ANGLICAN 497 ANGLICAN Although the signification ought to be found in the ■whole essential rite, that is to say, in the 'matter' and 'form', it still j>ertains chiefly to the 'form'; since the 'matter' is the part which is not deter- mined by itself, but which is determined by the 'form'. And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Orders, the matter of which, m so far as we ha'e to consider it in this case, is the impo- sition of hands, which indeed by itself signifies noth- ing definite, and is equally used for several orders and for confirmation. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to con- stitute the proper form of priestly ordination — namely: 'Receive the iloly Ghost' — certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power 'of consecrating and of otTering the tnio Body and Blood of the Lord' (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Can. 1) in that sacrifice which is 'no nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross' {ibid., Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Miss., Can. 3). . . . The Siimc holds gooil of episcopal con- secration. For to the formula, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', not only were the wonls 'for the ofllce and work of a bishop' etc., added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be un- derstood in a sense different from that which they bear in the Catholic rite." In this piussage the Bull sanctions the principle that a sacramental rite must signify definitely what it is to etTcct, and that this definite signification must be in the essential "form", or words in proximate connection with the "matter"; also that, in the case of Holy Order, what must be definitely signified is, in the ordination of priests, the Order of the Priesthood or its grace and iwwer, and similarly in the consecration of bishops; the grace and power in each having reference to the ac- complishment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This principle accepted, it follows at once that the Anglican Ordinal, at least as it stood till 1002, lacks the essential conditions of sufficiency. But the Bull further examines how far the remainder of this Or- dinal, or the circumstances under which it came into being, can be held to determine the ambiguitj' of the "essential form". And here it sanctions the judgment which the Catholic writers had already formed. "The historj'," it says, "of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from heterodox sects; and as to the end in view. . . . I'nder a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear men- tion of the sacrifice, but every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliljerately removed and stnick out. In this way the native character — or spirit, as it is called — of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it should become sufficient, since it remained alwaj-s what it was (i. e. of vitiated origin). . . . For once a new rite has been initiated, in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Orders is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (the Spirit, namely, which is infused into the soul with the grace of the .Sacrament) no longer holds good, and so the words 'for the office and work of a Criest or bishop', and the like, no longer hold good, ut remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted." Likewi.se in regard to the defect of in- tention, the Bull endorses the judgment adverse to Anglican ordination which Catholic writers had al- ways urged. "When anyone has rightly and sen- ously made u.se of the due 'form' and 'matter' requisite for edecling or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptize<l, provided the Catholic rite lie employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the iiLstitution of Christ, belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to, and destructive of, the sacrament." These are the defects in the Anglican Succession, on the existence of which the Bull bases its decision. It will be noticed that they are of the most funda- mental kind, and are independent of any defects that may be thought to arise out of the omission in the Ordinal of a tradition of the instniments, or of the doubt about Barlow's consecration. To ex- amine into the nature and bearing of the latter when a sufficient basis for a certain conclusion had l>een supplied by the former would have been a super- fluous task, and for the same reason it is unlikely that even for the private inquirer these other con- siderations will retain in the future the interest they had in the past. At the same time the Bull has in no way pronounced them to be frivolous or un- founded, as has been suggested. It remains to give the formal definition of the Bull, which is in the following terms: "Wherefore, strictly adhering in this matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Pre- decessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and void." The publication of the "Apostolica; Cune" caused, as w:is to be expected, much excitemtnt in England; nor did the Anglican party, for whose sake it was intended, show any disposition to accept either its arguments or its decision. It was deemed, however, to have created a crisis sufficiently serious to re- quire that it should be met by some formal reply. Accordingly, in the early part of 1897 there ajv peared, in both a Latin ana an English edition, an Answer of the .rchbishops of England to the Apo.-;- tolic Letter of Poi)e Leo XIII on English Ordina- tions", which was "addressed to the w-fiole body cf Bishops of the Catholic Church". This answer, which came to be known by its Latin name of the "Responsio", is a distinctly Low-Church document, of which the leading contention is that the Pope has misjudged the . glican Ordinal through failure to recognize the right of national Churches to re- form and revise their own formulas, and by apply- ing to this Ordinal a false and untnistworthy rule. The tnie rule to which an ordinal should be con- formed, it urges, is the nile of Holy Scripture, and it is in this rule that the Reformers sought their guidance. They found an enormous accretion of saeerdotalist ideas embodied in the words and cere- monies of the older Ordinal, whercjis, in the New Testament, the saeerdotalist conception of the Chris- tian ministrj- wius altogether absent. And, on the other hand, they found that the aspects of the Christian ministry on which Our Lord and His Apos- tles had laid the most stress — those, namely, which concerne<l the pastor's duty to go forth in flis M:us- ter's name as His steward, His watchman. His messenger, to tend the sheep, and, if neeil be, lay down his life for their sakes, to preach the word, to convert sinners, to remit offences in the Church.
