New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-02
ENGLISH SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.
Whence Augustine and His Successors Re
ceived Authority.

To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir My absence a long distance from New
York has prevented until my seeing in your
issue of a week ago the reply OF a. p Lopez
To my letter in reference TO the Anglican
episcopate. Ny total lack OF books here 10 which
TO refer must also be my excuse for any lack OF
precision and dehEiteness in this reply.
Mr. Lopez begins by desiring TO set my mind at
rest Let him. however that this is
tirely unnecessary: my mind has for now over
year. been entirely at rest this subject-ever
since my reception into the Catholic Church-and I
do not think my previous letter betrayed any men
tai restlessness In the matter.
He then attempts to reply my Statements as
10 where Augustine came from and by whose au-
thority he came and, in order to do this enters
into dissertation to the early British Church
Permit me 10 say that this has nothing whatever
Of ex-F,pscopalian's statements in regard TO Au-
gustine, does not even touch the question MT
Lopez must suppose me To he "A ver1tahle tyro IN
ecclesiastical history thinks l unaware of
the existence OF Christianity Britain before Au
gustine's landing. but surely does not identify
This early British Church with the Ecclesia AnGh-
As he himself states. these BRUSH bishops
refused have anything to do with converting the
about,
the British church: it to the source whence
Augustine and his successors in the Archbis,hopre
The letter to which mine was reply laid stress
Rome or by the Pope but by a Gallo bishop.
Virqilius OF Aries The Inference meant to be
nothing from Rome in regard to his ecclesiastical
mower jurisdiction. | showed, however, IN my
letter that this Inference is entirely contrary 10
fact. the conservation OF Augustine by Nirsliius
having been performed, BeGc states. by express
command of Pope Gregory. who thereafter by let
defined the extent of Augustines jurisdiction
in Britain and invested him with the outward sign
of that Jurisdiction by comforting the pallium upon
him The first Archbishop of Canterbury there
fore exercised his jurisdiction In virtue or Papa
Claiming any other source for his Jurisdiction until
I'm the sixteenth century, England had been Nlo-
lently torn from the unity of the Church That
was he uont wished to make letter. ana,
have said, MI upSi !l''S simply not touCHe" IL
As 10 he proceedings in the sixteenth century.
this question has been frequently and so thor
oughIv thra shed by writer's both sides that II
is highly improbable that either Mr.. Lopez my
self can bring to light much that is new on the
matter or change any ones opinion In regard 10
IT / would point out, however that the state
meuts no makes were they all incOntToVertible
matters of fact which Is by means the case do
not at all affect the grounds on which tn" late
Pope pronounced the invalidity of Anglican orders
Again. when he states even eX- Episcopalian pins
his obiections to the Nays Head Fable he asserts
what is certainly not the fact | made no refer
ence whatever that story In my letter. nor did
ANYTHING said therein have the slightest Connec-
sion that the Mays Head Fable has been the main
objection of Catholic ContrOV erSialistS against
Anglican orders. This, however Is not the case.
Some Catholic writer's have maze use OF the story,
Lopez however. is we'll acquainted with certain
class of Anglican controversy, such as, for IN
stance a certain notorious work of the late Or.
Iittledale entitled plain Reasons Against Joining
works with saw those of DR. Gore, he cannot but
be aware that arguments have been used and
means employed by the former class which repu-
table Angcans would blush to own That does
not hinder Catholic from recognizing that there
serious and reputable works OF Anglican con-
troversy and giving them the consideration they