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. (<r) St. Peter. Not only is he constantly repre sented as bearing this rod after the departure of Christ from earth, but in one instance our Lord stands at Peter's side without it, having transferred it to him. (Northcote, Roma Sotteranea, p. 288, &c.) 2. Fathers and Doctors of the Church. *#* The testimonies are so numerous that we must be content with one or two as examples. St. Cyprian (who, like St. Paul, had a warm con troversy with the Pope). " On him alone does [Christ] build His Church, and to him does He entrust His flock. And although after His resurrection He gave equal power to all the Apostles, saying, * As the Father sent me,' &c., yet in order that He might exhibit unity He established one See as the origin of that unity. [He who deserts the See of Peter, does he think that he is in the Church?" (De unitate Ecclesicc, n. 4.)] (Note.) — The words within brackets are not found in the best MSS. and are usually omitted by modern editors. They are however given by Pope Pelagius II. when citing the passage, A.D. 582. (E/>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<yw etfiu o wi;.) Immensity. God fills space as He fills eternity. '[" His presence is as a sphere, the centre of which is everywhere, and the circumference nowhere."] An image, though a very imperfect one, is the human soul, which is entire in the whole body, and entire in each part. Hence follows God's Omnipresence. He is substan tially present everywhere, although He does not every where equally manifest His presence. For this reason we say that He is especially present in Heaven, or in a church, because there He displays His attributes more than elsewhere. [This is apart from the corporal presence of our Lord in Heaven and in the Blessed Sacrament, of which later.] Immutability. In Himself, God is unchangeable. In our regard He may seem to change (being now wrathful, now benign, £c.), but the alteration is in us, not in Him. (2) Operative Attributes. Knowledge. God knows and sees all things, past, present, and future. His foreknowledge gives rise to a difficulty as to the freedom of man. " How can man be free in his actions, when God knows beforehand what he is going to do?" But it is our doing an action that makes God know it, not His knowing that makes us do. Thus if we see a man commit suicide, we merely; register the fact, not perpetrate the deed. 122 OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION As St. Augustine puts it, God " remembers the future" as we remember only the past. We recollect what we did yesterday, which now cannot possibly be otherwise than as we recollect it. Yet it is not our recollection that made us act, but our action that makes us recollect. The simplest answer is that said to have been given by Duns Scotus to a peasant who urged this difficulty, saying there was no use in trying to live a good life, since God knew whether he would be saved or lost. " Why do you plough your field, and sow seed in it, since God knows whether there will be a crop there next summer?" i.e., God's knowledge depends on the use we make of the means at our disposal. From misconception of this truth spring the errors of Fatalism. Will. This is holy, free, all powerful. N.B. — The perfection of freedom is incapability of willing what is wrong, which would involve self- contradiction. Power. This is infinite. N.B. — This docs not mean that God can do what involves self-contradiction, (v. sup. III. 5.) (3) Moral Attributes. Wisdom; Goodness; Holiness; Justice. These attributes regard God in His relations to man. The following principles, which in Catholic Theology are absolutely certain, will help to the solution of difficulties sometimes urged by unbelievers. (a) There can be no contradiction or contrariety between the various attributes, which, as above explained, are in reality one and the same. When they seem to be at variance, it is we ourselves who misapprehend the truth of the matter. OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION 12 j (b) When men venture to pass judgment upon God's action as harsh or cruel, they use the standard of right and wrong which He has implanted in their soul, to correct that standard of which their own is merely a reflection or shadow, namely, the eternal law of right and wrong existing in Him. (c) Even in the extreme case of everlasting punish ment, it is quite impossible that God's judgments should be in contradiction to those of reasonable men, could they see the case as He sees it. We should then understand that the lot awarded by God to the reprobate is the only one possible for them, and that even they themselves are unable to challenge its righteousness. We can therefore be absolutely cer tain, that none will incur this dreadful fate who have not fully and freely merited it : though we know nothing in particular as to who have done so. (<d) So of other points that are mysterious to us in regard of the operation of God's Providence : the permission of evil — poverty, sickness, ignorance, bar barism. Assured as we arc on the one hand that God is infinitely good, and on the other how little we know beneath the surface of things, and how liable to error are our judgments, common sense bids us believe that it is our own lack of understanding which hinders us from recognizing that whatever God does is good. (c) He wills the salvation of all men, but through use of their own free-will, which He will not overrule. (f) Even as regards sinners, His mercy exceeds His justice, and His judgments are less severe than ours would be in His place. 124 OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION" B. The Trinity. The Trinity is a mystery which no finite intelli gence can comprehend, for God a] one can know Himself as He is. But the doctrine which we accept upon His authority involves no contradiction. We say that in one God there are three Persons. We do not say that God is one in the same sense in which He is three ; that there is one God and three Gods ; or one Person and three Persons. The impossibility of our understand ing the mystery, follows from our inability to bring together before our minds at one and the same time, all the various aspects umder which it has to be regarded. " As we cannot see the whole starry firmament at once, but have to turn ourselves from east to west, and then round to east again, sighting first one constella tion and then another, and losing these in order to gain those, so it is, and much more, with such real1 apprehensions as we can secure of the Divine Nature. We know one truth about Him, and another truth, — but we cannot imagine both of them together; we can not bring them before us by one act of the mind ; we drop the one while we turn to take up the other." (Newman, Grammar of Assent.) Doctrine. (i) God is a Trinity, i.e., in one and the same Divine Essence, or Nature, there are Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, numerically distinct from one another; that is to say, " The Father is not 1 The term real is here used in a technical sense, as including the operation of the imagination, not merely of the speculative intellect. OF GOD AS KNOWN FROM REVELATION I 2 5 the Son; the Son is not the Holy Ghost; the Holy, Ghost is not the Father." (Newman.) These Persons are perfectly equal and consubstan- tial, i.e., they have all one and the same Nature and Substance. (ii) The Three Divine Persons are coeternal : the Father eternally without birth or origin ; the Son eternally born of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle. ["Show me flame without light and heat, and I will show you the Father without the Son and Spirit."] (iii) The Attributes of the Divine Essence (Wis dom, Goodness, Power) are common to the whole Trinity. So too are works ad extra, v.g.} the Creation. Yet we appropriate to each Person individually, certain attributes and works, according to our concep tion of their relation towards one another. Thus to the Father, to whom paternity belongs, we attribute the work of Creation, land consequently what ever bespeaks Power, which creation immediately suggests. The Son is described as begotten by knowledge — God's substantial knowledge of Himself — to Him therefore is appropriate all that speaks of Divine Wisdom. The Redemption, however, belongs to the Son, not by appropriation only, but by actual execution: for He, not the Father or the Holy Ghost, became Incarnate. The Holy Ghost being God's substantial Love of His own Perfection, to Him are attributed works of love, and consequently the giving of every good gift, especially sanctification. (iv) By the Coming, Descent, or Mission of the 126 GOD'S EXTERNAL WORKS Divine Persons, we signify their relations with man kind. Thus, the Son was sent in the Incarnation; and the Holy Ghost descended (but by appropriation only) on the day. of Pentecost. (v) According to the above Personal Attributes, the Son is termed the Word, the Wisdom, and the Substantial Image of the Father. The Holy Ghost is termed the Paraclete, or Comforter, &c. XV. GOD'S EXTERNAL WORKS. CREATION. Reason tells us {supra, IV.) that God, the Supre'me, Eternal, Self-existent Being, has called into existence everything besides Himself; that He is the First Cause of the Universe. This teaching of reason is explicitly and emphati cally confirmed by Holy Scripture, the first words of which, as has been well remarked, convey three ideas, the like of which is sought in vain in heathen litera ture, and which are diametrically opposed to all the ideas of the Gentile world : " In the beginning God created , . ." Viz., The idea (a) Of one Sovereign God who made all things, (b) Of Creation out of nothing, (c) Of a beginning prior to which there existed no created thing. As to the Catholic doctrine on this subject, it will be sufficient to note the points which we are bound to. hold GOD'S EXTERNAL WORKS 127 (1) The Universe has its existence from God, not from itself. [By the term " Universe " is under stood all that exists besides God : Heaven and Earth and all things in them.] (2) God made man, and created his soul separate and distinct from the rest of creatures, to His own image and likeness. (3) He appointed the Sabbath, or Seventh day, to be kept holy. Upon other points we are left to follow the teach ings of reason and science — v.g., as to the length of the "Days" of Creation. Also as to the method of Creation; i.e., whether different species of plants and animals were created separate and distinct, in their present form; or whether they have been evolved or developed, through the action of natural force, from a single, or at most a very few original forms. How ever limited in number we may suppose them to have been, the problem of Creation still confronts us in its entirety. But incomparably the most important question aris ing in connexion with this of creation, is that which deals with man — his nature, his history, and his rela tion towards God. This must be separately treated, 128 MAX XVI. MAN. (i) His Nature and Place in Nature. (A) Regarding man, in the first place, apart from Revelation, we may assume that the whole human race, despite all racial differences, form but one species., and had consequently one origin. Some naturalists, or anthropologists, have, it is true, endeavoured to maintain that our race consists of several, or even many, separate and distinct species, which have been originated independently of one another; but this is not the judgment of those who claim to speak with the greatest authority [v.g.y Pritchard, de Quatrefages, and Mr. Darwin himself]. The origin of the human race is sought by material istic philosophers of the present day, in Evolution. Man, they say, has been developed by purely natural forces from the lower animals; body and soul alike; and, consequently, between him and them there is a difference of degree only, not of kind. In support of this contention, they point to the numerous analogies which the body of man and that of other animals exhibit; and to the intelligence displayed by various creatures, which though unquestionably inferior to his, might serve — they maintain — as the rudimentary germ from which human reason should be developed. But, although assertions of this kind are constantly and confidently repeated, nothing is more clear, as scientific men of the first rank are forced to acknow ledge, than that man, all structural resemblances notwithstanding, is a being apart from and immeasur- MAN" 129 ably superior to the creatures amongst which he lives; that between him and them is a great gulf fixed which no natural power can bridge. Even as regards 'bodily form, there is an enormous gap. There is always a " Missing Link " to be dis covered, which is to connect men and monkeys — a common ancestor from whom both are supposed to have sprung. This has never been found, and we have no proof that any such creature ever existed, except that his existence is required for the purposes of materialistic evolution. Nor is it one link only that is missing. There must, says Mr. Darwin himself, have been " a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists." But of this series, all the members are missing, besides the parent form itself. So purely gratuitous is this hypo thesis of man's descent, that no single creature the remains of which have ever been discovered, has been claimed as his direct ancestor. His pedigree remains entirely speculative. Moreover, there are features of man's bodily struc ture which, in the judgment of so keen an evolutionist as Mr. A. R. Wallace, cannot be accounted for by any thing in his supposed past history, but have evidently been prepared for his higher requirements. Thus : " The hand of man contains latent capacities and powers which are unused by savages, and must have been even less used by his still ruder predecessors. It has all the appearance of an organ prepared for the use of civilized man, and one which was required to render civilization possible." Similarly of the voice, with its " wonderful power, range, flexibility, and sweetness." This is possessed by savages who, how ever, know nothing of its employment ; and, according J 130 MAN to evolutionists, the first men were savages of the first water. How, then, did they acquire in the struggle for existence, an organ which was at once so wonderful and so useless. " It seems as if the organ had been prepared in anticipation of the future progress of man, since it contains latent capacities which are use less to him in his earlier condition." When we turn from body to mind, we find man distinguished from brute animals by features so funda mental, as fully to justify the assertion that there is manifestly less difference between a monkey and a mushroom, than there is between a monkey and a man. (Mivart.) The faculty of articulate speech; the use of tools and of fire ; above all the recognition of a moral law, in however elementary a form; the power of forming abstract conceptions; the appreciation of artistic beauty ; these faculties inseparable from man, in his most degraded condition, at once mark him off from the rest of the organic world. The rudest instrument of his contriving, a flint axe or bone knife, bears his stamp as unmistakably as the most elaborately manu factured article. No actions which, quoted as furnish ing astonishing evidence of intelligence in the most sagacious brutes, would appear at all surprising if per formed by the lowest and most degraded tribe of men. No beast, however fierce or fleet or strong, can stand up against man, although, so far" as his mere bodily organs are concerned, he be the weakest of them all. Not only is no animal intelligence a match for his, it is an obvious fact that the more intelligent an animal is, the better fitted is it to become the servant of man, as we see in the dog, the horse, and the elephant. As Mr, Wallace truly says; " When the first rude MAN spear was formed to assist in the chase ; when fire was first used to cook his food; when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, — a grand revolution was effected in nature, a revolution which in all the previ ous ages of the earth's history has had no parallel; for a being had arisen who was in some degree superior to nature, inasmuch as he knew how to con trol and regulate her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her, not by a change in body, but by an advance in mind." And in regard of the whole question the same writer, who is not only an ardent evolutionist, but the joint author with Mr. Darwin of the " Darwinian System," concludes that, at least thrice in the course of organic development, some new cause or power must have intervened, distinct from the natural forces of every day experience. Firstly, to effect the change from inorganic to organic, so as to introduce life. Secondly, to introduce sensation or consciousness, I.e., animal life. Thirdly, to introduce man with his faculties and powers, essentially distinct from all others. Such are some of the arguments which serve to refute the evolutionary doctrine upon this point, which is formidable chiefly on account of its vagueness, as it rests entirely upon assumptions and suppositions as to what may or might have been, and thus affords no handle by means of which its real meaning can be either grasped or exposed. At the same time, and perhaps for this very reason, it is very popular with a certain class of speakers and writers on science, and is accordingly believed by a large section of the public to be truly, scientific. Reason, moreover, tells us much as to the nature 132 MAN of man considered in himself, and particularly of his soul, as may be seen and learnt in treatises upon Psychology. For our purpose it will be enough to examine the teaching of Revelation, which confirms and adds to that of reason. (B) The doctrine of Revelation regarding man, as conveyed to us in Scripture, assigns to him in the first place exactly that place in Nature- which, as we have seen, reason shows to be his. " And God created man to his o\vn image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying : In crease and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." (Genesis i. 27, 28. Compare Genesis ix. I — j.) As we learn from this same extract, man is made to the linage and likeness of his Creator. This likeness is in his soul, which is an immortal spirit, endowed with understanding and free-will. It is because man is thus the image of God, inasmuch as in every effect must be something to represent its cause, that we can argue, as we have done, from the faculties he pos sesses, to those possessed supereminently by his Creator ; and it is because man thus teaches us immea surably more concerning God than any other creature within our ken, that we speak of him as bearing pre eminently God's image and likeness. During life the soul and body combine to form one being, " Man," but it is the soul which gives this be ing its individuality and personality. In the passage from youth to age, every particle of the bodily frame may be changed, perhaps several times over; yet it is the same person who was a boy and is a man. MAN 133 Death is the separation of soul and body, when the latter at once falls into corruption. That the soul docs not die with the body, is not only a truth of faith, but was maintained on grounds of pure reason by heathen philosophers, of whom a good specimen is Cicero in his Tusculan disputations. (ii) The Supernatural Order. Man's Creation and Fall. (A) Such is man according to his nature; but it was not in a state of mere nature that he first appeared upon earth. When He created our First Parents, God bestowed upon them gifts to which in the order of nature they had no claim', thus raising or elevating them to a condition above nature, or a "supernatural state." These gifts were chiefly three. (a) Immortality* By nature man is mortal, like other animals : but in his creation he received the supernatural gift of immortality, so that — but for sin • — he would not have died, but have passed — after a period of probation — to everlasting life. (b) Integrity: i.e., freedom from passion or concu piscence. The lower appetites and desires of the flesh, which he shares with brutes, and which war against the spirit, and often blind reason itself, were not allowed to disturb his soul. (c) Sanctifying grace, making him capable of a far closer union with God — as an adopted child and friend — than could be possible in a state of nature, — (for in this they could aspire to be servants only) ; and, moreover, qualifying him for the supreme and super natural bliss of Heaven, seeing God face to face in the Beatific Vision; — whereas the exercise of merely 134 INI AN natural virtues could lead to no destiny beyond that possession of God by knowledge and love which is within the natural capacity of a creature. (B) These gifts our First Parents received not only for themselves, but in trust also for their posterity, and had they been faithful to the conditions imposed upon them by God, they would have handed them on to us as a supernatural inheritance. But, as Scripture relates, being unfaithful to God's commands, they fell from the supernatural estate to which they had been raised, forfeiting for themselves and their children the gifts beyond nature which they had received, and closing against the whole human race the gates of Paradise, or supernatural felicity. This deprivation, through their disobedience, of what it was God's will that we should have, — is known as Original Sin. N.B. i. — The term "Original vSin " is used in a double sense. (1) For the sin of our First Parents ( " peccatum original c origin a/is "). (2) For the condition in which their descendants are born (" p&ccatum originale orlginatinn "). These two significations must be carefully dis tinguished. In the first sense, Original Sin was an act, like the ''actual sins" which we ourselves commit. In the second, it is a state, in which we are, contrary lo the will of God; wherefore, it is described as " sin." So far as we are personally concerned, the being born, as we cannot help being, in this state, is not a fault but a misfortune. N.B. 2. — It must likewise be clearly understood that Adam's sin has entailed upon us the loss of nothing to which naturally we have a claim, — of MAN i 3 5 nothing which is an integral part of our nature, — but only of the supernatural gifts above described. Similarly, if a monarch having ennobled a subject and raised him to high dignity, finds him unfaithful and traitorous, he acts but rightly and properly if he withholds from his family the rank and estates which he had intended them to inherit, leaving them in the lowly condition from which he raised their father. This deprivation of the spiritual life was final, so far as we ourselves were concerned. Nothing done on our part could avail to restore us to the state thus lost. That an opportunity of recovery has been given, is due solely to the mercy and love of God, in the mys tery of the Redemption, through the Incarnation of God the Son. SIN, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS XVII. SIN, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS. i. Sin. (A) Sin is an offence against God, or any thought, word, or deed against the law of Gocl. It is essentially the act of a free creature, using its freedom to disobey and contradict the known law of its Creator; and it is in this contradiction that the malice of sin consists. (B) The term Original Sin has, as has oeen seen, a two-fold sense, according as we apply it to the case of our First Parents or to our o\vn. Actual Sin is every sin which we ourselves commit, every disobedience to the Law of God of which de liberately we are guilty. (C) Sins are likewise classed as Mortal or Venial. Mortal Sin is so styled because it kills the soul, by depriving it of its supernatural life, — the Grace of God. That is to say, in committing a mortal sin, the soul deliberately rejects God, and casts Him out; choosing instead of Him to have something which it knows He has forbidden. Venial Sin is a transgression of God's will, but one that involves no such final rejection of Him; because of the lightness of the matter, or the lack of full de liberation and consent. Hence the distinction between mate rial and formal sins. A merely material sin, which is not really a sin at all, is the performance of a forbidden act, not known to be forbidden, and therefore without malice. A formal sin is the deliberate performance of such an act. ft, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS ii. Hell. The doctrine of Hell, or eternal punishment, is an essential portion of Christian belief, but one upon which many difficulties are raised, especially at the present day. The following points, the truth of which no Catholic can doubt, will help to solve these diffi culties, which are created, as is usually the case, chiefly through misconception of what the doctrine really is. 1. There is nothing arbitrary or tyrannical about the punishment of the reprobate, which, could we know the case as God knows it, we should see to be even less than they have deserved; and the absolute justice of which they themselves cannot deny. Though \ve know nothing as to the eternal fate of particular persons, we do know that none are lost who have not deliberately committed spiritual suicide. 2. Eternal punishment is not something arbitrarily assigned to compensate an offence, as is the case with human penalties. It is not, in reality, God's work, but that of the soul itself, which in sinning mortally; puts itself in a condition absolutely debarring it from entering the presence of God, and enjoying eternal happiness: and it is the loss of this (pawa dam-nf) which is the chief torment of Hell. [In something of the same way a man who should deliberately perform an act entailing the loss of his reason would exclude himself from human society.] 3. Whatever be mysterious or incomprehensible about the pains of Hell, we know on the word of our Lord Himself that in comparison with them all earthly torments are as nothing, and that it is the greatest 138 SIN, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS folly to risk incurring them for the love or fear of anything in this life. " Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him that can destroy both body and soul in hell." (Matt, x. 28 ; Luke xii. ^,5.) " If thy right eye scandalize thcc, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy -whole body be cast into hell." [So too of the hand and foot. {Matt. v. 2p,jo; Mark ix. 41 — 48 ; Luke xii. 5.)] Hell is the place of " weeping and gnashing of teeth " {Matt. vi/f. u), and the " place of torment " (Luke .rev. 28), " where their worm dicth not, and the fire is not extinguished." (Alark ix. ./j.) In particular, our Lord emphatically describes its torment as that of fire, than which we can conceive none more terrible. iii. Purgatory. (A) Purgatory is a state of penitential purification appointed for such souls as depart this life free indeed from the guilt of mortal sin, but yet defiled with the stain of venial sin, or not having made full satisfaction for more grievous sins, whereto, though their eternal guilt has been forgiven, there still remains due a debt of temporal punishment. Such a debt King David had to undergo, even after he had the assurance of the prophet: "The Lord hath taken away thy sin." (2 Kings xii. ij, 14.) Such souls are unfit to pass at once into the presenc? SIN, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS 139 of God; could they enter it in such a condition the revelation of their own unworthiness would overwhelm them with shame and confusion. (B) In regard of this state of purgation only two points are of faith : (1) That there is a Purgatory. (2) That the souls in Purgatory are helped by the prayers of the faithful on earth. (C) There are several passages of Scripture which are referred to the doctrine of Purgatory — Matt. v. 25, 26, x/i. 32 ; i Cor. iii. 12 — 75; and especially 2 Macha- bees xii. 40 — 46. The Catholic doctrine is abundantly proved from Tradition. In the Ancient Liturgies are included prayers for the dead, which arc likewise frequently mentioned by the Fathers of the Church. For particular testimonies we may cite the follow ing : St. Augustine (of the Emperor Valentinian). "Give to his soul the holy mysteries ; with pious affection let us beg rest for his soul." St. Chrysostom. "Not in vain arc oblations offered on behalf of the departed: not in vain supplications; not in vain alms." St. Augustine. "Inspire, O God, Thy servants, my brethren, that as many as shall read these words may remember at Thy altar Monica Thy servant, with Patricius, her husband, by whom Thou didst intro duce me into this life." [i.e., his parents, both of whom were then dead.] [See many other testimonies, v.g.t in Waterworth's Faith of Catholics, iii. pp. 140 — 207.] Against the doctrine of Purgatory is sometimes al leged the declaration of Scripture (Eccles. xi. j) : 140 SIN, AND ITS PUNISHMENTS " If the tree fall to the south, or to the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be." But this in nowise contradicts the Catholic doc trine. Each man's eternal lot is irrevocably fixed, at his death, according to the state in which he then is found. There is no more opportunity for merit or de merit; his place is assigned him for eternity. GRACE 141 XVIII. GRACE. (A) In speaking of the original condition of our First Parents something has been said of Grace (XVI. ii. c.), of which, however, we must distinguish two kinds, Habitual Grace and Actual Grace. Habitual Grace, or Sanctifying Grace, or, as it is commonly described, the State of Grace, is that of which we have treated in speaking of Adam and Eve. It is the state or condition of being superna;turally united to God, and thus being capable of the super natural bliss of Heaven. Actual Grace is entirely different and distinct. It is an assistance from God, by a motion of our under standing and will, towards what is good, and away from what is evil. A person in mortal sin has no Habitual Grace, but he may receive many Actual Graces urging him to repentance. (B) Sufficiency of Grace. God gives to all grace sufficient to save their souls ; and although of ourselves we are powerless to avoid evil or do good in the super natural order, we have always enough help given us to make it our own fault if we fail. God will give us far more grace than is absolutely necessary, if we ask Him. Hence the value of prayer. (C) Grace and Free-will. Grace is absolutely- necessary for any supernaturally meritorious action; but, although it elevates, it does not over-rule our Free-will, which always retains the power of using or rejecting the opportunity offered it. The error opposite to this doctrine (of Calvinists and others) is that the predestined cannot but be saved, and those not predestined cannot help being 142 GRACE lost. According to this teaching no act of the unprc- destined can be otherwise than sinful : which doctrine has been described as " the glad tidings of eternal damnation." There is a Catholic and true sense of " predesti nation." God foreknows who will be saved, as we have already seen in treating of the knowledge of God (XIV. 2), just as we know that our Lady and the Apostles and martyrs are saved. But, although the action of Grace was an indispensable condition, their being actually saved was their own doing. (D) We must distinguish from Grace, whether Habitual or Actual, which is given for the benefit of the recipient, other supernatural gifts bestowed on some men, not for their own sake so much as that of others. Such are the gifts of inspiration and prophecy, —the Infallibility of the Pope; the sacramental power of priests. These are no doubt accompanied by special graces to enable the office conferred to be worthily performed; but the gift itself is quite distinct from such graces, and may be fully exercised although grace is rejected. Thus Balaam, though he grievously disobeyed the Divine command, prophesied truly. (X-u?nbers xxlv.) (E) Grace, as we have seen, was lost by Adam's sin. We have next to consider the Mystery of the Incarna tion, by which it was restored to the human race. We must, however, remember that we are by no means restored to the original condition from which Adam fell. Our Lord has not given us back again either the immortality or the integrity, i.e., freedom from con cupiscence of our First Parents, although He has purchased for us grace to strengthen us against temptation, and will restore life to the body after the resurrection of the dead. THE INCARNATION ',143 XIX. THE INCARNATION. As already said, the Incarnation is the mystery of our restoration to the state of grace forfeited by; Adam; or, of our redemption. The doctrine concerning this mystery is summed up by St. Paul. (/ Cor. xv. 21, 22.) " For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." For the right understanding of this, we must con sider the Messias, or Redeemer ; (A) In His History. (B) In His Person. (C) In His Work. (D) In the Worship due to Him. On this subject something has already been said (VI. ii.) from a purely natural and historical point of view. A. History of the Messias. («) Prophetical. From the first moment of Adam's Fall, God promised that the work of the tempter should be undone by the seed (or descendant) of Eve, our first parent; i.e., by one of the human race. [N.B. — In this prophecy (Genesis in. 75) it is not certain, and it is quite immaterial, whether the original Hebrew should be rendered, " She shall crush thy head," or " He shall crush thy head." In either case, the victory belongs to the seed of the woman, namely, Christ, through whom alone is Redemption.] Two thousand years and more after this prophecy was made, it was again repeated more definitely. It was foretold to Abraham (Gen. xxvi. 4) that in his • 4 4 THE INCARNATION son Isaac all nations of the earth should be blessed : i.e-y that the Messias was to be of his race. Jacob, the son of Isaac, limited the descent to the tribe sprung from one of his twelve sons, Juda, say ing that the sceptre should not pass from that tribe, until He should come that was to be sent, and who was to be the expectation of the nations. (Gen. xlix. 10.) Several centuries later, God promised to King David (of the tribe of Juda) that the Redeemer should be a descendant of his, and of his Son, Solo mon. (Paral. xvii. /./; Psalm cxxxi. u\ and John Vll. -/2.) It is therefore important to remark that our Lord's birth at Bethlehem was a public proof that He sprang from the house of David (Luke //'.) : also that the common title by which He was known amongst the Jews was " Jesus, Son of David." To King David, also (as we see in the Psalms), as likewise to the other Prophets, were made known many particulars of the life, sufferings, and death of our Saviour. Isaias in particular has been styled " The fifth Evangelist of the Passion." N.B. — The evidence of these Prophecies is much enhanced by the mode in which they come to us, viz., through the hands of the Jews. This race, rejecting Christ, yet preserves with extreme and jealous care the Scripture of the Old Testament, thus proving be yond possibility of doubt that these prophecies existed before He came. St. Augustine aptly compares the Jews to the slaves (Trai&ay&ydi,) who in Roman times carried books to school for their young masters : books which they could not themselves understand, and bore only for the use of others. THE INCARNATION 145 (/3) Historical. At the time of our Lord's birth, there was undoubtedly a vague but widespread ex pectation, that some great change was impending, and that a power should issue from Judaea to overrun the world, (v.g., Tacitus, Hist. 5, 13; S/fetomi/s,Vesp. 4; Josephus, " Wars of the Jews," 6, 5, 4.) Of our Lord's historical existence, besides the Gospel narratives, we have the evidence of Josephus and especially of Tacitus {Annals, I 5, c. 44), who tells us, speaking of Christianity: " This name is de rived from Christus, who was punished by the pro curator, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius. The execrable superstition, suppressed for a time, broke out again, and overran not Judaea alone, the country of its birth, but Rome itself." It is clear that the pagans themselves never attempted to dispute these facts. A witness to this is the Emperor Julian the Apostate, who endeavoured in the fourth century, by every means in his power, to revive heathenism, and sedulously collected all evi dence that might seem to discredit Christianity, for which his imperial power afforded every facility. But he always treated Christ as a person no less real than his own uncle, Constantine the Great, whom he hated for having favoured the religion of " the Galilean." N.B. — It is probable that the dates adopted for the Christian era are incorrect, and that our Lord was in reality born in what we style B.C. 4, so that the dates of our years should always be increased by that figure. This mode of dating was introduced by a monk, Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century. (7) Miracles. Our Lord, as we have seen (XI. i.), based His claims upon the signs He showed, /'.<?., the miracles He wrought, and their evidence must ever be 146 THE INCARNATION of supreme importance for us. Confining ourselves to those recorded by the first three Evangelists, as being less open to cavil (X.), we find it boldly asserted (as we have already argued), that things were done pub licly, which multitudes of men could contradict if they were not true; and which were, moreover, of so ex traordinary a character, that they could not have gained evidence, unless there were something more than the assertion of an unknown writer to bear them out. Thus, for example, it is related {Matt. xiv. and xv. , Mark vi. and ?'///.), that Christ more than once miraculously fed a great multitude with a few loaves and fishes (Luke vii.) ; that in the public street of a Jewish town, He raised a man to life; that He publicly cured the blind, the deaf and dumb, the halt and the lame, — lepers, demoniacs, and others, so that "all the people rejoiced for all the things that were gloriously done by Him" {Luke xlil. J/) ; so that St. Peter could afterwards declare, He "went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil (Acts x. 38) ; and that at His death the sun and moon were darkened at mid-day, the earth quaked, and the veil of the Temple was rent. (Matt, xxvii. 45, &c, ; Mark xv. 33, &c. ; Luke xxiii. 44, &c.) To make such statements as these, in face of bitter enemies like the priests and elders of the Synagogue, would have been the surest means not to advance the claims of Christianity, but hopelessly to discredit them, could the facts have been denied. Beyond all other miracles ranks in importance that of the Resurrection. From the first moment when we hear of Christianity, we hear of this as the very foundation upon which it rests. To it the Apostles THE INCARNATION 147 appealed on the day of Pentecost, within fifty days of its occurrence. " This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses " (Ads ii. 32} ; and simi larly on every occasion on which they preached the new faith. (Acts Hi. 75; iv. 10, 33 ; v. 30; x. 40 ; xiii. 30; xvii. 3, 18, 31 ; xxv. 19 ; xxvi. 27.) Our Lord hav ing been put to death as a malefactor by authority of the Roman Governor, it should have been easy to verify the facts. Yet we rind no record of any attempt to answer the Apostles except by violently endeavour ing to close their mouths and make them keep silence. The Emperor Julian, above mentioned, never denies the reality of our Lord's miracles, but attributes them to magic. According to the testimony of a modern traveller (Kinglake, Eotken), the Jews of Palestine at the present day do the same; — and traditions live long in the East. The same Julian, in order to falsify Christ's predic tion concerning the total destruction of the Temple, of Jerusalem, encouraged the Jews to undertake its rebuilding, himself rendering them much assistance, and placing over the work one of his own officers. The result was a miracle, attested by the heathen historian Ammianus Marcel linus, the work being stopped by earthquakes and balls of lire bursting out of the ground. It is remarkable that before the Emperor's attempt, St. Cyril of Jerusalem denounced it as im pious and foredoomed to failure. (See Newman's Essay on Miracles for a full account.) (&) Moral teaching. The greatest of our Lord's wonders, is the change He effected in the ideas of men; introducing upon earth a new and sublime morality, unknown previously, not only to the pagan Gentile world, but even to the Chosen People itself THE INCARNATION (See ALatt.. v. 38, &c.) ; teaching the duty of forgiving injuries; of brotherly love; of self-denial; of purity even of heart; of renunciation of all for God's sake. Moreover, although such doctrine is most contrary to our natural inclinations and appetites, it so commended itself to the conscience of mankind, that when the aforesaid Julian the Apostate wished to rehabilitate paganism, he found himself compelled to attempt to graft upon it the Christian ideals most utterly alien from its nature— laying down the necessity of fra ternal charity, penance for sin ; chastity, and the like, (See Kir chen- Lexicon, art. Julian.) So too, unbelievers of the present day, who refuse to admit the Divinity of Christ, arc loud in their expres sions of reverence for His character and 'moral teaching —speaking of Him as the most noble type of human nature ever seen on earth. We have already seen (VI. ii.) that such a view is absurd and self-contra dictory: — and that if we would not attribute to Him the grossest imposture, we must admit II is claim to Divine Authority. B. The JViessias: His Person. * We have now to consider the question, Who was %}esus Christ? As He Himself put the same question to His Apostles (Malt. xvi. 13 — 16, " Who do men say that the Son of Man is? ... Who do von say that I am?" WTe answer, with St. Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." " The Christ," o %p Q rJ?, — The Anointed, i.e., the King, t/ie Priest, the Prophet, according to the ritual of the Old Testament, ,THE INCARNATION 149 i. Divinity of Ch'rist. (a) Scriptural proofs. " The Word was God. . . . The Word was made Flesh." (John /.) " The Father and I are One." (John x. 30.) " He that seeth Me seeth the Father also," (John xiv. <?.) " Who is above God blessed for ever." (Rotti. ix. 5.) " In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead corporally." (Coloss. II. <?.) (b) Tradition. " If any one shall say that Christ is a Man full of God [®eo$opov avQpwrrov] and not God in very truth, let him be anathema." Cons. EpJi.es. Can. 5. As the Athanasian Creed exposes the doctrine : 11 He is God, born of the substance of the Father, before all time; and lie is Man, born in time, of the substance of His Mother. Perfect Gocl; and perfect Man, composed of a rational Soul, and Body. Equal to the Father as to His Godhead: less than the Father as to His Manhood, who although He be God and Man, is not two, but one Christ, . . . for as a rational soul and a body is one man ; so Gocl and Man is one Christ." The great heresy opposed to the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity is the Arian, broached by Arius of Alexandria, and condemned in the Councils of Nicsea and Sardica [A.D. 325 and 344]. Arius taught that the Word (Aoyo?) who became Man, was not truly God, and had not the same divine nature as the Father. Against this, the Council of Nicasa adopted the term 150 THE INCARNATION Consubstantial (ofAooiHTios) in the Creed which it drew up, and which with some subsequent additions is said at Mass. At a later period appeared the Semi-Arians, who styled the Word ofjiocovaios, i.e., of like nature with the Father; but the Church utterly condemned the term. It is the fashion with some hostile writers to ridicule the importance attached to such a question. Thus, Gibbon says: " I cannot forbear reminding the reader, that the difference between Hom-oomon and llonioiou- son, is almost invisible to the nicest theological eye." And a French writer styles the Catholics who died rather than sign the Senii-Arian formula, " Martyrs d'une diphthongue." This is a good example of the flippancy with which doctrinal questions are so often treated without being understood. In reality the dis tinction is absolutely fundamental. For if the Word be not God, Christianity is based in the grossest of errors, and cannot be the work of God. ii. The Hypostatic Union. According to the above doctrine there are in Christ two natures, Divine and Human, united in one Person, or Hypostasis (vTroo-racris). (a) The two natures exist distinct from each other. Christ is God as is the Father : and He is Man as we are : having a human Body, and a human Soul ; with all the powers and faculties of both. Thus, He has human understanding, will, and feelings. He could, while on earth, feel grief, fear, confusion, . . . hunger, thirst, fatigue. In Heaven, though incapable of the weaknesses and sufferings which in this life accompany the exercise of many THE INCARNATION I 5 I faculties, He has all that is good in the human faculties themselves. Thus, although He cannot share human sufferings, which is what w^e mean by " compassion," He is no less disposed to assist or remedy them than lie was when He could. [N.B. — We are apt to make mistakes in this respect. Thus, we ordinarily measure a man's love for another by the extent to which he is prepared to put himself to inconvenience for that other's sake. But there is no necessary connexion. A millionaire who does not feel the want of alms he gives away, may give them with as real charity as another man who pinches himself to be able to give.] The heresy opposed to the Catholic doctrine on this point is that of the Monophysites or Eutychians, who said that the Humanity of Christ was absorbed in the Divinity. [Condemned in the Council of Chalce- don, A.D. 451.] An offshoot of this heresy (Monothelites), denied that Christ had a human will. [Condemned by Pope Agatho and the Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680.] (<£) These two natures are joined in one Person, or Hypostasis, that of God the Son, and hence their conjunction is described as the Hypostatic Union. This is a mystery utterly beyond our comprehension. But neither can we understand the manner of union be tween our own soul and body, to form' one nature as well as one person. From the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union it follows, that the acts of Christ in His Human Nature are rightly attributed to God, for He who performed them is God. Thus wre truly say that God was born at Bethlehem, and died on Calvary. $2 THE INCARNATION Similarly, it is true to say that the Son of Mary is the Creator of the world, and that He who died upon the Cross existed from all eternity ; for the Person spoken of in either case is one and the same. We can do this however in the concrete only, not in the abstract* It would be absurd and blasphemous to say that the Divinity died, or that the Humanity made the world. [In the case of men we naturally and properly act on a similar principle. We honour a great thinker or writer, for the achievements of his mind, by putting a star on his breast, or erecting a statue representing his bodily form. For a brilliant feat of arms a soldier has a coronet placed on his head. The tongue tells a falsehood, and the liar is punished with a whipping. Yet it is always the person for whom the reward or penalty is intended, and who receives it.] The heresy opposed to this doctrine is the Nestoriart, so called from its author, Nestorius, Patriarch of Con stantinople, who maintained that between Christ and God there was a moral union only, as there is, for example, between a monarch and his ministers or judges, whose acts are treated as though they were his. [Condemned in Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431.] The first manifestation of the heterodoxy of Nes torius was his declaration to his flock that the Blessed Virgin should not be styled " Mother of God," but " Mother of Christ " (not Oeoro/cos, but X p terror 6 Ko<i). The people protested and cried out, " But Christ is God," therefore there is no difference. iii. Summary of a.bove Doctrine. The Person of Christ is that of God the Son, existing in two natures, and therefore the acts of His THE INCARNATION 153 Humanity, no less than of His Divinity, are the acts of God. Hence— which is all-important— His human merits arc infinite; and accordingly His Life, Passion, and Death,— though necessarily human— sufficed super abundantly for the redemption of the world. C. The Work of the Messias. (i) The work which our Saviour came to accom plish was the Redemption, or the restoration of man to the supernatural state forfeited by Adam, — the state of Grace, in preparation for the state of Glory. (vt sup. XVIII.) Man had offended God, and the offence, measured by the dignity of Him against whom it was committed, was infinitely greater than the atonement which any creature could make, which must be measured by the dignity of him who makes it. God willed that the atonement, like the offence, should be the work of a Man, and for this end the Son of God was made Man, and the merits of His human nature, as we have seen, being infinite, lie could do what Divine Justice required. Adam's sin was disobedience. Our Redeemer atoned in kind, " becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross." {Philip, ii. S.) This He Himself frequently declared, v.g., "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." {John vi. 38.} And in the Garden : " Not my will but thine be done." (Luke xxli. 42.} The Church notices how exactly parallel to the transgression was the reparation, " Ut qui in ligno- 154 THE INCARNATION vinccbat in ligno quoque vinceretur " [" That he who overcame by the. tree, should likewise be overcome by the tree "]. (2) It is undoubtedly true that every human act of Christ, being of infinite merit, was strictly sufficient to redeem the world. God chose in His Wisdom to have so full a measure of satisfaction. (a) To impress more deeply upon us the meaning and magnitude of sin. As our Lord Himself said, " If in the green wood they do such things, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke xxiii. jr.) (b) That in the various circumstances of His Life and Death our Saviour might be to us a full and per fect example in all our various needs. " Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps." (/ Pet. it. 2r.) N.B. — It was part of the Redemption, not only to take away the barrier of Original Sin, but to obtain help for us against all the difficulties, trials, and temp tations that still remain to us. from concupiscence and the like. (XVIII. E.) (3) Christ, having thus made satisfaction for us, is the Mediator between God and man; i.e., the repre sentative of mankind interposing between God and the human race, to reconcile us to Him. He is, moreover, our One and only .Mediator. As St. Peter told the Jews (Acts iv. 12) : " Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." So also the Council of Trent lays it down (Sess. V . can. j) : "If any man shall say that the sin of Adam is annulled by ,any other means than by the merit of our One Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.". THE INCARNATION I 5 5 (4) Hence it follows that our good actions are meritorious, that is to say, that they deserve a recom pense from God's Justice, only inasmuch as they are performed in union with the merits of our Lord. Of themselves they have no claim whatever to a super natural reward, but by this union He elevates them, and confers upon them a new character, so that they truly earn grace and eternal life. It is by such merits, as He has ordained, that every man is to work out his own salvation, and accomplish the work of Redemption in himself. ( 5) On the other hand, heretics such as Luther have propounded the absurd doctrine of " Justification by Faith alone." According to this, the only good thing we can do is to believe in Christ, and if we do this His merits will cover all our sins like a cloak, and however heinous these arc we are forthwith "saved" and sancti fied. We must not attempt to repent of these sins, to do penance for them, or to perform any good works with the object of propitiating or pleasing God. On the contrary, if we attempt to do so we offend Him: for all our good work's are naught ("Our righteousness is filthy rags ") and we insult the Divine Majesty by undertaking them: "Doing is a deadly thing, doing leads to death." The natural consequences of such a doctrine may easily be imagined. As Luther himself advised, "Sin stoutly, but believe more stoutly, and rejoice in Christ" • — " Pecca fortiter, sed crede fortius, et gaude in Christo," and human nature was only too ready to adopt such a rule. The Apostle St. James in his Epistle (c. ii.) de clares that " by works a man is justified, and not by faith only(. , . . For even as the body without thq 15^ THE INCARNATION spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." Luther accordingly pronounced this Epistle to be worthless (" an Epistle of straw ") and no part of Scripture, because it contradicted his doctrine. (6) Christ, as has been said, is the One Mediator. The Blessed Virgin and the Saints arc not, therefore, true mediators. They mediate only by prayer, and through Christ. As we arc bidden to pray for one another upon earth (" Pray for them that persecute and calumniate you." iMatt. v. 44; Luke vi. 28. "Pray for one another, that you may be saved." James v. 16), so we believe that much more do the prayers of those who are with God in Heaven avail to assist us amidst our trials and dangers on earth. Invocation of the Saints, and particularly of the Blessed Virgin, has been practised in the Church from the earliest times, as is constantly witnessed in the ancient liturgies, and the writings of the Fathers. St. Chrysostom, for instance, says : " Not on this festival only, but on other days, too, let us invoke these Saints ; let us implore them to become our patrons; for they have great power, not merely during life, but also after death, yea, much greater after death. For they now bear the sign of Christ, and displaying that sign they are able to per suade the King to anything." {Homily on St. B emice and Prosdoce.} (/) The Immaculate Conception. This doctrine is in perfect accord with that of the Fall of Man, as taught by the Church. It is permissible to say that the Blessed Virgin " sinned in Adam." That is to say, that Adam sinned for her as for the rest of his children, that no less than others she stood in need of redemption, and equally with them was redeemed by the Blood of THE INCARNATION 157 her Son. But whereas in the case of others, these merits are applied and have effect after birth, in hers this application was anticipated, and she was sanctified in the first instant of her existence, that so the flesh' from which her Son was to take His own, should never he defiled by the taint of Original Sin. So far, there fore, from this dogma being derogatory to the honour of Christ, it is, on the contrary, a tribute of respect for His Person, and recognition of His power. We give to our Lady, however, the title of " Co- Rcdemptress," and the " Second Eve/' not as though by her own merits she contributed to our redemption, but because she alone of mortals was privileged to co-operate in the work, of her own free-will. Having assigned to her the most sublime of all functions in connexion with the mystery of the Incarnation, she was first asked if she would accept it, and only when she had given her consent ("Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word") was the mystery accomplished. D. Worship due to Christ. (i) There are two kinds of worship. (a) Lalria (Aarpeia}, due to God alone. Superior and divine. (b) Diilla (AovXeta) ,an inferior honour, due to created excellence : i.e., to holy persons, as the friends of God and honoured by Him. ffyperdplla'TTrepSovKeia) or the honour appropriated to the Blessed Virgin, is the highest species of Dulia, from which it differs in degree only, not in kind : being altogether different from that due to God, 158 THE INCARNATION (2) Our Blessed Lord is to be adored with Latrla equally in both Natures, as both belong equally to one Person, and in each that Person is adored. So it is expressly defined by the Councils of Ephesus, and Lateran. (3) Not only the Sacred Humanity as a whole, but every part of it deserves such adoration : because in all we adore the Divine Person. Thus even the dead Body in the Sepulchre was the object of Latria, because always united to the Divinity. But though legitimately we may thus adore any part or portion of the Sacred Humanity, we actually select for adoration such as help us better to under stand the goodness of God, than otherwise is possible for us. Thus the Five Wounds which our Lord retains in His glorified Body, are, as representing His external sufferings on our behalf, a tangible evidence of His love, and therefore of God's love for us. We therefore make these wounds a special object of our worship. Similarly as to the Devotion of the Sacred Heart of our Lord. In this we consider His love for us as manifested in 1 1 is mental sufferings on our account. The immediate object of devotion is His material Heart of flesh. All nations naturally and instinctively fix ,upon the heart as the symbol of love, and we therefore thus honour the human love displayed for us by our Blessed Lord, which is a manifestation of God's love for us, but necessarily an inadequate mani festation, for nothing created can adequately represent the Infinite. N.B. — The selection of the heart as the symbol of love is not an arbitrary one, for undoubtedly it is in the heart that any violent emotion of the mine} first THE INCARNATION 159 manifests itself externally, Thus Shakespeare makes Macbeth speak of "the suggestion, whose horrid image makes my seated heart knock at my ribs." Our Lord being made truly a man like ourselves we know that He must have shared our experiences in this respect, for example, during the Agony in the Garden. (4) "MariolatTy" This term is frequently applied by Protestants to the honour shown by Catholics to the Blessed Virgin, and implies that we worship her with Latria as though she were divine. According to what has already been said, such worship is directly contrary to Catholic principles, and would be considered by Catholics as blasphemous. We honour Mary for the sake of her Son, because He honoured her, and as the most wonderful monument of His power. As she herself foretold, "Behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Be cause he that is mighty hath done great things to me; and holy is his name." As Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin is often stigmatized as " unscriptural," it is well to note a few points of the Gospel narrative. The first step in the mystery of the Incarnation, was the respectful salutation of our Lady by the Angel, God's envoy, "Hail, full of grace (^alpe Ke^apiTw^evrj), the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women." (Lukei.2S.} The first proof of His power given by the Incarnate Lord, in the case of St. John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth, was wrought through her agency : " And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost," (Luke i. .//.) 160 THE INCARNATION Elizabeth thus inspired proceeded to offer the first act of homage to our Lord after He became Man, and she joined with it one to His Mother : " Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me." (Lnkei. 42,43.} The first public allusion, by holy Simeon, to our Lord's Passion and Death, contained one to His Mother's share in His suffering. Addressing her he said : " Behold, this Child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be contradicted; and thy own soul a sword shall pierce." (Luke //'. 34, 35.) The first miracle v» rought by Christ was wrought at His Mother's request; and He expressly intimated that but for her solicitude it would not have been per formed, saying when she spoke to Him, " My hour is not yet come." (Johnii. 4.) On ail the more solemn occasions of Gospel History her presence is specially noted. The Shepherds and the Kings coming to Bethlehem, "found the Child with Mary his Mother." (Luke //'. 16; Mat I. ii. 11 .) On Mount Calvary, " There stood by the Cross of Jesus, his Mother;" and II is last words, except those addressed to His Heavenly Father, were addressed to her. When the Apostles were gathered together after the Ascension to await the coming of the Paraclete, " Mary the Mother of Jesus " was with them. (Acts i. 14.) Of her alone amongst those who witnessed our Lord's life, it is noted, and more than once, that "Mary THE INCARNATION l6l kept all these words, pondering them in her heart." (Luke n. IQ, 57.) But still more important is it to observe that devo tion to our Lady necessarily follows from a genuine belief in the Incarnation. " Mary is the Mother of God. She is not merely the Mother of our Lord's manhood, of His body; but she is to be considered the Mother of the Word Himself, the Word Incarnate." (Newman, Discourses to Mixed Congregations, xviii.) This being so, her office being higher than that of any other creature, we must needs conclude that her gifts of grace and glory are above those of all angels and saints, and accordingly that the honour to which she is entitled is similarly beyond theirs. Such is and ever has been the mind of the Church. "Rightful is it to honour thee, O Theotokos, ever to be blessed, free from all stain; Mother of God, more full of honour than the Cherubim, more glorious than the Seraphim, who without loss of thy virginity didst bring forth the Word." (Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.) ( 5) Images. The honour paid to images of our Lord and the saints is merely relative, and is paid to them not on their own account, but on that of the per sons they represent. The Church encourages and de fends the use of images, — against the Iconoclasts of old times and modern Protestants, as an aid to devotion, which assists the faithful better to fix their minds on the object they desire to contemplate. As to the real character of such devotion, Sir Thomas More well observes (Dialogue against heresies, Bk. ii. c. xi.) : " Though men kneel to saints and images and incense them also, yet it is not true that therefore they L I 62 THE INCARNATION worship them in every point like unto God, which mind in worship is the only thing that maketh it latria, and no certain gesture nor bodily observance. Not even we would wallow upon the ground unto Christ, having therewith a mind that He was the best man that we could desire, and thinking Him not God." PART THE THIRD. THE MEANS OF GRACE. XX. THE SACRAMENTS. A. The Sacraments in General. i. The Sacramental System. We have seen that without Grace we can do nothing towards our eternal salvation, and that Grace comes to us through Christ alone. The question arises : How is it to come : to whicli question, as already seen, two answers are given. Lutherans and other Protestants hold that we obtain it by Faith alone, and that any external rites that have been instituted serve no other purpose but to stimulate Faith. The Catholic Church teaches on the other hand, that we must co-operate with God towards our own salvation, by availing ourselves of the means which the merits of Christ place within our reach. These again are of two kinds : (a) There are those which depend for their efficacy on the manner in which we do them (" Ex opere ope- rantis"). As prayer, almsgiving, and other good works. (b) Those which confer grace, or work other super natural effects, apart from the dispositions of a human agent, by virtue of the work itself ("ex opere. operate "). These latter are the Sacraments, 164 THE SACRAMENTS The Church teaches that our Lord has attached the conferring of Grace, or other supernatural effects, to certain external ceremonies, instituted by, Himself: to which ceremonies Grace is, by His Divine promise, attached in such a manner, that when they are rightly performed the effect follows, not by the merit of the person performing the ceremony (the "Minister "), nor even of the recipient, but by the efficacy of the work performed. All that the recipient is required to do is to place no obstacle (obex) in the way. But his dis position of mind does not cause the effect, any more than a window produces the light which it merely does not exclude. A Sacrament is, therefore, an external sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, and conferring Grace " ex ope re operate " It is often asked, Why should our Lord have chosen thus to attach His Grace to external signs? It would be presumptuous to wish to fathom the dispositions of His Wisdom, but we may help ourselves with St. Chrysostom's reply—" Hadst you been without a body, the gifts He gave thee would have been pure and incorporeal : but since the soul is bound up with the flesh, He gives thee what is spiritual under sensible forms." These sensible signs manifestly fulfil various purposes. They serve for our instruction, since the ceremonies recall the mysteries of our Lord's life, whence the Sacraments derive their efficacy. They indicate the sanctity which should be the result of their reception. They demonstrate the union of the recipient with the Church. They exercise pur Faith, in per forming the external act. 2. Number of the Sacraments. There are Seven THE SACRAMENTS 165 Sacraments. We do not find specific mention of all in Scripture, still less such a list as is given in our Catechism: though, as we shall see, there are Scrip tural arguments for them all. Neither do we find amongst the Early Fathers and writers of the Church the kind of statement which modern writers give. The Fathers did not compose set theological treatises, but noticed questions as they arose. Consequently they said nothing about those points of belief which no innovator called in question, unless some special circumstance otherwise suggested their mention. Accordingly only in the twelfth century do we find it explicitly laid down that there are Seven Sacra ments. But even from the first mention of them we obtain a strong argument. For in the said twelfth cen tury the matter was treated as indisputable; no one contradicted the doctrine, and the whole Church accepted it without question : which could only be because this had always been the belief of the faithful. But, beyond such an inference, there is proof posi tive that the Sacraments were from the earliest held to be Seven in number. The Schismatical Greek Church (the so-called " Orthodox " Church) recognizes Seven Sacraments, and precisely the same seven as do we; which takes the doctrine back to the ninth century, when the Schism originated; for certainly nothing has since that date been borrowed from Rome. When in 1638 the Calvinists endeavoured to frater nize with the Greeks, and to claim their Church as one with their own, on this and other points, a Synod at Constantinople indignantly repudiated the idea, and laid down the doctrine as Catholics hold it, I 66 THE SACRAMENTS Other heretical bodies of the East carry back the matter still further, as the Nestorians, who broke off from the Church in the fourth century. So also the Copts, Jacobites, and others, all of whom have Seven Sacraments, and our Seven. According to the prin ciple laid down by Tertullian, " What we rind one and the same amongst many, is not a blunder but a tradition." (" Quod apud inultos unum invenitur, non cst erratum sed traditum.") The Seven Sacraments are Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order, Matrimony. 3. Nature of the Sacraments. For all the Sacraments are required. (a) Matter, i.e., the thing used — v.g., water, oil, imposition of hands, confession of sins. (b) Form, i.e., the words spoken, v.g., " I baptize thce ...,""! absolve thee . . ." (c) A Minister who being duly constituted joins the Matter and Form together. Matter and Form may be valid or invalid: i.e., they may be sufficient for the accomplishment of the Sacra ment, or insufficient. Thus for Baptism, water is valid matter; wine or oil, invalid. Valid Matter or Form may further be licit, or illicit, as what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the Sacrament is not always lawful to be used. Thus, ordinary leavened bread is (in the Latin Church) valid matter for the Holy Eucharist, but illicit. The conse cration would be duly effected, but the priest who said the Mass would sin grievously. As to Form, any words that correctly convey the sense, are valid : but only those appointed by the Church are licit. THE SACRAMENTS 1 67 The Minister must be duly qualified for his office. Thus for Baptism, any man or woman can valiclly, administer the Sacrament : for Holy Eucharist, a priest only : for Holy Order, a Bishop only. It is not necessary, for validity, that the Minister should be virtuous, or in a state of grace, or even a member of the Church. Thus an heretical priest can validly consecrate, and an heretical bishop validly ordain. It is, however, required that the Minister of a Sacrament should have a right intention. On this point there are many misconceptions. What is meant is, that the sacramental effect is not produced by the mere material combination of the Matter and Form, as an explosion is produced when a match is put to gun powder. The act must be done as a human act, directed to the specified end. As no one imagines that an actor is bound by the promises or vows he utters on the stage, so no sacramental effect can be supposed to follow, unless the Minister seriously means his act to be that enjoined by the Church. It is not required that he should believe in the Sacrament or in the; Church herself — a general intention of doing what Catholics, or Christians, do is sufficient. This is be cause the true Minister of all the Sacraments is Jesus Christ Himself, the men who administer them being only His deputies and instruments. As St. Augustine says, Whether it be Peter or Paul or Judas who administers Baptism, it is equally Christ who baptizes. The Catholic doctrine of Sacramental intention is thus laid down by Pope Leo XIII., in his Bull Apostollcce Cur a, concerning Anglican Orders. " The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature 168 THE SACRAMENTS internal; bu,t in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. When any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due Form and the Matter requisite for effecting or conferring the Sacrament, he is considered by the very fact to do what the Church does." Upon this statement of doc trine His Holiness based the argument that as the first Anglicans openly and professedly repudiated the notion of a sacrificial priesthood, and declared that they would have none of it, and drew up an ordination rite different from that of the Church to suit their own purposes, they plainly manifested their intention of not doing what the Catholic Church docs. Besides Matter, Form, and Minister, all the Sacra ments except one can exist only in a Subject, that is, a person who receives them. The one exception is the Blessed Eucharist, which exists in itself independently of the Communion wherein it is received by the faithful. The Subject must, in the case of all the Sacraments except Baptism, have been baptized, or the Sacrament is null and void. Even the Holy Eucharist he would receive materially only, not sacramentally. The Subject being thus qualified must — if he has attained the use of reason — also be in the requisite dispositions, including a desire to receive the Sacra ment. In some cases the lack of such dispositions invalidates the Sacrament. Thus, if absolution be received without repentance the Sacrament of Penance is null, for the recipient subtracts from the Matter proper to it, viz., Contrition, Confession, and Satis faction. In other cases, the reception of a Sacrament with out due dispositions is valid but informal: vi/., for THE SACRAMENTS 169 the Sacraments which imprint a character, and also for Matrimony. If they be received in mortal sin, the grace that should be conferred is of course not given, but the characteristic sign is stamped upon the soul — or the marriage knot is tied1 — and theologians think it probable that upon repentance the sacramental grace is bestowed. Finally, the Sacraments are received fruitfully when the grace is actuaHy conferred. 4. Effects of the Sacraments (a) Effects common to all. All the Sacraments confer grace. Both sanctifying grace (the state of grace), which they give or increase : and actual graces, or helps towards that which is their particular end. Thus : Baptism imparts assistance towards leading a Christian life, and believing the mysteries of faith; Confirmation, towards overcoming our passions and temptations; Holy Order, towards fulfilling the duties and obligations of the priesthood. (b) Effects peculiar to the several Sacraments. According to their respective effects, the Sacraments are variously classified. (i) Sacraments of the Dead, and of the Living. Sacraments of the Dead are those which may be received in a state of sin, and give grace, which is called the First grace, — the grace of justification. These are Baptism and Penance. Sacraments of the Living are those which from their nature should be received in a state of grace, which they augment. These are the other Sacraments besides the two named above. THE SACRAMENTS N.B.— It is said "from their nature," for in extreme circumstances any Sacrament can give the First grace. Thus when Confession cannot be had, and the neces sity is urgent, Holy Communion, accompanied only by the inferior kind of sorrow called Attrition, suffices for forgiveness of mortal sin, no less than the Sacrament of Penance; though, as will be seen later, the obligation remains of confessing afterwards, when an occasion offers. The general principle is " Sacramenta propter homines," " The Sacraments are for the sake of men." (ii) Sacraments imprinting a C/iaracterfyapaKTtjp— a " mark," or " stamp "), viz., Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Order. These can be received but once, and each puts us in a state in which we were not previously. Baptism in the state of grace, and membership of the Church. Confirmation in the state of members fully equipped for the battle of life. Holy Order in the state of divine Ministers. As to the nature of this characteristic. It is a mark or seal on the soul, distinguishing it from such as have not received the Sacrament in question. The Fathers compare it to the mark which a shepherd puts on his sheep, or a monarch on his coins. This character consists in an indelible and perpetual consecration to the service of God, which is distinct from grace, and does not necessarily make the receiver holy; but sets him aside for a holy purpose. Of this St. Paul seems to speak, Ephes. i. 13, " In whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise;" and 2 Cor. f. 22, "Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts." THE SACRAMENTS 1 7 1 Finally, the Character consists in a participation in the attributes of Christ. He is the King, Priest, and Prophet. We are made members of His Kingdom in Baptism : enlightened and instructed members in Con firmation : Ministers with Him in the mysteries of Redemption, in Holy Order. 5. Efficacy of the Sacraments. The above effects — Grace or Character — are really wrought by the Sacraments, which do not merely signify or represent the effect produced. As instru ments in God's hand they cause it, by virtue of the merits of Christ which He has associated1 with them. The Council of Trent declares that the Sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and confer it on such as place no obstacle in the way : and that, on God's part, grace is always conferred by them. The words of the Form are, therefore, not mere prayers, exhortations, or promises, but words of power doing what they say (" Non sunt conclonarla, aut pro- missoria, sed vere consecratoria"). " I baptize thee, . . ." " I sign thec — I confirm thce," " I absolve thee, . . ." " This is My Body, . . ." " Receive power to offer sacrifice, ..." &c. 6. The institutor of all the Sacraments is Christ Himself. Although we have not explicit mention in Scripture of such institution in each case, we have at least what seems to be an allusion to each. For Baptism, Penance, Holy Eucharist, and Holy Order the evidence is plain. Baptism. "Go, teach all nations, baptizing1 them . . ." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) Penance. "Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins 17- THE SACRAMENTS you shall forgive, they arc forgiven them." (John xx. 22, 23.) Holy Eucharist. ' This is my Body. . . . Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke xix. 19; I Cor. xi. 24.) The last passages serve also for Holy Order. ^Matrimony. " What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." (Matt. xix. 6.) Confirmation. " You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts i. 5.) Extreme Unction is explicitly mentioned by St. James (v. 14.) There is also, perhaps, an allusion to it in Mark vi. /j. "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." 7 . The Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments in great measure explains her teaching as to the difficulty of salvation (i.e., the attainment of supernatural beati tude) outside the Church. If the Sacraments arc the great means of grace, quasi-necessary for salvation, and if they arc available for her children alone, — the conclusion is inevitable. B. The Sacraments in Particular. i. Baptism. 14 Holy Baptism holds the first place of all the Sacraments, and is the gate of spiritual life." (Decree of the Council of Florence.) (i) All the Sacraments having for their object the implanting of Grace in our souls, or its increase, that Sacrament must necessarily come first, which first gives this grace; for it can be neither increased nor restored in the case of such as have never received it. THE SACRAMENTS 173 Baptism is, accordingly, the most necessary of all the Sacraments. As our Lord says to Nicodemus : "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." (John Hi. 5.) And to His Apostles: " 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 believeth not shall be con demned." (Mark xvi. 75, 16.) And when asked by those whom his preaching con verted, " What shall we do?" St. Peter replied, " Do penance, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins : and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts it. 38.) So, too, in his First Epistle (in. 20, 21) St. Peter compares Baptism to the Ark of Noe, in which alone could safety be found. (2) Baptism is, therefore, absolutely necessary for salvation, but this necessity may be variously satisfied. (a) By actual baptism of water, (b) By baptism of desire, (c) By baptism of blood, viz., martyrdom. As to the second of these, although Faith in Christ and earnest desire of the Sacrament may suffice for the forgiveness of sin — both original and actual — and so take the place of Baptism, yet it does not imprint the character, nor does it make a man capable of the other Sacraments without actual Baptism, which must be received when the opportunity offers . As to the case of those, whether children or others, who die inculpably without Baptism, and who have no wilful offences of their own to answer for, they cannot enjoy the supernatural bliss of Heaven, — the Beatific Vision, — and in this sense they are " lost." But as they have done nothing to deserve chastisement, they. 174 THE SACRAMENTS cannot be supposed to suffer any pain, but on the con trary, enjoy natural felicity. (3) Matter and Form. The Matter of Baptism is water : natural water only. Therefore, rose-water or lavender-water will not serve. So far as validity is concerned, the water may be hot or cold, fresh or salt. Neither need it be absolutely pure, viz., weak tea or thin soup would be valid matter. So melted, but not solid, ice or snow. In ordinary circumstances, where no necessity presses, the water in the font, duly blessed, ought to be used. The matter may be applied in two ways: By ablution or pouring on the head of the person to be baptized, or the part nearest to the head which is within reach. Enough water should be poured to flow or run off. This method is now the only legitimate or licit one. By immersion, or dipping, which was long the usual mode used in the Church. The Form of Baptism is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This may be recited in any language, and is valid, provided no essential change be introduced. Should one of the Divine Persons be omitted, or the words, "I baptize," the Sacrament would not be administered. N.B. 1. — The above is the Western, or Latin, Form. The Eastern, or Greek, is also valid, and is licit in the Greek Church, viz., " Let the servant of Christ be baptized, in the name," &c. Here and elsewhere we speak of the Greek Church in communion with Rome, but having its own Liturgy. N.B. 2. — The utterance of the Form must morally THE SACRAMENTS 175 accompany the pouring of water, so as to make one act. ( 4) The due Minister of Baptism is a priest, but in case of necessity any one may baptize — man or woman, faithful or infidel, just or sinner. It is only required (for validity) that the right matter and form be used, and that the person baptizing should seriously intend to do what Catholics do, even though he himself utterly disbelieve in any sacramental effect. The same minister must apply both matter and form, i.e., pour the water and speak the words. (5) The Subject capable of receiving Baptism is any unbaptized human being. This Sacrament may be conferred upon infants, and in their case it is not required that there should be a desire to receive it, or suitable dispositions. The doctrine of pcedo-baptism (infant baptism) is thus laid down by the Council of Trent (Sess. V.) : " On account of the rule of faith handed down by the Apostles, even infants are truly baptized for the remission of sin, who cannot as yet have themselves committed sin, that what [sin] they have contracted at their birth may be cleansed in them by a new birth (' ut in eis regeneratione mundetur quod generatione contraxerunt ')." Evidence for this practice is found in early Tradi tion. Thus the Council of Milevetum (A.D. 416) pro nounced anathema against those who condemned infant baptism. In the case of adults an intention of receiving the Sacrament is required for its validity. For licity is further required repentance for actual sins and similar dispositions. Failing these, though the Sacrament is validly received, and the character 176 THE SACRAMENTS impressed, the other effects are not actually produced, but as previously explained (XX. A, 3), they probably revive after repentance. (6) Solemn Baptism. Although for validity only the Matter and Form are necessary, as above, yet for its due administration many ceremonies are added to the Sacrament, to signify its effects. The catechumen is stopped at the church door to signify the effects of original sin in closing the gates against him, he (personally or through his sponsors) renounces Satan and makes profession of his Faith. He is exorcized. After Baptism he is anointed with chrism to represent the unction of the Holy Ghost, a white robe is given to represent innocence of soul, which he is bidden to carry unspotted before the judgment-seat, also a lighted candle to represent the good example which a Christian should exhibit. ii. Confirmation. This is the complement of Baptism, strengthening the spiritual life given therein, and out of the children then born, making strong men and soldiers of Christ. ( i) Confirmation is defined as a Sacrament in which, by imposition of hands, unction of chrism, and sacred words, those who have been baptized receive the strength of the Holy Ghost steadfastly to confess the faith which they have received. ( 2) The Matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation is the imposition of hands, and the unction of chrism. N.B. — There are three kinds of Holy Oils, blessed by the Bishop on Maundy Thursday, (a) Oil of Catechumens, used hi Baptism (before the Sacrament is conferred), (b) Oil of the Sick (used in Extreme THE SACRAMENTS 1/7 Unction), (c) Chrism, oil mingled with balm, or balsam (used in Confirmation, and, as said above, also in Baptism). (3) The Form is, in the Latin Church: " I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and I con firm thee with the Chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In the Greek Church : " I imprint on thee the mark of the gift of the Holy Ghost." (4) The Minister is ordinarily a Bishop only; but a Priest also may be empowered to confer the Sacrament. The Sitbject is any baptized person not previously confirmed. iii. Holy Order. The third Sacrament imprinting a Character is Holy Order. (i) Holy Order is a Sacrament which confers supernatural powers, and gives grace to exercise them worthily. Here is a prime point of controversy with Protes tants, properly so called, who maintain that no power is given, and that those who have been ordained can perform no act which those not ordained are not equally capable of performing. But, they add, it is more seemly and decorous to have some men set aside for sacred work — and it is in this setting aside that their " ordination" consists. Thus Dr. Arnold (of Rugby) declared that his butler could administer Sacraments as validly as himself. Luther, the originator of the doctrine, says : M 178 THE SACRAMENTS " Let every Christian acknowledge that we are all equally priests, that is to say, that we have all the same power in the word and in every Sacrament ; but that it is not lawful for each one to use that power unless elected by, the community or called by the ruler [of the State]." Cranmer declared that laymen could make priests by election, and that princes and rulers as well as bishops could make priests. So said many other Reformers. We, on the other hand, maintain that in the Sacra ment a power is given to do what the unordained are incapable of doing — chiefly of forgiving sins and of consecrating the Holy Eucharist. We have therefore to begin by vindicating the existence of the Sacrament. (2) Existence of the Sacrament. ( a ) Scriptural Proof. Our Lord's words when lie breathed on the Apostles and said, " Receive ye 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.) " Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke xix. 19.) St. Paul to Timothy. "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with impo sition of the hands of the priesthood." (/ Tim. iv. 14.) The account of Saints Paul and Barnabas. " And when they had ordained to them priests in every church . . .," &c. (Acts xiv. 22.) (B) Tradition. That the Church from the beginning recognized Holy Order as a true Sacrament, is evidenced by the practice of the Oriental Sects already cited as wit- THE SACRAMENTS 179 nesses to the number of the Sacraments, (sup. A, 2.) All of them have retained1 Holy, Order, and attribute to it precisely the same efficacy as we do. Till the appearance of Protestantism in the six teenth century this doctrine was universally taught by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of whom St. John Chrysostom may serve as a representative. " The priesthood performs its office upon earth; yet must it be classed with the things of Heaven. For no man, no Angel, no Archangel — but the Holy Spirit Himself, established this ministry, and bade men still in the flesh perform the function of Angels. The priest stands at the altar, bearing, not fire, but the Holy Ghost." And elsewhere : " For they that dwell upon earth and converse thereon have committed to them a power given neither to Angels nor Archangels. For not to these hath it been said, ' Whomsoever you shall bind,' &c. The rulers of earth have power to bind', but the body only ; whereas this bond penetrates the skies, and whatsoever priests do below, God ratifies on high." [For a multitude of similar testimonies see Water- worth's Faith of Catholics,^. 214, seq.] (3) Grades. There are seven Grades of Orders; Four Minor, and three Major. (a) Minor Orders. N.B. — The Tonsure, which precedes these, is not an Order, but a preliminary ceremony, whereby the candidate for the sanctuary is distinguished from the laity, consecrated to God, and incorporated among the clergy. [The title Clergy, Lat. Clerus, is from the Greek ic\rjpos, " a lot or portion," and signifies those whose Jot or portion is the service of God'.l I 80 THE SACRAMENTS The four Minor Orders, in the order in which they are conferred, are : Ostiarins, or Doorkeeper: Exorcist: Lector, or Reader : Acolyte. These Orders are not Sacramental, but they arc a necessary preparation for the Sacrament. They are conferred by giving to the person receiv ing them the instruments of his office, as symbols, as the book, bell, cruets, &c. (b) Major, or Holy Orders. (a) Subdeacon. This is not Sacramental, although it entails irrevocable obligations, as of celibacy, and of reciting the Divine Office. (/3) Deacon. Sacramental, although giving no spe cial power. The Deacon is the Minister (Siaicjvo?) °f the Priest, and may licit ly baptize, preach, and administer Holy Communion. (7) Priest. This is ///.? Sacrament of Order, and has two grades, viz., Simple Priest and Bishop, the episcopate being the plenitude of the priesthood. [Some theologians consider Episcopal consecration a Sacrament apart from priestly ordination.] That in which a Bishop essentially differs from a simple priest is the power of Ordaining. He differs also in jurisdiction and authority, which is quite distinct from the Sacrament. The essential power of the priesthood is that of Sacrilice, i.e., of consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ. Also of forgiving sins. In what follows we shall consider the priesthood alone. (4) Matter and Form. The essential matter of Ordination is the imposition of hands (^eiporovia). In the Greek Church at present, as anciently in the Latin THE SACRAMENTS I 8 I also, this alone is used. Now however there is added in the Latin Church the " Tradition of instruments," as necessary for the integrity of the Sacrament: i.e., without this the Sacrament would not be considered as properly given, and the recipient would not be allowed to exercise his Orders until this defect was supplied. The " instruments " in question are the Paten and Chalice (that is, those used in the Mass), with bread and wine. There are two impositions of hands in the Ordina tion rite — First by the Bishop and attendant priests in silence, which being ended, while all keep their hands extended, the Bishop prays — " Hear us, O God our Lord, and pour down on these thy servants the benediction of the Holy Spirit, and the grace of priestly virtue." [This is early in the ceremony and probably con stitutes the essential matter and form.] Secondly, after the Communion, the Bishop alone imposes hands, saying, " Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive," &c. In giving the " instruments " (between the above impositions) the Bishop says, "Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, whether for the living or the dead, in the name of the Lord." The object of these various ceremonies is to declare the various powers conferred; (5) Minister and Subject. A Bishop can and ordinarily does administer all the grades of Order, — and is the only possible minister of the Diaconate and Priesthood. Under a special Papal grant, the Subdiaconate and Minor Orders have been conferred by Abbots. The subject must be a man, — no Order can ha 182 THE SACRAMENTS received by women. He must also be baptized. (6) The question of Anglican Orders, formerly much discussed, has now been set at rest, so far as Catholics are concerned, by the Bull " Apostolicce Gurce" issued by Pope Leo XIII., who declares that Ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite 41 have been and arc absolutely null and utterly void." The grounds of this decision have already been stated in connexion with the doctrine of "intention." (^///>. 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<at He wished them to understand a real and not a mere figurative presence. Our Lord having just worked the miracle of the multiplication of loaves (itself a figure of the Blessed Sacrament), here takes occasion from it to prepare the multitude for His greatest gift to men. "I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it he may not die. I am the living bread which cometh down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" Protestants argue that our Lord is here speaking /iguratively throughout : that as when He says, " I am the bread of life," He means, that faith in Him nourishes the soul, as food nourishes the body, and does not mean that He is bread, — so does He also mean by the final words, that the sacramental bread, being a memorial of His ilesh, and as such awaking the recipient's faith, is food for the soul. But such an explanation is obviously quite insuffi cient. As has been said', the occasion was the miracle wrought on the loaves, which Christ clearly used as a figure of the Sacrament He intended' to institute. According to the above interpretation, the figure was far more wonderful than the reality. His hearers understood the words not figuratively, but literally. 11 The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves N 194 THE SACRAMENTS saying, ' How can this man give us his flesh to eat/ " &c. Had our Lord wished His words to be taken figura tively He must needs have dissipated this difficulty by so explaining I hem. But on the contrary, He speaks more and more emphatically in the same sense. " Then Jesus said to them, ' Amen,«amen, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. . . This is the bread that came down from heaven. . . . He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.' ' Upon this many of His disciples were disturbed and murmured, " This saying is hard and \vho can hear it?" Had our Lord wished to be understood in the Pro testant sense, one word from Him would have cleared away all misconception and removed the difficulty. But far from making any attempt so to explain the matter away, He insists still more strongly upon the need of Divine faith, as if it alone can carry them through. "There are some of you that believe not. . . No man can come unto me unless it be given him by the Father." " After this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." But far from attempting to recall them by softening down His utterances, He demands an act of faith from the rest, as a condition of their remaining. " Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ' Will you also go away?' " And St. Peter, as their spokesman, replying that they would never do so, puts this determination on the ground, not of their under- THE SACRAMENTS 195 standing Him differently from the others, but of their belief in His omnipotence and consequent submission. "And Simon Peter answered, ' Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the word's of eternal life. And we have believed that thou art the Christ the Son of God.' " From all of which we conclude — That Christ meant this institution to be taken as a greater work of His power than the manna or multi plication of loaves, marvellous as were both. That He meant to be understood as giving His flesh really for the food of men. That He meant the statement to be mysterious and beyond the grasp of reason,- — but to be accepted upon faith. All of which exactly agrees with our doctrine of the Real Presence, as being the greatest work of His power, wrought in a manner beyond reason, which we could not even conceive as possible, unless we knew on His authority that it is true. [This subject is well treated by Cardinal Wiseman, Lectures on the Blessed Sacrament.} 2. The words of institution demonstrate the Real Presence. (a) The words are given by St. Matthew (xxvi. 26), St. Mark (xiv. 22), St. Luke (xxii. 19), and St. Paul ( i Cor. xi. 24), viz., " This is my body. . . . This is my blood of the New Testament (or, This is the New Testament in my blood ") [Tovro ecrn TO a£)fjid JJLOV. . . TOVTO e<JTi TO al/j.d JJLOV]. Although the Anglican Articles declare the doctrine of the Real Presence to be " repugnant to the plain words of Scripture," it is impossible to imagine what 196 THE SACRAMENTS plainer words could have been used to induce belief in the doctrine. As has been well observed, the framers of the Thirty-nine Articles seem to declare the "plain sense" of the words, "This is my body," to be, "This is twt my body." The ineptitude of contrary arguments enhances the reasonableness of the Catholic interpretation, v.g., It is said that in Syriac, the language probably used by our Lord, there is no word signifying repre sents, and that therefore He had to say is instead. But— The Evangelists (except perhaps St. Matthew) and St. Paul, wrote in Greek, in which there is certainly no such difficulty. Cardinal Wiseman shows, in his Horcc, Syriacce, that there are several words in Syriac having this sense. It is also argued by Protestants that our Lord frequently used the same form of speech, when He manifestly did not intend it to be taken literally : — and that the like is done in the Old Testament. Wherefore we are asked to conclude that we should not under stand the words literally here. But the whole point is that in these cases no one could possibly mistake the meaning, whereas in that with which we are concerned the whole of Christendom understood it literally for more than a thousand years ; and the great majority of Christians so understand it to the present day. It is sufficient to quote the alleged instances, to see that they are nothing to the point. (In Joseph's interpretation of Pharao's dream— Gen. xlL 26), " The seven kine are seven years." Exodus xii. if. " This is the Phase, or Passage, of the Lord." (It was upon this passage that the here- siarch Zwingle chiefly relied ! ) THE SACRAMENTS 197 Metaphors used by our Lord, " / am the door," " / am the way/' " / am the true vine," &c. Tradition. 3. The words of Scripture are not only plain in themselves, but have from the beginning been under stood as we understand them. St. Paul is evidence of this for the earliest years of the infant Church. (/ Cor. xi.) For close upon a thousand years the doctrine was never questioned. An erroneous view ascribed to Scotus Erigena (in the ninth century), was refuted by Lanfranc (in the eleventh). In the twelfth century Berengarius denied the Real Presence, and Wickliff in the fourteenth. At once there was a universal outcry against their teaching, as repugnant and offensive to the Faith of Christendom. As positive witnesses to the belief of early centuries, we have — The Oriental Sects, which here as elsewhere, prove what was the doctrine of the Church when they broke off. St. Justin. " We have been taught that it is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus." St. Cyril of Jerusalem. " What appears bread! is not bread, but the body of Christ ; and what appears wine is not wine, but the blood of Christ." [o ^aivofievo^ apro? OVK cipros ecrriv a\\a O-^IJLCL XptcrroV' • • Trans lated by an Anglican controversialist, " is not mere bread."] St. Ambrose. " This which we consecrate is the body born of the Virgin." St. Chrysostom. " Elias, when he ascended, left his mant^ to his disciple, but the Son of God left His 198 THE SACRAMENTS own flesh. And the former stripped himself of what he bequeathed; but the latter both left it below and took it up. . . ." "His word cannot deceive; our senses are easily deceived. Since then He says, ' This is My body/ let us assert and believe and see with the eyes of the spirit." *** Testimonies to this effect are innumerable. See .Waterworth's Fai-lh of Catholics, vol. ii. pp. 198, seq. As to the Eastern Liturgies — whether used by those in communion with Rome, or others — which witness to *he Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, the follow- *ng may be mentioned. Those styled " of St. Chrysostom," " St. Basil," " St. Gregory," the " Mass of St. James:" 25 Syriac liturgies, 6 Coptic, 12 Ethiopians, 3 Nestorian, &c. (b) Transubstantiation. Having established the Real Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, we have next to inquire as to the mod\e or manner of this presence : as to which three doctrines must especially be noted. ( i) T ran substantiation, the doctrine of the Catholic Church : which contains these points : After the consecration, the substance of bread and wine no longer remains. This substance is transmuted into that of the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, after the Consecration, Christ is truly and substantially present under the accidents, species, or appearances, of bread and wine. ( 2) Consubstajitiation. The doctrine of Luther and others. This holds that the substance of bread and wine is not destroyed, but that the Body and Blood of Christ THE SACRAMENTS 199 co-exists with this substance; but temporarily only, at the moment of Communion. * *This doctrine assumes almost as many forms as it has expositors. Erroneous doctrines cannot be clearly and definitely explained, as there is no reality to which they correspond. (3) Importation (Osiander). This doctrine teaches that Christ assumes bread and hypostatically unites it to Himself, as the Word assumed human nature in the Incarnation. Confining ourselves to the Catholic doctrine, we must consider (a) the substance of the bread and wine, (j3 )the accidents or species of the same, (7) the Body and Blood of Christ. (a) The substances of bread and wine vanish and cease to be. (See Faber's Blessed Sacrament, p. 78.) It is not properly a case of annihilation, inasmuch as their disappearance does not result in nothing, but in the substitution of the Body and Blood of Christ. Just as at Cana wine took the place of water. (/3) The species of bread and wine, — They continue to subsist when their substance is gone. [As in the Incarnation, the Sacred Humanity has no human personality to sustain it.] They are subject to all natural laws, — of heat, gravitation, chemistry, &c., as though the substance remained; but these affect the species alone, and not the substance which now lies hid under them, viz., Christ's Body and Blood. Amongst other natural effects the species are liable to the processes of corruption and change, as though undergone by their proper substances. And when the change goes so, far that the, outward semblance of 20O THE SACRAMENTS bread or wine no longer remains, the Real Presence ceases. Thus, it would cease were a consecrated chalice filled up with water. (7) The Body and Blood of Christ. The Body — identically the same — existing con- naturally in Heaven, is present — really and sacra- mentally — in the Host or the Chalice, under the sacramental species. With the Body, in the Host, is the Blood, and the Soul of Christ, with all its gifts, natural and super natural. N.B. — The presence of the Blood in the Host, of the Body in the Chalice, and of the Soul under both forms, is not by force of the words of consecration, but by " concomitance." Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament as He actually now exists — not the dead, but the living Christ. Hence, also, is the Divinity under both forms alike : not only by virtue of His Omnipresence, by which God is everywhere, but by reason of the Hypostatic Union. The Body of Christ exists in the Sacrament in a spiritual manner, without separation of its parts, although in its connatural state, in Heaven, there is such separation. As the soul is entire in the whole body and entire in each part of it, so is Christ whole in the entire Host, and whole in each particle. He is, therefore, as much in one Host as in a thousand. The Sacramental Presence of His Body is indefi nitely multiplied through all Hosts in the world; as a speech or poem may be equally the possession of all men. THE SACRAMENTS 2OI Summary of above Doctrine. The Sacramental existence of Christ is to His con natural existence, as His incarnate being is to His Divinity. It is a different and distinct mode of being; while that from which it differs remains unchanged. As in His Incarnate Nature Christ veiled His Divinity, and divested Himself of its attributes (be coming mortal, passible, &c.), so in His Sacramental existence He divests Himself of the powers even of His Humanity. It is precisely this transubstantiated existence, under the form of bread and wine, that constitutes the Sacra ment. These Sacramental forms are the sign of the special grace which this Sacrament confers. As bread and wine — the most natural types of food — nourish and sustain man's body, so does the substantial reality underlying them in the Eucharist, nourish and sustain his soul. Were Christ present in His connatural form, or by miracle in form of flesh and blood, there would not be His true sacramental presence. This must be as " this Bread'," and " this Chalice." These things are, of course, a profound mystery, but this mystery touches not the phenomena on the surface, of which alone we have any knowledge, but that which lies beneath which is utterly beyond our ken, with all our science. As Cardinal Newman says of Transub- stantiation (Apologia pro vita sua, p. 375) : " For my self, I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is ; but I say, ' Why should it not be? What's to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all; . . .' The Catholic doctrine leaves phenomena alone. It does not say that the phenomena go; on the 202 THE SACRAMENTS contrary, it says that they remain; nor does it say that the same phenomena are in several places at once. It deals with what no one on earth knows anything about, the material substances themselves." Such is the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Its truth is demonstrated by the same testimonies quoted above for the Real Presence, whether from Scripture or Tradition, for no other mode by which it has been attempted to explain Christ's presence in the Eucharist is either adequate or even intelligible. An interesting and important testimony to the belief of the first Christians is furnished from the Catacombs. The paintings found there are, as already remarked, always symbolical, and our Lord is constantly repre sented by the symbol of a fish, the Greek ^$u<?("fisli") being composed of the initial letters of the words'I^crou? Xpiaros Oeov 'Tto? ^ror/jp (" Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour "). One representation is that of a fish bear ing on its back bread and wine. As De Rossi explains : " What appears on the surface is bread and wine; what sustains this appearance beneath the surface is the living Christ." On the other hand, it is urged that Transubstanti ation is a comparatively novel doctrine, because for many centuries we find no such term used, it having been first authoritatively employed by the Fourth Council of Lateran, A.D. 1215. We answer that it was first employed, because the doctrine had then first been denied by Scotus Erigena and Berengarius; which denial necessitated the use of a term to define with strict accuracy what had always been believed. Moreover, though this particular term was devised on this occasion, others of similar import had been previously in use for the instruction of the THE SACRAMENTS 203 faithful, v.g.y in the Greek Church, /Aeroucrt&xrt?, /-tera- £0X17, and //,eTa7ror>;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.