The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1896-03-13

sc ..+
pr For nearly three weeks lively con-
trOversy has been watched with interest
by our people between Revs. Osborne
MIngle, pastor of All Saints Episcopal
M,Churchi and John H. O'Rourke, rector
of the Novitiate, of this city, on the
question of the foundation of the
Church of England. The matter be-
gun on Saturday, February 22nd, and
the following articles are up to date.
q On Thursday, the 5th lust, Rev.
iiMr. Inge replied to the last commune
fcation of Rev. Fir. O'Rourke, which APP
peared in last weeks CITIZEN, as fol-
lows:
PROOF OF THE CONTINUITY OF THE
o CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Tdnt0ene a,einais CdeleSti6us iroe? ,
l am afraid DR.. O'Rourke thinks
me SO miserable a quibbler'' that no
question [ may ask is worthy of an an
aswer. For some reason, he fails to
bmake any response to my question,
p''even if she, (the Church of England
1.had been brought into that condition
.of absolute submission to Rome that
Spain and Italy, would she have lost
her claim to be a true Catholic Church
slby simply rejecting papal supremacy"
I'll also asked in vain, "What proof is
llthere of this essential and all compre-
Intending dogma of Papal Supremacy?"
1.-THE gentleman, however, feels called
,on to lecture me severely about several
improprieties of which he thinks me
Igullty.
l. H. - 10 hi
idea of the relation of the present
Church of England to that before the
Reformation, by the effect of the Am
ierican Revolution on the status of the
Colonies. 1t made new nation, as he
says, "because the principle of author
ity had been changed" He might
have added, because the whole system
of government had been changed. And
all this was indicated by the change of
name. But does this correspond with
what took place in England when she
established royal instead of papal
supremacy" continuing the admins
tration OF the church unaltered in other
respects and keeping her old name?
When James IL was driven from
the throne Of England and William
and Mary assumed the government,
was there any break in the continuity
of the English nation? illustration,
4 however, is not proof. Yet, if the Rec
tor will bear with me, / will offer one
that | really think is truer than his.
If train starts from San Francisco for
New York and changes its conductor
on the way, does it cease to be the
same train? If it changed all the crew
and many OF the passengers, would it
not be the SAME tram? So the Church
of England started far back in the
ages is a true and apostolic church.
AS it came on down through the CEN
turles that train, SO to speak, was
boarded by the Pope. ST. Augustine
put him on board, but l do not believe
he meant him to have any irresp0n-
sible command of it. But he soon as
+ sumed absolute authority. He was
II resisted and often set at defiance.
But he managed to keep on board until
Henry the VIII at last succeeded in
taking his place from him. Henry
ran the train on into Reformation
times. 1t was the same train-the
same Church-all the way along.
The Rector asks ME this question:
"Does the Church of England mean
the same organization in the Magma
Charta which it means noWadays?n /
answer, it does. Henry made no change
in anything that was essential to the
continuity of the Church he found
upon his accession. Henry founded
no new Church.
1 will answer another of the Doctors
questions as frankly as / am capable of
doing. 1t is true that Henry as King,
before the divorce, protested himself a
son of the Pope, (also that the Pope
highly commended him and called him
"Defender of the Faith" They seem
TO have been an affectionate and con-
fiding father and sony aud that Henry
applied to him as all ecclesiastical SUI
periQr TO free him from his marriage
bonds. 1t is true that the Church of
England, before the refusal of the di-
vorce, was united with the Church of
Rome, acknowledging the Bishop of
Rome as the chief pastor of the faithful.
Fl It is true that then the Church of Eng
land meant the Church of England sub
iect to the spiritual authority of the
Bishop of Rome, aud accepting the
teachings and sacraments of the R0-
man Church. On the other hand, it is
also true, that since the refusal of the
divorce the Church of England means
a church separated from Rome, deny
ing papal authority aud refusing to ac-
cept the authority of ROme's Bishop.
All this is true, yet l affirm that the
Church of England existed before
Henry's escapade.
I'M And now let me say to the learned
Rector of the Novitiate right earnestly,
Let US nave no qulbbllng." He has
most obviously from the first, avoided
saying why, from his standpoint, the
old church ceased to exist when the
papacy was rejected. There is but one
real reason to be given. His church
declares the doctrine of tie Pope's su-
premacy over all the churches an arti-
Gle of the Christian faith and essential
to salvation. OF course, if this is true,
no true church can exist that denies
it.
But how reasonable then, that men
shall ask for the authority. for the SUI
preme doctrine of the Roman Church!
And how utterly unreasonable that the
Rector of the Novitiate should pass
over what l have written on that sub
ject, with the remark, everything else
\ in his letter is entirely Irrelevant and
n would only lead to endless and fruit
less controversy" invite the learned
Rector to refute my assertion in nv
last letter, 1.-The New Testament ia
not only silent as to this doctrine de-
clared to be essential to salvation, but
its whole testimony is against it.
-