represent the American branch of the Holy Catholic Church. We should therefore clearly proclaim the fact to the world by calling ourselves "The American Catholic Church."

Now it must be fully confessed that if this is the official teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church with regard to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church, the conclusion derived from it is inevitable, and the legitimacy of calling ourselves The American Catholic Church cannot be denied: but-it must also be as fully confessed again, that if this is not the official teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church with regard to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church, but on the contrary is absolutely incompatible with that teaching, then the conclusion derived from it is false, and the adoption of the title American Catholic involves nothing more or less than a fundamental change in the doctrinal position of the Church. It so happens that the above conception of the nature and limits of the Catholic Church is not that which has received the official Sanction of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but is absolutely inconsistent therewith, hence any attempt to adopt the name, The American Catholic Church, means, in plain English, an attempt to change a fundamental principle. We now propose to prove the truth of this assertion, by submitting evidence as to what the official teaching of this Church really is, as to the nature and limits of the Catholic Church.

Official View of the Church

We purpose to show first, that the Church of England, and secondly, that the Protestant Episcopal, have from the very beginning consistently maintained but one attitude on the subject of the nature and limits of the Catholic Church; that instead of limiting it to the sphere of the Episcopal Churches, they have officially declared it to cover the entire body of baptized persons, and even professing Christians, throughout the world, and have further recognized some of the non-Episcopal Churches by name as legitimate branches thereof. Before presenting the direct evidence upon this point (which is abundant), we desire to pave the way by calling attention to a certain matter which although bearing only indirectly on the subject, nevertheless affords evidence which is conclusive. It is the official teaching of the Church of England, as well as of the Protestant Episcopal Church that Baptism is that rite by which we are incorporated into the Body of Christ, which body is the Catholic Church.

"The Church, which is His Body." (Ephes. i., 22, 23.) This fact is so generally admitted that it seems unnecessary to cite evidence for the confirmation of it, but for form's sake we refer the reader to the following: "Baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ (i.e. of His Body-the Church) the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." (Catechism.) "Grant to this child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may

be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a living member of the Same." (Pub. Baptism of Infants-English Pr. Book.) And immediately upon the consummation of the act of Baptism, the officiating Clergyman says: "We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock. "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." "We yield Thee hearty thanks, most Merciful Father that it has pleased Thee to .. incorporate him into Thy Holy Church, etc." (Pub. Bap. Infants-English Pr. Book.) (Practically the same expressions occur also in the corresponding offices of our own Prayer Book. From these and numberless other declarations set forth by authority, it is easily deduced that this is the teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church-viz.;-that every person who has been duly baptized has been made therein and thereby, a member of Christ's Body or Church. Hence the limits of the Holy Catholic Church are co-extensive with the company of all baptized persons throughout the world.1 This much then is demonstrable. An objection is easily urged by the question, what constitutes valid

1 We are fully aware that a very ingenious argument has been recently brought forward to offset this difficulty, viz:-that which contends that though as individuals, Protestants are members of the Catholic Church, their organizations have no right whatever to be considered as legitimate parts or branches of the same. This objection will be fully dealt with later on, though its irrelevance should be obvious.

Baptism? We will admit, say our opponents, that this Church as well as the mother Church of England, has officially affirmed that all validly baptized persons are members of the Church Catholic, but it does not necessarily follow from this that these so-called Baptisms are real Baptisms. If Baptism is a Sacrament, and if every Sacrament depends for its validity upon its administration at the hands of an Episcopally ordained Clergyman, it follows inevitably that there are no valid baptisms administered in nonEpiscopal Churches so-called. Therefore, the Protestant bodies are no parts of the Catholic Church. Now we present this objection merely because it is the legitimate argument following upon the assumption that the Episcopate is essential to the validity of the Sacraments generally. As an actual fact, however, "Catholics" knowing only too well that the Church has unqualifiedly recognized the validity of Baptism administered in non-episcopal bodies, and even of Lay Baptism, do not (because they cannot), take this line of defence but with strange inconsistency admit that Lay Baptism is valid (hence that individual Protestants are all members of the Church) while simultaneously continuing to make the assertion that the Episcopate is essential to the validity of the Sacraments generally, and to the very being of the Church. Note well the inconsist ency! When speaking generally, they sweepingly assert that Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the "Sacraments" (plural), hence essential to the validity of both the Holy Communion and Baptism.

When confronted, however, with the Church's official recognition of Lay Baptism, and their own admission that even individual Protestants are members of the Church Catholic (by virtue of their valid Baptism therein) they elastically adjust themselves to the new position so necessitated, as if the point were of no consequence whatever. (Whereas the tacit admission is actual surrender.) They quite as tenaciously hold on to what is left of the assertion, viz: that Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the Holy Communion, any way. From the fact that Baptism, and not the Holy Communion, is the Sacrament of admission to membership in the Church Catholic, and thus the only one that affects the question before us one way or another, what is left of the proposition is wholly irrelevant, even if it were true. As an actual matter of fact, it is not even true. If Episcopacy is essential to the validity of the one Sacrament, it is essential to the other also-AND IF NOT -WHY NOT? LET US HAVE THE ANSWER.

Not to anticipate matters which will be exhaustively discussed in the following chapters, and in order to pave the way to a better understanding of what is to follow, we will now proceed to substantiate our initial proposition regarding the Church's attitude toward the matter of Lay and Protestant Baptism. That both the Church of England, and our own Communion, have officially recognized the validity of Lay Baptism, and in actual practice have regularly admitted the Baptism of Protestant Ministers, generally, as valid, is so well known that it