"Do we not owe our Christianity to Rome? Was it not due to the missionary spirit of the great Gregory that this land was rescued from the heathenism into which it had sunk, and in which but for God's providence and the Church of Rome it might have remained for ages?"

"And not only is our Christianity derived from Rome, but those marked and indelible features which characterize the Western Church are stamped upon the Church of England. In union with Rome we proclaim and teach the double procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son in opposition to the Eastern Church. The dates of our festivals and the institution of many, of them are of Roman origin. The structure and a great part of the substance of our liturgy are derived from Roman or Gallican sources. Our ritual is Roman; it is certainly not Eastern." One might interject here, it is neither. "We are, in short, bound to Rome by an intimate and inviolable bond which neither Pope nor Protestant can sever." To which one might retort: the Pope never wished to sever it but the Protestants have done so most effectually. At least every one thought they did.

He goes on to persuade her Ladyship and incidentally the rest of us that the Prayer-book shows that the English Church has the Real Presence, the Mass, Confession, Extreme Unction, prayers for the dead and several other Romish things besides; all of which for a few centuries were indeed not recognized or at least not clearly perceived, owing to the cloud which Puritanism had spread over the English mind but which were truly there all the while. He even takes the papistical view that the authority of the Church is superior to that of Holy Scriptures which, as he rightly says, were collated by the Church and the interpretation of them belongs to her. He objects to transubstantiation, however, as that is the view of the Capharnaites who protested against such a carnal view of the Blessed Sacrament. With these early Protestants he appears somewhat in sympathy.

It is not hard to penetrate the armor of a knight so poorly panoplied.

Among "the marked and indelible features which characterize the Western Church" and which are not "stamped on the Church of England" are, first, this doctrine of transubstantiation. We might refer him to the Fourth Lateran or Twelfth General Council, which of course he will not admit, but which was

sufficiently representative of the Western Church," as there were in it 71 Archbishops, 412 Bishops, over 800 Abbots and Priors, Grand Crosses and other high officers of the great military Orders, Superiors General of the Religious Orders, Ambassadors of Kings and Emperors. St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi were there, and there also was Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury. To add to its universality, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople and their suffragans were there either in person or by deputies.

Why should that not sufficiently represent the Western Church? Yet it was this Council which declared for the term "transubstantiation" which Gibbon considered a papal triumph over common sense. In this opinion of Gibbon, Mr. Jackson seems to concur, and with him the Ritualistic Branch. That is surely one "marked and indelible feature characterizing the Western Church" which is not stamped on the Church of England.

Secondly, Papal Supremacy, not merely of honor, but of jurisdiction, is a marked and indelible feature of the Western Church not stamped on the English Church. It received that doctrine from Rome, but threw it away.

Thirdly, a characteristic mark of the Western Church is that its priests do not administer doubtful sacraments. It is not sufficient to find a record of several sacraments in the Prayer-book to conclude that the sacerdotal power abides in the Church whose Prayer-book even old John Knox had a hand in making. The authority of the Church which is admitted to be above the Scriptures ought surely to be above the Prayer-book, and it should be remembered that just when "the great Gregory was lifting England out of heathenism Phocas was coming on the scene, and his refusal to recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the Eastern schism and the perpetuation of that doctrine about the procession of the Holy Ghost which Ritualists object to. In the soul of the defenders of Ritualism there seems to be, unconsciously of course, the old Protestant admiration of private judgment as against the authority of the Universal Church. Their pockets protrude with it as did those of the old naval heroes with Bibles and books of military. tactics.

THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS' APPEAL.

The appeal of the Brothers of the Christian Schools for aid to erect their new buildings at Pocantico before removing their Amawalk Training School, should meet with a generous response not only in New York City, but in every part of the country where their labors have put priests and people under obligations to them. No body of men has shown so much devotion to the cause of religious education, as these worthy sons of St. John de la Salle, who toil incessantly without the slightest relaxation or comfort, having for their only consolation, and an abundant one it should be, the successful careers of their former pupils, their steadfastness to the Church and loyalty to their former masters. Because they choose to lead obscure lives and cut themselves off from the ordinary sources of revenue or benefaction, in order to give their undivided attention to the class-room, we should not let their appeal go unheeded, but rather aid them generously in their new enterprise, and cheer them on by enabling them to continue their labors without the burden of a serious debt, the more so that, like all self-sacrificing men they are distinguished by their gratitude, and by their readiness to reward our material assistance by admitting us to at share in their own spiritual advantages. We rarely recommend an appeal like this in the MESSENGER, but we are confident our readers will show their approval of this recommendation by contributing of their means to the worthy Christian Brothers of New York.

FAIR DEALING WITH THE INDIAN.

For old-fashioned ways of influencing legislation, we refer our readers to the Outlook for January 21. The readers of that dogmatic organ are invited to write letters to Mr. (sic) James S. Sherman, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to encourage him to prevent the application of the Indian tribal funds to the purposes for which the Indians wish to use them. The same Hon. Mr. Sherman needs no letter to encourage him in a task in which the interests of Catholic Indians are involved. For years back he has defended them in season and out of season, and one can fancy him smiling at the simplicity of the editor and readers of the Outlook who think that he would deprive the helpless Indian of the rightful use of his own money. Nor does he need the misstatements of the Outlook to supply him with arguments. These moneys are not an appropriation of Congress, as the Outlook designates them, but the tribal funds which

belong to the Indians themselves. It is wrong to say that the proposition to discontinue the government appropriations for the contract schools emanated from the churches themselves: on the contrary, the Church, which was chiefly concerned, and which had built extensive schools in good faith, counting on the good faith of the government, protested, and still protests against this discontinuance as an injustice. It is altogether misleading to say that the application of the tribal funds, the Indians' own money, to the support of their churches and schools, is an appropriation of government moneys for denominational purposes. Again, why confound this question with that of the Indian rations; or, if Attorney General Knox gave an untenable decision about the latter, why seek to apply it to the distribution of the Indians' own tribal funds? Why talk of the settled policy of the government as against giving money for denominational uses, when the government in reality is simply following its settled policy to make the Indians their own masters, and masters consequently of what rightfully belongs to them? It is very easy to talk of the "catechetical " instruction given in the Catholic or Lutheran Indian schools, as if no other instruction were given to the Indian pupils. The editor of the Outlook knows better. As for holding that it is a fundamental principle of American life not to appropriate money for church schools, the principle has been observed more commonly, and more wisely, in the breach than in the observance. Among the fundamental principles of American life which apply in a special way in this question, truth and fair dealing are paramount. The moneys in question are not an appropriation by Congress, but the Indians' own tribal funds. The Indians have a right to apply them to their own needs, spiritual and temporal. Petitions to the contrary, even when signed by individual Indians, prove nothing, since they are inspired by ministers opposed to the interests of Catholic Indians. Let the Indian have the full benefit of his own money. To say or counsel action otherwise is to abandon the fundamental principles, which the Indian, true to his American origin, values more highly than do his would-be despoilers.

THE CHRONICLE.

HOME NEWS.

Arbitration Treaties.-Three months ago all the foreign powers signatory to the Hague Convention, were sounded as to the opportuneness of calling a second Peace Conference for the purpose of adjusting some important questions left open by the first convention, and with the hope of ultimately establishing an International Tribunal to convene periodically or whenever disputes arise between the nations. Favorable responses were received from all, and furthermore, since that time, the State Department has negotiated arbitration treaties with England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, and Mexico. The proposition of our government was well received, probably because "the practical spirit of Americans gave assurance that the second conference would be more serious and effective than the first." The tendency to arbitrate disputes was seen in the action of the British and Russian governments anent the North Sea affair, a solution of the difficulty said to be a direct result of the AngloFrench convention of 1904, since, by one of its articles, the parties agree to offer their mutual services for preserving the peace of the world. Baron d'Estournelles was chiefly instrumental in bringing about this treaty, and he too was the prime mover in the treaty just negotiated between France and the United States. This treaty, which now awaits with the others ratification by the Senate, is said to provide for the arbitration of disputes by the Hague Tribunal. However, all appeals to arms are not eliminated; for the parties do not agree to submit to arbitration, questions affecting the vital interests of the nations, the independence or honor of the two contesting states, or matters concerning the interests of a third party. Japan was willing to enter the Conference, provided the last condition were kept and no reference made to the dispute in Manchuria. Russia favored the plan, but replied that her participation in a Peace Conference would be impracticable at this time. No treaty has yet been signed with Russia, as some terms of the treaty submitted are to be changed at her request.

There has been much discussion in the Senate and Committee on Foreign Relations regarding the ratification of the treaties already signed. Some senators feared that the claims of other countries on individual States might be submitted to the Hague Tribunal; but of that there never was question. Others, suspecting an encroachment on the Senate's prerogative as arbiter of peace and war, wished to so amend the treaty that the consent of the Senate should be necessary before submitting any question to the Hague. The treaties, however, seemed to indicate clearly enough what matters were proper for arbitration and what should be reserved for the final judgment of the Chief Executive