southern Kingdoms of the Heptarchy. 
 
 The Christianity in Britain, which confronted Augus- 
 tine, knew no monarchy of St, Peter, but represented 
 energetically and emphatically the position of St. Ire- 
 naeus, who distinctly affirms in a famous passage, which 
 is on everybody’s lips, that the great Church of Rome 
 was ''founded and organized by the TWO most glorious 
 Apostles Peter and Paul/’ 
 
 These facts, the existence of two missions in Britain, 
 the Eastern running back to sub-apostolic, if not to 
 apostolic times, and the Western coming with beneficent 
 purpose, to convert heathen tribes who had recently in- 
 vaded and seized the southeastern portion of the island, 
 and driven out the civilized and christianized Britons; 
 and the further most significant fact, that both missions 
 alike were ignorant of the supremacy claimed by Modern 
 Rome, since Gregory the Great, at whose instance Augus- 
 tine went to Britain, repudiated when Pope the title 
 "Universal Bishop,” given to him in correspondence by 
 the Eastern Patriarch, John the Faster. These facts 
 demonstrate the absolute soundness of the position of the 
 Catholic Church, and of our Anglican Communion as a 
 part of the Catholic Church against Modern Rome, that 
 the Church of Christ is vested in a corporation under the 
 divine Lord as the Head, and not in one man, St. Peter, 
 and his alleged successors, the Popes. 
 
 As the years advanced and Rome asserted herself more 
 
84 
 
 and more in presumptuous claims, she wove a network 
 of canon and statute law which bound the nations of the 
 west to her and her Bishop, as the alleged centre and 
 source of mission and jurisdiction. 
 
 All of this legislation in Church and State was purely 
 human and rested upon no divine sanction whatever, and 
 hence it could be repealed without affecting in the slight- 
 est degree the body of Christ, organized and living under 
 the charter which vested the government in the apostles 
 and their successors, the episcopate, a corporation a soli- 
 darity, and not in one, St. Peter and his alleged successor, 
 the Bishops of Rome. Now all that was done in the 
 reign of Henry VIII. was to repeal the canons and 
 statutes, which by human legislation bound England to 
 Rome and set her free of foreign domination which had 
 grown in its greed for money, and its lust for power. The 
 pivot on which the movement turned in principle was this, 
 expressed tersely and clearly in the question proposed to 
 the two convocations of Canterbury and York, in 1534, 
 as follows : ‘‘Hath the Bishop of Rome by divine right any 
 more jurisdiction within this realm of England than any 
 other foreign Bishop?’’ To this question the answer 
 was made by overwhelming majorities in both convoca- 
 tions, ^‘No.” 
 
 Among those voting in the negative were such men as 
 Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstall and others, who were after- 
 wards conspicuously opposed not only to the excesses of 
 fanatics, but even to what all will allow were salutary re- 
 forms. This fact conclusively shows that the first and 
 great falsehood of Rome in her assertion of supremacy, 
 now an article of her creed, was not then admitted or hel<^ 
 by many of her most devoted adherents. 
 
 Henry VHI.’s connection with the reformation in Eng- 
 land was purely accidental. He was a very immoral man, 
 but he was not so bad a man as was Alexander VL, who 
 
85 
 
 was the Pope when Henry was born. He was grasping 
 for money, but he as not so greedy for gain as was Julius 
 II., who was the Pope who, in defiance of God’s law, 
 granted for a great bribe, when Henry was a youth, a 
 dispensation for him to marry his brother Arthur’s widow, 
 Katharine of Aragon. He was voluptuous and worldly, 
 but he was certainly excelled in these vices by Clement 
 VII., who was anxious to give Henry his divorce, but dare 
 not do it, because Katharine’s nephew, the mighty Em- 
 peror, Charles V., held Rome in subjection, and more 
 than metaphorically grasped him by the throat. Henry’s 
 connection with the reformation in England is to be 
 traced for its ultimate cause to the dispensation granted 
 at the instance of Henry VII., for his son, Henry VHI., 
 to marry his brother’s widow, Katharine of Aragon, 
 whose rich dowry the elder Henry did not wish to restore 
 to Spain. 
 
 This dispensation by the Pope was on Roman prin- 
 ciples a stretch of prerogative since it suspended what 
 was held to be by papal canonists a divine law, expressly 
 laid down in the book Leviticus, that a man may not 
 marry his brother’s widow. In later years when child 
 after child borne to him by Katharine died in infancy, 
 Henry pleaded scruples, of conscience for continuing to 
 live with his wife, and alleged the deaths of his children 
 as the visitation of God upon him for his unhallowed 
 union with his brother’s widow. One is not inclined to 
 credit Henry VHI. with an over-sensitive conscience, and 
 at once sets aside the plea as worthless, but He Who over- 
 rules evil for good, made use of Henry to help complete 
 a movement which set the Church of England free from 
 the grasp of Rome, and enabled her to preserve her life 
 and organic connection with the past. 
 
 England, in Henry’s time, was governed by two parlia- 
 ments, or as we would say, congresses; one for the 
 
86 
 
 Church, called ^^convocation,’’ the other for the State, 
 the lords and commons, commonly called ‘‘parliament.” 
 Convocation passed canons, the Church’s laws, and parlia- 
 ment passed statutes, the State’s law. Canons and stat- 
 utes, when Henry came to the throne in A. D. 1509, bound 
 England to Rome. When Henry died in 1547, these 
 canons and statutes, with the royal consent, had all been 
 repealed, and there remained not a single tie in the sacred 
 or civil codes which united the English Church to the 
 See of Rome. 
 
 In all else the Church of England remained as she was 
 in her ministry, her doctrine, discipline and worship. If 
 Christ vested the Government of His Church in one, St. 
 Peter, and made it a monarchy to be continued in the 
 alleged successors of St. Peter, ruling the Church of God 
 from the See of Rome as the centre, then England’s 
 break with Rome in the reign of Henry VHI. was fatal, 
 and she ceased to live. 
 
 But if Christ’s words are true, spoken to His assembled 
 Apostles a little while before He ascended into Heaven, 
 and if the blessed Spirit’s record of the very first be- 
 lievers be faithful in bringing them into view as con- 
 tinuing steadfastly under the government of the Apostles, 
 then the Church of England, when she threw off the 
 jurisdiction of the See of Rome, returned as to her polity 
 to apostolic and primitive purity and loyalty to Christ, arid 
 Henry VHI. was employed by the divine will to give legal 
 completeness to the orderly methods pursued by both con- 
 vocation and parliament in repealing canons and statutes 
 which had sanctioned the Pope’s alleged jurisdiction over 
 England’s Church, and seemed to justify his usurpation of 
 power and prerogative over England’s people. 
 
 To say that Henry VHI. founded the Church of Eng- 
 land, is either a confession of gross ignorance or an ad- 
 mission of a deliberate attempt to deceive. Man can no 
 
87 
 
 more found a Church than he can create the universe. 
 Bad as Henry VIII. was, he was no fool, and, as origin7 
 ally designed for the Church, his studies had been partly 
 theological. He never dreamed of founding a Church, 
 nor did any one in his day and generation charge him 
 with such folly. His assumption of the title ^^supreme 
 head” was qualified by the saving clause “in so far as 
 God’s law doth allow.” This assertion of headship was 
 necessary to bring all persons, ecclesiastical as well as 
 civil, under the jurisdiction of the courts of the realm, and 
 secure the punishment of crime by whomsoever com- 
 mitted, and the preservation of good order in society. 
 
vlii;.Pi‘-?vi 
 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 A CONSERVATIVE ANGLICAN VIEW OF THE 
 SACRAMENTS. 
 
 By Rev. Randall C. Hall, D.D., Hebrew Professor 
 (Emeritus) General Theological Seminary. 
 
 245 West Forty-eighth Street, New York. 
 
 May 9th, 1906. 
 
 My Dear Dr. Irvine: 
 
 You asked me to send you a brief statement of what 
 mught be considered a conservative Anglican view of the 
 Sacraments, such statement to be founded mainly on the 
 language of the Prayer Book, and capable of being writ- 
 ten down in about an hour. You would not take from 
 me a refusal, and so I felt constrained to promise to do 
 what I could in the short time at my disposal. 
 
 The statement is likely to be meagre and insufficient. 
 To understand the Prayer Book one must study it sympa- 
 thetically, with adequate helps. And this remark applies 
 most emphatically to the Thirty-nine Articles. One of the 
 most satisfactory manuals, so far as I know, having a 
 compact statement of the Anglican position on the Sacra- 
 ments is Vernon Staley's ‘^Catholic Religion," published 
 by Mobray & Co., London, England. 
 
 Of this I shall probably make free use without further 
 acknowledgment or quotation marks, changing at times 
 perhaps the phraseology to suit convenience. 
 
90 
 
 Let us start, then, with noticing a sentence near the 
 end of the Preface of the American Prayer Book: ''In 
 which it will also appear that this Church is far from 
 intending to depart from the Church of England in any 
 essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship/^ This 
 would seem to commit the American Church to all the 
 dogmatic teaching of the English Church. 
 
 Now as to the Sacraments, they may be regarded as 
 the divinely-ordered channels through which the spiritual 
 forces of the Incarnation reach us. The term Sacrament 
 is used in two senses, first in a narrow sense defined in 
 the Prayer Book, p. 270: "I mean’’ (by the word Sacra- 
 ment) "an outward and visible sign of an inward and 
 spiritual grace given unto us ; ordained by Christ Him- 
 self, as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge 
 to assure us thereof.” Of Sacraments of this kind there 
 are only two, as generally necessary to salvation : that is 
 to say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord (p. 270). 
 In the above sentence the word "generally” is explained 
 as equivalent to "universally.” These two Sacraments 
 are the instruments of inward life according to our Lord’s 
 declaration that Baptism is a new birth, and that in the 
 Eucharist we eat the Living Bread. They are sometimes 
 called "The Sacraments of the Gospel,” because they 
 have their visible sign or ceremony ordained by Christ in 
 the Gospels. 
 
 The effect of Baptism is threefold : 
 
 1. It remits all sin, original and actual. 
 
 2. It bestows sanctifying grace with the Holy Ghost, 
 (see Baptismal Office, middle of p. 247), and endows the 
 soul with heavenly virtues (p. 248). 
 
 3. It makes the recipient a member of Christ, the child 
 of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. (See 
 second answer in Catechism, p. 266.) 
 
91 
 
 THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 The Holy Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice. 
 this in remembrance of me’’ (see Canon, middle of p. 
 235) is very commonly explained as meaning, ''Offer this 
 as my memorial before God,” in accordance with the 
 Scriptural use of the Greek for "do” and "remember,” a 
 remembrance before God and not before man. 
 
 The Church of England, also the American Church, in 
 the thirty-first of the Thirty-nine Articles, condemns cer- 
 tain false ideas concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This 
 condemnation needs careful explanation, for it has formed 
 the ground of unfair charges against her teaching. 
 
 The design of the article was to meet false ideas which 
 had gained ground in the middle ages in reference to the 
 Eucharist. For instance, Masses had come to be regarded 
 as having each a value independent of the Sacrifice of our 
 Lord upon the Cross ; and a most debasing traffic in them 
 was encouraged, especially for departed souls that they 
 might be delivered from torment. (See more on this in 
 Staley, p. 268, etc., tenth edition,) The article condemns 
 "the Sacrifices of Masses,” understood in the above sense, 
 but not "the Sacrifice of the Mass.” 
 
 The reason why the Prayer Book lays less emphasis 
 on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is given by 
 Staley on page 272. 
 
 The Eucharist is the worship of Almighty God by the 
 oblation of Christ with all the members of His Body, the 
 Church, in union with Him. After the consecration of 
 the elements the Body and Blood of Christ are objectively 
 present, i. e., present independently of the faith of man. 
 
 That this is the teaching of the Prayer Book is shown 
 by the definition of Sacrament on page 270 of the Prayer 
 Book combined with the statement on page 271 that in 
 the Lord’s Supper the inward part or thing signified is the 
 
92 
 
 Body and Blood of Christ. This is confirmed in Article 
 XXV., where the two Sacraments of the Gospel are called 
 ^^effectual signs of grace’' (efficacia signa gratiae) in 
 opposition to those who called them mere signs. 
 
 Where the Body and Blood of Christ are the whole 
 Christ must be present, and is therefore to be worshipped. 
 Christ is not to be divided. (See Article II., p. 557.) 
 
 In the Eucharist Christ is not appropriated without 
 Faith. (See Article XXVIII.) 
 
 The latter part of this article was designed to meet 
 certain abuses of reservation, etc. It does not wholly 
 condemn reservation, etc. Reservation for the absent was 
 provided for in the Prayer Book of 1549. 
 
 It is true that Reservation was dropped when this book 
 was superseded in 1552. But the Act of Uniformity then 
 passed styles that book ‘'a very godly order, agreeable to 
 the Word of God and the primitive Church,” etc. More- 
 over, that omission does not necessarily mean prohibition 
 is capable of easy proof. 
 
 Accordingly Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament is 
 being restored throughout the Anglican communion. 
 
 OTHER SACRAMENTS. 
 
 The term Sacrament is used also in a wider sense, both 
 in the Prayer Book and in the Second Book of Homilies, 
 though not defined in the Prayer Book. 
 
 Article XXV. speaks of five others ‘‘commonly called 
 Sacraments.” 
 
 This designation of them does not imply any disparage- 
 ment of them any more than “The Nativity of Our Lord” 
 is slighted by being “commonly called Christmas Day” 
 (p. 58). Unfortunately the wording of this article is 
 liable to convey to a Catholic a wrong idea of the teach- 
 ings of our Church about these other Sacraments. 
 
93 
 
 It seems to refer to at least some of them as corrupted 
 by mediaeval accretions. 
 
 CONFIRMATION. 
 
 Confirmation is the laying on of the Bishop’s hands 
 upon those who have been baptized in order that they 
 may be strengthened by the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The seven gifts of the Holy Ghost thus imparted to 
 those who rightly approach are named on page 275. 
 
 PENANCE, SOMETIMES CALLED THE SACRAMENT OF 
 ABSOLUTION. 
 
 The Prayer Book speaks of the power of Absolution 
 in Morning Prayer (p. 5), in Evening Prayer (p. 20) 
 (note that in each case here a priest is demanded by the 
 rubric), but in the Communion Service what is con- 
 sidered by some as the more emphatic form of Absolution 
 is required. 
 
 Private confession and absolution are provided for in 
 the English Prayer Book in the Order for the Visitation 
 of the Sick. Though not in the American Prayer Book 
 in that office they are freely used on the principle that 
 omission does not necessarily mean prohibition. More- 
 over, the principle is freely admitted in the office of the 
 American Book for the Visitation of Prisoners, where, 
 moreover. Satisfaction is provided for. (See rubric foot 
 of p. 316 and p. 317.) 
 
 HOLY ORDER. 
 
 The Sacrament of Holy Order gives, through the be- 
 stowal of the Holy Ghost, power and authority to exer- 
 cise the work of the ministry in the Church of God. It is 
 bestowed by Christ Himself through Bishops only. The 
 
94 
 
 whole structure of the Prayer Book assumes that the 
 authorized minister, whether Bishop, Priest or Deacon, 
 is the organ of Christ Himself. (See Office for Private 
 Baptism of Children, p. 254, 3d line, ‘hhat He [Christ] 
 hath embraced him with the arms of his mercy.'') What 
 belongs to the office of a Deacon is expressed on page 512. 
 
 What belongs to the office of a Priest does not seem 
 to be so explicitly stated in the Ordinal, but is to be gath- 
 ered from an examination for the different offices of the 
 Prayer Book from which we learn that in addition to 
 what the Deacon can do the Priest can forgive and retain 
 sins (p. 522), celebrate the Holy Communion (see rubrics 
 of that office beginning with p. 228), and bless. 
 
 It is true that the word ‘"minister" used throughout 
 the Marriage Service in the American Prayer Book seems 
 to allow the Deacon to pronounce the blessing at the end. 
 The Deacon would violate no rubric, it is true, but no 
 Catholic-minded person would regard it as a Priestly 
 Blessing when pronounced by the Deacon. Moreover, the 
 Bishop when ordaining gives the Deacon no commission 
 to solemnize Marriage. (Note the omission of this on 
 p- 512.) 
 
 The State regards Marriage as a civil contract and 
 makes all ministers of the Gospel, whether Priests or 
 not, its authorized agents in performing the Marriage 
 Ceremony. This fact combined with the scarcity of 
 Priests in the early days of the American Church and the 
 consequent resort to the services of laymen, may possibly 
 account for the adoption of the word minister through- 
 out the office in the American Prayer Book, thus con- 
 ceivably allowing the office to be used in emergencies by a 
 layman commissioned by the proper authorities. This is 
 a mere surmise of mine which the present haste does not 
 allow me to verify, and I give it with much hesitation. 
 
 In addition to what the Priest can do the Bishop can 
 
95 
 
 exercise higher rule, administer discipline, confirm, ordain, 
 depose, also consecrate a church or chapel. 
 
 HOLY MATRIMONY. 
 
 Holy Matrimony is the Sacrament which hallows the 
 union of man and woman, and bestows upon them the 
 grace to live together in godliness and love. The office 
 in the Prayer Book, combined with what has been already 
 said, implies that God performs this service, and that 
 His minister for this ought to be a Priest. The service, 
 moreover, implies that divorce is against His law. This 
 last remark does not apply, of course, to the annulment of 
 a marriage which ought to be pronounced void ab initio. 
 The history of the Prayer Book implies that only persons 
 baptized and confirmed ought to be united in marriage by 
 the Church. 
 
 UNCTION. 
 
 Anointing of the sick was provided for in the Prayer 
 Book of 1549. It did not appear in subsequent revisions, 
 and fell almost entirely out of use and has been called 
 the lost pleiad of the Anglican firmament. 
 
 There is a growing conviction that the loss has been 
 most deplorable. Accordingly it is being gradually re- 
 stored throughout the Anglican communion on the prin- 
 ciple that omission does not necessarily mean prohibition. 
 
 SACRAMENTS NOT TO BE REPEATED. 
 
 Of the above Sacraments three. Baptism, Confirmation 
 and Holy Order, are not to be repeated. 
 
 As regards Baptism this point is incidentally touched 
 on in a rubric (p. 252), but as to the remaining two 
 Sacraments it is not noticed, I think, in the Prayer Book. 
 It was no doubt assumed as resting on both principle and 
 
96 
 
 tradition. (See Article XXXIV. Of the traditions of 
 the Church.) 
 
 Now that you, my dear Dr. Irvine, my friend and for- 
 mer pupil, are within the Holy Eastern Church, I trust 
 that you will do all in your power for the unity of 
 Christendom. 
 
 Each communion ought to urge its members to join 
 in the intercession for this object, and to search out and 
 correct its own faults, remembering our Lord’s dying 
 Prayer : “That they all may be one.” 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 Randall C. Hall. 
 
 Note. — The paging of the Book of Common Prayer, referred 
 to by the Rev. Dr. Hall, is that of the latest revision. — I. N. W. I. 
 
APPENDIX III. 
 
 ON JURISDICTION. 
 
 By the Rev. Wm. J. Seabury, D.D., Professor of Ecclesi- 
 astical Polity and Law in General 
 Theological Seminary. 
 
 8 Chelsea Square, New York. 
 
 May 28, 1906. 
 
 Dear Dr. Irvine : 
 
 Your friendly note of May 17th, with its kindly refer- 
 ence to associations of former days, which I also recall 
 with pleasure, was duly received ; and I endeavor in com- 
 pliance with your request to give such explanation as I 
 can in regard to the two points as to which you invite my 
 expression. These are : 
 
 I. The right of the Anglican Church to jurisdiction in 
 England and in the United States, as opposed to the 
 Roman claims to such jurisdiction; and, 
 
 II. The existing obligation of the several parts of the 
 actually divided Church, Eastern, Roman and Anglican, 
 to conform strictly to the Canons of the undivided Church 
 in respect of jurisdiction. 
 
 Individual views are, of course, not authoritative, but 
 I agree with you that the candid and thoughtful ex- 
 pression of them may sometimes, even in humble 
 instances, be of use in the promotion of general under- 
 standing of difficult questions. 
 
98 
 
 I can hardly address myself to this endeavor without 
 some reference at the outset to principles which seem to 
 be fundamental in their relation to the practical points 
 which you propose, and the understanding of which 
 seems to be conducive to the solution of difficulties in- 
 volved in their determination. 
 
 In the fulfilment of His redemptive work, and in the 
 discharge of the duties of His mediatorial office, the Holy 
 Scriptures show us that our Lord founded the Church 
 as a visible Society, composed of those who professed 
 their faith in Him, and were united in that profession 
 by outward observance of Sacraments instituted by Him, 
 under a Ministry of which He was the Head, and to the 
 exercise of which in a subordinate capacity He admitted 
 others. He chose in particular certain men whom He 
 called Apostles, and having kept them with Him in train- 
 ing during the time of His earthly Ministry, teaching 
 them the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, He 
 devolved upon them the duty of extending and perpetuat- 
 ing that Kingdom on earth after His departure, com- 
 manding them to disciple and baptize all nations, assuring 
 them of His continued presence and co-operation with 
 them in that work even unto the end of the world, and 
 promising them in their discharge of it the guidance and 
 aid of the Holy Spirit. It was the understanding of these 
 Apostles that the trust thus reposed in them, extending 
 beyond their personal lives and even unto the end of the 
 world, belonged to them officially — to their office rather 
 than merely to their persons ; and therefore in view of 
 their own departure they made provision, as our Lord 
 Himself had done, for the perpetuation of that Ministry 
 which He had given them. And as it was a part of His 
 commission that He sent them as He Himself had been 
 sent, that is with power to send others also, they pro- 
 ceeded to admit some into their own office, and to con- 
 
 / 
 
99 
 
 stitute two orders subordinate to their own ; which ex- 
 ample being subsequently and continuously followed by 
 the incumbents of the Apostolic Office, has given to the 
 Church Bishops, as by a later usage they have been called, 
 and the subordinate Orders of the Presbyterate and the 
 Diaconate, the Bishops being, as incumbents of the Apos- 
 tolic Office of Christ’s constitution, the possessors of 
 the ordinary official authority of the Apostles, as dis- 
 tinguished from the extraordinary powers which were 
 personal to them. 
 
 If, however, the Bishops have the authority which the 
 Apostles had, they are obviously subject in the exercise of 
 that authority to such limitations as attached to the 
 Apostles themselves in the discharge of it. Otherwise the 
 Apostles must have conferred more than they possessed, 
 which would be absurd. Looking, then, to see what, if 
 any, were the limitations attaching to the Apostles in the 
 exercise of their authority, it is manifest that certain 
 limitations were involved in the very commission which 
 they had received — as that in the discharge of it they were 
 ministers of God’s will and not of their own arbitrary pur- 
 poses; that they were empowered to act in spiritual as 
 distinguished from civil matters ; and that a certain sub- 
 ordination was due from the individual, not to other indi- 
 viduals, but to the body or college as a whole ; since the 
 gift to each of an undivided equal share in the whole 
 Apostolate or Episcopate limits the individual authority 
 by the like authority of all others sharing the same gift. 
 And beside these limitations involved in the original com- 
 mission there appear others which the Apostles acting 
 under the guidance of the Holy Spirit imposed upon 
 themselves; such as the adoption of the principle of the 
 distribution of their joint work into certain spheres or 
 fields within which it should be severally carried on. The 
 Apostles had from our Lord, as part of the authority con- 
 
lOO 
 
 ferred upon them, a common or universal mission into all 
 the world ; but in the fulfilment of this mission they went 
 not all together, nor did they act each one without regard 
 to the other; but they separated and adopted limits for 
 their ministry. Generally the field of individual work was 
 denoted by place, though in one notable instance the 
 mission seems to have been directed toward different 
 classes of people, irrespective of their dwelling place ; the 
 Gospel of the Circumcision having been committed to St. 
 Peter, and that of the Uncircumcision to St. Paul. We 
 do not, indeed, find in the Scriptural account that the 
 Apostles were so limited that they were resident, as 
 Bishops subsequently were, except in the case of St. 
 James at Jerusalem ; but it is too evident to be denied that 
 the principle of apportionment or allotment of work 
 among the several persons equally authorized to perform 
 it, which in time, and indeed almost at once, made resi- 
 dence in his See the characteristic of the Bishop, was 
 acted on by the Apostles themselves in their settlement of 
 the system upon which the work of the Ministry of Christ 
 should be accomplished. 
 
 Deducible by necessary inference from this example of 
 Apostolic action, as well as from the essential relation be- 
 tween authority and limitation upon authority, is the dis- 
 tinction between power and right out of which grows the 
 idea of jurisdiction. If power be absolute, or without 
 limit, there are no conceivable circumstances in which it 
 may not act. If there be a limitation upon power, then 
 the power, though existing, may not act contrary to that 
 limitation. It is in this connection that we apprehend the 
 distinction between what, in the language of the Church, 
 we call Order and Jurisdiction; Order being the power 
 to do the acts commanded by Christ to be done — ^the 
 power, speaking in the general, conferred by Grace to 
 impart Grace ; Jurisdiction being the right to exercise that 
 
lOI 
 
 power. His power of Order, including the general or 
 universal mission involved in the original institution of it, 
 the Bishop has by his admission to the Episcopate: but 
 there are many instances in which his right to exercise 
 that power may be in abeyance, or entirely v/ithdrawn. If 
 a Bishop be lawfully suspended by competent authority 
 from the exercise of his office, it is not his power which is 
 impaired or lost, but his right to exercise that power. So 
 in general the laws which a Bishop is under obligation in 
 his spiritual character to obey, may deprive him of the 
 right to exercise his still existing power. His order is un- 
 impaired: his jurisdiction is affected. 
 
 The laws of the Church determining the field or sphere 
 within which individual Bishops are to exercise the power 
 of their order, determine as we say their jurisdiction, or 
 their right to exercise their power of order in such a field 
 or sphere. From the beginning of the history of the 
 Church until now this principle has been recognized; 
 and though the application of the principle has sometimes 
 been difficult, and difficulty has sometimes produced con- 
 fusion, yet the principle never has been, and it would seem 
 never can be, abandoned. 
 
 It is most noticeable, though not in the least surprising 
 or unnatural, that in the application of this principle the 
 early Church made the jurisdiction of its Bishops a terri- 
 torial jurisdiction, and ordinarily defined it in correspond- 
 ence with existing civil divisions. The Apostles them- 
 selves in the preaching of the Gospel, and in the planting 
 of Churches, were wont to seize upon the salient points in 
 civil jurisdictions as affording presumably the best centres 
 from which their influence could radiate ; and as the city 
 was the unit of the Roman civil system, the distinguishing 
 title of the Churches was apt to be that of the Church in 
 such a city ; and, as time went on, that of the Church in 
 provinces or countries included in the Empire. And the 
 
102 
 
 recognition of such territories as the jurisdiction of the 
 Bishops overseeing them was an exclusive recognition, 
 ignoring or denying the right of any other Bishops within 
 them than those to whom they lawfully pertained. That 
 this application of the principle of the distinction between 
 order and jurisdiction was universally characteristic of 
 the discipline of the undivided Church, it is presumed no 
 one will dispute. There are several of the Canons of 
 General Councils which might be cited, but it may suffice 
 to use as an example of settled policy the second Canon 
 of the Council of Constantinople, as translated in Dr. 
 Fulton’s Index Canonum : ‘The Bishops of a Diocese are 
 not to invade Churches lying outside of their bounds, nor 
 bring confusion to the Churches ; but let the Bishop of 
 Alexandria, according to the Canons, alone administer 
 the affairs of Egypt ; and let the Bishop of the East man- 
 age the East only, saving the privileges of the Church in 
 Antioch, which are mentioned in the Canons of Nicea; 
 and let the Bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the 
 Asian affairs only; and the Pontic Bishops only Pontic 
 matters ; and the Thracian Bishops only Thracian affairs. 
 And let not Bishops go beyond their diocese for ordina- 
 tion or any other ecclesiastical administration, unless they 
 be invited. And the aforesaid Canon concerning dioceses 
 being observed, it is evident that the Synod of every 
 province will administer the affairs of that particular 
 province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of 
 God in heathen nations must be governed according to the 
 custom which has prevailed among their forefathers.” 
 
 It is to be understood of course that the term diocese 
 was then used to denote a larger field than the See of a 
 single Bishop, but this consideration does not affect the 
 evidence afforded as to the principle of exclusive and ter- 
 ritorial jurisdiction. 
 
 The example of the early Church in this respect has 
 
103 
 
 been generally followed in subsequent history, and in 
 England as well as other countries the distinction between 
 order and jurisdiction, and the association of the latter 
 with territorial civil limits has prevailed ; and it is worth 
 while to notice in passing, though not to discuss, the 
 bearing which the civil power has had upon the designa- 
 tion of jurisdictions, and the maintenance of Bishops in 
 them, to the great complication of the whole subject. 
 
 In the same way, as particularly affecting the Papal 
 jurisdiction in England — imposed and asserted, and to 
 some extent though never wholly by Church or State con- 
 curred in — should be noted the claim of the Pope to be the 
 source and fountain of all jurisdiction as distinguished 
 from order; a claim based upon a narrow and arbitrary 
 conception of the power of order as consisting in its 
 fulness of the power to make the Corpus Christi Verum; 
 whereby the Priesthood became the summit of order ; and 
 the Bishops, receiving no added power of order by their 
 Consecration, were admitted merely to the right of ruling 
 in the Corpus Christi Mysticum, a right which as received 
 only from the Pope might also at his pleasure be revoked 
 by him — all of which, as it was conceived and worked to 
 the end of the exaltation of the Papal tyranny, so also in 
 the irony of history furnished a plausible pretext for the 
 development of the later Presbyterian claim. 
 
 It is not, I think, too much to say that the main question 
 between England and Rome has always been as to juris- 
 diction. I do not mean that there have not been innumer- 
 able differences in regard to doctrines, but that jurisdic- 
 tion has been none the less the chief consideration ; since 
 doctrines could be ruled upon by authority, but the acqui- 
 escence in such rulings depended always upon the pre- 
 vious question of the right to exercise that authority. The 
 whole formal process of the English Reformation was in 
 repudiation of an assumed jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
 
104 
 
 Rome, and was based upon the general denial given in 
 answer to the question whether the Bishop of Rome hath 
 any greater jurisdiction conferred upon him in Holy 
 Scripture, in this realm of England, than any other for- 
 eign Bishop? And the Divine sanction to such jurisdic- 
 tion having been denied, the question has been as to the 
 lawful or canonical right to the possession of those Sees 
 wherein jurisdiction was to be exercised. There have not, 
 indeed, been wanting attacks upon the fact and validity of 
 the Anglican succession of order ; yet those in many cases 
 have been largely complicated with doctrinal questions, 
 and in general have belonged not to the earlier period of 
 the controversies, but have been rather in the nature of 
 an afterthought succeeding to the very thorough sifting 
 of the matter of jurisdiction. 
 
 The general ground upon which the English Church 
 has stood is that its Bishops have the exclusive right to 
 jurisdiction in the Sees in which they have been lawfully 
 and canonically settled. The attacks upon this position, 
 based on various pleas, cannot here be particularly set 
 forth. They have always been fairly and fully met ; and 
 in fact the continuance of this actual jurisdiction is wit- 
 nessed to not only by ordinary historical testimony, but 
 also by the abandonment on the part of Rome of 'formal 
 claim to the particular Sees wherein such jurisdiction is 
 exercised. Since the uncanonical intrusion of the Marian 
 Bishops into Sees which were actually and canonically 
 filled ; the subsequent deprivation of those Bishops ; the 
 dying out of their line of succession, and the establish- 
 ment in their places of Bishops deriving their order from 
 pre-reformation sources, the Roman claims have not been 
 set up for the possession of the established Sees of the 
 Church of England. The adherents of the Pope some 
 time after the accession of Elizabeth withdrew from the 
 communion of the English Church and set up separate 
 
105 
 
 and opposing altars ; but they neither had nor claimed as 
 such separate association the possession of any of the 
 Sees of the Church of England, nor had they Bishops of 
 their own wherewith to fill them. They were under the 
 oversight of foreign mission priests who ministered to 
 them as in the communion of the Church of Rome ; and 
 even when, later, steps began to be taken by the Papal 
 authorities for the settlement of a Roman Episcopate in 
 England, the Bishops constituted were entitled of no 
 English See, but were adorned only with new, and some- 
 times outlandish titles. So that upon the principles of 
 the Catholic Canons they were clearly intruders into Sees 
 already full, and carried on therein a work purely schis- 
 matical in its nature. 
 
 This state of things existing in England, it would seem 
 to be a fair inference that the same state of things ex- 
 isted in the American Colonies, which were an extension 
 of England into America, and the Church in which was 
 still the Church of England, and under the jurisdiction 
 of the English Episcopate, and specifically of the Bishop 
 of London. When those Colonies became independent 
 States and established a civil union among themselves, 
 what had been the Church of England in the Colonies re- 
 mained, though necessarily without that name, the same 
 Church in the States ; and acquiring the Episcopate from 
 Bishops who either traced to or were actually of the 
 English line, it followed the precedent of ancient and 
 general usage in making the spiritual jurisdiction of its 
 Episcopate coterminous with the civil jurisdictions 
 within which the Bishops were settled. Hence the estab- 
 lishment within the United States of an Episcopal juris- 
 diction which extended so far as the United States civil 
 authority extended. 
 
 It is significant of the force of a traditional and common 
 policy dating from even Apostolic times, that the Church 
 
io6 
 
 in this country should thus pointedly have adapted its 
 jurisdictional administration to existing civil institutions. 
 What the city was to the Roman Empire, that the State 
 was to the general government then in the early stages of 
 its formation in America : it was the political unit of the 
 civil system. And as in the earliest times the cities were 
 the Sees, so in the distinct organization of the American 
 Church the Sees were the States of the civil union ; and 
 while particular Episcopal jurisdiction was settled respec- 
 tively in them (systematically and with purpose, as soon 
 as the exigencies of the situation permitted), the Episco- 
 pal jurisdiction of the Church as a whole, consisting of 
 the combination of its several parts into a common union, 
 extended throughout the civil union in which by the provi- 
 dence of God its lot had been cast. So that upon the 
 principles of the Catholic Canons, and following the 
 precedents of the traditional association of jurisdiction 
 with territory, that Church established its jurisdiction 
 within the territory of that civil union, as it then stood, or 
 should thereafter be established ; purposing to grow with 
 its growth, and extend with its extension. 
 
 Certainly this then was and since ever has been the 
 claim of that Church which after the war of the Amer- 
 ican Revolution organized itself under the name of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America. And if it be said that the claim establishes 
 nothing, since anyone may claim anything, then I ask 
 upon what other basis than that of a claim with con- 
 current occupation any ecclesiastical territorial jurisdic- 
 tion in the world has ever been founded? If it be an- 
 swered that the basis was the authority of the Church, 
 then it is obvious to remark that this only shifts the ques- 
 tion to that of the right to make the claim ; though it leads 
 us to the more appropriate question as to the priority of 
 that claim. The field being the world, and the mission 
 
107 
 
 extending through the field, the ministry of Apostolic suc- 
 cession is empowered to occupy that field; and the object 
 of the Catholic Canons was not to deny or hinder such 
 occupation, but to recognize it where it existed, and pro- 
 vide against its being disturbed or intruded upon. But if 
 it be denied that the claim here referred to was a prior 
 claim, it will be pertinent to enquire what claim was 
 before it? Certainly no claim to a jurisdiction in ecclesi- 
 astical matters coterminous with the civil jurisdiction in 
 the United States was made in the territory covered by 
 those States before the establishment of the ecclesiastical 
 union, nor so far as I am aware has it ever since b.een 
 made. Claims adverse to us are only in part on jurisdic- 
 tional grounds, involving a denial of our possession of 
 order and of that general mission which belongs to it. In 
 so far as they depend upon the question of priority of 
 claim and occupation and are properly jurisdictional they 
 concern the case of the Church in the State of Maryland, 
 and in those territories which were later acquired by the 
 United States in what is known as the Louisiana 
 Purchase. 
 
 With regard to Maryland it is a fact that Dr. Carroll, 
 the Roman titular Bishop of Baltimore, received his Con- 
 secration in 1790; the Anglo-American Bishop Claggett 
 being consecrated Bishop of Maryland, in which State 
 Baltimore is, in 1792. If the State of Maryland had 
 stood alone, the priority of Episcopal jurisdiction in it 
 might be said to belong to the Roman Bishop, though his 
 title is not significant of a claim to territorial jurisdiction 
 in the State as such. But in fact Maryland did not stand 
 alone either civilly or ecclesiastically, being in both kinds 
 engaged with other States and Churches in a common 
 union whereby they became members one of another ; the 
 Churches being united under the care of a lawful Episco- 
 pate able to provide, and then in process of providing. 
 
io8 
 
 a Bishop for each of them, and for Maryland of course 
 among the rest. The settlement of Bishop Carroll in 
 Maryland was therefore as much a setting up of altar 
 against altar as it would have been had Claggett actually 
 been first consecrated; for his claim to Episcopal juris- 
 diction was made in a place which was within a recog- 
 nized diocesan jurisdiction, part and parcel of a system 
 of diocesan jurisdictions — the Church in Maryland being 
 equally with the Church in other States of the Union 
 represented as such in the ecclesiastical union, each State 
 being regarded as the field of a distinct Episcopal juris- 
 diction, and associated with the others in a common 
 Episcopal oversight. 
 
 It is true that there were many members of the Roman 
 communion in Maryland who dissented from the Anglican 
 claim to jurisdiction in this country, as their predecessors 
 had dissented in England. It is true also that this and 
 other kinds of dissenters existed in other parts of the 
 United States, and that the liberty of conscience which 
 they exercised in such dissent was an inherent and inalien- 
 able right of nature. It is true furthermore that ecclesi- 
 astical jurisdiction rests upon the willing consent of those 
 upon whom it is imposed; for spiritual authority, unlike 
 civil authority, depends not upon force or compulsion, but 
 upon the constraint of a conscious moral obligation. 
 But it also remains true, nevertheless, that those members 
 of the Church who are unwilling to accept the jurisdiction 
 of their Bishops, and who demonstrate that unwillingness 
 by their voluntary association apart from that jurisdiction 
 with or without the supervision of other Bishops, are in 
 a state of schism or division from that Church which con- 
 tinues under its regular Episcopal supervision. Such 
 was the condition of those who had separated themselves 
 from the Church of England in their adherence to the 
 Papacy, and such continued to be the condition of their 
 
109 
 
 successors in the same adherence in the English Colonies 
 and the States into which they developed. And a system 
 of Episcopal oversight having been lawfully and in fact 
 established throughout the civil union of those States be- 
 fore the introduction of the Roman hierarchy derived 
 from Carroll, the introduction of that hierarchy was in 
 itself schismatical upon the principles of the Catholic 
 Canons, even supposing it to have been in other respects 
 duly and orderly established in accordance with those 
 Canons — which would be somewhat difficult of proof. 
 
 Assuming what I have never known to be disputed, 
 that the entire Roman hierarchy in the United States is 
 derived through this uncanonical and schismatical con- 
 secration of Carroll, the fact would go far tov/ard settling 
 the regularity, on Catholic principles, of the jurisdiction 
 of the Anglo-American Episcopate in those parts of the 
 United States which before their connection with the 
 Union were settled by members of the Roman com- 
 munion. For as between a formal and general claim to 
 jurisdiction throughout the civil union established in con- 
 formity with all settled principles of Catholic Canon law, 
 and a later intrusion on the part of those who have no 
 other justification for their want of Canonical regularity 
 than the authority of a foreign Bishop, there ought not 
 to be much difficulty in deciding. If the American claim 
 to the jurisdiction of its Bishops stands anywhere in the 
 United States, it stands everywhere in that Union. 
 
 But those who feel that priority of occupation in fact 
 belonged to the Roman communion in those States which 
 were originally settled by members of that communion, 
 may do well to remember that such members were not the 
 only inhabitants of that territory; and further, that evi- 
 dence seems to be wanting of their being under any resi- 
 dent Episcopate, or of any steps having been taken to 
 provide such Episcopate prior to the time of Carroll. 
 
no 
 
 I speak as to this under correction, but I do not know and 
 do not believe that there was any settled Episcopal juris- 
 diction anywhere on the American continent prior to the 
 Scotch and English consecrations of Bishops for this 
 country in 1784 and 1787. Missions of course there were, 
 and possibly Bishops, but I am apt to think that if any 
 Bishops there were, they were without the characteristic 
 of a settled Episcopal jurisdiction, much less of one that 
 included the territory under consideration. I do not say 
 this contentiously, but because it seems to me to have an 
 important bearing upon the question of intrusion; and 
 also because if I am in error in this respect I shall be 
 glad to learn it. 
 
 But it should not be forgotten in this connection that 
 apart from all question of priority of occupation as affect- 
 ing regularity of jurisdiction, there exists the standing 
 objection to Roman claims that they are based upon a 
 mission which confuses Catholic faith with impositions of 
 Papal decrees, making the acceptance of both of equal 
 necessity. The Bishops of the Church of Christ are to be 
 the successors of the Apostles not only in order but also 
 in faith. And if those who have received a valid suc- 
 cession of order have succeeded to a corrupt faith, and 
 require of those who would be saved the same acceptance 
 of questionable and new doctrines as of the undoubted 
 Catholic verities, there is no mission of Christ that can 
 sustain such requirements; and the jurisdiction which is 
 claimed anywhere upon such a state of facts is at best a 
 defective jurisdiction, and good only in so far as it is 
 conformable to the really Catholic mission. 
 
 The bearing of this objection in cases where priority of 
 occupation is disputed is obvious ; and in such like self 
 defence it has always been used against Roman intrusions 
 in the Anglican communion. In these later days, too, it 
 has been used as the ground for carrying the war, so to 
 
Ill 
 
 speak, even into the enemy's country, and in territories 
 undoubtedly Roman by prior Episcopal occupation grant- 
 ing to those who have sought relief from the tyrannies 
 and misgovernments and extortions of the existing juris- 
 dictions the opportunity of preserving their faith in Christ 
 in connection with the Sacramental life of the Church; 
 an opportunity which, in the straits into which they had 
 fallen, they could no longer have without such help. It is 
 an extraordinary and exceptional course, claimed to be 
 justified by extraordinary and exceptional needs; in the 
 letter contrary to the Canons of jurisdiction, and de- 
 fensible only as in conformity to the law of the general 
 concern of the Episcopate for all the members of the 
 flock of Christ; a law which is bound up in the mission 
 on which jurisdiction is founded, and which when applied 
 in properly exceptional cases, supersedes jurisdiction in 
 its limited and territorial sense. The consideration of 
 this course, however, does not enter into the argument 
 here, except as in anticipation of a charge of inconsist- 
 ency; which charge even if it were true would prove 
 nothing against the otherwise consistent claim of juris- 
 diction within the national territory. 
 
 This claim, and the general right of the Anglican 
 Church to jurisdiction in England and in the United 
 States, I have now, in reference to your first point, set 
 forth with such care and candor as was within my power. 
 The position of the Anglican Church which I have thus 
 endeavored to describe is, in my judgment, entirely con- 
 formable to the Catholic Canons ; and is one which, if 
 we lived under the conditions in which those Canons 
 were produced would be recognized by the authority 
 from which they proceeded. It is a plain fact, however, 
 that the rectitude of this position is not recognized by 
 others who make the same claim to derivation from that 
 authority which we ourselves make. But supposing, for 
 
112 
 
 the sake of argument, that it were recognized by these, 
 would they be entirely precluded from the exercise of 
 any manner of jurisdiction within that territory which is 
 covered by our claims? Apparently they would be so 
 precluded under those Canons upon which our position 
 is based ; and the obvious consequences of that situation, 
 and the natural and charitable desire for the amelioration 
 of these consequences, lead one to ponder seriously upon 
 the question whether these Canons can now justly be 
 regarded as having the same binding and exclusive force 
 as they had in their origin ; which is the subject presented 
 by your second point. 
 
 Into the general question of the obligation of acts of 
 General Councils upon the Church of later and present 
 times it is not needful to enter, further than to point out 
 the distinction which exists between such as give testi- 
 mony to the unalterable faith of the Church, and such 
 as relate to discipline ; the former being of universal and 
 continuous obligation; and the obligation of the latter 
 being dependent on the continuance of the conditions 
 which produced them and which they were designed to 
 meet. The rulings in regard to the distinction and main- 
 tenance of territorial jurisdiction being of this latter char- 
 acter, it is to be considered that there was in them a force 
 proper to the position of the Church in which they were 
 enacted, which could not continue in the Church occupy- 
 ing an entirely different position. These Canons having 
 reference to the relation of different parts of the one 
 undivided Church must continue of obligation while the 
 Church continued in that condition of unity. But no law 
 is stronger than the sanction on which it depends. The 
 unity of the Church was in itself the highest and most 
 potent sanction which could be had for the laws regulat- 
 ing the relation of its parts to each other. But in the 
 loss of that unity the sanction for those laws is with- 
 
drawn. Each part of the Church retains those laws 
 indeed as part of its inheritance, and in so far as relates 
 to its own integrity it applies those laws to its several por- 
 tions with such sanction as belongs to its own entirety. A 
 breach of these laws then in that distinct part of the 
 Church means an exclusion from the unity which such 
 part maintains within itself. But when it is sought to 
 apply those laws to the course pursued by another part 
 of the Church, claiming and applying within itself the 
 same inheritance, the sanction obviously no longer exists. 
 A disregard of those laws as against another distinct part 
 of the Church may imply exclusion from unity with such 
 part ; but exclusion from unity has already taken place on 
 other grounds, and thus is no longer a penalty for that 
 offense. 
 
 As a matter of fact there are three main divisions of 
 the Church, each of which claims to have inherited by di- 
 rect and unbroken succession the faith and order of the 
 original undivided Church, including the principles de- 
 termined in the age of unity as essential to their preserva- 
 tion. Whatever may be the rights of others, the Eastern, 
 the Roman and the Anglican may fairly be regarded as 
 of chief importance in this connection. In each of them 
 the principles derived from the Catholic Canons affecting 
 jurisdiction in its territorial and exclusive character, are 
 applied within its own communion ; and asserted and main- 
 tained against the others with that result of uncompromis- 
 ing, yet absolutely inefficient and inconclusive hostility 
 which might be expected, and which, by the application 
 of those Canons in the state of division, can never in this 
 world be pacified. 
 
 In all this long continued, exasperating and intermin- 
 able hostility, it seems not to have been considered, or at 
 least not sufficiently considered, that the application of 
 principles affecting jurisdiction which was made by the 
 
Councils of the undivided Church, might be perfectly 
 right and wise in the times and circumstances in which 
 it was made, but might be neither altogether right nor 
 wise in other times and circumstances, when the sanction 
 of the common authority has been withdrawn. Given that 
 sanction, and given the fact that it operated under the 
 auspices of the unified civil system of the Roman Empire 
 throughout which it extended, it was both natural and 
 proper that the exclusive character of jurisdiction should 
 find its field within territorial limits. But venerable as 
 this policy was — even at the time of its conciliary enun- 
 ciation — it was not the only policy possessed of Apostolic 
 approval. There was at least one instance, as we have 
 seen, in which jurisdiction was exercised over classes of 
 persons irrespective of dwelling place ; and this instance, 
 due to a remarkable tenacity of national and racial cus- 
 toms and prejudices, is certainly not without great sig- 
 nificance in these later days, and particularly in a country 
 like this, which has been thrown open to all the world, 
 and wherein liberty of conscience in the service and 
 worship of God, and in the choice of religious associa- 
 tions is universal. And that significance is that in this 
 age and country the Churches which by their succession 
 of order have inherited the primitive principles of juris- 
 diction, should recognize in each other the liberty to 
 apply these principles each for itself over those persons 
 who have been in the providence of God committed to 
 them. This is said not with a view to the suggestion of 
 formal recognition, but with a view to the promotion of 
 that spirit of charity which would be more effectual than 
 any formal acts, though in time it might lead to them. 
 With such a liberty each might do its own work, and leave 
 others to do their own work ; each standing or falling to 
 its own Master, and each refraining from condemnation 
 of others’ methods except in the way of warning to its 
 
own people. In such a state of mutual recognition of 
 the right of each over its own, the natural tendency would 
 be to the softening of the asperity of such assertion of 
 right to place as might be necessary, and to a mutual 
 toleration which would open a fair field for that appeal 
 to reason and the moral sense which only can lead to the 
 willing acceptance of truth. 
 
 If this should seem visionary I would only beg that it 
 may be considered that it is but a description of what we 
 are already to some extent in fact doing, though grudg- 
 ingly and, as it were, of necessity, and perhaps with a 
 scruple of conscience that we are departing from Catholic 
 practice. The point is that we all have departed from 
 Catholic practice in respect of ceasing to be in that state 
 of unity which alone gave ground for the rule in regard 
 to exclusive right to territorial jurisdiction. Where the 
 Church was at one there was to be but one Church in a 
 place, and he who intruded against the Bishop of that 
 place intruded upon the unity of the Church. But unity 
 being not an existing fact, and several representatives of 
 the original Church claiming each for itself the original 
 unity, the reason of the rule no longer exists except in 
 each one for its own use, and is powerless to vivify it as 
 against others. It would seem, then, that each should 
 so hold its own right as not to impair that which belongs 
 to another. We have followed the rule by which the 
 Canons applied the principles of jurisdiction; and in ac- 
 cordance with that rule our jurisdiction is territorial, 
 and under original conditions of, unity would include all 
 Christians within that territory. But those original con- 
 ditions having vanished, it does not follow that in holding 
 our own under that territorial rule we should disregard 
 all claim to personal jurisdiction on the part of others. We 
 do not in fact so hold, even with regard to those who 
 have what seems to us but imperfect mission on which 
 
ii6 
 
 to base their claim of jurisdiction over the persons com- 
 mitted to them. Over races which have been brought up 
 under Roman Bishops or under Eastern Bishops we rec- 
 ognize the right of those Bishops to minister in this coun- 
 try ; and by implication we recognize their right to per- 
 sonal jurisdiction over all those who of their free will 
 consort with them. The situation exists. We live and 
 daily act in it. And in so doing it seems to me that we 
 recognize that it is not so much the Canonical rules which 
 oblige us, as the principles which those rules applied 
 under circumstances quite different from ours. If the 
 principles were by Apostolic wisdom found capable of 
 application by a different rule; and if the circumstances 
 of the Apostolic application were analogous to those in 
 which we now live, it would seem that we have sufficient 
 justification for recognizing the right of others in the 
 exercise of the personal jurisdiction which has Apostolic 
 precedent, even though they come in the Providential 
 ordering within that territorial jurisdiction in respect of 
 which we have followed the Canonical rules and historic 
 precedents of the Church : for surely, as has been wittily 
 said, ‘‘Jurisdiction was made for the cure of souls; and 
 not the cure of souls for jurisdiction.” 
 
 In our present situation it is impossible but that offences 
 should come, and acts be done which seem without suf- 
 ficient warrant either in law or charity. Cases of re- 
 ordination for instance are grievous in the consciousness 
 of the Church whose orders are ignored. Yet they result 
 from the conviction of the Church which performs them 
 that it represents the unity which always reserved to 
 itself the right to ignore the validity of acts done out of 
 that unity. In such and all other grievances we have but 
 to let our minds be known with brotherly frankness, and 
 abide the wrong with that patience which in all the affairs 
 of life we have to exercise amid evils which seem incap- 
 
able of redress. Certain it is that such vexatious happen- 
 ings are less likely to be frequent in the long run where 
 the hearts of men are permeated with the charitable spirit 
 of a mutual toleration, than when each is seeking the un- 
 conditional subjugation of the other; and nothing, in my 
 judgment, would more conduce to the establishment of 
 such a state than the tempering of our adherence to the 
 literal obedience of the Canons, with an infusion of the 
 spirit of conformity to the apostolic example. 
 
 The precedent of personal jurisdiction furnished by 
 the Apostles was no doubt exceptional, and in the times 
 which succeeded there was no need to follow it, and it 
 was not generally followed. But the spirit of it has been 
 sometimes caught in history, and the significance of its 
 possible use in the healing of schisms in a country 
 wherein the ecclesiastical estate is free from all entan- 
 glement with the civil, and whose citizens have been 
 gathered out of the Churches of all nations, he would 
 be spiritually blind who could not see. And the value of 
 the precedent will surely be recognized if ever the time 
 should come when all Churches, retaining their own indi- 
 vidualities and pious opinions, can occupy the really 
 Catholic ground in respect of the essential principles of 
 faith and order, and exact nothing else as requisite to 
 their communion with each other. 
 
 Let me close this letter with the quaint account which 
 is given by Bingham in his Christian Antiquities of an 
 instance which seems to have been in the spirit of the 
 Apostolic precedent; and which, from its Oriental flavor 
 and associations, may not be unacceptable to you. 
 
 '^Yet it must be observed that as the great end and 
 design of this rule (that two Bishops should not exercise 
 their office in one city) was to prevent schism and to 
 preserve the peace and unity of the Church, so, on the 
 other hand, when it manifestly appeared that the allow- 
 
ii8 
 
 ing of two Bishops in one city, in some certain circum- 
 stances and critical junctures, was the only way to put 
 an end to some long and inveterate schism, in that case 
 there were some Catholic Bishops who were willing to 
 take a partner into their throne, and share the Episcopal 
 power and dignity between them. Thus Meletius, Bishop 
 of Antioch, made the proposal to Paulinus, his antagonist, 
 who, though he was of the same faith, yet kept up a 
 Church divided in communion from him. I shall relate 
 the proposal in the words of Theodoret. 'Meletius,’ says 
 he, 'the meekest of men, thus friendly and mildly ad- 
 dressed himself to Paulinus: "Forasmuch as the Lord 
 hath committed to me the care of these sheep, and thou 
 hast received the care of others, and all the sheep agree 
 in one common faith, let us join our flocks, my friends 
 and dispute no longer about primacy and government, 
 but let us feed the sheep in common, and bestow a com- 
 mon care upon them. And if it be the throne that creates 
 the dispute, I will try to take away this cause also. We 
 will lay the Holy Gospel upon the seat, and then each 
 of us take his place on either side of it. And if I die 
 first, you shall take the government of the flock alone ; 
 but if it be your fate to die before me, then I will feed 
 them according to my power.” 'Thus spake the Divine 
 Meletius,’ says our author, 'lovingly and meekly, but 
 Paulinus would not acquiesce nor hearken to him.’ ” 
 
 And so, with rest and peace to the Divine Meletius, and 
 with devout thanks for his good example, I bid you 
 farewell. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 WM. J. SEABURY. 
 
 The Rev. Ingram N. W. Irvine, D.D. 
 
V 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 Copied from the New York Tribune of June 2. 
 
 SUGGESTIONS LOOKING TOWARD A REUNION 
 
 By the Hon. N. N. De Lodygensky, Imperial Russian 
 Consul-General, N. Y. 
 
 To THE Editor of The Tribune: 
 
 Sir: Would you kindly allow the undersigned to ad- 
 dress, through your valuable paper, those of your readers 
 who are interested in the vital question of the reunion of 
 Christendom, and to offer for their consideration some 
 brief remarks in reference to one special side of this 
 problem, viz. : The mutual relations between two branches 
 of the Church Catholic — the Anglican (Protestant Episco- 
 pal) and the Eastern (Grseco-Russian). 
 
 Students of the inner evolution within the Anglican 
 Church are cognizant of the two tendencies pursued by 
 some parts of this communion — the one, the trend, since 
 the tractarian movement in the 30’s of the last century, 
 toward traditional Catholicism, in its threefold subdivi- 
 sions: (a) Rome (Dr. Newman), (b) pre-Henrician 
 England (Dr. Pusey), and (c) Eastern Orthodoxy (Dr. 
 Palmer and Dr. Overbeck, in England, and Dr. Irvine, in 
 the United States), and the other the trend toward indi- 
 vidualism in doctrine and interpretation, quite recently 
 demonstrated by Dr. Crapsey’s case and the rather sym- 
 
120 
 
 pathetic attitude of a portion of both the secular and the 
 religious press in his favor. 
 
 The continuance of this parallel inner process suggests 
 the following supposition : Might it not evoke in some of 
 the Anglicans the feeling that there is now an oppor- 
 tunity for some more active movement toward the estab- 
 lishment of a better understanding between themselves 
 and their Eastern brethren ? 
 
 With such an aim in view it would seem necessary to 
 begin by clearing out of the way the two most important 
 obstacles: (i) The doctrinal differences between the 
 teaching of the Anglican and that of the Eastern branches 
 of the Church Catholic; and, (2) the question of full 
 conciliar recognition by the Eastern Catholic Church of 
 Anglican orders. 
 
 Representative Anglican theologians should, therefore, 
 prepare some short statements of both subjects, showing 
 (a) what are the dogmatic alterations and augmentations 
 of the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Church, as it was 
 before the deplorable great schism between Rome and the 
 four patriarchates (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and 
 Constantinople), in the eleventh century — alterations and 
 augmentations which have been accepted by the Church 
 of England during its union with Rome, and inherited by 
 its daughter, the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the 
 United States, and (b) what are the historical irrefut- 
 able proofs of the validity of Anglican orders. 
 
 Such statements would have to be presented for their 
 formal consideration to the four patriarchs, and to the 
 heads of the eight autocephalous orthodox churches of 
 Russia, Greece, Cyprus, Servia, Rumania, Montenegro, 
 Austria and Hungaria. 
 
 This action would help to establish doctrinal identity 
 and interecclesiastical federation, with conservation of in- 
 dividual autonomy of both sides, Anglican and Eastern, 
 
I2I 
 
 and thus would bring them one step nearer toward the 
 prayed for reunion, according to Our Blessed Lord’s own 
 words: '‘That they all may be one.” (St. John xvii. 21.) 
 
 The undersigned begs to conclude by expressing his 
 hope that this proposition will be met by members of the 
 Anglican communion not as an unwelcome intrusion from 
 the side of a foreigner, but as a friendly suggestion from 
 a loving Christian brother. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 NICHOLAS N. DE LODYGENSKY. 
 
 Senior warden of St. Nicholas’ Orthodox Cathedral at 
 New York. 
 
 New York, May 30, 1906. 
 
1 
 
The Holy Orthodox Church 
 
 The Holy Orthodox Church possesses a Priesthood of unbroken suc- 
 cession from Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Her Liturgy is that 
 of St. James of Jerusalem abbreviated by SS. Basil and Chrysostom. Her 
 Ceremonial is that of the Ancient Church, though well adapted to modern 
 times. She numbers about one hundred and twenty-iive millions of Chris- 
 tians, who are under the four Ancient Patriarchates of the East and the 
 Holy Synod of Russia. In the United States besides the Russian, Syria- 
 Arabic and Servian Clergy, whose names may be found in the subjoined 
 list, there are several Greek Priests, who are under the Metropolitan of 
 Athens, but who, so far as Episcopal Ministrations are concerned, call upon 
 the Orthodox Archbishop of North America. 
 
 The Holy Orthodox Church recognizes but seven General Councils, and 
 while holding inviolately the Catholic Faith as taught down to the close 
 of the Seventh General, she is not in union with the fifth Patriarchate, 
 namely, the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 She holds out a loving hand to all who believe the Ancient Faith, 
 whether in the East or West, and practice it, and who accept the Holy 
 Scriptures as the Word of God. Her continual prayer is for the unity of 
 Christendom. 
 
 The Orthodox Diocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands 
 
 CLERGY AND CHURCHES 
 
 MOST REV. TIKHON, D.D. 
 
 Archbishop of North America and Aleutian Islands. 
 
 Right Rev. Innocent, Bishop of Alaska. 
 
 Right Rev. Raphael, Bishop of Brooklyn and Head of the Syrian Branch 
 of the Orthodox Church in America. 
 
 Very Rev. Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovich, Administrator of the 
 Servian Branch of the Orthodox Church in America. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL CONSISTORY. 
 
 15 East 97th Street, New York. 
 
 Members. — Very Rev. Archpriest Alexander A. Hotovitzky; Rev. B. 
 Turkevich, Secretary; Rev. P. Popoff, Treasurer; Mr. N. Greevsky, 
 Superintendent of the Depository. 
 
 RURAL DEANS. 
 
 Very Rev. John Kochuroff, Rural Dean of Russian Churches in Eastern 
 States of America; Rev. Theo. Pashkovsky, Rural Dean of Russian 
 Churches in Western States; Rev. M. Skibinsky, Dean of Churches 
 in Canada. 
 
 1. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 15 East 97th St., New York City. — Very Rev. 
 A. Hotovitzky, Dean; Rev. E. Zotikoff, Rev. I. N. W. Irvine, D.D., Rev, 
 ^annicky Kiyko, Rev. A. Kalneff (Deacon), Canons; N. T. Greevsky, 
 Precentor: I. Lachno, Reader. 
 
 The Hours for Service: Sundays, Divine Liturgy, 10 a. m. ; 
 
 Vespers in English, 7.30 p. m. ^ Saturdays — All-night Vigil 7.30 
 p. m. The hours for other services are announced on Sundays. 
 
 2. South River, N. J. — Under charge of the Cathedral Clergy. 
 
124 
 
 3. Passaic (Garfield), N. J. — Three Saints; Rev. P. Popoff. 
 
 4. Bridgeport, Conn. — Holy Spirit’s Church, 890 Hallet St. ; Rev. E. 
 Klopotovsky; J. Gribenichenko, Reader. 
 
 5. Ansonia, Conn. — Three Saints.. 6 Lester St.; Rev. Theo. Buketoff, 
 Rector; Constantine Buketoff, Reader. 
 
 6. New Britain, Conn. — SS. Cyril and Methodius, 280 Washington St.; 
 Rev. Ptolomey Timchenkoff, Rector. 
 
 7. Yonkers, N. Y. — Holy Trinity, 326 Ashburton Ave. ; Rev. B. Turke- 
 vich, Rector; G. Cherepnin, Reader. 
 
 '8. West Troy (Watervliet), N. Y. — St. Basil the Great; Rev. J. 
 Grigorieff; Stephen Fritz, Reader. 
 
 9. ^ Philadelphia, Pa. — St. Andrews, 701 North Fifth St.; Rev. Con- 
 stantine Seletzky. 
 
 10. Catasauqua, Pa. — Holy Trinity; Rev. Alex. Nemolovsky, Rector; T. 
 Moroz, Reader. 
 
 11. Reading, Pa. — St. Basil the Great, S. Tarasar, Reader. 
 
 12. McAdoo, Pa. — St. Mary’s. 
 
 13. Sheppton, Pa. — St. John the Baptist; Rev. V; Roubinsky. 
 
 14. St. Clair, Pa. 
 
 15. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. — Resurrection, Main St.; Very Rev. Archpriest 
 A. G. Toth; M. Perhach, Reader. 
 
 16. Old Forge, Pa. — St. Michael; Rev. L. Vladyshevsky, Rector; J. 
 Soroka, Reader. 
 
 17. Scranton, Pa. — SS. Peter and Paul. 
 
 18. Mayfield, Pa. — St. John the Baptist; Rev. Arseny Chahovtzoff; P. 
 Zaichenko, Reader. 
 
 19. Bakie, Pa. — St. Mary’s Chapel. (See Mayfield, Pa.) 
 
 20. Simpson, Pa. — St. Basil the Great; Rev. A. Boguslavsky; N. Le- 
 vitzky, Reader. 
 
 21. Olyphant, Pa. — St. Nicholas; Rev. A. Boguslavsky; J. Kolesnikoff, 
 Reader. 
 
 22. South Canaan, Pa. — St Tikhon Monastery and Orphans’ Home; 
 Rev. Tikhon Rostovsky, Rev. Ipaty. 
 
 23. Buffalo, N. Y. — SS. Peter and Paul; Rev. A. Veniaminoff. 
 
 24. Pittsburg, Pa. — St. Michael; Rev. P. Kohanik, Rector; Rev. B. 
 Bolfun, Deacon. 
 
 25. Allegheny City, Pa. — Rev. W. Alexandroff, Rector; N. Gress, 
 Reader. 
 
 26. Charleroi, Pa. — St. John the Baptist; Rev. J. Sechin^ky; J. Lomakin, 
 Reader. 
 
 27. Cleveland, Ohio. — St. Theodosius; Rev. J. Kappanadze, Rector; 
 V. Oranovsky, Reader; V. Vasilieff, Professor of the Missionary School. 
 
 28. Marblehead, Ohio. — St. Mary’s; Rev. Anthony Doroschuk, Rector. 
 
 29. Kelley Island. — SS. Peter and Paul. (See Marblehead.) 
 
 30. Phillipsburg, Pa. — St John the Baptist; Rev. Basil Martysh; M. 
 Moroz, Reader. 
 
 31. Osceola Mills, Pa. — St Mary’s. (Phillipsburg, Pa.) 
 
 32. Patton, Pa. — SS. Peter and Paul; Rev. Joannicky Kraskoff. 
 
125 
 
 33- Chicago, 111. — Holy Trinity; Rev. J. Kochuroff, Rector; J. Kedrov- 
 sky, Deacon. 
 
 34. Streator, 111. — Three Saints; Rev. M. Potochny. 
 
 35. Madison, 111. — St. Mary’s. (See Streator.) 
 
 36. Minneapolis, Minn. — Rev. C. Popoff; V. Benzin, A. Kukulevsky, 
 Professors of the Seminary. 
 
 37. North Prairi^ Minn. — (See Minneapolis.) 
 
 38. Wisconsin, Minn. — St. Michael (See Minneapolis.) 
 
 39. Denver, Colo. — Transfiguration; Rev. Gr. Shutak. 
 
 40. Pueblo, Colo. — St. Michael; Rev. W. Kalneff. 
 
 41. Calhan, (^olo. — St. Mary’s; attached to Pueblo, Colo. 
 
 42. Hartshorne, Ind. Ter. — SS. Cyril and Methodius; Rev. Gregorius 
 Varlashkin. 
 
 43. Galveston, Tex. — SS. Constantin and Helene; Very Rev. Archiman- 
 drite Theoclytos Triandafilidis. 
 
 44. San Francisco, Cal. — Holy Trinity; Rev. Theo. Pashkovsky, Rector; 
 Rev. N. Metropolsky; G. Popoff, Reader. 
 
 45. Seattle, Wash. — St. Spiridonius; Rev. M. Andready; J. Tikhomiroff, 
 Reader. 
 
 46. Wilkeson, Wash. — Holy Trinity; attached to Seattle. 
 
 47. Portland, Wash. — Attached to Seattle. 
 
 CANADA. 
 
 48. Wostok, Alberta. — Rev. S. 'V'arhol. 
 
 49. Bukovina, Alberta. — ;:3t. Nicholas. 
 
 50. Kiselevo, Alberta. — Holy Virgin; Rev. Alexander Antonieff. 
 
 51. Withford, Alberta. — St. Michael. 
 
 52. Shandro, Alberta. — S. Mary’s. 
 
 53. Beaver Lake, Alberta. — St. James. 
 
 54. Beaver Creek, Alberta. — St. Mary’s. 
 
 55. Edmonton, Alberta. — St. Barbara. 
 
 56. Rabbit Hill, Alberta — Ascension. 
 
 57. Conor, Assiniboia. — St. Mary’s. 
 
 58. Crooked Lake. — Transfiguration. 
 
 59. Inscinger. — St. Mary’s. 
 
 60. Salt Coatl, Assiniboia. — St. Elias the Prophet. 
 
 61. Salt Coats, Assiniboia — SS. Peter and Paul. 
 
 62. Stuartborn, Manitoba. — St. Demetrius of Solun. 
 
 63. Stuartburn, Manitoba. — St. Michael. 
 
 64. Winnipeg, Manitoba. — Rev. M. Skibinsky, Rector. 
 
 (There are several more priests coming to Canada.) 
 
126 
 
 SYRO-ARABIAN MISSION. 
 
 65. Brooklyn, N. Y. — St. Nicholas Cathedral; Rt. Rev. Bishop Raphael; 
 Rev. J. Solomonidis; Rev. E. Uphaish. 
 
 66. Worcester, Mass. — St. George; J. Hussan. 
 
 67. Lawrence, Mass. — Very Rev. Archimandrite Meletius. 
 
 68. Boston, Mass. — Rev. George Maaluf. 
 
 69. Wilkes-Barre, Pa. — Rev. M. Khurree. 
 
 70. Kearney, Neb. — Rev. N. Yannie. 
 
 71. Montreal, Canada. — Rev. George Makfuss. 
 
 .SERVIAN MISSION. 
 
 72. Chicago, 111 . — Resurrection, Very Rev. Archimandrite Sebastian; 
 Damian Hierodeacon. 
 
 \ 
 
 73. McKeesport, Pa. — St. Savva; Rev. Hieromonk Nestor. 
 
 74. Wilmerding, Pa. — St. Nicholas; Rev. Philipp Sredanovich. 
 
 75. Steelton, Pa. — St. Nicholas. 
 
 76. Jackson, Cal. — St. Savva; Hieromonk Nikhifor. 
 
 77. Pittsburg, Pa. — Rev. S. Voevodich. 
 
 ALASKA. 
 
 7*8. Sitka. — St. Michael’s Cathedral; Rt. Rev. Bishop Innocent; Rev. A. 
 Kashevaroff; Seraphim Samuilovich, Hieromonk; Antony Wasileff, Hiero- 
 deacon; L. P. Kashevaroff, Teacher; E. T. Schajahnuk, Native Teacher 
 and Interpreter. 
 
 79. Sitka. — Annunciation; clergy the same. 
 
 80. Juneau. — St. Nicholas; Rev. E. Alexin; W. Deykar, Reader. 
 
 81. Douglas Island. — St. Javva; clergy as above. 
 
 82. Killisnoo. — St. Andrew; Rev. I. Soboleff; Ch. Sokoloff, Reader. 
 
 83. Nutchek. — Transfiguration: Hieromonk Methodius; 
 
 Reader. 
 
 (Four chapels attached). 
 
 A. 
 
 Bolshakoff, 
 
 84. Kenay. — St. Mary’s; Rev. I. Bortnovsky; N. Thomin, Reader. 
 (Seven chapels attached). 
 
 85. Bielkovsk. — Resurrection; Rev. A. Kedrovsky; L. Lestenkoff, Reader. 
 (Seven chapels attached). 
 
 86. Kodiak. — Resurrection; Rev. N. Kashevaroff; P. Shadura, Deacon; 
 Miss L. Alexandroff, Teacher. 
 
 (Seven chapels attached). 
 
 87. Afognak. — St. Mary’s; Rev. A. Petelin; T. Sherotin, Reader. 
 
 (Eight chapels attached). 
 
 88. Unalaska. — Ascension; Rev. Alex. Kedrovsky; Rev. N. Rysseff; 
 L. Sivzoff, Reader; P. Chubaroff, Teacher 
 
 (Eight chapels attached). 
 
127 
 
 89. St. George’s Island. — St. George; Rev. P. Kashevaroff; Merkurieff, 
 Reader. 
 
 90. St. Paul. — St. Paul; Rev. I. Orloff; Kochergin, Reader. One chapel. 
 
 91. St. Michael. — St. Mary’s; Rev. P. Orloff; P. Matrosoff, Reader. One 
 Chapel. 
 
 92. Ikohmut. — Holy Cross; Rev. Hieromonk Amphylochius ; N. Belkoff, 
 Reader. 
 
 (Three chapels attached). 
 
 93. Pavlovskoe. — St. Sergius; Rev. N. Amnan; M. Berezkin, Reader. 
 (Two chapels attached). 
 
 94. Nushahak. — SS. Peter and Paul; Rev. W. Kashevaroft; J. Kozloff^ 
 Reader. 
 
 (Twenty-one chapels attached). 
 
 Total in Alaska: 17 churches and 69 chapels. 
 
 Church-schools in Alaska, 42. Pupils, 790. Orphanages, 5. Orphans, 79. 
 Communicants, 10,376; viz.: Russians, 64; Slavonians, 501; Halfbreeds, 
 2,166; Indians, 2,026; Aleuts, 1,906; Eskimos, 3,618; others 95.