A COURSE OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH.
ROEHAMPTON t
PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN.
A COURSE OF
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH
BY THE
REV. JOHN GERARD, S.J
FOURTH EDITION
(NEW IMPRESSION)
LONDON: BURNS AND OATES (LIMITED)
NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO : BBNZIGEK BROTHERS
rtibfl ©batat:
SYDNEY F. SMITH, S.J.,
Censor Depuiatits.
Imprimatur:
HERBERTUS CARDINALIS VAUGHAN
Archieb Westmon
PREFACE
THIS course of instruction was originally prepared
for the boys of the upper classes at Stonyhurst, where
it has now been in use for more than twenty years.
The object throughout is to impart the amount of
knowledge which educated laymen should possess
concerning their religion, fuller information being
furnished in regard of points upon which they are
more likely to be called to give an account of the
faith which is in them. No attempt has therefore
been made to deal with all questions on the same
scale, nor has it been thought advisable to dwell at
any length upon points of controversy which, how
ever prominent they may once have been, are now
practically obsolete. On the other hand, it seems to
be of vital importance to indicate as clearly as possible
the lines of attack' upon religion — natural or super
natural — adopted by modern unbelief, and the lines of
defence by which they may be met.
It would, however, have been wholly foreign to the
scope and object of this compendium to attempt a
vi PREFACE
full and adequate treatment of these points or any
others — such treatment as is to be found in works
professedly philosophical and theological. This little
book pretends to furnish notes only, containing, it is
hoped, a plain statement of the Catholic position and
teaching, and a sufficient modicum of instruction
regarding them — 'but, beyond this, doing no more than
indicate the sources whence fuller information may be
obtained. In the selection of authorities for refer
ence, it has seemed better to take those by preference
which are most likely to be within the reach of
ordinary readers, and therefore to mention popular
manuals and digests, rather than the original authori
ties which they quote, always supposing that their
quotations are found to be honest and accurate. Also
in citations from the Fathers and other writers on
behalf of Catholic doctrine, those have been chosen
which, if not perhaps the most complete and adequate,
are sufficiently convincing, and, being brief and pithy,
are likely to be remembered, the object constantly
kept in view being practical utility.
J. G.
CONTENTS
Numerals refer to pages.
PART I.
NATURAL TRUTH.
First Principles, i . Existence of God, 3. The Nature of
God, ii. Creation, 17. Contrary Doctrines, — Evolution, 19;
Darwinism, 21 ; Materialism. 23; Pantheism, 26 ; Agnosticism,
27 ; Positivism, 29.
Christ and Christianity, 32, — the argument from the
existence of the Church, 33 ; the argument from the Divinity
of Christ, 38.
Revelation and Faith, 44. Faith and Reason, 46.
Miracles, 49. The Authenticity of the Gospels, 51.
PART II.
REVEALED DOCTRINE.
The Church, 53. Her divine institution and character,
53—60. Her Marks or Notes, — Unity, 60 ; Holiness, 73 ;
Catholicity, 77 ; Apostolicity, 82 ; Anglican " Continuity," 83.
The Channels of Revelation, 87. Scripture, 87. The
" Higher Criticism," 90. Tradition, 91.
The Pope, 94. Supremacy of Rotne, 94. Rome and
Britain, 104. Papal infallibility, 107. St. Peter at Rome, 112.
Historical difficulties (Liberius, Vigilius and Honorius, Schism
of the West, Galileo, St. Gregory and the title of " Universal
Bishop/' the False Decretals), 113 — 118.
viii CONTENTS
God as known from Revelation, 119. Nature, 119.
Attributes, 120. The doctrine of the Trinity, 124.
God's external works: Creation, 126. Man, his nature
and place in Nature, 128. The Supernatural Order, Man's
Creation and Fall, 133.
Sin,i36. Punishments of Sin ; Hell, 137. Purgatory, 138.
Grace, 141.
The Redemption and Incarnation. History of the Messias,
143 ; His Person, 148 ; Divinity, 149 ; Hypostatic Union, 150 ;
His Work, 153 ; Worship due to Him, 157.
Devotion of the Sacred Heart, 158. " Mariolatry," 159.
PART III.
MEANS OF GRACE.
The Sacraments in general : Sacramental System, 163 ;
Number of the Sacraments, 164 ; their nature, 166 ; effects,
169; efficacy, 171.
The Sacraments in particular : Baptism, 172. Confirma
tion, 176. Holy Order, 177. Anglican Orders, 182.
Penance, 182. Indulgences, 188.
Holy Eucharist, 192. As a Sacrament. — the Real
Presence, 192 ; Transubstantiation, 198 ; Communion under
one kind, 203. Matter of the Sacrament, 204. The Holy
Eucharist as a Sacrifice, 205. Nature of the Sacrifice, 206.
Objects of the Sacrifice, 208. Various particulars, 208. Types
and figures, 209.
Extreme Unction, 210. Matrimony, 211.
Sacramentals, 213.
Appendix (books suggested for further reading), 215.
A COURSE OF
;, RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH.
PART THE FIRST.
TRUTHS OF REASON.
I. FIRST PRINCIPLES.
IT is said that we cannot be sure of the existence of
God, because we cannot prove it in the same way as
we prove other truths with which our reason deals.
That is to say, we can prove it neither mathemati
cally nor experimentally by means of sense — as we
can the existence of the sun. Leaving mathematical
proof aside, of which there is no question, is it true
that we can be sure of nothing but what our senses
perceive? Certainly not. We can establish a solid
proof by Inference : that is to say, from what we see
we can argue the existence of what we do not and
cannot see. No man has ever seen the other side of
the moon; yet we do not doubt that it has another
side. As Napoleon is reported to have said to his
marshals, when they were talking infidelity, " You
speak of my genius, but which of you have seen it?
You judge of my. genius from my battles."
It must also be observed that for a proof to be
good and valid, it is not necessary that it should exclude
the possibility of doubt or denial ; it is enough that
such doubt should be foolish and unreasonable. Thus
a man might persuade himself that Napoleon won his
B
2 FIRST PRINCIPLES
victories by mere luck, or that drunkenness is not a
vice.
Moreover, we cannot prove everything. All proof
must ultimately be based on something which is
evidently true without proof and cannot itself be
proved. Thus Euclid starts from Axioms, and phil
osophers from First Principles.
Those who deny the validity of such principles are
forced to maintain that we cannot be sure of anything :
but, as they are sure that we cannot be sure, they at
once stultify themselves.
In fine, although infidels and agnostics constantly
assume that \ve believe without having any reason to
allege on behalf of our belief, if not actually in spite of
reason, we on our side maintain that our position is far
more reasonable than theirs. As has been well said.
"We believe because the motives for believing appear
to us more weighty than those for not believing, — just
as we perform good actions because the motives for
these actions seem better than those that would move
us to act ill or to abstain from action altogether."
(Archbishop Mignot, of Albi, Pastoral Letter to
Clergy.)
We start with these Principles.
(1) The Principle of Contradiction. — The same
thing cannot be and not be at the same time.
(2) The Principle of Causality.— Nothing can be
gin to be without a cause independent of itself.
(3) Our reason and the evidence of our senses are
trustworthy.
N.B. — Philosophers who deny this last are driven
to the absurdity of doubting (or saying they doubt)
their own existence,
EXISTENCE OF GOD
II. EXISTENCE OF GOD.
(a) The first proof of the existence of God is from the
Principle of Causality.
"Nothing can begin to be without a cause:" that
is to say, everything which has had a beginning owes
its existence to something else, and had no existence
till it so received it. If we say that everything which
exists has had a beginning, we say that once there
was nothing in existence. Whence, therefore, could
existence be first derived? Whatever first began to
be must have required a cause; but unless there be
something which never began to be, and existed of
itself, there could be no cause of what first began.
To say that all which exists has had a beginning,
is therefore to say that all existing things depend
ultimately for existence on what does not exist : which
violates the principle of Contradiction, for this would
be something and yet nothing, or would exist and not
exist at the same time. There must therefore exist a
Being or Beings depending for existence on none
other, that is to say, self-existent. But as will be seen
in the next chapter, the self-existent must be unlimited
or i/ifi/iite, and the infinite must necessarily be one,
We are therefore led by our reason to recognize the
existence of One, who has His being from Himself,
who has always existed, and whose existence is neces
sary, depending on nothing but Himself.
This Being must be the cause on which all else
depends, or the First Cause ; He it is that we mean by
God.
4 EXISTENCE OF GOD
Systems of philosophy which deny a self-existing
First Cause resemble the astronomical system of the
Hindoos, which made the earth rest on an elephant
which stood on a tortoise, requiring another elephant to
support it, then another tortoise, and so for ever.
(l>) The second argument is from Design.
That there is order in nature cannot be denied.
For without Order there could be no life, no " organ
isms," and certainly no science; — for science, in the
popular modern sense — i.e., physical science — is noth
ing but investigation of the Laws of Nature, and Laws
necessarily imply Order.
The order and harmony which we discern in nature
must have a cause. They evidently do not exist of
themselves, but like all else must conic ultimately from
the First Cause. Therefore the First Cause must be
capable of governing the forces of Nature that they
shall work out this order and harmony ; that is to say,
he must be possessed of intelligence, so as by their
operations to accomplish his own design.
To understand the working of these laws, even in
part, requires high intelligence ; how much more must
have been required (as the infidel Diderot remarks) to
institute them?
The proof from Design, therefore, adds to the
knowledge of God obtained by the first proof, showing
that the First Cause must be possessed of intelligence
and free-will, and be the source of Wisdom and
Beauty. This is the proof insisted upon in Scripture.
St. Paul (Rom. i. 20). " For the invisible things
of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made : so that
they (the heathen philosophers) are inexcusable.'1
EXISTENCE OF GOD 5
Book of Wisdom (xiii. 1 — 5). " But all men arc
vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God, and
who by these good things that are seen could not
understand Him that is, neither by attending to the
works have acknowledged Him who was the workman :
but have imagined cither the fire, or the wind, or
the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great
water, or the sun, or the moon, to be the gods that rule
the world. With whose beauty if they being delighted
took them to be gods, — let them know* how much the
Lord of them is more beautiful than they : for the first
author of beauty made all those things. Or if they
admired their power and their effects, let them under
stand by these that He who made them is mightier
than they : for by the greatness of the beauty of the
creatures the Creator of them may be seen so as to be
known thereby."
This is likewise the proof by which more than any
other men using reason alone have been led to the
knowledge of God. As the Arab in the desert said,
" I am sure that there is a God, just as when I sec
tracks in the sand I know that a man or beast has
passed." As modern unbelievers profess to base their
unbelief on reason, it will be well to cite witnesses who
speak from reason alone : premising the remark of
M. Thiers {Hist, du Consulat et de V Empire) : " The
higher an intellect is the more is it struck by the
beauties of creation, just because it is higher. It is
intellect which recognizes intellect in the Universe, and
a great mind is more capable than a small one of dis
cerning God in His works."
Cicero (who may represent the ancient Philoso
phers). " What can be so clear and evident, w^hen we
look at the heavens and observe the heavenly bodies,
6 EXISTENCE OF GOD
as that there must be a Deity of surpassing intellect,
by whom they are governed. And if any one doubt
this, I do not understand why he does not doubt the
existence of the sun ; for how is the one more obvious
than the other?" (De Nat. deontm, ii. 2.)
Napoleon I. " My creed is very simple. I look
at this universe, so vast, so complex, so beautiful, and I
say to myself that it cannot be the product of chance,
but must be the work of an unseen Being, who is
Almighty, and as far superior to man as is the world
to our best machinery." (Thicrs' Hist, du Consulat ct
de V Empire.)
Voltaire. " If a watch implies a watchmaker, and
a palace an architect, how can it be that the universe
does not imply a supreme intelligence?"
The following witnesses are scientific men of th'Q
highest eminence.
Sir Isaac Newton. " The whole variety of created
things could arise only from the design and the will
of a Being existing of Himself. This exact machinery
of sun and planets could not originate except from the
plan and the power of an intelligent and mighty
Being." (Principia: Scholium generate, )
Sir Gabriel Stokes, P.R.S. " The Study of the
phenomena of nature leads us to the contemplation of
a Being from whom proceeded the orderly arrange
ment of things which we behold.
It seems difficult to understand how we can fail to
be impressed with the evidence of Design imparted to
us. But design is altogether unmeaning without a
designing mind." (Burnett Lecfures, p. 327.)
Professors Stewart and Tait. " We assume as
absolutely self-evident the existence of a Deity, who is
the Creator and Upholder of all things." (Unseen
Universe, p. 47.)
EXISTENCE OF GOD (7
Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson). " Over
whelming proofs of intelligence and benevolent design
lie around us; showing to us through nature, the in
fluence of a free-will, and teaching us that all living
beings depend upon one ever-acting Creator and
Ruler." (Presidential Address to British Association,
1882.)
Sir W. Siemens. " We find that all knowledge
must lead up to one great result, that of an intelligent,
recognition of the Creator through His works."
(Presidential Address to British Association, 1884.)
Sir J. W. Dawson. " No system of the universe
can dispense with a First Cause, eternal and self-
existent ; and the First Cause must necessarily be the
living God, whose will is the ultimate force and the
origin of natural law." (Modern Idea of Evolution,
p. 241.)
Other scientific men of the first rank might be
cited in the same sense, as Faraday, Clerk- Maxwell,
and Sir J. Herschel,
(c) A third proof is drawn from the existence of our
own intellect.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause, or, so far
as it was greater, it would be without a cause. But
that which has intelligence is superior to that which
has it not: — as Pascal says, " I understand my weak
ness, and nature does not understand her strength, and
therefore I am superior to that very strength." There
fore the cause of our intelligence must itself be
intelligent. " Nothing can be got out of a sack but
what is in it," and if intelligence was ever to manifest
itself in the Universe, it must have been in existence
from the beginning: i.e., in the First Cause.
8 EXISTENCE OF GOD
"He that made man must have had all that man
has, — and more." (Professor Francis Newman.)
" The reason of man is an actual illustration of
mind and will in nature, and implies a creative mind."
(Sir J. W. Dawson.)
" Since there must have been something from
eternity, because there is something now, the eternal
Being must be an intelligent Being, because there is
intelligence now; for no man will venture to assert
that non-entity can produce entity, or non-intelligence,
intelligence : and such a Being must exist necessarily,
whether things have been always as they are, or
whether they have been made in time; because it is
no more possible to conceive an infinite, than a finite
progression of effects without a cause." (Viscount
Bolingbroke, Essay I [to Pope].)
(d) A fourth proof is furnished by Modern Science, in
its latest discovery — the Law of the Dissipation
of Energy.
According to this Law, the power of the Universe
for doing the work by which all the operations of
Nature are carried on, is continually spending itself,
and growing less and less, and no force in nature can
ever recover what is lost. This may be illustrated by
the weights of a clock or the water of a mill, which do
work only as they run down, and can never, of them
selves, run up again. In exactly the same manner,
in order that the forces of Nature should work as they
do, the machinery of the Universe must, to start with,
have been wound up, so that it might do the work in
running down. But the Universe could no more have
wound itself up, than the clock ; therefore there must
be a Power — different from and superior to all material
forces, not expending its energy in doing work, nor
EXISTENCE OF GOD 9
requiring to receive it from another, and this Power it
must be that imparted to Nature the energy we see
her spending. This immaterial, ultimate Power is
God.
That the operations of Nature arc thus finite and
limited is a certain truth of Science.
" Phenomena, the very nature of which shows that
they must have had a beginning, and that they must
also have an end." (Professor Huxley, Lay Sermons,
P. 130
" Regarding the Universe as a candle that has been
lit, we become absolutely certain that it has not been
burning from eternity, and that a time must come when
it will cease to burn." (Lord Kelvin.)
So Professor Balfour Stewart and many others.
(Balfour Stewart, Conservation of Energy, p. I 53.)
(e) The last proof we shall consider is derived from
the existence of the Moral Law and the fact of
Conscience.
We know with absolute certainty, from the teaching
of our own conscience, and without any need of other
teaching, that some things are right and others wrong ;
that no human power could make the right wrong,
or the wrong right ; and that this knowledge imposes
upon us a solemn obligation to clo some things and
refrain from others, quite apart from any material con
sequences our conduct may entail. A Law which thus
binds us must have a sanction, for a Law with nothing
to enforce it is no Law at all. As there is no other
sanction possible, it must be the expression of the will
of a Lawgiver, who thus lets us know what He would
have us do, and has power to hold us responsible
for our conduct. This is God.
10 EXISTENCE OF GOD
Conscience does not argue or show reason for its
precepts — nothing is so unreasoning: it imperiously
commands and forbids. It is not therefore by an
intellectual process that we know its teachings.
One school of modern philosophy attempts to
explain it by saying that the things we recognize as
" good," are those which in the past have been of
advantage to the human race, while the " bad " have
been injurious. But how does it explain the sense of
obligation which we feel? If a man does not choose
to benefit his race, preferring to gratify himself, where
is the power to enforce a contrary course? Yet that
there is such a power our sense of obligation bears
.witness.
The conclusion of these and other arguments is
summed up by Rivarol, " God explains the world, and
the world proves God."
THE NATURE OF GOD II
III. THE NATURE OF GOD.
The proofs from reason of the Existence of God
tell us something of His Nature, as, that He is self-
existent and eternal, possessed of intelligence and
free-will. We can by similar arguments arrive at the
knowledge of other attributes.
(1) Simplicity. The self-existent must be simple,
i.e., cannot consist of separate parts united into one
whole ; for in a being compounded of such parts, it is
their union that forms the whole, which union requires
a cause; and there can be no cause of the First Cause.
(2) Spirituality. Hence He must be a pure Spirit.
This is shown also from the proof given above, that
the first Force moving the material Universe, cannot
itself be subject to material laws ; that is, it must be
immaterial, Also the intelligent part of us, the soul,
is immaterial, for matter, as is manifest, cannot pos
sibly think. Therefore its Author must be immaterial,
otherwise He would be inferior to His own product,
That is, He is a pure Spirit.
(3) Infinity. The Self-existent must likewise be
infinite in all perfection. This means that all possible
perfection must be contained in Him. If not so con
tained it would not be possible ; for there would be no
source whence it could come.
His perfection must be absolutely unlimited. To
say otherwise would be to say that a perfection is
conceivable beyond what He contains. But that which
exists neither in itself nor in a cause capable of pro
ducing it, is inconceivable. He must therefore be.
12 THE NATURE OF GOD
All-wise and All-good, the source, as He is the perfec
tion of Wisdom and Goodness. Infinity as applied to
God, does not mean that He contains infinite parts, or
is of infinite material extension — for this would contra
dict His simplicity. It means that all self-existent
perfections actually exist in Him; and that all perfec
tions not self -existent exist in Him as in the Cause
capable of producing them.
( 4) Unity. The self-existent must be One. Two
Infinities, each containing all possible perfections,
would be a contradiction. Neither can some perfec
tions belong to one and some to another; for a cause
would be required to separate the two classes; and
there can be no such cause.
(5) Omnipotence. This is included in Infinity.
All that is possible God can do: it is possible only
because He can do it.
What would contradict His Nature is impossible.
Thus it is impossible that He should make another
God. Also, the nature of created things being what
He wishes them to be, He could not give them two
inconsistent natures at the same time. Thus He could
not make a square circle, for this would be to wish it to
be a circle, and not to be one.
N.B. 1. — In regard of the Existence and Attributes
of God, it must be remembered that we know Him,
especially through conscience, far more surely than we
can by any formal proof. Thus Cardinal Newman
says, "The being of a God is as certain to me as the
certainty of my own existence, though when I try to
put the grounds of that certainty into logical shape I
find a difficulty in doing so to my satisfaction." And
he thus illustrates his meaning. " A man may be
annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical
THE NATURE OF GOD 13
problem, without doubting that it admits of an answer,
or that a particular answer is the true one." It is in
the same way that we know those things in ordinary
life of which we are most certain. It would be very
hard, v.g., or rather quite impossible, to draw up a
logical proof of the goodness of a parent or friend,
though nothing could shake our belief in it ; or of the
fact that we shall one day die.
The proofs we have given are therefore for the
purpose of answering unbelievers. For ourselves they
furnish the rational basis on which Faith ultimately
rests, but when Faith is attained its witness is so far
more vivid and vital that we have no need to have
recourse to the other. In like manner, those who
personally, knew Julius Caesar, though they had the
same sort of evidence for his existence as we have, in
the authority of others, having their own personal
knowledge, never referred to it. The question of Faith
will be afterwards treated more fully, in a separate
article.
With regard to His Attributes also, because His
Nature is infinitely above ours it is impossible for our
mind to form a correct idea of it, just as our eyes
cannot form an image of the sun. The very impossi
bility of comprehending the perfections which He must
contain, is a motive for our adoration ; if we could
comprehend Him He would not be infinite, — just as if
we could see or touch Him He would not be God.
As Rousseau said, " The less I understand God, the
more I adore Him." (Emile, iv.) And the French
Astronomer Faye, " The more sublime be the idea
formed of the Supreme Intelligence, the nearer will it
approach the truth."
N.B, 2. — Whatever is mysterious and difficult to
14 THE NATURE OE COD
understand in the attributes of Cod is not to be got rid
of by denying Him, but quite the contrary.
v.g., His Eternity. We cannot conceive it; to
think of His having no beginning makes us dizzy.
But there must have been something from Eternity.
Had there ever been nothing, there would never have
been anything — for ex mhllo nihil fit.
Moreover, if we cannot understand His Nature,
neither can we understand our own, nor that of any
thing in the world around, however simple. Modern
scientific writers, though not the more eminent among
them, frequently convey the impression that we know
all about everything — through the discoveries of
science. In reality we do nothing of the kind. We
have found, it is true, a few more links in the chain of
cause and effect through which the operations of nature
are worked, but of their ultimate starting-point we
know no more than men of former days. Sir Isaac
Newton — the greatest of all discoverers--compared
himself to a child picking up a few shells on the shore,
while the whole depths of the ocean remained hidden
from him.
So of the force of gravitation — the most familiar of
the forces of Nature — we have no idea what it is but
only of its effects; and, whatever it is, its various
properties are so hard to reconcile that Sir J. Herschel
calls it the " mystery of mysteries," and Faraday con
sidered it an evident paradox, i.e., something appar
ently absurd. So again Astronomers believe in an all-
pervading Ether, which offers no resistance to bodies
moving in it, yet is actually a solid. If these things
are beyond our comprehension, much more then must
their Author be so.
The attributes we thus ascribe to God are sometimes
THE NATURE OF GOD 15
ridiculed as " Anthropomorphic," i.e., merely copied
from ourselves. It is said, for instance, by Mr.
Herbert Spencer, that a watch which could think would
have as much right to argue that the watchmaker is
made up of springs and wheels, as we have to speak
of intelligence, free-will, and so forth, in God.
The answer appears to be very simple. We can
conceive, in the sense of imagining, nothing which
transcends, or go.es beyond, the limits of sense. We
must avail ourselves of what we have seen, or heard,
or felt, in order to picture things we have never known,
v.g.t we represent Angels as human beings with wings.
But at the same time, we can, not only assure ourselves
by our reason of the existence of much which we
cannot thus conceive since it is outside our experience,
but we can form a rational idea of its nature or quali
ties. Thus we know, almost certainly, that there are
colours and sounds imperceptible to us — though it is
utterly impossible to imagine what they are like —
and we believe in the existence of the Ether, and the
attraction of gravitation, though it bewilders us to try
to fancy what they really are, so incongruous do the
qualities appear which science tells us they must
possess.
And so, in regard of God, our reason tells us that
He must be in every respect immeasurably superior to
ourselves. He must have all that man has, in fullest
perfection and without limitation. When we endea
vour, as the nature of our mind compels us, to form an
idea of this Supreme Being, we necessarily employ for
the purpose what we know in ourselves, and ascribe to
Him what we recognize as highest and noblest in our
own nature, for if He had not that, or its equivalent,
we feel that He would not be our equal ; if He had not
1 6 THE NATURE OF GOD
more, He would not be our superior; unless He had it
in the fullest possible perfection He would not be the
Supreme First Cause of all things.
But we do not mean that in Him these properties
or faculties are similar to ours, any ftiore than we
suppose Angels to be like the pictures we draw of
them. God preserves all the excellencies and all the
powers of which we have any knowledge, but super
eminently, as the sun possesses the light and heat of a
rushlight, or a sovereign contains a farthing. A still
better illustration is Mr. Spencer's own. His watch
would judge quite rightly that its maker must have the
power of movement, or one that includes it, differing
from its own in kind as well as in degree.
It is thus that we most legitimately argue from
created to uncreated excellence. As Milton writes:
These are Thy glorious works, Parent of good,
Almighty ; thine this universal frame,
Thus wondrous fair. Thyself how wondrous then!
CREATION 1 7
IV. CREATION.
To God — the First Cause — all else must owe its
existence, both living things and things without life.
To deny this, besides being unphilosophical, would be
unchristian; but if this be admitted no objection can
be brought on grounds of Faith to any theory as to the
actual formation of the world. A question however
arises as to the Biblical account, which represents the
world as having been created in six " days."
It is nowr universally admitted that by this term we
may understand long and indefinite periods of time,
each of thousands or even millions of years, during
which the earth underwent the various great changes
through which it has successively passed. This is not
merely a modern explanation, as some writers seem to
think. Thus St. Auguetine wrote, in the fifth century
" Day, by which term we may well suppose that any
time is meant." And Venerable Bede, in the eighth,
According to its usual practice Scripture here uses
the word Day in the sense of Time."
As to the method of creation there are two views.
( i) That God created each separate species (of plants
and animals) separately by a distinct act of His
power, beyond the forces of nature.
( 2) That one species has been developed from another
by natural laws.
The question is often asked — Can the second theory
be upheld by Christians? There is nothing to forbid
c
1 8 CREATION
it, provided it be granted that the original Creation
came from God, and that He ordained the laws and
implanted the forces by which subsequent development
was worked out. In this case, as truly as on the first
supposition, He would have created all that results — in
St. Augustine's phrase, causaliter et seminaliter (" in
its cause and origin ") — as He creates the oak in
creating the acorn.
We have now to examine the principal systems
advocated at the present day, which contradict the
Christian doctrine as to God or Creation.
EVOLUTION 19
V. CONTRARY DOCTRINES.
(i) EVOLUTION.
As has been said above, there is a sense in which
development, or evolution, of one thing from another
nowise contradicts our doctrine about Creation : — but
this is not the sense in which the word is used by
those who call themselves " Evolutionists." They
teach that all which exists, including living things and
man himself, has been produced by the forces of the
material universe which has always existed, through
the impulse of the Law of Evolution implanted in it ;
and that there is no need of any First Cause, such as
God, to account for anything.
Professor Huxley speaks as follows: " The funda
mental proposition of Evolution is that the whole
world, living and not living, is the result of the mutual
interaction, according to 'definite laws, of the powers
possessed by the molecules of which the primitive
nebulosity of the universe was composed." And he
adds that a " sufficient intelligence " could from an
inspection of this " cosmic vapour " have foretold
exactly what would come out of it — e.g., what sort of
birds and beasts would exist in England at the present
day; we may add in like manner, under what Con
stitution AVC should be living, and what Ministry would
be in power. This means that in the beginning the
world was a vapour or nebula, which has since shrunk
and solidified, and that its particles were so arranged
that by their action one upon another they have
20 CONTRARY DOCTRINES
produced the various forms of life, just as a musical-
box which has been wound up produces tunes.
It will be sufficient at present to observe that this
theory gives no account as to whence came the nebula
itself; or the molecules of which it was composed; or
how they came to be so arranged; or what made the
laws which governed the results.
Moreover, as has been said, the primitive condition
of the universe here described, is one which by the
testimony of science itself, the forces of Nature could
never have produced. Particles possessed of attrac
tion, like those of the universe, tend to draw together ;
they are ever drawing together more and more, and it
is precisely by so doing that they have produced heat
and the like, without which life would be impossible.
Had they not been far apart to begin with (that is, had
not the weights of the clock been drawn up), there
would have been no play for the laws of Nature, and
the machinery of the world could never have worked.
That they were apart, must be due to some other
Power, of which the Evolution Theory takes no
account. It has therefore no foundation to rest upon,
and cannot possibly explain anything.
Another Evolutionist, Professor Romanes, thinks to
establish Evolution thus, " We must regard it as an
a priori truth (or first principle) that Nature is every
where uniform in respect of method or causation ; that
the reign of law is universal; the principle of con
tinuity ubiquitous." That is to say, because we see
Nature always proceeding in a certain way we must
take for granted that there lias never been any other.
Effects follow from causes, which are themselves the
effects of other causes ; therefore this must be the only
course things have ever taken. But similarly we get
DARWINISM 2 1
eggs from hens, and hens from eggs. Are we to say
that every hen that ever was has come from an egg,
and yet every egg from a hen? If Nature proceeds
from cause to effect, a cause must come first, which is
not an effect. There must have been either an egg
that was never laid, or a hen that was never hatched
—it is always the first cause that is the stumbling-
block.
In conclusion, it must be remarked that Evolu
tionist arguments are frequently, involved in a cloud of
words from which it is impossible to evolve any definite
meaning. Thus Mr. Herbert Spencer writes, laying
down what he styles the Formula of Evolution : " Evo
lution is an integration of matter and concomitant
dissipation of motion ; during which the matter passes
from a relatively indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, to
a relatively definite, coherent heterogeneity; and dur
ing which the contained motion undergoes a parallel
transformation." In proportion as this is expounded
it is laid open to grave objections, so that Mr. Spencer
himself has more than once been compelled to alter
its terms, which should not be the case with a funda
mental formula.
(2) DARWINISM.
This theory undertakes to explain one particular
department of Evolution, viz., the development of one
species of animals or plants from another. This it
accounts for by the Law of Variation, causing diffe
rences to arise between creatures of the same species in
successive generations, those which are best fitted to
survive in the struggle for existence being preserved by
22 CONTRARY DOCTRINES
Natural Selection, which thus gradually causes a ne\v
type to be produced.
Such a theory, it is obvious, tells us nothing about
Creation, Living things must be already in existence
before it can begin to work. Supposing God to have
created the first species, and to have ordained that
the others which He wished to succeed it should be
produced in this manner, there is nothing in the theory
inconsistent with our doctrines. But Darwinians com
monly talk as if Natural Selection could account for
everything in Nature, and dispense with the need of a
First Cause.
In considering this theory there are two main
assertions to be distinguished.
(1) That all species from the lowest to the highest
have as a matter of fact been evolved from one
another.
(2) That Natural Selection by itself can account for
this evolution, even in the case of man.
Were both of these propositions established, the
origin of life would be utterly unexplained, But on
each something must be said.
( i) It is by no means proved that any species has been
thus evolved.
The testimony of Fossil Botany, according to
Mr. Carruthers is quite against Evolution; and Sir
Joseph Dawson tells us that Geology as a whole is so
likewise. There are many other difficulties.
(2) Even supposing Evolution to be proved, the Dar
winian Natural Selection is quite incapable of
accounting for it.
MATERIALISM 23
This is shown by the evidence of Mr. Wallace, who
believing strongly in Darwinism (of which he is thu
joint author), yet declares that at least thrice in the
course of development, a new cause or power must
have intervened, to do what natural forces could not
of themselves accomplish: — firstly,- to produce life: —
secondly, to produce sensation or consciousness: —
thirdly, to produce reason.
Moreover, the theory of Mr. Darwin, though often
spoken of, is now commonly abandoned, as it is found
not to agree with facts : those who call themselves
Darwinians having each his own theory to replace it,
which however few but its authors adopt. As the
Times lately said, the Darwinists seem likely to split
into as many sects as the Methodists.
The above theories deal with the Method of
Creation. Those which follow endeavour to find
something by which to replace God.
(3) MATERIALISM.
According to this Creed, the only God, and the
first cause of everything, is Matter. It has existed
from eternity, and in obedience to "occult laws, inher
ent in its nature," has built up everything in the
universe, all — even the soul of man — consisting of
matter variously arranged. Thus a man and a stone
are but different combinations of the same elements.
The groundwork of the materialistic system is the
principle that our only means of knowledge is through
our senses, and that \ve should believe in nothing but
what we can see or feel or hear.
24 CONTRARY DOCTRINES
It thus at once contradicts itself, for we cannot
know this principle itself by our senses, and therefore
ought not to believe in it. Also, since the laws arc
" occult," materialists can know nothing about them.
Moreover, according to this, we should believe no
facts of history, or the like, which cannot be known
to us through our senses.
Passing over these preliminary difficulties, as to its
fundamental principles, the materialistic creed is thus
set forth by its disciples.
' In matter," says Professor Tyndall (JJd/vst
Address}, "we discern the promise and the potentiality
of all terrestrial life. The doctrine of evolution
derives man, in his totality, from the interaction of
organism and environment through countless ages
past." Moleschott teaches that thought is only
a movement of matter; and that man is but a machine
constructed so as to think, the chief factor in this
process being phosphorus, — " Without phosphorus
no thought." (Janet, Materialism, pp. 33, &c.) The
process of producing a man is purely a matter of
chemistry. ' The chemic lump," says Emerson,
" arrives at the plant and grows; arrives at the animal
and walks; arrives at the man and thinks." (//;/>/.)
It follows accordingly that man, to use Professor
Huxley's expression, is " but the cunningest of nature's
clocks," and that we can no more help doing what
we do, than a clock can help striking.
This theory presents itself as rigidly scientific. But
in the first place, what does it mean by Matter?
Matter is not a single thing, but is made up of millions
upon millions of " Atoms," separate and distinct one
from another, and possessing different properties.
Whence came these properties?. And whence came
MATERIALISM 2 $
the laws making them work together towards one end?
As Lord Grimthorpe says, it is no explanation to call
the laws "inherent," for this word only means "stick-
ing-in," and this does not tell us how they got there,
As the same writer remarks, the materialistic doctrine
really means " every atom its own God." Yet all
these deities have to obey laws, which they cannot
have instituted.
Moreover, according to Professor Huxley's " funda
mental principle " of Evolution (supra, p. 12), before
the work of the universe could begin, these Atoms had
to be combined into " Molecules." But as Sir John
Herschel says, " a molecule is a manufactured article,
and to talk of a manufactured article being eternal is
nonsense."
Materialism also denies the distinction between
right and wrong, since both follow of necessity, from
our constitution, and thus contradicts the testimony of
conscience and the common sense of mankind.
As to the idea, on which materialism wholly de
pends, that life and thought could be produced by
matter, it is utterly condemned by scientific men such
as Clerk- Maxwell and Tait. The latter speaks thus :
" To say that even the very lowest form of life, not to
speak of its higher forms, still less of volition, can be
fully explained on physical principles alone, is simply
unscientific. There is absolutely nothing known in
physical science which can lend the slightest support
to such an idea." He goes on to say that Newton's
laws of motion are destructive of it.
Infidel philosophers themselves, however, spare us
the trouble of farther examination, for they have con
demned materialism in the strongest terms.
Professor Huxley, though his own principles are
2 5 CONTRARY DOCTRINES
purely materialistic, utterly repudiates the system
which should result from them. " 1 am no materialist,"
he says, " but on the contrary believe materialism to
involve grave philosophical error; it may paralyze the
energies and destroy the beauty of a life." (f.fiy
Sermons, p. i 40.)
Professor Clifford calls it a singular doctrine,
founded on confusion of thought. (Essays, p. 328.)
M. Comte: " It is the most illogical form of meta
physics."
"Mr. Leslie Stephen : " Materialism is already dead
and buried, and it lias died because it was too absurd a
doctrine even for philosophers. It is as easy as it is
edifying to expose materialism. It is a degrading
doctrine, which taicn of science have abandoned as
completely as metaphysicians. To say that the in
tellect is made up of phosphates, is not so much error
as sheer nonsense." (Essays, pp. 89, &c.)
(4) PANTHEISM.
This is the direct opposite of Materialism, and holds
that everything is God, all the phenomena of the
Universe being only manifestations of the Divine
Essence. Accordingly this doctrine is repugnant to the
distinction between right and wrong, for, according to
it, both, being equally divine, would be equally good.
Could it help a man to control his evil passions, to be
told that they are part of the Divine Essence?
According to it, also, the First Cause must be ever
changing, and becoming what it was not before. But
a Being absolutely simple cannot change; and one
containing all perfection cannot become anything else.
AGNOSTICISM 2 7
Here again the testimonies of unbelievers are suffi
cient to demonstrate the absurdity of the system.
Mr. Frederick Harrison declares {Nineteenth
Century, August, 1881) that the proposition "Every
thing is God/' is just as absurd as " Everything is
Matter;" for everything would be the same, because
it was God; and God w/^uld not be the same, being all
sorts of different things — good and evil, living and
lifeless, intelligent and unintelligent, at the same time.
" If," he continues, " God and universe are identical
expressions, we had better drop one of them. Let us,
in the name of sense, get rid of these big, vague words,
and say simply ' things,' and have the courage of our
convictions and boldly profess as our creed, 'I believe
in nothing except in things in general.' ' And he goes
on to inquire how such a creed is likely to make the
world better.
(5) AGNOSTICISM.
Agnostics, or "Know-nothings," have for their prin
cipal exponents Mr. Herbert Spencer and Professor
Huxley, who claim that their creed alone is scientific
and worthy of reasonable men.
In the first place, against other systems such as
Christianity, they employ the following mode of rea
soning. " What we do not and cannot know we should
not pretend to know. But we can know nothing beyond
the phenomena of the world, as perceived by our
senses. Therefore we should not pretend, as all
religious systems do, to know anything more." And
Professor Huxley uses the following illustration. " If
a man asks me what are the politics of the inhabitants
of the moon, and I reply that I do not know, and
28 CONTRARY DOCTRINES
decline to trouble myself about the subject, I do not
see that he has any right tlo call me a sceptic."
This argument "begs the question." We have no
means of knowing about the man, if there be one, in the
moon, but — as has already been seen — we have abun
dant means of knowing about much which the senses
cannot reach. And it is because the sceptic, or agnos
tic, refuses to use the means he has, that we call him
unreasonable.
In regard of God, his scepticism is particularly
irrational. If there be a God, He must be imper
ceptible to sense. Our senses can discover matter
only; if they could discover Him, He would not be
God. Therefore to say that we will not believe in Him
because we cannot see or handle Him, is to say that we
would believe only if we could prove that He was not
God.
Agnosticism, parading itself as pre-eminently rea
sonable, because it rejects the use of inference, where
by our reason can discover truth, is therefore as irra
tional as would be a man who should determine to
believe in nothing but what he could touch with his
hands, and declare accordingly that he could not know
the existence of the sun.
Agnostics, however, prefer to substitute a religion of
their own. As we cannot know what is beyond the
things of sense, we are to worship the Unknowable —
which is to be written with a capital U.
This however, as Mr. Spencer assures us, is not
God. It is of the neuter gender, — not "He," but "It,"
— it has no mind and no will : we cannot tell what it
is, only what it is not. " An infinite, eternal energy
from which all things proceed — the ultimate Reality
transcending human thought."
POSITIVISM 29
But as Mr. Frederick Harrison observes, if wo
know all this ; we know a great deal about the
Unknowable. And how do we know that there is only
one of them? And why spell it with a capital?
Moreover, he declares that to make a religion out
of it is more absurd than to make it out of the Equator
or the Binomial Theorem. It is like worshipping xn
the Unknowable might be a gooseberry, or a paral-
lelopiped, and the creed of the Agnostic amounts only
to this, " There is a sort of something about which I
can know nothing."
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, another free-thinker,
joins in the attack. To him Mr. Spencer's conclusion
appears to have no meaning at all, his argument to be
an unmeaning play upon words, and the whole system
to be baseless and whollv unimportant.
(6) POSITIVISM
This, otherwise described as the Religion of
Humanity, or the Religion of the Future — agrees with
the foregoing systems in discarding the Supernatural,
and believing in nothing but material things. But in
order to furnish man with an object of worship, — a
religion of some sort being found necessary for him —
it proposes the human race itself, Humanity or
collective Man. The founder of this creed was
M. Comte, and its chief apostles are Mr. Frederick
Harrison and Mr. Congreve. All men who have ever
been eminent, Heathens, Mahomedans, and Christians,
are its Saints (though M. Comte would admit no
Protestants into his calendar), and by the thought of
'3^ CONTRARY DOCTRINES
them \ve are to nerve ourselves to benefit our race in
the future.
But mankind itself is so little attracted by its
own religion that a Positivist congregation has been
described as "Three persons and no God," while rival
makers of religions find in it every possible absurdity.
Says Sir James Fit/James Stephen : " Is not
Mr. Harrison's own creed open to every objection
•which he urges against Mr. Spencer's? Humanity,
with a capital H, is neither better nor worse fitted to
be a god, than the Unknowable with a capital U.
They are as much alike as six and half-a-dozen. It
seems to me that it is just as unknowable as the " Un
knowable " itself, and just as well and just as ill fitted
to be an object of worship.
According to Mr. Spencer, Positivism is retrogres
sive and unphilosophic, and contradicts the law of
Evolution. It repeats the absurdity of Pantheism in
reckoning equally among its Saints men whose lives
and principles were directly opposite to one another.
He cannot understand how people of intelligence can
accept it.
Professor Huxley pronounces it utterly unscientific.
He says of it, " I must respectfully but steadfastly
decline to give any one who cares for my opinion the
slightest excuse for supposing that I can give my
assent to a single doctrine which is the peculiar pro
perty of Positivism, old or new." (Lay Sermons, pp.
147, seq.)
Amid this conflict of opinions there is a general
consent among our philosophers that a Religion of
some sort is required. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
has indeed suggested (Nineteenth Century, June,
POSITIVISM 3 1
1884), that the best plan is to dispense with any, and to
enjoy this world, which seems to him a very good
world, if it would only, last ; love, friendship, and the
like, being quite sufficient to make a man happy. But
this idea is sternly repudiated by others. Mr. Harrison
considers it an "original" idea. {Nineteenth Century,
Sept. 1884.) .Where are we to iget love and friendship
if men have nothing to keep them good? He also
describes Sir James Stephen's philosophy as " the
raving of Timon of Athens." Mr. Spencer quite
agrees that there must be some religion, and that
evolution must, amongst other things, make men more
religious, or it would not do its work, for to be
religious is good for them. {Nineteenth Century, Jan.
1884.) So likewise thinks that most bitter infidel,
Professor Clifford. {Cosmic Emotion, Essays, pp.
394—417.)
We may therefore conclude that both from the
sound nature of the arguments by which the Existence
and Attributes of God are demonstrated, and from the
manifest absurdities and contradictions of the systems
opposed to belief in Him, or Theism, we must take
this doctrine to be alone scientific, and worthy the
acceptance of reasonable men.
32 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
VI. CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY.
Having proved the Existence of God, and shown
what is His Nature, our next step is tp show that
Jesus Christ was His representative on earth, and that
Christ's Church possesses authority to which men are
bound to submit.
In this inquiry, as in the former, we must argue
from reason alone, for not till reason has done its work
and discovered a teacher worthy of implicit trust, can
we trust ourselves to him, When reason, by leading
us to such a teacher, has done its work, then Faith
begins.
Therefore Faith is not, as is frequently assumed,
opposed to reason, but, on the contrary, if by reason
we can discover such a guide, whose knowledge we are
sure is greater than our own, we should act against
reason in not believing him, even Avhen he tells us
what, left to ourselves, we cannot discover.
The question now is — Is there any such guide or
teacher? Christians say there is — namely, Christ and
His Church, and we have to examine the arguments
whereby this is proved.
In this investigation we may begin at either end.
First we may prove that Jesus Christ was what He
claimed to be, the representative of God on earth,
armed with divine authority; that He committed His
authority to the Church; and consequently that the
Church is commissioned by God to teach us.
Secondly, we may show that the Church, as it now
exists on earth, is a divine institution, and being such
TBE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH 33
can teach us nothing but the truth. Then from its
teaching we may learn the divine authority of its
Founder.
We shall proceed first by the latter method.
(i) THE ARGUMENT FROM
THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
N.B. — When we speak of the Christian Church
we always mean the Catholic, although in a later
treatise we shall have to show against heretics that she
is truly the Church of Christ. But the Catholic Church,
which all men know and recognize as a corporate
body, alone affords a foundation for an argument from
pure reason, against infidels and rationalists, such as
that in which we are engaged.
(a) In the first place a most cogent argument estab
lishing a very strong probability in favour of the claim
of the Church to be a divinely constituted authority for
the instruction and guidance of men, may be deduced
from what has already been proved concerning the
nature of God. Being supremely good and just, God
must have provided for men some sure means of
knowing what is required of them in order that they,
may fulfil His will in their regard. Conscience does
this to some extent, but only to some extent. There
are a multitude of vital and most important questions
which, especially as human society expands and
develops, the faculties given us by God force us to ask,
but which those faculties cannot answer; as is evident
from the infinite number of contradictory replies which
human reasoning suggests. Therefore we may unhesi
tatingly conclude- that God must have established some
D
34 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
means beyond reason to give us the knowledge which
reason cannot give. This might, of course, have been
done in many ways, but when we look round the world
as it actually is, we find nothing which even pretends
to satisfy this want except the Church, which claims,
and alone has ever claimed, to be divinely instituted
and sustained for the guidance of men in those very
perplexities in which some such assistance is so
obviously required. No other body pretends, or ever
has pretended, to such a mission, nor is there any trace
on earth of any other means whereby God's will in
regard of all details of life can be made known to us
with certainty.
Moreover, when we examine her teachings we find
that although they go beyond those of our conscience,
they are in perfect harmony with it, and are recognized
by it as good and holy.
We may therefore say that judgment in favour of
the Church goes by default, there being no other
claimant for a function which, as our reason tells us,
must somehow be performed.
(£) An examination of the Church herself changes
the probability of the last argument into certainty.
The Church is evidently an institution more than
human. Without any of the means upon which earthly
empires rely, it has established a dominion with which
none of theirs can be compared. It has lasted while
one after another they rose and fell. It embraces the
most diverse and hostile races, which have never had
anything ;else in common. It unites them in an absolute
.unity and obedience to which there is no parallel in the
world. It has introduced into the world a type of
holiness, of which there is no trace elsewhere, and this
THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH '35
type it has exemplified in its Saints through every
period of its existence. .When owing to the inevitable
weakness of human nature abuses have crept into even
its highest places, alone of all institutions it has not
been corrupted or demoralized by them, but has sufficed
for its own purification, and is to-day as vigorous and
as holy as in its beginning. It has confronted the
attacks of the mightiest powers of earth, from the
Roman Empire downwards, and of innumerable hostile
systems of religion and philosophy — and yet remains
the one formidable antagonist with which these adver
saries have to deal.
Such an institution, absolutely without parallel upon
earth, accomplishing results utterly beyond all earthly
powers, and without any human means whatever, offer
ing no bribe to human nature, but on the contrary,
imposing a law supremely distasteful to the natural
man, making large demands on the obedience of its
subjects, forbidding much that men naturally desire,
and yet able to impose her laws upon them so effectu
ally — is evidently more than human, and can be ac
counted for only by acknowledging it to be Divine.
That the Church is as above described we have many
unfriendly witnesses to prove.
Lord Macaulay. " There is not, and there nevei
was on this earth, a work of human policy so well de
serving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church.'*
(See the rest of the well-known passage in his Essay
on Ranke's History of the Popes.)
Kinglake. " The universal aptness of a religious
system for all stages of civilization, and for all sorts
sand conditions of men, well befits its claim of divine
origin. She is of all nations and of all times, that
wonderful Church of Rome," (Epthen, c. xi.)
36 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
Huxley. " Our great antagonist, I speak as a man
of science, [is] the Roman Catholic Church." (Lay
Sermons, " Scientific Education.")
Lecky. " Whatever is lost by Catholicism is gained
by Rationalism; wherever the spirit of Rationalism re
cedes, the spirit of Catholicism advances." {History
of Rationalism, vol. i. c. 2.)
The argument based on such evidence as this is
summed up by Cardinal Newman.
" It is the great Note of an ever-enduring ccctus
fidehitw, with a fixed organization, a unity of jurisdic
tion, a political greatness, a continuity of existence in
all places and times, a suitableness to all classes, ranks,
and callings, an ever-energizing life, an untiring, ever-
evolving history, — which is the evidence that she is the
creation of God." {Grammar of Assent.)
(?) The argument is farther supported by the
history of the Jews, whose religion the Church claims
as the foundation of her own. Their history is plainly
miraculous. From the beginning they alone among
nations were constant upholders of the true doctrine
concerning God. " They begin with the beginning of
history, and this august doctrine begins with them."
(Cardinal Newman.) Theism was their life, they were
made a people by it, a people utterly distinct from all
others, and preserving its individual character through
two thousand years, and through misfortunes and
difficulties by which others would have been over
whelmed.
This their history corresponds exactly with their own
declaration, constantly reiterated, that they were God's
people, protected by Him for the sake of the truth of
.which they were the guardians. They moreover de-
THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH 3;
dared that this truth was one day to receive at God's
hand a fuller development, and that the continuance
of His favour was dependent on their own fidelity to
the covenant established with them.
Christianity claims to be the development which the
Jews foresaw. But the Jews themselves rejected it,
and have from the first been its bitterest enemies.
Since the day of that rejection their history has been
reversed, and their people has become an example of
ruin as striking as had previously been their preserva
tion against it. " They fell under the power of their
enemies, and were overthrown, their holy city razed to
the ground, their polity destroyed, and the remnant of
their people cast off to wander far and away, through
every land except their own, as we find them at this
day; lasting on century after century, not absorbed in
other populations and annihilated, as likely to hist on,
as unlikely to be restored, now, as a thousand years
ago. What nation has so grand, so romantic, so
terrible a history? Does it not fulfil the idea of what
the nation calls itself, a chosen people, chosen for^ood
and evil?" (Cardinal Newman, ibid.}
Their forfeiture of God's favour cannot be due to
their having been false to the truth which had so long
secured it for them, for when their overthrow came they
were even more zealous for their Law and its teachings
than they had ever been before. It can only be ac
counted for by their rejection of that fuller and more
perfect revelation for which theirs was a preparation
and of its Divine Founder, the Messias, whom all their
prophets had foretold.
From the above arguments we conclude that the
Church is under the immediate care and guidance of
God, and that we must therefore accept her claim to be
38 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
God's appointed means of making known His will to
men. And this being so we must accept on her
authority whatever she teaches us about herself, her
Founder, and the obligations, whether of belief or of
practice, imposed upon us by God.
(2) THE ARGUMENT FROM THE DIVINITY
OF CHRIST.
Starting at the opposite end of the chain of argu
ment and proceeding from the Founder of the Church,
to the Church He founded, we obtain a proof equally
convincing. Here, too, we must depend on reason
alone, for this argument is independent of the other,
and assumes nothing concerning our Lord but what
we can establish by the ordinary methods of human
history.
We have therefore in the first place to inquire what
we know of Christ and His history. The chief source
of information arc the four Gospels, wrhich at present
we consider merely as human documents. It is ob
jected to their authority, even from this point of view,
that wre have no evidence that they were written by
those whose names they bear, or even by eye-witnesses
of the events they treat, while many modern critics
contend that they were not written for more than a
century later.
To these assertions we reply that it is unnecessary
for the sake of our present argument to examine them,
for the basis which WTC require is altogether independent
of the points they raise. Our contention is that the
character of Christ as portrayed to us by the Gospels,
whenever and by whomsoever they were written, as
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 39
also by tradition, is of such a nature that it cannot
be a fiction, and can only have been drawn from the
life.
I, It is historically certain that Jesus Christ lived
and died at the time described. This is proved not
only by the New Testament, but by profane historians,
as by Tacitus, " The author of the Christian name,
Christj was put to death by the Procurator, Pontius
Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius."
It is on the person and character of Christ that the
Church bases her claims.
The character of Jesus Christ as known to Christians
now for eighteen centuries, which alone has made
Christianity possible, is absolutely unique, and exhibits
human nature as attaining a type of perfection, which
but for it would have been inconceivable. No maxi.ms
of philosophers or religious teachers, of any school,
ever approached the sublimity of His doctrine and of
His practice, as exhibited to us. He does not draw for
His authority on any other than Himself, and reso
lutely sets aside Avhat had been the laws hitherto
accepted, even on divine authority, to substitute His
own (as in the duty of loving our enemies, charity to
the poor, and the sanctity of marriage), and though
thus utterly novel, His teaching is recognized by the
human heart as so conformable to conscience as to
bear down all other and find acceptance from the
common consent of mankind. If lie did not actually
exist and teach, whence came the materials for such
a portrait? As has been said, " He who drew it
would have been more marvellous than the Original."
That the character of our Lord is thus immeasur
ably above all other characters we have ample testi
monies, even from those who are not His followers. As
4° CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
Napoleon is reported to have said, " I know men well,
and I tell you that Jesus Christ was not a mere man;"
and in like manner even those \vho deny that there
exists anything beyond man, are constrained to admit
that His character unapproachably transcends any
other human characters. Thus Professor Huxley
describes it as " the noblest ideal of humanity which
mankind have yet worshipped," and the rest of men as
"the pitiful reality;" while those who like Strauss,
Renan, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and others, wish to
destroy the idea of His Divinity, propose instead to set
Him up as the model of the most perfect man.
This indeed they find necessary, for undeniably, as
an historical fact, Christianity has been founded, has
grown and has endured, solely on belief in Him. It
has moreover unquestionably transformed the world as
no other religion ever did, and introduced a code of
morality, and a social improvement, amongst men with
which no other can compare. There must therefore
be something in His Person and Character irresistibly
appealing to the minds of men.
But nothing in His history is more obvious than
that He claimed to speak not with human authority
but with Divine. The laws which, though far short of
Christian perfection, the Jews held on Divine authority,
He bade them set aside on His word for such as were
more perfect. " You have heard that it was said to
them of old, . . . but I say unto you. . . ." And
whereas the prophets had prefaced their instructions
with " Thus saith the Lord . . . ," He merely says
"Amen, Amen, / say to you. . . ." Besides this He so
spoke that the Jews understood Him to claim to be
God, and proposed to stone Him as a blasphemer, as
when He told them " before Abraham was, I am."
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 4!
Beyond this, He constantly represents Himself as
the central power from which His Church was to draw
its life — He is the Bread of Life; the Vine on which
all fruitful branches must be grafted; the Way, the
Truth, and the Life: the Door through which alone
God's kingdom can be reached : He and the Father are
One: He who hates Him hates the Eternal Father:
His Church shall endure for ever because He is with
it all days even to the end of the world.
From all this it is plain that He claimed as His
own a power that was Divine, for this self-assertion is
an essential feature of His character as represented to
us. Had He been a mere man such a claim would have
been blasphemy, and instead of the most perfect ideal
of humanity, He would have to be pronounced the
most impious of pretenders. The only way to admit
even His human pre-eminence is to allow that He was
what He claimed to be, — and those who do otherwise
f!atly contradict themselves.
To sum up our argument. The very nature of the
Character of Christ as it is known to us proves that
He was what He is represented to have been; and the
excellences which His adversaries are compelled to
acknowledge in that character are impossible unless we
confess that He was not only Man, but in a true sense
Divine.
II. The same may be shown in other ways, as by
the prophecies of the Old Testament, which so wonder
fully if oretold Christ's life and work, and which coming
to us on the authority of His bitterest enemies, the,
Jews, cannot be suspected of being falsified on His
behalf.
Also from His miracles, and especially from that of
His Resurrection. This is the great sign to which He
42 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
appealed beforehand in proof of His Divine Mission,
and it is to the same that His followers have appealed
ever since. But such a resurrection is according to
human experience so utterly incredible that unless men
could be convinced of its actual occurrence, this test
would have been absolutely fatal to His claims. Yet
men somehow were convinced, so that, on the strength
of it, the religion of Him who was known to have been
publicly crucified overran the world. How was this if
it was an imposture? His enemies had every means of
proving it such, and were anxious to do so. Yet in
spite of all they were utterly una'ble to convince men
that He had not risen. How is this possible unless it
was true that He had done so?
It must be remembered that the Church of Christ
is, even humanly speaking, the most wonderful fact in
history. To deny its power, says Sir James Fitzjames
Stephen, "is like denying the agency of the sun in the
physical world." It owes its existence solely to the
belief in Christ as still living and sustaining it. It is
quite impossible to suppose that belief in a lie has been
powerful through so many ages to do a work such as
nothing else has ever done.
As Talleyrand said to the French Revolutionists
who wanted to know how to make a new religion
succeed— ' Your best plan is to be crucified and to
rise again."
The same may be said of the other miracles. If not
true their assertion would have been the surest means
of discrediting the new religion. They were said to
have been worked in public, sometimes before thou
sands. They must therefore if falsely asserted have
been at once refuted.
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 43
From these arguments, and other such, we conclude
that Jesus Christ was a Teacher with authority from
God such as none other ever had, and, this being so,
that we are bound to submit implicitly to His teachings.
As we shall presently see, He delegated His authority
to the Church, from which it must follow that she also
has Divine authority to which we are in like manner
bound to submit.
For this purpose we must know exactly what His
teachings were, which brings us to the question of the
authenticity of the Gospels — considered merely as
history — from which this has to be learnt. [See below. \
44 REVELATION
VII. REVELATION.
Truths are revealed which arc made known to us
directly on the authority of God without the interven
tion of our own reason. These may be such that reason
could discover them, or such as are beyond reason so
that we could never have known them but for Revela
tion. Truths beyond reason, we cannot comprehend,
that is to say, we cannot understand how they are true :
which however does not prevent us from being certain
of their truth.
Moreover, as reason rightly, used is a means of
knowing the truth, and as truth cannot contradict itself,
the truths of revelation cannot be against reason; that
is to say, reason cannot declare them to be false while
revelation declares them to be true. Reason can only
say that it does not see how they are true, while at the
same time it sees that they must be so, since it recog
nizes the truthfulness of the authority which reveals
them.
Truths thus beyond our intelligence, but revealed
to us on the authority of God, are "Mysteries," and the
acceptance of such truths on such grounds is " Faith."
Many truths in the natural order are believed with
out doubting on the authority of others. Thus those
who have no idea how astronomers calculate eclipses
believe their predictions. Such a belief is an exer
cise of natural or human faith. But supernatural or
divine faith differs from this inasmuch as the objects
it reveals are beyond not only our own intelligence,
REVELATION 45
but all other human intelligences, and could never be
known by unaided reason.
Jt is also to be remembered that, as we have seen,
there are mysteries also in the natural order, that is to
say, we are unable to understand how that can be
which reason nevertheless shows to be true. Thus
reason, as we have seen, tells us that the First Cause
can have had no beginning; yet the thought of exist
ence without a beginning is utterly bewildering and
cannot in the least be comprehended. Similarly no
philosopher has any idea how gravitation acts, though
none has any doubt of its reality. Again, we can form
no conception how light can enable us to see, or sound
to hear, though we all know they do.
rrhe fact of a truth being beyond our reason, or
incomprehensible to us, affords therefore no ground
for not believing it, provided that we have sufficient
proof that it is a truth,
In regard of the truths of Faith this proof is fur
nished by the authority of Jesus Christ and His
Church, which we have already established. Our
reason assures us that they speak with the authority
of God; and likewise that God, as the supreme source
of goodness and truth, can neither deceive nor be de
ceived. It follows therefore that in the name of reason
itself we must accept their teachings without doubt
pr hesitation, however much they transcend our own
intelligence.
This is the " rational basis " of Faith,
46 FAITH AND REASON
VIII. FAITH AND REASON.
Reason, as has been shown, must precede Faith ;
but Faith, though thus ultimately dependent on it,
affords us supernatural certitude, far surpassing the
natural certitude furnished by reason.
Reason suffices to give a moral conviction, that
Jesus Christ, and no other, is the divinely appointed
Teacher to 'be obeyed; and that the Catholic Church
alone speaks with His authority. Such a conviction
does (not compel the assent of the intellect, as does the
truth that two and two make four; rendering it impos
sible to deny: but it is abundantly sufficient to make
us feel the duty of accepting it. The acceptance of
Faith is then the work not of the intellect only, but
also of the will. In like manner, the proof that
drunkenness, for example, is a vice, is sufficient to
make it wrong on our part not to withstand it : yet it is
possible, not only to indulge in the vice, but even
theoretically setting aside the law, to persuade our
selves that it is no vice at all.
Faith is therefore not merely a matter of under
standing and of 'the dry light of the intellect alone,
but concerns the whole man, and demands for its at
tainment that the heart should be sincere and anxious
to do what is right.
It is moreover true that, even so far as the intellect
is concerned, the force of a demonstration depends
greatly on other considerations. Thus the duty of
almsgiving makes little impression, however clearly
set forth, on one whose heart is hardened by self-
indulgence.
FAITH AND REASON 47
tThat reason should lead to Faith it is therefore
necessary that a man should earnestly and sincerely
desire to know the truth,, and be unreservedly prepared
to accept it when found, and moreover that he should
faithfully submit to the teachings of his conscience.
Such a man considering the credentials of Christ
and His Church arrives at a conviction, without rival
conviction or even reasonable doubt — "This is the one
voice of God, — the one way of Salvation."
This is a motive sufficient; and a motive that binds
him, to submit to the Church ; but it is, as yet, only a
natural motive, depending on the exercise of reason,
and the arguments are not sufficient to exclude the
possibility of doubt, though they are sufficient to make
doubt unreasonable, there being no sufficient argu
ments in favour of it.
In submitting to the Church he receives the £if t of
Faith, which at once changes the nature of his
certitude, making it supernatural, so that he is more
absolutely certain of the truths of Revelation than of
any truths in the natural order.
" Faith " is used in a two-fold sense. It is used, as
we have seen, for the act of belief in what we know
only by authority. But it also signifies the super
natural gift bestowed upon us by God to enable us to
believe directly on His authority. The truths of reason
He discloses to us by light reflected through the
medium of our faculties: those of Faith by His direct
influence on the souls of His creatures through Grace.
.We believe — says Cardinal Franzelin — because in
the very act of revelation the Truth of God manifests
itself to us directly, and with absolute certainty. The
will, says Cardinal de Lugo, elevated by Grace,
commands absolute assent, and the intellect embraces
48 FAITH AND REASON
the truth with a power not natural merely but super
natural .
The Theological Virtue of Faith is thus a super
natural " habit " or state to which we are raised, in
which the truths of revelation are made known to us
more directly than those of reason, and with greater
power, so that doubt becomes not only unreasonable,
but impossible. And therefore, although reason con
ducts us to Faith, and fully sanctions our acceptance
of it, the Certitude of Faith does not rest upon reason,
but upon a Grace above reason.
This may be illustrated by a comparison. Columbus
before starting on his voyage had convinced himself
by solid arguments of the existence of the New World,
but when he landed there he had evidence of its
existence immeasurably stronger.
In like manner many of the Samaritans believed in
our Lord on the testimony of the woman as to the
secrets of her life which He had told her, But after
wards they said to her, "We now believe, not for thy
saying, for we ourselves have heard Him, and know
that this is indeed the Saviour of the world."
As Faith is a grace, freely bestowed by God, it may,
like other graces, be forfeited by our fault. His super
natural help being withdrawn we cease to see as we
did when it assisted us.
It appears from the above exposition how the
objection is to be met, that as Faith is founded upon
reason, and as the superstructure cannot be stronger
than its basis, it can afford us only natural or human
certitude, and that not absolutely conclusive. As
Cardinal Newman says, "Faith is a venture before a
man is a Catholic, it is a grace after it. \Ve approach
the Church in the way of reason, we live in \t in the
light of the Spirit,"
MIRACLES 49
IX. MIRACLES.
A Miracle is an occurrence due to a power beyond
the forces of nature, and for which the Laws of Nature
cannot account.
Thus the Laws of Nature cannot account for the
restoration of a dead man to life. Supposing this to
occur, it must be a miracle.
The possibility of miracles is vehemently denied
by infidel philosophers, on the ground that there is no
such preternatural power as is required to work them.
But the study of nature herself demonstrates the
existence of a power beyond Nature, and its exercise.
As we have seen, the first impulse given to the forces
of nature must have been a Miracle, being nowise in
accordance with the Laws of Nature and beyond the
power of her forces. So too the first beginning of life.
In nature we can get life only from a living parent : the
first appearance of life was miraculous.
There must therefore exist a power, capable of
doing what Nature cannot do, and as it has certainly
once acted there is no impossibility that it should act
again.
The question of Miracles resolves itself therefore
into one of the evidence on which they rest. If we
have sufficient evidence that one has been worked, we
cannot refuse to admit it on the a priori ground that it
is impossible.
To this Hume objects that the evidence for a
miracle can never be sufficient, inasmuch as all human
experience is against it, and universal experience is a
E
•jo* MIRACLES
stronger argument than the experience alleged in a
particular case.
But, as Professor Huxley admits, this celebrated
argument will not stand. Taken strictly it would forbid
us to believe in any new discovery, v.g., the telephone,
for all the former experience of mankind was against
its possibility. Moreover, there is an obvious fallacy.
The universal experience of mankind is not about the
same thing as the particular testimony in question.
The vast majority of men have seen dead men who
have not been brought to life; but they have not
watched the particular case, of Lazarus, for example,
and seen that he was not brought to life again. They
may prove that the raising of the dead is impossible by
any means which they have seen tried; they cannot
prove this for a means of which they have no ex
perience. The general experience, therefore, does not
contradict the particular experience on the question of
fact, the only question to be considered.
Professor Huxley would substitute another argu
ment for Hume's. " Whatever happens," he says, "the
man of science is sure must have some natural ex
planation, which if not yet known remains to be dis
covered." This is again to beg the question. He
begins by assuming that nothing exists beyond
" Nature," whence of course it follows that nothing-
happens but by natural laws. But, as Cardinal
Newman observes, Hume's argument is in its turn fatal
to this assumption, for the universal experience of
mankind avails to prove that some things are beyond
the power of Nature. If these occur, it is therefore
impossible to deny their miraculous character on the
ground that they were naturally performed,
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS c I
X. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
GOSPELS.
We have already seen that the character of Christ
as the Gospel narratives represent it, is sufficient to
establish their claim to be truthful histori'es, which is
all for which at present we contend.
In view, however, of modern attacks, it is necessary
to examine the question of their authenticity on other
grounds, and to show that they were really written, as
they profess to have been, by contemporaries of the
events they describe.
Christian tradition assigns their authorship to the
Apostles St. Matthew and St. John, and the Disciples
St. Mark and St. Luke. That of St. Mark is believed
to have been written under the instruction of St. Peter,
and the author of that of St. Luke expressly declares
that he gathered his materials from the accounts of
eye-witnesses.
But, in our days especially, the authenticity, as of
the Scriptures generally, so of the Gospel narratives in
particular, has been subjected to what is styled the
Higher Criticism, which brings together all possible
evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic, by which to deter
mine their real character and origin, just as in the
case of any other books. Of this, in itself, no complaint
can be made; and although such criticism is very
commonly undertaken with the express purpose of
discrediting the sacred books, and pushed to extremes
which are shown to be of little value by the opposite
conclusions at which different critics arrive, — -we must
52 THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS
not on that account either shun it, or refuse to
recognize what is good in it, As Dr. Kaulcm says
(Kirchen-Lexicon, art. " K'rilik, biblische ") :
" It is well known that Biblical criticism is fre
quently regarded with suspicion, and is stigmatized as
a branch of science dangerous to faith in Revelation.
Such suspicion is justified by the grave abuse long
prevailing, whereby such criticism is employed in the
interests of'Rationalism, as a weapon of offence against
the inspired character of Holy Writ. But, according
to a sound principle, we must not on account of such
abuse, .proscribe its legitimate employment, and no man
of education will raise any question that the higher
criticism rightly applied is singularly well adapted to
enhance the esteem and authority of Scripture, and to
fortify it against destructive assaults."
To examine the subject in detail such books may be
useful as Father Comely, Introductio ad Scripturas
Sacras ; Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books
of the New Testament ; and \Yacc, The Gospel and its
Witnesses.
PART THE SECOND.
REVEALED DOCTRINE.
XL THE CHURCH.
WE have seen above (VI.) that the authority of
Jesus Christ must be accepted as divinely sanctioned
for the instruction and guidance of mankind, while that
of His Church must be accepted as being His repre
sentative and delegate. We have also seen that the
Gospels are to be received as authentic historical
narratives, from which we learn the history of our Lord1
upon earth.
AVe have now to inquire ho\v the true Church of
Christ may be recognized, and what is her character
and constitution.
We contend that the Catholic Church in communion
with, and subject to, the See of Rome., and this alone,
is that instituted by Jesus Christ, having from Him
divine authority to teach mankind, and the promise of
His abiding presence and protection.
This contention we establish by the following series
of propositions.
54 THE CHURCH
i. Christ our Lord demanded unquestioning acceptance
<>/ His teaching, appealing to the signs which
proved His authority to be Divine.
,We have seen (VI. ii.) that our Lord always spoke
as one possessed of higher authority than any man,
even the inspired prophets, had ever enjoyed, and
that He even sets His authority above that of the Old
Testament Scriptures, which the Jews accepted as the
.Word of God.
This His claim to be the one Supreme Teacher of
divine truth, He based not upon arguments addressed
to the learned, but upon one which all men alike could
understand, namely, the signs and wonders He showed
as evidence of His mission. Thus:
John v. 36. "But I have a greater testimony than
that of John ; for the works which the Father hath
given me to accomplish, the works themselves which
I do, give testimony of me that the Father hath sent
me."
John x. 37, 38. " If I do not the works of my
Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will
not believe me, believe the works : that you may know
and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the
Father."
John XV. 22, 24. "If I had not come, and spoken
to them, they would not have sin ; but now they have
no excuse for their sin. ... If I had not done among
them the works that no other man hath done, they,
would not have sin ; but now they have both seen and
hated both me and my Father."
So Nicodemus came to Christ basing his belief in
Him, precisely upon this ground (John iii. 2) :
14 Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher from God;
THE CHURCH
for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless
God be with him."
•When, however, Nicodemus proceeded to raise
objections against the doctrines he heard, our Lord
gave him no arguments, but more emphatically reiter
ated the teaching on His own authority:
Ibid. 11. " Amen, amen I say to thee, that we
speak what we know, and we testify what we have
seen."
ii. Our Lord when leaving the earth invested men with
a like authority, to be exercised in His Name.
John XX. 21. "As the Father hath sent me, I also
send you."
Matt, xxviii. 18—20. "All power is given to me
in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye
(fjLaOrjT€ucraT€='make disciples of) all nations; . . .
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you; and behold I am with you all days
even to the consummation of the world."
Mark xvi. 15, 16. " Go ye into the whole world,
and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved : but he that
believcth not shall be condemned."
Luke X. 16. "He that heareth you, heareth me;
and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
Such authority the Apostles assumed as conferred
upon them:
Acts XV. 28. " It hath seemed good to the Holy;
Ghost and to us."
5 6 THE CHURCH
iii. This authority was not to be limited to the lijetime
of the Apostles, but to endure as long as Christianity.
This is shown by the promise of the abiding presence
and assistance of Christ Himself and the Holy Ghost,
which is the groundwork and guarantee of the said
authority, and was to be not temporary but perpetual.
Thus Matt, xxviii. 20, as above quoted, Christ
will be with His representatives "all days, even to the
consummation of the world"
John xiv. 16. "1 will ask the Father, and he
shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide
with you for ever"
iv.
From this it follows that the Church of Christ must
be represented by a body of men demanding sub
mission in His Name, as being under His gui
dance and protection.
This is clear from what has been shown above. But
there is only one body that makes or ever has made
such a claim, — the Catholic Church; whence it follows
that she alone can pretend to be the Church of Christ.
That she claims this authority and demands unques
tioning submission, is a patent fact, witnessed to by
the taunts of her enemies, who style such submissio-i a
slavery and bondage of the mind. It would be so in
truth were we not assured that God Himself speaks to
us through her, and has pledged His word to preserve
her from error.
Such acceptance of the divine authority of the
Church constitutes the Catholic Rule of Faith, which,
as has been said, differs essentially from all others.
Thus, Protestants, of all varieties, rest upon Private
THE CHURCH 57
Judgment, that is, upon the Scriptures as interpreted
by each individual for himself.
High Church Anglicans appeal vaguely to " the
Church ; " by which they mean either the writings of
the Fathers of the Church, interpreted by each man
for himself : or the opinion of those in their own body
who happen to agree with themselves, acknowledging
no definitely constituted authority to which all are
equally bound to submit. Thus their system is
essentially Protestant and rests entirely on private
judgment.
The Greek (the so-called " Orthodox," i.e., the
schismatic) Church appeals to the early Councils held
before the schism of Photius in the ninth century, and
admits no exercise of divinely constituted authority for
more than a thousand years.
The Catholic Church alone claims to inherit the
promise that Christ will be with her all days to the
end of time, and therefore to speak with an ever-
living voice of authority equally in every age. She,
therefore, alone presents herself to mankind in the
character which our Lord tells us to look for in His
Church.
v. The Church /MS from the beginning claimed to
exercise such authority as being the successor of
the Apostles, and therefore heir to the promises
of Christ.
%*This proposition is directed against those who
say that the claim to authority is a mediaeval corrup
tion of Christianity unheard of in the first ages, when
men freely followed their own judgment.
58 THE CHURCH
(a) In the time of the Apostles themselves, as we
have seen, in the Council of Jerusalem, the claim was
unreservedly stated. (Acts XV. 28) : "It hath seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to its.'"
So too St. Paul (2 Corinth, x. 4, 5) represents it as
being the function of the Apostolate to command sub
mission in the name of God, not by argument, but by,
authority, ". . . destroying counsels, and every height
that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every understanding unto the
obedience of Christ"
(b) Such too was the attitude maintained by the
Church after the Apostolic age, as expounded in the
decrees of the earliest Councils.
Nicea (A.D. 325). " Before all else this is neces
sary, to profess that they will accept and follow the
pronouncements of the Catholic Church." (Denzin-
ger, 19.)
Synod of Rome (A.D. 378). " We anathematize
those who say . . . [the contrary to what we de
cree]," &c.
Ephesus (A.D. 431), " If any one shall say [what
is contrary to our decree], ... let him be anathema."
(6*) So again, from the beginning, the test of ortho
doxy for a Bishop was not his learning or virtue, but
communion with the Apostolic See; because to the
Pastors of the Church, as successors of the Apostles,
was promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost for the
preservation of true doctrine. "That doctrine is alone
to be held which is handed down by the succession of
Bishops." (Origen, De Principiis, Prolcg. 2.)
THE CHURCH 59
vi. Experience likewise -proves that authority claiming
to be unerring or infallible can alone secure such
belief as Divine Faith obviously requires.
Truth can only be one. Two opposite doctrines,
though both may be false, cannot possibly both be true.
Therefore, to believe aright, as God wishes every man
to believe, all must believe the same. To say that
those who hold different doctrines are all equally right,
can only mean that there is no such thing as truth at
all, and that accordingly they are all equally wrong.
Therefore, if Christ had desired every man to find
the truth for himself in His written Word by the
exercise of his own faculties, He would have provided
a means by which all should unfailingly understand
Scripture in the same way, either by making its words
so plain and clear that none could mistake their
meaning, or by giving to every individual a personal
inspiration, opening his mind to understand the Scrip
tures, as He did for the Apostles. (St. Luke xxiv. 45.)
As a plain matter of fact, however, this has not
been done, for it is precisely because men interpret
Scripture in such utterly opposite senses that the
multitude of hostile sects has arisen, and whilst each
of them differs from the rest, none can secure uniform
ity of belief even amongst its own members.
Authority, on the other hand, as exhibited in the
Catholic Church, and in her alone, manifestly does
secure the acceptance of one and the same creed by
all her children. Therefore, of all the bodies which
claim the title, she alone can possibly be the Church
commissioned by Christ to teach His truth to men.
In this claim of authority is necessarily included
that of inerrancy, or infallibility, for no teacher can
possibly command the assent of reasonable men' who
60 THE CHURCH
may confessedly teach them wrong. If there be on
earth no teacher, divinely safeguarded against error,
then is there no means provided for men to know with
certainty what are the things which our Lord so
emphatically commands to be believed (supra, ii.), and
no fulfilment of the promise that all truth shall be
taught by the Holy Ghost Himself. If, on the other
hand, there be such an unerring or infallible teacher,
this can only be the Catholic Church, which alone even
claims infallibility.
%* There arc moreover certain characteristics
which the true Church of Christ must obviously and
necessarily possess, whereby she may be recognized :
and these, no less evidently, are found only in the
Catholic Church, being termed her " Notes," or
" Marks."
vii. The Church o/ Christ must be, and the Catholic
Church is, ONE.
Unity, conspicuously displayed before all the world,
is precisely the mark by which our Lord desired His
genuine disciples to be known, and which moreover
was to be so evidently miraculous as to afford a proof
of His divine mission.
John xvii. 20, 21. " And not for them only [viz.,
the Apostles] do I pray, but for them also who
through their word shall believe in me; that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thec;
that they also may be one in us ; that tJic world may
believe that thou hast sent me"
THE CHURCIi 6 I
Our Lord, as He told Pilate (John xviii. 37), came
upon earth to establish a Kingdom-— in this world,
though not of it (Ib. 36), i.e., not depending upon
force or other worldly resources. But as He Himself
says (Matt. xii. 25; Mark iii. 24), no kingdom:
divided against itself can endure; therefore all divi
sion must be eliminated from this His Kingdom which
was to endure for ever. The unity requisite in the
true Church is threefold :
A. Unity of Faith. As has already been shown,
it is plain to reason and common sense that if men are
to believe aright they must believe alike, since truth
is the same for all ; and so the Church herself, from
the beginning, has tolerated no diversity in matters of
Faith.
(a) So St. Paul teaches:
Ephes. iv. 3 — 5. " Careful to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit ;
as you are called in one hope of your calling. One
Lord, one faith, one baptism."
Galat. i. 7—9. " There are some that trouble you,
and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you
besides that which we have preached to you, let him
be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again :
If anyone preach to you a gospel besides that which
\ve have preached to you, let him be anathema."
So the same Apostle (Acts XX. 28 — 30) lays it
down as the primary duty of Bishops to rule their
flocks and to prevent the introduction of new doctrines.
;' Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock,
wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to
rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased
62 THE CHURCH
with his own blood1. ... Of your own selves shall
arise men speaking perverse things to draw away
disciples after them."
(b) So the Councils and Fathers of the Church, v.g. :
Nicene Creed (A.D. 381). "One, holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church."
%* The Hierosolymite version of the Apostles'
Creed also has " one, holy," &c.
St. Irenaeus (d. 202). " The Church though dis
persed throughout the whole world, yet as if it were
contained in the same house, carefully preserves the
rule of faith, and holds it as if she had one soul and
one heart, nay, and teaches it with one consent, as if
she spoke with one voice. For although different
tongues occupy the world yet the force of tradition is
one and the same, nor do the Churches of Germany,
Spain, Gaul, the East, Libya, and the middle of the
world embrace any other faith. But, as there is one
and the same sun shining over the whole earth, so
the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere and
enlightens all men who desire its knowledge." {Adv.
hceres. i. j.)
This necessarily implies that the true Church must
be dogmatic, i.e., must lay down some fixed and
definite articles of belief, which all her children are
obliged to accept, under pain of ceasing to be her
children.
It is a favourite plea in our days that such a
dogmatic element is destructive of true religion and of
the spirit of Christianity ; that to be a true Christian
means to acknowledge the claim of Christ to our
worship and obedience, and to follow His example and
precepts in goodness of heart and rectitude of life ;
whereas to insist pn points of doctrine, introduces a
THE CHURCH '63
narrow and captious spirit altogether alien from that of
Christ.
Little consideration is needed to show that such a
contention rests on the assumption that there is no
such thing as revealed truth at all, the knowledge of
which is attainable by man; or else that God who has
given it to us, is quite indifferent whether we believe
right or wrong; and that in consequence we may
accommodate our creed to our own liking, as do those
who deal with myths or fables.
Moreover, as we have seen, such a system is directly
opposed to the plain injunction of our Lord Himself,
who bade the Apostles to teach men to observe "all
things whatsoever I have commanded you," adding the
threat, " He that believeth not shall be condemned."
(Mark xvi. 16.)
It is likewise obvious that we cannot acknow
ledge the claims of Christ Himself to our obedience
and worship without at once introducing the dogmatic
element in its extremest form. For His claims depend
entirely upon the question as to who He is, and, as
will be seen when we treat of the Incarnation, there is
none to which such utterly irreconcilable answers have
been given. Those who declare Him to be God and
not man, or man and not God, or God and man,
equally subscribe to a dogma.
If it be said, as we often hear, that we are bound to
accept fundamental dogmas only, but beyond them are
free to judge for ourselves, we reply : Firstly, Our
Lord bade His Apostles to teach all things which He
had commanded. Secondly, How are we to know what
doctrines are fundamental, for private judgments dif
fer as fatally upon this point as upon any other.
Finally, If we accept an authority, we must accept its
64 THE CHURCH
teachings in their entirety. To assume the right to
disregard any, is to disregard all.
Dogmatism is in fact a necessary characteristic of
any teacher who is assured of the truth of what he
teaches. No schoolmaster would allow his pupils any
latitude of belief as to the multiplication table, or the
dates of the Kings of England. And the Church is
nothing, if she be not the teacher of divinely-assured
truth.
In St. Paul's writings, " Heresy ." (ai/9eoYS = " a tak
ing for oneself, choosing," Lid dell and Scott) signifies
the exercise of private judgment in opposition to Apos
tolic or episcopal authority. Of such heresies he
speaks as an inevitable evil.
1 Cor. xi. 19. " For there must also be heresies."
Titus iii. 10. " A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition, avoid."
Galatians v. " The works of the flesh are mani
fest, which are . . . idolatry, . . . quarrels, dissensions,
sects," &c.
" Dogma," said Cardinal Newman, " has been the
fundamental principle of my religion. I know no
other religion. I cannot enter into the idea of any
other sort of religion; religion as a mere sentiment is
to me a dream and a mockery." (Apologia.)
A* certain school of writers appear to think that the
Church should modify her doctrines as time goes on,
according to the developments of human thought, and
that unless she does this, she cannot hope to retain her
hold upon the minds of men.
But, the one thing to be considered is, not what
men think, but what God has taught. If there be
no such thing as revealed truth, Christianity is a mere
THE CHURCH '65
figment ; but if there be, it is not for men to make it,
or to unmake. The one thing, for learned and simple
alike, is to accept upon authority recognized as divine,
what no created intelligence, could of itself discover or
•comprehend. And while truth is truth in one age as
much as in another, the fundamental truths of Revela
tion must in all ages demand a submission which
human reason is naturally, .unwilling to offer. Men are
apt to think their own age wise and intelligent beyond
all others, but this is merely because it is the only age
of which they have personal experience. They
imagine that no one had ever before to renounce his
own ideas at the bidding of authority ; but such mys
teries as the Trinity, Incarnation, and Holy Eucharist,
have from the beginning demanded as much submis
sion of the intellect as any doctrine ever can.
St. Paul speaks of himself as "bringing into capti
vity every understanding unto the obedience of
Christ." (2 Corinthians x. 5.) Again he says, " We
preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stum
bling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, but unto
them that are called (i.e., the elect), both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of
God." (/ Cor. i. 23, 24.)
Nor is it only dogmas of Faith, actually defined,
that must be accepted. The living authority, or
Magisterium, of the Church must be loyally and sub
missively obeyed. Cardinal Newman writes:
" A convert comes to learn, and not to pick and
choose. He comes to Catholicism as to a living system
with a living teaching, and not to a mere collection of
decrees and canons, which by themselves are of course
but the mere framework, not the body and substance
of the Church, And this is a truth which concerns,
E
66 THE CHURCH
which binds, those also who never knew any other
religion, not only the convert. By the Catholic system,
I mean that rule of life, and those practices of devo
tion, for which we shall look in vain in the Creed of
Pope Pius [the fullest of Catholic Creeds, drawn up by
the Council of Trent]. The convert comes, not only to
believe the Church, but also to trust and obey her
priesjts, and to conform himself in charity to her
people. It would never do for him to resolve that he
would never say a Hail Mary, never avail himself of
an Indulgence, never kiss a crucifix, never mention a
venial sin in confession. All this would not only be
unreal, but would be dangerous too, as arguing a
wrong state of mind, which could not look to receive
the divine blessing. Moreover, he comes to the cere
monial, and the moral theology, and the ecclesiastical
regulations, which he finds on the spot where his lot is
cast. And again, as regards matters of politics, of
education, of general expedience, of taste, he does not
criticize or controvert. And thus surrendering himself
to the influences of his new religion, and not risking
the loss of revealed truth altogether by attempting by
a private rule to discriminate every moment its sub
stance from its accidents, he is gradually indoctrinated
in Catholicism." (Anglican Difficulties.}
B. Unity of Worship. Public worship being the
expression of our Faith must be one and the same for
all whose belief is identical. Therefore the faithful
throughout the world must form one body or com
munity, each member of which, wherever he may be,
participates equally in its rights and privileges. That
is to say, all its members must be in communion, as
bound together throughout the world in fraternal
THE CHURCH 67
charity, for one and the same work, and under the
same Head.
We have seen that St. Paul lays down that as
there is one Lord and one Faith, so there is one
Baptism.
So also he writes :
1 Cor. xii. 13. " For in one Spirit were we all
baptized into one body, . . . and in one Spirit we have
all been made to drink. ... [v. 20] But now there
are many members indeed, yet one body."
In particular, the reception of the Holy Eucharist is
known as " Holy Communion," because participation
in this, the chiefest of the sacraments, has always been
taken to be the most indubitable sign of unity in
Faith.
1 Cor. x. 16, 17. " The chalice of benediction,
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the
partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being
many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one
bread."
Acts ii. 42. " And they were persevering in the
doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of
the breaking of bread, and in prayers."
So in the early Church extreme care was taken to
secure the full benefits of communion for all whose
faith was sound, and to exclude from them, or "excom
municate," those who fell away from orthodoxy.
This was done principally by the Diptychs, on which
were publicly displayed the names of the recognized
Pastors and well-known members of the Church with
whom an officiating priest had to profess communion,
and by Commendatory Letters (" Litteras Formatae ")
given to those about to travel, by which they might
68 THE CHURCH
be recognized abroad as genuine members of the
Church
C. Unity of Government. The necessity of this
follows from all that has been said above, and from
the very nature of things. If the Church be rightly
described as a Kingdom; a City, a Household, a
Sheepfold, and a living body {Romans xii. ; I Cor. vi.
and AV'/.), there must evidently be some one ruling and
vital principle to bind its parts into a single whole.
God might doubtless, as already said, if He so willed,
have secured unicy by other measures, but, as a matter
of fact, in the history of Christianity we find but one
which has actually produced the result, namely, the
authority of a ruler claiming to be, and accepted as
being, paramount and supreme, whom all equally are
bound to obey.
Such, therefore, must be the authority of the Church
speaking through her legitimate representatives, with
one voice which shall effectually secure unity amongst
her members.
Ephes. iv. 11 — 17. " And he gave some apostles,
and prophets, and other some evangelists, and other
some pastors and doctors [5iSacr/caXof9=teachers], for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis
try, for the edify ing [oltcoSo/jujv—' building up '] of the
body ,of Christ, until .we all meet into the unity of faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God: . . . that
henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the
wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which
they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in
charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the
head, even Christ, From whom the whole body, being
THE CHURCIi 69
Compacted and fitly joined together, by what every
joint supplieth, according to the operation in the man
ner of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto
the edifying of itself in charity. This then I say and
testify in the Lord : that henceforward you walk not
as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their
mind."
That such unity, under each of the above aspects,.
is found in the Catholic Church, cannot be denied,
being a fact too conspicuous for her enemies to im
pugn, who therefore endeavour to make it a reproach
against her.
" The Catholic priesthood from Great Britain to
New Zealand, — now, as when Protestantism sprang
into being, — at all times and in all places, speak as
with one voice, one and the same unalterable faith.
You will not find some Catholic congregations believ
ing in the Real Presence, and others rejecting it ; some
priests commending prayers for the dead, and others
protesting against them ; some persons practising con
fession, and others denying the absolving power of
the priest. Variations of practice you may indeed dis
cover in different Catholic countries, but no diversity
of faith." (Northcotc, F our j old di Hi culty of Angti*
cat/ism.)
%* The variations of practice here mentioned, even
in their most extreme form, as in the Greek, Syriac,
and other Liturgies of Oriental Churches in com
munion with Rome, are evidently no bar to unity, as
in all there are precisely the same sacrifice and sacra
ments, and all equally acknowledge the same Supreme
Head.
70 THE CHURCH
It is no less manifest that this unity is conspicuously
wanting in all sects which have separated from the
Church.
It will be sufficient to cite the example of the
Church of England, which, unity being hopeless,
prides herself on " comprehensiveness," that is, on
including in her pale men whose principles and doc
trines are absolutely inconsistent. As a recent Arch
bishop of Canterbury (Tait) expressed it, " We should
respect the freedom of the individual mind;" and he
declared that he did not wish to see in his own com
munion " the rigid uniformity of Rome."
Accordingly, Anglicanism has been described as
"a hundred warring sects battling within one Church."
Different portions of her official liturgy contradict one
another, v.g., the Thirty-nine Articles and the Prayer-
Book. The Articles tell men to " prove all doctrines,"
and therefore that of the Articles themselves, by their
own interpretation of Scripture. There is no sort of
contradiction which is not represented amongst her
ministers, and no point of doctrine upon which there is
any kind of agreement. The High Church section call
the Low Church heretics, and the Low call the High
traitors and idolaters, yet both parties remain equally
members of it, while its great object in consequence is
to avoid laying down any doctrine in a form that would
be unacceptable to any of these divergent schools. As
to Government, the Low Church holds that it is vested
solely in the Sovereign and Parliament, the Church
being a department of the State. The High Church,
on the other hand, repudiates such a notion, declaring
that ecclesiastical authority belongs solely to the
Bishops. At the same time, the members of this same
party habitually set their Bishops at defiance, when —
THE CHURCH J7 I
as constantly happens — they endeavour to interfere
•with them.
How deep these differences go may be gathered
from a few examples out of many. Mr. Gorham, an
Anglican clergyman, denied the sacramental efficacy
of Baptism. The Bishop of Exeter, his diocesan, con
demned his doctrine and refused to institute him into
a benefice ; but it was ruled by the Privy Council that
the doctrine of both might lawfully be held, and both
remained Anglican pastors. At the commencement of
the High Church movement, Keble, a beneficed clergy
man, preached a sermon which another clergyman,
Russell, declared from the pulpit to be " inconsistent
with the profession of Christianity," yet, again, both
continued as equally authorized exponents of Anglican
teaching. About the same time, Dr. Hampden, on
account of his doctrine on the Incarnation, was de
clared by a High Church paper to be " as notorious a
heretic as Anus," which, however, did not prevent him
from being " as undoubted an Anglican Bishop as
Jeremy Taylor himself." In our own day such dissen
sions have become so frequent as hardly to attract
notice.
As to the taunts levelled against the " rigid uni
formity of Rome," and the charge of " intellectual
bondage " which submission to the authority of the
Church is said to entail, the answer is simple and plain.
If the Church were a mere human institution, with no
means of ascertaining the truth beyond those possessed
by her individual members, it would indeed be foolish
to hearken to her. But if, on the other hand, she be
divinely constituted to teach men what they cannot
learn but from her, it is folly to reject her message.
The true freedom of the mind is knowledge of Truth,
•7.2 THE CHURCH
and error is bondage. We do not surrender our liberty
by yielding to evidence, or learning what we did not
know before : otherwise education would be an intoler
able tyranny. Even in regard of human knowledge,
most men have to learn everything, and all men have
to learn most things, by relying on the authority of
others in whom they feel they can trust, as for exam
ple, in matters of Science and History. Yet it is the
knowledge thus obtained that we rightly prize so
highly.
Had our Lord Himself bidden us believe this or
that, would it have been wise or foolish to reply, " I
will not." And, He having said to His representa
tives, " He that licarcth you hcareth me," how are we
at liberty to say we will not hear them unless we
choose?
As our Lord Himself said (John viil. 31, 32) :
If you continue in my word, you shall be my
disciples indeed : and you shall know the truth, and
the truth shall make you free"
Finally, it is often said that the unity necessary for
the Church is but an invisible unity, which consists in
goodness of heart and life— independently of belief.
But, as has been seen, our Lord prayed for such a
unity as should convince the world of His Divine
mission — which necessarily implies that it was to be
discernible by all the world.
Again, He commanded (Matt, xviii. 77) that who
ever would not hear the Church was to be as the
heathen and the publican, that is to say, was to be ex
pelled or excommunicated by the faithful— which
could not be with an invisible communion.
So also St. Paul, in bidding his disciples avoid here-
THE CHURCH 73
tics, clearly signifies that they were to be known as
such by the attitude they displayed towards the teach
ings of the Church. Similarly in his instruction to
Bishops, quoted above, he manifestly speaks of the
flock of which they were in charge as external and
visible, which they knew, and which knew them.
viii. The true Church must be, and the Catholic
Church is, HOLY,
*#* This is manifestly necessary if the Church is to
lead men to God, for which alone she exists. She
must accordingly
(a) Teach God's Law aright.
(b] Furnish the means of keeping that Law.
(6*) [This being a mark or note whereby she may
be recognized] — Manifest this holiness in her fruits.
*#* (i) This last point evidently includes the
others, for if in fact the Church makes men holy, she
must be fitted to do so. We may therefore confine
our attention to it.
( 2) It is not implied that all her subjects are holy,
nor denied that many, even in her highest places, have
been unworthy of their station and profession. But,
as the Catechism puts it, the Church — teaches a holy
doctrine ; offers to all the means of holiness : and is
conspicuous for the eminent holiness of many thou
sands of her children, i.e., of those -\vho most faithfully
conform themselves to her instructions.
I. That God's Church must be Holy is shown,
in addition to reason, by Scripture.
Ephes. v. 27. " That he might present it to him-
74 THE CHURCH
self a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or
any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without
blemish."
But that this does not mean that every individual
within her pale was to be virtuous or reputable, we are
told by our Lord Himself.
Matt, xviii. 7. " For it must needs be that scan
dals come : but nevertheless woe to that man by whom
the scandal cometh."
Luke xvii. 1. " It is impossible that scandals
should not come : but woe to him through \yhom they
come."
And of the Apostles, the germ of the Church, of
whom He said (John xv. 16) : " I have chosen you:
and have appointed you, that you should go, and
should bring forth fruit : and your fruit should re
main." He also said (John vi. 71), " Have not I
chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?"
So too He likened His Kingdom to a field wherein
the cockle grows together with the wheat (Matt,
xiii. 25) : to a net enclosing worthless fish as well as
good (Matt. xiii. 47) : to a band of virgins whereof
half were foolish (Matt. XXV. 1) : to a marriage-
feast where not all the guests were worthy (Matt.
xxii. 1), £c.
II. The Catholic Church is Holy. This is shown
in many ways.
A. Her influence on the World. When Christi
anity appeared, the world, whether Jewish or Gentile,
was in a condition of absolute rottenness and corrup
tion. The Jews had lapsed into mere formalism, re
garding only the letter of the Divine Law, and utterly
ignoring its spirit, The nations of the north destined
CHURCH 75
to destroy the Roman Empire were mere barbarians.
The Roman Empire itself with all its material splen
dour and prosperity, culture and learning, had sunk to
the lowest depths of vice and degradation. Callous
selfishness and cruelty, and unutterable licentiousness
reigned supreme, and exhibited themselves without
shame. The very idea of fraternal charity, or of care
for the poor, was unknown. All that philanthropy on
which modern society prides itself, and in which many
now-a-days would find a substitute for religion, as also
the virtues which men recognize and respect, even if
they do not practise, are the creation of Christianity,
and are based upon the example of our Lord. By
means of these she subdued Romans and barbarians
alike. (See Dollinger's Heidenthum und Judenthum,
published in English as The Gentile and the Jew.)
B. Personal sanctity of individual members.
The Catholic Church produces from age to age a
type of holiness unlike anything else upon earth;
which none other can imitate, but all are compelled to
reverence. Saints are her monopoly, that is, men con
spicuous for heroic virtue, virtue plainly supernatural.
Northcote, Fourfold Difficulty, p. 43. " What I
mean is this. There is in the Roman Church a living
energy, bursting forth from time to time in words of
power and wonderful deeds; manifesting itself now in
this man, now in that, by the heroic exercise of super
natural virtues ; now darting upwards to the very
throne of God, now spending itself in some enterprise
for the good of men ; embodying itself in all varieties
of outward form, as ages roll along and circumstances
change ; but always essentially the same, always living,
plastic, and creative. And this is what we mean when
we speak of sanctity "-
76 THE CHURCH
That this idea of sanctity is foreign to other com
munions, their own members frequently acknowledge.
British Critic, Jan. 1838, p. 203. " There are a
whole class of expressions in the New Testament of
which we are afraid (' If thou wilt be perfect,' &c.,
. . . ' He that hath forsaken father or mother,' &c.).
\Ve are anxious judiciously to point out that in these
days . . . men arc not called upon to sell all, &c.
. . . [speaking] as if those who gave up all to devote
themselves to a definite religious object were a re
proach to others. We can be warm enough in our cen
sures of those who would call down fire from heaven ;
but we have perhaps too much fellow-feeling with
him who went away sorrowful when he found he must
not only obey the law, but sell his property."
As for the constant succession of saints in the
Church, see, for instance, the chronological list in
Alban Butler's Lives,
C. Priesthood and Religious Life. The Catholic
Church alone relies upon God's grace, working upon
human souls, as a constant factor in her life, impelling
men to sacrifices that are beyond the natural strength
of rlesh and blood, Her Priesthood is recruited by the
personal vocation of each individual comprising it,
who must for ever renounce what is most attractive to
our nature. The multitudes who make up the Re
ligious Orders have still more entirely to abandon all
that naturally seems desirable, and to embrace a life of
devotion to God's service, in one form or other, which
to men of the world is incomprehensible. Yet the
supply never fails, and the abandonment of all to fol
low Christ is thus organized and regulated as an
integral part of the Church and her work.
THE CHURCH 77
D. Influence on the People. That the Catholic
Church gets hold of people, of all ranks and classes,
and that under her influence religion becomes a part of
their life in a manner which no other body can .emulate,
we have frequent non-Catholic testimony.
Samuel Laing, Notes of a Traveller, p. 430.
"Catholicism has certainly a much stronger hold over
the human mind than Protestantism. The fact is visi
ble and undeniable. ... In no Protestant place of
worship do we witness the same intense abstraction in
prayer, the same unaffected devotion of mind. . . .
Their churches are God's houses, open alike to all His
rational creatures without distinction of high or low,
rich or poor. The public mind is evidently more re
ligionized than in Protestant countries. Why should
such strong devotional feelings be more widely dif
fused and more conspicuous among people holding
erroneous doctrines, than among us Protestants hold
ing right doctrines?" (The writer is a Presbyterian.)
Another observer traces this difference to its source.
Augustine Birrell, M.P., Nineteenth Century,
April, 1896. " It is the Mass that matters; it is the
Mass that makes the difference, so hard to define, so
subtle is it, yet so perceptible, between a Catholic
country and a Protestant one, — between Dublin and
Edinburgh, between Havre and Cromer,"
ix. The trine Church must be CATHOLIC, as is the
Catholic Church alone.
*** Catholicity, or Universality, comprises three
points, viz., Time, Place, and Doctrine, i.e., the Church
78 THE CHURCH
of Christ must, Subsist in all ages; Teach all nations;
Maintain all Truth.
A. Time and Place. Being instituted by God for
the salvation of mankind, as we have seen, the mission
of the Church is to all men without exception, to every
generation and every region in which there are souls
to be saved. Any Church limiting its province to
one period of time, or one race, of men, stands self-
condemned. As St. Augustine wrote concerning sects
of his time, " A heretic comes forth and says : ' I have
people in Africa,' and another, ' and I in Galatia.'
... I seek a man that has them everywhere " (///
Psalm Ixvi. 6.) To declare, with the Anglican Homily
(Against the peril of Idolatry, part iii.), that " All
men, women, and children of whole Christendom have
been drowned in abominable idolatry, by the space of
eight hundred years and more," tiatly contradicts our
Lord's assurance; interpreting the promise, " I will be
with you all days," as meaning' " I will be with you
only till the eighth century and then will abandon you
till the sixteenth." (Marshall.) According to such a
doctrine there was no way of salvation for man
throughout that period, during which the gates of Hell
completely prevailed against the Church, although
Christ had pledged His word they never should. This
clearly contradicts the very iirst principle of Chris
tianity.
Thus such names as " Church of England," or
" Greek Church," condemn the bodies which boar
them, limiting their mission in regard of place, as do
the terms " Lutheran " and " Calvinist " in regard of
time.
In reply to this argument, it is urged that the Catho-
THE CHURCH 79
lie Church herself is frequently styled the " Church of
Rome." It is obvious, however, that the sense in
which this phrase is employed and understood differs
totally from the others. " Rome " denotes the centre
of the Catholic Church, not the circumference; its
capital, not its boundaries. That Rome is the actual
seat of its government, no more impairs its Catho
licity, than that Jerusalem was the starting-point
whence it overspread the world.
N.B. — It must be noted that such phrases as
" Church of England, — of France, — of Lyons, — of
Carthage," were commonly used of old, as they are
sometimes now (v.g., in the Roman Missal on the
anniversary of a Bishop's consecration), to signify that
portion of the Universal Church which is within a
particular realm or diocese.
It is, moreover, an obvious fact that the name
" Catholic " has ever been recognized as hers alone.
What St. Augustine wrote of his day is equally true
in ours,
De vera religione, vii. 12. " We must hold to
the Christian religion, and the communion of that
Church which is Catholic, and is called Catholic, not
only by her own members, but by all her enemies.
Whether they will or no, heretics or schismatics them
selves, when speaking not to one another, but to out
siders, call the Catholic Church * Catholic ' and
nothing else. For they cannot be understood unless
they use the term which is used by all the world."
Contra Epist. Manichsei, v. 6. " Conviction is
brought by the very name ' Catholic,' which not with
out reason amid so many sects this Church alone has
so appropriated, that albeit all heretics wish to be
styled Catholic, yet if any. one ask where is the Catho-
80 THE CHURCH
lie place of worship, none of them would venture to
point out his own conventicle."
This latter passage is immediately preceded by
another motive for holding to the Church as bound to
Rome,
" The priestly succession, from the Episcopate of
Peter, to whom the Lord gave the charge of feeding
His flock, down to the present occupant of the See."
B. In matter of Doctrine, the true Church of Christ
must evidently furnish all that is requisite for the work
assigned her, namely, the salvation of men. She must,
therefore, teach all her Master's doctrine, inculcate all
His precepts, and employ all His sacraments, or means
of grace. Were she to withhold anything necessary for
salvation, she would be false to her mission.
Neither can she add to that which has been com
mitted to her keeping. She cannot institute another
sacrament, and since the death of the Apostles no fresh
revelation has been given her. But she can and does
'from time to time, as need arises, more fully explain
and expose the meaning of what she has always taught,
enunciating as explicit dogmas what had hitherto been
implicitly understood. The need for this arises when
questions are mooted concerning such points, especially
when they are denied by heretics. Examples in recent
times are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception
and Infallibility of the Pope.
To obviate these difficulties opponents have
attempted variously to explain away the need of
Catholicity.
Thus it is said that as a large crystal is built up of
a multitude of small ones, so the Church Universal or
THE CHURCH 8 I
Catholic consists of distinct units, each truly a Church,
which are the dioceses ruled by individual Bishops.
Within these minor bodies is found a unity which is
not found in their collective aggregation : while in
them collectively is found the Catholicity which separ
ately they have not.
Of this theory Cardinal Newman observes that
nothing but the desperate straits of their position
could induce men " to entrench themselves in the
paradox, that the Church is one indeed, and the
Church is Catholic indeed, but that the one Church is
not the Catholic, and the Catholic Church is not the
one." (Essays, Critical and Historical, Note on Essay
ix., where this question is fully dealt with.)
A modification of the above is the " Branch
theory." According to this, the " Church Catholic,"
as it is styled in this connexion, consists of three great
branches overspreading different parts of the world,
which, though varying considerably from one another,
together constitute the Kingdom of Christ, each being
the Church in the region wherein it prevails, so that
men are bound under pain of schism to be in com
munion with it, not with another branch. These
branches are the Roman, having authority over the
Latin races, the Greek, for Russians and Orientals,
and the Anglican, for Anglo-Saxons.
It is hard to understand how such a theory can be
supposed to mean anything. Three bodies teaching
incompatible doctrines cannot possibly form one
Church. If the Roman Church is right in claiming
supreme and paramount authority, the Greek and
Anglican are in schism and revolt against it. If they
are right in denying them, the Church of Rome's pre
tensions are not only erroneous, but impious, Faith
G
82 THE CHURCH
cannot vary with climate, and what God wishes men
to believe in one country must be equally true and
binding in every other.
X. TJie true Church must be, and the Catholic Church
is, APOSTOLIC.
%* As the Church receives her divine commission
from Christ through the Apostles, there must be no
break between them and her; and by direct succession
from them her pastors she must derive the Doctrine
they teach, the Orders they exercise, and the Mission
which authorizes them to teach and exercise sacra
mental powers.
The distinction between Orders and Mission is of
prime importance.
Orders confer supernatural powers — as of Ordain
ing, Consecrating, and Absolving, so that one who has
duly received them can perform acts impossible to
another. But such powers are conferred for the sake
of the Church, not of the individual receiving them,
and he may legitimately use them only when autho
rized by her. For a bishop or priest to exercise his
functions otherwise than as her accredited minister is
an act of sacrilege, for he has no Mission.
In something of the same way, a man with a rifle
can do what another cannot, viz., shoot; but unless
he has a commission from recognized public authority,
he is not at liberty to use his power. This it is that
distinguishes a soldier from a brigand.
Thus although Apostolic Orders are necessary for
the true Church, the possession of them does not make
a Church true : there is required in addition Apostolic
Mission,
'THE CHURCH 83
That the Catholic Church is, in the full sense of the
word, Apostolic is proved by the argument which, as
was seen above, convinced St. Augustine, namely, her
union with the " Apostolic See," in which the order of
succession is clear and manifest, from Peter to whom
was given the charge of the whole flock, down to the
present Pontiff.
Anglican " Continuity." Anglican writers, es
pecially in our own day, have endeavoured to main
tain that their Church does not date only from the
sixteenth century, which would bar all claim to Apos-
tolicity, and that it is the old Church, as it existed
in England before the Reformation — the events then
occurring having involved no vital change; so that its
life has been continuous. The plea they raise is
founded upon the theory of Branch Churches, already
mentioned, and implies that the Church of England —
i.e., the Church in England — was from the first a body
independent of the rest of Christendom, even when in
communion therewith — and that the connexion with
Rome was one of courtesy and convenience only, which
might be cast off without entailing separation from the
Catholic and Apostolic Church. They, appeal to the
fact that externally there has been no breach of con
tinuity. The ancient cathedrals and churches have
never ceased to be used for worship, bishop at once
succeeding bishop (as Matthew Parker, for instance,
succeeded Cardinal Pole), while many of the clergy,
conforming to new enactments, continued to exercise
their functions under the altered conditions, so that
although Church services were changed, the Church
remained the same.
The advocates of this theory accordingly declare thf
84 THE CHURCH
Anglican Establishment to be the only legitimate re
presentative of the Catholic Church in England, and
Catholics — whom" they affect to describe as the "Italian
Mission " — to be in schism.
This extraordinary theory cannot possibly be main
tained.
It is evident, in the first place, that the mere "brick
and mortar continuity " secured by appropriating what
others had built proves nothing whatever. The Scotch
Presbyterians have similarly taken over cathedrals and
churches, yet no one — themselves included — pretends
that their religion is a continuation of what went
before.
It is more to the purpose to observe, that as a
body the Anglican Church has held and proclaimed,
as do a majority of its members now, that their Church
is the Child of the Reformation, not Catholic but
Protestant, not the successor of the Mediaeval Church,
but its uncompromising antagonist. And they who say
this are obviously in the right. The Anglican Church
differs fundamentally from what was the Religion of
Englishmen before her birth. Between them a great
gulf is fixed which nothing can bridge. Whichever
of them is right, the other is hopelessly wrong. To
talk of continuity between them is therefore to em
ploy words without a meaning. Were the Anglican
" bishops " really bishops— a question which we need
not at present consider — were the Anglican .Church to
teach a doctrine accepted by all her members, and
were that doctrine to include every article of Catholic
Faith, except the necessity of communion with Rome,
this one discrepancy alone would constitute a radical
difference between her and the ancient Church \\itl)
which she claims identity.
THE CHURCH 85
11 There can be no real continuity between two
religious bodies, one of which has persistently held!
that the government of the Church was committed by
our Lord to St. Peter and his successors, whilst the
other maintains that ' the Church of Rome hath no
jurisdiction in this realm.' ' (Rivington, Rome and
England, p. ix.)
That the old " Church of England " from the
earliest days till the time of Henry VIII. and Eliza
beth fully accepted the authority of Rome as para
mount, is shown by a mass of evidence, of which one or
two specimens must suffice.
Giraldus Cambrensis, circa 1200, De pnndpls
instil utio ne. " He is called Pope, as though father of
fathers, or guardian of the fathers. He is called
Universal, because he is over the Universal Church.
He is called Apostolic, because he is the vicar of the
Prince of the Apostles."
In accordance with this doctrine an early English
Council (Cloveshoe, A.D. 800) wrote:
" Be it known to thy Paternity that as was formerly
laid down by thy holy Roman and Apostolic See, . . .
so do we believe."
And six centuries afterwards, a synod of the
Province of Canterbury (14.12) thus prefaced its
decisions :
"Always, in all tilings, saving the authority of yoiu
most Holy See, to whom the final settlement of con
clusions such as these is known to belong."
The "Church of England," in fact, was governed
from Rome. As Professor Maitland writes {English
Historical Review, July, 1896):
" Whereas the English State was an independent
whole, the English Church was, in the eyes of its own
86 THE CHURCH
judges, a dependent fragment whose laws had been
imposed upon it from without."
On the other hand, it is frequently urged by contro
versialists of a certain stamp, that the first article of
Magna Charta stipulated, " The Church of England
shall be free/' which they argue contradicts the notion
of subjection to Rome,
In reality this affords a powerful argument the
other way. The clause in question was levelled against
the 'King, not the Pope, and the freedom demanded
• — then commonly termed " Roman liberty " — was
freedom of access to Rome for direction or appeal.
( For a full treatment of the subject, see Rome and
England, by Father Luke Rivington.)
From all these considerations we conclude that the
Catholic Church, and she alone, is the Church of
Christ, and that to her are entrusted divine Truth and
the means of Grace. Hence the maxim, Extra Eccle-
siam nidla salus—" Outside the Church there is no
salvation." He who wilfully and deliberately rejects
her claims on his obedience, resists lawful and divinely-
constituted authority, and deprives himself of the
means of salvation of which she is the sole medium.
Those, however, who thus err through inculpable
and invincible ignorance, and who serve God faithfully
according to their lights, with a sincere desire to do
His will, are accounted as belonging to the soul of the
Church, though not to her body, and although de
barred from the assistance afforded to those actually
within the fold, especially by the sacraments, do not
incur the sentence pronounced against such as resist
the known Truth.
SCRfPTURE AND TRADITION S/
XII. THE CHANNELS OF REVELATION.
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.
We have seen that the Church has divine authority
to teach mankind ; that from her men must learn what
it is God would have them believe; what are the
truths beyond human capacity to discover, which God
has revealed.
The Church is therefore the guardian and infallible
exponent of Revelation. She does not receive fresh
Revelations, of which there have been none since the
death of the Apostles : but she watches over and
carefully preserves all that has been revealed, and,
when need arises, instructs her children as to the true
meaning of this Revelation.
Her knowledge on this subject she derives from
two sources — Scripture and Tradition.
i. Scripture.
A. Scripture, or the Bible, comprises all books
written under divine Inspiration ; books the authors of
which were as tools in the hands of the Holy Ghost
to convey to men what He wished to be conveyed.
The Bible is therefore rightly styled the Word of
God, but, as has already been said, the genuine mean
ing of that Word is not to be discovered by every
man for himself, but it is to be received1 on the
authority of the Church.
It is likewise by the authority of the Church alone
that we know what books are really inspired, and are
therefore to be included in Scripture. The list of
books thus included is termed the Canon of Scripture.
THE CHANNELS OF REVELATION
The Bible is divided into two portions,
The Old Testament, comprising the inspired
books written before our Lord's coming.
The New Testament, those written since His
coming.
The Old Testament comprises
1. The Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy.
2. Historical Books.
Josue, Judges, Ruth, i Kings (Anglican
1 Samuel), 2 Kings (Angl. 2 Samuel),
3 Kings (Angl. i Kings), 4 Kings (Angl.
2 Kings), i Paralipomenon (Angl. I Chro
nicles), 2 Paralipomenon (Angl. 2 Chro
nicles), i Esdras, 2 Esdras alias Nehemias,
Tobias,* Judith,* Esther, Job, i Macha-
bees,* 2 Machabees.*
3. Sapiential Books.
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of
Canticles, Wisdom,* Ecclesiasticus.*
4. Prophetical Books.
(Four greater Prophets.) Isaias, Jercmias
and Lamentations of Jeremias, Ezechiel,
Daniel.
(Lesser Prophets.) Baruch,* Osec, Joel,
Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum,
Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias,
Malachias.
N.B.— The Books marked * are styled "Deutero-
canonical." They do not appear in the Hebrew
Scripture as we have it, but come to us through the
Septuagint, the old Greek Version, used by the Jews
in the time of Christ.
SCRIPTURE AN£> TRADITION £9
In our Bibles the Prophecy of Baruch immediately
follows that of his master, Jeremias, and the two
Books of Machabees occupy the last place of all, as
being the most recent in time.
The New Testament comprises,
(i) The Gospels
of St. Matthew,
St. Mark,
St. Luke,
St. John,
(ii) The Acts of the Apostles, written by
St. Luke.
(iii) The Epistles of St. Paul
to the Romans,
ist and and to the Corinthians,
to the Galatians,
Ephesians,
Philippians,
Colossians,
ist and 2nd to the Thessalonians,
ist and 2nd to Timothy,
to Titus,
to Philemon,
to the Hebrews.
(iv) Other Apostolic Epistles.
The Catholic Epistle of St. James (the
Less),
ist and 2nd of St. Peter,
ist, 2nd, and 3rd of St. John,
of St. Jude.
(v) The Apocalypse, or Revelation, of St. John
the Apostle.
90 THE CHANNELS OF REVELATION
N.B. — The Books of the New Testament were
written in Greek, with the exception of the Gospel of
St. Matthew (and perhaps the Epistle to the Hebrews),
written in Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, a corruption of
Hebrew, commonly spoken in Palestine in the time of
our Lord.
N.B. — Modern methods of research, under the title
of "The Higher Criticism," have, as we have already
seen, raised many difficulties respecting the Bible and
more particularly the Old Testament. It is, for in
stance, denied that Moses was the author of the Penta
teuch, and various prophecies are said to date from a
period far later than was previously supposed. More
over, the history related, for example, in the Book of
Judith, is pronounced incredible.
It is impossible here to discuss such questions, or
even to enter into any details regarding them. It must
suffice to say, that whatever force such objections may
have against those sects which rest upon the Bible as
their ultimate foundation, and prove its authority from
itself, — the case is not the same with Catholics, who,
accepting the Scriptures on the authority of the Church,
as part of the armoury with which she has been fur
nished, in order to do her work, and looking to her to
pronounce not only what books are to be received as
inspired, but also what is the scope and purport of
revelation, await her decision on the questions that
have been raised, — to which she has not yet given a
final answer.
C. The official version of Scripture used by the
Church is the Latin Vulgate, which the Council of
Trent declared to be " authentic." The meaning of
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION Ql
this declaration is often misunderstood, We learn
from it ( i) That all the books contained in the Vul
gate are really Scripture, or the inspired 'Word of God.
(2) That we may safely trust it, as containing nothing
at variance with God's revelation as to either Faith or
Morals. But it does not mean that this translation
is superior in these respects to the original (which
would be absurd), or that the translator was inspired
in his work, or even tliait it is humanly speaking a
perfect translation containing no mistakes.
ii. Tradition.
By tradition is not meant "Traditions," i.e., state
ments, history, or legends, handed down by word of
mouth without writing.
When we say that the truths of Revelation are
transmitted from age to age by Tradition, we mean
that the Church like every living institution, or body
of men doing practical work, finds within herself the
force requisite for the continuance of her work.
It is, for example, by Tradition that men acquire
a knowledge of their native language. No one learns
this from grammars or dictionaries, but from converse
with his elders, who have in their turn been taught
by the generation previous to their own, Were this
Tradition lacking, no amount of literature — however
useful otherwise — could preserve language from ex
tinction.
So, again, in such a profession as the navy. It is
not from treatises on seamanship and navigation that
sailors learn their work ; but from the instructions and
example of their seniors, handing on practical know
ledge as they have themselves received it. Similarly
in all arts and crafts — the skilled labour of the car-
92 THE CHANNELS OF REVELATION
penter, the smith, or the builder can be acquired in no
other way than by contact with skilled workmen. This
is in fact the universal method amongst men — it is
thus only that the knowledge preserved by one genera
tion becomes the property of another.
In just the same manner the Church hands down
her doctrine from generation to generation as it was
originally committed to the Apostles, the faithful in
every age receiving their instruction from those of the
preceding, and passing it on to that w^hich follows.
But there is this all-important difference between her
Tradition and the others cited in illustration. Being
the Church of God, she has His guarantee that error
shall not be allowed to mingle with and contaminate
the instruction thus conveyed. Other Traditions may
go wrong — debased or vulgar forms of language, bad
seamanship or craftsmanship may be the result. But,
in the light of Christ's promises this cannot be the case
with the Church. Whatever is legitimately taught
on her authority comes to us as the genuine wrord
of God.
If therefore we can ascertain what was taught in
any age by the lawful representatives of the Church,
we have clear proof that such teaching is in accord
with revealed truth. So also, if we can ascertain what
was believed in any age by the faithful in communion
with the Church. Having thus a proof that this was
her teaching, we are assured of its truth. Thus it is
that any evidence which enables us to know what she
presented to her children as the word of God, equally
enables us to know that this was so indeed. Hence
such maxims as Lex orandi, lex credendi. From the
practices of the Church, from her ritual and authorized
prayers, we can assure ourselves what the faithful of
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 93
other ages believed, and what, consequently, we should
believe now.
But for this purpose, as is evident, we must be
furnished with a means of deciding at once and unmis
takably, what teachers are really authorized to speak
in the name of the Church, and who amongst the
multitude of professing Christians are her genuine
members. There must also be provided some means
by which false doctrine may at once be detected and
prevented from insinuating itself under the guise of
truth in the accepted teaching handed on from one age
to another. We have now to show that such a means,
admirably efficient for both purposes has been pro
vided, in the Visible Head appointed to preside over
and rule the Church in the name of Christ, and in the
graces and power conferred upon him in virtue of his
office.
94 THE POPE
XIII. THE POPE.
i. Christ conferred nf>on St. Peter a primacy not of
honour only, but of jurisdiction,
I. That our Lord conferred upon St. Peter some
sort of primacy amongst His Apostles is so evident
from the Gospel narrative that Protestants themselves
are unable to deny the fact. They endeavour to
minimize its significance by representing it as merely
of honour or precedence. The Anglican Barrow, for
instance, compares it to that of " a ringleader in a
dance." tBut, considering that the pre-eminence,
whatever it was, emanated directly from God's ap
pointment, it must needs claim more serious considera
tion and respect than such a comparison would imply.
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon this point, which will
be sufficiently treated in connexion with the question
of jurisdiction or authority.
II. That on St. Peter was conferred a special
position of authority as well as honour is likewise
manifest.1
A. Scripture.
(a) During our Lord 's Life.
I. Parallel between Peter and Abraham. As
Abraham, the foundation-stone of the older dispensa
tion, was specially called to his office by God, who con
ferred upon him a new name significant of the place
he was to take in the divine plan (" Neither shall thy
name be called any more Abram : but thou shalt be
1 For fuller but compendious view of the Spiritual and
Patistric argument, see Allnatt's Cathedra Pttri. Also Waterworth's
Faith of Catholics and Lindsay's Evidences {or the Papacy.
THE POPE 95
called Abraham; because I have made thee a father
of many nations." Gen. xvil. 5), — so at their first meet
ing Christ conferred on Peter a new name (" And
Jesus looking upon him said : Thou art Simon the son
of Jona : thou shalt be called Cephas, which is inter
preted Peter." John I. 42; Mark iii. 16 ; Luke vi. 14),
the significance of which He afterwards explained1
as implying a function exactly analogous to that of
Abraham, viz., the Headship of the people of God;
but as much higher as the Gospel is above the Old
Law. (" And I say to thee, Thou art Peter: and upon
this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it." iMatt. xvi. iS.)
In the New Testament Peter alone is thus distin
guished.
2. Peter is always named before the other Apostles
(v.g., Matt. x. 2; Mark Hi. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13).
3. Christ especially identified St. Peter with Him
self in the miraculous payment of the tribute money.
("Give it to them for thee and me." Matt. xvii. 26.)
4. Christ m|ade many promises to the Apostles col
lectively, but the greatest of all to Peter individually.
'; Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my Church, . . . and I will give to thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven :
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven." Matt. xvi. 18 — 20.
1 In the language spoken in Palestine at this period (Syro-
Chaldaic) " Cephas " signifies "Rock." The Evangelist writing
in Greek had to use the masculine form Wrpos, the word for Rock
(ireVpa) being feminine. Thus in Greek, and similarly in Latin, the
full force of our Lord's words is not rendered, which appears best
in French : " Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je batirai raon
Eglise,"
i9 THE PO,PE
So at the Last Supper.
" Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
you [plural], that he may sift you as wheat: But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and thou,
being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke
xxii. 31, 32.
And after the Resurrection, our Lord gives the
charge of feeding His Hock to Peter individually.
" Feed [thou] (/Boitce — Trolfiatve) my lambs. . . . Feed
[thou] my sheep." John AMY. 75 — 77.
(It) In our Lords absence.
1. He is still always first. Acts /. 13; II. 14; Hi. i ;
&c,
2. And spokesman for the rest. Acts i. 15 ; il. 14;
&c.
3. The Angels at the Sepulchre send their message
specially to him. (" But go, tell his disciples and
Peter. . . ." Mark xvi. 77.)
4. His testimony convinces the doubting disciples.
(" The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to
Simon." Luke xxlv. 34.)
5. When St. Peter was cast into prison by Herod,
prayer was made for him throughout the whole
Church, which is not related in any other case. ("But
prayer was made without ceasing by the Church unto
God for him." Acts xit. 5.)
6. St. Paul relating his own preparation for the
Apostolate, says, " Then ... I went to Jerusalem
to see Peter. But other of the Apostles I saw none,
saving James the brother of the Lord."1
1 i.e., St. James the Less, our Lord's cousin, whose mother
(sister or cousin of our Lady) is mentioned by the Evangelists.
(" M&ry the mother of James the Less and of Joseph." Mark xv,
40. Cf. Matf. xxvii. 56.)
THE POPE 97
7. The Jews recognized his pre-eminence; placing
their sick that his shadow might fall upon them.
(" They brought forth the sick into the streets, and
laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came,
his shadow at the least might overshadow any of them,
and they might be delivered from their infirmities,"
Acts v. 75.)
8. Although St. Paul was specially the Apostle of
the Gentiles, yet to St. Peter was reserved, by special
divine commission, the admission of the first Gentiles
into the Church. (Acts x. 5.)
Objection. St. Paul relates (Gal. ii. n) that he
withstood Peter to his face " because he was to be
blamed," inasmuch as having eaten at table with
Gentiles, he ceased to do so lest the Jewish converts
should be shocked at his non-observance of the Law of
Moses.
Answer.
1. The question was manifestly one not of doctrine,
but of practical expediency, and had not yet been
authoritatively decided. In such a case it is obviously
lawful to oppose the personal opinion or practice even
of the Head of the Church himself. The same has
been done again and again in regard of Popes.
2. The very fact that St. Paul mentions this in
cident so emphatically, affords strong evidence of the
supremacy of St. Peter's position. If he were only
like the rest, what was there remarkable in withstand
ing him? But more than this, St. Paul evidently felt
that if St. Peter differed from him all that he did
would be in vain, so great was the influence of the
Chief.
98 THE POPE
B. Tradition.
1. The Catacombs. We learn the faith of the
early Christians from their paintings in the Catacombs,
which are all symbolical. A chief symbol is the "Rod
of power," held in the hand of him who is the minister
of God's authority upon earth. Three persons only are
represented as bearing this rod, viz. :
(a) Moses, God's vicegerent in the deliverance of
His people, and the establishment of the Old Law.
(£) Christ our Lord.
(ist. 2 (td.
Episcopos Istrice.)
THE POPE 99
St. John Chrysostom. " Even after his denial
Christ restored him to his former honour, and to the
primacy (eVio-racr/a^) of the Universal Church." (De
pOB?iitentia, v. n. 2.)
St. Leo the Great. " Out of the whole world
Peter alone is chosen to be placed over the vocation
of all peoples, and all the Apostles, and all
followers of the Church : so that although there be
many priests of God, and many pastors, Peter truly
rules all those whom primarily Christ rules." (Serm. c£
•iv. " /// natali s-it-o")
ii. 7"/ifs jurisdiction or authority Christ confer red upon- 5:
St. Peter not for himself alone, but for his sue- •"
cessors till the end of time. These successors _ •
are the Bishops of Rome.
1. As we have already seen (XI. in.), the authority
conferred by Christ upon the Apostles wa.s meant by
Him to be continued in their successors. It is evident
that this must be true in a special manner of the
authority given to St. Peter, which— as St. Cyprian for
instance has told us — was to be the source and origin
of that unity in the Church the paramount necessity
of which has already been recognized. (XI. vii.)
2. That St. Peter's office devolved on the Bishops
of Rome as his successors is proved by evidence so
copious that we must again be satisfied with a few
specimens.
(a) FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
Eusebius. " On the death of Evarestus Alexander
received the episcopate of Rome, the fifth in succes
sion from Peter and Paul." (Hist. E. iv. I.)
An old writer, probably Caius of Rome, " Victor,
100 THE POPE
who was Bishop of the Roman city, the thirteenth
after Peter." (Ap. eundem v. 28.)
St. Cyprian (of heretics appealing to Rome).
" They dare to journey to the See of Peter and to the
supreme Church whence priestly unity springs."
(Episf. ad Cornel. Ed. Hartel, p. 683. See also 630.)
" There is one God, and one Christ, and one See
founded on the Rock by the voice of Christ. No
other altar and no other priesthood can be set up be
sides the one altar and the one priesthood." (Epist.
43, Ed. Hartel, p. 594-)
" Cornelius was made Bishop . . . at a time when
the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter,
and the rank of the sacerdotal chair was vacant."
(Epist. ad Antonlamnn, Hartel, 630.)
St. Augustine (speaking to a heretic). "How has
the See of Rome treated you? in which was placed
Peter and is now placed Anastasius." (Cotif. Lit.
Petit. ii. c. i 5, n. I 18.)
" In the Church of Rome has always flourished the
supremacy of the Apostolic See." (Episf. xliii. Gloria,
&c. n. 7.)
St. Jerome (to Pope Damasus). ' I, following no
leader but Christ, am joined in communion with your
Holiness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that
rock I know that the Church is built. Whosoever eats
the lamb outside that house is denied. Whosoever is
not in that Ark, will perish in the flood." (Episf. xv.
ad Dn?n.)
(b] ORIENTAL PATRIARCHS. (The most probable
rivals of the Popes.)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (martyred A.D. 107),
Disciple of St. John the Evangelist. See his Epistle
to the Romans, opening salutation.
THE POPE lot
St. Athanasius, of Alexandria, appealed to Pope
St. Julius against his Arian adversaries, as to one
whose prerogative it was to decide all such controver
sies. (See the historians Socrates and Sozomen, and
the letter of St. Julius himself to the Eusebians.)
St. John Chrysostom, of Constantinople, simi
larly appealed to Rome (Pope Innocent I.).
St. Sophonias, of Jerusalem, on the appearance
of the Monothelite heresy at once sent to Rome for
instructions. Similarly,
St. Cyril, of Alexandria, when Ncstorius, Patri
arch of Constantinople, broached his errors, at once
brought against him the authority of the then Pope,
St. Celestine, by whose commission, and under whose
instructions, he presided at the Council of Ephesus.
(A.D. 43L)
(6") THE POPES are witnesses to their own prero
gatives, having ever claimed them publicly, and had
their claim allowed. Thus :
Pope St. Julius (to the Eusebians). A.D. 342.
" Why were we not written to concerning the Church
of Alexandria? or, are you ignorant that this has been
the custom first to write to us, and then what is just
to be decreed from this place? . . . For what we have
received from the Blessed Apostle Peter, the same do
I make known to you." (EfiisL ad Eusebian, n. 22;
ap. Apol, S. Athan. contra Arian, n. 35.)
Pope St. Innocent I. (Fifth Century [41 6]) as
serted the claim of the " Apostolic See " in letters to
Bishops and Councils in all parts of the Church —
Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, Macedonia, and elsewhere.
(Epist. xvii. n. I.)
Pope St. Zosimus (Fifth Century [418]). [To,
Council of Carthage.] " For canonical antiquity, by
102 THE POI'fc
universal consent, willed that so great a power should
belong to that Apostle [Peter], a power moreover de
rived from the actual promise of Christ our God,
an equal state of power being bestowed upon those
who, by His will, should be found worthy to inherit
his See, for he has charge both of all the Churches,
and especially of this wherein he sat." (Efist. xii.
ad Cone. Cart hag.']
Pope St. Boniface I. (Fifth Century) speaks in
the same strain, to the Bishops of Thessaly. (Efiist.
xiii. ad Rii/urn.)
The most remarkable example, however, is furn
ished by St. Leo the Great, in his dealings with the
Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). This Council, in
which the Pope was represented by Legates, had de
creed that the Patriarch of Constantinople, as being
the new capital of the Empire, " should have the dig
nity of honour next after the Bishop of Rome, for
Constantinople is New Rome;" to which the Legates
refused to agree. The Fathers of the Council there
fore sent on this amongst their other canons to Leo.
begging him to sanction it. They declared him to be
" the constituted interpreter of Blessed Peter," to
whom " is committed by the Saviour the custody of the
Vineyard," and begged that he would deign to allow
their decision; which, they added, would be grati
fying to the Emperor (Marcian), who himself wrote to
the Pope in support of their action.
Nevertheless, St. Leo absolutely refused to give any
countenance to a proceeding contrary, as he declared,
to the Canons of the Church, and derogatory to the
privileges of the Patriarchates of Alexandria and An-
tioch, and accordingly by virtue of his Apostolic
authority he annulled and absolutely quashed the de-
THE POPE 103
cree submitted to him. (Letter to the Empress Put-
cheria.)
(d) COUNCILS,
Nicaea. A.D. 325. The Legate of the Holy See
presided. (See Hefele, History of Councils.)
Sardica. A.D. 347. Declared the See of Rome to
be the supreme court of appeal.
Ephesus. A.D. 431. St. Cyril of Alexandria pre
sided under commission from the Pope (St. Celestine).
Philip, the Pope's Legate, spoke thus to the Council,
ncmine contra-dicenle :
" No one doubts but that Peter, the ruler and head
of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, and foundation
of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus
Christ the keys of His Kingdom, and power to bind
and to loose, and that even to the present time he
lives and exercises this judicial power in his succes
sors. Our holy Pope, Bishop Celestine, who at this
time holds his place, has sent us to represent him at
ibis Council," &<:.
Chalcedon. A.D. 451 (of which something has
already been said). At the demand of the Papal
Legates, Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, was ex
cluded from the Council for having held one without
authorization from the Holy Sec — " a thing never
lawful," and Bishop Theodoret was admitted, whom
Dioscorus and his Council (the Latrocinium of
Ephesus) had deprived. The Pope's letter having
been read on the subject for which the Council had
been expressly convoked (the Eutychian heresy), the
Fathers exclaimed, " Peter has spoken by the mouth
of Leo."
Constantinople III. A.D. 680. The Fathers indi
vidually and collectively based their expression of
Io4 THE POPE
faith and condemnation of the Monothelite heresy
upon the doctrine laid down by Pope Agatho in his
letter presented by the Legates. (Mansi, Cone. xi.
234, seq.)
Florence. A.D. 1439. The testimony of this Coun
cil is of great importance, inasmuch as more than four
centuries after their schism Greeks took part in it along
with Latins. This was one of the decrees approved
by all.
" We declare that the holy Apostolic See, that is,
the Roman Pontiff, holds the supremacy over the whole
universe, and that he is the successor of St. Peter,
Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ,
the head of the whole Church, the father and teacher
of all Christians, and that our Lord Jesus Christ gave
to him, in the person of St. Peter, full power to feed,
to rule, and to govern the entire Church, as con
tained in the decrees and proceedings of the General
Councils."
3. Although the above testimonies clearly demon
strate the authority of the Holy See over the whole
Christian world, and therefore over our own country
in particular, it will be well, in view of the extraor
dinary statements made by Anglican writers, to add
the following evidence regarding Britain,
A. ANCIENT BRITISH CHURCH.
This certainly was not independent of Rome, as has
often been pretended.
British Bishops took part in the Councils of Aries
and Sardica (A.D. 347), both of which testified their
deference to the See of Rome.
Prosper of Aquitaine, secretary to Pope Celestine,
writes :
" Pope Celestine sent Germanus — Bishop of Aux-
THE POPE 105
erre — as his vicegerent to expel the heretics, and to
be a guide to the Britons towards the Catholic faith."
The Irish Church, to which the inhabitants of
Scotland and northern England largely owed the
faith, in the person of St. Columbanus appealed to
the Pope (Boniface IV.) to raise his voice as the Good
Shepherd, standing between the sheep and the wolves,
that the flock might recognize him as their first Pastor.
B. ANGLO-SAXON.
(^) St. Augustine, the Apostle of England, was
sent to England by Pope Gregory the Great, conse
crated at Aries, by the Pope's authority, and by the
same established as Archbishop, other Bishops being
placed under his jurisdiction.
In like manner successive Popes continued to
exercise unquestioned authority over the Anglo-Saxon
Church as a portion of their domain — the following
instances being given by Lingard. {Anglo-Saxon
Qf lurch, i. j.)
Gregory the Great divided the Anglo-Saxon terri
tory into two Provinces ; Vitalian placed all the
Anglo-Saxon churches under the jurisdiction of
Theodore; Agatho limited the number of Bishops;
Leo II. established a second metropolitan at York;
Adrian, a third at Lichfield, and confirmed the pre
cedence of Canterbury. St. Wilfrid (in 676) appealed
from Theodore, his metropolitan, to the Pope.
(b) Anglo-Saxon testimonies to the same effect
are very numerous. The following are samples.
St. Aldhelm (A.D. 709). " In vain do they boast
of the Catholic faith who follow not the teaching and
rule of Peter."
Venerable Bede (A.D. 735) says of Pope St.
Gregory — " And whereas he bore the Pontifical power
106 THE POPE
all over the world, and was placed over the Churches
already reduced to the faith and truth, he made our
nation, hitherto given up to idolatry, the Church of
Christ."
Council of Cloveshoe (A.D. 800). Writing to the
Pope : " Be it known to thy Paternity that as was
formerly laid down by the holy Roman and Apostolic
See, under the guidance of the most blessed Porje
Gregory, so do we believe; and what we believe we
will endeavour in all sincerity to perform."
King Canute, writing to his subjects from Rome,
whither he had gone on pilgrimage (A.D. 1030), ex
plains that he has undertaken this journey, because he
had learnt from his instructors that St. Peter the Apos
tle had received from the Lord the mighty power of
binding and loosing, and was therefore to be most
especially honoured.
(V) After the Norman Conquest.
Lanfranc (A.D. 1072). " Verily it is deep set in
the consciences of all Christians that in regard of St.
Peter's successors, no less than of himself, they must
tremble at their threats , . .," &c,
St. Anselm (A.D. 1092) [addressing the Pope].
Since Divine Providence has chosen your Holiness
to whom to commit the guardianship of Christian life
and faith and the government of His Church, to no one
else can recourse more fitly be had if aught against
the Catholic faith should arise in the Catholic Church
. . .," &c.
St. Aelred (A.D. 1167). "This is the Roman
Church, with whom he who communicates not is a
heretic. . . . Whatsoever she decrees, I receive;
what she approves, I approve; what she condemns,
I condemn."
THE POPE
St. Thomas of Canterbury (A.D. 1170). "Who
doubts that the Roman Church is the head of all the
Churches, and the source of Christian doctrine?"
Robert Grostete, Bishop of Lincoln (A.D. 1253,
Frequently cited as an opponent of Papal claims).
" Our Lord the Pope, to whom belongs, under
Heaven, the supreme care of all Churches and of all
souls. , . ."- -"Episcopal power, which the Bishop has
by the canon law, which has the same from our Lord
the Pope, and from Jesus Christ through him. . . ." —
" Our Lord the Pope, to whom belongs the plenitude
of power."
Blessed John Fisher (A.D. 1535) in the Upper
House of Convocation, warning his brethren against
the abandonment of this traditional doctrine as de
manded by King Henry, spoke thus:
"It is true, my Lords, that we are under the King's
lash, . , . {yet this argues not that we should therefore
do that which will render us both ridiculous and con
temptible to all the Christian world, and hissed out
from the society of God's Holy Catholic Church."
(See Lingard's Anglo-Saxon Church; Ryder's
Catltolic Controversy. )
iii. 77/6' Pope in the exercise of his Office as Head
of the Church, is infallible.
We have already seen (XI. vi.) that the true
Church must be divinely assured against error, or she
would be quite useless for the purpose for which alone
she has been instituted. As Mallebranche truly ob
serves, the very idea of a divinely instituted body in
cludes that of infallibility.
toS THE POPE
The next point for inquiry is — -as to where this in
fallibility resides, and how it is exercised. Obviously,
it must for practical purposes be available at any
moment, since from the nature of things questions for
solution continually occur, and it must be easily re
cognizable by all, so that there can be no doubt or dis
pute concerning its decisions. A plebiscite of the
whole body of the faithful — which some heretics have
advocated — would fulfil neither condition — for it
would be quite impracticable either to take such a
vote or to furnish satisfactory evidence of the result,
were it feasible. In like manner an appeal to the
Episcopate as a body could be made but seldom, and
so large and scattered a body would be wholly ineffi
cient for legislative or judicial purposes. Moreover,
the occupation of its members in such work would
ruin that which is their proper function, the govern
ment and instruction of their respective flocks through
out the world.
.We have seen, moreover, that in all ages since the
foundation of the Church, the successor of St. Peter
has been recognized as her head. Union, or com
munion, with him has been the test of orthodoxy, and
his pronouncements the rule of faith. That is to say,
he is the supreme court of appeal, his authority is
final, he is the ultimate bond of unity — unity alike of
faith and of hierarchical obedience. This we have
seen from the evidence above quoted, and the position
thus assigned to the Pope necessarily implies the gift
of Infallibility. Were he liable to error in his teach
ing, men could not possibly be bound to believe or
obey him. As de Maistre observes (Du Pape, c. i.),
infallibility is but another name for sovereignty.
Every government that means to govern, must neces-
THE POPE 109
sarily have some authority which is final, which no
other authority can override, and whose decisions are
irreversible. That is to say, such authority is treated
in practice as if it could not go wrong; and even those
who disagree with its decisions, equally with others,
must accept and act upon them. But the Church,
dealing, not with external observance, but with in
terior acts of the intellect and will, could have no
similar sovereignty or power of government, unless she
had a right to command the assent of the mind and
soul ; and this she could not have were she liable to
error. Men must have full assurance that she will
teach them naught but the truth before they will or
can submit without question to her teaching.
Such assurance we have from the words of our
Lord to the Apostles in general, and St. Peter in
particular, and from the position assigned by the
Church from the beginning to St. Peter's successors:
whom we thus know to be infallible.
This authority is evidently well fitted for the work
it has to do. In the first place, it actually does that
work efficiently, and has done it for centuries. It is
always ready to act when called upon ; and there can
be no doubt or dispute as to its decisions. Moreover,
it is the only power that has ever claimed or pretended
to effect this.
It is to be noticed, however, that we do not be
lieve the Pope to be inspired, as the Apostles were.
No new revelation is made to. him. His duty is to pre
serve in its purity the faith once delivered to the
Saints, to hand it down undefiled, and to explain its
true significance, when new questions arise. For this
purpose he is divinely assisted, that is to say, is pre
served from presenting to his flock falsehood instead
HO THE POPE
of truth. But he is bound to inquire diligently, es
pecially from the Tradition of the Church, what is her
true and genuine teaching. Hence it is that from
time to time Councils are convoked, that the Bishops
of the whole world, who are participators in the Apos
tolic office, may bear witness to the teaching they have
severally received from their predecessors, besides in
structing their Chief as to the needs and dangers of
their respective peoples.
We must also note that Papal infallibility attaches
only to utterances ex cathedra, i.e., which are pro
fessedly addressed to the faithful for the purpose of
their information and instruction as to matters of
faith. When the Pope speaks as a private person —
even as a private theologian — he is not infallible.
An instructive example on this head is given us in
regard of St. Peter himself. After the divine commis
sion to confirm his brethren, he fell and denied his
Master. But he never taught that denial to the
Church, and his lapse was nowise permitted to inter
fere with his office. So again, the point upon which, as
we have seen, St. Paul withstood him and pronounced
him blameworthy, regarded not faith, but personal
conduct. St. Peter had, out of deference to the preju
dices of Jewish converts, withdrawn himself from
familiar intercourse with the Gentiles. St. Paul held
this to be culpable weakness — and so it may have
been; but certainly it did not touch the question of
infallibility.
Still less do we claim for the Pope, as Protestants
frequently imagine, the gift of impeccability, or sin-
lessness. The Pope like any other man must save
his soul by resisting evil and doing good. If, failing
in this duty, he should lead a bad life, his guilt would
THE POPE I I I
be the greater in proportion to the dignity of his
office and the obligation it imposes ; but this would not
affect the authority of his office, which depends not
upon his own qualities, but upon the power of God of
which he is merely the instrument. As our Lord said
of the Ministers of the Old Law, " The Scribes and
the Pharisees have sitten on the Chair of Moses. All
things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, ob
serve and do; but according to their works do ye
not." (Matt, xxiii. 2.)
112 THE POPE
ADDENDA, C, XIII.
A, St. Peter at Rome.
Protestant controversialists of a certain stamp, are
fond of declaring that we have no proof of St. Peter's
having been at Rome, and even less of his having
been Bishop of that city. They point out that the
Apostle dates his ist Epistle (c. v. 13) from Babylon.
We reply, that this expression is used figuratively
for pagan Rome, as it is in the Apocalypse, it being
very doubtful whether any remains of the original
Babylon were in existence at the period in question.
Moreover, the evidence for St. Peter's presence in
Rome is so strong as to be unequivocally accepted by
the more eminent Protestants, whose testimony alone
we shall quote.
Chamier (cited with approval by Cave). "All the
Fathers with great unanimity assert that Peter did go
to Rome, and that he did govern that Church."
Grotius. "Ancient and modern interpreters differ
about this ' Babylon.' The ancients understood it of
Rome, where no true Christian will doubt that Peter
was.
Pearson treats the subject in a special treatise,
and shows that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
the Popes are his legitimate successors.
Bramhall. "That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at
Antioch, and after that at Rome, is what no man who
giveth any credit to the ancient Fathers and Councils
and historiographers of the Church either can deny
pr will doubt,"
THE POPE I I 3
'Bible Commentary (Edited by Bishop Ellieott of
Gloucester). " Nothing but Protestant prejudice can
stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter
sojourned and died in Rome." Also Speaker's Com-
mentary.
Cains of Rome (fl. under Pope Zephyrinus, 198 —
217) is quoted by Eusebius (H .E. ii. 25.) as attesting
that he had seen at Rome ther/ooTramof SS. Peter and
Paul on the site of their martyrdom, i.e., their tombs,
or at least monuments. (See Allnatt's, Was St. Peter
Bishop of Rome? C.T.S.)
B. Historical Difficulties.
Various historical incidents are alleged as being
incompatible with the supremacy, or at any rate with
the infallibility of the Pope.
It is in the first place remarkable that in so long a
period, amongst so many Pontiffs, so differently cir
cumstanced, and in such a multitude of their decisions,
there should bo so fjew instances of the kind. It would
be out of place here to discuss them in any detail, and
it must suffice to indicate very briefly the character
of the objections and that of the replies, which fuller
investigation must be left to corroborate.
(a) Pope Liberius (d. 366). Liberius, it is said,
subscribed an heretical creed, and anathematized St.
Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy.
Reply, i. The facts are doubtful. It is not certain
that the creed subscribed was actually heretical. It is
certain that Liberius did not anatketnatize Athanasius.
At most he withdrew from his communion, as a dis
turber of the peace of the Church, and communicated
with his enemies. 2. He thus acted under terror, when
I
I 14 THE POPE
in the hands of the Arian Emperor, and by so doing
undoubtedly exhibited shameful and sinful weakness,
and caused great scandal. But he never taught the
Church heresy. He fell like Peter — though we cannot
be sure to what extent ; and when the danger was past
he proclaimed the orthodox faith as before.
(b) Pope Vigilius (d. 555). He was un
doubtedly weak and fluctuating with regard to works
suspected of heresy, and published a declaration to
the effect that he was unwilling to condemn them.
But he afterwards changed his mind and did condemn
them.
(c] Pope Honorius (d. 638). It cannot be de
nied (although Baronius and others have tried to prove
the contrary) that the Sixth General Council (Second
of Constantinople, A.D. 68 i) pronounced " Anathema
on Honorius the heretic," which was approved by the
Pope of the time, — Leo II.,- — and by subsequent
councils.
All that is needful is to understand the history.
Sergius of Constantinople broached a new heresy (the
Monothelite), but in covert and guarded language. All
turned on the precise signification attached to certain
philosophical terms (de\rj/jia and evepyeia) which dif
ferent writers understood differently. Some, however,
suspecting the utterances of Sergius as unorthodox,
began to agitate against him, whereupon he wrote to
Honorius that it was a mere question of words, to
which it would be foolish to attach importance.
Honorius, not seeing the trend of his system, agreed
with him and wrote saying that he saw nothing erron
eous in attributing to Christ ev 06\i?/ia, Bvo evepyeiat.
That Honorius misapprehended, not the Catholic doc
trine, but Sergius' meaning is evidenced by the. fact
THE POPE I I 5
that in the same documents in which he expresses
himself as above, he lays down the correct doctrine on
the very point in question. (Hefele, Concilienges-
chlchte, vol. iv.) Later, however, it became manifest
that the teaching of Sergius was heretical, and he was
accordingly condemned, at Constantinople, Hqnorius
being coupled with him as culpably neglectful of his
duty in not having condemned the heresiarch. But
whatever fault he may have committed, he certainly
defined nothing: — indeed he expressly disclaimed the
idea of any definition. It is moreover probable that
he was blameless in the whole transaction, as the cru
cial words had not then acquired the signification pre
sently attached to them, making their use by Sergius
inadmissible. Others, no doubt, had a keener scent
than he to detect the beginnings of error, but such
acumen is not amongst the gifts which a Pope is re
quired to possess.
(d) The Great Schism of the West. From
A.D. 1378 to 1417, there were two rival lines of
Popes, the result of a double or disputed election,
each claiming the rightful succession and the obedi
ence of Christendom, and each acknowledged by kings
and peoples; though in this respect one had an im
mense advantage, only France, Naples, Scotland, and
Cyprus recognizing the other. At one period there
were actually three claimants, one of the rival lines
having again split into two. Finally, in 1417, during
the Council of Constance, the succession being vacant
all round by death or resignation, Pope Martin V.
was elected and accepted by all.
Pernicious and deplorable as were the effects of this
miserable dispute, it affords no argument whatever
against the claims of the Papacy, which all parties
I I 6 THE POPE
concerned equally acknowledged and proclaimed. The
question was one of fact, as to who was really Pope.
When this was answered it was universally agreed that
all were bound to obey him, in matters of faith and
conduct.
(e) The Case of Galileo, i. It was not the Pope
who condemned Galileo's teaching (i.e., the Coperni-
can system of Astronomy), but the Congregation of
the Index, for which infallibility is not claimed. 2.
At the time, the majority even of such writers as be
lieved Galileo's teaching to be false, did not consider
the sentence against him as final, or as laying down
an irreversible doctrine, but as provisional, pending-
fuller research. (See Father Ryder's Catholic Con~
troversy, p. 33.)
(/') St. Gregory the Great and the title of
" Universal Bishop." The Council of Calccdon
(A.D. 451), having accorded to the Pope the title of
" Universal Bishop," St. Gregory afterwards rejected
it. Hence, it is said, he repudiated the claim of uni
versal jurisdiction.
But there is a false sense in which such a title may
be understood, and on that account was it rejected.
The Pope is not the only Bishop in the wrorld, nor the
only successor of the Apostles, nor has he alone juris
diction; though that of other Bishops depends on their
being in communion with him.
But the fact that a General Council adopted the
title is sufficient to show that there is also a true sense
in which it may be admitted, and in this sense St.
Gregory practically accepted it, — for he claimed and
exercised universal jurisdiction, declaring even the
Patriarchate of Constantinople to be undoubtedly
" subject to the Apostolic See/' and also establishing
THE POPfi i I 7
his vicariates in Illyria and Gaul. (See Ryder's Catho
lic Controversy, p. 70, and Lindsay's Evidence for the
Papacy, pp. 290, seq., where the question is treated in
detail.)
C. The False Decretals.
Anti-Catholic writers frequently attribute the
general acceptance of Papal power to a collection of
documents which purport to be utterances of early
Popes, such as make up the greater part of the body
of the Canon Law., and to have been collected by one
Isidore Mercator." This person was apparently
identified with St. Isidore, who had actually compiled
a scries of genuine Decretals. There can be no doubt
that in form " Mercator's " are forgeries, put into
their actual shape by an unknown author, known as
the " Pseudo- Isidore," towards the middle of the ninth
century.
On this subject Dr. Littledalc writes (Plain Reasons,
twentieth thousand, p. I I 6) : " (They) were fabricated
in Western Gaul about 845, and were eagerly seized
on by Pope Nicolas I., an ambitious and perfectly un
scrupulous pontiff, to aid in revolutionizing the Church,
as he, in fact, largely succeeded in doing."
Similarly, Dean Farrar declares (Contemporary
Review, June, 1895), that concerning a great part of
Papal history, " We know next to nothing except from
the glaring falsities of the forged Decretals," and it
appears to be considered a safe rule by controver
sialists of the less instructed type — " When in doubt
play the False Decretals."
As a matter of fact they furnish our adversaries
with no such weapon as these writers assume.
(a) It is acknowledged that the fabrication took
fl THIS, POPE
place in Gaul, where zeal for the interests of Rome
cannot be supposed to have furnished a motive.
(b) Critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, are
agreed that the Pope had nothing whatever to do with
their production, which was not executed directly in
his interest, but in that of suffragan bishops and the
inferior clergy, as against metropolitans, who were too
often the tools of the secular power.
(c) The same critics agree that although novel and
fraudulent in form, these decretals represented a dis
cipline long established, or at least already introduced,
and were thus to a large extent substantially genuine
(as Protestant authorities may be cited, Neander, Bow-
den, and Milman — See Father Ryder's Catholic Con
troversy, p. 178).
(d) As Bishop Hcfele and other historians of re
pute show, the practical effect of the Decretals has
been grossly exaggerated, and was by no means so
great as Protestants represent.
(c) Neither is it true that Catholics have univer
sally clung to the authenticity of the Decretals as a
bulwark of their religion. On the contrary, it was by
Catholic writers (Cardinals Cusa and Torquemada)
that doubts on this head were first raised, and it was
by the Catholic brothers Ballerini that the falsity of
the documents was finally established.
OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION
XIV. OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM
REVELATION.
We have already seen what our Reason can tell us
concerning God — that He is Eternal, Almighty, In
finite in all perfection.
Revelation not only immensely extends and illu
mines this natural knowledge, but adds much to it
which no human powers could of themselves ever have
learnt; the knowledge of which, therefore, comes to
us simply through faith.
Thus we learn, that while God is absolutely One
in Nature, there are in this one God Three Persons,
really distinct; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
A. The Nature oi God.
God is One, with a One-ness to which nothing
created can furnish a parallel, not even our own soul,
for its faculties are really distinct from one another.
Not so the attributes of God, which are, as it were,
concentrated in infinitude of perfection, and are dis
tinguished by our reason according to the different
relations under which we regard Him.
[Thus, one and the same mathematical point may
be the centre of one circle, on the circumference of
another, the vertex of a triangle, and the extremity; of a
straight line — none of these functions affecting or
altering its own character.]
These attributes are divided into two classes.
12,0 OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION
( i ) Quiescent Attributes.
Simplicity. This excludes all imperfections insepar
able from whatever is material, and composed of parts.
That which is so composed is necessarily finite and
imperfect; for parts put together are capable of
separation, whereby the compound would be dimin
ished or destroyed. Another part might conceivably
be added, which would imply increase, but increase is
incompatible with Infinity.
N.B. — As already said, even our own souls are not
simple in the sense in which the Nature of God is
simple. Pure spirits as they are, He is a Spirit in
finitely more pure.
Infinity, or Infinite Perfection.
As has already been said (III. ad fin.}, we are
compelled to draw upon; our knowledge of ourselves
for the attributes which we ascribe to God. Whatever
faculties or qualities we find in our nature unalloyed
by any element of imperfection, we ascribe to Him
simply — or as philosophers say, formally — but in a per
fection and plenitude infinitely surpassing what we
know or can conceive — v.g.t Wisdom, Goodness,
Power.
But whatever implies imperfection or limitation we
ascribe to Him supereminently (eminenter). Thus, as
we have argued, since man has understanding, it fol
lows that man's Creator must have understanding in
order to bestow it. But it does not follow that He has
reason, this being an imperfect form of intelligence,
which has to proceed from the known to the unknown,
from premiss to conclusion. It has, v.g., to put two
and two together to make four : whereas pure and
perfect intelligence knows the answer without the
operation.
OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION I 2 1
Eternity excludes the idea of beginning, end, or
succession, in God. He always is. As He Himself
expressed it to Moses (Exodus Hi. 14} : "I am who
am." (" Ego sum qui sum " — '.E. A,
3, c, p. i 66.)
It may be added that from the very first Catholics
in England were convinced of this invalidity.
(/) As has already been said (st/fi. A, 6) the Sacra
ment of Holy Order was instituted by our Lord when
He conferred upon the Apostles the power of the
priesthood, namely, of consecrating His Body and
Blood, and forgiving sins.
iv. Penance.
This Sacrament is rejected by modern sectaries,
calling themselves " Bible Christians," on the ground
that there is no warrant for it in Scripture ; and it may
at once be acknowledged that neither in Holy Writ nor
in the writings of the Fathers do we find such over
whelming testimony in its regard, as we do for Bap
tism and the Holy Eucharist. Nevertheless the proofs
are abundantly sufficient, as will appear from the
following line of argument.
i. Christ left to His Church tJie power of binding
and loosing, commonly termed the "Power of the
THE SACRAMENTS 183
This appears from various passages of Scripture
itself, and from their interpretation by the Fathers.
"I will give to thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom
of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon
earth, it shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatso
ever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also
in heaven." (JIatt. xvi. /£.)
" Amen I say to you [the Apostles], whatsoever
you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in
heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth,
shall be loosed also in heaven." {Matt, xviii. i$.)
" Receive yc the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall
forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you
shall retain, they, are retained." (John xx. 22, 23.)
Tradition. St. John Chrysostom. [See also above,
iii. 2, $.]
" The priests of the Jews alone had power to cleanse
leprosy of the body, or rather, not to cleanse it but to
approve the person cleansed. , . . But to our priests
is given, not merely to approve when cleansed, but
absolutely to cleanse, not the leprosy of the body,
but the defilements of the soul." (De Sacerdotio, iii.)
St. Leo. " The mediator of God and man, the
Man Christ Jesus, hath given this power to the pastors
of His Church — to admit those who confess their sins,
to penance and through the gate of reconciliation to
communion of the Sacraments." {Epist. 91, ad
Theodor.)
2. According to our Saviour's institution, this
power was to be exercised in the Sacrament of
Penance.
(a) From the passages of Scripture quoted above,
the Apostles and their successors were appointed
184 THE SACRAMENTS
Judges. They have the power not only of loosing, but
also of binding; not only of forgiving, but of retaining.
Clearly, in order to exercise such power they must
have the means of acquainting themselves with the
merits of the case. Confession, as practised in the
Catholic Church, evidently affords such a means. On
the other hand, those who, like Protestants, apply the
words of our Lord to preaching or praying, can attach
no meaning whatever to the power of binding or
retaining.
(/3) It is moreover clear that the Sacrament as we
have it has always existed in the Church. This
appears—
From the impossibility of otherwise introducing a
practice so extremely distasteful to human nature.
From the testimony of the Oriental Sects — already
cited — who all number this amongst the Sacraments.
From explicit mention by the Fathers and other
early writers. That testimonies are not more numerous
than they are results from various causes.
The Disciplina Arcani, or "Discipline of Secrecy,"
strenuously enforced in the early Church, forbade the
sacred mysteries to be divulged, so as to come to the
knowledge of unbelievers : especially such mysteries as
would most easily be misunderstood and misrepre
sented. Hence utterances upon such subjects were
very guarded.
Moreover, at one period public confession of sins
was much practised, although afterwards abolished on
account of the inconveniences to which it led. When
some of the Fathers say that Confession is not neces
sary, they doubtless refer to this, not to Sacramental
Confession.
For truly Sacramental Confession we have, how-
THE SACRAMENTS 185
ever, sufficient evidence, of which the following testi
monies are samples.
St. Athanasius. "As man is illuminated with the
grace of the Holy Spirit by the priest who baptizes, so
also he who confesses in penitence, receives through
the priest, by the grace of Christ, the remission of
sins."
St. Basil speaks of those in charge of the Churches
as "having entrusted to them by sinners things not to
be named."
Elsewhere he speaks of the secret confession of
secret and scandalous sins,
St. Ambrose. " Sins are remitted by the Word of
God, of which the Levitc is the interpreter and
executor; they are also remitted by the office of the
priest, and the sacred ministry."
Of St. Ambrose himself, it is related by his bio
grapher Paulinus, that he used to mingle his tears with
those of the penitents who confessed to him, and it is
clear that confession in private is spoken of.
[For these and fuller testimonies see Watenvorth's
Faith of Catholics, vol. iii.]
3. The outward sign is that of a judicial sentence:
the inward grace, an acquittal from guilt.
(a) All the Sacraments, as we have seen, resemble
some human action. In this case, it is the proceedings
of a Court of Justice.
There are therefore required, an Accuser, an
Accused person, and a Judge.
The Penitent himself fulfils the first and second
office, of Accuser and Accused.
In the latter character he must have an accusation
to be made, i.e., offences to be laid to his charge.
THE SACRAMENTS
In the character of Accuser, he must have an
animus against himself; i.e., he must be displeased
with the conduct he arraigns : in other words, he must
be sorry for what he has done.
The Judge must hear the cause, consider its merits,
and pronounce sentence.
The Matter of the Sacrament is confession of sins,
with sorrow for them. Without the latter there is no
real accusation, but a bare and idle ceremony.
The Form is the Absolution pronounced by the
priest.
4. The parts o/ the Sacram-cnt are Contrition, Con
fession and Satis fact ion.
Contrition. This is the most essential element of
the Sacrament, since in no circumstances can there be
any forgiveness of sin without repentance.
The sorrow conceived for sin must be supernatural,
i.e., based on the love of God. Grief, however sincere
and poignant, grounded on mere natural motives—as
the loss of health, or position, or fortune — would be of
no avail.
Neither does the sorrow of servile fear suffice. A
man who says that he desires to commit sin, and would
do so but for the penalties, is not in a state to obtain
forgiveness.
It by no means follows that one who is conscious of
no other motive for sorrow but the fear of Hell, is
incapable of receiving absolution. This is a super
natural motive, inasmuch as the evil dreaded is eternal
separation from God. But higher motives should be
sought as much as possible.
Perfect Contrition is sorrow for sin grounded purely
on the love pf God, as infinitely good in Himself, and
THE SACRAMENTS I 8 ;
infinitely good to us. Such contrition avails to blot
out sin at once, even before the Sacrament is received ;
but not without reference to the Sacrament, and the
desire and intention of receiving the same. All sins
must be submitted to the Power of the Keys, which
our Lord has appointed as the means of forgiveness for
sins committed after Baptism. And it is in virtue of
our Lord's merits alone that Contrition can avail for
forgiveness.
Attrition, or less perfect sorrow, wherein higher
motives are mingled with lower, though it does not by
itself free the soul from sin, suffices for forgiveness
when joined with absolution.
Confession must be entire, i.e., must include all
tmconfessed mortal sins.
N.B. — The integrity thus required is formal: i.e.,
we must not wilfully and knowingly conceal what we
ought to declare. But it is not necessarily Material*
If, using reasonable care to examine his conscience,
and wishing to tell all, the penitent should forget and
omit even grievous sins, he would obtain absolution,
not only for the sins confessed, but also for the others ;
since forgiveness cannot be partial or incomplete. The
obligation would, however, remain, as a pledge of sin
cerity, of confessing the omitted sins should they after
wards be remembered.
The Minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a
Priest, having faculties, or jurisdiction, from the
Bishop of the place, and through him from the Pope.
If such jurisdiction be wanting, the priest's absolu
tion is invalid, excepting1 only when the penitent is in
grave danger of death (in articulo mortis}, when
jurisdiction is granted by the Church to all priests.
Satisfaction. This is virtually, included in Con-
188 THE SACRAMENTS
trition, as one who is sincerely sorry for his sins, must
necessarily desire to give substantial proof of this
sorrow.
Moreover, even after the guilt of sin, and the
punishment attached thereto, have been cancelled,
there still remains the debt of temporal penance to be
discharged, of which we spoke when treating of
Purgatory (su/>. XVII. iii. A), and in endeavouring to
satisfy for this we give evidence of the sincerity of
our repentance.
Satisfaction is an integral part of the Sacrament.
A man resolving at the time of his confession, that he
would do nothing in this way, and pay no attention to
the penance given him, would evidently not be in fit
dispositions. Should he afterwards forget to perform
his penance, lie does not thereby invalidate the absolu
tion received; although his forgetfulness itself, if pro
ceeding from carelessness or neglect, may be culpable.
Connected with the doctrine of Satisfaction is that
of Indulgences, which is easily misunderstood by non-
Catholics.
5. Indulgences.
An Indulgence is not a remission of sin, whether
mortal or venial, — nor of the eternal punishment
incurred by mortal sin.
Still less, as is often absurdly supposed, is it a leave
to commit sin, or a pardon for sins to come, which it
would be impious to attempt.
Neither does an Indulgence dispense with any of
the conditions required to obtain forgiveness of sin
in the Sacrament of Penance. It does not take the
place of Contrition, nor excuse from full confession,
nor from the performance of the sacramental penance
imposed by the confessor, nor from the obligation of
THE SACRAMENTS 189
restitution, or of repairing scandal. On the contrary,
it is an essential condition for the gaining of all
Indulgences that the applicant should be truly contrite,
and have purged himself from sin by a good confes
sion, and that he should have no affection for sin, or
intention to sin again, but should (which is a part of
true contrition) be resolved to offend God no more.
The effect of Indulgences is limited solely to the
temporal punishment remaining due to mortal sins, the
guilt and eternal punishment of which have been
forgiven, or to venial sins and imperfections.
The nature of this punishment has been indicated.
The sinner, although forgiven, cannot be in the position
of one who has never fallen. There remains for him
the obligation of exhibiting, in the words of St. John
the Baptist, "fruits worthy of penance" (Lufceiii.S),
thus to show, with the Psalmist, that he knows his
iniquity and his sin is ever before him. By sin he has
offended both God and the Church, by the bad example
given to her children, and for such offence she expects
evidence of repentance, and of a desire to make
satisfaction, while satisfaction is meritorious, and not,
as in Purgatory, merely penal. In early days, public
penance was imposed, in the case of sins which came
to the knowledge of others, the delinquent being ex
cluded from Communion, for shorter or longer periods,
according to the gravity of his fault. But from the
beginning the Church claimed and exercised the right
of remitting such penance at her discretion. Thus
St. Paul acted in the case of a scandalous sinner,
revoking the severe sentence he had pronounced, on
evidence of amendment. (/ Cor. v. and 2 Cor. //.)
Afterwards, those who had fallen through fear in time
of persecution, were allowed to shorten their season of
THE SACRAMENTS
penance in consideration of the merits of their more
courageous brethren, on receiving letters from the
martyrs in prison, on their behalf. Gradually, this
practice was extended and amplified, the place of
public penance being taken by an application of the
"treasure of the Church" (that is, of the superabundant
merits of Christ and His Saints), attached to the per
formance of specified good works; — but always, as has
been said, on condition of contrition and sacramental
confession, of at least all grievous sin.
Taking the place of the ancient Canonical penance,
Indulgences have adopted the terms attached to the
same. Thus, an Indulgence of 40 or 100 days, signifies
one that is equivalent to Canonical penance of such a
period, not only externally in regard of the Church,
but internally also in regard of God's Justice, availing
for satisfaction to the same extent. For the Church
has jurisdiction over her children to bind and to loose,
and this is an exercise of the latter power.
Such is the principle upon which the doctrine of
Indulgences has ever been grounded, and which has
not varied, in spite of the various modes in which at
different periods it has been put in practice.
It is undoubtedly, true that grave abuses have in
the past been introduced in connexion with the promul
gation of Indulgences, especially when this was carried
on by officials to whom fees were payable. It was in
a case of this kind that Luther first took the field, and
the Council of Trent afterwards declared such intro
duction of the money element to have been the cause
of a flood of abuses amongst Christian peoples; and
at the same time the said Council severely prohibited
its continuance, declaring all Indulgences inv.alicj
which were thus disseminated,
THE SACRAMENTS 191
Such a practice was, however, always an abuse, and
no part of the system of the Church.
The application of Indulgences to the souls in Pur
gatory, it must be noted, is only per modum suffragii,
i.e., as intercession on their behalf. The Church has
no jurisdiction beyond the grave, and cannot grant
Indulgences per modum absolutionis, to the dead, as
she does to the living.
Against the system of Indulgences existing in the
Church, various objections are brought.
It is often said that, although theologians may
explain the matter as we have done, ordinary simple
folk naturally and necessarily suppose Indulgences to
avail for the remission of sin without repentance; and
that consequently they are induced to sin freely.
This we simply deny. However Protestants mis
understand the doctrine, no Catholic is so foolish as to
entertain any such ridiculous notion.
It is also urged that there is no proportion between
the light and easy conditions attached to the gaining of
Indulgences and the immense benefits conferred; and
that consequently the granting of Indulgences tends to
make men think little of sin, and so to destroy true
religion.
As to this objection, it is necessary to remember
that what is of far greater moment than the perform
ance of any penitential act, is the arousing of a peni
tential spirit in the soul, which alone can avail to
propitiate God, whom the sinner has offended. What
ever best does this, is the best means of satisfaction;
and as habits of mind and thought greatly vary in
different ages, the Church in her wisdom chooses in
each age what will best serve one and the same pur
pose. That, as a matter of fact, the practice of the
I 92 THE SACRAMENTS
Church works for good, there is abundant proof.
Men's minds are awakened to the gravity of sin and
the obligation of atonement : they are induced to con
cern themselves in this life about the affairs of the
next : many salutary good works are enjoined and
promoted: finally, if a sense of God's Justice was
fostered by the ancient and more severe discipline, that
of the present day enforces the lesson of His mercy.
v. The Holy Eucharist.
This Sacrament, pre-eminent amongst the rest,
which may be called its satellites, may be said to
exhibit in itself alMhe mysteries of our Redemption,
since in it our Blessed Lord gives Himself to us as
His chief means of completing His own work.
The Blessed Eucharist differs also in essential
particulars from the other Sacraments.
(a) The others are in themselves but signs, to which
the conferring of grace is divinely attached. This is in
itself not a sign but a reality.
(b) The others consist in a transient action. This,
in an abiding and substantial thing.
(c) They are Sacraments only. This is Sacrament
and Sacrifice.
A. The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament,
i. In itself.
(a) The Real Presence.
That our Lord is really and truly, not only figura
tively and metaphorically, present in the Blessed
Sacrament, is proved bo.th from Scripture and from
the Tradition of the Church.
THE SACRAMENTS 193
Scripture.
i. From t/ie words in which before Us institution
Christ spoke of tJUs Sacrament to the Jews (Jo hn
c. vi. 32, seq.}, it is evident th;cric, all signifying change of
essence, or transmutation.
(c) Communion under one kind.
(1) This question, much argued by Protestants, is
intimately connected with the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation; for on the one hand!, if this doctrine is
true, under the form either of bread or wine we receive
Christ as truly as under both, receiving Him as He is :
and on the other hand, if He be not received under
each form separately, He cannot possibly be made up
by both together.
For this reason does the Church make Communion
under one kind for the laity so important a point, as a
test of faith, — and not merely on account of the grave
inconveniences attending the giving of the Cup.
In early ages there was no fixed discipline one way
or the other. When the Manichean heretics said that
the Cup was unlawful — (because wine was created by
the evil spirit and because Christ had no blood), — the
Church made the faithful communicate under both
forms. Only from the fifteenth century onwards,
heretics having declared the double species to be
essential, has the Church, in order to declare the true
nature of the Sacrament, positively forbidden it.
(2) Protestants argue, however, that this restriction
is contrary to our Lord's express command.
(a) At the Last Supper, in the very words of in
stitution, He said1, " Drink ye all of this." (Matt,
xxvii. 27.)
To this we answer that the Blessed Eucharist is not
a Sacrament only, but also a Sacrifice ; that, for the
Sacrifice the double species is required; and that the
204 THE SACRAMENTS
Apostles to whom our Lord spoke were then ordained
as sacrificing priests.
(b) In His discourse to the Jews, in preparation for
the institution, our Lord said (John vi. 54), " Except
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 'drink his blood
you shall not have life in you."
We answer that this discourse altogether confirms
the Catholic doctrine and practice — for when He speaks
of the reality — the substance — He always mentions
both His flesh and blood; when of the species, or
symbol, He mentions that of bread alone. As the
Council of Trent observes (xxi. i), " He who said,
4 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
his blood, you shall not have life in you,' said like
wise, ' If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever:' and He who said, ' He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood hath everlasting life,' also said, 'The
bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the
world:' and finally, He who said 'He that eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in
him,' said none the less, ' He that eateth this bread,
shall live for ever.' '
It is also objected that St. Paul (/ Cor. xi. 27)
assumes Communion under both kinds — when he says,
" Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the chalice
of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord."
We answer that this is a mistranslation introduced
in the Anglican version of Scripture to support the
Protestant argument. What St. Paul does say is not
and but or (in the Greek original 11 ), thus turning the
argument just the other way.
For the Catholic practice we have in Scripture the
action of our Lord Himself at Emmaus, after His
THE SACRAMENTS 2OS
Resurrection (Luke xxiv. j6>), when He took bread and
blessed and broke, which many of the Fathers under
stand to have been an instance of Holy Communion
under one kind. So also of the first Christians who
(Acts xx. 7) " were assembled on the first day of the
week to break bread."
As testimonies to the practice of the early Church,
it will be sufficient to mention the last Communion of
St. Ambrose, under one kind, as described by his
deacon, St. Paulinus.
(c) The Matter of the Holy Eucharist is wheaten
bread, and wine of the grape.
In the Latin Church the licit matter is unleavened'
bread. In the (United) Greek Church leavened bread.
The words of Consecration, as spoken by our Lord
at the Last Supper, are the Form, viz., " This is my
body. . . . This is the chalice of my blood," the
priest speaking in the person of Christ, whose place he
takes, and by whose power alone does he act.
B. The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrifice.
( i) A Sacrifice is a supreme act of worship due to
God alone, and consists in the offering of something to
Him in token and acknowledgment of His supreme
dominion.
The only true sacrifice, properly so called, ever
offered in the world was that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The sacrifices of the Old Law had all their value only
from their connexion, as types and figures, with His
oblation of Himself.
He came upon earth to offer Himself as an oblation
to His Father; one and the same oblation in two
manners. But both manners He united in one act of
206 THE SACRAMENTS
offering. Hence the Sacrifice of the Cross and of the
AJtar is but one Sacrifice, having the same Priest, the
same Victim, and the same act.
(2) In the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Mass, we
have both — •
(a) A relative Sacrifice, which is a commemoration
of that of the Cross; but not a bare commemoration.
It is a commemoration by real repetition in another
manner: viz., the offering to God of His own Son in
a mode which typifies His death — the double species of
bread and wine symbolizing the separation of His body
and blood. Hence in the Mass the double species 13
essential.
(b) An absolute Sacrifice. For just as Christ by
His Incarnation placed Himself in a condition to be
thus offered, so does He also by Transubstantiation.
( 3) Scriptural evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
(a) In the Old Testament we find Melchisedech,
described as " the priest of the most high God,"
offering bread and wine. (Genesis xiv. 1 8.)
The Psalmist in prophecy speaking of the Messias
says : " The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent :
Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of
Melchisedech." (Ps. cix. 4.)
These words of the Psalmist, St. Paul applies to
Christ. (Hebrews v. 6 and mi. //.)
The everlasting priesthood of Christ was therefore
to be connected with sacrifice under the form of bread
and wine, as offered in type and figure by Melchisedech.
(b) The Prophet Malachy foretold that the Jewish
sacrifices should be replaced by one more acceptable
to God, offered ceaselessly amongst the Gentiles.
" I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of
hosts: and I \vill receive no gift at your hand. For
THE SACRAMENTS 2O7
from the rising of the sun even to the going down,
my name is great among the Gentiles, arid in every,
place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name
a clean oblation : for my name is great among the
Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Mai. i. 10, n.)
(c) St. Paul declares (Heb. xili. 10) "we have an
altar." But an altar necessarily implies a Sacrifice.
(4) Tradition. The Commentaries furnished by the
Fathers emphasize the teachings of Scripture.
Thus St. Chrysostom commenting upon the prophecy
of Malachy insists that he can speak only of the
Christian Sacrifice now offered in all parts of the
world.
He also tells us that the sacrifice of Isaac, —
beyond all the ancient sacrifices acceptable to God,—
was bloodless, that it might be a token " of this
Sacrifice of ours."
[For the patristic evidence more fully see Water-
worth's Faith of Catholics, vol. ii. pp. 394, seq.]
( 5) The Council of Trent thus lays down the
Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice
(Sess. xxii. cc. I and 2) :
" Our God and Lord albeit He was to offer Himself
once upon the altar of the Cross to God the Father,
by death, that He might there accomplish eternal
redemption, yet because His priesthood should not be
extinguished, at the Last Supper, in order to leave His
Church a visible Sacrifice whereby that bloody Sacri
fice of the Cross might be represented, manifesting
Himself as a priest for ever according to the order of
Melchisedech, offered to the Father His body and
blood, under the form of bread and wine, and bade
His Apostles and their successors in the priesthood
offer the same."-
208 THE SACRAMENTS
" And since in this Divine Sacrifice the same Christ
is present and is offered in an unbloody manner, who
offered Himself in a bloody manner once upon the
Cross, the holy Synod teaches that this Sacrifice is
truly propitiatory, and that by it is effected that if we
with sincerity and true faith, contrite and penitent
for our sins, approach God, we shall obtain mercy."
(6) Objects of the Sacrifice.
The Sacrifice of the Mass may be offered for the
Living or for the Dead.
For the living, according to the four great ends of
Sacrifice, viz., I. As the supreme act of homage or
praise to God. 2. As a Thank-offering. 3. As a
Peace-offering, in atonement for our sins. 4. For the
obtaining of graces and blessings.
For the dead, Mass is offered per mod\um suffragii.
(sup. IV. 5.)
That the Church has from the earliest times thus
applied the Eucharistic Sacrifice, we have the evidence,
amongst others, of St. Augustine, who tells how his
mother, St. Monica, on her death-bed begged above all
things to be remembered "at the altar of the Lord."
(Confess, ix. 27.) He tells us, moreover, how this
request was attended to, and earnestly begs his
brethren to remember her at the altar, (ib. ix.
32—37.) [See also XVII. iii. c, p. 138].
(7) Various points.
(A) There are three main divisions essential to the
integrity of the Mass, viz.,
(a) The Offertory, from the Offertory prayer to the
Preface. [As to the name " Offertory," the people
used of old to offer bread and wine for the Sacrifice.]
(b) The Canon, from the end of the Preface to the
Pater N.oster inclusive.
THE SACRAMENTS 2C>9
This is the most ancient portion of the Mass, going
back to the earliest ages of the Church.
(c) The Communion, from the end of the Pater
Noster to the Communion prayer, exclusive.
What precedes the Offertory, or follows the Com
munion, is not strictly of the essence of the Mass.
(B) Language. In the West the Mass — as the rest
of the Liturgy — is in Latin. In the United Oriental
bodies, it is in Greek, Syriac, or other languages,
according to the various ancient Rites which, with the
approval of Rome, they follow.
Protestants consider the use of a dead tongue an
abuse, and declare that religious services should be
conducted in a language "understanded of the people."
As for the Mass, we answer that it is not only a
prayer, but an action, the progress of which can be
understood and followed by all — and which, as a
matter of fact, is understood and appreciated by the
people far more than any form of words could be.
Moreover, the use of one common language (for the
Eastern rites may be disregarded, being entirely local
and limited), is fitting and even necessary for the
Universal Church, that her children may find them
selves at home in her temples all over the earth — which
could not 'be were language to change at every frontier.
Also, the use of a dead language — that remains fixed
and unalterable from age to age, is proper and fitting
for the unchanging Church of all time. Had she em
ployed the current languages of various peoples they
would all in the course of her history have repeatedly
become unintelligible and altogether obsolete.
* $* Very notable are the Types and Figures of the
Blessed Eucharist, whether as a Sacrament or a Sacri-
O
2 I O THE SACRAMENTS
fice in the Old and New Testament. In particular may
be mentioned:
The Paschal Lamb. (Exodus xU.)
The Manna in the Desert. (Exodus xvi.)
The Sacrifice of Isaac. (Genesis xxii.) This has
already been spoken of, as a remarkable foreshadow
ing of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass. It was,
moreover, the oblation of a son by his father, and by
it were purchased all the graces and privileges con
ferred upon the chosen people.
The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, with mention
of these Types, is beautifully summed up in St.
Thomas of Aquin's hymn Lcnida Sion, recited by the
Church on the feast of Corpus Christi.
In the New Testament, we have two very remark
able figures of the Holy Eucharist given us by our
Lord Himself, as special illustrations of His power in
what appears most difficult and mysterious in liic
Sacrament.
The multiplication of the loaves and fishes, to
symbolize the multiplication of Christ's Sacramental
presence throughout the world.
The change of water into wine, to symbolize Tran-
substantiation.
vi. Extreme Unction.
i. Extreme Unction is a Sacrament administered
to those in danger of death by sickness.
It cannot be administered to those in health, though
in imminent danger, or even on the brink of certain
death, v.g., soldiers going into battle, or criminals on
the eve of execution. But it may be administered to
wounded men and the like.
THE SACRAMENTS 211
2. The Scriptural evidence for this Sacrament is
furnished by St. James in his Catholic Epistle.
(v. 14,15.)
" Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in
the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And
the prayer of faith shall save the sick man : and the
Lord shall raise him up : and if he be in sins they shall
be forgiven him."
3. The Mailer of the Sacrament is olive oil blessed
by a Bishop (oleum infirmorum) with which the sick
man is anointed on the eyes, ears, mouth, &c.
The Form is, "By this holy unction and His own
most tender mercy, may God pardon thee whatever
thou hast sinned by sight, hearing, speech," &c.
4. The effects of the Sacrament are chiefly — the
remission of venial sins and even of mortal when
confession is impossible; increase of grace for the last
combat. Frequently also, restoration of bodily health,
when God sees it to be expedient.
5. Extreme Unction is included amongst the Sacra
ments by the " Orthodox " Greek Church and other
Oriental Sects. Of the Fathers, it is especially men
tioned by St. Chrysostom and St. Innocent I. (See
Waterworth, op. cit. iii. pp. 208, seq.)
vii. Matrimony.
1 . Matrimony is a Sacrament whereby the contract
of Christian Marriage is blessed and sanctified.
2. The Sacrament consists in the Marriage contract
itself , so that whenever a Christian (i.e., baptized) man
and woman are lawfully united in marriage, they
receive also the Sacrament of Matrimony.
2 I 2 THE SACRAMENTS
3. The two contracting parties are themselves the
Ministers of the Sacrament, each administering it to
the other. The priest who performs the nuptial service
is merely a witness, and there can ordinarily be a valid
marriage, and therefore sacramental matrimony, with
out him.
4. The Church has, however, the right of instituting
impediments which render the contract invalid, and
therefore annul the Sacrament. In countries where
the Canons of Trent have been officially promulgated,
— as until recently they had not been in this country, —
the presence of the parish priest is essential to this
validity. (See the new Marriage Laws contained in
the Decree " Ne Temere," issued by the authority of
Pius X., August 2, 1907.)
5. The Sacramental character of Matrimony —
denied by Protestants — consists chiefly in the sym
bolism with which Christ has invested it, as the type
of His own union with His Church — " The bride of
the Lamb." (Apoc. xxi. 9.)
Of this St. Paul speaks. (Ephes. V. 22 — 29, 32.)
Also several of the Fathers. (Waterworth, op. cit. iii.
pp. 238, seq.) Matrimony is reckoned as a Sacra
ment by the Greeks and other Orientals.
SACRAMENTALS 2 I 3
XXI. SACRAMENTALS.
Sacramentals are external aids to sanctification, not
necessarily of divine institution, and not conferring
grace ex opere operato.
Such are in a sense the " Three eminent good
works " constantly enjoined in Holy Scripture by Gocl
Himself — viz., Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
Such is manifestly the Maundy, or washing of feet,
instituted by our Lord at His Last Supper.
In the more ordinary use of the term, Sacramentals
include such things as Holy Water, Agnus Deis,
Rosaries, Crucifixes, Holy Images, and other such
objects to which the benediction of the Church is
attached, that they may stimulate the piety of the
faithful, and assist them to make even material things,
subservient to God's service.
APPENDIX.
I. LIST OF BOOKS FOR FURTHER REFERENCE
AND STUDY.
I. ON POINTS RELATING TO EXISTENCE AND NATURE
OF GOD.
Natural Theology. Bcedder (Longmans).
God Knowable and Known. Ronayne (Benziger).
The God of Philosophy. Aveling (C.T.S.).
Natural Religion. Hettinger (Burns and Oates).
Religio Viatoris. Manning (Burns and Oates).
Foundations of Faith. Hammerstein (Burns and Oates).
2. ON CREATION, EVOLUTION, &C.
The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer. Gerard (Long
mans).
What is Life ? Windle (Sands).
Instinct and Intelligence in the A nimal Kingdom. Wasmann
(Herder).
Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution. Wasmann
(Kegan Paul).
Lessons from Nature. Mivart.
Psychology. Maher (Longmans).
On Right and Wrong. Lilly (Chapman and Hall).
Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist. D wight (Longmans).
3- CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY.
Revealed Religion. Hettinger (Burns and Oates).
The Divinity of Christ. Rickaby (Sands).
The Grammar of Assent. Newman (Burns and Oates).
Ecclesia : the Church of Christ. Various authors (Burns and
Oates).
The Mustard Tree. Vassall-Phillips (Washbourne).
Primitive Catholicism. Batiffol (Longmans).
The Credibility of the Gospel. By the same (Longmans).
Back to Holy Church. Von Ruville (Longmans).
The Price of Unity. Maturin (Longmans).
Non-Catholic Denominations. Benson (Longmans).
Christ in the Church. Benson (Longmans).
The Religion of the Plain Man. Benson (Burns and Oates).
APPENDIX
215
II. SHORTER PUBLICATIONS.
(Catholic Truth Society, 69, Southwark Bridge Road, S.E.
I. GOD AND CREATION.
The Existence of God. Clarke.
The World and its Maker. Gerard.
Jesus Christ is God. Courbet.
What is the Good of Religion ?
What is the Good of God?
2. THE EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer. Gerard.
What does Science say ? By the same.
Science and Scientists. By the same.
1. Mr. Grant Allen's Botanical
Fables.
2. Who Painted the Flowers?
3. Some Wayside Problems.
4. " Behold the Birds of the air."
5. How Theories are Manufac
tured.
6. Instinct and its Lessons.
Science or Romance ? By the same.
1. A Tangled Tale.
2. Missing Links.
3. The Game of Speculation.
4. The Empire of Man.
5. The New Genesis.
6. The Voices of Babel.
Evolutionary Philosophy and Common Sense. By the same.
Word
1. "The Comfortable
1 Evolution.' "
2. Foundations of Evolution.
3. Mechanics of Evolution.
4. Evolution and Thought.
5. Agnosticism.
6. Evolution and Design.
7. Un-Natural History.
The age of the Sun : An argument against Darwinism.
Cortie.
The Decline of Darwinism. Sweetman.
Science and its Counterfeit. Gerard.
Some Scientijical Inexactitudes. By the same.
Evolutionary Problems. By the same.
Professor Haeckel and his Philosophy. By the same.
2l6 APPENDIX
Scientific Facts and Scientific Hypotheses. Windle.
Some Debts which Science owes to Catholics, By the same.
The Materialism of To-day. Proctor.
Science and the Evolution of Man. By the same.
Why I Believe in God. By the same.
The Rationalist Propaganda and how it must be met.
Gerard.
Agnosticism. By the same.
Modern Science and Ancient Faith.
3. THE FUNCTIONS OF REASON.
The Analogy between the Mysteries of Nature and of Grace.
Newman.
Faith and Reason. Vaughan.
The Use of Reason. Northcote.
Reason and Instinct. By the same.
The Powers and Origin of the Soul. By the same.
4. THE CHURCH AND ITS WORK.
The Key to the World's Progress. Devas.
Where is the Church ? Coupe.
The Catholic Church. Gildea.
The Catholic Church: What she is and what she teaches. Hull.
The Intellectual Claims of the Catholic Chtirch. Windle.
The Conservative Genius of the Church. Ward.
Catholicism and the Future. Benson.
The Religious State of Catholic Countries no Prejudice to the
Sanctity of the Church. Newman.
The Social State of Catholic Countries no Prejudice to the
Sanctity of the Church. By the same.
5. THE PAPACY.
St. Peter, his Name, his Office, and his See. Allies.
(Parts I. and II. his Name and Office ; Part III. only, his
See.)
Some Prerogatives of Peter. Carson.
APPENDIX 2 l 7
The First Eight Councils and Papal Infallibility. Chapman
Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. Smith.
St. Peter in the New Testament. Benson.
St. Peter's Primacy and the Royal Supremacy. Allies.
St. Peter's Primacy, as indicated in the Bible. King.
St. Peter in Rome. Allnatt.
Does the Pope claim to be God? Smith.
The Alleged Failures of Infallibility. Coupe.
Infallibility and Tradition. Benson.
6. THE WORD OF GOD.
The Bible and the Reformation.
What is the Bible ? Anderdon.
The Catholic Church and the Bible.
Rome and the Bible. Donnelly .
7. HISTORICAL QUESTIONS.
The Spanish Inquisition. Smith.
The False Decretals. Clarke.
Cranmer and Anne Boley?i. Stevenson.
The Pallium (Illustrated). Thurston.
The Huguenots. Loughnan.
How " The Church of England Washed her Face." Smith.
St. Bartholomew's Day, 1572. Loughnan.
The First Experiment in Civil and Religious Liberty
Carmont.
Was St. Aidan an Anglican ? Smith.
The Gordon Riots. Johnson.
Was Barlow a Bishop ? Bellasis.
The Great Schism of the West. Smith.
Rome's Witness against Anglican Orders. By the same
The Book of Common Prayer and the Mass. Laing.
Dr. Littledatts Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy.
Smith.
Savonarola and the Reformation. Procter.
Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. Robinson.
The Landing of St. Augustine. Smith.
The Hungarian Confession. By the same.
2 I 8' APPENDIX
8. ANGLICANISM.
The Anglican Claim of Apostolic Succession. Wiseman.
Anglican Prejudices Against the Catholic Church. Lady
Herbert.
Points of Anglican Controversy.
By What Authority. Lord.
The Branch Theory. Fortescue.
The Title " Catholic" atid the Roman Church. Tuker.
Catholic and Roman. S cho field .
The Myth of Continuity. Lingard.
Continuity Reconsidered. Matthews.
The Continuity of the English C/iurch. Croft.
7*he Conversion of England. Benson.
" Convocation " never a Canonical Synod. Gainsford
The Popes and the English Church. Waterworth.
St. Irenaus on the Church, &*c. Allnatt.
No Sacrifice, no Priest: or why Anglican Orders were
Condemned. Barnes.
The Last Voice of the Old Hierarchy.
An Anglican on Reunion. Fortescue.
The Sacrifices of Masses. Mayer.
9. ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES.
Christian Science. Thurston.
" Christian Science." Benson.
Spiritualism. By the same.
Pantheism* William Matthews.