and are everywhere manifest in all the official formularies of the Church. This kind of argument will not do. It is as plain as daylight from the statements of "Catholics" themselves, we repeat, that they regard the Prayer Book, Articles, and, in fact, all the formuaries of the Church as "the product of an uncatholic age," and that their avowed object is to change these products of the Reformation, fundamentally. As one of the first, and more radical steps in this direction, they propose to change the name of the Church itself, to get rid of the miserable word "Protestant" (the root of the whole evil), and to substitute, in place of the present title, that of "The American Catholic Church"-a name which commits this communion to a view of the Episcopate and of the Church Catholic absolutely irreconcilable with the view of the English Reformers, and absolutely irreconcilable with the official doctrinal, and historic position of this Church. If they would be consistent, then, "Catholic" Churchmen must cease to claim that by such Change of Name they do not intend in any way to alter the "principles established by or through the Reformation of the Church of England," while simultaneously asserting that "the principles of the Reformation are things to be repented of with tears and in ashes," and that their whole object is "to correct the mistakes of the Reformation." We repeat, this kind of logic will not do. They must take one side or the other. They must either stick to their Cincinnati Resolution, and show that the proposed Name "The American Catholic Church"-involves no doctrine that is contrary to the teachings of the English Reformers, and the standing official doctrines of this Church; or else they must unequivocally repudiate this solemn covenant of 1910, and adhere loyally to the repeated declarations of their leaders, that their purpose is to tear out root and branch the principles of the (Protestant) Reformation, which though the authorized, official doctrines of the Church to-day, are the product of an "uncatholic" age-the work of "miscreants," and "traitors" to the primitive Faith. We have demonstrated that the former is impossible (the task we set out to accomplish), we leave it to them, therefore, to deny logically, if they can, that their whole object is to overthrow the official doctrines of the Church, framed by the Reformers of the Sixteenth Century, reaffirmed by the Revisors of 1662, and again by our own Convention of 1789. In short, we leave it to them logically to deny, if they can, that their object is to overthrow the Foundation principles of this Communion. VI THE KIKUYU CONFERENCE INCE the foregoing pages were written, an ST incident has occurred which has excited much discussion throughout the ecclesiastical world, and which bearing, as it does, directly upon the point at issue, affords a yet more profitable illustration of thetruth of our argument. Now comes the Bishop of Zanzibar, after fifteen years of missionary work in the Ministry of the Church of England, to inquire where Ecclesia Anglicana stands upon certain fundamental matters of doctrine. This query at the very beginning of his career as a student of theology, might be natural enough, but at this late date, after years of service in the Church of England, and in the honored position of a Bishop of that Communion, is, to say the least, a little surprising. Yet so it is. The entire scope of his inquiries covers, indeed, a number of matters with which we are not here concerned; matters relating principally to certain recent developments of Modernism. When, however, he comes to touch upon the action of two of his brother Bishops, at the Kikuyu Conference, with regard to a proposed scheme of federation with non-episcopal Churches, |