things be but one true Church; it would be an absurd contradiction to assert that our Lord established more than one body. And then how easily it was proved from Scripture and reason! There is 'one body and one Spirit,' &c. 'Be ye perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment,' &c. 'Mark those who cause schisms among you and avoid them,' &c. I illustrated the absurdity of schismatics calling themselves the true Church by the case of the Masonic Fraternity, who constitute a compact body throughout the world, but who would not be likely to recognize a schism from their body, however respectable it might be, and however much of the spirit and teaching and ceremonial of the order it might retain. The schism might spread into all countries and in some places it might almost supersede the regular order, the mass of the people might be more acquainted with the schism than with the parent body. Their prejudices against the parent body might be so strong and they might be so accustomed to the assertion that it was corrupt and unworthy of confidence and that the schismatical body was the only true representative, the only real Masonic Fraternity, that they would have no doubt of its genuineness. Yet it would be schismatical still. The old original Fraternity of Masons would not recognize the separatists, and they never

could have a legitimate title to be called Masons without abandoning their schism and connecting themselves formally with the original body."

The only fair inference from this reasoning, in one occupying Mr. Richards' position, was that the Episcopal Church was the original and only Catholic Church. This, however, he did not venture to assert. He did what others at the time did and are still doing, he avoided the difficulty and slurred it over with some general remarks as to the misery and sin of schism and the duty and desirability of unity among all who call themselves Christians. Mr. Richards' account of the mental process by which he and his fellow seekers after Catholic truth in the Protestant Episcopal haystack reconciled themselves to their anomalous position is not uninteresting. "The Via Media theory, in its day, was very popular. Truth, they said, lay in a middle way between Romanism on the one hand and Sectarianism on the other. Indeed, I know of nothing in the whole history of literature more wonderful than the pertinacity with which the very able leaders of the Oxford Movement both in England and this country adhered to their illogical position, and the extraordinary ingenuity displayed in trying to reconcile themselves to that position. The Thirty Nine Articles were the greatest difficulty. They,

if anything, must be taken as the true exponent of the (English) Reformation, that great movement by which the Anglican branch of the Church Catholic was severed from the Head and Centre of Unity. Strange to say, these men now advocated every doctrine that the Articles denounced. Tract Number Ninety, written by Dr. Newman, took the ground that the Articles were not a confession of faith, but articles of peace, drawn up for the special purpose of compromise between contending parties, and hence worded in an ambiguous way which admitted of an interpretation wide enough to embrace all parties. A striking illustration of this feature of the Articles is furnished by the twentieth of the series, on the Authority of the Church: "The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's written word, neither may it so explain one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, though the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.' Here you see the first declaration is quite Catholic: 'The Church hath authority in controversies of faith.' . . . But then it goes

on: 'It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written,' &c. Here the question naturally suggests itself, who is to decide whether what the Church ordains is contrary to God's word written. There must be an authority somewhere, a final court of appeal. If the Church is that court, then why say the court must not decide, &c.? If the Church is not that final authority, then it becomes a very grave question who or what is. This question the article notoriously leaves entirely in the dark. It is vague, uncertain, ambiguous. So of the twenty-second Article, 'Of Purgatory,' which says: "The Romish doctrine of Purgatory Pardons, worshiping and adoration as well of images as of relics and also of invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.' Now how could Dr. Newman and his advanced confrères reconcile their advocacy of the doctrine of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, &c., with what seems to be the plain declaration of the Article? Nothing easier! It is the Romish doctrine against which the Article is aimed, not the true doctrine. Possibly the Article may err in charging the Romish Church with teaching error in regard to these doctrines. That is not our lookout. It is however generally admitted that superstition was encour

aged by the Church of Rome. That is what the Article is aimed at. We can still hold consistently to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, &c.

"I mention these as specimens of the reasonings of learned and able men to justify themselves in holding Catholic doctrine while remaining in a professedly Protestant church. Of course, one of the first discoveries that these men made was that the true Church was properly and necessarily Catholic, that the Anglican establishment had made a great mistake in professing to be Protestant. They hastened to repair that evil by insisting that they were the true Catholics, that the Romanists were not the true Catholics and should not be permitted to monopolize the name. I learned at a pretty early period of my ministry to repeat this language and tried heartily to adopt the theory. I rang the changes on the theme. It was a favorite idea. There was a charm, a sort of fascination in boldly assuming that high vantage ground, in spite of the apparent inconsistency involved in it. Rather an amusing incident occurred, illustrating the absurdity of maintaining a false position. I had been preaching in Trinity Church for 'Brother' Tyng, who was absent from town. After the close of service, as I was passing out through the vestibule of the church, two or three Irishmen, evidently