in his and her soul offers the body and soul of each, hence of both, a living, bloodless sacrifice upon the altar of marital love: —so that, in fact and absolutely, neither one of the two henceforth belongs to himself or herself, but each to the other. This, also, in such sense that no longer are they two, but one flesh and one soul, and to make the sacrifice perfect and divine the one united soul and body belongs to God; the completion and end of all marriage and all life finding its solution and its perfect joy in Him.

And neither Catholic priests nor Catholic lay people need dream for a moment that they alone control this immortal sacrifice and unity of the male and female in the divine Being.

I accept all the declared, ex cathedra dogmas of the Church— Credo—and that settles the matter. In all other questions and matters I hold myself as free as God or any Pope to judge for myself as to what is right and what is wrong. Moreover I have given my life to understand these things, and I am not disposed to be dictated to by every whipper-snapper who wears ecclesiastical robes.

Often enough these sacred gentlemen have tried to damn me as a heretic because I have called in question certain so-called Catholic beliefs and practices. But as far as I know I have never doubted or called in question a single ex cathedra utterance of the Church and I do wish the boys would give me a rest and a little peace. It is well known to all students of history, Catholic and Protestant, that there have been many committals of Councils that have never been pronounced as Catholic dogmas by papal infallibility and some that have been flatly contradicted by such authority. Let us adhere to the essentials and not damn each other over non-essentials.

I am always ready to learn and always glad to learn a broader truth, any truth, from any priest or man or child; but come to me with your ecclesiastical dictation even in the guise of humility and I shall raise your cassocks and discover the cloven hoofs of Satan, no matter who you are.

No writer honors the true authority of the Church more sincerely than I. It is the voice of God to our modern world.

I have never denied the validity of any act of any ecclesiastic because the perpetrator thereof might have been immensely unworthy as a man. In an elaborate review of Alexander VPs treatment of Savonarola I have taught just the contrary. But every Judas gets his deserts, besides the thirty pieces of silver; and I am not in the business of pandering to ecclesiastical robbers or fools. of New York and his perfidious defender of the marriage bond —was decided against the Parkhurst in that case. And as the case in question was and is a case that the world will hear of again, I want my Catholic brethren and especially the priests to weigh well the point in question. Study not only the theology of the Church on it but the theology of eternal righteousness according to the moral laws of God in Christ Jesus. Which in fact is the only theology that I care for.

About six months ago the author of the present criticism sent me a communicaton on the marriage question which I published and which showed plainly enough, by his own statements, that he differed substantially with his fellow priests and that they differed among themselves on many points which each one of them considered essential to Catholic orthodoxy. But the very fact of their divergent views is in evidence that there is no Catholic orthodoxy in the case—else there would be no divergent views.

I am not trying to shape my views or teachings to the chameleon or hydroscopic views of the individual priesthood. My views on the subject were shaped nearly a half century ago and I have seen no need of changing them.

Start with any proposition you please—"Marriage is a divine institution. You can argue till doomsday on this proposition alone. Then dip a little into the facts of actual Catholic and other marriages for the last four thousand years and you will be as divided at the dawn of doomsday as you are now. But certainly marriage is a divine institution, quite as often made devilish by Catholic marriages as by others. Still the general proposition holds and no sane and well-informed man presumes to deny it.

Again—Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church. Better say that the Church has declared marriage as one of her sacraments. But marriage was a sacrament before the Church existed. The church did not make it a sacrament. The Church simply appropriated its essential, sacramental nature and qualities and called it one of her sacraments.

Nobody quarrels with her or with the essential sacramental nature of the act and fact of marriage. At le ast, 1 do not.

It does not take a priest and a church and some formal ecclesiastical ceremony to make each new marriage a sacrament. Its nature was established ages before the Church was born. And the ministers to each new sacrifice of marriage are not the priests or the ceremonies of the Church but the parties to the sacrifice, as we have said.

I accept both propositions—that marriage is a divine institution and that it is a sacrament. The real trouble between me and my critics is that I hold the matter too sacredly for their comprehension Let them study my teachings, before flying and flaring up on their clumsy, ecclesiastical wings to call me a heretic.

The famous Parkhurst-Reid case which has been filling the newspapers the past three months with its sin on the one side and its infallibly contradictory and uncharitable so-called Catholic rulings and comments on the other may give point to our concluding remarks on this theme:

"Marie Jennings Reid, a Catholic, some years ago was married by Archbishop Chapelle to Frederic H. Parkhurst, a Unitarian, not baptized. Later they were divorced. Mrs. Parkhurst was then civilly married to Prince Rospigliosi, in Rome. Attention was recently called to the case by the refusal of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome to permit a nun to act as nurse to the pseudo-Princess during her illness, on the ground that her marriage to the Prince is not recognized."

Beginning with the end of this statement we have to remark in the first place that the Cardinal Vicar of Rome while acting entirely within the laws of the Church in this case acted, in our judgment, without one particle of Christian charity. To nurse even the vilest sinner is not beneath the dignity or purity of a nun. But doubtless the Cardinal Vicar of Rome would have damned and exiled without any nursing various women whom Jesus Christ forgave and saved. This is too often a fault of modern representatives of the Church. In order to stand four square with what they conceive to be orthodox faith they will kick the very heart of Christ into the gutter and walk proudly as if doing God service.

As to the case itself—Mrs. Jennings Reid Parkhurst, etc., on deserting her husband, stealing his child and seeking and obtaining a divorce from him, on any other than the one cause named in the Scriptures made herself defacto an outlaw and an outcast from all ecclesiastical law and society or the protection of such, and had no right to expect any service from or recognition by the Church until she had repented of the sin committed and had performed such reparation and penance as the Church had or might have duly prescribed.

In truth the case submitted to the Archbishop in question, and on which I have spoken now and again and have been criticised therefore, was still plainer and more simple.

In that case two Protestants—"pagans," who supposed that they had been baptised were duly married by a Protestant clergyman. Later the wife twice deserted her husband and abducted their children. In the first case the husband asserted his right to the children, the deserting wife repented, was forgiven and returned to her duty, and other children were born. Later the wife again deserted the husband and abducted and secreted the children and finally procured a divorce. In this case the husband was of course free in the law to marry again. He did not marry for many years, but made repeated efforts toward reconciliation, all of which were declined. These efforts were made in each case because of the husband's hatred for divorce and because of his solemn view of marriage, as of God, and divine. Later the husband became a Catholic and was inclined to marry again. Search being made it was found that there was no record of the baptism of either party to the original marriage contract and the testimony in view of every priest consulted and of more than one bishop was that the husband had an undoubted right to marry again. The case was submitted to the astute ecclesiastical boobies of the Archdiocese of New York and their united decision was that as "proof of non-baptism of said parties was unsatisfactory, dispensation could not be granted."

This I have quoted before and I dare any priest or man to contradict my words.

Various priests urged the gentleman in question to appeal the case to Martinelli or to Rome—but the gentleman simply remarked that if one ecclesiastic and his advisers could be such fools and fool imbeciles he was too busy to consult others,