and the doctrine—­in a word, the Church itself—­is totally distinct.  The wolf may slay and devour the sheep and may then clothe himself in its fleece, but the wolf is not the sheep, and the nature of the one remains totally different from that of the other.  The proofs of all this are so numerous and so striking that one scarcely knows which to choose, nor where to begin.  In the present chapter, we will content ourselves with calling attention to certain points that every one will be able to grasp.  It is said that a straw will show which way the wind blows, so things even trivial in themselves will enable any unprejudiced man to see that there must be some radical difference between the Church in England four hundred years ago, and the Church of England to-day.  First, let us just look round and consider the Catholic Church.  It is spread all over the world.  It is found in France, in Belgium, in Italy, in Spain, and in other countries, all of which recognised the Church in England before the “Reformation” as one in faith and doctrine with themselves.  They felt themselves united with it in one and the same belief; they taught the same seven Sacraments; they gathered around the same Sacrifice; they acknowledged the same supremacy of the same spiritual head.  Now there is no single Catholic country that recognises the Church of England as anything but heretical and schismatical.

Formerly when any Archbishop of Canterbury travelled abroad he was received as a brother by the Catholic Bishops all over the Continent.  He felt thoroughly at home in the Catholic churches, and offered up the Divine Mysteries at their altars, using the same sacred vessels, reading from the same missal, speaking the same language, and feeling himself to be a member of the same spiritual family.  Can the present Archbishop of Canterbury follow their example?  Would the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, for instance, or the Archbishop of Milan receive the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, as a brother Bishop?  Would they cause their cathedrals to be thrown open to him?  No.

In vain does the Archbishop of Canterbury of to-day claim continuity with the pre-"Reformation” Archbishops.  For no one would be found to admit such a claim.  It may be said that this is of no great importance.  It may not be in itself, but it is the straw which shows the way the wind blows; and clearly proves that the verdict of the entire world and the chief centres of Christendom is against continuity.

Let us take another “straw”.  Before the pseudo-Reformation there were Cardinals exercising authority in the Church in England.  Some of them even became famous.  There was, for instance, Cardinal Stephen Langton, who was Primate of England, and who brought together the Barons, and forced the Great Charter from King John.  There, amongst the signatures to that famous document we find the name of a Roman Cardinal.  From the time of Stephen Langton to the time of Cardinal Fisher in the sixteenth century