^

CATHOLIC

TO DR. LITTLEDALE'S "PLAIN REASONS."

BY

H. I. D. RYDER,

OP THE ORATORY.

Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis, lingua dolosa.

REV. JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST TO ST. MARY'S COLLEGE LIBRARY, 1926

LONDON : BURNS & GATES, LIMITED.

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO: BENZIGER BROTHERS.

NOTICE TO SECOND EDITION.

I WISH to draw attention to the following corrections, which I believe are the only ones of importance. Page 42, "A Council of Constantinople, A.D. 382," for The Second General Council, A.D. 381. Page 43, see Ap- pendix, Note B. Page 102-3. the withdrawal of a stric- ture upon a note of Dr. Littledale's.

My Appendix contains notes on the Galileo case ; on Pope Julius, Socrates, and Sozomen ; on the theophanies of the Old Testament ; on the Tridentine Decree con- cerning Holy Scripture ; on Canon Jenkins' tract, " The Devotion of the Sacred Heart ;" on a fresh charge of Dr. Littledale's against St. Alfonso ; on Pope Zosimus and Celestius; on "The Church Quarterly's" attack upon Cardinal Newman; and on a misquotation by Dr. Littledale of the Tax-Tables.

NOTICE TO THIRD EDITION.

SEE corrections and notes at pp. 42, 59, 79, and 146.

An Index Rerum has been supplied me by a learned and untiring friend.

NOTICE TO FOURTH EDITION.

As it is considered inadvisable to load this volume with any fresh matter, it may be as well to refer such of my readers as are interested in the pro- gress of the controversy between Dr. Littledale and myself to a correspondence in the " Guardian" for November 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1881, and to my Reply to Dr. Littledale's " Additions and Correc- tions" in the "Tablet" for July 8, 1882.

NOTICE TO SIXTH EDITION.

SEE note p. 79 ; addition of passage from Stephen Lang- ton, p. 82 ; and note and correction, p. 83.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

TAG*

INTRODUCTION . i*

PART I.

THE PRIVILEGE OF PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE ROMAN SEE.

§ I. Scripture Texts I

§ 2. St. Peter and St. Paul 9

§ 3. What, according to Dr. Littledale, the privilege of

Peter really was . .10

§ 4. Papal Prerogative and the Creeds . . . .II § 5. Papal Infallibility and the Fathers . . . .12

§ 6. Dr. Littledale and St. Jerome 21

% 7. Dr. Littledale's Disproofs of Papal Infallibility . . 26 (i). The Fallibility of the Church .... 26

(2). The Jewish Church . . . . ' . .27

(3). Fall of Pope Liberius . . . . . .27

(4). Condemnation of Pope Honorius ... 28

(5). The Deposition of Popes 30

(6). Infallibility in the past 31

(7). The Council of Trent and Leo X. ... 32

(8). The Sixtine Bible 33

(9). The Condemnation of Galileo . . 33

(10). Infallibility in the future 36

(n). Obscurity of the Vatican definition ... 36

(12). The anti- Vatican dilemma 37

| 8. The Pope's supremacy of jurisdiction, and the Fathers . 38

VI CONTENTS.

PAGB

§ 9. Dr. Littledale's objections to Papal supremacy . • 45

(i). Honorary titles 45

(2). St. Peter's connection with Rome ... 48

(3). Papal Prerogative and Conciliar Canons . . 49

(4). The Pope and Canon law 55

§ 10. Communion with Rome 56

§ ii. St. Firmilian, St. Cyprian, and Pope St. Stephen . 58

§ 12. St. Meletius and the Holy See 59

§ 13. St. Augustine and the Holy See — the case of Apiarius 60

§ 14. Pope St. Celestine and the Council of Ephesus . . 63

§ 15. Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon 64

§ 1 6. St. Leo and St. Hilary of Aries 65

§ 17. Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Council .... 68 § 1 8. St. Gregory the Great and the title of "Universal

Bishop" 70

§19. Gerbert and Pope John XV 71

§ 20. Breaks and uncertainty in the succession in the Roman

See 72

§ 21. The Roman Catholic Church not the whole Church . 75

§ 22. England and Papal Prerogative 76

§ 23. A Catena of English Authorities on Papal Prerogative . 79

§ 24. Development 83

PART II.

CHARGES AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN COMMUNION WITH THE SEE OF PETER.

CHARGE I.

Creature- Worship 86

§ I. The Theology of Creature- Worship ... .86

§ 2. Cultus of the Saints according to the Fathers . . 89

§ 3. The Cultus of Mary 92

(i). Theology of the Cultus, with Catena ... 92

(2). Summary of Evidence 103

(3). Imperfect development of the Cultus of Our Lady

in the Early Church 104

CONTENTS. Vll

MO*

(4). Scripture objections to the Cultus of Mary . 106

(5). Patristic objections to the Cultus of Mary . . 108

§ 4. I mage- Worship Ill

(i). The Theology of Image-Worship . . . in (2). The Seventh Council and the Council of Frankfort 115 (3). Devotion to particular shrines and images . .118 (4). The Early Fathers and Image- Worship . .120

§ 5. Alleged excess in the Worship of Mary . . .124

CHARGE II. Uncertainty and error in Faith . . . . » .132

§ i. Dependence upon One 132

§ 2. The Immaculate Conception . . . . .134 § 3. Communion under One Species . . . .138 § 4. Disregard of the Dogma of the Incarnation , .143 § 5. The Cultus of the Sacred Heart . . . . 147 § 6. The Church and the Bible 152

CHARGE III.

Uncertainty and Unsoundness in Morals . . . . 159

§ I. Probabilism and St. Alfonso Liguori . . . . 159

§ 2. Cardinal Bellarmine .171

§ 3. Condemnation of Private Judgment . . . . .172

CHARGE IV.

Untrust worthiness « . .175

§ I. The Nicene and Sardican Canons . . . -175

§ 2. The Sixth Canon of Nicgea 175

§ 3. The Baptism of Constantine . . . . .176

§ 4. St. Peter's Letter 177

§ 5. The False Decretals . - 177

§ 6. The Cyprianic Interpolations 1 88

§ 7. Roma locuta est ....... 189

§ 8. Forged Greek Catena . , . . . .190

§ 9. Cardinal Baronius . . . , . . .190

§ 10. Cardinal Newman 194

§11. Some other Controversialists 196

§ 12. Faith not to be kept with Heretics ." . . .198

Vlll CONTENTS.

CHARGE V.

PAGE

Cruelty and Intolerance 202

§ i. The General Character of the Imputation . . 202

§ 2. Urban II. and the Excommunicate .... 204

§ 3. Pius IV. and Lucca 206

§ 4. Pius V. and Queen Elizabeth . 207

§ 5. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew .... 208

§ 6. Jacques Clement, Ravaillac, and sundry . . . 209

§ 7. The Inquisition , 209

§ 8. Busembaum's Teaching . . . . . .211

§ 9. Toleration . .211

CHARGE VI. Uncertainty and Error in the Sacraments . . . .213

§ i. Intention . 213

§ 2. Penance— Satisfaction . . . . . .217

§ 3. Indulgences — Purgatory . . . . . .220

§ 4. The Roman Penitentiary . . . . , .223

§ 5. The Mass Honorarium ...... 239

§ 6. Marriage Dispensations ...... 239

CHARGE VII.

Lack of the Four Notes of the Church 240

§ i. Unity of Faith and Charity 240

§ 2. Sanctity 242

§ 3. Catholicity 248

§ 4. Apostolicity 252

Conclusion . 253

APPENDIX 260

INDEX ... 281

12208

INTRODUCTION.

DR. LIITLEDALE has brought out, under the auspices of the Christian Knowledge Society, a little manual entitled 11 Plain Reasons against Joining the Church of Rome." With considerable ingenuity, in the brief space of some two hundred pages, he manages to pack most of the hardest things that have been said against Catholics, and especially against Popes. He has neglected no source of information, from the pages of Fathers and historians to the fly-leaf of modern gossip. It is the work of one whose heart is in his work and whose hand has not for« got its cunning. The form he has chosen is that of the modern Primer, in which it is the dainty privilege of an age impatient of toil to imbibe so much of its knowledge of science and of history. It is a form which, for all its rigid condensation, admits of keen momentary flashes of rhetoric, such as the sober solid work might almost seem to yield spontaneously, as sparks fly up under the steady blows of the pickaxe, and which are so doubly telling as the eloquence of reserve. When applied to history, how- ever, this form is specially exposed to the danger of sub- stituting rhetorical selection for scientific condensation.

X INTRODUCTION.

•

Dr. Littledale's theory, as I understand it, may be thus summed up. All that answers to the name " Church of Christ," at present in being, are certain scattered orga- nisms with more or less of local life and action. There is no such thing as " ecclesiastical infallibility" (p. 132), but only an assurance that the Church is " indefectible in the long run." It is a "legal fact'7 — whatever that may mean — that General Councils are not general, "no matter how many bishops have sat in them, till they have been accepted by the main body of Christendom." In some subtle deference to this " in the long run >; inde- fectibility, and acceptance " of the main body of Chris- tendom," each member of the Church is to exercise, his private judgment as to what is scriptural or sufficiently patristic, and to cleave thereto despite the assumptions of authority. The Church of England, as contrasted with the Church of Rome, presents exceptional advan- tages for carrying out this ideal of Church-life ; whereas the Roman Church means tyranny, uncertainty and un- soundness in faith and morals, repudiation of Scripture and antiquity, an absolute void, or at least a complete uncertainty, as to orders and jurisdiction, and a con- spicuous absence of the notes of the Church, Unity, Sanctity, Apostolicity, Catholicity. I readily admit that no Anglican who can be prevailed upon to accept Dr. Littledale's " Plain Reasons " as truths, will see his way towards bettering himself either morally or spiritually in what he would call the " Roman Communion." It is hardly likely that the Catholicism of any one who has sat at Dr. Littledale's feet will any more be troublesome, for the dangerous substance will have become thoroughly

INTRODUCTION. xi

disintegrated by the stream of what I may call ecclesi- tical scepticism to which it is exposed. Ritualism so qualified makes very fair Protestantism ; and this perhaps is the key to what at first is so very astonishing, the appearance of Dr. Littledale in the livery of the S.P.C.K. What, one is tempted to ask, can a society supposed to represent the sober middle majority of High and Low- Church, the staple of moderate Church of Englandism, have to do with an ultra-Ritualist who denounces the Reformers as ruffians, and celebrates daily with wafer and chasuble, unless, indeed, under all these offensive trap- pings the true Protestant is recognised? This being supposed, however, one can understand that the outward incongruity may lend a zest to the alliance. We know that this same society has before now availed itself of the services of an apostate priest, but such genuine apostates are not to be met with every day. It is not always possible for it to feather its arrows from the wing of its soaring quarry ; but here is one so like a Roman priest, whose daily idolatry has such a Roman flavour, that Protestants, when pressing Dr. Littledale into their service, are not without a triumphant sense of turning our own arms against us.

Dr. Littledale is persuaded that the only valid grounds for a change of religion involve an affirmative answer to the following questions : — " i. Shall I know more about God's will and word than now I do ? 2. Shall I be more likely to obey that will as He has been pleased to declare it ? 3. Shall I have a surer warrant than now that I shall have access to those means of grace which God has ordained for the spiritual profit of His people ? " On

Xll INTRODUCTION.

the contrary, these questions in no way represent what should be the motives of a convert. Their position here implies a complete ignorance of the point at issue, an assumption that what is in dispute is not the esse but the bene esse in the Church of Christ. They are pre- cisely the questions a man in doubt as to his vocation to a religious order would put to himself. No priest would dream of receiving a convert on such simply in- adequate subjective grounds. The real questions an Anglican who is seriously considering the point of his conversion to Rome must put to himself are very different. They are such as these : — i. Does the Christian idea require that any existing organisation be identified with the Church of Christ? 2. What are the notes of Christ's Church ? 3. Do I find these in the Anglican or in the Roman Communion ? To an Anglican who is not merely in pursuit of spiritual improvement, but who is actually craving for some assurance that he is a member of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, Dr. Little- dale's arguments will appear some of them irrelevant, some suicidal. He will have an uncomfortable suspicion, at least, that " in the long run " infallibility is an exorbit- ance, which will practically allow heresies to run on as long as they like, and would prove as unpractical a theory now as it would have done had it prevailed at Nicaea or Chalcedon. Again, when he is told (p. 177) that, as regards "the grace of duly trans- mitted orders with their accompanying privileges of valid sacraments," " the Roman doctrine of intention " (viz., that, whatever the faith of "the minister, an inten- tion to do and not merely to simulate what the Church

INTRODUCTION. Xlll

does, is necessary) has created " the greatest possible doubt as to the validity of every sacramental office or act performed in the Roman Church;" it can hardly escape an honest inquirer that this was the very doctrine of intention in which the English clergy had been edu- cated, for centuries before the Separation, in the Scotist and Thomist schools of Oxford ; that, in fact, till the Tridentines Salmeron and Catharinus, the contrary doctrine (even at this moment tolerated by Rome) had hardly found a voice.* Again, if Papal jurisdiction, owing to broken succession or violation of the canons, or what not, is long since extinct, or if Papal jurisdic- tion has never extended to England, with what dismay must an Anglican inquirer regard the various interven- tions of Papal (pretended) jurisdiction in the gravest and most vital concerns of the English Church ; the many acts demanded of the Holy See for which the only title of validity pretended was the Pope's " plenitudo potes- tatis " ? Take what view he will of the independence of

* Even more extravagant is the assertion (p. 189) that our practice of conditionally baptizing converts from Anglicanism entails the irregularity of both ministers and recipients, whereby all their sub- sequent sacramental action is invalidated, even though the latter may have been ignorant of any previous baptism. I. Irregularity is an impediment prohibent not diriment or invalidating. 2. Irregu- larity "ex delicto," as this is, requires a knowledge of the criminality, and so cannot affect persons in bonafide. 3. It is an open question amongst theologians whether even the culpably rash administration of conditional baptism involves irregularity.

The practice in question, based as it is upon the grave doubts arising from that ostentatiously inadequate use of the necessary matter of baptism, so long and so extensively prevalent in the Estab- lishment, is in perfect accord with the tradition of the Church.

XIV INTRODUCTION.

episcopal jurisdiction, of its inherence in the ancient sees ; however confident he may be of the persistence of jurisdiction somewhere or other in the Church of Eng- land, yet merely on the ground of past Papal interven- tions, to say nothing of the disturbing element of Pro- testant state interference, it will be impossible for him "even to guess" where that jurisdiction lies, and to what it extends. The history of any local Church, if you venture to pick out the threads of Papal jurisdiction which cross and recross it in every direction, becomes a mere tangle, in which it is impossible to appreciate the conveyance of any authority. There is nothing, of course, in this line of Dr. Littledale's which need shock the ordinary Church of England Protestant ; but I ear- nestly recommend the question of its propriety to the consideration of the English Church Union.

The scope of this " Reply " is twofold, i. To show that these " Plain Reasons " for not joining the Church fail either as statements of fact or as deductions from fact. 2. To show that amongst unfair controversialists Dr. Littledale is unfair in a pre-eminent degree, although we have every right to try him by a very high standard indeed, seeing that he comes forward emphatically as the representative of Anglican honesty as contrasted with the dishonesty of Rome. He ventures to speak thus (p. 100): — " Things have come to this pass, that no state- ment whatever, however precise and circumstantial, no reference to authorities however seemingly frank and clear, to be found in a Roman controversial book, or to be heard from the lips of a living controversialist, can be taken on trust, without a rigorous search and veri-

INTRODUCTION.

fication. The thing may be true, but there is not &o much as a presumption of its proving so when tested. The degree of guilt varies, no doubt, from deliberate and conscious falsehood with fraudulent intent, down through reckless disregard as to whether the thing be true or false, to mere overpowering bias causing mis- representation ; but truth, pure and simple, is almost never to be found, and the whole truth in no case what- ever." I cannot allow myself to exchange this sort of compliment with Dr. Littledale, even though he is par- ticularly fond, in his controversy with us, of imputing the first degree of falsehood, as, for instance, when he tells us that Pope St. Nicholas I. " solemnly and pub- licly lied." We may be content to leave " conscious falsehood " and " fraudulent intent " to their own forum, where we can make no claim to sit in judgment. All that I pretend to prove is, that Dr. Littledale has re- peatedly asserted the thing that is not, with the evidence that it is not staring him in the face, and in cases, too, involving the gravest imputations upon the character of an adversary. If I establish this charge beyond the shadow of exception, I submit that the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge has no more right to patronise the controversial efforts of such an author, than a mercantile firm has to recommend a man for the post of cashier, who — though they think him to mean honestly — they know, steals.

I have thought it well to bring out a " Reply " in detail, covering the whole of my adversary's ground, and as nearly as possible in the same form as the "Plain Reasons," hoping that it may serve as a manual on the

Xvi INTRODUCTION.

Catholic side. It will anyhow be useful as supplying a considerable number of passages on such subjects as the Papacy and the cultus of our Lady in a short com- pass. I have not followed Dr. Littledale's arrangement, as I have failed to discover that this has been carried out upon any fixed principle ; one detects certain pun- gent transitions of offensiveness, and that is all.

I divide my "Reply" into two parts. The first will be directly engaged in vindicating the privilege of St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See, both as regards teaching and government ; the second part will meet the various charges brought against the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Peter.

My references throughout will be to Dr. Littledale's first edition, whilst noticing the principal variations he has introduced in editions two and three. I do so, because I can in nowise regard mere emendations introduced with- out note or explanation into the text as retractations ; moreover, the course which the variations pursue is sometimes highly instructive.

Amongst various modern Catholic works, to none of which, as I trust, I have failed to acknowledge my obli- gations in their proper place, I will content myself with mentioning here Mr. Allnatt's invaluable publica- tion, " Cathedra Petri," of which I have made a very free, though not a blind, use. My references to the " Councils " are invariably to Collet's edition of Labbe and Cossart, Venice, 1729.

CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY.

PART I.

THE PRIVILEGE OF PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE ROMAN SEE.

§ 1. Scripture Texts.

DR. LITTLEDALE (p. 15) says that " the Ultramontane interpretation put on the three great texts, ... St. Matt. xvi. 1 8, that St. Peter is the Rock and foundation of the Church; St. Luke xxii. 31, 32, that St. Peter was in- fallible, and charged with guiding the faith of the other -Apostles; and St. John xxi. 15, 17, that he was given jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church, is contrary to the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers;' . . . so it is not lawful for any Roman Catholic, in the face of the Creed of Pius IV. (which forbids the interpretation of Scripture otherwise than in accordance with such con- sent), to maintain the Ultramontane view of these three texts." Even in the very act of appealing to the "unani- mous consent of the Fathers," Dr. Littledale's courage seems somewhat to have failed him ; for he immediately subjoins that in regard to Matt. xvi. 18, the Fathers " agree, by a great majority, that either Christ Himself, or St. Peter's confession of Christ, is the Rock and founda- tion of the Church." This modification b farther carried out in the admission that " St. Epiphanius, doctor, St.

A

2 SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

Basil the Great, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, doctors, take it both ways," i.e., admit as an alternative meaning that St. Peter is the Rock, leaning, however, more to the view that Christ is the Rock. Anyhow, this is some- thing short of the unanimity required by Pope Pius, and before unanimity can be contradicted it must be obtained.

I shall now proceed to examine Dr. Littledale's great majority. But before doing so, it must be clearly under- stood that we in no wise reject the application of the "Rock" to Christ, or to faith in Christ. We maintain that such interpretation does not at all militate against its application directly to St. Peter ; not indeed to his -person, but to his office, in which, both as regards himself and his successors, he represents Christ and supports his brethren. Peter is no other foundation beside the one ultimate foundation, Christ; but he is the first visible stone of the visible Church, immediately resting upon and representing the invisible Rock, Christ This is precisely the doctrine of St. Leo : " ' For thou art Peter,' that is, whereas I am the inviolable Rock ; I the corner- stone, who made both one; I the foundation, besides which no one can lay another ; yet thou also art a Rock, because thou art consolidated by My might, that what things alone are Mine by My power may be common to thee by participation with Me" (Serm. iv. in Natal. Ordin. c. 2, ed. Bailer.). Thus I strike off one of the ten Fathers to whom Dr. Littledale appeals (p. 16) as ex- plaining the Rock to be Christ and not St. Peter.

I will now proceed to consider the remaining nine.

i. Origen. This Father, in as many as four passages, declares that St. Peter is the Rock. For example : " See what is said by the Lord to that great foundation of the Church and most solid Rock upon which Christ founded His Church" (in Exod. Horn. v. n. 4).*

* Cf. in Joan. torn. iv. p. 95 ; in Matt. tr. xiv. n. 5, torn. iii. p. 620 j in Rom. lib. v. c. 10, torn. iv. p. 568.

SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 3

2. St. Hilary, in three passages, e.g., " Oh, in thy designation by a new name, happy foundation of the Church and the Rock, worthy of the building of that which was to unloosen the infernal laws and the gates of hell, and all the bars of death" (in Matt. xvi. 7)*

3. St. John Chrysostom, in not less than six passages, e.g., "When I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation" (Horn. iii. de Poenit. n. 4).t

4. St. Augustine in one passage, e.g., "Peter, who had confessed Him the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the Rock upon which the Church should be built " (in Ps. Ixix.). Although preferring to interpret the Rock of Christ, he admits (Retract, i. n. 2) that either interpretation is allowable.

5. St. Cyril of Alexandria, in two passages, e.g., "Allusively to the name from the rock, He changes his name to Peter ; for on him He was about to found His Church " (in Joan. i. n. 2).J

Dr. Littledale's imposing list of ten is now reduced to four — St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore of Pelusium, Venerable Bede, and St. Gregory VII. Upon these I remark that the passage which Dr. Littledale quotes from St. Gregory the Great, and which I believe to be the only place in St. Gregory's works where the text is quoted, is from a commentary on the Seven Penitential Psalms, a work which may be fairly classed amongst the " Dubia." The Benedictine editor, though inclined to attribute it to St. Gregory I., admits that the question of the authorship is a very difficult one. As to St

* Cf. Tract, in Ps. cxxxi. n. 4 ; in Ps. cxli. n. 8 ; de Trin. vi. n. 20.

t Cf. In illud, Hoc scitote, n. 4 ; Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, n. 17 ; in illud, Vidi Dom. Horn. iv. n. 3 ; Horn, de dec. mil. talent, n. 3 ; in Matt. Horn. 54, n. 2.

J Cf. in Isai. lib. iv. p. 593, torn. iii. See Allnatt's " Cathedra Petti"

4 SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

Gregory VII., an Anglican must be surely very hard pressed who can admit into his list of Fathers a writer of the eleventh century, who, glorious champion of the Faith as he was, has left behind him nothing but a very moderate collection of letters, mostly of a practical character. Of the whole list, St. Isidore of Pelusium and Venerable Bede, who, by the way, is not as yet a doctor except by diploma of Dr. Littledale, are the only Fathers to whom his appeal can be made with any show of propriety.

Without going beyond Dr. Littledale's own list, we have a large majority of the Fathers who assert precisely what, according to him, first, all the Fathers, secondly. a large majority of the Fathers, have denied, viz., that St. Peter was the rock upon which Christ founded His Church. Our majority might be vastly increased were it supplemented, as it might be, from Mr. Allnatt's collection, already referred to. I will content myself with two out of many authorities. Tertullian de Prae- script, c. xxii. : " Was anything hidden from Peter, the Rock whereon the Church was to be built?" and St. Cyprian (Ep. Ixxi. ad Quint.): "Peter, whom the Lord chose as first, and upon whom He built His Church." The overwhelming majority is in our favour, and so we are told that we are contradicting unanimity ! It is, as we shall see, Dr. Littledale's way.

"As to Luke xxii. 31, 32," says Dr. Littledale (p. 17), "no father whatever" (the italics are his own) " explains it in the modern Ultramontane fashion, which is not even found till Cardinal Bellarmine invented it about A.D. 1621." Dr. Littledale's account (p. 15) of this "Ultra- montane fashion " is " that Peter was infallible and. charged with guiding the faith of the Apostles." Now this is a most infelicitous rendering of Ultramontane doctrine. All theologians, whether Gallican or Ultra- montane, admit that after Pentecost St. Peter was in- fallible, and that all the other Apostles were infallible

REV. JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST TO ST. MARY'S COLLEGE LIBRARY, 1

SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 5

too, and did not require any other guidance for their faith than that of the Holy Spirit. If St. Peter struck the keynote of the apostolic teaching, it was for the guidance rather of the other brethren outside the Apos- tolic College, lest the disciples of the different Apostles should set up the dicta of one against those of another, and so schism and error should arise.

And now, is it true that this text is quoted by no Father whatsoever in behalf of an unfailing office and privilege inherent in St. Peter and his successors of confirming his brethren in the faith ? There are degrees of indiscretion, and even that very indiscreet writer, Janus, might have taught Dr. Littledale a lesson. Janus •maintains, not that the Ultramontane interpretation was introduced in the seventeenth century by Bellarmine, but that it was first taught in the seventh century by Pope Agatho in his great letter read at the Sixth Council (Janus, Eng. trans, p. 93). Neither does he deny its subsequent appearance in such writers as John VI., Patriarch of Constantinople (an. 715), St. Theodore the Studite, and Theophylact. But Janus' position is respectable only in comparison with Dr. Littledale's. St. Agatho was preceded, even in his explicit application of the text to St. Peter's successors, by St. Leo (Serin, iv. c. 3, 4), St. Gelasius, Pelagius II., and St. Gregory the Great (see Cardinal Hergenrother's Anti- Janus, Eng. trans, p. 60). It is explicitly referred to St. Peter himself, implicitly at least to his successors, by St. Ambrose : " Peter ... is set over the Church ; ... for to him He said : but thou, when thou art converted, con- firm thy brethren (in Ps. xliii. n. 40). To whom, by His authority, He gave the kingdom, his faith could He not confirm?" (De Fide, lib. iv. n. 56); by St. John Chry- sostom on the words, " In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples" (Acts i. 15) : " Both as being ardent and as intrusted by Christ with the flock, . . . he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all

O SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

put in his hands ; for to him Christ had said, ' And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren'" (Horn. Hi. in Act. Apost.) ; by St. Cyril of Alexandria : " ' Confirm thy brethren/ that is, become the support and teacher of those who come to Me by faith" (in Luc. xxii. Maii Bibl. Nov. torn. ii. p. 420). That there can be no exclusion in the above passages of St. Peter's successors, see the words of the Council of Aries (an. 314) regarding Rome, "the place in which the Apostles daily sit in judgment " (Ep. Syn. ad Sylvest. ap. Labbe, torn. i.). See, too, the words of the Legate Philip at Chalcedon (Act. Hi.) of Peter, "who even until now, and always, lives and judges in his suc- cessors ; " and many other testimonies to the same effect (Cath. Pet. pp. 55, 57, and 61).

As Cardinal Bellamiine has always been accounted sufficiently well read in the Fathers, we can hardly give what Dr. Littledale calls his "invention " credit for much originality. I am the less disposed to do so, as Bellar- mine was certainly acquainted with the writings of Pighius and Catharinus, since he quotes them both frequently. Now both these writers, the former (an. 1538) (Hierarch. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 8), the latter (an. 1551) (in Galat. ed. Venice, p. 276), derive Papal infallibility in quite its pre- sent " Ultramontane fashion " from this text. Moreover, St. Thomas of Villanova, with whose writings Dr. Little- dale professes some acquaintance (see p. 15, note), has written, " Neither for the person of Peter only did He pray; for that in some sort failed in Christ's Passion, but for the See of Peter. For this from the first moment of the Church's birth never fell away from the faith, but, as the Lord said, being converted, confirmed his brethren" (Cone. iii. de. Nat. Virg. p. 505). I think the originality of Dr. Littledale's "invention" has been sufficiently proved. Indeed, I hardly know how it could be bettered,, unless in some future edition he should assert that the Ultramontane application of the text was "invented" by Cardinal Manning about A.D.

SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 7

1870. The new statement would be much more telling, and quite as true as the old one.

As to John xxi. 15, 17, it is against the unanimous consent of the Fathers, Dr. Littledale says, to interpret it as giving jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church; and the "great majority" regard it as "no more than the reinstatement of St. Peter in that apos- tolic office from which he had been degraded by his denial of Christ." Dr. Littledale appeals to St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Cyril of Alexandria. But numbers of the Fathers interpret the text as giving to St. Peter precisely this jurisdiction, and, amongst them, three out of Dr. Littledale's four authorities. St. Ambrose says that Christ left St. Peter " as it were, the vicar of His love ; . . . and now he is not ordered, as at first, to ' feed His lambs/ . . . but ' His sheep,' that the more perfect might govern the more perfect" (in Luc lib. x. n. 175 and 329).

St. Augustine : " I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by ... the succession of priests from the very chair of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord after the resurrection committed His sheep to be fed, even to the present episcopate" (Ep. cont. Manich. Fund. n. 5).

St. Cyril of Alexandria : " Over the Church He sets Peter as Shepherd " (in Matt. xvi. Maii Bibl. Nov. torn. Hi. p. 131).

St. John Chrysostom on the text says : " He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren, . . . the presidency over His own sheep ; . . . and if any one should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem ? this I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher not of that throne, but of the world " (in Joan. Horn. Ixxxviii. n. i).

St. Eucherius of Lyons (or more probably St. Bruno of Asti, op. torn. ii. Rome, p. 294, in Joan.) : "Peter . . . is Shepherd of shepherds ; ... he feeds the lambs, he

8 SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

feeds also the sheep ; ... he rules both subjects and prelates."

St. Gregory the Great : " By the voice of the Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter, the head of the Apostles ; for to him it was said, Peter, lovest thou me? Feed My sheep '; (Lib. iv. Ep. 32).

What Father ever suggests that St. Peter " had been degraded " from his apostolic office so as to require reinstatement ? All admit that his sin, whatever it was, was absolutely forgiven when he " wept bitterly." What- ever renewal may be implied in the text is a renewal of the office of Rock and confirmer of the brethren. It may be regarded as introducing a development of that office in distinguishing the two classes of confirmandi, and as enunciating that highest characteristic of St Peter's vicariate, the representation of Christ's love.

Even those Fathers who do not attribute the word " Rock " precisely to St. Peter derive exactly the same Petrine prerogatives from the other texts. St. Gregory the Great writes to Eulogius (Ep. xl. ed. Ben. torn. ii. p. 888). "Who knows not that Holy Church is estab- lished in the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, who hath expressed the firmness of his mind in his name, being called Peter, from the rock, to whom it was said by the Voice of Truth, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; ' to whom again it was said, 'And thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren ; ' and again, * Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?'" Venerable Bede (Horn, in Die SS. Petri et Pauli) : " Blessed Peter in a special manner received the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the headship of judiciary power, that all believers throughout the world might un- derstand that all those who in any way separate themselves from the unity of His faith and communion can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins nor enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom."

St. Peter Damian heads the list (note p. 16) of " famous

ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL. 9

Roman Catholic divines who deny, expressly or indirectly, that St. Peter is the Rock." I submit that Papal prero- gative is sufficiently safe in his hands. He says (Opusc. v. ap. torn. iii. ed. Bass. p. 77) : "The Roman Church (in contrast to all others) He alone founded, who built it upon the Rock of the new springing faith, who gave the rights of empire upon earth and in heaven to the blessed Keyward of eternal life." And again (Prec. et Carm. ap. torn. iv. p. 25), addressing St. Peter : " Tu petram verae fidei. Tu basim sedificii Fundas, in qu& Catholica Fixa surgit Ecclesia."

St. Thomas of Villanova (Serm. Fer. vi. post Dom. 2 quadrag., ed. Ven. p. 201) argues that the Church need not fear the fate of the Synagogue, " For it is written, ' This is the blood of the new and eternal covenant ; ' and again, ' Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; ' and again, 4 1 have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.' "

Of no writer in this list, with the exception of Tos- tatus, can it be said that he denies the attribution of the Rock to St. Peter.

If Dr. Littledale had tried ever so little to ascertain the truth on these matters, could he have possibly accom- plished so many misstatements in so brief a space ?

§ 2. St. Peter and St. Paul.

Whatever may have once been the extent of St Peter's privileges, says Dr. Littledale (p. 136), "St. Peter is after a time divinely restricted to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, that is, the Church of the Jews by birth, as we read Gal. ii. 7, 8, ' When they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision (for he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles).' " It is hardly

10 PETRINE PRIVILEGE ACCORDING TO DR. LITTLEDALE.

necessary to say that this interpretation directly con- tradicts the whole current of ecclesiastical tradition. There is indeed patristic authority for the opinion that St. Paul shared in a special way with St. Peter in the princedom of the Church, in the foundation and govern- ment of the See of Rome, and so of the whole Church. But the primacy or headship was not divided ; St. Paul was St. Peter's divinely appointed coadjutor for the special behoof of Gentile converts, but with a subor- dinate jurisdiction. This is the utmost that antiquity accords to St. Paul. As Dr. Dollinger argues (First Age of the Church, vol. i. pp. 28-31, Eng. trans.) : "There were not two Churches, one of the circumcision, one of the uncircumcision ; but there was one olive-tree, into which the Gentiles were grafted ; " . . . therefore " the Apostle to whom Israel is specially intrusted by God is necessarily the head of the Apostolic College and the whole Church." But even if we suppose a Pauline as well as a Petrine prerogative, of that power and dignity the Pope remains the sole possible inheritor. (See Bellarmine, de Rom. Pont. lib. i. cap. 27.)

§ 3. What according to Dr. Littledale the Privilege of Peter really was.

Something special, Dr. Littledale admits (p. 140), was really given to St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 19). There is really a sense in which the words, " To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," apply " to St. Peter alone," and it is this : " St Peter was granted the incom- municable and unrepeatable privilege and glory of being the first to unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven to both Jews (Acts ii. 14-41) and Gentiles (Acts x. 34-48) ; " a possession, Dr. Littledale truly remarks, as untransfer- able as " a monopoly of continuing to discover America. '* The authority he gives for this ingenious theory is

PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND THE CREEDS. 1 1

Tertullian (De Pudic. xxi.). My first remark is, that the treatise " De Pudicitia" is one of the works un- doubtedly written after Tertullian's perversion to Mon- tanism. Still there is often much valuable instruction even in this class of Tertullian's writings. When, how- ever, we turn to the reference and examine Tertullian's argument, we find that Dr. Littledale has done a very clumsy thing indeed. Tertullian, in the place referred to, is formally maintaining that there is no forgiveness for grave sin committed after baptism, and he supposes his Catholic opponent to urge Matt. xvi. 19, the gift of the keys. He answers that this was a merely personal gift to St. Peter, which he used and exhausted in admitting Jews and Gentiles into the Church. His one object in limit- ing the privilege of the keys to an incommunicable privilege is to bar the existence of any absolving power in the Church, and to effect this purpose he feels that it is quite sufficient to tie St. Peter's hands. An excellent text surely for those who maintain that the Pope is the one immediate source of jurisdiction, the original deposi- tory of the power of the keys, from whom all others must receive it, but hardly acceptable, one should fancy, to Dr. Littledale's Ritualist supporters.

§ 4. Papal Prerogative and the Creeds.

"There is nothing," urges Dr. Littledale (p. 4), "of distinctive Romanist doctrine in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds." Neither, I reply, is there any- thing there about bishops, or general councils, or the Holy Eucharist, or the Bible. A creed was never meant to be an exhaustive corpus of doctrine. Its main idea was that of a symbol or watchword, expressing and en- forcing adhesion to the Church, and opposition to its enemies. Its contents, as well as the prominence and emphasis given to this or that doctrine, varied with the

12 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS.

exigencies of controversy. There is one document, however, which has all the character of a symbol and is very distinctly Roman — the Formulary of Pope Hor- misdas, a profession of faith concluding with a promise of allegiance. It was signed in 519 by the Eastern emperor, patriarchs, and bishops, and confirmed in 869 by the eighth General Council. It is computed to have received the signatures of as many as 2500 bishops. It is perhaps the most symbolic expression of the belief of united East and West in the rightfulness of Papal prero- gative. " Forasmuch as the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church,' &c., cannot be set aside, this which is said is proved by the results ; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot. ... In which (See) is the perfect and true solidity of the Christian religion. ... In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and its holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doc- trine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion ; promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church that is not consentient with the Apos- tolic See shall not be recited during the Holy Mysteries."

§ 5. Papal Infallibility and the Fathers.

The Church's unity is at once a unity of faith and a unity of hierarchical obedience. The Roman Pontiff has ever been regarded in the Church as the centre of both unities. In other words, the Pope has ever held, and been acknowledged to hold, the supreme office of teaching and governing the whole Church, an office con-

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS. 1 3

noting in its highest function, on the one hand, a divine assurance of the truth of his definitive exposition of the faith, or infallibility ; on the other, the right of universal jurisdiction The truth that the Pope is the centre of faith has from the beginning found expression in the acceptance of communion with Rome as a test of ortho- doxy, and the acknowledgment that the Pope's confir- mation is the all-sufficient and essential seal of orthodox instruction. This truth has in our day found its fullest expression in the definition of the Vatican Council : "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when, exercising the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, of his supreme authority he defines a doc- trine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer has willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith or morals ; whence it follows that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of them- selves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable."

Besides the broad historical lines which have ever marked out the Roman Church as the seat of ecclesi- astical authority, we meet with a succession of utterances, more or less explicit, on the part of Popes, Councils, and Fathers, which show most unmistakably the influence of the doctrine defined at the Vatican Council. The presence of this doctrine in the mind of the Church in varying moments of realisation accounts for and harmonises the many accents of the early Church which have come down to us; whereas for those who deny Papal infallibility these expressions are almost meaning- less, and startling, extravagant, and incoherent, as the words of one talking in his sleep. Several of such passages are given in the above section on the Petrine texts and elsewhere. I subjoin here the following : —

14 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS.

Sac. i.

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (A.D. 96) thus concludes an exhortation to peace and submission addressed to the Church of Corinth during the lifetime of St. John : — " If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in trans- gression and no small danger, but we shall be clear of this sin" (Newly Discovered Fragment, Ep. ad Cor.). Of this letter St. Irenaeus says, " The Church which is at Rome wrote a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, gathering them together to peace and repairing their faith, and announcing the tradition which it had so recently received from the Apostles" (Adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. 3).

Sue. ii.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 114*): — "Ye have taught others. I would therefore that those things may be firmly established which teaching you have commanded. ... I do not as Peter and Paul command you " (Ep. ad Rom. n. 3, 4).

ST. IREN/EUS (A.D. 202): — "But as it would be very long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the Churches; pointing out that tradition — which the greatest and most ancient and universally known Church constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul derives from the Apostles, and that faith announced to all men which through the succession of the bishops has come down to us — we confound all those who in any way through caprice or vainglory, or blindness, or perverse opinion gather other than it behoveth. For with this Church, on account of her supremacy, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful everywhere, should be in communion,

* As a rule, where the date of the document quoted has not been ascertained, the date given is that of the author's death.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS. 15

" propter potentiorem principalitatem," " convenire," in which Church has ever been preserved by the faithful everywhere that tradition which is from the Apostles " (Adv. Ha*, loc. at.).

Sac. in.

ST. CYPRIAN (A.D. 258) speaks of "the Romans, . . , unto whom heresy can have no access" (Ep. 55).

Sac. iv.

ST. AMBROSE (A.D. 379) says of his brother Satyrus, who had been cast away on a strange shore, " He called the bishop to him, and not accounting any grace true which was not of the true faith, he inquired of him whether he was in communion (conveniret, St. Irenaeus1 word) with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church" (De Excess. Frat. n. 47, torn. ii. p. 1126).

ST. ASTERIUS (circ. A.D. 400): — "Through Peter, therefore, become the true and faithful teacher of the faith, the Church is preserved incapable of fall and unswerving " (Horn, in S. A. Pet. et Paul, ed. Combefis, p. 128). See, too, the testimonies of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, given elsewhere.

Sac. v.

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (A.D. 431): — " To no one is it doubtful, nay, in all ages has it been recognised, that the holy and most blessed Peter, Prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins : who even unto this day lives and judges in his successors " {Philip the Legate, Act. iii. Labbe, torn. iii. p. 1153).

ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS (A.D. 450) : — "Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own See, gives the truth of faith to those who ask it " (Ep. ad Eutych).

1 6 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS.

THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (A.D. 451) :— " St. Peter is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith " (Act. iii. Labbe, torn. iv. p. 1306). " Peter hath spoken through Leo" (Act ii. p. 1235).

COUNCIL OF TARRAGON (A.D. 464) : — "Even if there were no" necessity of ecclesiastical discipline, we should be bound to have recourse to that privilege of thy See, in virtue of which, when he had received the keys of the kingdom after the Saviour's resurrection, the unique pro- nouncement of the most blessed Peter throughout the whole world provided for the illumination of all : of whose Yicar the rule (principatus) for its eminence must be at once feared by all and loved. Wherefore we, first worshipping in thee the God whom thou servest without reproach, have recourse to the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle, thence seeking replies where nothing is prescribed falsely, nothing presumptuously, but all with pontifical deliberation " (Ep. ad Hilar. Pap. n. i, ed. Thiel).

Sac. vi. •

FORMULA OF POPE HORMISDAS. (See above, p. 12.) Sac. vn.

ST. MAXIMUS, MARTYR (A.D. 662) : — " All the ends of the earth, and everywhere those who confess the Lord truly with a right faith, fasten their eyes as on a sun of everlasting light upon the Holy Roman Church, her con- fession, and her faith, -awaiting the ray of the doctrine of Fathers and Saints flashing therefrom, as the divinely in- spired six Holy Councils * have declared it, giving forth most explicitly their symbol of the faith. From the beginning, when the Incarnate Word of God came down, all the Christian Churches obtained and possess

* The sixth is, in all probability, Lateran J.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS. I 7

as their one firm basis and foundation that greatest Church which is there. So that she against whom, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall in nowise prevail, and which holds the keys of the orthodox and right faith in Him, may to those who approach with real piety open the treasure of piety, and may shut and fasten every heretical mouth speaking un- righteousness loftily" (Opusc. Theol. ed. Combefis, torn.. ii. p. 72). Again: " For if the Roman See refuses to recognise Pyrrhus (Patriarch of Constantinople), as one being not only bad, but of ill sentiment and faith, it is quite clear that every one who anathematises those who have condemned Pyrrhus anathematises the Roman Church, that is, the Catholic Church. . . . If he (Pyrrhus) wishes not to be or to be called a heretic, ... let him hasten to make satisfaction for all things to the Roman See ; for when she is satisfied, all everywhere will pro- nounce him pious and orthodox. But he is merely talking idly when he thinks to persuade or draw to him- self such as I am, and does not make satisfaction to and implore the most Blessed Pope of the Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which, by the Incar- nate Word of God Himself, and by all the Holy Synods, and according to the sacred canons and definitions, hath received and holds, throughout all the Holy Churches of God in the universe, empire and authority, and the power to bind and loose ; for with him binds and looses even in heaven the Word who rules over the powers of heaven. And if he deem that others should be satisfied and implores not the most Blessed Pope of Rome, he does as one who, being charged with homicide or some other crime, hastens not to manifest his innocence to him who, according to law, has the right of passing judgment, but only uselessly and unprofitably tries to prove the innocence of his action to other private per- sons who are without any power of acquitting him of the charge'' (Deflor ex Ep. ad Pet. Illustr. 1. c. p. 76).

u

1 8 PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS.

STEPHEN OF DORA, representing the Church of Jeru- salem, at the Lateran Council (A.D. 649): — "We have sought to fly and announce these matters (the Mono- thelite heresy) to the all-ruling (rjj VO.GW agxpuffy) pre- siding cathedra, the one, I mean, which is the pre- eminent and head amongst you, for the healing of all our wounds, since the exercise of this right is a wont from of old in accordance with apostolical and canonical authority, forasmuch as manifestly the truly great Head of the Apostles has not only been honoured, one above all, by the intrustment of the keys of the kingdom, to open to true believers, and, as is just, to shut to those who disbelieve the gospel of grace, but he was the first enjoined to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church. ' Peter,' He said, « lovest thou Me ? Feed My sheep ; ' and again, having peculiarly and pro- perly a firmer and more immutable faith than any in our Lord, he deserved to be able to turn to and confirm his troubled spiritual brethren and associates, as formally invested by the God who for us took flesh with His authority (rb xD^og) and sacerdotal power.

" All which Sophronius of blessed memory, whilome Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, knowing well, . . . applied himself to send forthwith our lowliness on this so great business with his own communication to this apostolical and great throne." He goes on to say that Sophronius, having led him up Mount Calvary, did there bind him with indissoluble bonds (ffwedqee (te dsff/^oTf aXuro/f), as he should answer the terrible Judge who had been crucified in that holy place, never to rest until he had performed his mission " to the apostolic throne, where are the foundations of orthodox instruction" (evse(3uv doypdruv at xzijirfde;), which he, Sophronius, was debarred from " by the incursion of the Saracens." These may be regarded as the dying words of the Church of Jeru- salem (Labbe, torn. vii. p. 108).

THREE AFRICAN COUNCILS (A.D. 646) : — " No one can

REV, JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST TO 3T, MARY'S COLUSQE LIPSAST, 1

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS. 19

doubt that there is in the Apostolic See a great un- failing fountain pouring forth waters for all Christians. By the ancient discipline it is ordained that whatsoever be done, even in provinces remote and afar off, shall neither be treated of nor accepted unless it be first •brought to the knowledge of your august See, so that a just sentence may be confirmed by its authority, and the other Churches may thence receive the original preach- ing as from its native source, and that the mysteries of saving faith may remain in incorrupt purity throughout the various regions of the world " (Ep. Syn. ap. Lat. I. Labbe, vii. p. 131).

SERGIUS, METROPOLITAN OF CYPRUS (A.D. 643), to Pope Theodore : " O Holy Head ! Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation : pillar of the Faith ! For thou art, as the Divine Word truly said, Peter, and on thee as a foun- dation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed " (Lat. I. Sess. ii., Labbe, torn. vii. p. 125).

POPE AGATHO (A.D. 680), Letter read at Sixth Coun- cil, proclaims " the evangelical and apostolical recti- tude of the faith which is founded upon the firm Rock of this Church of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, which, by his favour and protection, remains unsullied by any error ; " and exhorts the wanderers to return to the orthodox faith, " that they may not alienate themselves from our communion, that is, Blessed Peter's the Apostle, whose office" (i.e., of confirming his brethren — he had quoted the text just before) " we, though un • worthy, fulfil, and the formula of whose tradition we. enunciate" (Labbe, torn. vii. p. 798).

Sczc. ix.

ST. THEODORE OF STUDIUM (A.D. 826) addresses the Pope : " O Apostolic Head ! O Shepherd of the sheep of Christ, set over them by God ! O doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven ! O Rock of the faith upon which

2O PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FATHERS.

the Catholic Church is built ! For Peter thou art, who adornest and governest the See of Peter " (Ep. lib. ii. ep. xii.) ; and again, " The See in which Christ has deposited the keys of faith " (Ep. Ixiii.) ; and again, " From thence let the certainty of faith be received " (Ep. Ixiii. ap Sirmond. varia, torn. v.).

POPE ST. NICHOLAS I. (A.D. 860) : — "The whole body of the faithful from this' Holy Roman Church, which is the head of all the Churches, seeks instruction, demands the integrity of the faith, and those who are worthy and redeemed by the grace of God do entreat the absolution of their sins" (Ep. ad Phot. Labbe, torn. x. p. 539).

Sczc. XL

POPE ST. LEO IX. (A.D. 1053), after quoting Luke xxii. 31, 32, proceeds : " Shall there be any one so de- mented as to dare to think that the prayer of Him with whom to will is to be able can in aught be made void ? Have not the inventions of all the heretics been reproved and convicted both by the same Peter and his successors, and the hearts of the brethren confirmed in the faith of Peter, which hitherto hath not failed, nor to the end shall fail ? " (Ep. ad Mich. Cserular.).

Sczc. xn.

ST. BERNARD (A.D. 1153) : — "I think it right that the wounds of faith should there, in the first place, be healed where faith can know no defect " (Prol. Opusc. xi. cont. Abelard).

These are only a few passages out of many that might be quoted. The general outcome of their teaching is that the Roman Church — i.e., the Pope in his official capacity, the normal expression of which is the assent of the Roman clergy — is the supreme expounder of the divine craga3o<r/£, which is in a special manner a deposit of the Roman Church. The Pope's definitive judgment is irretractable

DR. LITTLEDALE AND ST. JEROME. 2T

in the immutable subject-matter of faith and morals; and so in defining such points he must possess " that (active) infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed." I do not pretend that this doctrine was articulately present in the mind of each one of the Fathers I have quoted. But I maintain that there is at least no evidence that any other system was ; and that in this system, and in no other, are fully verified those patristic appreciations which have been uttered in so many tones and under such various circumstances. The eleventh and twelfth centuries had nothing really new to learn from philo-Roman forgeries, which only afforded a few more texts to enforce an ancient theme. The condemnation of Pope Honorius in the seventh •century did not stint either the magnificats of Popes or the encomiums of Fathers, nor pluck one feather from the mighty wings that were gathering the Christian world beneath their fostering shadow.*

§ 6. Dr. Littledale and St. Jerome.

"The most direct and cogent passage in favour of Papalism in the whole of the Fathers," says Dr. Little- dale (p. 194), "is this from St. Jerome, in an epistle to Pope Damasus, written A.D. 376: — 'I speak with the successor of the Fisherman and the disciple of the Cross. I, following no chief save Christ, am counted in com- munion with your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. On that Rock I know the Church is built ; whoso «ats the Lamb outside this house is profane.' " The passage from the next letter, Ep. xvi., might be added: "" I cry out, if any one is joined with the chair of Peter, he is mine."

I am very glad that Dr. Littledale can appreciate the thoroughness of this testimony. But he goes on to say that " it is as unfair to quote " it " without mentioning * For English authorities see below, § 23.

22 DR. LITTLEDALE AND ST. JEROME.

his later change of view, as it would be to bring up schoolboy mistakes against a man when writing in the maturity of his age and powers."

His instances of change are, first, that A.D. 393, in his work against Jovinian (lib. i. p. 279, ed. Vallarsi), St. Jerome says: " But thou say'st the Church is founded on Peter, although the same is also done in atwt her passage " (the italicised words are omitted by Dr. Littledale) "on all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is stablished on them all equally." Perfectly true, we reply : the Apos- tles as Apostles, as inspired teachers and writers, were equal, and their equality had to be enforced against Jovinian, who was trying to set aside St. Paul's doctrine by appealing to St. Peter. St. Jerome's words are most true, and they only want their immediate context for the doctrine to be complete : " Nevertheless one was chosen amongst the twelve in order that by the institution of a head all opening for schism might be avoided." I would ask of what use would be a mere headship of honour, without authority, towards quelling schism ? In this very same .book (p. 248), St. Jerome exclaims in refer- ence to some words of St Peter, " Oh, word worthy of the Apostle and Rock of Christ ! " So far, then, he has proved faithful enough to the " schoolboy mistake," which he committed, by the by, in his thirty-fourth year. Second instance of change. — Twenty-seven years later, in an epistle of St. Jerome's to Evangelus or Evagrius, " written A.D. 420 or thereabouts," for Vallarsi, as Dr. Littledale bids us observe, has put it quite among the last of the epistles, we read : " Wherever a bishop is, whether at Rome or Gubbio, at Constantinople or at Reggio, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same dignity and of the same priesthood ; the power of wealth or the lowness of poverty does not make a bishop higher or lower, but all are successors of the Apostles. . . . But you say that at Rome a priest is ordained on

DR. LITTLEDALE AND ST. JEROME. 23

the testimony of a deacon. Why do you quote to me the custom of a single city ? Why do you urge a solitary instance (paiicitatem\ whence pride has arisen, against the laws of the Church?" I must begin by observing that the passage in italics is a very palpable mistranslation. The immediate context — Dr. Littledale's b£te noire — makes it quite clear that " paucifatem " does not mean the solitary instance of the Roman Church, but the few- ness of the deacons as compared with the priests. " All that is rare is on that account the more desired. Flea- bane among the Indians is more prized than pepper. Their fewness (paucitas) ennobles the deacons, whilst their numerousness degrades the priests." And so the pride (supercilium) is not that of the Roman Church in regard to the rest of Christendom, but of its deacons towards its priests. Neither, though it is of no consider- able moment, should I be inclined to translate " vindi- care in leges ecclesise," " to urge against the laws of the Church," but rather " to claim as a law of the Church." The analogous phrase, " vindicare in libertatem," " to claim as free," is sufficiently common in Cicero.

The meaning of the letter is evidently this : some one who had witnessed the behaviour of the Roman deacons — be it remembered that the Diaconi Regionarh were important functionaries as well as ecclesiastical ministri — contended that deacons were superior to priests. St. Jerome's argument is this : The sacerdotium, which in its fulness in the Episcopate constitutes its possessor a successor of. the Apostles, makes all the difference betwixt priests and deacons. All bishops, so far as the " sacerdotium " is concerned, are equal, whether metropolitans in the centres of wealth and influence, or suffragans in remote villages, and deacons are an utterly inferior order, whatever accidental importance may accrue to them from their wealth and position. I can detect no word here which contradicts the " schoolboy mis- take."

24 DR. LITTLEDALE AND ST. JEROME.

Dr. Littledale has coolly assigned to this letter the date 420, that of St. Jerome's death, " or some other very late period of his life," " because it stands nearly last in Vallarsi's great edition." Unfortunately for this conjec- ture, Vallarsi (Praef. p. Ixiv.) tells us that the reason this letter was so placed was because " neither on grounds ot intrinsic probability, nor on the concordant testimony of the learned, was it possible to assign a certain date." It occupies a position at the end of the volume because, as far as date is concerned, it may be regarded as amongst the " Dubia." Vallarsi himself thinks that it probably was written after 386, and Tillemont, who thinks he has identified Evagrius as the Bishop of Antioch, insists that it could not have been later than 392, the date of Evagrius's death, and may well have been before 387, at the time when Evagrius was only a priest. Its subject and style naturally connect it with the celebrated letter to Eustochium (Ep. xxii. A.D. 384), in which the abuses of the Roman clergy and laity are painted in such vivid colours. It must be remembered that when in Rome, St. Jerome was the Pope's champion against considerable numbers of his rebellious clergy. In this letter to Evagrius, the deacons' worst behaviour is spoken of as taking place " in the bishop's absence." It was written doubtless soon after his return to Pales- tine (A.D. 386), when Roman memories were fresh in his mind ; so much for Dr. Littledale's arguments for change. Here follow my proofs of constancy. In A.D. 402 (Adv. Ruffin. lib. i. p.. 461), St. Jerome asks, "What does he call his faith ? that which is the strength of the Roman Church, or that which is in the volumes of Origen ? If he answer, ' The Roman,' then are we Catholics who have borrowed nothing of Origen's error." Again, A.D. 414 (Ad Demetriad. ep. cxxx. n. 16, p. 992), after recording the triumph of Pope Anastasius over Eastern heresy, he gives this solemn direction to his spiritual daughter just six years before his death :

DR. LITTLEDALE AND ST. JEROME. 25

" I think that I ought to give you this warning, that you hold fast the faith of Holy Innocent, who is both the successor and the son, of the Apostolic chair, and of the aforesaid man ; nor, however prudent and wise you may seem to yourself, receive any strange doctrine."

Was there ever an old man more constant to the tradition of his youth? When the shadows of earth were fleeing, and the light of eternity orbing itself beneath his earnest gaze, and the fierce pulsations of an energy which no ascetic discipline could wholly tame, nor strife of almost endless controversy exhaust, were steadying beneath the Great Master's hand, he had no more precious legacy to bequeath to those he loved than that faith of his youth which Dr. Littledale has ventured to denounce as a schoolboy mistake !

Since the above appeared in the "Tablet" of Feb- ruary 28. 1880, Dr. Littledale, in his third edition, has very much remodelled his treatment of St. Jerome, in ac- cordance with this criticism, but, as usual, without the slightest acknowledgment, i. He makes the addition to the passage from the work against Jovinian about the "institution of a head," with the deprecating remark that this did not involve "any need of agreeing with the Pope." As though having a head could prevent a schism if you cut it off. 2. The attempt to make the letter to Evagrius St. Jerome's last word is abandoned. It is enough, he says, that it is long subsequent to the letter to Damasus. 3. The translation given above of the " paucitatem " is adopted, and for the charge against Roman pride, founded on a mistranslation, is substituted the mild suggestion that a local custom, even in Rome, need not involve a general rule. No notice whatever is taken of the passages from the "Adv. Rufin." and the " Ep. ad Demetriad." because it was necessary to retain the conclusion that St. Jerome had repented of his Papalism as a "schoolboy mistake," although somehow the premisses had gone to pieces.

26 DR. LITTLEDALE'S DISPROOFS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

§ 7. Dr. Littledale's Disproofs of Papal Infallibility.

i. The Fallibility of the Church.

The Pope is not infallible, Dr. Littledale maintains, for the very sufficient reason that " there is in Scripture no promise of infallibility to the Church at any given time " (p. 132). " The Church is indefectible in the long-run, though the teaching voice may be fallible at any given time." In support of this view he has the audacity to appeal to an article of Cardinal Newman in the "Rambler" for July 1859, in which the Cardinal con- trasts favourably the orthodoxy of the general run of the laity with that of the general run of the bishops during a certain period of the Arian controversy, observing that " the Ecclesia Docens is not at every time the active instrument of the Church's infallibility." But there is all the difference between saying that the mass of those who form the teaching body may be at a certain time notably and culpably inoperative, whilst their flocks may energetically retain what they have indeed origin- ally received from the Ecclesia Docens, but which the particular generation of their teachers is neglecting to inculcate, and saying that the Ecclesia Docens, speaking as the Pope ex cathedra or as an (Ecumenical Council, can ever define falsely. It is hardly necessary to say that it was in the former sense only that Cardinal New- man was speaking.

Dr. Littledale is very severe upon the a priori argu- ment that the God who gave the revelation must have provided an infallible interpreter. No doubt the a priori argument, .as applied to the dealings of God with His creatures, admits of being pushed to extremes ; but here, I submit, its use is absolutely legitimate. A reve- lation, of the divinely authorised exponents of which, it can never be said that they have spoken definitively

FALL OF POPE LIBERIUS. 27

and truly, is a revelation that each one may interpret at his pleasure. What practical effect upon the minds of the present generation can an " in the long-run indefec- tibility " of truth exercise ? Questions may run on as long as the questioner pleases, and modern Arians and Eutychians have as much right to contest the finality of Nicaea and Chalcedon as Dr. Littledale the finality of the Vatican Council. It is not essential to a revelation that first announced itself by miracles to continue to explain itself miraculously, but an authority which ceases to speak authoritatively is absurd.

2. The Jewish Church.

" One very plain disproof," Dr. Littledale thinks, " of the Roman a priori argument " is the Jewish Church, " which no one pretends ever had an infallible living voice," though it wanted one more than we do. My answer is threefold — i. The Jews did not want an infallible voice as much as we do, because they were comparatively without intellectual life. There was no "fides quaerens intellectum " with them. 2. They were meant to be in a worse condition than we. They inhabited the twilight ; we are in the perfect day. 3. So far from no one pretending that the Jews ever had an infallible living voice, if Dr. Littledale had a fuller acquaintance with Catholic theology, he would know that their possession of such a voice in the high-priest and Sanhedrim is maintained by various theologians of name ; amongst others, by Becanus, Analog. 1. vi. qu. 2, cap. 12, and Amort, Demonstrat. Critic, p. 4, qu. 8.

3. Fall of Pope Liberius.

3. " Liberius subscribed an Arian creed and anathema- tised St. Athanasius as a heretic." Dr. Littledale must be aware that the character of the creed subscribed to by Liberius is a matter of complete uncertainty. The more common opinion, supported by Tillemont and Constant,

28 CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS.

is that the creed signed by Liberius was the first Sirmian, a creed not positively unorthodox, but, so far as it omitted to assert the Nicene formula, favouring the " pravitas hseretica" (see Coustant, Ep. R. P. p. 442, note). Peta- vius, in an appendix to his edition of Epiphanius, opines that it was the second, the strictly Arian creed, but only in a mutilated state, the really offensive part having been suppressed before it was presented to the Pope. Others, with Pagi and Hefele, contend that it was the third Sirmian, another creed which only sinned by omission. The statement that Liberius " anathematised St. Athanasius as a heretic " is a purely gratuitous asser- tion. At the most, he withdrew from his communion as a disturber of the peace of the Church and commu- nicated with his enemies. By so doing he grievously scandalised the faithful, but there was certainly neither definition nor anathema.* But more than this, even if there had been a definition in every other respect com- plete, it would have lacked one admitted requirement for an ex cathedra pronouncement, I mean freedom. The Pope was manifestly before the eyes of all Chris- tendom under coercion, and, as St. Athanasius says, threatened with death. As soon as he was stti juris he reverted to his previous orthodox course.

4. Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

11 Pope Honorius was unanimously condemned by the Sixth General Couricil as a heretic for having publicly sided with the Monothelite heresy, and officially taught it in pontifical letters. . . . And Gregory II. wrote to assure the Spanish bishops that Honorius was certainly damned." The truth of this charge, and its effectiveness against Papal infallibility, may be tested by the answers to be given to the following three questions : — i. Did the CEcumenical

* The only evidence that any formal act of separation from St. Athanasius took place is the sixth Hilarian fragment, rejected by Dr. Hefele as spurious.

CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS. 29

Sixth Council, /.*., the assembled Fathers and Pope Leo II. , who confirmed it, combine to declare as a dogmatic fact that Honorius' letters to Sergius contained heresy ? 2. Did Honorius define anything in faith or morals to be held by the whole Church ? 3. Did his letters contain heresy? (i.) No such dogmatic fact as the heresy of the Honorian letters was defined by the Sixth Council and Leo II., inasmuch as no such statement appears either in the definition or in the Papal confir- mation. It is true that the letters are produced and spoken of (Actio xiii.) in equivalent terms as heretical ; but they are merely used as t\\e pieces justifaatives of a criminal trial. They were brought in to afford practical evidence of a conspiracy (wilful or otherwise) with heresy. That they were generally thought by the Fathers to go farther than this, and to exhibit themselves Monothelite doctrine, would seem highly probable ; but they were subjected to no final dogmatic scrutiny, and appear no more. Whereas, to take an example of a quite oppo- site treatment, the "Three Chapters" at the Fifth Council were made the subject-matter of the definition and of Vigilius' confirmation. (2.) Honorius' letters define nothing. In no less than four places in the two letters the Pope deprecates all idea of definition on one side or the other,* and he makes not the slightest effort

* " We must not wrest what they say into Church dogmas." "We leave the matter to grammarians." "We must not define either one or two operations." "We must not defining pronounce one or two operations." As to the "I confess one will of Christ the Lord," of which so much has been made, it certainly defines nothing. It is merely a recognition — though in language under the circumstances inadequate and misleading, and, after the Mono- thelite condemnation, no longer admissible — of the moral unity of Christ's two wills, which, in virtue of the supreme direction (^ye- fiovia) of the Divine will, may be called one — the Divine. Just as St. Athanasius (Cont. Apollinar. lib. ii. c. 10) asserted " the will was of the Godhead only," without prejudice to his maintaining the two natural wills (5vo tfeX^ctra). See De Incarn. cont. Arian. c. 21, a work unhesitatingly ascribed to him by the Benedictines.

30 THE DEPOSITION OF POPES.

to impose his letters on the assent of the Church, or even to publish them. (3.) It is almost critically demon- strable that such Monothelitish phraseology as he uses he uses with an orthodox meaning.

No Pope ever wrote to the Spanish bishops, or to any one else, to the effect that Honorius was "damned" Gregory II. had never any occasion to touch upon the Honorian matter, but Leo II., in his letter to the Spanish bishops, in which he gives an account of the procedure of the Sixth Council, refers to Honorius as, amongst others, "seterna damnatione mulctati," which simply means involved in a final anathema. See the expression in the Professio in the " Liber Diurnus," " nexu per- petui anathematis." The Church has never allowed herself to define any one's eternal damnation, and still less supposed herself empowered to inflict it

5. The Deposition of Popes.

11 The Western Church has deposed " various Popes, says Dr. Littledale (p. 143). I answer : i. That it has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Turrecremata and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope ; whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally cease to be Pope until Jie was formally deposed. 2. The privilege of infallible teach- ing only belongs to an undoubted Pope ; and on the claims of a doubtful, disputed Pope the Church has the right of judging. No single example can be produced of a Pope whose orthodoxy and succession was undoubted upon whom the Church pretended to sit in judgment.

As to Dr. Littledale's instances, John XII., bad as he was, was deposed by no legitimate Council, but by an Im- perialist gatheringunder the EmperorOtho. Benedict IX.

INFALLIBILITY IN THE PAST. fll

was deposed violently from his See by the Roman people, recovered it soon after, and was quietly removed at a time when there were two if not three other claimants for the Papacy. Both Benedict IX. and Gregory VI. were simoniacs, and therefore justly liable to be dealt with as intruders. (See Pagi in an. 1044.)

Gregory XII. and John XXIII. were rival claimants, and in that respect open to the judgment of the Church. Gregory was allowed to resign at Constance, his previous deposition at Pisa being practically ignored, though with- out prejudice to the claims of Pisa, on the great practical principle which had become the cry at Constance " Non via facti sed via cessionis," not the way of a contestation of rights, but the way of renunciation.* John, though admitted to be Pope by the great mass of Christendom, had promised renunciation, and was under charge of heresy. When he appeared determined to break his engagement, he was deposed, and afterwards confirmed his deposition by resignation.

During a contested Papacy the state of things approxi- mates to that of an interregnum. The exercise of active infallibility is suspended. This is the normal condition of the Church according to Dr. Littledale ; with us, it is a paralytic seizure which has been permitted now and again to afflict the Church for a brief space, in order that we may know the more how to appreciate the vigour of our normal ecclesiastical life. The possibility of the existence of a disputed Pope cannot affect the privileges of one who is undisputed.

6. Infallibility in the Past.

" Papal infallibility . . . has been entirely useless in the past," says Dr. Littledale (p. 145). Why so? Because there has not been any line of great theological writers

* It is only fair to note that Gregory was allowed to exercise to the full his Papal prerogative in reinitiating the Council and approving the A eta.

32 THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND LEO X.

in the chair of Peter, and because the schools of Pans and of Oxford have been more famous than those of Rome. But what has this to do with it? You might as well argue against the authority of the judge on the ground of the superior legal eloquence usually displayed by the bar. The Popes have ordinarily been far too busy framing and administering the laws of the Church, and applying the rule of faith to emergent questions on which they have pronounced the last word, to write treatises on canon law or courses of theology. How many kings, I wonder, or prime ministers, have been great authors ? Infallibility not useful in the past ! Why, what but the ingrained conviction of the truth involved in the " Roma locuta est " has preserved the unity of the Church through such a multitude of heretical storms from Berengarius to Jan- senius ? — just as a belief in the Pope's divinely appointed headship had saved the Catholic Church in all lands from the degradation of secular masterdom until the Reformers erected state slavery into an article of faith.

That the Popes have not settled a number of important theological questions offhand does not, as Dr. Littledale imagines, disprove infallibility; it simply shows, what Catholics have all along maintained, that infallibility does not mean inspiration, or any faculty inherent in the Pope which he can call into operation at will ; but that, on the contrary, it means an assistance external and conditional, which secures that when the Pope decides a point of faith or morals ex cathedra he shall decide it truly. This is the whole of what is meant by infallibility, although, of course, we rightly presume that numberless preventions and inspirations will, in the ordinary course of God's providence, encompass His Vicar.

7. The Council of Trent and Leo X.

The Council of Trent did not notice Leo X.'s Bull against Luther by no means because it did not accept it, but for these very good reasons : — i. Because Leo

THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO. 33

dealt with a number of propositions extracted from Luther's books, whilst the object of the Council was to decide matters on a broad theological basis. 2. The Lull was minatory and penal, whereas the idea of the Council was conciliation. With this idea the Church has often consented, not, indeed, to call in question, but to restate in a new form and with fresh authority her old decisions.

8. The Sixtine Bible.

The mistakes in Sixtus V.'s edition of the Bible only prove, what it never entered into an Ultramontane's heart to deny, that a Pope may issue an edition of the Bible, and inaugurate it as the standard edition in the most emphatic manner, without any security against mis- takes. The Tridentine Decree (sess. iv.), which in- fallibly declared the Vulgate authentic, i.e., a sufficient rendering of the original, neither guaranteed any exist- ing recension from minor errors, nor secured such im- munity for the future.

9. The Condemnation of Galileo.

There can be no doubt that the Congregations both of the Inquisition and the Index censured as false and unscriptural Galileo's doctrine of the movement of the earth round the sun. The practical question is, are we in the dilemma of having to reject either the earth's movement or the Pope's infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council? The decree of the Index against Galileo is not formally a Papal document ; it neither runs in the Pope's name nor bears any pledge of his authority. The simplest and fairest way of deciding the question is to see how the condemnation was taken at the time it was pronounced. If we find anything approaching a consensus of writers, who are at once Ultramontanes and anti-Copernicans, to the effect that this condemnation was no final irreformabk decision, then we may be satis-

34 THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO.

fied that its error involves no breakdown of infallibility. The decrees of the Inquisition and of the Index against Copernicanism were respectively in the February and March of 1616 ; the Inquisitional process against Galileo in 1633. In 1651 the Jesuit Riccioli speaks of the ne- cessity of respecting the censure "until the judges, either by themselves recognising, or being shown by others, the truth of the demonstration, withdraw it" (Almagest Nov. torn. ii. p. 489). In 1661 the Grand Penitentiary Fabri, after pointing out that the Copernicans have not as yet been able to produce a demonstration, continues, " But if haply one should be some time excogitated by you (which I should hardly fancy), the Church will in no wise hesitate to declare that those passages (of Scripture) are to be understood in a figured and improper sense " (quoted in a letter of Auzout to the Abbe Charles, 1664, Memoires de 1'Acade'mie des Sciences, Paris, 1729, torn. vii. part 2). Exactly the same sentiment is attributed by Father Grassi, S.J., to Cardinal Bellarmine, Ep. Castelli ap. Galilei Opere, torn. ix. p. 174.* See, to the same effect, Fromond of Louvain, Antaristarchus, chap. v. p. 28, Antwerp, 1634, and the Cistercian Caramuel, TheoL Moral. Fundam. lib. i. p. 104, Lyons, 1676. On the other hand, there was not wanting a minority though small and insignificant, of maximisers, who insisted that the decision was final. This judgment of the Index, then, was not regarded by the " major et sanior pars " of the community as a final expression of Papal authority commanding the assent of the faithful, therefore the doctrine of Papal infallibility cannot be regarded as affected by the truth or falsity of the censure on Galileo.

But the whole matter has been settled, and all chance of escape, Dr. Littledale thinks, cut off for us by a Brief of Pius VI., dated 1786, addressed to the Jansenist

* These three passages are quoted in the articles on Galileo in the " Revue Catholique," torn, i,, Louvain, 1869.

THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO. 35

Bishop of Chiusi, who had been guilty of approving certain Jansenistic catechisms condemned by the Index. The Brief speaks of the Bishop as having violated " the dogmatic judgments pronounced by the See of Peter," which statement Dr. Littledale, following Canon Jenkins' " Privilege of Peter," takes as equivalent to a declara- tion that all decisions of the Index are dogmatic ex cathedra judgments. Any one, however, who recollects the significance of the Pistoja movement, of which the Bishop of Chiusi was one of the leaders, will understand that the " dogmatic judgments " of which the Pope is speaking are nothing less than the whole line of Jan- senist condemnations, several of which were undoubtedly <l dogmatic judgments pronounced by the See of Peter."* It was the tactics of the Italian Jansenists to try and fight the battle over again upon small practical issues, and this condemnation of the Jansenistic catechisms was part of the battle-ground upon which they hoped to reverse the ancient defeats, which it was necessary they should seem to have accepted. They thought the Gali- leo case gave them a handle for pooh-poohing the Index, and the Pope recognised that this was not only an act of insubordination against lawful authority, but by im- plication and intention, a violation of the dogmatic judgments upon Jansenism. I may add, that the ex- tremest advocate of the authority of the Roman Congre- gation has never claimed for their decrees, as such, the character of a Papal ex cathedra judgment, t Father Faure, S.J., who was such a favourite with Pius VI. that the Pope always kept his works beside him, though him- self an anti-Copernican, lays great stress upon the fact that Copernicanism was never condemned by any Pon- tifical Bull or any decree of a General Council. (See Annot. to Notae in Enchirid. St. August. Romas, 1775.)

* This is sufficiently clear from the context of the Brief of 1786 ; but yet more so from a second Brief of February 1787, in answer to the Bishop's question, how he had transgressed the " dogmatic judgments." See too " Istoria dell' Assemblea," Part i. Sess. iv.

•f See Appendix, Note A.

36 OBSCURITY OF THE VATICAN DEFINITION.

Whatever may be thought of the advisability of the steps taken by the authorities of the Index and In- quisition in the Galileo matter, the idea of their action is sufficiently clear and intelligible. It was simply to protect the natural sense of the Scripture text, entering as it did into the very framework of the believer's imagi- native apprehension, from the sallies of scientific hypo- thesis. They never pretended finally to settle the abso- lute truth of the matter.

10. Infallibility in the future.

As infallibility was no help in the past, Dr. Littledale concludes, not unnaturally, that it will be no help in the future. We. from its supreme usefulness in the past, may well augur its continued usefulness in the future. But of course it will continue to fulfil the Catholic idea of" infallibility, and not its Protestant caricature. It will neither usurp the functions of common sense nor of theological inquiry, whilst deciding such questions as are necessary for preserving the integrity of the faith inviolate amidst hostile criticism and theological disputation.

With characteristic recklessness, Dr. Littledale (p. 150) falls back upon Chillingworth's shallow scepticism of " an infallible mean." What is the good of an infallible teacher without an infallible hearer ? Of course this strikes at the root of all certainty, not only in matters of religion, but throughout the whole sphere of knowledge. As well ask what is the good of objective truth unless we are infallibly certain that we cannot misuse our faculties. It is something, anyhow, that a mistake can only arise from such a cause, that there is an external reality to which in our better moments, when our senses are clear, we may attain.

ii. Obscurity of the Vatican Definition.

The Vatican definition is hopelessly obscure. "At this moment," urges Dr. Littledale, " in spite of the definition, Roman theologians are at hopeless variance

THE ANTI-VATICAN DILEMMA. 37

on three questions raised by this decree: — z. When does the Pope speak ex cathedra ? 2. How is the fact to be known publicly ? 3. What is that infallibility in kind and degree mentioned?" I answer, that no con- ceivable enactment of a general principle, as long as it is couched in human language, can preclude all ques- tion as to the particular instance. But is it, therefore, useless? Is an act of Parliament necessarily useless because in its application questions may arise which it has not answered by anticipation ? (i.) The first ques- tion is answered by the Vatican Council thus : When " he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the whole Church," and this question is in debate amongst no Catholic theologians ; though, of course, the further question maybe asked, "When does he define?" &c., which resolves itself into Dr. Littledale's second question. (2.) The fact is known publicly when the Pope either declares in words or equivalently implies that he is so defining. (3.) The exclusion of all error from the sub- stance of the proposition of faith or morals so defined. The only possible scope for discussion amongst Catholics here is in cases in which it is doubted whether the de- finitive character of a document is sufficiently expressed. The very question is an appeal to fresh interpretative legis- lation. As long as human minds and human language are what they are, this uncertainty must be possible ; but are we, therefore, in a paroxysm of a priori criticism, because infallibility cannot bar every sort of dispute, and procure on the spot in every case unbroken peace, to forget that it has built up peace in the past, and promises to build up peace in the future ?

1 2. The Anti- Vatican Dilenuna,

Dr. Littledale has found a notable dilemma by which the Vatican definition is to be hoist as with its own petard. It is as follows : Either the Pope defined his infallibility, and thereby acted invalidly as judge in his

38 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.

own cause, or the Council did so ; and in this latter case,, by the act of definition, the substance of which was a confession of fallibility, acknowledged the uncertainty of the definition. I wonder what manner of man he may be who thinks this clever ! First, there is no dilemma, for the division is not exhaustive. Neither the Pope by himself nor the Council by itself passed the definition, but the Council and Pope together — a combination the infallible authority of which has always been explicitly acknowledged by Catholics — passed it. But though Dr. Littledale's logical prank is thus quashed"^^ initio^ it may be amusing to see how, under tolerance of his initial absurdity, he may proceed to play it. The Church, he contends, by defining that the Pope by himself, without her assent, is infallible, confesses her own fallibility. How, in the name of logic ? Because I acknowledge that you can stand alone, does it follow that I can't ? Assuredly the Vatican Council has not defined that ail the other bishops together, the Pope apart, can define an error in faith and morals.

§ 8. The Pope's Supremacy of Jurisdiction and the Fathers.

Jurisdiction is the moral power or right of exercising a variety of functions towards others, of pronouncing judgment and enforcing obedience. It is either ordinary, i.e., in virtue of office, or delegated by a superior ad hoc. Christ, who hath all power in heaven and upon earth, gave jurisdiction to all His Apostles. " Go ye and teach (make disciples of) all nations." But in the gift of the keys (Matt. xvi. 19) and the charge of the flock (John xxi. 15-17), to use St. Jerome's words, one was chosen amongst the twelve, in order that by the institution of a head all opening for schism might be avoided. The other Apostles exercised a jurisdiction derived imme- diately from Christ, but submitted by him quoad exer-

THE POPE'S SUPREMACY 39

citium to the superintendence of St. Peter, so that wherever the interests of faith and charity demanded, the divinely appointed Head might interfere authorita- tively. Each of the other Apostles was inspired, con- firmed in grace, and his jurisdiction, though subordinate, was universal ; that is to say, not confined, as a bishop's is, to this or that particular diocese or province. Hence it is obvious that the necessity for a head was a hundred times more cogent in post-apostolic than in apostolic times, and that anything the Fathers say about the office of St. Peter towards the other Apostles presumably holds good for his successors, even where this is not precisely stated. As the Apostles went to their reward, neither inspiration nor confirmation in grace became the inheritance of the bishops who succeeded them ; and the one See in which the apostolic universality of jurisdiction persevered was the See of Rome. In that See, indefectibility of faith and infallibility of teaching remained, whilst the personal charismata of inspiration and confirmation in grace ceased.

Our thesis, then, is that the successor of St. Peter in the Roman See has by Divine institution a supreme and immediate jurisdiction throughout the Church. He can make such reservation of the powers of his subordinates as he may think advisable, and he has the armoury of spiritual penalties and the treasury of spiritual favours at his disposal. This is the Catholic, or, as Protestants still affect to call it, the Ultramontane thesis. As a counter-thesis Dr. Littledale advances (pp. 135-142) that the Pope has no authority whatsoever outside his own patriarchate, which is confined to ten provinces in Central and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica ; but beyond these narrow limits merely possesses the right of " an honorary presidency such as the Duke of Norfolk enjoys amongst English peers;" and that the Papacy is of "purely human authority and origin " (note, p. 142).

4O THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.

Before criticising the arguments by which this counter- thesis is supported, and the objections of Dr. Littledale against the Catholic thesis, I shall present certain further patristic authorities for Papal jurisdiction, whilst re- minding my readers that many of the passages already quoted for infallibility bear emphatic testimony to Rome's jurisdiction.

Sac. in.

TERTULLIAN (A.D. 240) De Pudic. c. i, is a witness that Pope Zephyrinus claimed the right of acting as " Bishop of bishops," whilst his then opposition to the Pope is deprived of all weight by his manifest heresy. With this compare the still earlier passages from Clement and Irenaeus, already quoted.

ST. CYPRIAN : — " The Church, which is one, and was by the voice of the Lord founded upon one, who also received the keys thereof" (Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaian). "The chair of Peter and the ruling (principalem) Church, whence the unity of the priesthood has its source" (Ep. Iv. ad Cornel.). Compare with this St. Ignatius' " Church which presides," and St. Irenaeus' " propter potentiorem principalitatem." As to the force of the word " principalitas," the original Greek of Irenaeus, lib. iv. c. 38, n. 3, " principalitatem habebit in omnibus Deus," is " cr^wrsu?/ l\> vaffiv 6 ©soc." And in two other passages where the Greek of Irenaeus is preserved (ap. Philosophum. x. 21, and ap. Theodoret Haeret Fab. i. 15), the Greek word answering to " principalitas" is Avfavria, "absolute sway." * Fr. Schneeman has shown that in the thirteen places in Irenaeus in which " prin- cipalitas " or its equivalent " principatus " is used, it is always in the sense of power or rule.f Tertullian (De Anima, c. 13^ defines "principalitas" "qui cui praeest," and applies it to the relation of the soul to the body.

* See Fr. Addis, "Anglicanism and the Fathers," p. 12. t See "Cathedra Petri," p. 71, note, and p. 72.

REV. JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST TO ST. MARY'S COLLEGE LIBRARY, 1926

THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 4*

S(ZC. IV.

ST. HILARY OF POICTIERS (A.D. 347) : — "This will be seen to be best, and by far the most fitting thing, if to the Head, that is, to. the See of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report from every one of the pro- vinces" (Fragm. ii. n. 9, ed. Ben. p. 1290).

ST. OPTATUS OF MILEVIS (A.D. 370): — "Thou canst not deny that thou knowest that in the city of Rome to Peter first the episcopal chair was given, in which sat the first of all the Apostles, Peter; ... in which one chair unity might be preserved by all (compare St. Irenaeus), lest the other Apostles should arrogate each one his own, and that he might be convicted at once of being a schismatic and a sinner who against that one chair should set another. And so in that one chair, which is the first endowment "(" dos," mark of the Church)," Peter sat first." He then enumerates all the Popes down to the Pope of his day. " With whom, along with us, the whole world, by the intercourse of literce formates. agrees in one bond of communion (De Schism. Donat. lib. ii. c. 2, 3, p. 31, ed. Du Pin.). "Of the aforesaid prerogatives the chair is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved is ours through Peter, and this mark carries with it the Angel (lawful bishop or jurisdiction). . . . Recognise, then, though late, that you are impious children, branches broken from the tree, tendrils torn from the vine, a stream cut off from its source. For a stream that is small and does not spring from itself cannot be a fountain source, nor a lopped branch be a tree, since a tree flourishes resting on its own roots, but a branch which is cut off withers. Seest thou not, now, brother Parmenianus, . . . that thou hast fought against thyself? whereas it has been proved that we are in the Catholic Church, . . . and through the chair of Peter, which is ours, the other prerogatives are ours also " (c. 9> P- 37)-

4.2 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.

ST. AMBROSE WITH THE COUNCIL OF AQUILEIA (A.D. 381) calls the Roman Church "the Head of the whole Roman world, . . . whence flow unto all the rights of venerable communion" (ap. Coustant, p. 554).

A COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (Ep. Syn. ad Damas et Syn. Rom., A.D. 382): — "Ye have summoned us as your own members (uc, oixnTa ^eXjj) by the letters of the most religious emperor" (ap. Coustant, p. 562).

POPE ST. SIRICIUS (A.D. 385): — " The aforesaid rule let all priests observe who do not wish to be plucked from the solidity of the Apostolic Rock upon which Christ built His whole Church, . . . and be deprived of the whole ecclesiastical dignity which they have used unworthily, by the authority of the Apostolic See " (Ep. i. ad Himer. n. 3, n).

" To none of the Lord's priests is it allowable that they should be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable decisions of Councils " (Ib. n. 20, ap. Coustant, pp. 627-637).

POPE ANASTASIUS I. (A.D. 400) : — " Certainly care shall not be wanting on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth " (Ep. i. ad Joan. Hieros. n. 5, ap. Coustant, p. 728).

Sac.

v.

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 444) addresses Pope Celestine as " Archbishop of the Universe," a title adopted by the Fourth Council (Horn, in Deip. p. 384, ed. Aubert).

PHILIP, THE LEGATE AT THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL : — " You have united your holy members by your holy ac- clamations to your holy Head " (Labbe, Act ii. torn. iii. p. 1150).

FOURTH GENERAL COUNCIL : — " Over whom (the

THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. 43

Fathers of the Council) thou (Leo) didst rule as a Head over the members, in those who filled thy place " (Ep. Syn. ad Leon. Labbe, torn. iv. p. 1775).

ST. LEO THE GREAT (A.D. 461) claims to be "not only the prelate of this See (Rome), but the Primate of all Bishops" (Serm. iii. de Natal. Ord. c. 4). "The Prince of the whole Church " (Serm. iv. c. 4) ; and again, " Our care is extended throughout all the Churches, this being required of us by the Lord, who committed the Primacy of the apostolic dignity to the most Blessed Apostle Peter" (Ep. v. ad Episc. Illyr. c. 2).

SOZOMEN (A.D. 440) : — " It is a sacerdotal law that the things done contrary to the judgment (y^w) of the Bishop of the Romans be looked upon as null " (paraphrase from Pope Julius' Letter, H. E. lib. iii. c. 10); and again, of Pope Julius,* to whom St. Athanasius and the other Bishops de- posed by the Arians had appealed : — " And as, on account of the dignity of his throne, the care of all belongs to him, he restored to each his own Church." (Ibid. c. 8.)

POPE ST. GELASIUS (A.D. 496): — "The canons them- selves willed the appeals of the whole Church to be referred to the examination of this See. From it they decreed also that no appeal whatever ought to be made, and thereby, that it judged of the whole Church and itself passed under the judgment of none. . . . Timothy of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, not one, but many, bearing the name of the priesthood, were deposed by the sole authority of the Apostolic See " (Ep. ad Faust. Labbe, v. pp. 295-297). Again, "The first See both confirms every Synod by its authority, and guards it by its continual rule, by reason, to wit, of its supremacy, which, received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding it, both always has held and re- tains. . . . We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostolic Peter has the right to absolve from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates * See Appendix, Note B.

44 THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.

whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church" (Ep. xiii. pp. 326-328).

Sac. vi.

ST. AVITUS OF VlENNE (A.D. 523): " You knOW

that it is the law of the Councils that, if any doubt have arisen in matters which regard the state of the Church, we are to have recourse to the Chief Priest of the Roman Church, like members adhering to our Head" (Ep. xxxvl Galland. torn. x. p. 726).

Sac. vii.

ST. ISIDORE HISPAL. (A.D. 636) : — " In so far do we recognise ourselves as presiding in the Church of Christ, as we confess that we do reverently, humbly, and de- voutly render due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of God, to whom whosoever insolently goeth contrary, him we decree to be as a heretic, alien from the community of the faithful " (Ep. ad Claud, ducem.).*

Sac. xii.

ST. BERNARD to Pope Eugenius III. : — " Who art thou? The High Priest, the Supreme Bishop. . . . Thou art he to whom the keys of heaven are given, to whom the sheep are intrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers and other shepherds of the flocks ; but thou art more glorious in proportion as thou hast also in a different fashion inherited before others both these names. The former have their flocks assigned to them, each one his own. To thee all are intrusted, one flock for the one. Not merely for the sheep, but for all the shepherds also thou art the one shepherd. . . . The power of others is limited by definite bounds ; thine

* The authenticity of this epistle, disputed by Ceillier, is main- tained by Natalis Alexander and by St. Isidore's editor, Arevalo. The latter combats very successfully each point of adverse criticism.

OBJECTIONS TO PAPAL SUPREMACY. 45

extends over those who have received authority over others. Canst thou not, when a just reason occurs, shut up heaven against a bishop, depose him from the epis- copal office, and deliver him over to Satan. Thus thy privilege is immutable, as well in the keys committed to thee as in the sheep intrusted to thy care " (De Consid. lib. ii. c. 8).

What substantial change is there from the doctrine of, say, the sixth or seventh centuries, the days of united Christendom, to the doctrine of the twelfth, when, as Anglicans try to persuade themselves, the False Decretals had transformed the discipline of the Church ? What more does St. Bernard say of Papal prerogative than he might have learned from the lips of St. Isidore or St. Gelasius ?

One thing at least we may assure ourselves of from these passages, that Dr. Littledale's theory of the human institution of the Papacy, of the Pope's merely honorary precedency over other bishops, of the strict limitation of his authority to a portion of Italy and certain islands, was not shared by the Fathers of the Church. (For English authorities see below.)

§ 9. Dr. Littledale's Objections to Papal Supremacy.

i. Honorary Titles.

Dr. Littledale says these are merely so many " lauda- tory epithets," and " go no farther towards conferring, or even confirming, a Divine charter of privilege," " than a vote of thanks in Parliament, or a number of newspaper panegyrics in our own day, bestowed upon a victorious general, goes towards making him a royal duke." It would be absurd indeed to suppose that we were quoting the Fathers as conferring, or even as officially confirming, a Papal prerogative conferred, as Fathers and Popes are

46 OBJECTIONS TO PAPAL SUPREMACY.

never tired of affirming, by the mouth of Christ Himself. They are quoted as the best representatives of the con- sciousness of the Church, whose knowledge is indisput- able, and whose motives are above suspicion, and as authorities likely to carry some weight with all who pray " May my soul be with the saints." Many of these passages are in the language of grave and precise asser- tion, and as unlike " newspaper panegyrics" as can well be. That these ascriptions of dignity and authority are no mere idle compliments — a suspicion which one would have thought the character of the authors might have pre- cluded— is proved by the fact that although the Popes acted up to the highest of the titles given them, and dwelt upon them upon every occasion, they were nevei either withdrawn or modified, but, on the contrary, con- stantly repeated. When a Spanish entertainer puts his estate entirely at his guest's disposal, we know that it is a mere compliment, which would not survive for a moment the slightest attempt on the guest's part to take action upon it ; but these patristic compliments have repeatedly survived the ordeal. Now and again, indeed, a Father resists the Pope, and the resistance takes various shapes, according to the circumstances and character of the individual ; but one quality it invariably lacks, and that is the quiet dignity of the Anglican con- troversialist, who takes his stand upon the assumption that the Pope is merely a Patriarch, and really must let bishops outside his patriarchate alone.

Nothing can better illustrate the difference between mere titles of honour and such as convey the recognition of a right or office than the consideration Dr. Littledale forces upon us (p. 193) of the titles bestowed now and again upon Antioch and Jerusalem. The first is styled " the throne of Peter, the eldest and genuinely apostolical Church," by a Council of Constantinople, A.D. 382, and the second by the same Council was entitled " Mother of all the Churches." These titles, as far as words go,

OBJECTIONS TO PAPAL SUPREMACY. 47

express no authority whatever ; they are merely records of historical facts. In the case of Antioch, that it " once possessed him (Peter) in transitu" to use the words of Innocent I., whom Rome enjoyed "susceptum apud se et consummatum " ("Ep. ad Alex. Antioch. Constant, p. 851): in the case of Jerusalem, that the earliest Christian Church was established there. It certainly did not mean that Peter and the other Apostles obtained their mission and jurisdiction from St. James and the elders of the Church at Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the natural mother, the historical starting-point, not the supernatural mistress and queen, of Christendom. It is the cradle, and not the throne of the king ; the object of tender memories, not of present homage. If we look at the history of that Church, we find that at the time of Nicaea it was subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea ; and though the Council recognises that honour is due to it, and grants it a quasi-patriarchal dignity, it is careful to provide that the Metropolitan's rights should remain intact. At Ephesus, Juvenal of Jerusalem tried hard to establish an independent possession of five provinces of the Antiochene patriarchate, but was sternly re- pressed by St. Cyril. He continued the struggle under Imperial favour, and finally a compromise was made at Chalcedon, and Jerusalem contented with the three Palestines. Here then are titles of honour repre- senting no authority, and a contest for mere territory ending in a compromise in the interests of peace and convenience. Can anything be less like the history of the Roman See? (See Natalis Alexander, saec. v. diss. xiv.)

As to the enthusiastic encomium of St. John Chrysostom on St. John as " the pillar of all the Churches," and as having "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," this is true of all the Apostles, and especially of St. John, apostle, evangelist, and prophet. Unfor- tunately, however, for Dr. Littledale, St. Chrysostom

48 ST. PETER'S CONNECTION WITH ROME.

leaves us m no doubt of his view of the relative position of St. Peter and St. John. " Peter, the leader of that choir, the mouth of the Apostles, the head of that family, the governor of the whole world, the foundation of the Church" (Horn, in illud, hoc scitote, torn. vi. p. 282). Of St. John he says, " He yields everywhere the primacy to Peter" (Horn. 65 in Matt., and Horn. 50 the same is said of the other Apostles ; see too Horn. 88 in Joan, already quoted, p. 6).

2. St. Peter's Connection with Rome.

"It is only a guess," says Dr. Littledale (p. 15) . . . "that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all; it is only a guess that he was ever Bishop of Rome." The following passages (see "Cathedra Petri," Append, p. 114) from Protestant authorities may stand as a sufficient com- mentary upon Dr. Littledale's "only a guess." Chamier, whose words are quoted with approval by Cave, says, '•'All the Fathers with great unanimity have asserted that Peter did go to Rome, and that he did govern that Church" (Panstrat. Cath. de Rom. Pont. lib. xiii. c. 4). Grotius says in his note on i Peter v. 13, " Ancient and modern interpreters differ about this * Babylon.' The ancients understood it of Rome, where that Peter was no true Christian will doubt." Pearson wrote a treatise on the subject, in which he proves that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that the Popes are his legitimate suc- cessors (Op. posth. London, 1688). Archbishop Brain- hall also says, " 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 can either deny or will doubt" (Works, ed. Oxon. p. 628).

Dr. Littledale's attempt to reduce the express ante- Nicene testimony for St. Peter's Roman episcopate to the passage from the spurious Clementines was met by Mr. Arnold in the "Contemporary" for May 1880,

PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONC1LIAR CANONS. 49

by the production of the following passage from St. Cyprian, who says that "Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome when the place of Fabian (his immediate pre- decessor), that is, when the place of Peter and the rank of the sacerdotal chair was vacant." Dr. Littledale, in the same number, shelters himself under his use of the adverb " expressly," which he declares to have been " emphatic," and persists that St. Cyprian's testimony is not "express." It is not "express" in the sense of formal, categorical, inasmuch as St. Cyprian does not use the precise words " St. Peter was Bishop of Rome ; " but it is express in the sense of unequivocal, as im- peratively demanding for its truth the fact of St. Peter's Roman episcopate, which is all that we are really con- cerned with. With this passage we may compare the following from Tertullian (De Prsescript. c. 36) : — " The Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs of the Apostles to this very day preside over their own places." In reality, such indirect reference to the fact, as long as it is unmistakable, is often stronger than a categorical statement would be, because it implies that it is uncon- tradicted. And that such a claim in patristic times should remain absolutely uncontradicted, though it was every one's interest to sift it to the utmost, and the in- terest of numbers to deny it if possible, is in itself tanta- mount to a proof.

3. Papal Prerogative and Conciliar Canons.

Papal universal jurisdiction is opposed by the canons of Councils, insists Dr. Littledale, and here he evidently thinks is his strongest point against Rome. The Popes, it would seem, have appealed to patristic panegyric whilst violating Church law. The relations between the Pope and the Church are, he considers, the creation of certain disciplinary canons of General Councils, and it is to these canons, and nothing else, to which we must refer if we wish to know the extent of the Pope's lawful prero-

D

50 PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONCILIAR CANONS.

gative. Now there are few documents so difficult to estimate as laws, especially when they are couched in the sententious form of a canon. The canons of Nicaea and Sardica were not, as some critics seem to imagine, uttered in a vacuum. They supposed a vast deal more than they created, and it is absolutely necessary to know something of the system under which they came into being if we are to appreciate their force and bearing. Dr. Littledale's view may be thus summed up. The Council of Sardica gave the Pope the power of receiving the appeals of bishops. The decree, however, was rejected by the Eastern and African Churches, and repealed by the ninth canon of Chalcedon, " which instituted a system of appeals in which the name of the Roman See does not so much as appear" (p. 190); whilst the twenty-eighth canon claimed to give to Constantinople like privileges to those of Rome, and declared the latter to be of merely human origin, which declaration Pope Leo not repudiating, may be supposed to have consented to. I shall hope gradually to do justice to all these statements.

The Popes, and the Church with them, have always maintained that they have received their jurisdiction from Christ Himself, which jurisdiction was, therefore, incapable of abrogation or restriction by any authority whatsoever. " The Holy Roman Church has been raised above the other Churches, not by any synodal decrees, but from the evangelical voice of our Lord and Saviour has it obtained the primacy " (Cone. Rom. Decret. in Script. Can. A.D. 496). The Council of Milevis (416) had already spoken of " the authority of your Holiness, derived as it is from the authority of the Holy Scriptures." No doubt the Popes have often appealed to both ancient custom and canon as well as to their Divine right, but never to the derogation of the last. Custom and canon represent a recognition on the part of the Church which is a precedent for continuing to recognise. It also often

PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONCILIAR CANONS. 5 I

represents a standard of practical expediency, and limitations of right to which Popes have acceded, and which experience has shown to be for the advantage of order. The basis of Divine right was never forfeited or lost sight of. Christ Himself appealed to precedent for the title of " Son of God," but He did not the less claim it as a privilege.

As to the canons of Sardica, it is disputed how far they were accepted in the East before they were embodied in the canons of the Council in Trullo (A.D. 691). The arguments for their earlier acceptation are strong enough to have convinced writers of such opposite schools as Natalis Alexander and the Ballerini. They are principally these : — i. The friends of St. John Chrysostom appeal on his behalf to the Sardican canons against those of Antioch. 2. The Synod of Constantinople of 382 appeals to one of those canons in its letter to Damasus. 3. The Sardican canons appear in the collection of John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the sixth century.

They appear amongst the canons of the Council in Trullo, which the Greeks accounted oecumenical, and again m Photius' Novocanon (see Ball, de Ant Coll. Can. pars. L c. vi 14, and Nat Alex, in ssec. iv. diss. xxvii.)

In Africa the Sardican canons in the fourth century were not accepted, but this was out of sheer ignorance. The Africans did not identify the Council of Sardica, but confused it with an Arian assembly which met at Philippopolis.

The Council of Chalcedon, if it had not the Sardican canons on its codices, which the Ballerini have shown to be highly probable, assuredly never rejected or abro- gated one of them. No one, so far as I know, before Dr. Littledale, ever dreamed of such an absurdity. The 9th canon, by which he supposes the Sardican decrees in question were repealed at Chalcedon, is quite in- capable of effecting any such catastrophe. The last

52 PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONCILIAR CANONS.

half, with which alone we are concerned, runs as follows : — " But if a cleric hath a dispute with his own bishop or with another not his own, let him be judged by the Synod of the province. But if a bishop or cleric hath a dispute with the Metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse either to the Primate (Primas, "Eja^og) of the diocese or to the see of the royal city of Constantinople." I observe, first, that this canon does not pretend to arrange for appeals from outside the Constantinopolitan patriarchate, as is clear from the enactment of Justinian, Novel, i. 123, c. 22, and the unanimous testimony of the Greek canonists that there must be no appeal from one patriarchate to another,* whereas the appellation to Rome asserted at Sardica is world-wide. 2. This ninth canon is not concerned with appeals proper. Its main object is to discourage secular litigation on the part of clerics. It contemplates two litigants, and, on the principle that no one should be judge in his own cause, provides, in cases where such a conjunction would take place, an alternative tribunal There is nothing in it to suggest "causae majores," such as those involving the deposition of a bishop, where it would be natural to call for the Pope's interference, and so his name is not mentioned. The limitation of the canon to the Constantinopolitan patriarchate is farther established by the identification of the primate or exarch with the Bishop of Heraclea, once Metropolitan of the Bishop of Constantinople, but at the time of Chalcedon having become his contented vicegerent. Flavian of Constantinople had only just before himself appealed to Leo from the Latrocinium of Ephesus. If this canon had been meant to abrogate those of Sardica and bar appeals to Rome, is it conceivable that Leo would have swallowed such a camel in the 9th canon whilst straining at a very gnat by comparison in the 28th ?

Dr. Littledale's idea of a Church government resident in * See Christ. Lupus Schol. in Can. ix. Chalced.

PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONCILIAR CANONS. 53

conciliar canons, which exercise a dictatorial authority and must hopelessly invalidate every action which in any de- gree contravenes their letter, until they are slain by con- trary canons of an equal or superior force, is in no way borne out by Church history, and is a violation of com- mon sense. The Church would have long since arrived at a dead-lock if the principle " fieri non debet, factum valet" had not found a place in her economy. She could not have existed as many years as she has centuries unless she had been governed by one who, in the plenitude of his authority, could at once defend the rights in possession of ancient laws and at the same time, to use the words of St. Gelasius (ap. Labbe, torn. v. p. 313), "might attemper such of them as the necessity of the times and the wel- fare of the Churches required to be relaxed."

The Ephesine decree which forbids one bishop to invade the rights of another, Dr. Littledale quotes as invalidating all action of the Pope beyond his own patri- archate ; and he considers that the Pope has accepted such invalidation, inasmuch as he swears, or once swore, to observe the eight Holy Councils unmutilated. Now, in his extreme anxiety to prove his charge of felo de se against the Holy See, he quite forgets how terribly this charge lies against Constantinople, which, in the teeth of the Ephesine canon, had in the interval between the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon gradually absorbed Heraclea (the seat of its old metropolitan), Ephesus, and Caesarea; whereas Rome can answer that she had always rested her claim to interfere, wherever the interests of faith or order required it, upon hyper-patriarchal right, and that the subordination of one right to another did not make a wrong.

As to the 28th canon, Dr. Littledale tries to make a point out of the fact that St. Leo does not object to it on account of its attribution of an ecclesiastical origin to Roman privilege, but on what Dr. Littledale, oddly enough, calls the "purely technical ground" that the

54 PAPAL PREROGATIVE AND CONCILIAR CANONS.

Fathers at Chalcedon could not, in the teeth of Nicaea, rank Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch. But what could be more natural than that Leo should have addressed his objection to the direct scope of the canon, instead of attacking a reason which might possibly admit of an orthodox interpretation, and which could not well be supposed to gainsay the explicit acknowledgment in the Synodical Letter that he was the " very one com- missioned with the guardianship of the vine by the Saviour"? The 28th canon undoubtedly deals profes- sedly with patriarchal rights only, and not with those of the primacy. Now, of the Roman patriarchate, as of the other patriarchates, it may be admitted that its limits were matters of ecclesiastical arrangement ; inasmuch as it was found convenient for both Pope and bishops, that Papal authority, which in its supreme function was pre- sent in every part of the vineyard, should, under certain special and inferior aspects, be localised in such or such extent of patriarchate. Again, if we include under the name " Fathers " " Peter and those that were with him," there is no difficulty in admitting that, as the 28th canon runs, the Fathers " bestowed the precedency on the chair of old Rome " by making it the chair of Peter, just as they might have done with Byzantium had it presented the same advantages of convenience. This leaves a quite sufficient ground on which to base the Constantino- politan argument for the second place.

The canon as a canon had simply no legal existence. St. Leo formally rejected it, and so, even according to the Greek canonists (see the passage from Sozomen quoted above), it was simply null. The Greek Patriarch Anatolius, though with no intention, it would seem, of altering his practice, wrote to excuse himself for the share he had taken in the canon, and declared that " the whole ground and confirmation of what had been done was reserved to your Blessedness." The entire Western Church repudiated it, and the Greeks them-

THE POPE AND CANON LAW. 55

selves, until the rebellion of Photius, did not venture to insert it in their codices. Gradually the practice it embodied was allowed for peace's sake, and also because it was based on a ground of growing convenience in the relative importance of Constantinople (cf. Graveson Hist. Eccles. torn. i. p. 102, ed. Mansi). The Greek Church had no canonical sanction for their position from the fifth century to the thirteenth, unless it were the tacit assent of the Holy See.

4. The Pope and Canon Law.

Dr. Littledale makes a bold appeal (p. 140) to Roman canon law against the Roman See, and he seems deter- mined not to be put out of conceit with it. The Petrine texts, he urges, "Thou art Peter," and the rest, make no mention of any successors, but, since the privilege they convey is a personal one, it must die with the person named. Now it is obviously absurd to erect a system of positive law into the test of a charter issued when that system had no existence. A scripture grant must be tested by the interpretation of the Fathers, not by the dicta of canonists. If the canonists have laid down any principle inconsistent with such a charter so interpreted, so much the worse for them. If Dr. Littledale has really discovered an instance, he will have made a valuable contribution towards the reform of the canon law. As it is, he has only made a blunder. He has misunderstood the term "privilegium personale " to be a privilege granted to a person, whereas "personale" so understood would be no distinction of privilege at all, since all privileges are granted to persons. " Privilegium personale," in canon law, is distinguished from "privi- legium reale " by reason of the final cause, or object. In the former this is purely personal, i.e., regarding the person in favour of whom the privilege is granted; e.g., money is granted to a father for his sustenance ; when the father dies, it cannot be claimed 6v an uncle — unless his

56 COMMUNION WITH ROME.

name is mentioned in the deed — on the ground that he occupies the position of nearest kin. A real privilege, on the contrary, is when the cause of granting the privilege is distinct from the person to whom it is granted, as when a tenure is granted to a certain official in order to carry out the duties of his office, then if the office be perpetual, the privilege is presumably handed down. Any one who will consult a manual of canon law may assure himself of Dr. Littledale's mistake; e.g., Maschat. Instit. Canonic, pars. ii. lib. v. tit. 33. If Dr. Littledale had used the term " personal privilege " in its proper sense as explained above, he would be convicted of having begged the point which he undertook to prove ; for, of course, a personal privilege expires with the person. La Marca, who is an authority Anglicans are very fond of quoting, is much to our purpose (Tract, de Singulari Primatu Petri) : — " Since a Head was con- stituted in the Church of Christ to remove the occasion of schism, as Jerome remarks, therefore was Peter's privilege a real one, to the perpetual advantage of the Church, and not personal, since the form of the Church, which must needs be perpetual, was set forth in the Apostolic College with its Head."

§ 10. Communion with Rome.

Communion with the Holy See has ever been counted a necessity in this sense : — i. That no one might sepa- rate himself from Rome, or, if separated by Rome's act for whatever cause, relax in his efforts for restoration. 2. That where the state of separation was complete, you thereby lacked the one seal of orthodoxy and pledge of jurisdiction, and had no longer any share in Christ's promise to His Church that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. I speak of a complete separation, because it is clear from history that a suspension of immediate communion with Rome did not necessarily

COMMUNION WITH ROME. 5 1

involve a separation from the whole of the Church in communion with Rome, i.e., a, rupture of all communion, even mediate. In this way, when the contest was one on a point of discipline or disputed succession, Rome, whilst refusing her letters of communion to the party she deemed in the wrong, did not therefore refuse her communion to those who communicated with it. For instances of such partial excommunications, see Constant, Ep. R. P. p. 250; Morinus Exercit. Eccles. xvi. pp. 137, 138; a Bennettis, Priv. R. P. torn. iii. p. 543, and torn. v. p. 289; and Natalis Alexander, Saec. iv. Diss. 34, p. 381. For the reverse process, the gradual restoration to the grace of full communion, see St. Leo, Ep. 38 ad Anatol., in which he restores certain penitent partisans of Dioscorus to the communion of their own Churches, as a first step in the process of restoration. Pope St. Boniface (A.D. 422), ap. Constant, p. 1037, speaking of the Roman Church, says: — "It is certain that this Church is to the Churches scattered over the world as the head to its members; from which if any one cut himself off, he becomes an outcast from the Christian religion, since he has begun to be external to its frame- work." With this compare the passages already quoted from Irenaeus,Optatus, Jerome, Hormisdas, and Maxirnus. One fact brings out most strikingly the unique char- acter of Roman communion, and that is, that whilst the Holy See repeatedly enforced her commands by threats of excommunication, even in her dealings with orthodox bishops, the idea of retaliation was almost unknown. Excommunication is obviously a game two can play at, but to excommunicate the Pope was simply a monstrosity reserved for a ruffian like Dioscorus or a scamp like Photius.* When Pope St. Victor, in the second century,

* The Council of Chalcedon (Ep. ad Imperatores, Labbe, torn, iv. p. 1352) expresses its horror that Dioscorus should have, as the climax of his villanies, ventured to "bark against the Apostolic See itself, and tried to frame letters of excommunication against the most

58 ST. FIRMILIAN, ST. CYPRIAN, AND POPE ST. STEPHEN.

withdrew his communion, with what looks like unjust precipitation, from the Asiatics, St. Irenaeus expostulates with him and entreats his charity, but neither questions his right nor hints at retaliation. St. Firmilian, in the third century, though beside himself with passion, never implies that the Pope can be excommunicated except equivalently by his own act in separating himself from so many.

§ ii. St. Firmilian, St. Cyprian, and Pope St. Stephen.

St. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, ob- jects Dr. Littledale (p. 182), was excommunicated by Pope St. Stephen, and yet presided at the great Council of Antioch in 264 against Paul of Samosata, and both he and St. Cyprian died excommunicate so far as Rome could make them so (p. 166). According to the more probable opinion, neither St. Firmilian nor St. Cyprian were ever excommunicated in any sense (see Coustant, Ep. R. P. 252-256; Natalis Alexander, Saec. iii. Diss. 12 ; Graveson, Hist. Eccles. ed. Mansi, coll. i. p. 42, &c. ; a Bennettis, Priv. R. P. torn. ii. p. 264, &c.). It is certain that all that can be proved on Stephen's part is a threat of excommunication. Firmilian's own letter indeed cer- tainly does speak in the present and past tense, "pacem rumpentem," " excidisti," but the whole letter is in such a strain of passionate invective as to make it quite use- less as a vehicle of minute evidence. St. Cyprian, both as regards himself and Firmilian, does not say more than this, that Stephen " abstinendos putat," "ab illorum com- munione discessurum." St. Augustine's phrase is "ex- communicandos esse censeret;" and elsewhere he insists

holy Pope Leo." (For Photius, see Vit. Ignat. Labbe, torn. x. p. 728.) The only exception that occurs to me is when the well-meaning but feeble Mennas, under pressure from Justinian, allowed for a brief period the name of Vigilius to be removed from the diptychs.

ST. MELETIUS AND THE HOLY SEE. 59

that Cyprian " remained with Stephen in the peace of unity ; " and again, that Cyprian and Stephen, " though they quarrelled somewhat fiercely, yet it was in a brotherly fashion, so that no ill of schism arose between them." St. Jerome says of Cyprian that "he remained in their communion who gainsayed his opinion" (see Coustant, 1. c., and Allies' "Per Crucem ad Lucem ").

The very utmost that can be reasonably supposed is such partial suspension of the full rights of communion as I have spoken of above.

§ 12. St. Meletius and the Holy See.

"St. Meletius of Antioch," says Dr. Littledale (p. 182), " who was formally put out of communion by the Pope, was nevertheless chosen to preside over the second General Council in 381, and actually did so till his death." One wonders that it did not strike Dr. Little- dale as anomalous, that Bishops* who tell the Pope and his Synod in their letter of 382, "Ye have summoned us as your own members," should have been so lately under the presidency of an excommunicate. See too the Pope's letter to the Eastern Bishops,f "most honoured sons, &c." (Theod. lib. v. cc. 9, 10). Meletius' history is as follows. The Holy See, along with the rest of the West and the Egyptians, acknowledged Paulinus as Bishop of Antioch, who, although elected subsequently to Meletius, had been chosen by the distinctively Catholic party, the adherents of the late Bishop Eustathius ; where- as Meletius had been elected by a party the majority at least of which were Arians. Meletius, upon his election, boldly enounced the Nicene faith, and underwent a lengthened persecution at the hands of the disappointed and enraged Arians. The taint of his election, as compared with the orthodox prestige of Paulinus, pre-

* "Very nearly the same Bishops" : Hefele, Eng. tr., torn. ii. p. 378. t Damasus' letter was not an answer to the Synod, but for pro- bable date see Coustant, p. 570.

60 ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE HOLY SEE.

vented the former being acknowledged as Bishop of Antioch either by Rome or Alexandria; but there was no other excommunication. Rome freely communicated with those who communicated with Meletius. More- over, as time went on, he was explicitly acknowledged as an orthodox bishop by various of the Western Churches, and by Alexandria, and finally entered into terms of communion with his rival Paulinus. In the Synod of Antioch of 379, it was Meletius who first of all received and signed the letters of the Roman Synod, which letters so signed were received and laid up in the Roman archives. Thus before the date 381, at which Dr. Littledale asserts Meletius presided as an excom- municate over the Second Council, he had been admitted even to immediate communion with Rome, although his right to the See of Antioch was not admitted to the prejudice of Paulinus, nor was it insisted upon by him- self, and he soon after entered into terms of communion with his rival (see Tillemont, St. Melece. Act. 13, 15, and Ballerini, de Vi ac Rat. Prim. R. P., Append, i).

§ 13. St. Augustine and the Holy See -The Case of Apiarius.

Apiarius was a wicked priest of Sicca, whose cause was taken up, most imprudently, as it would seem, by Pope Zozimus, after he had been condemned by his own bishop. He was understood to have appealed to Rome. Whether he had done so formally or not is uncertain. The African bishops maintained that he could give no proof of his appeal. Anyhow, he was taken under the protection of the Pope's representatives in Africa, and his reinstatement or a fresh trial demanded. There are two letters extant on the subject from African Synods. The first, in 419, to Pope Boniface (Zozimus' immediate successor), is signed amongst others by St. Augustine. It relates that Apiarius has begged pardon,

ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE HOLY SEE. 6 1

and been given a licence (epistolium) to exercise his priestly office anywhere but in his own diocese. It informs the Pope that their copies of the Nicene canons do not contain what he had quoted — really from the Sardican canons — concerning appeals to Rome; that they were sending for authentic MSS., and hoped the Pope would do the same; meanwhile they would stand by his enactments. They expressed their confidence that whatever might prove to be the case with the Nicene canons, they will never under his Holiness's auspices be called upon to suffer as they had suffered from the arrogant bearing (typhus) of the Papal "exe- cutores," and trusted that, unless the Nicene canons were against them, they might be left to go on as usual. The second letter, in 425, to Celestine, relates the breaking down of Apiarius, and his public confession of the justice of his former sentence, just as the African bishops, in deference to Rome, were proceeding to a fresh trial. They inform the Pope that authentic MSS. from Alexandria and elsewhere do not bear out his reading ; therefore, they say, " We earnestly entreat thee not to admit to a hearing very easily thtfse who come from hence." They again deprecate the ostentatious arrogance of the Papal " executores," and beg the Pope to send no more of them. They end by expressing their confidence in the " goodness and moderation of your Holiness." I shall speak elsewhere of the mixture of the Sardican and Nicene canons. I am only here concerned with Dr. Littledale's comment upon these letters, or rather upon the first of them — that of 419 — to which St. Augustine's name is attached. His account (p. 101) is that this letter informed the Pope that the Africans had discovered his "attempted fraud" from authentic MSS. from Greece, Syria, and Egypt, and then told him that " nothing should make them tolerate such insolent con- duct on his part" The real fact is that in this letter the Africans acknowledge that the authentic MSS. are still

62 ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE HOLY SEE.

to seek, and neither in this letter nor in the second, when they have learned that their reading is right, do they ever go beyond the language of entreaty (u impendio deprecamur "). The "typhus" or arrogance of which they complained was that of the " executores," whose ostentation and peremptoriness at once hurt and scan- dalised them. Of Dr. Littledale's travesty I can only say that it is worthy of a place in a comic history of the Church yet to be written. In order to justify it he inserts in his third edition these words in a footnote : " Non sumus jam istum typhum passuri," by which his offence is rendered considerably graver; the African Fathers having said nothing of the kind, although these six words actually occur in what they do say. The whole passage is as follows : " Sed credimus adjuvante misericordia Domini Dei nostri quod tua sanctitate Romanse Ecclesiae praesedente non sumus jam istum typhum passuri." That the " typhus " which they believe they will not be called upon any more to suffer is the institution and behaviour of the "executores" is evident from the following passage in the second letter : " Exe- cutores . . . nolite mittere . . . ne fumosun typhum saeculi in ecclesiam Dei . . . videamur inducere." For the two letters in extenso see Coustant, Ep. R. P. pp. 1010 and 1058.

St. Augustine could not, with any show of consistency, have contested the principle of appeals to Rome and Roman interference. In his 43rd letter (A.D. 398) he had suggested an appeal to Rome as a course that had been open to the Donatists in 311 when their schism first began.* Again, in 423, whilst the Apiarius dispute was going on, St. Augustine has nothing to urge against the appeal and threatened restoration of the bishop Antonius, save entreaty, and a suggestion that it may force him to resign (see Coustant, p. 1051).

In 416 St. Augustine and the bishops of Africa refer * See Allies' " Per Cruc. ad Luc.," vol. i. p. 341.

POPE ST. CELESTINE AND THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. 63

the question of Pelagianism to Pope St. Innocent. The Pope in his answer praises the bishops for following ''the regulation of the Fathers, which they, in pursuance of no human but a divine sentence, have decreed, viz., that whatever was being carried on, although in the most distant and remote provinces, should not be terminated before it was brought to the knowledge of this See, by the full authority of which the just sentence should be confirmed, and that thence all the other Churches might derive what they should order, whom they should absolve, whom avoid." He had previously referred to St. Peter, " from whom the very episcopate and all the authority of this title spring." St. Augustine's comment (Ep. 186) is as follows : — " He answered to all as it becomes the Prelate of the Apostolic See."

§ 14. Pope St. Celestine and the Council of Bphesus.

"The Third General Council of Ephesus," says Dr. Littledale (p. 191), "disregarded the synodical deposi- tion of Nestorius by Pope Celestine and allowed him to take his seat as Patriarch of Constantinople." This is quite curiously untrue, even for Dr. Littledale. i. Pope Celestine never deposed Nestorius until he did so by the hands of the Council of Ephesus. What he did was to prescribe his deposition if within ten days of his noti- fication he did not abjure his heresy. He did not, how- ever, send this ultimatum directly to Nestorius, but put it into St. Cyril's hands, whom he constituted his vicar in the matter, as he says repeatedly in so many words (see Ep. 14 and 15, ap. Coustant). Some time seems to have passed before Cyril could formally serve the notice, and it was nearly a year before he was able to bring the heretic to trial and subsequent deposition. 2. Nestorius never took his seat in any capacity whatsoever at the Council of Ephesus : although in their neighbourhood, he

64 POPE ST. LEO AND CHALCEDON.

obstinately refused to face his judges. 3. Some such scruple as Dr. Littledale suggests did actually occur to St. Cyril, and he writes to St. Celestine to ask whether, " considering the time granted has elapsed," the previous sentence may be regarded as passed, or whether the Synod may give him another chance of escape by ab- juration. The Pope answers to the effect that he leaves the whole matter to Cyril's discretion, and trusts that he will be as charitable as he can (see Ep. 16, ap. Cou- stant). Each act of the Council is introduced by a reference to Cyril as the Pope's vicar, and the Fathers declare that they depose Nestorius, " necessarily com- pelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most Holy Father and fellow-servant Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church." It would be hard to cram more misstatement into a single sentence than Dr. Littledale has done here.

§15. Pope St. Leo and Chalcedon.

" The Fourth General Council," says Dr. Littledale, "accepted the tome of Pope St. Leo on the express ground that it agreed in doctrine with St. Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus." In accepting St. Leo's tome the Council certainly expressed its sense of St. Leo's perfect agree- ment with St. Cyril's teaching, />., with the Church's teaching, at Ephesus. Agreement with the explicit teaching of the Church must surely ever be a note, a sine qua non, of all orthodox teaching, and this " examen elucidationis " bringing out the correspondence between the different portions of the Church's teaching is part of the duty of a General Council. The shepherd judges the sheep, "I know my sheep;" but there is a sense in which the sheep judge the shepherd, " My sheep know me." If the shepherd were inconsistent with himself he would not be the shepherd. Repeatedly, for the sake of bringing out this consistency, have even the decrees

ST. LEO AND ST. HILARY OF ARLES. 65

of General Councils universally accepted been submitted to a "judicium elucidationis." The true ground of this Council's acceptance of St. Leo's tome it has itself expressed in words which will bear repeating : " St. Peter is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church;" "Peter hath spoken through Leo."

§ 16. St. Leo and St. Hilary of Aries.

Dr. Littledale (p. 191) brings this case forward as an instance of tyrannical interference on the part of a Pope, resisted by a saint. St. Hilary had tried and deposed a certain Bishop Chelidonius, who appealed to Rome. St. Hilary resisted the appeal, and the reinstatement which the Pope after a fresh trial had commanded. St. Leo obtained an order from the Emperor Valentinian III. to the effect that the bishops of Gaul and other bishops should attempt nothing against ancient custom, and that the authority of the Apostolic See should be supported by the secular power, so that a bishop refusing to appear in answer to a Papal summons should be compelled to obey by the governor of the province. Dr. Littledale says that Chelidonius was one of St. Hilary's suffragans ; that Leo knew therefore that St. Hilary was quite in his right, and that he (the Pope) had no business to interfere in another province. His demand for imperial action he characterises as " an appeal to brute force and sheer Erastianism."

In reality it is quite a matter of dispute amongst the learned whether Chelidonius was in any sense a subject of St. Hilary's. Tillemont (St. Hilaire, art. xiv.) says that Baronius, Papebroch, and Quesnel consider that he was a bishop of the province of Vienne, which was at this time, by concession of the Holy See, under the jurisdic- tion of Aries ; but he adds : " Je ne voy rien qui nous empeche de suivre le sentiment des plus habiles de ce temps, qui est que Quelidoine estoit evesque de Besan^on.

66 ST. LEO AND ST. HILARY OF ARLES.

et me'me metropolitaine comme le soutient M. de Marca." Tillemont indeed shrinks from the natural conclusion urged by the Ballerini (Observ. in im partm Dissert11 v. Quesnel, St. Leo, Op. torn, ii.), viz., that St. Hilary having interfered where he had no jurisdiction, his action was null ab mitio, and takes refuge in a series of conjectures ; thus — Besangon may not then have been a metropolitan Church, and so it would fall within the province of Lyons, whose bishop, St. Eucherius, may have yielded his judiciary right to St. Hilary ; or if Besangon was then metropolitan, then St, Hilary may have had some right over it in virtue of being the oldest Metropolitan, or because Aries was the seat of the civil prefecture. But as long as these remain mere conjectures, we can hardly blame St. Leo for regarding St. Hilary's proceedings as null and void. Natalis Alexander (Ssec. v. c. iv. art. 8), whilst following Quesnel as to the position of Cheli- donius' See within the jurisdiction of Aries, admits that in his attempt to ordain a successor to the sick Projectus — a part of the case against him before Leo — St. Hilary had really been interfering in a province not his own ; in fact, had been doing precisely what Dr. Littledale charges the Pope with doing. The truth is, St. Hilary, instead of being the grave stickler for law and precedent in the teeth of usurpation that Dr. Littledale represents him, was, for all his sanctity, so far as ecclesiastical restrictions went, " a chartered libertine." In fact, wherever he dis- covered an abuse, he never seems to have stopped to ask himself how far it was his place to set it right, but down he swept upon it with a force of Imperial police. This was always at his service, for the prefects loved him heartily — to their great credit be it said — for he was no accepter of persons, and sometimes rated them soundly in public. Even granting, against the great weight of probability, that the subjects of St. Hilary's proceedings were within his jurisdiction, he had no excuse for trying to bar the appeal. The canons of

ST. LEO AND ST. HILARY OF ARLES. 67

Sardica, as the Ballerini have shown, were in all the old Gallican collections, to say nothing of the " ancient custom," to which St. Leo appeals. See too Pope St. Innocent ad Victric. Rothomag. n. 6 : — " Si majores causse in medium fuerint devolutse, ad sedem Apostolicam recurrendum sicut Synodus statuit, et beata consuetude."

We have only to turn to the "Vita Hilarii " by a disciple, the great authority on the Hilarian side, to see that it was no question with the Bishop of Aries of canon or canonical interpretation. His plea may be thus condensed : "The man deserved it. Let me go on as usual ; I protest against having the matter all over again and my procedure ignored. Don't make a scandal, and I will be careful not to be troublesome for the future." This is how I understand the almost untrans- latable bit of Latin I give below.* I can well understand how the Roman instinct of decorum must have been out- raged by opposition at once so irregular and so pertina- cious ! St. Hilary had been simply acting " papaliter," with the very best intentions, but without any Papal prerogative to justify him, and the Pope could not do otherwise than repel and punish him. The breach ap- pears not to have been fully healed during St. Hilary's life, but after his death it seems to have come home to St. Leo that his adversary was, after all, a holy man, for he speaks of him as " sanctae memoriae," and readily sanctions the succession of his disciple Ravennius.

As to the invocation of the secular arm to enforce religious discipline, its prudence in a variety of cases

* " Apostolorum ac martyrum occursu peracto, Beato Leoni Papa illico se prsesentat, cum reverentia impendens obsequium, et cum humilitate deposcens ut ecclesiarum statum more solito ordinaret : astruens aliquos apud Gallias publicam merito excepisse sententiara et in urbe sacris altaribus interesse. Rogat atque constringit ut si suggestionem suam libenter excepit, secrete jubeat emendari ; et se ad officia non ad causam venisse ; protestandi ordini non accusandi quse sunt acta suggerere. Porro autem si aliud velit se non futurum molestum " (Vita ap. Op. S. Leon, ed. Bal. ii. p. 333).

68 POPE VIGILIUS AND THE FIFTH COUNCIL.

may be questioned, but the right to do so has always been claimed, and from time to time exercised, ever since the conversion of Constantine made it a possibility. Identically the same appeal as St. Leo's was made in 378 by the Roman Synod to the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian, />., that offenders against the canons wha should refuse their summons might be forced to obey by the prefects (Ep. vi. Damas. ap. Constant, p. 527). St. Hilary was certainly the last person in the world who had any right to complain of the secular arm.

Dr. Littledale has made this incident the plea for solemnly degrading St. Leo from his rank of Saint and Doctor, which he enjoys, it appears, " durante bene- placito." Only four pages before (p. 188) he figures as St. Leo the Great, but here he is "Leo, a man devoured with ambition, and by no means particular as to the means of acquiring power so that it be got somehow."

§ 17. Pope "Vigilius and the Fifth Council.

Dr. Littledale (p. 191) says, "The Fifth General Council refused to permit a decree sent by Pope Vigilius to be read; decided against its ruling, and struck his name, as contumacious, out of the registers of the Church." There is no record of any such sending on the part of the Pope, or rejection on the part of the Council. The Fifth Council began its sittings on May 5, 553. Vigilius, who was then in Constantinople, was invited to preside, but declined on the formal plea of ill-health ; but really, as he made no secret of acknow- ledging, because he was afraid that the Oriental bishops* under the influence of the irrepressible Justinian, would so word their condemnation of the three chapters as to compromise the dignity of the Council of Chalcedon and wound orthodox susceptibilities in the West. He did not enter any caveat to their proceedings, but insisted that he preferred registering his own independent judg-

POPE VIGILIUS AND THE FIFTH COUNCIL. 69

by himself. On May 14 he issued his "Consti- tutum," in which he condemned the first chapter from Theodore of Mopsuestia, partially excused the second from Theodoret, and defended the third, the Epistle of Ibas, "ex verbis rectissimo ac piissimo intellectu per- spectis," that is, interpreted favourably in accordance with the man's character. This " Constitutum " does not appear in the acts of the Fifth Council, but there is no record of its rejection, although in their definition they simply condemn all three chapters, neither did Vigilius make any attempt to enforce it; the intimation of penalties <it the end is reserved for those who shall attempt any- thing against Chalcedon. The statement that the Fifth Council struck out the name of Vigilius from the dip- tychs rests upon a single MS. discovered by Baluze. Its -authenticity is denied by the Ballerini, and by Constant in an unpublished essay (see Ballerini, Defens. Dissert. Noris. in Syn. v. c. 6). Even if its genuineness be ac- cepted, it falls short of Dr. Littledale's statement. The Emperor notifies that he will strike out Vigilius' name, but that the bishops are to keep in union with the Holy See. They answer that the Emperor has acted con- sistently, and that they will keep in union. There is no record that such an act ever took place. In its defini- tion the Fifth Council is careful to urge that the Pope had really committed himself to their view. The notion mat Vigilius was banished for resistance to the Fifth Council is rejected by Cardinal Noris and the Ballerini, and it is certainly hard to reconcile it with the fact that his ''confirmation " of the Council — or rather of the outcome of the Council, for of the Council Vigilius says nothing — is dated December 9 of the same year, 553. The words attributed to Justinian, viz., that the Pope was to be -excommunicated whilst communion was to be kept with the Holy See, could indicate nothing less than his depo- sition, and at any attempt at this there has never been a hint. Vigilius was, no doubt, inconsistent in his view

70 ST. GREGORY THE GREAT.

of the policy of dealing with the three chapters, but there is nothing to argue any change of theological view. It must be remembered that the chapters affected Nes- torianism, whereas Vigilius' antecedents all tended to incline him in the opposite direction. There is no real inconsistency in saying that the Epistle of Ibas is, accord- ing to strict theological language, Nestorian, and at the same time, when interpreted kindly and fairly by what may be presumed to have been the author's intention, it is orthodox. Whilst we cannot but regret in Vigilius a course of conduct at once impulsive and vacillating, we should remember that through it all this quondam protdge* of the Eutychian Empress Theodora, from the moment that he became the legitimate successor of St. Peter, fought pertinaciously for the very shadow of Chalcedon, and for freedom from the uncanonical influence of the Imperial Court.

§ 18. St. Gregory the Great and the Title of " Universal Bishop."

Dr. Littledale (p. 144), against the definition of the Vatican Council that the Pope has universal immediate jurisdiction, urges St. Gregory's rejection of the title "universal bishop." But surely the Council of Chalce- don, which accorded that title to the Pope, ought to have more weight with Dr. Littledale than even St. Gregory. Anyhow, its action should suggest that there is a true sense in which the title might be accepted, as well as a false sense in which it must be rejected. St. Gregory rejected it — so he himself says — because he took it to involve a claim of being the one bishop (solus conetur appellari episcopus — Lib. v. Ep. 21 ad Const. Aug.). It is at least demonstrable that in his rejection of this title he does not deny his universal jurisdiction, and acquiesce in Dr. Littledale's thesis that it is limited to the Roman patriarchate. The "servus servorum Dei'*

GERBERT AND POPE JOHN XV. 7 1

— the title of St. Gregory's choice — has written, "As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother the Bishop of that city " (Lib. ix. Ep. 1 2) ; and again, " If any fault is found amongst bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See) ; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are * secundum rationem humilitatis' equal" (Lib. ix. Ep. 59). See too lib. iv. ep. 7, and lib. vii. ep. 64, in which he establishes his vicariate in Illyria and Gaul.

§ 19. Gerbert and Pope John XV.

Dr. Littledale has chosen for his motto an indignant passage from a letter of Gerbert, Archbishop of Rheims, afterwards Pope Silvester II., to Segwin of Sens, in which he speaks of the Pope as regularly subject to the Church's judgment. Of this sentiment I can only say, that if it be meant, as it seems, to apply to the offences (other than that of heresy) of an undoubted Pope, it is opposed to the cur- rent of patristic and medieval teaching. It must be re- membered, however, in Gerbert's excuse, that the Papacy in the tenth century had been so much obscured by simoniacal intrusion and contention, which laid it legiti- mately open to the judgment of the Church, that some exaggeration on this point was not unnatural. When Gerbert proceeds to say that if the Pope excommunicates a man for not believing contrary to the Gospel, this will not cut the victim of the excommunication off from Christ, he asserts a truth all Catholics believe, though he does so violently, offensively, and needlessly. As to the particular dispute, Gerbert had been elected Archbishop of Rheims in the place of Arnulf, who had been de- posed for his crimes by a national council without the Pope's cognisance and assent. There was here, at least, a -prima facie ground for the Pope's interference. The

72 BREAKS IN THE ROMAN SUCCESSION.

Gallic bishops had committed an outrage upon recognised Papal right, which they only attempted to justify on the plea that their repeated efforts to have recourse to the Pope had been baffled by the Prefect Crescentius. Gerbert's subsequent action presents a remarkable con- trast to the passionate protest of his letter to Segvvin. The letter was written in 994. He afterwards consents to plead his cause before the Papal Legate, submits to the suspension pronounced upon all who had taken part in the deposition of Arnulf, and relinquishes the See of Rheims. In 998 we find him receiving the pallium from Pope Gregory V. as Archbishop of Ravenna. One of Gerbert's first acts, when as Silvester II. he became Pope (A.D. 999), was formally to reinstate Arnulf in the Arch- bishopric of Rheims. He reminds him that he was de- prived for certain excesses, "quibusdam excessibus ;" but that, "as thy abdication lacked the assent of Rome, we have thought well to come to thy succour, that it may be understood that thou canst be restored by the office of Roman mercifulness. For that high power belongs to Peter, unto which no hap of mortal man is equal to attaining." As Aimoin, a contemporary authority, makes the statement that Arnulf was restored by Gregory V., Cossart is inclined to regard this document, although in- scribed Silvester and published as his by Sirmond, as really his predecessor's. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the reinstatement was actually carried out by Gregory, and there is internal evidence, as Cossart notices, of the Silvestrine authorship in the evident de- sire of the Pope, whilst restoring Arnulf, to justify the action previously taken against him (Labbe, torn. xi. pp. 999-1038).

§ 20. Breaks and Uncertainty in the Succession in the Roman See.

Breaks of one sort or another have doubtless occurred from time to time, intervals of contention between rival

BREAKS IN THE ROMAN SUCCESSION. ?J

claimants, and of uncanonical intrusion. The ultimate decision, however, of the Roman Church and the assent of Christendom has always been accounted sufficient to supply any defect caused by canonical impediment. Even on the extreme supposition that all the Cardinals met to elect should be irregular, a titulus coloratus^ with the assent of the Church, makes their act valid, except so far as the irregularity is made manifest, and so is open to amendment. "The very fact that the Papacy is an intermittent office," urges Dr. Littledale (p. 142), " be- coming continually vacant, and then filled and conferred by a merely human election, proves its merely human authority and origin." Not so surely, unless the election by lot of Matthias proved the same of the Apostolate. What the election of the Pope by his brethren does prove is, that no mere break invalidates the succession, since it moves by a succession of breaks. If it be insisted that the election of Matthias was not "merely human," I answer, Neither is that of the Popes. Both are divine, as involving the same appeal to God, "Show which of these Thou hast chosen." Both are human, as conducted by men after a human method. Providence as easily finds room amid the interaction of human wills, as in the falling of lots.

It may be urged that there are certain irregularities which, though secret, would invalidate a Pope's election, and so all his Papal acts ; such as simony in his election (see Constit. Julii II. in Lat. v. sess. v.*); or heresy held at any previous time (see Constit. Pauli IV., " Ex Apostolatus officio"t). It must be remembered that, after all, some such invalidating possibilities are inherent throughout the whole sacramental system. If a man is not baptized, he is not validly ordained \ if not ordained, he is no valid subject for the Episcopate or the Papacy. One can only fall back upon God's providence over His Church and His promise that the gates of hell shall * Labbe, xix. 768. t Bullar. Rom. A.D. 1559.

74 BREAKS IN THE ROMAN SUCCESSION.

not prevail against her. Whatever may have been the secret irregularity of a Pope's election or his previous unorthodoxy, it must either be made manifest to the Church, so that she perceives that he is not her legitimate pastor and looks for another, or if he define, he defines truly. As to the validity of the other Papal acts done by a simoniacal or otherwise illegitimate Pope — which it is the object of these Papal acts to invalidate — when- ever they are not capable of being recognised as the outcome of illegitimate authority, and so of being formally amended, they are certainly indirectly and virtually redintegrated by the recognition of legitimate authority. Neither of these Bulls referred to above have the least pretence to be ex cathedra in the Vatican sense of the term, i.e., to be definitions in faith and morals ; they are simply laws making what they assert, and prevailing just so long as they are not repealed or let fall into desuetude. The latter is clearly modelled upon the former, and the only difference between them is that Julius treats of what he calls the heresy of simony in the electing, Paul of heresy in general previous to election. We find that Julius' Constitution was sub- mitted by Leo X. to the Fathers of the Fifth Lateran, five of whom suggested emendations, although overruled by the majority (see Labbe, 1. c.).

With this same Bull of Paul IV. Dr. Littledale (p. 194) attempts to deal the Papacy a crushing blow. On ihe authority of the Capitate of Rome, an infidel and republican newspaper, he asserts that Pius IX. was in his youth a Freemason, or tantamount to a heretic,* whence it follows, in virtue of Paul's Bull, that he was never Pope, and that none of his acts, nominatim the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in this country, were valid. Without going into any question as to the force of the clauses in Paul's Bull, which I conceive^

* An assumption : Freemasonry, though forbidden, has nevet been pronounced heresy by the Church.

THE ROMAN CHURCH NOT THE WHOLE CHURCH. 75

if they were ever acted on, to have long ago become obsolete, it is quite sufficient to remark that the assertion of an infidel paper, even when repeated by a Protestant minister, would not have been deemed by Paul IV. equivalent to the proof of anything, except perhaps of a common parentage of a very unpleasant character; not to lay stress upon a fact of which Dr. Littledale tells us nothing, viz., that the statement was officially contradicted at the time in the Osservatore Romano.

In his third edition (p. 221) it occurs to Dr. Little- dale that I have introduced (" Contemporary Review,'' February 1879) a new element of uncertainty by quoting the common opinion that a Pope by manifest heresy ceases to be Pope, and by defining heresy, were that possible, would unpope himself. On the contrary, this theory eliminates' all uncertainty in requiring that the heresy should be manifest. A Pope can cease to be Pope, and so capax definiendi, only by an act that shall make all doubt of his heresy impossible.

§ 21. The Roman Catholic Church not the Whole Church.

If all that is meant by this ill-sounding proposition is that there are numbers of baptized persons who so far belong to the Catholic Church, although not in com- munion with Rome, or, again, that there are others whose state yet more closely approximates to Church member- ship, in that they have other valid sacraments besides baptism, and a public Catholic ritual, it is sufficiently undeniable. All that we insist upon is, that disunion with Rome of itself breaks a bond essential to that fulness of Church life to which Christ's promise assures security of faith and permanence of jurisdiction. There is nothing inconsistent in speaking of the Church being divided, although the principle of life remains with one only of the divisions. As long as in a Church which has broken

76 ENGLAND AND PAPAL PREROGATIVE.

communion with Rome a certain organic form persists, and the corruption of formal heresy or of solidarity with heretics has not set in, it is as it were a dislocated limb, that may be reset and the Church " restoratively united," to use the expression of Gregory IX., quoted by Dr Littledale. Beyond this the simile of the physical body cannot be carried. The Church, in union with the See of Peter, though grieved and scandalised at the defection of schismatics, cannot be regarded as organically maimed thereby. The restorative virtue which should operate in their behalf is operative without them.

§ 22. England and Papal Prerogative.

Dr. Littledale (pp. 184-189) considers that the Pope had no jurisdiction in England; that he was barred by the Ephesine canon from claiming any or from accepting it if offered ; that the British and Celtic Churches were wholly independent of Rome ; that St. Gregory did not give St. Augustine his mission but his consecrator, Vigilius of Aries ; that St. Gregory irrevocably lost what- ever rights upon England he might be supposed to have, by his concession of the election and confirmation of the English metropolitans to the local Provincial Synods ; that no cession to the Pope of English Church liberties ever took place ; that what cession there may conceivably have been was due to the False Decretals, and therefore worth nothing ; that anyhow such cession was barred by the Ephesine canon, and so the present Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country is schismatical. I shall now proceed to examine point by point this amazing piece of English Church history.

As to this Ephesine canon, it forbids a bishop's intru- sion into another province " which has not been from the first under himself and his predecessors." But it has always been the Pope's contention that every part of the vineyard has ever been "under himself and his prede-

ENGLAND AND PAPAL PREROGATIVE. 77

cessors." Again, though conversion does not of itself give any right of jurisdiction, it at least secures that the country in question could not have already belonged to any other diocese or province. As to the British Church, it certainly was not independent of Rome, for we know that British bishops took part in the Councils of Aries and Sardica, and were committed to the assertions there made of Papal prerogative. Again, we have the following testimony of Prosper of Aquitaine, Pope Celestine's secretary: — "Pope Celestine sent Germanus (Bishop of Auxerre) as his vicegerent (vice sua) to drive out the heretics and guide the Britons to the Catholic faith." To show that the early Irish Church, to whose mission- aries so many of the Northern Saxons owed their conver- sion, was not independent of Rome, it may be sufficient to quote the appeal of their great patriarch, St. Colum- banus, to Pope Boniface IV. : " Wherefore use, O Pope, the pipe and well-known cry of the Good Shepherd, and stand between thy sheep and the wolves, so that, casting away their fears, thy sheep may in everything know thee the first Pastor" (ap. Galland. xii. 352).

St. Augustine was ordained by Vigilius of Aries, but, as Venerable Bede tells us, in obedience to the Pope's order, "juxta quod jussa Sancti Patris Gregorii accepe- rant" (Hist. 1. i. c. 27). Gregory's own words are, "data a me licentia" (Epist Iviii. ep. 30). The Gallic ordination was thus in virtue of an act of the same jurisdiction that sent the missionaries to England and which issued in the Papal mandate to Augustine (Bede, 1. i. c. 29) : " Your brotherhood will, moreover, have subject to you not only the bishops which you or the Bishop of York may ordain, but all the bishops of Britain, by authority of our God and Lord Jesus Christ" ' Dr. Littledale's acknowledgment that Gregory conceded " by special grant " " the election and confirmation of

* See Lingard's Hist, and Arxtiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. i. c. 2.

7 8 ENGLAND AND PAPAL PREROGATIVE

English metropolitans and bishops to the Local Synods," is nothing less than an acknowledgment that the Popes exercised jurisdiction in England. According to no principles, either of civil or ecclesiastical law, can an act of grace be construed into a renunciation of right. The summumjusy in virtue of which the concessions can be revoked at will, is inalienable. The fact that there is no formal concession of Church liberties to the Pope extant is obviously entirely in our favour. England found itself on its conversion in a system in which the supremacy of the Pope was accepted. Canon Bright, although belonging to a class of writers committed, more or less, by the exigencies of their position to the depa- palisation of history, honestly recognises that Gregory, despite his protest against "the title of Universal Bishop," " always acted on that theory respecting his own office, which had been gradually developing itself from the early part of the fifth century, and was to develop itself yet more in after times. . . . This system Gregory inherited, believed in it firmly, acted on it persistently." * It would have been odd if his converts believed other- wise, and the whole course of their Church history is a proof that they did not.

As to the False Decretals, they were not known for nigh upon two centuries after England had accepted the Pope's supremacy, and therefore certainly did not influ- ence her in doing so. Moreover, Anglicans are bound to tell us what these new rights were with which they suppose the False Decretals invested the Pope before they attempt to depreciate the force of our later testi- monies. Lingard t gives the following enumeration of only one class of such acts : — " Gregory the Great divided the Anglo-Saxon territory into two provinces ; Vitalian placed all the Anglo-Saxon Churches under the jurisdiction of Theodore ; Agatho limited the number of

* Early English History, c. ii. p. 62.

t Hist, and Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. i. c. 3, p. 118.

ENGLISH AUTHORITIES ON PAPAL PREROGATIVE. 79

bishops to one metropolitan and eleven suffragans; Leo II. established a second metropolitan at York ; Adrian a third at Lichfield, and confirmed to the Church of Canterbury 'that precedence of rank and authority which it has since possessed down to the present day." In 676 St. Wilfrid appeals from the metropolitan Theodore to the Pope, and the rightfulness of the appeal was un- questioned, although the execution of the Papal decision in his favour was long deferred, owing to the hostility of the Court. At the Council of Cloveshoe in 747, Pope Zachary enforces the reformation of abuses under threat of excommunication.

23. A Catena of English Authorities on Papal Prerogative.

ST. ALDHELM (A.D. 709) : — " If, then, to Peter the keys of the heavenly kingdom have been delivered by Christ, of whom the poet sings —

' Celestial keyward, opener of heaven gates,'

who, I ask, despising the principal statutes and doctrinal mandates of his Church, enters rejoicing the gate of the heavenly paradise ? . . . To conclude everything in the casket of one short sentence. In vain of the Catholic faith do they vainly boast who follow not the teaching and rule of St. Peter. For the foundation of the Church and ground of the faith laid primarily in Christ and then in Peter, unrocked by the stress of tempests, shall not waver, the Apostle so pronouncing (i Cor. iii. u) ; other foundation no one can lay beside that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But to Peter has the Truth thus sanctioned the Church's privilege (Matt, xvi.), 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.' " VENERABLE BEDE (A.D. 735) says of Pope Gregory: " And whereas he bore the Pontifical power* over all the

* The rendering of the Anglican editor, Dr. Giles, but better " was the Primate all over." For the force of " Pontificatus " here, see Collect in Fest. Cath. Antioch. " Deus qui beato Petro .... ligandi atque solvendi pontificium tradidisti," and Bede's Horn, in Fest. SS. Pet. et Paul, "principatum judiciarise potestatis."

80 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES ON PAPAL PREROGATIVE.

world, and was placed over the Churches already reduced to the faith of truth, he made our nation, till then given up to idols, the Church of Christ" (Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. i).

ALCUIN (A.D. 798) : — " Lest he be found to be a schis- matic or a non-Catholic, let him follow the most approved authority of the Roman Church, that whence we have received the seeds of the Catholic faith there we may find the exemplars of salvation, lest the members be severed from the head, lest the Key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom exclude such as he shall recognise as alien from his teaching " (Ep. 75).

LANFRANC (A.D. 1072) : — "When our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said to Blessed Peter, 'Thou art Peter,' &c., He might have added, had He so pleased, ' The same power I grant to your successors ; ' but His not having done so has in naught detracted from our reverence for the successors of St. Peter. Wilt thou gainsay this? wilt thou urge objections ? Verily is it ingrained in the con- sciences of all Christians that, in respect to St. Peter's successors no less than to himself, they must tremble at their threats and yield joyful acclamation to their lofty graciousness when they indulge ; and in all ecclesiastical matters then, at last, a dispensation is valid when it has been approved by the judgment of the successors of the Blessed Peter. How comes about what here is operative unless it be the plenitude of the Divine liberality through Jesus Christ, poured out by Blessed Peter upon his vicars?" (Orat. in Cone. ap. Guil. Malmesb. lib. i. de Gest. Pont. Angl.).

ST. ANSELM (A.D. 1092) apostrophises 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 be more fitly had, if aught against the Catholic faith should arise in the Church, that it may be corrected by his authority ; nor if any reply be made to error, can it with more security be shown to any one that it may be examined by his prudence" (De Fide Trin. ed. Ben,

ENGLISH AUTHORITIES ON PAPAL PREROGATIVE. 8 I

p. 41 ; cf. lib. iii. ep. xl, and lib. iv. ep. ii.). "It is certain that he who does not obey the ordinances of the Roman Pontiff, which are issued for the maintenance of the Christian religion, is disobedient to the Apostle Peter, whose vicar he is, nor is he of that flock which was given to him (Peter) by God. Let him then find some other gates of the kingdom of heaven, for by those he shall not go in, of which the Apostle Peter holds the keys " (lib. iv. ep. xiii.).

ST. AELRED (A.D. 1167): — " Brethren, let no one seduce you with vain words. Let no one say to you, Lo here is Christ or there, since Christ ever abides in the faith of Peter, which the Holy Roman Church has es- pecially received from Peter, and retains in that Rock, which is Christ. ... Of this Church Peter was the first Prince, to whom it was said, 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church ; ' and again, ' Feed My sheep ; ' and again, ' To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound too in heaven,' and the rest. This is the Church which the Holy Apostle calls of the first-born, the plenitude of whose power in the person of its Prince passing over from the East to the West by the authority of the Holy Spirit established itself in the Roman Church. . . . This is the Roman Church, with whom he who communicates not is a heretic. To her it belongs to advise all, to judge of all, to provide for all, to whom in Peter that word was addressed, ' And thou, some time converted, confirm thy brethren.' Whatsoevei she decrees I receive ; I approve what she approves ; what she condemns I condemn" (In cap. xv. Isai. Serm. 23).

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? Who is ignorant that to Peter were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven ? In the faith and teaching of Peter doth noi

F

82 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES ON PAPAL PREROGATIVE.

the structure of the whole Church rise until we all attain in Christ unto the perfect man, unto the unity of faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God ? . . . Whosoever he be who waters or who plants, God giveth to no one increase save to him who shall plant in the faith of Peter and acquiesce in his teaching. Verily to him are referred the chiefest judgments of the people, that they may be examined by the Roman Pontiff; and disposed under him are the judges of Holy Church, inasmuch as they are called to a part of his solicitude" (Ep. 97 ad Episc. Angl.); and again, " Only an unbeliever or one who goeth worse wrong, a heretic, or a schismatic, refuses obedience to the Apostolic commands" (Ep. 122 ad Gilb. Londin).

STEPHEN LANGTON (1208) (Wilkins Concil. vol. i. p. 520) : — " We have received the government of the Church of Canterbury from the mandate of our Superior " (the Pope). St. Thomas, he argues, at the beginning of his exile resigned his archbishoprick, but Pope Alexander, "inasmuch as he possessed the plenitude of power," gave it him back "independently of the royal assent or any election of the monks." But King Henry never at- tempted to gainsay this, although a schism gave him the opportunity. How much worse then for John to dispute the appointment of an undisputed Pope.

GROSTETE, BISHOP OF LINCOLN (1253) : — "Whosoever receives the power of any office from the primary source, and hands it over to others, as, e.g., a bishop receiving from our Lord the Pope and handing on to lesser directors of souls, will he not act more efficaciously towards lightening the burthen of our Lord the Pope, to whom belongs, under Heaven, the Supreme care of all Churches and of all souls, if he pass on to his inferiors in order that they may share his burthen and that of my Lord the Pope part of his power without taking from his own— since he can and ought to do this according to the teaching of the Scripture — than by taking from and diminishing his own? . . . There is therefore nothing that can be truly alleged for the diminution of the epis-

DEVELOPMENT. 83

copal power which the bishop has by the canon law, which has the same from our Lord the Pope, and from Jesus Christ through him, unless our Lord the Pope, to whom belongs the plenitude of power, curtail of the episcopal power something which the canon law grants usually, on account of some gain to the Church known to him, and not to be questioned by others, and which affords large compensation for this curtailment " (Letter 127, Rolls Publication).

This was the doctrine concerning Papal prerogative that prevailed in England from the seventh to the sixteenth century. It was against the abandonment of this doctrine, and exchanging the supremacy of the Pope for the supremacy of the king, that Fisher and More protested, and sealed their protest in their blood. *

§ 24. Development.

I am not maintaining that each one of the writers I have appealed to had the precise doctrine of the Pope's immediate universal jurisdiction denned at the Vatican Council articulately before his mind. All that I insist upon is, that from the beginning so much was acknow- ledged, that there really was no logical standpoint short of the Vatican definition. From the first the Papal power was in itself so strong, and each step of its inevitable development was left so completely without provision of counterpoise, that, philosophically con- sidered, it meant nothing less than it ultimately asserted. Striking as are the positive statements regarding Papal power made by Fathers and Councils, yet still more significant is the fact that no one of these authorities ventures to assign it any limit, although from the first it was a power as persistently aggressive as the sea. It should be impossible for those who believe that Church

* The supposed Convocation speech of Blessed Fisher quoted here in previous editions, and which has been unhesitatingly ac- cepted by Protestant as well as Catholic writers, is not genuine. See Fr. Bridget's recent "Life of Blessed John Fisher."

84 DEVELOPMENT.

history is the record of a divinely ordered life, and not of a congenital corruption, to regard the growth " quoad externum" of Papal power as other than a legitimate dynamic development, the result of an impulse given to the Church by its Creator and first mover.

Start any element in a constitution with the prestige that it cannot go wrong and has a mission to set every- thing else right ; under the condition of affairs essential to a Church militant, it will, little by little, surely gather all the reins of government into its own hand. Of course such a development may be retarded, on the one hand, by the character and circumstances of the possessor of such authority, or, on the other, accelerated by such accidents as the severance of the East, or the influence of the feudal system with its passion for stereotyping powers in material forms ; but the development itself was an intrinsic necessity. That it met an external necessity, a Protes- tant writer like Dr. Milman is able honestly to confess, "On the rise of a power both controlling and conserva- tive hung, humanly speaking, the life and death of Chris- tianity— of Christianity as a permanent, aggressive, expansive, and, to a certain extent, uniform system." *

"As to development," says Dr. Littledale (p. 152), "there are two or three things to be said." I will only here concern myself with what he says about the theory of development itself. "It is only a modern excuse put forward by private persons in the attempt to get out of a difficulty. But the authoritative assertion of the Roman Church is that its teaching now is exactly what it has been from the beginning." Then follow quotations from the Tridentine and Vatican Councils, which do not, as Dr. Littledale imagines, reject development, but both the theory of accretions, which is the opposite of development, and that of purely human amplifications. It must be remembered that General Councils are not in the habit of ventilating theological theories, * Lat. Christ, bk. iii. c. vii.

DEVELOPMENT. 85

'however unexceptionable, but of teaching truths of faith. As to the theory being modern, although I suppose it had never been brought out before so syste- matically and in such detail as in Cardinal Newman's " Essay," it is certainly laid down in principle by St. Vincent of Lerins (cap. xxiii. ed. Oxf.). "But per- ^.dventure some will say, Shall we have no. advancement of religion in the Church of Christ ? Surely let us have the greatest that may be ; for who is either so envious of men or hateful of God which would labour to hinder that? but yet in such sort that it may be truly an increase in faith, and not a change ; since this is the nature of an increase, that in themselves severally things grow greater ; but of a change, that something be turned from one thing which it was to another thing which it was not." His examples are the change from childhood to manhood, from the seed to the plant, in which qualities are observed in the after-phase which lay hidden in the previous, and in which I would add the proportion is sometimes considerably altered. Cardinal Newman's " Essay " is mainly occupied with laying down the criteria for distinguishing between such doctrinal germination and corruption. Which is it, I wonder, that has taken place in Dr. Littledale since 1868, when in his tract " Innovations" (p. 6) he thus speaks of what he now denounces as a modern excuse ? " ' Growth,' as Thomas Scott, the great Evangelical leader, once said, * Growth is the only evidence of life ; ' and if Chris- tianity be a living power, it must grow and in a sense change as time goes on. That is what Dr. Newman expressed long ago under the name of development"

PART II.

CHARGES AGAINST'THE CHURCH IN COMMUNION WITH THE SEE OF PETER.

Charge /. — Creature- Worship.

§ 1. The Theology of Creature- Worship.

To withdraw one tittle of God's rights and bestow it upon another, however exalted, is to forsake the living God. The question is, What is that worship which we must give to God only and to give which to others in- volves apostasy? It is, according to St. Thomas and all theologians, that homage called " latria" which, involving as it does a recognition of its immediate object as the beginning and end of all things, as the ultimate scope, therefore, of all our worship, must needs belong to God alone. Other worship, that of dulia, though never given to God except supereminently in the act of latria, is also due to Him as our supreme Lord and Master; and, as a recognition of His supreme sovereignty, of course can never be shared with another. Yet this mastership, with its rights of reverence, is in various degrees communicated to creatures. We are bidden to be subject to all power, to pay reverence to all creatures, to hold in honour all beauty, and goodness, and truth, and so especially those creations of spiritual beauty, the holy ones of God, and first amongst these that highest of God's spiritual crea-

THE THEOLOGY OF CREATURE-WORSHIP. 87

tions, His Immaculate Mother. Not that this lower worship is without reference to God, whom we recognise as the " glory of the Saints," and to whom all their glory is referred. Ever are the elders crowned, and ever do they lay their crowns before the throne.

Dr. Littledale says (p. 1 8) that "we have only four examples in the New Testament of acts of reverence being done to saints, and in all these cases they were promptly rejected and forbidden, showing that they were offensive to the saints, as savouring of disloyalty to that God whom they love and serve." The instances are Cornelius's falling down at St. Peter's feet (Actsx. 25, 26), the people of Lycaonia and Barnabas and Paul (Acts xiv. 13, 14),, and St. John and the angel twice (Rev. xix. 10, and Rev. xxii. 8, 9), " whereas Christ never refused nor blamed an act of worship offered to Himself."

We may let drop the second instance as clearly a re- jection of nothing short of divine honours. As regards the other cases, Dr. Littledale observes in a note to p. 19, that it cannot be supposed that either Cornelius or St. John meant to offer divine homage, nor indeed, I may add, that St. John, at least, could have offered any worship which it was sinful to offer, or in any way re- pugnant to the injunction of the Holy Spirit, written long before, Col. ii. 18 — "Let no man beguile you in worshipping of angels."

It must be remembered that angels in Holy Scripture sometimes present themselves as angels, i.e., as mes- sengers or ministering spirits, sometimes as represen- tatives and images (dtopdvtia) of Him from whom they are sent and in whose person they speak. In the latter case they were worshipped with a relative latria, or made the vehicle of a divine worship, as when Abraham prostrated himself before the three angels, and, as St. Augustine says, "seeing three, adored one." We may very reasonably conceive that St. John had taken an angel messenger for a theophany, and that the angel

88 THE THEOLOGY OF CREATURE-WORSHIP.

would not allow him to worship in the porch when his mission was to conduct him within the shrine. Again, it is quite conceivable that the angel may have refused, what it was quite right for the saint to offer, viz., a service of dulia or reverence, and this in honour of Him who, being so much higher than the angels, had assumed man's lower nature. The case of Cornelius admits of a precisely similar treatment. It was St. Peter's mission to present the first-fruits of the Gentiles to his Master, and he was eager to fulfil it ; moreover, the humility of a saint while on earth is ever fearful.

That there is a lawful worship of the creature, Christ himself testifies. Rev. iii. 9 — "To the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia write ... I will make them come and adore (vcoffxvvqauffiv) before thy feet."

As to our Lord never having refused an act of wor- ship, the statement cannot be borne out. He certainly did refuse an act of worship when he met the " Good Master" with " There is none good but God ;" and again when he said to St. Mary Magdalene " Touch me not," thereby showing that the act may be refused without im- plying any condemnation of the principle.

Many acts of adoration are recorded as offered to creatures in the Old Testament — -the three angels who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mambre ; the angel from whom Jacob asked a blessing ; the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush ; the bowing to the pillar of the cloud ; the prostration before the ark, and the worship of the angel by Josue. It is not necessary to decide how many of these were acts of dulia, how many of " relative latria" The one makes for the wor- ship of saints, the other for the worship of images.*

That the angels and saints exercise in our regard a subordinate mediatorship of prayer and good works appears, among other places, in Dan. x. 21, Tobias xii. 12, and Rev. viii. 3. The Catholic doctrine on the subject perfectly harmonises with these texts, those con. * See Appendix, Note C.

CULTUS OF THE SAINTS. 89

cerning the one object of worship, and the one mediator quoted by Dr. Littledale (p. 17). Dr. Littledale seeks no harmony, but is contented to array Scripture against Scripture, Fathers against Fathers. So is it ever with heresy in its unconcern for "all the counsel of God," crying, like the false mother before Solomon, "Let it be neither thine nor mine, but divide it."

On the passages from the Fathers quoted by Dr. Littledale (p. 23) I remark, that St. Irenaeus and the Council of Laodicea are directly combating the angel- worship of the Gnostics, the Spiritualists of their day. The passage from St. Clement of Alexandria merely asserts that angels and men had not different Gods, as in the Gnostic scheme, but one only. St. Athanasius, in his conflict with the Arians, was almost constrained to emphasise exclusively the incommunicableness of the Divine worship. Origen (cont. Cels. vii. 13) actually explains that, had his opponent meant to charge him with worshipping real angels, "Gabriel, Michael, &c.," he (Origen) would have had to distinguish the senses of the word "worship" (^a-Trgug/v), but as he means de- mons he must simply deny. In an exquisite passage (Horn. i. in Ezech. n. 7) he addresses the newly bap- tized : " Thou wert yesterday under the demon, now thou art under the angel." Then, invoking the angel, he cries, "Come, angel, and receive him ... as the good physician." St. John Chrysostom sufficiently vindicates his Catholic creature- worship in the passage quoted in the ensuing section.

•§ 2. Cultus of the Saints According to the Fathers.

The distinction between the worship of latria, supreme worship, and the worship of dulia, inferior worship, has always been substantially recognised, although there is nothing in the etymology of the two words to indicate the distinction between service paid to

90 CULTUS OF THE SAINTS.

the saints and the supreme worship of God, which th* words are used to express. The first use of the term dulia in contrast with latria is attributed to St. Au- gustine. The words KDOGX.WWK; (adoratio) and Oeeowtic* (servitium) are commonly used by the Greek Fathers instead of dulia to express the cultus of the saints. The distinction is very precisely expressed by St, Cyril of Alexandria (c. Julian vi. pp. 203, 204) — "The holy martyrs we neither call gods nor are wont to worship them, to wit, with latria, but only relatively and reverently; but we the rather crown them with the highest reverence, because they have wrestled honourably for the truth, and have so preserved sincerity of faith as to be unsparing even of their life, and to bid adieu to the fear of death, and nobly to triumph over every danger, and set up to mankind, as it were, certain images of their marvellous manfulness, their own brave doings. There is nothing unreasonable then, rather, doubtless, it was even neces- sary, that those who had such splendid achievements to exult in should be crowned with never-ending honours. '* He appeals to the Greek cultus of their heroes and quotes Plato (Repub. v. c. 15) : " For the future we will reverence men who have died thus, as men who have become genii, and will worship their graves."

For the intercession of the saints, out of numberless passages that might be quoted, these two may serve. St. Augustine (in Ps. 85, n. 24) : " Our Lord Jesus Christ yet intercedes for us (Rom. viii. 34) ; all the martyrs who are with Him intercede for us. Nor ever do their inter- cessions cease until our groanings have passed away." St. Jerome (Adv. Vigilant, n. 6) : " If the Apostles and the martyrs, whilst yet in the flesh, could pray for others whilst they had still cause for anxiety on their own account, how much more after their crowns, their vic- tories, and their triumphs ? " The practice of direct in- vocation is urged on the faithful by St. John Chrysostom (Horn, de SS. Berenice et Prosdoce, n. 7, ed. Ben. torn*

CULTUS OF THE SAINTS. 91

rii. p. 645) : " Not only on this festal day, but on other days, let us cleave unto them, let us entreat them, and pray them to become our patrons. Not only when living have they a great confident claim upon God, but even when dead, nay, the more by far when dead, for they are bearing now the stigmata of Christ, and show- ing these stigmata, there is nothing they cannot win of the King." And by St. Asterius Amas. (Encom. SS. Mart. ed. Combefis, torn. i. p. 194) : " Forasmuch as our prayer is the less fitted to prevail with the Lord in times of necessity and distress, inasmuch as our prayer is not so much a deprecation as a memorial of sins, therefore let us fly to our fellow-servants, the well-beloved of the Lord."*

Dr. Littledale quotes St. Gregory Nyssen's statement, " that nothing created could be worshipped by man," as though it was meant to preclude even inferior worship, whereas we know that St. Gregory was an ardent saint- worshipper. In his sermon De xl. Martyr. (Op. torn, ii. p. 206) he speaks of the miracles wrought at their invocation and by their relics; rejoices that he possesses a portion of the inestimable treasure, and praises St. Basil for his saint-worship as " ay/oj ruv ay'iuv dspaKtvrqi;" a holy servant of the holy ones. For the cultus of saints' bodies and relics we have St. Jerome (c. Vigilant, n. 5) : " Are we guilty of sacrilege when we enter the basilicas of the Apostles ? Was the Emperor Constantine sacri- legious who brought the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople, at whose coming the demons yelled, and whom the indwellers of Vigilantius acknowledged ? And at the present time is he, Augustus Arcadius, to be called sacrilegious for translating the bones of the Blessed Samuel from Judea into Thrace ? are all those bishops to be accounted not merely sacri-

* For inscriptions of the third century containing the direct in- vocation of martyrs, see "Roma Sotterranea " (Northcote and Brownlow), vol. i. p. 290.

92 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

legious, but fools, for carrying a worthless thing, some crumbled ashes, in silk and gold ? are the crowds through- out all the Churches foolish who ran out to meet the holy relics, and received them with as great a joy as though they beheld the prophet living among them, so that from Palestine to Chalcedon swarming crowds chanted with one voice the praises of Christ?" And Theodoret(De Cur. Affect. Graec. Disp. viii.): "How many were made free of their desire who asked faithfully, clearly testify the gifts indicative of their cures. Some have hung up representations of eyes, some of feet, fashioned of gold or silver. . . . These indicate that disease has been driven out, as evidence of which, these things are hung up by those who received their health, and their (the saints') power witnessed! that theirs is the true God." Compare, too, St. Augustine's account of the miracles wrought by St. Stephen's relics, and those of St. Gervase and St Protase (De Civ. Dei, lib. xxii. c. viii.).

That there are, and have always been, false or doubt- ful relics is nothing to the point. This must have been inevitable in any case ; but, granting the existence of any degree of carelessness at certain times and in certain localities, the authorities of the Church might well hesi- tate to undertake an antiquarian investigation of almost hopeless arduousness, to the great disturbance of much traditional local piety. The doubtful relic, even granting its falsity, is still, as an image, capable of transmitting the cultus of the saint to its object

§ 3. The Cultus of Mary. T. Theology of the Cultus, with Catena.

Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is the natural correla- tive of her dignity of Mother of God, and of her special position in regard to us, involved in her relations to

THE CITLTUS OF MARY. 93

Him in whom we, who died in Adam, live again. Mary appears in the earliest patristic writings, in Justin, Ter- tullian, and Irenseus, as the Mother of God made man, and so as the Mother of the living, the second Eve, by whom reparation is made for the fault of the first, and through whose free co-operation with Christ we are put in possession of our lost birthright. The same tradition is carried on after Nicsea by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephrem Syrus, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine (see Cardinal Newman's Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 35 et seq.). The following florilegium of the patristic cultus of our Lady is given by the Cardinal (ib. p. 71 et seq.)\ "She was alone, and wrought the world's salva- tion and conceived the redemption of all," says Ambrose. " She had so great grace, as not only to preserve virginity herself, but to confer it upon those whom she visited." " The rod out of the stem of Jesse," says Jerome, " and the Eastern gate through which the High Priest alone goes in and out and yet is ever shut." "The wise woman," says Nilus, who " hath clad believers, from the fleece of the Lamb born of her, with the clothing of incorruption, and delivered them from their spiritual nakedness." " The mother of life, of beauty, of majesty, the morning star," according to Antiochus. " The mystical new heavens," "the heavens carrying the Divinity," " the fruitful vine," " by whom we are trans- lated from death to life," according to St. Ephrem. " The manna which is delicate, bright, sweet, and virgin, which as though coming from heaven has poured down upon all the people of the Churches a food pleasanter than honey," according to St. Maximus. ..." Hail, Mother clad in light, of the light that sets not," says Theodotus, or some one else at Ephesus ; " hail, all undented Mother of holiness ; hail, most pellucid fountain of the life-giving stream." And St. Cyril too at Ephesus, " Hail, Mar}', Mother of God, majestic common measure of the whole world, the lamp unquenchable, the crown of virginity,

94 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

the staff of orthodoxy, the indissoluble temple, the dwelling of the illimitable, Mother and Virgin, through whom he in the Holy Gospels is called blessed who cometh in the name of the Lord, . . . through whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified, . . . through whom Angels and Archangels rejoice, devils are put to flight, . . . and the fallen creature is received up into the heavens," &c., &c.

"He who confesses not," says St. Maximus (Relat. de Dogm. inter Max. et Theod. torn. i. p. Ixiv. ed. Combefis), " that our all -praise -surpassing, most holy, inviolate, and by all intelligent natures to be venerated Lady, truly became the natural mother of God,* ... let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and from every super-celestial virtue, and from the choir of the holy Apostles and prophets, and from the countless multitude of the most holy martyrs, and from every spirit made perfect in justice now and forever and ever. Amen." And St. Sophronius : "With thee is the Lord ; who shall dare to strive against thee ? From thee is God; who does not yield to thee at once, rejoicing rather to render thee the primacy of excellence ? " (De Annunc. n. 2i).f

These are evidences of patristic cultus; but, it may be urged, This is rather praise than prayer, there is a dearth of " help me," " protect me,'* nay, or " intercede for me;" although it is hard to conceive that this is not repeatedly implied in what has been already quoted. It may be convenient to take a period when the doctrine of both East and West had articulated itself clearly in favour of the present Roman Catholic practice of the invocation of our Lady and the Saints, and then see how far we can trace it back in earlier times. My starting-point shall be the eighth century.

* Already defined under anathema by the Third and Fifth Councils.

t See Hurter, Mariologia, Theol. Dogm. Thes. civ.

THE CULTUS OF MARY. 95

THE SEVENTH COUNCIL (A.D. 787) frequently exhorts us to seek "the intercession of our inviolate Lady, the natural mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, and of the holy Angels."

POPE GREGORY II. (A.D. 726), in his letter to the Em- peror Leo the Isaurian, lays down carefully the Church's doctrine on this point as well as upon that of holy images : " Thou sayest that we worship stones and walls and pictures. It is not, Emperor, as thou sayest, but that our memory may be stimulated, and that our stupid inexpert heavy mind may be roused and borne on high by those whose names and titles and images these are. Not that these are gods, as thou sayest ; far be it ; for we put not our hope in them. And if it be an image of the Lord, we say, 'O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, succour and save us;'* but if of His Holy Mother, we say, * Holy Mother of God, Mother of the Lord, intercede with thy Son, our true God, that He save our souls ; ' but if of a martyr : ' Holy Stephen, who didst shed thy blood for Christ, who as protomartyr hast a claim to plead boldly, intercede for us" (Labbe, torn. viii. p. 658).

ST. JOHN DAMASCEN (circa A.D. 740) calls the Blessed Virgin "Domina Angelorum," queen of angels (Serm. in Nat. B. M. V. Op. torn. ii. ed. Lequien); and in his sermon De Dormit. B. V. M. ibid. p. 864, thus apostrophises her : " Thou too fulfilling the office of Mediatrix, and made the ladder of God coming down to us to assume our feeble nature, and couple and unite it with Himself, and so render man's mind capable of seeing God, didst unite what was severed. . . . Wherefore let

* Wordsworth testifies to the wholesome naturalness of this " relative latria" in his "Boatmen's Hymn :" — " Saviour, for our warning seen

Bleeding on that precious Rood, If, while through the meadows green

Gently wound the peaceful flood, We forgot Thee, do not Thou Disregard Thy suppliants now."

g6 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

us all hasten, old and young, ... to honour our Lady, our nature's Queen. . . . Let us say, * O maiden's glory, O mother's pride, Mother that knewest not man, O miracle with which the prophets sent of God were smitten, and whose glory overpowereth the holy angels, be propitious to the prayers of thy servants who implore thy aid. . . . O thou Mary whose intercession suffers no repulse nor prayer refusal ; thou that art nearest to the pure Godhead, coming nighest to the Holy Trinity; lifted up above the ranks of the Cherubim, more exalted than the squadrons of the Seraphim ; through thee, as long as we shall remain in this fleeting world, may we obtain aid to perform good works and be delivered from our evil deeds, and after our passage hence may we attain to the most high and everlasting God, to the glory of the kingdom of heaven, and to an habitation in the land of the living."

ST. COSMAS OF JERUSALEM (circa A.D. 740), Hymn ii. Bib. Max. Pat. Lugd. 1677, torn. xii. : — "Every tongue fails to celebrate worthily, even heavenly minds grow dim in thy praises, O Deipara ; yet in thy goodness receive our homage, for thou knowest our God-inspired desire. Thou art the champion of Christians, we magnify thee." And Hymn v. : — " With pure hearts and undefiled lips we magnify the Immaculate and wholly pure Mother of Emmanuel, through her and from her offering divine worship to her Son." Prayer — "Open unto us the gate of mercy, Blessed Deipara. Let not, therefore, us who hope in thee go astray ; deliver us from our calamities, for thou art the Salvation of the race of man." " Vast are the multitudes of my sins, O Deipara ; to thee I fly, thou holy one, craving salvation. Visit my soul in its sickness and ask of thy Son and God that He give me remission of all the evil I have done, O thou uniquely holy, uniquely blessed." " All my hope I place in thee. Mother of light, keep me under thy protection."

ST. GREGORY THE GREAT (A.D. 604) in i Reg. c i. n.

THE CULTUS OF MARY. 97

5, says of Mount Ephraim : — " Under the name of this mountain the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, may be designated. She was indeed a mountain which transcended all heights of created election in the dignity of her election. And is not Mary a lofty moun- tain, who, that she might attain to the conception of the eternal Word, lifted the summit of her merits above the choirs of the Angels? Of the exceeding dignity of this mountain Isaias, prophesying, saith, ' There shall be prepared in the last days a mountain, a house of the Lord upon the top of the mountains/ A mountain upon the top of the mountains was she, because the loftiness of Mary hath shone above all the saints ; . . . A mountain upon the top of the mountains she had not bc-en, unless her divine fruitfulness had raised her above the heights of the angels." *

Ep. 52, lib. ix. he informs Secundinus that he has sent him two pictures of Christ and the Blessed Virgin, and SS. Peter and Paul. Of the former he says : "We prostrate not ourselves before it as a divinity, but we adore Him whom through the image we recall to mind, as born, or suffering, or seated on His throne." t Ep. 6, we have an account of an ardent convert from Judaism who takes violent possession of a synagogue in which he sets up a cross and a picture of the Madonna. St. Gregory orders the removal of the cross and the picture " with that reverence which is their due." Again, Dial. 1. iv. c. 17. he relates the story of Musa, a little girl to whom our Lady appeared, and warned her to be very good, and she would fetch her in a few days. As the time drew near the child fell sick, and on the thirtieth day our

* The genuineness of this commentary, disputed by Gussanville, is defended by Cave. It is supposed by Du Pin and Thomassin to have been put together from notes by a disciple, and to this the Benedictines incline.

t This letter is in sundry places corrupt, but these words ate quoted by Gregory II. and Adrian I.

G

98 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

Lady appeared. The child dies with the words, " Behold, Lady, I come ; behold, Lady, I come."

THE SACRAMENTARY OF POPE GELASIUS (A.D. 492- 496) contains several prayers in which our Lady's inter- cession is invoked. The following for vespers of the Annunciation may serve as a specimen : — "We beseech Thee, O Almighty God, that the glorious intercession of the Blessed and ever-glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, may protect us and bring us to eternal life." (See Muratori, Liturg. Rom. et Vet. p. 643.)

ST. BASIL OF SELEUCIA (A.D. 458), one of the Fathers of Chalcedon (in Deip. Combefis, Biblioth. Pat. pp. 590-595) : — " What shall we say of the Deipara, who in splendour outshines all the martyrs as much as the sun's bright- ness doth the twinkling rays of the stars ? " " Hail, full of grace, most flourishing Paradise of Chastity, in which the tree of life was planted which shall yield unto all the fruits of salvation, from which the four-mouthed fountain of the Gospels pours forth its streams of mercy to believers. Hail, full of grace, Mediatrix betwixt God and man, through whom the middle wall of enmity was removed, earth is wed with heaven, and is made one with it." "Who does not admire the power of the Deipara and her eminence above all the saints whom we honour? For if God gave such grace to His servants that they not only healed the sick by their touch, but even by their shadow, how great a power must He be conceived to have bestowed upon His Mother ! A much greater than upon His servants ; that is evident. What wonder that yet amongst men and walking upon the earth the saints were operative, when after death the tarth cannot hide their power? For although stones conceal their bodies, yet in necessity they can save, if only recourse is had to them duly. But if He grants to these the power of working miracles, what in reward for her nurture will He not grant to His Mother, and with what gifts has He not adorned her, and deservedly ! For

THE CULTUS OF MARY. 99

if that sun by whose light we are illumined from without so fills us with brightness, how much more He who is the sun's Lord, that luminary of brightness and splendour, dwelling in the most chaste Virgin, hath filled her with divine light! If Peter was called ' Blessed] and had intrusted to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven foi acknowledging Christ as the Son of the living God, how should she by all not be pronounced ' more Blessed ' who merited to bring forth Him whom he confessed ! If Paul was called a vessel of election because he carried the august name of Christ and preached it throughout the world, what a vessel was God's Mother, who did not merely as the golden vase hold manna, but carried in her womb that Bread of Heaven, that Bread, I say, which is given to the faithful for their nourishment and support ! "

ST. PROCLUS, secretary to St. John Chrysostom, and, A.D. 437, his successor (Orat. v. Combefis, Auctar. Nov.), says that Mary is above all the prophets and holy men of old. "They have nothing that can be compared to Mary the Mother of God, for Him whom they saw in figure she bore incarnate in her womb. . . . Run through all created things, O man, in thy thought, traverse earth, and cast thine eyes over the sea, examine diligently the air, let thy soul search out the heavens, intellectually weigh all the invisible powers, and see if any other such wonder can be found in the whole of creation. For the heavens indeed are telling the glory of God ; the angels, in fear, render service ; the archangels worship trembling ; the Cherubim shudder, overpowered by His glory ; the Seraphim hover round and dare not draw near, quivering as they cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth. The heavens and the earth are full of His glory. . . . Marvel at the Virgin's conquest, in that Him whom all creation extols with fear and trembling, she alone, in a man- ner unspeakable, hath received within . her chamber." "Through her all women are blessed. . . . Eve is

100 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

healed. . . . Mary is worshipped (<rec>a-/.uviTr(xi) as be* comes the mother, the handmaid, the cloud, the bride- chamber, the ark of the Lord. . . . Therefore we say,. ' Blessed art thou amongst women,' who alone hast found a remedy for Eve's sorrow, hast alone wiped away the tears of that mourner, didst carry the price of the world's redemption, didst receive the treasure of the pearl in trust."

ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS (A.D. 449), Serm. 74, cannot speak of the Mary, the sister of Martha, at the raising of Lazarus, without reminding us that she is fitly present, because she bears the name of Mary, "without whom death could not be chased away nor life restored ; " and again (Serm. 143) : "To each of the other children of men grace gave itself by part, but to Mary the whole fulness of grace gave itself at once."*

ST. JEROME says that Mary is the hundredfold yield of the divine field, compared with whom others, nomi- natim St. Elizabeth and Zachary, are "much inferior" (Dial. cont. Pelag. i. s. 16). We see the place our Lady occupied in St. Jerome's devotion in his consolatory letter to Paula (Ep. xxxix.). He puts these touching words into her daughter's mouth : " In thy place I have Mary the mother of the Lord ;" and again (Ep. xxii.), to Eustochium : " What a day will that be when the Mother of the Lord comes to meet thee, accompanied by her choirs of virgins ! "

ST. AUGUSTINE (Serm. cxci. s. 4) makes Mary the very well-spring of the interior life of nuns. " From Mary's unspoiled virginity holy virgins are born ; you who, despising the world's marriage, have chosen to be virgins even in your flesh, celebrate with solemn joy the birth from a virgin this day. . . . She, then, whose footsteps you are following, abode not with any man in order to conceive, and, when she was bearing the child, remained a virgin. Imitate her as much as you can. . . . That * See Morris, "Jesus the Son of Mary," vol. ii. p. 167.

THE CULTUS OF MARY. 1O1

\vhich you wonder at in the flesh of Mary do within the recesses of your soul."

ST. AMBROSE (lib. ii. De Virg.) : "Let the virginity and life of the Blessed Mary be drawn before you as if in a picture, from whom, as in a mirror, is reflected the face of Chastity, and Virtue's figure. . , . In learning, the prime stimulus is to be found in the nobleness of the teacher. Now what has more nobleness than God's mother ? What brighter than she whom Brightness selected? What chaster than she who, without the contact of a body, gave birth to a body ? "

ST. EPHREM SYRUS (A.D. 379) thus presents Mary in her character of "advocate" at the foot of the Cross : "Adam was naked and beautiful, his thrifty wife wrought and made for him a garment of shame ; the garden which he had polluted saw it and bewailed it. Mary begged for the garment that adorned the thief, and she cheered him by the promise (" This day," &c.). The garden (i.e. Para- dise) saw him and embraced him in Adam's stead" (vol. iii. p. 572 d. ap. Morris /. ^.).

ST. GREGORY NYSSEN (A.D. 395) relates that our Lady appeared to St. Gregory of Neocaesarea in a shape " more than human," and bade St. John the Evangelist disclose to him " the mystery of godliness," which he did in the form of a profession of faith, which the saint ever after made use of. (See Card. Newman's Letter, p. 79.)

ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN (A.D. 329-389), Orat. xxiv. sec. n, relates how St. Justina, when her chastity was endangered, betook herself to our Lady, "suppliantly beseeching the Virgin Mary to give succour to a mai- den in peril." St. Gregory's view that the Cyprian who was Justina's persecutor after his conversion became St. Cyprian of Carthage is of course untenable, but this in no way derogates from his evidence as to the sentiment of his day.

ST. IREN^EUS (A.D. 135-202): — "As she (Eve), having indeed Adam for a husband, but as yet being a virgin,

IO2 THE CULTUS OF MARY.

becoming disobedient, became the cause of death to her* self and to the whole human race, so also Mary having the predestined man, and being yet a virgin, being obed- ient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation" (Adv. Haer. iii. 22, n. 4), and (v. 19, n. i) "though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey God ; so that of the virgin Eve the Virgin Mary might become the advocate." The advocate, intercessor of Eve and of Eve's children — ist, by her participation in the act of redemption ; 2d, by her continued pleading in their behalf. No doubt the first sense is the primary one in this passage, but the second is not excluded. Dr. Littledale has tried (see note to p. 67, 3d ed.) to limit the meaning of advocate to that of consoler, in the sense that women who lamented be* cause of Eve may now rejoice because of Mary. His argument is that the Greek, which is lost, is generally supposed to have been UaoaxXyros. But Dr. Littledale should have told his readers that comforter in its ordinary sense is by no means the proper word for Paraclete, which is, after all, as much a technical legal word as the Latin advocatus^ and has precisely the same meaning of advocate or patron. It is the word used of. Christ, " advocatum habemus," we have an advocate, mediator. Moreover, the word and its> derivatives are used three times by Irenaeus, and each time in this same sense of advocacy: lib. iii. c. 18, n. 7, " advocationem prsebentes peccato," patronising sin; lib. iv. c. 34, n. 8, "si aliquis Judaeis advocationem prsestans," if any one taking up the cause of the Jews ; lib. iii. c. 23, n. 8, " qui contradicunt saluti Adae . . . advocates se serpentis et mortis osten- dunt," those who gainsay the salvation of Adam show that they are the advocates of the serpent and death (cf. Massuet. in Iren. diss. ii. art. 6). Dr. Littledale has authority in the Benedictine Latin Glossary to Irenaeus. for taking "advocabat plangentes" (iii. 9, 3), as 'He consoled the mourners ; ' although there seems to be no.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE. 103

reason here for bringing in any variation upon the normal sense of ' invite ' (vocare ad). Granting, however, such a use of " advocare," the point is that it would not tend to give " advocata " in the sense of consoler, but only in the sense of consoled.

2. Summary of Evidence.

The Blessed Virgin is the highest and holiest of God's creatures, and therefore the most worthy of our honour. She is the most powerful of intercessors with God, there- fore her cultus must be the most beneficial to man. St Ephrem and St. Gregory Nyssen give instances of her intercession. St. John Damascen and St. Cosmas give direct prayers to Mary; the Sacramentary of Gelasius indirect prayers. St. Gregory Nazianzen puts a direct invocation of Mary in the mouth of the Virgin Martyr, SL Justina. A Father of Chalcedon vehemently encourages her invocation by enlarging on her immense superiority to all the other saints, precisely as to her power of bene- faction. In St. Gregory the Great's time, Mary's picture is with the crucifix shown to be the very insignia of a Christian church. That this had been more or less the case from the beginning is proved by the frescoes of the Madonna and Child in the Catacombs, ascribed by the best authorities to the first, second, and third centuries. Before any division of East and West, the Church of the eighth century, as represented by St John Damasceu and St. Cosmas, is as direct and free in its invocation of Mary as the Catholic Church of the nineteenth. Our Lady's cultus has ever been, to say the least of it, equally pronounced in the scrupulously conservative Greek Church as in the Latin ; witness the collection of prayers from the Greek office-books in Cardinal Newman's "Letter," Note D. Indeed, if we admit the position of our Lady as presented to' us by the early Fathers, and the principle of the invocation of saints, established as it is over and over again in the cultus of martyrs, and

IO4 CULTUS OF OUR LADY IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

witnessed to so abundantly in passages already quoted, the cultus of Mary is a logical necessity. If we found no traces of it whatever, we should stand aghast as though before some stately edifice which cast no shadow under a brilliant sun. That there was some cultus of Mary during the first four centuries has been sufficiently established ; we have now to answer the question why this did not assume larger proportions and assert itself more prominently than it did.

3. Imperfect Development of the Cultus of Our Lady in the Early Church.

This is to be attributed, primarily, to the fact that the system with which Christianity found itself in immediate conflict was polytheism, and the truth which it was above all necessary to inculcate was the unity of the object of worship. On this account the direct worship of Christ and of the Holy Ghost as Almighty God was to a certain extent in abeyance during the first three centuries ; at least it was not given anything approaching the promi- nence it assumed in the ensuing centuries. How many instances, I would ask, of direct invocation of Christ or of the Holy Ghost as Almighty God are to be found in the New Testament or in the writings of the Fathers of the first three centuries? For example, is there one such invocation in the works of Justin or Tertullian or Gregory Thaumaturgus or Cyprian?* "It required century after century," says Cardinal Newman, " to spread it out (the doctrine of Christ's Divine personality), and to imprint it energetically on the worship and practice of the Catholic peoples as well as on their faith. Athanasius was the first and the great teacher of it" f It was prac- tically impossible to present to a polytheistic world a Trinity of Divine persons without seeming polytheis- tically to divide the object of Divine worship; and to a

* See "Home and Foreign Review," April 1864, pp. 658, 659. t Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 92.

CULTUS OF OUR LADY IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 105

rorld which had lost the tradition of the relations between Creator and creature, a subordinate worship, in which the Creator should be worshipped in His creature, could only very gradually be made intelligible. Especially was the worship of the " Mother of God," the " Queen of Heaven " — a title which almost seemed to reintroduce the banished dynasty of Olympus — open to difficulty and abuse, such as we see was the case with the Colly- ridians Combated by St. Epiphanius. Naturally, then, and inevitably, it was only when the Divine cultus of Christ was established in perfect harmony with the wor- ship of one only God that it was safe to give free scope to the worship of His Mother. At the same time it must be remembered that the writings of the early Fathers took for the most part the form of doctrinal exposition or of apology, and that neither is the natural field of devotion. When we come to the sermons, e.g., those of St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, we are met with various panegyrics of the Blessed Virgin, the false attribution of which to the Fathers whose names they bear is very generally admitted. But what does this come to ? For the most part the adverse criticism falls upon certain forms of expression, certain presentations of doctrine, or references to events, which are recognised as belonging to a subsequent date. Any one who knows what is the fate of sermons, even in our own day, will hesitate to regard much of this criticism as conclusive, at least in regard to the result of com- plete disappropriation. How many sermons of popular preachers of the present day have been broken up in sermon cases, and received variations, both in idea and phraseology, from their new enunciators, which nothing but the modern distinction between print and manuscript has kept out of the text. Of course this is no excuse for uncritical quotation, but it does suggest, I conceive, a reasonable caveat against assuming that St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine never panegyrised our

106 SCRIPTURE OBJECTIONS TO THE CULTUS OF MARY.

Lady, because their panegyrics, as they stand, must needs be relegated to the list of spuria or dubia. Any- how, my hypothesis is far more reasonable than that which supposes a sudden birth of Marian devotion between Chrysostom and Damascen, nay, in the quarter of a century between Chrysostom and Proclus, and this in a Church which was a model of conservatism.

4. Scripture Objections to the Cultus of Mary.

1. Luke ii. 41-50. Our Lady is "rebuked," Dr. Little- dale thinks, for her search of Him. For what conceiv- able fault ? I would ask. Nothing short of a command- ment no longer to exercise a mother's part towards Him could have justified her in not seeking. Was it that she sought Him amongst her kinsfolk instead of at once betaking herself to the Temple ? But she thought He had left the Temple. Who would conceive a fault here unless he thought himself compelled to look for matter for a rebuke? There is no more rebuke on the one side than on the other. " Son, why hast Thou done so to us ? Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing/' is at least as much a rebuke as " Why is it that you sought Me ? Knewest thou not that about those things that are My Father's I must needs be?" This — not to speak of the mystic lesson of detachment conveyed to us in our Lord's words — is the natural antithesis of affec- tion, in which only Protestant dulness could suspect a quarrel

2. Matt. xii. 46-50 ; Mark iii. 31-36. Christ's answer, when told that His Mother and brethren desired to speak with Him, extolling as higher than any casual relationship the spiritual relationship of good works; and Luke ii. 27, 28, when Christ replies to the woman who extols the blessedness of His Mother, " Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." On both occasions He commends spiritual nearness to Himself as something higher than any other. The com-

REV. JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST 8T. MARY'S COLLEGE LIBRARY, X926

SCRIPTURE OBJECTIONS TO THE CULTUS OF MARY. 107

parison is one of relations, not of persons, and the per- fection of both relationships might culminate in the one person, as indeed was the case; for was she not "the handmaid of the Lord" as well as His Mother? and did she not " keep all these things and ponder them in her heart " ? If in Christ's " yea rather " He be supposed to deprecate His Mother's cultus, He must no less be sup- posed to deprecate His own, for the woman in the crowd primarily extolled Him, and His Mother only for His sake. Doubtless He would turn men's minds from the external greatness of His Mother's prerogative as of His own, to fix them rather upon His and His Mother's truer glory, as when He said, " Callest thou Me good ? " *

3. John ii. 4. When our Lady pleads " they have no wine," Christ answers, "What is there between Me and thee ? Mine hour is not yet come." These are mysterious words, but can we be surprised that the mystic lessons given by Jesus to Mary are hard to understand ? One thing is clear, that she did not -ask for anything she should not have asked for, because He granted it ; nor inopportunely, except in that sense in which we are all bidden to pray "in season and out of season." St. Cyril of Alexandria says that Christ wrought the miracle then which He was Himself unwilling to work, in order to show " reverence to His mother ; " and that " she, having great authority for the working of the miracle, got the victory, persuading the Lord as being her son, as was most fitting." (See Cardinal Newman's Letter, C. p. 140.) And Mary knew that she had " got the victory," that there was no rejection of prayer in Christ's words, or tone, or look ; and she said to the waiters, " Whatso- ever He shall say unto you, do ye." He called her "woman" (yvvat), a name which, in its ordinary use, is expressive at once of tenderness and respect, t a name

* See Dr. Ward's Essays, Devotional and Scriptural, pp. 218-225. t This is abundantly recognised by Protestant critics. Tritler

108 PATRISTIC OBJECTIONS TO THE CULTUS OF MARY.

with which Christ addressed her in their hour of closest union, when she stood at the foot of His Cross. It is a name, as Fr. Coleridge remarks, which may well have been used advisedly, for a reason "kindred to that for which He called Himself so constantly the Son of Man. He was the second Adam, ' the Father of the world to come,' as she was the Mother." The other words, 'What is there between Me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come,' express the mystic violence of prayer, like the cry of the angel with whom Jacob wrestled, ' Let me go ; ' or God's words to Moses, ' Leave me alone, that My wrath may be kindled against them.' The hour of prayer is the penultimate hour immediately preceding God's hour of grace.*

5. Patristic Objections to the Cultus of Mary.

j. Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, and Jerome conceive that Mary fell into slight sin now and again. Cyril of Alexandria thinks she was violently tempted by interior temptations during our Lord's Passion; whereas Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, and others sup- port the view which gradually prevailed in the Church that our Lady was simply sinless. Dr. Littledale tries to argue that the Fathers who could attribute any sort of sin to Mary must on that account be opposed to her cultus ; but that is absurd, for Chrysostom and Basil and Jerome, e.g., were, as we have seen, ardent advocates of the cultus of the martyrs, all of whom had committed sin, and some of them grievous sin. Neither can the attribution of such sin be taken as necessarily implying a disbelief in her Immaculate Conception ; for original sin implies a total absence of the supernatural life of grace, whereas venial sin does not. Cardinal Newman (Letter,

^ap. Wolf in Joan.) paraphrases it as "sestimatissima femina," or Lady. Kuinoel (Comment, in Nov. Test.) has collected a number of passages from the classics to prove the point.

* See Fr. Coleridge, Public Life of Our Lord, vol. i. pp. 159-161

PATRISTIC OBJECTIONS TO THE CULTUS OF MARY. 109

Note C.) thus accounts for the inadequate view of Mary's sinlessness taken by several of the Fathers : — "In the broad imperial world the conception entertained of womankind was not high ; it seemed only to perpetuate the poetical tradition of the ' varium et mutabile semper.' Little then was known of that true nobility which is ex- emplified in the females of the Gothic and German races, and in those of the old Jewish stock, Miriam, Deborah, Judith, Susanna, the forerunners of Mary. When, then, Chrysostom imputes vainglory to her, he is not imputing to her anything worse than an infirmity, the infirmity of a nature inferior to man's and intrinsically feeble ; as though the Almighty could have created a more excel- lent being than Mary but could not have made a greater woman." Graeco-Roman rhetoric, I may add, which furnished the form to so much of the patristic writings, never sought its topics in the exalted ideal of the Greek tragedy, where it would have met with the stately figure of an Antigone or an Alcestis ; it sought its topics in common life or in that art which was least removed from common life, and, until Christianity came, enthu- siasm was a transport and not a way of life. Chrysostom and Basil drew their commonplaces, new TO ywaiov, from the pages of Homeric scholiasts, and Hecuba and An- dromache, as the representatives of womankind, were ever holding back their hero from the paths of dangerous glory to which a higher duty impelled him, whilst the loftiest of their female virtues were hardly more than a foil to set off manliness. If any one is inclined to doubt the power of a paganised imagination amongst the saints and martyrs of the early Church, let him recollect the countless quaint disguises under which our Lord appears, as Orpheus, Hercules, &c., in the frescoes of the Roman Catacombs. Then, as Cardinal Newman points out, there were special reasons for the obscuration of the tradition of Mary's sinlessness in the homes of Chrysostom and Basil. " It is not surely wonderful if in Syria and Asia

110 PATRISTIC OBJECTIONS TO THE CULTUS OF MARY.

Minor, the seat in the fourth century of Arianism and Semi-Arianism, the prerogatives of the Mother were ob- scured, together with the essential glory of the Son, or if they who denied the tradition of His divinity forgot the tradition of her sinlessness."

2. St. Hilary of Poictiers (in ?s. cxviii. n. 12) urges Dr. Littledale (p. 56), speaks of the "fire" of the day of judgment, and of "the severity of the judgment" into which even "the Virgin who conceived God is to come." I answer that, as gold is tried in the fire, yet, if quite pure, loses nothing; so, St. Hilary does not say that our Lady will suffer, but that she will pass through that fire of judgment through which all must pass, as he, with other Fathers, understood to be represented by the flaming sword barring Paradise. Both St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii. Serm. 20, n. 12) and St. Hilary (n. 13) contemplate an innocence that need not fear. St. Ambrose instances St. John the Evangelist and St. Peter, and lays down generally (n. 13) that " whosoever hath here the fire of charity, there will not be able to be afraid of the fire of the sword." Much the same idea is expressed in Cardinal Newman's " Dream of Gerontius." It is only because Gerontius' soul is not quite pure, that ..." the keen sanctity which, with its influence like a glory clothes and circles round the Crucified, has seized, and scorched, and shrivelled it."

3. St. Epiphanius condemned the Collyridians, who worshipped Mary as a goddess, offering her sacrifice ; and Dr. Littledale (p. 56) tries to make a point of the Saint's wholesale condemnation of this cultus, as though, had he held the present Marian doctrine, he would have said, "Worship, but do not offer sacrifice." But the Collyridian cultus was in itself bad, being based upon the heretical assumption that Mary was something more than human, therefore none of its acts could be innocent. In laying the blame upon "excessive adoration of that Holy Virgin," St. Epiphanius equivalently admits that

IMAGE-WORSHIP. I T t

there may be an adoration not excessive, such as a cultus of dulia or hyperdulia, including direct invocation but rejecting sacrifice, which yet, as compared with latria, is no worship at all (Epiph. Op. torn. i. p. 1064).

§ 4. Image-Worship. i. The Theology of Image- Worship.

Dr. Littledale asserts (p. 26) "that all that part (of the first commandment) which forbids the making of graven images for the purpose of religious honour is suppressed in every popular Roman catechism" The italics are his own. This statement was so simply untrue, or, what was more to the purpose, was so immediately and completely disposed of by the production of a number of our Catholic catechisms with the clause in question, that in Dr. Littledale's second edition the passage is, without how- ever a word of acknowledgment, let drop, and the follow- ing substituted — "No Roman Catholic catechism teaches that there is either danger or sin in any making or using of images for religious honour short of actual paganism;" a most ambiguous sentence in Dr. Littledale's mouth, as any one may see who will compare what he says about the doctrine of "intelligent and shrewd heathens" being identical with that of Roman Catholic controversi- alists. So read, it involves a quasi-justification of Roman Catholic catechisms, inasmuch as they all stop short of Roman Catholic idolatrous doctrine. Having found, however, that several Roman Catholic catechisms have abridged what is with us the first commandment, so as to leave out the part about graven images, in his third edition Dr. Littledale makes his sentence run thus: — " Many Roman catechisms omit the second command- ment, while no" &c. Dr. Littledale would seem to have adopted the view that, in order to attain the truth re- garding the Holy Catholic Church, you have only to

112 IMAGE- WORSHIP.

provide a sufficient block of accusation, and gradually beneath the blows of controversy the figure of truth, which Dr. Littledale knows must be lurking there, will come to light. I can only say that there is something still to be done to Dr. Littledale's statement before the truth is beaten out of it. It is not true that " no Roman Catholic catechism teaches that there is either danger or sin in any making or using of images for religious honour short of actual paganism," .i.e., direct worship of idols as gods. The catechism of the Council of Trent (i. 8) enumerates several. "In what principal ways can the Deity be offended through images ? Mainly in two ways. As regards this precept, it is clear that the majesty of God may be vehemently offended : the one if idols and images are worshipped as God, or it is believed that there is in them any divinity or virtue on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them ^ or that faith is to be put in the images them- selves" The other principal way which the catechism goes on to mention is anthropomorphism.

As regards the first commandment, embracing as it does the Anglican first and second, I conceive that the second part is only forbidding a subdivision of the matter forbidden by the first part, as thus — (i.) Thou shalt not have other gods beside Me ; (2.) Thou shalt not make lor worship, or worship, any images of those other gods. The matter forbidden by the second is not outside the matter forbidden by the first. This is the view of Paley (Sermon on Exod. xx. 5) : — "The first and second com- mandment may be considered as one, inasmuch as they relate to one subject, or nearly so. For many ages and by many Churches they were put together and con- sidered as one commandment. The subject to which they both relate is false worship, or the worship of false gods. This is the single subject to which the prohibition of both commandments relates, the single class of sins which is guarded against" (vol. iii. p. 320, London, 1825).

IMAGE- WORSHIP. 1 13

It follows, then, that an abbreviation which omits the second part, as in some of our catechisms, and, as Dr. Littledale tells us, in the Shorter Lutheran, is quite natural and legitimate.

No doubt it is true that the Jews were not allowed to use images in their religious worship at their own dis cretion. Everything regarding their religious worship was prescribed, and the slightest deviation, any going beyond the letter of their rule in this direction, would create a suspicion that the Jew was hankering after the idolatrous worship of the nations round about him. But the fact that God made an image for them in the cloud and the brazen serpent, showed that the use of images was not in itself wrong or prohibited. So far as such prohibition was implied in the first commandment, we know that it no more continued obligatory under the Christian dispensation than the ceremonial observance of the seventh day. We have evidence of this in the frescoes in the Roman Catacombs of the Madonna and Child, and again of our Lady as an Orante in the exercise of her intercessory power. A specimen of the former is attributed by the highest authority — the Cavaliere de Rossi — to the first or second centuries (see Roma Sotterranea, Northcote and Brownlow, vol. ii. pp. 134- 143). Dr. Arnold (Letter xlii., Life by Stanley) urges that " the second commandment is in the letter utterly done away with by the fact of the Incarnation. To refuse, then, the benefit which we might derive from the frequent use of the crucifix, under pretence of the second command- ment, is a folly ; because God has sanctioned one con- ceivable similitude of Himself when He declared Him- self in the person of Christ."

One other abiding prohibition is certainly implied in this commandment, and that is, to make idols for heathen worship, with which offence certain manufacturers in this Protestant country were loudly and widely charged some years ago, with how much truth I do not know.

114 IMAGE-WORSHIP.

Dr. Littledale has entirely distorted the doctrine of St. Thomas concerning the worship of the cross, by omitting his explanation that the cross as an image is only the conduit of latreutic adoration, or, as others prefer to express it, the material image has an analogous use in adoration with that of the imaginative image — say of the crucifixion — in our own minds, forming as it were one object with its prototype ; or again, more pre- cisely, it is laid down that no interior act of adoration finds its object in the image ; although this is the object, for the sake of its prototype, of exterior acts when it is kissed and embraced, whilst the interior act passes en- tirely on to the exemplar. In this way Vasquez (2* 2* Disp. 108), Coninck (De Incarn. disp. 25, dub. 7), the Theologians of Wurtzburg(DeIncarn. sec. 3, art. 4,n. 515), understand St. Thomas, who says (2* 2* qu. 81, art. 3), " Religious worship is not given to images considered in themselves as such or such things, but according as they are images leading up to the incarnate God. The movement of the soul towards the image, as an image, does not stay in it, but passes on to that of which it is the image, and therefore the fact that religious worship is given to the images of Christ does not introduce dis- tinctions into the character of latria or the virtue of religion." So taken, St. Thomas's doctrine would seem to harmonise perfectly with that of the Seventh Council, which, when denying that latria proper is due to the images of Christ, clearly admits this relative latria when insisting that images transmitted the whole worship given them to their exemplars. Other writers, e.g., Bellarmine (lib. ii. de Imag. cap. 21), and Suarez (2* 2* disp. 54, sec. 5), deny that the above is an adequate explanation of image-worship, and insist that a certain lower but interior worship really rests upon the image, though, of course, in virtue of its prototype. It is true that the subject has been a field for much scholastic discussion, but the difference has been rather one of

THE SEVENTH GENERAL COUNCIL. 115

philosophical analysis and nomenclature than of theology. On this point all are agreed, that no act, either of latria ordulia, can find its adequate object in an image, although images must invariably be treated with reverence, at least, as belonging to the order of sacred utensils.

2. The Seventh General Council and the Council of Frankfort.

The Seventh General Council defined that an adora- tion of honour (r///,7jr/xjj </r|offxui?jc'/$), but not latria^ was clue to holy images, whether of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, angels or saints. Dr. Littledale objects that this second Council of Nicaea was no General Council, and that its doctrine was repudiated by the great Western Council of Frankfort. Now, Dr. Littledale has laid it down as his one test of oecumenicity — of the validity of a General Council — its acceptance by the Church. I contend, then, that, on his own ground, he is bound to accept this Second Council of Nicaea as the Seventh General Council, for though it was long before it was universally recognised as such, yet such has been the fate, in varying degrees, of other admittedly General Councils, such as the Second and Fifth. Anyhow, the whole Church, East and West, ended in the conclusion that the doctrine concerning holy images defined at Nicaea was true, and that the Council was oecumenical. No doubt as to either point had prevailed for centuries before the Western schism. As regards the Council of Frankfort, there can be no doubt that, opposed though it was to the general character of the discipline established at Nicaea, it never condemned the doctrine there defined. What it did condemn was the opinion falsely attributed to the Metropolitan of Cyprus, for which it held the Fathers of Nicsea responsible, viz., that latria — direct divine worship — the same as that given to the Trinity, was to be given to images (see Cone. Franc, can. 2). In one of its chapters sent to

lib THE SEVENTH GENERAL COUNCIL.

Pope Adrian it says, " We permit the images of saints, whosoever may choose to make them, either inside the church or out, for the love of God and His saints, but we in no ivise compel those to worship them who do not choose." * There is much to excuse the suspicion with which the Gallic prelates regarded the action of the Greek Church. This had exhibited a long succession of contradictory movements, anon tearing down its icons, anon caressing them, and thrusting them upon every one's worship, with an Oriental fervour with which the Church of Gaul, not possessing any traditional art, could not at all sympathise. Both the Gallic and Saxon Churches were absolutely committed to the principle of the Greek definition. The cultus of the Cross, of the Book of the Gospels, and of relics, a cultus including genuflections and prostrations, had prevailed amongst them from the earliest times. See the passages from Jonas of Orleans and the Irish monk Dungal in defence of the "adoration" of the Cross against the iconoclastic Claudius of Turin. t See, too, the extracts from the Life of Alcuin and the works of Bede and Aldhelm.t Dungal taunts his iconoclastic opponent with having to listen "to the frequent chanting in the church of the 'Crucem tuam adoramus Domine.' " In another passage he thus enunciates a doctrine identical with that of the Nicene Council : — " God alone is to be adored and worshipped, as it becomes the Lord and Creator of all things to be adored and worshipped by His creature, inasmuch as in Him alone we believe and hope, and to Him we daily sacrifice. But the good and holy creature of God, that is to say, a holy angel, a holy man, or the holy Cross> according to the degree of their worthiness we adore and worship, that is, we humbly honour and embrace for God's sake, and in God, but in a widely different fashion

* Natalis Alexander, ssec. viii. diss. vi. sec. 8. •f Natalis Alexander, ssec. vii. diss. vii. tLingard, Ang.-Sax. Church, vol. i. chap. 10.

THE SEVENTH GENERAL COUNCIL. I I 7

from that in which we worship and adore Him." How perfectly just are the strictures of Anastasius Bibliothe- •carius upon the attitude of the Gallic gainsayers Of" Nicasa (Praef. in Act. Syn. vii.) : — " Just as if the Book of the Gospels was not the work of man's hand, which they daily kiss and worship, . . . and in like manner the figure of the Holy Cross, which Christians everywhere profess to worship. Wherefore it is well to note that if we worship every gold or silver or wooden cross, which is really not that very same cross upon which our salva- tion was wrought out, but the figure and image of that one, why should we not worship the figure and image of Him who wrought that same salvation in the midst of the earth? For more venerable is He who wrought the salvation than the wood upon which He wrought the salvation ; and, therefore, the image of Christ, who wrought the salvation, is more worthy of adoration than the image of that Cross which only bore the salvation."

Although the Holy See made common cause with the Seventh Council, and it was recognised within the ensuing century as oecumenical by the vast majority of Catholics, yet the Pope did not give it that public •confirmation as an CEcumenical Council which involved his enforcing its statutes as a condition of communion. He saw that there was no real difference of faith between Nicaea and Frankfort, and left the Gallic Church to modify its devotional discipline in accordance with its religious sentiment. The gradual extinction of such difference as really existed between Gaul and England on the one hand, and Italy and the East on the other, may be attributed more perhaps to the rise in the former countries of religious art than to anything else. As regards the Eastern struggle, which resulted in the triumph of the image-worshippers at Nicaea, Archbishop Trench (Mediaeval History, chap, vii.) remarks that " no one will deny that, with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted the quicken-

Il8 DEVOTION TO PARTICULAR SHRINES AND IMAGES.

ing power of a Church, was ranged upon the other (the Nicene) side. Had the iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed itself at last in its true colours, it would. have proved to be the triumph, not of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate Saviour."

3. Devotion to Particular Shrines and Images.

Dr. Littledale (p. 28) insists that the existence of such particular devotions in the Catholic Church establishes the charge of " idolatry in the strictest sense." Why? I would ask. Is there anything idolatrous in the con- sciousness that a special representation, say, of Christ's sufferings, has more power to excite your devotion than another, and your consequent preference of it ? And is not the mere fact of a tradition of devotion to a par- ticular image, or the belief that special favours have been shown to worshippers at a particular shrine, whether in reward of saintly founders or saintly worshippers, itself an incentive to devotion? And the fact of the con- course of devout worshippers is the reason why the Holy See attaches special indulgences to the image or shrine in question, because it is there that they will be most abundantly used and bear most fruit. Was there ever a time, either in the East or West, when there was not a special devotion to certain holy places, and a belief that there the rain of God's blessings was more abundant than elsewhere ? The devotion to particular pictures and images is on precisely the same principle ; for such an image itself constitutes and indicates a place where God is believed to have shown great mercies, the recol- lection of which is likely to excite the very sentiments that would merit a repetition of those favours. If such special devotion is idolatrous, then surely the Greek Church in its immemorial devotion to its favourite icons> and especially to the great icon of St. Luke's Madonna, is peculiarly obnoxious to the charge.

DEVOTION TO PARTICULAR SHRINES AND IMAGES. I I 9

In order to prove his point, Dr. Littledale introduces as a type of pagan idolatry, of " idolatry in its strictest sense," a philosophical apologist, a pagan sceptic, anxious to avoid the charge of superstition, who explains that he does not believe there is anything divine in his idol. What is really to the point is not to learn what account such an one would give of his tenets, or even what he really held, but what form of idolatry was attributed as a crime by the early Christians to their pagan contem- poraries. I venture to say that no single passage from the Fathers can be produced which describes it as any- thing less than the attribution of a divine personality to the image itself, or at least a divine virtue. The idolatry recorded in Scripture consists of a distinct identification of the idol with the divinity it represented, as when Dagon lay prostrate and mutilated before the ark, and the Philistines exclaimed : " Let not the ark of the God of Israel remain among us, for His hand is hard upon us and upon Dagon our God" (i Kings i. 5) ; and, again, Dan. iv., the king says, "Does not Bel seem to you a living god? seest thou not how much he eats and drinks daily ; and Daniel, smiling, saith he is clay within and brass without, and he eateth not at all." The most refined form of idolatry contemplated by the Fathers was that ascribed by St. Augustine to Trismegistus (De Civit. Dei, 1. viii. c. 23) : — " The visible and palpable images he asserted to be as it were the bodies of the gods ; that there were in them certain active spirits, who to a certain extent were able to injure or to gratify those who offered them divine honours and the service of worship ; that these invisible spirits were by a peculiar art wedded to visible material corporal substances, and the idols dedi- cated and submitted to those spirits ; and this, he said, was to make gods, and that man had received that great and wonderful power of making gods." For this same idea of imprisoned divinity see Chrys. in Geneth. ap. .Theo- doret, Eranist. i.; for the coarser idea of absolute identifi-

120 THE EARLY FATHERS AND IMAGE-WORSHIP.

cation, see Athanasius, Orat. cont. Gent. sect. 13, "They burn that, part of which they worship;" and Cyril of Alexandria, cont. Jul. lib. vi. p. 194, " He is not ashamed to make sticks and stones gods" (ap. Nat. Alex. ssec. viii. diss. vi. sec. i).

4. The Early Fathers and Image- Worship.

I admit that the early Fathers were shy of the use of images, even more than they were of the cultus of the saints. In the face of an idolatrous world, they were naturally afraid lest even the most pious and orthodox use of images might open the way to or suggest a suspicion of idolatry. This much was inevitable. I will now notice in more or less detail the various passages collected by Dr. Littledale, from p. 31 to p. 34.

1. The Carpocratians, denounced by Irenaeus (cont. Haer. i. 25), are said to pay " Gentile," i.e., divine honours to the images of Christ, and to worship them in con- junction with an assemblage of Pagan worthies. Thus the saint's denunciation cannot be shown to fall upon a worship such as Catholics use.

2. Minucius Felix, when (Octav. xxix.) he protests against worshipping crosses, must be understood to rebut the charge in the sense in which it was made, viz., of yielding the Cross divine honours.

3. The passages from Origen (cont. Cels. vi. 14, and viii. 17) are a protest against anthropomorphism, against the idea that you "can fashion likenesses of Divinity."

4. Lactantius (Div. Inst. ii. 19) must be understood as denouncing a religion of image-worship, that is, a worship of images that stops in images, of which an image is the centre.

5. The thirty-sixth canon of Elvira, forbidding religious pictures in churches, seems clearly directed against an- thropomorphism, not the worshipping what is painted, but the painting what is worshipped, i.e., the Divinity, " ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur."

THE EARLY FATHERS AND IMAGE-WORSHIP. 121

6. The passage from Eusebius of Csesarea (Hist, ficcles. vii. 18), whilst implying that the use of holy images was foreign to his own Church, at least testifies to a very ancient tradition in their favour. For he not only mentions having seen the statue of Christ supposed to have been erected by the woman cured of an issue of blood, but also testifies to his knowledge of the existence of pictures of St. Peter and St. Paul and of Christ, the work of early Christians. He says that they naturally brought into Christianity a custom common amongst the Gentiles (IQvixfj ouvqdeicf). There is nothing here of the reproach conveyed in Dr. Littledale's italicised render- ing "according to the heathen custom;" many Gentile cus- toms have been laudably naturalised in the Church.

7. St. Epiphanius' action in tearing down from the Church door the veil painted with the figure " as it were of Christ or some saint " may probably indicate that a scrupulous avoidance of Church pictures was customary in Palestine and Cyprus. Elsewhere it was otherwise. A similar door-veil, with the figure of St. Stephen wrought upon it, is mentioned as part of the adornment of his oratory at Uzalis in Africa, in a report of the miracles of St. Stephen, drawn up by order of the Bishop Evodius, St. Augustine's friend (see lib. ii. c. 4, n. 2, Append, op. Aug. ed. Ben.). St. Paulinus too, so celebrated by the praises of St. Augustine and St. Jerome, adorned his patron's shrine at Nola with many sacred paintings of Christ and the saints, although for the most part of an emblematic character (Ep. xxxiii. and Vita, c. 34, ed. Muratori).

8. The words used by St. Ambrose of St. Helena (De Obit. Theod.) are continually quoted by Catholics as expressing the theology of the adoration of the Cross : " She adored the King truly, not the wood." The words are evidently a record and justification of an act on the part of St. Helena corresponding to our Good Friday adoration. She doubtless knelt down and kissed the

122 THE EARLY FATHERS AND IMAGE- WORSHIP.

Cross. If she did not, what need of the explanation that it was " the King, not the wood " ? Were I to suggest that she chanted the " O crux, ave spes unica," or " Adore- mus crucem tuam Domine," I could hardly be con- victed of a serious anachronism, for within a century of St. Helena St. Paulinus sang : —

" Nunc ad te veneranda Dei crux verto loquelas O crux magna Dei pietas, crux gloria cceli, Crux seterna salus hominum, crux terror iniquis."

And in Epistle xxxi. (A.D. 403), after describing the " In- vention," he goes on to say that once every year the Cross is exposed to the adoration of the faithful, as well as at other times for the benefit of pilgrims from a distance, (quam episcopus urbis ejus quotannis, cum Pascha Domini agitur, adorandam populo princeps ipse vener- intium promit).

St. Ambrose (/. <r.) goes on to praise St. Helena for promoting the adoration of the Cross by setting it in the royal crown, " ut crux Christi in regibus adoretur."

The words from St. Ambrose's Epistle xviii. (ad Valentin.), to the effect that Pagan apologists " talk about God and worship an image," in no way prove that Christians cannot use images in worshipping God.

9. Dr. Littledale quotes what he calls " a very valuable testimony " from St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. xcvl 2, and contends that the Saint therein puts exactly the same "get off" from the charge of idolatry in the mouth of a Pagan apologist that Catholics use, and rejects it as futile. The passage from St. Augustine containing the Pagan apology is printed in parallel columns with one in which the Council of Trent, sess. xxv., expounds her doctrine concerning holy images. There can be no- doubt that the two explanations are substantially the same. The Pagan apologist says, "I do not worship that, but I bow down before what I see and serve him whom I do not see ;'•' and the Council of Trent, " Through

THE EARLY FATHERS AND IMAGE-WORSHIP. 12$

the images which we kiss ... we adore Christ." So far Dr. Littledale may be congratulated on his par- allelism, but why does he not continue his quotation a sentence or so further? St. Augustine's most pertinent question "Who is He?" which occurs in his quotation, should have warned him of what was coming. Dr. Littledale ends his quotation with the words "they think themselves very clever as not worshippers of idols," as though the Saint had said, " You try to escape from the charge of idolatry in vain ; the 'get off' common to you and modern Papists is no get off at all;" whereas what St. Augustine really says is this, " They think themselves very clever because they do not worship idols, And they worship devils" (quia non colunt idola sed colunt dsemonia) ; and then goes on to show that this is far worse and more dangerous ; for the Pagan had answered to the question " Who is He ? " " some invisible power which presides over that image." Augustine's retort comes to this, " You fall out of the frying-pan into the fire, you have disproved the charge of idolatry indeed, but at the cost of admitting the far more grievous imputation of demon-worship." Supposing the Pagan had been able to answer, with the Council of Trent, " We adore Christ . . . whose likeness the image bears," who does not see that Augustine's words convey a perfect acquittal, being equivalent to "You have succeeded in showing that you are not idolaters, but worshippers of Christ"? "A very valuable testimony," surely, but not for Dr. Littledale.

As to the passage from De Mor. Eccles. I. xxxiv. 75, 76, in which St. Augustine acknowledges the existence in the Church of " many who are worshippers of tombs and pictures," and reprobates them, the context goes on, " I have known many who drink to most luxurious excess over the dead." No doubt he is condemning the mingled debauchery and superstition of certain wakes and me- morial celebrations, relics of Paganism ; the character of

I 24 ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY.

the passage as a whole hardly looks like a reflection upon anything resembling the modern Catholic usage.

Amongst authorities for the use of holy images these may be cited : — Tertullian (De Pudic. c. 10), who thus taunts his Catholic opponents, " Perhaps your shepherd will stand your friend whom you paint on your chalices." Theodoret (Relig. Hist. n. 26), who says that such was the devotion in Rome to St. Simeon Stylites that the shops were full of his images. St. Cyril of Alexandria (in Ps. cxiii. 16, Maii. Bib. Pat. Nov. torn. iii. p. 431), "Though we make images of holy men, it is not to adore them, but that by looking at them we may be excited to emulation. And for this do we make an image of Christ, that we may be lifted up as on wings unto His love." St. John Chrysostom (Horn, in S. Barlaam Martyr, n. 3, inter, op. S. Basil, ed. Ben. torn, iii.), " Arise, O noble painters of deeds of combat, adorn with your arts the maimed form of this leader, light up with the colours of your industry the crowned warrior whom I have painted so dully."

§ 5. Alleged Excess in the Worship of Mary.

Dr. Littledale has not hesitated, as we have seen, to appeal to the crudest form of Protestant sentiment, making as though he would bring every sort of cultus of our Lady under the ban of idolatry. But he does not forget that, besides the ordinary English Protestant, he is also writing for Ritualists, who have in their own way a cultus of the saints, and of St. Mary amongst the rest ; who ask, many of them, some directly, others in some sidelong fashion, that Mary would pray for them. He knows — who better ! — that here and there a Ritualist lamp is lit before her image, and her Son's Cross is kissed and pressed to brow and heart ; and so a tiny platform is provided, from which, under Dr. Littledale's precentor- ship, even Ritualists may denounce the Mariolatry of

ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY. 12$

Rome. .The objection now is to the quantity rather than the quality. Mary-worship — an excellent thing when kept within strict bounds — has been unfortunately allowed to overflow the Roman Church so as really to oust the worship of her Son. She is everywhere, has so many festivals, when her image — modern tawdry thing — breaks the perspective of solemn cathedrals, and is evidently the great centre of attraction. Then so much of the devotion is in such deplorably bad taste, so florid, so un-English, and the expressions used so extravagant, as in fact to assert that she is her Son's superior. They would like to give Mary her due ; they have no objection to the " six-and-thirty modern churches in or round London dedicated in her honour;" though why they are not haunted by the many texts which speak of " my house," it is hard to see. But they are shocked that she should have more festivals in the year than our Lord has ; that there should be more churches dedicated to her than to her Son or to the Blessed Trinity. They want something like a decent proportion to be observed. A proportion ! But what proportion, I would ask, can there be betwixt the Creator and the creature, although the highest and holiest of creatures ? Suppose for one moment the interests and honour of Jesus and Mary to be other than identical, the slightest diversion, the slightest alienation, of devotion, though but for one Ave's space in a lifetime, would be blasphemous. If we are not worshipping Christ when we pay the "worship of honour" to His Mother, then let there be no talk of proportion, no compromise, but away with the saints and angels and their Queen at once and for ever. If Ritualists cannot see how to worship Jesus in Mary, they must not worship Mary at all. All honour, however stinted with conditions, however coldly qualified, would be at least so much taken from the Creator, since thereby we should be giving Him something less than He claims, who claims all. Once understand that the Son

126 ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY.

is worshipped in the Mother in a manner most perfect and well-pleasing to Him, and the fear of excess in the quantity of devotion becomes an absurdity. The truth is that Ritualists, in order to defend the slender, hesitat- ing cultus they are yielding to God's Mother and the saints, need a principle which must justify the fullest Catholic practice. In order properly to appreciate this principle, we should compare the presentation of the object of worship in the Old and New Testaments. The object is of course the same in each, but in the latter the mysterious unimaginable God condescends to make for Himself an image in our human nature, an image which He takes up into and makes one with Himself; and which therefore He demands should be worshipped with one and the same act of latria with which we worship His Divinity. Moreover, He so becomes in- carnate as with our human nature to take also to Himself a Mother and a home, the type and original of that society of the Church which, in its ideal perfection as realised in heaven, is a society of grace, of those who all in their degree are Christ's mother, and sisters, and brothers. This life of grace is a certain participation of the Divine life in which the Scripture phrase is verified, "Ye are gods." After all " Divus, Diva," the name which shocks Dr. Littledale so much, is scriptural name for the saint made perfect, and is so used again and again by the early Fathers. It is this divinisation, this capacity of reflecting the brightness of the eternal light, which is the formal object of the cultus of the saint. Because, after all, it is a reflection in a created mirror, a mirror not hypostatically one with its object, the worship is of dulia rather than latria; but within this limit there can be no excess, no insubordination, for the light that we worship is virtually one, whether we worship it in itself or in its reflection. The evening sun is the more, not the less, admired because our admiration dwells upon the golden and purple clouds which are its

ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY. 127

pomp and circumstance; and the God who dwells in light inaccessible has deigned to weave a rainbow about his throne — the Iris of Apocalyptic vision — which is the glory of the saints.

As to a partition of our devotion amongst the saints according to a theological appreciation of their merits, as suggested in Dr. Littledale's grotesque criticism upon "Roman Inconsistency" (p. 24), I can only say that the whole idea of devotion would be thereby destroyed. Devo- tion must be free, following the natural lines of individual and national character and experience. Although of course the theological position of our Lady puts her cultus in a category of its own, still even here the absolute freedom, within certain theological lines, of devotion is strikingly illustrated. There was doubtless a cultus of Mary from the beginning, inseparable from her recognition as the great advocate, the second Eve, the Mother of God ; but it is undeniable that the first cultus of the saints which asserts itself with precision and emphasis in the early Church is the cultus of the martyrs — although no Chris- tian ever thought of putting these on an equality with God's Mother — and, in each place, of its local martyr. In the fierce hand-to-hand conflict in which they were engaged, the early Christians eagerly ranged themselves each under his natural leader, some glorious fellow- citizen of whose victory he had himself been a witness, and whose relics he still recognised as a source of fre- quent benediction. But gradually as the glorious army of those who had suffered and died for Christ was recruited from all parts of the Church, men's minds and hearts were led on and up, through the brightest of those dazzling ranks, to one who, as she was the Virgin of virgins, so also assuredly was the Martyr of martyrs; for what sufferings could compare with hers who had stood beneath the Cross of her dying Son ! And so as each new height of sanctity gave a measure for con- ceiving of her matchless excellence, the conception of

128 ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY.

our Lady's glory in the reflex mind of the Church became at once higher and more homely, and the thought and love of her more and more a necessary part of the daily life of the faithful.

The great end of our cultus of the saints is the detach- ment of our hearts from earth, that our conversation may be in heaven, and so whithersoever the tide of devotion may set, though to the least in the kingdom of heaven, it will doubtless be given freest vent by the Church, and encouraged by indulgences. This freedom, too, which is of the essence of devotion, extends also to its language. Theology has its formulas, its common language ; devo- tion has no common language, unless it be kisses and tears. Its language may be theological or childish, reserved or effusive, paradoxical or measured. It may, of course, offend against some theological principle, and so necessarily demand theological correction ; but short of this, it claims the amplest latitude of indulgence for the form in which it pours out its intense appreciation of all those looks, and tones, and lights, those aspects and half- truths, which come so keenly home, and are a very food to those who love. It is thus that we interpret various expressions in the devotional language of holy persons ; as, for instance, that one which Dr. Littledale objects to so intensely, and which is certainly the strongest of all his quotations from the " Glories of Mary." "At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God" Surely this would have been no rash comment upon our Lord's first miracle wrought at Mary's prayer. It expresses fitly the Church's experience of the might of that prayer, but it in no way implies that the self-imposed duty of filial subjection fulfilled by Christ upon earth continues in heaven. Is not precisely the same comment made by the inspired writer upon Josue's staying the sun, " And God obeyed the voice of a man " ? Does not Dr. Littledale believe that God obeys the priest's voice when he uses the words of con-

ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY. 129

secration Christ has put into his mouth ? and can He do otherwise than hear His Mother's prayer, which must be so true a reflection of the desire of His own most Sacred Heart ? The other passages from St. Alfonso only repre- sent what must surely be regarded as a truism, if Mary be given to us as our intercessor at all, viz., that we gain more in approaching Jesus through her than in approach- ing Him without her. What do those who go furthest on this theme intend? Is it ever that she should be instead of Him ? Is she a shut and not an open door between ourselves and Him? If she is never to be absent from our prayers, if they are all to be offered as at our mother's knee, is not Jesus in her arms, and is not He the one burden of all our intercourse ? Mediate invocation is, after all, more immediate than any other if it more quickly brings Christ closer ; in any other sense it is a mistake.

It is something monstrous that an age, which protests against anything like definite theological formulary or article of faith, should affect precision in devotion. We may do what we like, it would seem, with God and His saints, ring all the changes from doubt to denial; but one thing we may not do, love them, and express our love in the language most natural to our various habits and temperaments.

It is sufficiently obvious that unless the whole atmo- sphere of religion made it practically impossible, unless it carried in itself its own antidote, the cultus of Mary, in its immense extension, might make such substitution of Mary for Jesus, as Dr. Littledale dreams of, a practical danger. But has any priest with the cure of souls, amongst the many dangers which threaten his flock both from within and from without, ever had any practical cognisance of the substitution of the image for its object, or of the Mother for her Son ? What is the gist of all those Month of May devotions, those Marian con- fraternities, but to bring souls to the feet of Christ in

I

130 ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY.

the Sacrament of Penance, and to the feast of His love in the Holy Eucharist? Superstitious abuses of the quaintest and most unlikely character do from time to time appear in the field of our poor fallen nature even within the precincts of the Church ; but have we met with a single instance of one who, increasing in devotion to Mary, did not also indefinitely increase in devotion to her Son ?

Even in mere volume of devotion, in the multiplication of intense acts of direct worship, the Blessed Sacrament, with its Mass — the one service of obligation — its com- munions, and Benediction, outweighs, even on Dr. Littledale's gross principle of computation, all devotions to our Lady and the saints put together ; and this, in spite of the prayers mainly of thanksgiving for the graces given her, attached to certain masses, and of her Litany sung at Benediction. When Dr. Littledale brings forward Bellarmine's admission that "it is not easy to make distinction " — so far as external acts of adoration go — between the worship of God and other worships, almost all such acts being common except sacrifice, as though it was an acknowledgment that we had given to the saints what should have been reserved for God, he does not see that the great mass of these external acts — indeed it might be fairly maintained of all except sacrifice — are common, not merely to the cultus of God and His saints, but even, in addition, to the cultus of our earthly friends and patrons. Were such a distinction of external acts of any serious importance, we ought neither to bow to our friends nor kneel to our sovereign.

A Catholic is tempted to compare the grudging wonder with which Protestants regard the honours paid to the saints, to the ignorant rusticity of those who mistake a rich uniform for the insignia of empire, and exalt the servant above his master on the score of a stripe or two of gold lace.

Before leaving the subject of creature- worship, it may be as well to notice formally, what has been already

ALLEGED EXCESS IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY. 131

answered indirectly, Dr. Littledale's express statement {p. 21) that "not one syllable can be discovered in the Old or New Testament which gives the least ground or suggestion " of the practice of the invocation of saints, " nor can the smallest evidence or trace of it be found for nearly four hundred years after Christ." I answer that it is impossible to deny that, when both the Old and New Testaments * speak of the saints and angels praying for us, presenting our prayers to God, and rejoicing in our spiritual good, they at least contain very strong grounds and suggestions for our thanking the saints and angels and asking for their continued assistance. But more than this, according to Butler's well-known principle (see Cardinal Newman's Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 92), such worship is an obligation of reason arising out of the re vealed relations in which these benefactors stand toward us, and requires no further to be prescribed.

The practice was restrained more or less, inevitably, by circumstances of time and place, as the early Christians had to reckon with the scandal of the Jews, the mis- interpretation of the Polytheists, and the yet more offensive abuses of the Gnostics. For all that, some of the earliest inscriptions in the Catacombs, as I have noticed, contain direct invocations of martyrs ; and Origen, though in conflict with the Gnostic angel-worship, admitted that we praise and bless (Eu^wD/*i> xcti /aaxa- $'i£o{Mv) the angels (Cont. Cels. viii. p. 57).t Thus there is not wanting distinct evidence and trace of the usage before it was so strongly advocated by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, such as St. Chrysostom and St. Paulinus, who, if Dr. Littledale were right, must have invented it. Neither did Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century, regard the knowledge of our prayers on the part of the saints and angels as doubtful. His words (Sent.

* Dan. xii. 7 ; Zach. i. 12 ; 2 Mace. xv. 12 ; Tobias xii. 12 ; Luke xv. 10 ; Apoc. v. 8, and viii. 3.

+ See too the yet stronger passages quoted above.

132 UNCERTAINTY AND ERROR IN FAITH.

iv. dist 45), "It is not incredible," apply, not to their knowing, but to his theory as to how they know. Dr. Littledale's words, " It is a very perilous thing to fly in the face of His Holy Word on the mere chance that a guess of ours may be correct," must mean one of two things : either that " His Holy Word " may possibly be wrong, or that " His Holy Word " is synonymous with Dr. Littledale's interpretation — an interpretation in its certainty presenting a striking contrast to the Church's, "guess."

Charge 2. Uncertainty and Error in Faith. § 1. Dependence upon One.

The Roman Church, says Dr. Littledale (p. 7), has, by the Vatican decree of infallibility, brought things to such a pass that " the faith of Roman Catholics depends now on the weakness or caprice of a single man, who may himself be unsound in the faifh, wicked, or mad, as several Popes have been. . . . Another Pope may invent some other new tenet (like the Immaculate Conception) and declare it part of the Gospel; or may deny, and order others to deny, some ancient and universally received Christian doctrine, . . . and 'thus no Roman Catholic can any longer tell what his religion may be at any future time."

I observe, first, that it is scarcely fair not to notice that the theory of Papal infallibility defined at the Vatican Council — viz., that in virtue of Christ's promise to St. Peter the Pope is preserved from defining anything untrue in faith and morals — if it be true, renders the faith of Catholics quite independent of " the weakness or caprice of a single man." 2. That the infallibility- of a General Council, or of a majority of the Episcopate with the Pope, the alternative theory, does, as well as the infallibility of a single man, require some super-

UNCERTAINTY AND ERROR IN FAITH. 133

natural security. The history of General Councils shows that they present a very wide and sensitive surface to the action of secular influences, and so to the intrusion of human error. At most the difference of the two difficulties is one of degree only and not of kind. 3. The notion that a Roman Catholic's act of faith is conditional, that he holds the different articles "durante Papae beneplacito," is simply untrue. If the Pope were {ex hypothesi adversariorum) to define the contrary or contradictory of an undoubted article of faith, we are perfectly certain that the Church, in virtue of the passive infallibility — bestowed in the unconditional pro- mise, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" — would not and could not receive it, and that the seemingly canonical definition would turn out to be manifestly irregular, either on the score of coercion, or madness, or because its Papal utterer was no Pope when he uttered it. Of course there is an extravagance in any such hypothesis, for such startling sensational providence is not God's wont in the ordering of His Church, and it is improbable in the highest degree that any such ex- tremity will be allowed. I only notice it in order to bring out the unconditional character of a Catholic's faith. On this point there was never any discordance, that I ever heard of, in the Catholic Church. St. Vincent of Lerins, commenting on the "If any one shall announce to you other than what has been received let him be anathema," says, "Separated, severed, excluded ; though Peter, though Andrew, though John, though the whole Apostolic choir should preach another Gospel than that which has been preached " (Common, c. 13); and St. Maximus, when asked what he would do if Rome took the Monothelite side, answered, "The Holy Spirit anathematises even angels that should bring in some new thing beside what has been delivered" (Dial, cum Pyrrho); and Pope St. Agatho (Letter to the Sixth Council, a p. Labbe, vii. p. 662), after rejecting, on the part of the

134 THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

Holy See, the policy of a guilty silence as something equivalent to a positive advocacy of evil, " Woe unto me if I shall hide the truth which I ought to have delivered out to the money-changers," goes on to quote the Apostle's words, " But though we or an angel from heaven should preach to you otherwise than we have preached, let him be anathema."

When upon any question which arises upon a point of faith or morals the Pope pronounces a final decision, then, according to the doctrine of the Vatican Council, he is infallible. Protestants, who have no conception of the structural unity of a body of theological doctrine, and to whom almost everything is a matter of possible question, fail to see how sharply defined is the outline of each question that comes before the Pope, by previous definitions. It is for the most part a question whether a certain brick is to be laid at this or that angle, in the very limited space that is open to it, or rejected altogether.

A Roman Catholic knows that " at any future time '* he will hold every one of the articles of faith he holds at present, with the possible addition of certain others, which, as they grow out of the twilight of doubt into the light of certainty, beneath the articulation of the Church, will present themselves as the natural complement and explication of those he already possesses. With regard to the articulation of this truth or that, it may fairly be said that we do not know " what we shall be," but such criticism is sufficiently audacious when proceeding from those who are utterly unable to tell us what they are. Ask any chance hundred of Anglican clergymen, not what their Church will teach in the next century, but what it actually teaches now.

§ 2. The Immaculate Conception.

Of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin — that is, of her immunity, through the

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 135

merits of her Son from the very first moment of the union of her soul with her body, from all stain of original sin — Dr. Littledale says that it is implicitly contradicted by St. Augustine, explicitly denied by St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas, and " openly disputed as false by orthodox Roman Catholics for many centuries," and " so therefore" cannot be maintained by any Roman Catholic without offending against Pope Pius' creed, which obliges us not to interpret Scripture " otherwise than according to the unanimous consent vi the Fathers." * i. To begin with the passage from Pope Pius' creed : its meaning is just this and nothing more, viz., that where the Fathers are unanimous in their interpretation of a particular passage, we must not maintain any interpretation which is inconsistent with the one they have agreed in (see Barbosa de Trident, deer, de S. Script).t Dr. Littledale apparently gives it the ridiculous sense of a prohibition to maintain any interpretation of Scripture for which the unanimous consent of the Fathers cannot be cited, Avhence it would follow that we must never prefer one Father's interpretation to another's. 2. If Dr. Little- dale's facts be admitted, they come to no more than this : that a doctrine has been defined as an article of faith which, though notoriously accepted as a truth by the vast majority of Catholics for centuries, was implicitly rejected by one Father, formally rejected by two Fathers or quasi-Fathers, and long doubted of or even denied by many orthodox Catholics. 3. Dr. Littledale's facts require, as usual, some discounting. The passage in which St. Augustine is supposed implicitly to have rejected the Immaculate Conception is as follows : — *' Mary sprung from Adam, died because of sin ; Adam died because of sin ; and the Flesh of the Lord sprung from Mary, died to blot out sin " (Enarr. in Ps. xxxiv. 3). There is nothing more here than a statement of what has always been the explicit teaching of the Church,

* See Appendix, Note D.

f He appeals to Banes, Azor, Vasquez, and Becanus.

136 THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

viz., that through sin death came into the world, and so those who died died as a natural consequence of sin, except Christ, who, by His conception de Spirit* Sancto, had not contracted the debt of sin and death, but chose the latter freely in order to effect the work of our redemption. There is nothing to imply that the cause of our Lady's death was the fact that sin had once possessed her person. Our Lord, in virtue of His Divine personality and through His conception by the Holy Ghost, contracted neither culpa, nor debitum culp& nor debitum mortis ; the Blessed Virgin, although preserved in her conception from all stain of original sin, yet as a child of Adam, by natural generation, contracted the debitum culpa, i.e., was only preserved from the common lot by a special decree applying to her beforehand the merits of the redemption, without which, conception in sin was her due. From which ratio peccati attaching to her she also contracted the debitum mortis. This, which is certainly the more common opinion, harmonises per- fectly with the teaching of St. Augustine.* In another passage (De Nat. et Grat c. 36) St. Augustine speaks thus : " Except, therefore, the Holy Virgin Mary, about whom, on account of .the honour of the Lord, I will not allow the question to be entertained, when sins are under discussion ; for how do we know what increase of grace, was bestowed on her, to enable her to overcome sin in every way, who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who, as is plain, had no sin ? — with the exception, there- fore, of this Virgin, if we could gather all those male and female saints while they were living here below and ask them whether they were without sin, what answer do we think that they would give?" Here it must be remembered that the Saint is meeting Pelagius' argu- ment against original sin, grounded on the sinlessness of the saints, of whom he gives a list. What St. Augustine says is that they would all plead guilty to * Father Harper, "Peace Through the Truth," pp. 329-337.

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 137

that sinfulness which is a manifestation of original sin, except the Blessed Virgin, in connection with whom no sin whatever is to be so much as mentioned. When we recollect that St. Augustine was one of the supporters of the great patristic tradition of the second Eve, it seems reasonable to suppose that he held her to be free from all personal taint as of actual so of original sin, although she incurred the debitum peccati as a child of Adam.

The form in which the Immaculate Conception was implicitly taught in the early Church was the tradition of Mary as the second Eve ; for Eve was immaculate, and the second but far higher and holier Eve could not be less than immaculate. Of this tradition I have already spoken in treating of the cultus of our Lady. I will content myself here with two passages from the Nisibine hymns of St. Ephrem, with Father Addis' com- mentary. " In hymn 27, strophe 8, St. Ephrem speaks thus : 'Truly it is Thou, and Thy Mother only, who are fair altogether. For in Thee there is no stain, in Thy Mother no spot. But my sons (it is the Church of Edessa which is speaking) are far from resembling this twofold fairness (duabus pulchritudinibus)? Elsewhere Ephrem places first amongst fallen men, infants who die in baptismal innocence; so that it must be freedom from original, not actual, sin which he ascribes to Mary. So {ii. 327, a): ' Two were made simple, innocent, perfectly like each other, Mary and Eve ; but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other of our life.'" *

The passage from St. Bernard (Ep. clxxiv.) certainly contains no rejection, explicit or implicit, of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He objects to the Feast of the Conception on the understanding, as he says him- self in so many words, that it is the celebration of the active conception, and is equivalent to claiming for St. Anne a virginal divine child-bearing, our Blessed Lady's exclusive privilege. The same substitution of the ques- * Anglican Misrepresentations, p. 33,

138 COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES.

tion of the active for that of tne passive conception is sufficiently manifest in St. Thomas, but in one place he seems to have committed himself, as far as words go, against the doctrine.

The Protestant notion that the doctrine of the Im- maculate Conception involved an attribution to the Blessed Virgin of our Lord's character of sinlessness, shows a painful ignorance that Christ's sinlessness is not a mere freedom from sin, but an utter incapacity of sin in right of His Divine Person, which sinlessness no creature can share with Him, whereas Mary's freedom from sin is a privilege bestowed by God's free gift.

§ 3. Communion under One Species.

Dr. Littledale regards what he ventures to call the practice of half-communion as nothing less than a defec- tion in faith. He insists (p. 62) that the Roman Church in administering communion under the one species of bread, violates a distinct and absolute Divine command : "Drink ye all of this" (Matt. xxvi. 27), and "Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you" (John vi. 54).

As to the texts themselves apart from ecclesiastical tradition on the subject, High Churchmen of Dr. Little- dale's school will not be inclined to dispute that the Scriptures record the institution in one rite of a sacrament and a sacrifice ; and that when Christ said, " Do this in memory of Me," either the whole of the company were constituted priests or He was only addressing those of them who were so constituted. But it is to precisely the same persons, so far as Scripture evidence goes, that He says, " Drink ye all of this ; " therefore it is not neces- sary to interpret these words as a precept obliging all and each to receive under the species of wine. To the argument that the Apostles were priests, Dr. Littledale replies that the Roman Church does not treat her priests,

COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES. 139

when not celebrating, as Christ treated the Apostles, f.e.9 communicate them sub utr&quc. This leaves the original argument precisely as it was ; all that it does is to raise a new issue as to whether the Roman Church commits a fresh offence in not administering to her non-celebrating priests sub utr&que. But such priests are, for the time, as distinctly excluded from the precept by the form, " Do this," as are the laity.

As to John vi. 54. it is admitted on all hands that it does not imply that the actual reception of Holy Com- munion is a sine qua non of eternal salvation for every one. The necessity is what is called "de necessitate praecepti," not "de necessitate medii," except in the indirect sense that it must be implicitly in voto. What it means, in common language, is that the Holy Eucharist is an integral part of the Christian dispensation, which no one can reject and live. Any argument from the words " and drink His Blood," for the application of the precept of reception sub utraque — which all had to accept as an institution — to universal individual practice, is pre- cluded by the general character of this sixth chapter. The form of the passages from i Cor. xi. doubtless implies that communion was habitually administered sub utrdqne. It would have been utterly unnatural and confusing if the Apostle had used words suggesting a possible change of discipline which was in none of his readers' minds. He spoke of the communion according to the manner then prevailing, but this need not imply that the manner itself was a necessity any more than when Christ said, " Go and teach all nations, baptizing (i.e., dipping) them in the name," &c. He implied, whilst enjoining a sacrament that was necessary, in the terms of its common use, that such common use was un- alterable. Thus it is clearly impossible to show from Scripture that the administration or not under both species lies outside the discretion of the Church.

When we turn to the use of the early Church we find

140 COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES.

that beyond a doubt such discretion has been used Sick persons and prisoners were frequently communi- cated under the one species of bread ; such, too, was the practice amongst the Egyptian solitaries ; children, again, were communicated under the species of wine. It is nothing to the purpose to put this aside as though no valid argument could be drawn from exceptional cases ; the whole question is, Did the decision lie within the Church's discretion or not ? To insist upon the necessity in these cases is futile — for, first, no necessity can justify the deliberate mutilation of a sacrament, if mutilation it be ; and, second, there is no pretence that necessity prescribed the act in each case. It was a change of ritual founded upon reasons of grave con- venience. As a desperate escape, Dr. Littledale suggests that as the Greeks sometimes steeped the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine, the same may have occurred in the instances quoted. But even granting this, which is quite gratuitous, how, I would ask, would the eating a piece of moistened bread satisfy the precept, " Drink ye all of this " ? After all there would be only one species communicated in, the species of bread ; especially when, as Thomassin points out, the bread was carefully dried at a fire before use (Thomassin, De 1'Unite' de 1'Eglise, torn. ii. p. 544). Thus, in fact, communion under both species was abandoned by the Greek Church some four or five centuries before the Latin, and for the same reasons ; the difficulty of preserving the species of wine from corruption and irreverence, and of supplying the necessities of frequent communion. Of the pre- valence of the custom of frequent private communion under the one species of bread throughout considerable portions of the East, and this over and above the cases of persecution, sickness, and solitude already mentioned, see St. Basil, Ep. 289, ap. Thomassin, ibid. p. 513. Whatever benefit in the way of a longer continuance in the communicant of the sacramental species is lost in

COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES. £41

the communion under one kind, is made up a thousand- fold by the increased opportunity of communion.

The Council of Constance, sess. xiii., at the beginning of the fifteenth century, only sanctioned what had long been the prevailing practice, when it ordained that no one might reprobate the Church's use, nor introduce communion under both species without her autho- risation (pro libito suo). It is manifest that to charge the Church with sacrilege or heresy is nothing less than heresy, and well deserving of the pains of heresy what- ever they may be ; and persons who are committing an act of rebellion against the present discipline of the Church upon heretical motives have always been ac- counted heretics. Gelasius condemned those who refused the cup on the Manichaean ground that wine was evil and of the evil one, as St. Leo had done before him ; so that his decree in no way bears upon the present usage : so too the passage ap. Ivo. pars. ii. 89, is against super- stitious abstinence.* In the thirteenth century we find St. Thomas noting the practice of communion under one kind with approval (III. qu 80, act. 12), " Provide in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sumendus non detur." In his earlier work on the Sentences, he says, " Populo sanguis non datur." St. Bonaventure says the same, and adds, " Neither would it be right on account of the danger of spilling and error ; " and a somewhat earlier writer, Alexander Hales (Summa, torn. iv. p. 406), says of communion under one species, " Sicut fere ubique

* The 28th canon of the Council of Clermont, though it of course supposes the sub utr&que discipline, is directed against the Greek custom which was creeping in of giving ordinarily the dipped bread. It says that, with certain exceptions, the communicant must receive "the Body separately and the Blood likewise separately," not as Dr. Littledale renders it " the Body and Blood separately and alike " (see La Marca, Dissert, in Syn. Clar.) La Marca goes on to say that our present use began to spread rapidly soon after the establish- ment of the Latin Kingdom at Jerusalem, in which place the ase had prevailed from Apostolic times.

142 COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES.

fit a laicis in Ecclesia."* The words of the Angelic Doctor, the Doctor of the Blessed Sacrament, whose eucharistic hymns Ritualists are never tired of trans- lating, should have some weight with them, and might be accepted, one would think, as some security that the change of discipline was not dictated by levity or irreverence, but by grave convenience. The history of Wickliffites, Hussites, and Anglicans gives unmistakable evidence that a pertinacious stickling for what they call the " unmutilated " rite is only too apt to be accompanied by a failing sense of the real presence.

Dr. Littledale urges that the doctrine of concomitance, viz., that Christ is whole and entire under each portion of each species — a doctrine essential to the validity and licitness of communion under one kind — is "at best a guess," grounded on a doubtful reading of a single text, i Cor. xi. 27 ; and a guess, it would appear, demonstrably wrong, if Dr. Littledale's words as to " a perfectly clear text which makes the other way," viz. i Cor. x. 16, have any real meaning. As to the "perfectly clear text," "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?" — making the other way, I can only say, that no doctrine of concomitance is possible which does not begin with the assertion contained in the text. It is precisely because the Blood is in the chalice that, in virtue of concomitance under that same species of wine, there is with the Blood the Body, Soul, and Divinity. Taken in Dr. Littledale's exclusive sense, this text would preclude all communication of Christ's Soul and Divinity even in a communion under both kinds. So little true is it that the doctrine of concomitance depends upon a doubtful reading of i Cor. xi. 27: "Therefore whoso- ever shall eat this bread or f drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the * Ap. Thomassin, 1. f. p. 674. t And.

DISREGARD OF THE DOGMA OF THE INCARNATION. 143

"blood of the Lord " — that in treating of concomitance the text is sometimes not even mentioned. Concomi- tance is simply an axiom of the natural reason applied to an article of faith. It is the assertion that no kind of separation being any more possible in Christ, it follows that where He is at all there He is wholly. To deny or to doubt of the doctrine of concomitance involves nothing less than the heresy of the denial, or doubt, of Christ's real presence under the sacramental species.

§ 4. Disregard of the Dogma of the Incarnation.

On this subject Dr. Littledale thus expresses himself {p. 81) : — " In truth there is not such zeal for the Incarna- tion itself in the Roman Church as to inspire confidence in its own permanent hold of that article of the Faith." In proof he quotes Gury's "Compendium of Moral Theology" (vol. i. pp. 124, 125) as asking the question, " Is explicit belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation matter of necessity?" and answering that the more probable opinion is the negative ; from which Dr. Littledale draws the conclusion that a Catholic is "at liberty to believe no more than, say, Judas Mac- cabseus." Now I have before me the edition mentioned by Dr. Littledale as from the Propaganda press of 1872. It is really that of 1873, as we iearn fr°m tne editor that there was no Propaganda edition between 1862 and 1873. I am in a condition then to assert that Dr. Littledale never found in F. Gury the question which he has had the audacity to print between inverted commas. F. Gury's question is this : " Is explicit faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation necessary with the necessity of a means" (necessitate medii) ? Now, it is conceivable that Dr. Littledale may be simply ignorant of the force of the distinction "de necessitate medii" as .contrasted with that of "de necessitate prsecepti," but this does not: justify him in concluding that it is meaning-

144 DISREGARD OF THE DOGMA OF THE INCARNATION.

less, and may just as well be left out as not By "necessary with the necessity of a means" is meant, necessary from the nature of the case as a means to an end. Faith is necessary for justification, whether outside or inside the visible Church. It is a necessary con- stituent of justification, so that it could not be made up for * even if it could be shown that it was lacked inno- cently. Now, belief in God, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the bad, is admitted by all to be the minimum of the explicit faith which is thus necessary. Beyond this, theologians ask whether, since the Christian dispensation, an explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is also thus absolutely necessary as a means to justification, and it is the negative answer to this question which Gury thinks the more probable. " Necessary with the necessity of a precept" means morally necessary in virtue of a Divine command. It involves the strictest necessity of obedience, but still a moral necessity, as in the case of all positive law; a necessity, where obedience is possible, i.e., where the law is known and the person capable. That explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Incarnation is necessary with the necessity of a precept — and therefore necessary in the only sense in which the question is treated of by Dr. Littledale — neither Gury nor any other theologian doubts for a moment. But he thinks that here innocent invincible ignorance would not bar justification, so that absolution given to such an one would be more probably valid than not, though it could not be lawfully given except in extremity, where instruction was impossible. Gury could hardly have precluded more scrupulously than he has done the opinion which Dr. Littledale imputes to him, that " a Catholic is at liberty to believe no more, say, than Judas Maccabseus."

Since the above appeared in the "Tablet" of January 31, 1880, Dr. Littledale, in his second and third editions, • At least "de potestate Dei ordinaria."

DISREGARD OF THE DOGMA OF THE INCARNATION. 145

instead of Gury's true context, "with the necessity of a means," substitutes the following "(/>., so as to be indispensable to salvation);" an explanation perfectly calculated to elude the force of the distinction. There is no dispensing with an explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, any more than there is with an explicit belief in a Creator and Judge. The question is, whether such explicit belief in the two first-named doctrines is so far a necessary constituent of the act of justifying faith, since the promulgation of Christianity, that an innocent believer in God, who has sincerely repented of his sins, but has without his own fault remained to the end of his life in ignorance of these doctrines, necessarily fails of justification, and so of salvation. Is this the doctrine Dr. Littledale and his party would like to advocate, or be supposed to advocate, that he should denounce the oppo- site as un-Christian ? It is simply untrue that any Catholic writer out of a lunatic asylum ever taught that explicit belief in the Pope was necessary "necessitate medii."

Dr. Littledale cannot be excused here of a gross and wanton ignorance of a very ancient and commonly used distinction amongst Anglicans as well as Catholics ; " usitata distinctio," the Protestant John Forbes calls it (Theol. Mor., lib. i. c. 2). Stillingfleet uses it (Grounds of Pro t. Religion, part i. c. ii. p. 51), and Bramhall, in words which are very applicable, exclaims against an adversary, "Doth he know no distinction of things necessary to be known, that some things are not so necessary as other? Some things are necessary to be known necessitate medii — to obtain salvation ; some things are necessary to be known only necessitate pracepti, because they are commanded" — and concludes with the taunt, " Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things ?" (Schism Guarded, part i. p. 492, vol. ii. Oxford, 1842).

Of an addition which Dr. Littledale has allowed him- self to make in his third edition I must speak much

E

146 DISREGARD OF THE DOGMA OF THE INCARNATION.

more severely. It is as follows : After " Judas Maccabasus did," we read in the text, "Or than the Jesuits exacted from their Chinese converts at the beginning of the last century," and to this is appended a still more outrageous note : "They did to death in 1710, in the Inquisition of Macao, Cardinal Tournon, the Papal legate sent by Clement XL to stop their paganisation of Christianity. Cartwright, 'The Jesuits,' c. xii." Now, observe, the charge to be substantiated is the Roman Church's dis- regard of a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, viz., the Incarnation ; whereas the instance urged is of the precise contrary, viz., of that Church's censuring even her choicest missionaries for over leniency in allowing a practice which savoured of paganism. Their opponents have certainly not shown that the Jesuits neglected to teach the Incarnation in its fulness; the question turned upon whether a certain practice prevailing amongst the Chinese of honouring their ancestors was to be re- garded as a civil and so permissible, or as a religious and so superstitious and unpermissible, act. The Jesuits took the first view, the Dominicans the second, and the Holy See decided against the former. I am not prepared to say that the Jesuit missionaries submitted as promptly as they ought to have done to the decision of authority ; but it was a case to try the holiest. They fully believed that the best interests of the Chinese mission were at stake, and it is scarcely wonderful that, in their anxiety to carry out their cause to the last, they should hardly have realised that it was over, and that authority had pro- nounced finally. As to the charge of murdering the legate, the facts are these: Cardinal Tournon died when in the hands of certain Portuguese officials who had made common cause with the Chinese government against one whom they regarded as a disturber of a lucrative intercourse. There is simply no ground for implicating a single Jesuit in the matter, beyond the fact that the cardinal was a judge who had decided an

THE CULTUS OF THE SACRED HEART. 147

important case against them. Is this, I would ask, enough to justify a charge of murder against men who were preaching Christ at the risk of their lives ? As to the cardinal being killed by Jesuits in the Inquisition, it is something like saying that Lord Penzance was slain by Ritualists in Exeter Hall, and certainly requires some explanation. The Dominicans were the Inquisitors, and they were the opponents of the Jesuits, and had every reason to be satisfied with the cardinal who had just pronounced in their favour.

Dr. Littledale and his friends for him have protested against creating a prejudice against his book on a single count. I think no one will complain that my counts are either few or slender ; but I wish to express my convic- tion that this one page, if properly appreciated (ed. iii. p. 73), should make any honest reader throw the book into the fire, and console himself with the thought that Dr. Littledale was no fair representative of any one but himself, and perhaps not even of himself.

§ 5. The Cultus of the Sacred Heart.

"The modern worship of the Sacred Heart is," Dr. Littledale says (p. 121), " sheer heresy, condemned by the two General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which forbade any worship being paid to a divided Christ." The condemnation at Ephesus, Chalcedon, and, I may add, Constantinople (II. ), of the worship of a divided Christ, is simply a condemnation of Nestorianism — of a worship terminating in a twofold personality. The Catholic doctrine on the subject is as follows : — " The object of the worship yielded to the Incarnate Word is the whole Christ ; hence as Christ possesses a double nature, human and divine, a partial object of that worship is the humanity including His body ; and inasmuch as the body consists of various members, each of these members con- stitutes a partial object : but the formal object, the where*

148 THE CULTUS OF THE SACRED HEART.

fore of the direction of such and so great a worship uport them, is the Divinity of the Word whose own they are in virtue of the hypostatic union. . . . The faithful do not adore the Heart of Jesus separating or prescinding from •the Divinity, when they worship it as it is, the Heart of Jesus — the Heart of the Person of the Word to which it is inseparably united. . . . The reason why the faithful in worshipping Christ specially direct their worship to His most Sacred Heart, rather than to any other member of His most Sacred Body, such as the eyes or ears, &c., is not an arbitrary one, but very consonant to reason ; for the heart is the natural symbol of that infinite love with which Christ loved us even unto death — even unto the shedding of His blood, and which was the inexhaustible fountain of all those graces with which He enriched us " (Hurter, Theol. Dogm. Tract, vii. n. 430). Thus we see that the symbolic character of the Sacred Heart is not the formal object or reason of its being worshipped at all, which can be nothing else than the Divine persona- lity with which it, together with the rest of the humanity, is united ; whereas this symbolic character is precisely the reason of the special prominence and articulation given to its worship. The devotion to the Sacred Heart prac- tised in that great devotion of the Middle Ages, that to the Five Wounds, was of precisely the same theological character as the modern cultus. The wounded hands and feet and Heart as they really existed were the partial objects of the worship of Christ, and were specially selected as symbolising Christ's zeal and beneficence. You may as well charge St. Mary Magdalene with divid- ing Christ when she kissed His feet, as the modern devotee of the Sacred Heart. Neither can it at all be maintained that the formal and direct cultus of the Sacred Heart had no existence before its enunciation in the seventeenth century. In the "Vitis Mystica," a series of meditations on the Passion, of the twelfth century, published amongst the works of St. Bernard,

THE CULTUS OF THE SACRED HEART. 149

ve read : " But because we are once come to the most sweet Heart of Jesus, and it is good for us to be here, let us not easily suffer ourselves to be drawn away from Him of whom it is written, ' They that depart from Thee are written on the ground.' But what of those that approach Thee ? Do Thou teach us. Thou hast said to those that approach Thee, * Rejoice, for your names are written in heaven.' Let us put these together, and if it be so with those who are written in heaven, how shall it be with those who. are written upon the earth? verily they shall mourn ; but who would not willingly rejoice? Let us approach unto Thee, and we will exult and rejoice, remembering Thy Heart. Oh, how good and pleasant a thing is it to dwell in that Heart ! A goodly treasure, a goodly pearl, is Thy Heart, O good Jesus, which in the trenched field of Thy body we shall find. Who would throw away this pearl? Nay, rather would I give all things, and exchange all the thoughts and affections of my mind, and purchase it for me, casting all my thought upon the Heart of my Lord Jesus, and that Heart without fail will nourish me " (c. iii. 8).

Again, in the early part of the sixteenth century, the Carthusian Lansperg, in his " Divini Amoris Pharetra " (ed. 1572, p. 76), exhorts the faithful most earnestly to a devotion to the Sacred Heart as " the treasury and door of all graces, through which we approach unto God and God unto us." In order to keep that Heart before our minds, he suggests that we should have a figure of it made, on which we may satisfy our devotion. " Most expedient is it, and a great act of piety, devoutly to honour the Heart of the Lord Jesus, to which in all thy necessities thou mayst fly, whence too thou mayst draw all comfort and all succour. For when the hearts of all mortals shall have forsaken thee, be assured this most faithful Heart will neither betray nor forsake thee." This serves as the introduction to an act of consecration to the Sacred Heart, beginning, " O most noble, most

150 THE CULTUS OF THE SACRED HEART.

kind, most sweet Heart of my most faithful Lover, Jesus. Christ, my God and my Lord, draw to Thyself and absorb, I beseech Thee, my heart and all my thoughts and affections, and all my powers of soul and body, and all that I am and can, unto Thy glory and most holy plea- sure. To Thy Heart I commend and resign myself wholly."

After this we may, perhaps, be in a condition to appreciate a certain "curious fact" with which Dr. Littledale supplies us in a note (p. 137, ed. 3), viz., " that Father la Colombiere, the inventor of the cult," " borrowed it " from a book of Goodwin's, Cromwell's chaplain, " which he met with during his two years' stay in England." Father la Colombiere was a director of Blessed Margaret Mary, and one of the first promoters of the cult of the Sacred Heart, though he did not invent it ; the " curious fact," I am afraid, Dr. Littledale did in- vent, or borrowed from a genius yet more audacious than his own. There are just two grains of truth in his state- ment, viz., that Goodwin wrote a book on the Heart of Christ, entitled " The Heart of Christ in Heaven towards Sinners on Earth," * and that Father la Colombiere was two years in England; the rest is pure conjecture, and of the unlikeliest. It is certainly more "curious" than natural that a seventeenth-century French Jesuit, attached to the English Royalist party, should have deliberately preferred to draw his inspiration on a point of mystical theology from a Puritan and a Roundhead instead of from the far more copious sources within his own Church. Moreover, we have a recorded revelation of Blessed Margaret Mary's in 1673 ; she was in intimate com- munication with Father La Colombiere on the subject in

* Not " Saints," as Dr. Littledale has it. This tract, the first edition (1642) of which I have before me, has no suggestion of any cultus of the Sacred Heart. Its object is to encourage penitents with; the thought that Christ still retains in heaven the human heart where* with He loved sinners on earth, but it does not go further.

THE CULTUS OF THE SACRED HEART. 1 5 1

1675, until his mission to England; and in one of his retreats preached before the English Court he recounts that revelation. Nothing can be clearer than that the devotion of the Blessed Margaret Mary to the Sacred Heart was a direct outcome of her devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. (See Pere Croiset, La Devotion au Sacre" Coeur, c. i.). There is, of course, practically no limit to the " curious facts " that may be produced by reckless conjecture.*

As an instance of the Holy See contradicting itself on a point of faith, Dr. Littledale (p. 8, note) asserts that the Quietist propositions condemned by Innocent XL in 1687, especially i, 2, 4, 5, 20, 21, 25, 43, 61, and 62, are reproduced in Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque's "La Devotion au Cceur de J£sus," published in 1698; which Quietism was virtually approved by the Holy See when it beatified Blessed Margaret Mary in 1864. Per- haps, if Dr. Littledale had trusted himself to explain what he understands to be that doctrine of Quietism which he supposes to have been alternately condemned and ap- proved by the Holy See, the public might be better able to appreciate the justice of his charge. As it is, I would observe, first, that the work which Dr. Littledale speaks of as the Saint's, was the work of Father Croiset, S.J., and is published as " par un P. de la Compagnie de Je'sus," although understood, I believe justly, to represent her doctrine. Secondly, that not all the propositions of Molinos are condemned by Innocent as in all respects false, but some only as being " suspect of heresy," regard being had to their context. Now, if we read through these propositions we shall see that with regard to the spiritual life, their teaching is that the only state which is pleasing to Almighty God, nay, the only state which does not offend Him, is one in which the soul is absolutely passive ; and again, that the purgative and illuminative ways are to be entirely rejected in favour of the unitive, thus destroying the * See Appendix, Note E.

152 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.

very idea" of Christian asceticism. This doctrine issued, if not in Molinos, at least in his disciples, in the gravest irregularities. Nothing in the least degree resembling such doctrine appears in the teaching of the humble and mortified sister of the Visitation, who, even in her state of ecstasy, fulfilled the humblest duties of obedience, and who might have taken her motto from the Office of St. Cecilia, " Sicut apis argumentosa Domino deserviebat." When she spoke of the prayer of quiet, it was as a tran- sient condition, the outcome of generous effort, and the reward of victory. Her language on this point in no way differs from the ordinary language of Catholic mystics.

§ 6. The Church and the Bible.

Scripture, says Dr. Littledale (p. 3), is admitted by the Roman Church to be " the chief source of all our knowledge, as Christians, of the nature and will of Almighty God." "The chief source of all our know- ledge," &c., through the instruction of the Church, — I grant ; " of our knowledge," through our own study in independence of the Church's instruction, — I deny. Nothing can be more emphatic than the teaching of the Fathers of the advantage of the one and of the danger of the other. The following passages are taken from the work of Mgr. Malou, " L'Ecriture Sainte," torn. i. pp. 255-285 : — St. John Chrysostom bids his congrega- tion read up the passages which he will interpret for them in the Church (Horn. i. on Matt. n. 6, t. vii. p. 13), and (Horn. ix. in Ep. ad Col. n. 2, t. xi. p. 392) he says to the fathers of families, " You must learn from me only, your wives and children from you." St Augustine (cont. Ep. Fund. c. 5, t. viii. col. 153): "I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto." And of the light which the Church and Scripture throw upon one another, he says that

THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 153

although authority for this or that point "is not pro- duced from the canonical Scriptures, still the Scriptural truth is retained by us in the matter when we do that which the whole Church approves whom the authority of the same Scripture commends. So that inasmuch as Holy Scripture cannot deceive, let whosoever fears de- ception on the obscurity of this question consult the Church, which Holy Scripture, without any ambiguity, points out to him" (Cont. Crescon. lib. i. c. 33, n. 39, t. ix. col. 407). St. John Chrysostom : " It is clear the Apostles did not deliver everything in epistles, but much without writing ; and that also is worthy of faith. Wherefore we account the tradition of the Church also worthy of faith : it is the tradition ; ask no more" (Horn, iv. in Ep. ii. ad Thess. cap. ii. t. xi. p. 582). St Jerome (in Isai. i. 6, c. 13, t. iv. p. 236) : "The leaders of the Church enter the gates of the mysteries of God, and, having the key of knowledge, understand the mysteries of the Scriptures, and open them to the people intrusted to them." " A man sustained by faith, hope, and chanty does not require the Scriptures except for the instruction of others ; so it is that many, by means of these three, live even in the desert without books."

Of the dangers of independent study, St. Augustine says : " They are deceived by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities who read rashly, mistaking one thing for another, and what they wrongly look for in certain places they find not, to such an extent do certain obscure sayings involve in deepest darkness " (De Doct Christ, lib. ii. c. 6, t. iii. pars. i. col. 21). St. Jerome, in a well-known passage, denounces the grotesque and mischievous results of promiscuous Bible-reading (Ep. liii. ad Paulin. n. 16).*

St. Irenaeus (Cont. Haer. lib. iv. c. 26, n. i, p. 262)

* " Hanc (artem) garrula anus, hanc clelirus senex, hanc sophista verbosus, hanc universi prsesumunt, lacerant, decent antequam discant."

J54 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.

had long before told Christians how to escape these dangers. " There where are the charismata of the Lord, it is necessary that we should learn the truth, amongst those with whom is that Church succession which is from the Apostles, and that which is assuredly sound and blameless teaching. For they preserve our faith both in the one God who made all things . . . and without danger expound to us the Scriptures."

Origen (in Cant. Cant. Prol. t. iii. p. 26), and St. Jerome (Prol. in Jerem. t. v. p. 3), speak with approval of the rule prevailing amongst the Jews that certain portions of Scripture — the beginning of Genesis, the beginning and end of Ezechiel, and the Canticle of Canticles — should be forbidden to all under thirty ; and Gregory Nazianzen exclaims that a similar rule ought to prevail amongst Christians, curtailing promiscuous Scrip- ture-reading (Orat. xxxii. n. 32, p. 600, t. i. p. 35, and Orat. ii. n. 48).

When St. John Chrysostom urges us, as he does, to the study of the Scriptures, not only is it not independent study, but it is not study of the Bible at all in the modern sense. He speaks primarily of the Gospels and Acts and of the Psalms, and then of the Epistles, but by no means with the same insistence.

The principle of the Eible Societies, viz., a wholly undirected reading by every one of the entire Bible, is utterly repudiated by the Fathers ; and the Popes who condemned these societies only followed strictly in the lines of the early Church, with an additional justification in their experience of the Biblical aberrations of Pro- testantism. The Society's Bibles are " poisonous pas- tures ;; (to use Leo XII. 's words, which give such offence to Dr. Littledale), although all but a fraction of their contents is the Word of God ; because they represent the principle of heresy in their rejection of the Church's canon and interpretation, not to speak of particular errors ; and the poison thus contained is certainly none

THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 155

the less dangerous because conveyed in what is, sub- stantially, the Bread of Life.

Of the passages which Dr. Littledale has quoted from the Fathers on behalf of promiscuous independent Bible- reading, I would observe that, with two exceptions, they do not present even a superficial difficulty. The excep- tions are (p. 83), — i. A passage given as from " St. Chry- sostom, Horn. xlix. on St. Matt. ii. 3," which speaks of the Scriptures being the one way of finding out the true Church, and its being useless to look for other proof. 2. A passage from St. Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 67- 91), which declares the Scriptures to be such " that the learned and the ignorant, women and children, may alike teach themselves from it." I have something to say on both these passages.

St. Chrysostom, " Horn. xlix. on St. Matt. ii. 3." The careless reference, which has passed unamended through three editions, tells its own tale at once, — an old one indeed to all who have concerned themselves with the " Plain Reasons," — that Dr. Littledale's quotations are, as a rule, second-hand and unverified. He troubles him- self with their accuracy as little as a man does with the geological formation of a stone he picks up to throw at a dog. But there is something really cynical in the care- less anachronism which exhibits a forty-ninth homily on the beginning of a second chapter. St. Chrysostom has no homily on Matt. ii. 3. The passage does not appear in any of St. Chrysostom's homilies on St. Matthew, nor in any other homily of that Father, but the passage has been found nevertheless, although, with Dr. Littledale's leave, I must amend the reference, thus, " Pseudo-Chry- sostom, Opus Imperfectum in St. Matt. Horn. xliv. e cap. 24." This work, say the Benedictines, is not, and cannot by any possibility be, Chrysostom's ; Erasmus rejected it, so did Usher and CaVe ; it is abandoned by critics of every school. But not only is it not Chry- sostom's, but, as the Benedictines point out, the author

156 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.

is clearly an Arian, nay, an Anomoean. Even the few defenders in an uncritical age of the Chrysostomic attri- bution admitted that the work was overlaid with the faces hareticorum.

It is simply impossible that any one with the most rudimentary critical sense could compare the mystical strain of this homily with the grave literalness of the genuine homily on the same text, and believe the two to be by the same author, and that author Chrysostom.

In the passage from St. Isidore the phrase "may alike teach themselves" (ftddoiev) is a gross mistranslation, rendered the less excusable as the same word is rightly rendered a line or so below, "are able to learn" (/jLaw&uvovreg). Dr. Littledale has corrected this in his second edition into " may alike learn" according to his invariable wont, without a word to indicate that there is a cor- rection.

Independent universal Scripture-reading has always resulted in the tyranny of certain texts. One lives by the eye alone, and he adopts anthropomorphism ; another is a metaphysician, and to him everything is spiritual and the history becomes mere allegory. The pessimist is led to argue like Marlowe's Faustus : " Stipendium peccati mors est, ha ! Stipendium," &c., " Si peccasse negamus, fallimur et nulla est in nobis veritas ; " " why, then, belike we must sin and so consequently die ; aye, we must die an everlasting death : " the optimist sees only that " God is love." I admit fully that Bible-reading has been the great source of practical piety amongst English sectarians ; but none the less its exclusive first-hand use has been the source of every Protestant aberration from Calvinism down to "Eternal Hope." The only security for the whole Bible being taught is its embodiment in an in- fallible ecclesiastical tradition, and its dispensation ac- cording to a living "rule of faith," which shall regulate the focus for its many distances and resolve its discords. This is what we should expect a priori from the general

THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 157

character of the sacred volume. The Bible was evidently never meant for a complete course of religious instruction. It is in no sense a whole, but a collection of fragments, of Sybilline leaves ; and to regard it as a whole involves an arbitrary selection, in which violence is done to what- ever does not harmonise with what you are pleased to consider the leading idea. If all the particles are to be preserved, if they are to coalesce in a symmetrical whole, it must be when the ideal context is partly hermeneutically educed, partly supplemented by ecclesiastical tradition. This is altogether confirmed by experience ; for Catholics alone are faithful to the whole of Scripture ; have no pet texts to which all else must give way : whereas Protestants have always had their special attractions and aversions, from Luther's " stramineous " Epistle of St. James to the "Church Times," which charged an opponent with Calvinism for suggesting that " strait is the gate," &c., might be regarded as throwing light upon the partial success of the Church.

Dr. Littledale complains that Rome — the local Church of Rome — has done nothing for Biblical studies. Biblical criticism is one thing, and the ascetic study of Scripture which the Fathers urge by precept and example another ; neither do they always advance hand in hand. As regards the first, we must recollect Sixtus V.'s great edition of the Septuagint, for the merits of which see Tischendorf, "Introd. ad Vet. Test." Proleg. vii. <tf^.,and the recent labours of Vercellone on the Vulgate. As to commentaries of the character of a Lapide, Rome has always been most fruitful. If there have not been "full commentaries on the entire Bible" published in Rome of late, at any rate there is no portion of Scrip- ture on which commentaries have not appeared in Rome, almost continuously, from the introduction of printing.

No doubt the portentous mischief resulting from the almost idolatrous misuse of their Bibles by Protestants

158 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.

has, very naturally, tended to disincline the ordinary Catholic layman even from its legitimate use, and this to his very great disadvantage. That such abstention in no way accords with the natural Catholic instinct is proved by facts such as Janssen brings out (Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes, vol. i. p. 43), when he tells us that in little more than half a century between the inven- tion of printing and Luther's outbreak no less than fifteen editions of the whole Bible, to say nothing of portions, had been issued in German, five in Flemish. " In Italian eleven complete editions of the Bible appeared before the year 1500, and were reprinted eight times more before the year 1567, with the express permission of the Holy Office. More than forty editions are reckoned before the appearance of the first Protestant version in Italian." See Mr. Allnatt's "Which is the True Church?" p. 40, for this and other valuable informa- tion concerning the Catholic versions of the Bible in different countries.

As regards the use of the Bible amongst the Catholic clergy, Dr. Littledale is utterly at sea. There is not a seminary in the Church in which Scripture does not enter largely into every treatise of theology; in which Scripture lectures do not form an important feature in the curriculum ; and in which Scripture is not presented as the main source of religious instruction and sacred eloquence ; a daily conference on Holy Scripture is part of the rule of the Sulpician seminaries. Hardly a year passes without commentaries upon some portion of Scripture appearing, principally in Latin ; and the poorest priest's library is almost sure to contain one or more of them. Of the Spanish clergy, who rank lowest in Dr. Littledale's list, for neglect of Scripture, it was specially noted at the Vatican Council that their acquaintance with Holy Writ was perfect.

UNCERTAINTY AND FAILURE IN MORALS. 159

Charge 3. Uncertainty and Failure in Morals. 1 1. Probabilism and St. Alfonso Liguori

Dr. Littledale tells us (p. n) that "all Roman Catholic confessors are now bound to follow in the confessional " the teaching of St. Alfonso Liguori, "since he has been raised to the rank of a doctor of the Church." "As a saint," he continues, "according to Roman doctrine, there can be no error in his writings ; but as a doctor, not only is there no error, but it is necessary to submit to his teaching (Benedict XIV., de Canonizatione, iv. 2, xi. 1 1)." No authority could have greater weight with Catho- lics than Benedict XIV. ; but "fas et ab hoste doceri;:? Dr. Littledale's own words about ourselves are ringing in my ears, "No reference to authorities, however seem- ingly frank and clear, . . . can be taken on trust." And so I turn to Benedict XIV., de Canoniz. lib. iv. par. 2, cap. xi. I find that he treats of the qualities of a doctor of the universal Church from No. 8 to the end of the chapter. Nothing even remotely resembling Dr. Little- dale's statement occurs therein. The highest apprecia- tion of the doctrine of doctors is (No. 14) in a quotation from a decree of Boniface VIII., where we read that for one to be raised to such rank it should be verified that by his doctrine " the darkness of errors was dispersed, light thrown upon obscurities, doubts resolved, the hard knots of Scripture unloosed." There is nothing here to suggest that our obligation in regard to the teaching of doctors differs at all in kind from our obligation in regard to the teaching of saints who are not doctors ; and if we turn back to lib. ii. cap. xxxiv. we shall see what that is and what it is not. " It can never be said that the teaching of a servant of God has been approved by the Holy See ; at the most it can be said, when the revisers have reported that nothing has been found in his works contrary to the decree of Urban VIII., and

l6o PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

the judgment of the revisers has been approved by the Sacred Congregation, and confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff, that it was not reproved. Wherefore the afore- said doctrine may be with due reverence impugned, without incurring any note of temerity, if the modest objection be supported by good reasons ; and this even after the servant of God, the author, has been ranked among the blessed or the saints. It is a famous saying of the monk Nicholas, in his Epistle to Peter of Celle, which is 9, lib. 9, among the Letters of Peter of Celle : — 'That St. Bernard, whom you say I have mulcted of due reverence, . . . was long ago reckoned in the number of the saints, and of late canonised in the Church, and exempted from the judgment of men.' He is exempt, I say, so that we may not doubt of his glory, but not that we may not dispute his word." It may be as well to let St. Alfonso decide the question of a doctor's rights for himself. Does he, or does he not, claim the right, from time to time, of differing with the great Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure? Any one who will take the trouble to run his eye through a volume of his " Moral Theology " will find several instances ; here is one (lib. iv. Tract i. cap. 2, dub. 3, art i. n. 104): "St. Thomas and Hales take the nega- tive ; . . . but Lessius and Hadrian do rightly take the affirmative."

Now, as to the character of St. Alfonso as a teacher. i. He is a casuist, and by his example at least teaches casuistry; and Dr. Littledale (p. 10) tells us what casuistry is. It is " a system for dealing with separate cases of sins." " It has come about in this way," partly from a desire " to make religion a very easy thing, partly to provide excuses for many evil things constantly said and done to promote the interests of Romanism itself." Now, observe this is not an account, true or false, of an abuse into which casuistry may have fallen in the hands of certain theologians, but it is an account of casuistry

PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI. l6l

in se, the casuistry of St. Antoninus and St. Charles Borromeo, as well as of St. Alfonso, of Probabiliorists as well as of Probabilists. There would seem to be something inherently wrong in " dealing with separate cases " instead of cleaving to " God's law." But is not every sin a separate case ; and does not the confessional imply a dealing with separate cases ; and have not Ritualists found the necessity of issuing a manual for treating such cases systematically, i.e., a Manual of Casuistry? we say nothing of earlier Anglican writers like Taylor and Sanderson. The ordinary English Pro- testant need have no difficulty in understanding what casuistry is, if he will recollect that the confessional is a court in which the penitent is accuser and accused, and the confessor judge. Does not every legal trial involve a point, nay, many points, of casuistry? Is not the question, whether or not the particular case falls under a law, the bone of contention betwixt eager men, skilful expounders, or unscrupulous wresters, as it may happen, of the law, but whose employment neither in theory nor in practice is accounted dishonourable ? God's law is un- changeable and stainless, " Lex Dei immaculata ;" but in its application to the various circumstances and accidents of life there must always be a sphere of speculative probability falling more or less short of certainty. " Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass, stains the white radiance of eternity."

2. St. Alfonso is a Probabilist and a teacher of Proba- bilism. This system of casuistry, bad enough in itself, is now, Dr. Littledale says, "governed by a principle called Probabilism, the simple meaning of which is this, that if something be plainly forbidden by God's law of morals, and if you have a mind to do it, you may do it, in the teeth, not only of the Bible, but of most of the chief writers on morals, if only you can get an opinion of one casuistical writer in your favour, even though it be plainly weaker and less probable than that of those

l62 PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

who bid you obey God's law." Observe the monstrous assumption, that a probable opinion can exist in the teeth of a plain prohibition of the Bible or " God's law of morals." As though there was any room for proba- bility within the pale of certainty, or as if the slenderest probability could exist in the teeth of such opposition, whereas upon such probability even the extremest Pro- babilist dares not pretend to act !

The theory of Probabilism is simply this : (i.) A doubt- ful law, /.<?., doubtful in its application to the particular case in question, does not ordinarily bind. (2.) Such application is doubtful when, after the best consideration and advice, there remains solid ground for the opinion favouring liberty. The origin of Probabilism as distin- guished from Probabiliorism — which latter is the theory imposing an obligation of following every seeming pre- ponderance of likelihood on the side of law — is (i) an anxiety not to impose by way of obligation anything beyond that which Christ has clearly imposed ; and (2) the belief that in appealing to probability you are ap- pealing to something more absolute, more stable, more publici juris, less open to the tyranny of private pre possession, than would be the case in appealing to mere preponderance. Confessors — who have been always practically Probabilists— when beyond that region within which God's law speaks plainly, exhort and encourage to what may appear the higher and safer road, but they dare not oblige. The lines of legal obligation and heroic sanctity do not always coincide, and the confessor is not only director and physician, but also primarily judge, and as judge he must not go beyond the law, whilst in his other two relations his action is entirely subordinate to the spiritual interests of his penitent

If St. Alfonso be a Probabilist, he is at least so moderate a Probabilist that it is disputed amongst his disciples whether he be a Probabilist at all and not rather an ^qui-Probabilist, /".<?., one who requires an

PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI. 1 63

equal probability in the two opinions to justify the adoption of the one favouring liberty. The JEqui- Probabilists appeal with some effect to this passage (Theol. Mor. lib. i. Tract i. n. 56): "If the opinion which makes for the law should seem to be certainly the more probable, we are bound to follow it." He here seems to imply that solid probability cannot, under certain circumstances at least, exist in the face of a notable probabiliority.

Dr. Littledale (/. c. note) refers to Gury (Compend. Theol. Mor. vol. i. p. 39) in proof that he has rather understated than not the enormities of Probabilism. Here he grossly misrepresents and even misquotes Gury. What Gury says (see ed. Ballerini, torn. i. p. 58) about the "doctus," " mediocriter doctus," and "rudis," is a commonplace in every system of morals ; it belongs to Probabiliorism as much as to Probabilism. It comes to this : the trained theologian, if conscious that he is sufficiently dispassionate, may trust himself to appreciate the intrinsic arguments as well as the extrinsic autho- rities for an opinion, and what he concludes to be true he may regard as probable ; one less trained must content himself with reckoning authorities ; whilst a third, who is wholly ignorant, must take the best advice he can, and trust the judgment of any one whom he has reason to regard as well informed. A single author against the rest may be sufficient to constitute a probable opinion, if he be quite beyond exception (omni exceptione major), not, as Dr. Littledale renders it, "of exceptional supe- riority;" and if, moreover — as further conditions which Dr. Littledale completely ignores — he has not only solved the arguments of the supporters of the opposite opinion, but has introduced what is practically a new argument. On what principle, one is tempted to ask, can Dr. Littledale object to so modest an exercise, in an uncertain matter, of private judgment?

Amongst various instances of immoral doctrine, St

164 PROBABILISM AXD ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

Alfonso teaches, Dr. Littledale says — (i.) "That the actual' assassins of a man are not equally guilty with their instigator, whom he admits to incur excommunication" (Theol. Mor. iv. 394). On the contrary, St. Alfonso never attempts to compare the guilt of the two parties. What he says is, that the employers (" mandantes ")- alone are excommunicate, because so runs the particular decree of excommunication in question, and we must not extend the penalty beyond the letter. He accounts for the actual assassins not being included in the decree by the very sufficient reason that, in the case contemplated by the decree, the assassins were infidels and so not possible subjects for excommunication. (2.) " If A murder B, in order that C may be suspected, and thereby suffer loss of any kind, A is not bound to make C any compensation, unless he be a worthy person" (iv, 587). Now there is nothing on the subject of homicide at Dr. Littledale's reference No. 587, but at No. 586 the question is put, and you are referred for the solution to No. 636 ; and there St. Alfonso maintains that, however A may have intended the murder to be imputed to C, if in fact he has done nothing to cause that imputation, he cannot be regarded as " efficax causa damni," and so as obliged to compensation. Of course the presumption is entirely against the murderer. It is a thousand to one that he has done something to cause the imputation; but if he has not, following the case out speculative, you cannot impute to him what ex hypothesi he did not do. The little clause, "unless the person be worthy," is a. gratuitous and absurd importation by Dr. Littledale from No. 587, where a quite other question is discussed, viz., that of the obligation of one who has prevented another by unfair means from obtaining a benefit. He is bound, the Saint says, to compensate in proportion to the ex- pectations frustrated, provided only the intended subject was worthy of the benefit. This clause Dr. Littledale has.: inserted in the question of imputed murder asked in No.

1ROBABILISM AND ST. AL1ONSO LIGUORI. 165

$86 and discussed in No. 636, whilst omitting the vital point that A is supposed to have had nothing to do with the imputation upon C beyond creating the fact imputed, viz., the murder, and mentally intending it should be imputed. (3.) " That if a clerical adulterer be caught by the husband, he may lawfully kill the husband, and does not incur irregularity thereby, provided his visit was secret, so that he had a reasonable expectation of escaping detection, though, if he had openly braved the clanger, he does incur irregularity" (iv. 398). This is perhaps the most monstrous of all Dr. Littledale's enormities. For, taking his words as they stand, they have one meaning and one only, viz., that the offender in question may lawfully proceed to cut the throat of the man he has so basely injured, if by so doing he may reasonably hope to escape detection. No other danger save that of detection does Dr. Littledale so much as hint at, as entering the case. The circumstance, more- over, of the culprit being a cleric naturally suggests that this singular license is accorded to him that he may save the honour (!) of his cloth. The truth is as follows: — St. Alfonso is considering the question of irregularity (a condition of legal inability to perform clerical func- tions) ; and irregularity is incurred, as is most reasonable, not by accidental or justifiable, but only by culpable, homicide. St. Alfonso's condition, which Dr. Littledale quietly omits from the case, is that the homicide in question is committed by the cleric in the strictest self- defence when every other alternative of escape with life had been closed. The question is, whether the act of homicide, in se inculpable being an act of self-defence, did or did not contract culpability, and so the penalty of irregularity, from the illicit act, the adultery, with which it was connected. St. Alfonso takes a middle course betwixt the affirmative and negative, distinguishing thus : The irregularity would be incurred, supposing the adultery "\vas so far open as to constitute an affront naturally

1 66 PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

entailing the violence which ensued, and so forming one act with it ; not so if the violence was an unforeseen accident. The difference to the culprit practically comes to this : if the irregularity is incurred for the homicide, he is suspended ipso facto ; if it is not incurred, he cannot be suspended until after sentence pronounced upon the adultery, /".*., when his case no more belongs to the forum sacramentale but to the forum externum.

Dr. Littledale's charges (4), (5), and (6), all fall under one category, St. Alfonso's allowance, under certain cir- cumstances, of equivocation, even supported by an oath. What Dr. Littledale omits to tell us is that such equivo- cation is only admitted in defence of an undoubted right which the questioner is seriously invading. The right to plead "not guilty," acknowledged in our law, St. Alfonso maintains to be, under certain circumstances, a natural right. Where the questioner has a right to the truth, there the equivocation is forbidden ; where, as far as the rights of the questioner are concerned, a lie is law- ful, there, out of a reverence for God's verbal currency, which, to most modern Englishmen, appears fantastic, literal truth is laboriously preserved. Where St. Alfonsa would allow of equivocation, his Protestant critics would, in all probability, lie more or less clumsily ; that is about the difference between them.

(7.) "That a nobleman, ashamed to beg or work, may steal to supply his needs if he be poor" (iv. 520). Supposing, says St. Alfonso, that he is in extreme or most grievous necessity, not merely "poor," as Dr. Littledale puts it, and the disgrace of begging or work- ing " worse to him than death." This is an extreme specimen of a race of noblemen happily now extinct, but which existed in St. Alfonso's day. The Saint is in no way responsible for such a social product ; but when he comes across it, he naturally treats it as tenderly as he may. Supposing a young lady were offered, as her one resource from starvation, the post of assistant

PROBABIL1SM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI. 167

slaughterman, St. Alfonso would say, and I suppose every one else would say, that she might take what was sufficient for the moment, instead of attempting to earn a respectable livelihood in the shambles.

St. Alfonso brought out an edition of Busembaum's theology, and from Busembaum Dr. Littledale takes the following maxims: — (i.) "A very poor man may steal what is necessary for the relief of his own want, and what a man may steal for himself he may steal for another very destitute person. (2.) Any person trying to prevent such a theft, may be lawfully killed by the thief" (torn. iii. lib. iii. par. i, tract 5, c. i). The first maxim, if for Dr. Littledale's " very poor " be substituted Busembaum's " in extreme necessity," is the universal teaching of theologians; for, in extreme necessity, to take what is necessary is not theft, but the use of what the law of nature has made your own ; and so emended the maxim is found in Busembaum. As to the second maxim, it would seem to result that if you are attacked when in the enjoyment of your strict right, you may defend yourself, or another in like circumstances, to the death. The supposition of the circumstances is prac- tically an extravagance, from their extreme unlikelihood ; but, speculatively, the case admits of no other solution. I do not know that Orlando, in " As you Like it," has ever been reproached for his vindication of his own and old Adam's necessities. Act. ii. scene 7 : " Forbear, and eat no more. . . . He dies that touches any of this Iruit till I and my affairs are answered." For all that, this second maxim does not appear in the place referred to, neither can I find it anywhere in Busembaum, St. Alfonso, or Gury.

From Escobar, the casuist with whom Dr. Littledale winds up, it might not perhaps be impossible to extract one or more condemned propositions on the side of laxity. With his usual ill-fortune, however, Dr. Littledale has pitched on one which is quite unexceptionable. To cast ofl

1 68 PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

the religious habit is regarded as an act of apostasy from that religion, and, as such, has been visited by excommu- nication. But if done for the moment, with no inten- tion of leaving the order, even though for the bad object of escaping detection in wrongdoing, it is, of course, not reckoned apostasy, and the excommunication attached to that crime is not incurred; and this is Escobar's state- ment. Some seven or eight grossly false statements, not to mention misrepresentations, is no bad crop from less than three pages. Assuredly the laxest Probabilism ever condemned by the Church would fail to justify Dr. Littledale's interpretation of the commandment against false witness.

Since the appearance of the above section in the "Tablet" of February 7, 1880, Dr. Littledale has published his second and third editions. Both the emendations he has thought fit to make therein, and those he has dispensed himself from making, deserve notice.

i. The passage which runs in the first edition, "St. Alfonso Liguori, whose teaching all Roman Catholic confessors [are now bound to follow in the confessional] " substitutes for the words I have bracketed, ed. 2, "are now free to follow," ed. 3, "are now encouraged to fol- low.'* Ed. i, " As a doctor, not only is there no error in his writings [but it is necessary to submit to his teach- ing] j " ed. 2, " but it is necessary to admit his teaching ; " ed. 3, " but his teaching is to guide bishops and clergy in forming their judgments on difficult cases, and to be a standard whereby they are themselves to be judged. (Leo IV. cited by Benedict XIV., de Canonizatione, iv. xi. 15)."

As I have noticed before, Dr. Littledale's theory of religious controversy is evidently this : to say as many awkward things of an antagonist as you can lay your tongue to, backed with references here and there to any authoritative writer who comes to hand, and sooner or later the truth will articulate itself to your advantage.

PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI. 169

Benedict XIV. is chosen, and Dr. Littledale boldly appeals to him for a variety of statements of which he has not one syllable. There is nothing about a saint's writings "containing no error;" nothing about having to "submit" to a doctor's teaching: but never mind; what with slightly changing the reference and modifying the sentiment, it will go hard if Dr. Littledale cannot find something to back up his theory about doctors, in Benedict XIV. ; and by the time he has arrived at his third edition he has found a passage, quoted by Benedict XIV. from Leo IV., to the effect that bishops are not only to judge but even to be judged in accordance with the teaching of doctors. It would have been well for Dr. Littledale had he contented himself with the modest vagueness of his second edition, "it is necessary to admit," and let Benedict XIV. alone; as it is he has blundered again. Leo IV. is not speaking of the writings of doctors when he says, "It is these according to which bishops judge, and bishops are judged and clergy," but of the canons of General Councils and the decrees of the Popes. The passage, indeed, goes on to say that if the above do not suffice for a decision, then, if they can find dicta to the point of " Jerome, Augustine. Isidore, and other like holy doctors, these are to be confidently adopted and published, or recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See on the matter" (see Labbe, lorn. ix. p. 1027). No doubt this is high testimony to the authority of doctors, but I would observe (i) that it is not clear that the authority contemplated is not a consensus doctorum ; (2) that it is not final, since there is the alternative of a "recourse" to the Holy See. Benedict XIV. simply quotes the passage for the sake of Isidore's name, whose doctorate he is discussing.

Dr. Littledale's readers are never warned of the various retractations in his second and third editions, and he must know full well that not one reader in a thousand dreams of collating.

1 70 PROBABILISM AND ST. ALFONSO LIGUORI.

In his "Rejoinder" to Mr. Arnold (Contemporary Review, May 1880, p. 811), he insists that if Catholics may dissent from saints and doctors, it is only on such "minor and open questions as, e.g., how many nails were used at the crucifixion." This is not the opinion either of St. Alfonso or of Benedict XIV., the latter specially points out that even an error in faith, if it was a point in the Saint's time not yet decided by the Church, is no bar to canonisation. The instance I have given above is on a grave question of simony, and Dr. Littledale seems to forget that he has himself quoted the Angelic Doctor against the Immaculate Conception.

In this same "Rejoinder" (p. 811), he calmly puts aside the disproofs of his account of Probabilism pro- duced from the works of its professors, and appeals to the "Provincial Letters" and the Rigorist " Biblio- theque " of Richard and Giraud. Now it is conceivable that some special weight should be conceded to a hostile criticism either of admitted principles or of results, but for a statement of principles it is but reasonable to go to the authors themselves and not to their opponents. What would be thought of a man who, setting up for a sober biographer of Mr. Gladstone, should draw his account of that gentleman's sentiments, not from his speeches and writings, but exclusively from the pages of *' Vanity Fair " and the " Daily Telegraph " ?

In a letter to the "Guardian" of April 14, 1880, Dr. Littledale professes to adhere to all his citations from St. Alfonso. Now I have no intention of making the slightest appeal to Dr. Littledale ; my appeal is to that large proportion of Englishmen who really hold that justice is a divine right which no one can forfeit. I will ask them to turn again to what I have said on Dr. Littledale's charges, i, 2, and 3. For instance, take the last and worst. 1 maintain that he has quoted St. Alfonso as saying that under certain circumstances a man may kill another without incurring a particular ecclesiastical

CARDINAL BELLARMINE. I ^ I

penalty, and that he has left out the circumstance on which St. Alfonso's whole decision turns, viz., that it is a case of strictest self-defence. There is no English authority on criminal law, from Blackstone downwards, which, under such unscrupulous excision, may not be made to justify murder. Three courses are open to Dr. Littledale : either to deny that self-defence is a circumstance in the case, or to maintain that under the circumstances self-defence is unlawful, or to with- draw the charge and justify St. Alfonso.*

§ 2. Cardinal Bellarmine.

Dr. Littledale (p. 114) appeals to Bellarmine as teach ing the supremacy of the Pope over the commandments of God and the dictates of conscience, and he quotes the well-known passage, De Rom. Pont. iv. 5 : "If the- Pope should err by enjoining vices, or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices to be good and virtues bad, unless it would sin against conscience." Had Dr. Littledale ventured to make an appreciation of the whole of this chapter v. — a very short one, — or had he even pursued his quotation a line or two further, the complete unappositeness of the quotation would have appeared at once. The thesis of Bellarmine's fifth chapter is this : the Pope cannot err in the substantial morality of a law in which he prescribes or forbids, in a matter of morals, a certain course of action to the whole Church ; *>., he cannot make such a law for the whole Church as would involve those who obeyed it in a breach of the moral law. He proves this : First, because the very fact of the Pope, the Church's God-given guide, so doing would be a grievous injury to the Church, deroga- ting from her security and sanctity. Secondly, he en- deavours to show that the Church's faith is in a certain manner involved in his thesis, inasmuch as it is part of that faith that every virtue is good and vice bad ; and at last * See Appendix, Note F.

172 CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

comes the passage quoted by Dr. Littledale, "If the Pope,n &c., with the following words as its immediate context : tf For the Church is bound, in doubtful matters, to acquiesce in the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, and to do what he commands, and to abstain from doing what he forbids ; and lest perchance she should act against her conscience, she is bound to believe that good which he commands, that bad which he forbids." The argument is, in doubt- ful matters, i.e., where the right and wrong of the course prescribed is not apparent, the Church must obey the Pope's command, — an application of the common prin- ciple " in doubtful matters the presumption is always in favour of any command of a legitimate superior." But every moral agent who would not act against his con- science must say to himself, "This action I am doing is right ; " and Bellarmine considers that such a testimony on the part of the Church equivalently pledges her faith to the objective righteousness of the course. Various points in this difficult chapter admit of controversy ; but one point at least is clear, Bellarmine is speaking here exclusively of the Church's duty towards a Papal precept in doubtful matters.

Bellarmine is not proposing to himself, as St. Paul did, the case of authority contradicting revealed truth ; but in doubtful matters, where the practical duty of obedience is fairly assumed to be dictated by con- science, he argues from the seriousness of an error upon such a scale to its impossibility, and so to infallibility. Thus the infallibility he invokes sanctions the rights of conscience.

§ 3. Condemnation of Private Judgment.

The case as between Catholic and Protestant on thi« point loses all consistency in Dr. Littledale's hands. •When the Church condemns private judgment, she does not condemn conscience, which she admits to have the

CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 173

inalienable right of constituting the immediate rule of all moral action. Neither does she condemn all exercise of private judgment in the sense of all free exercise of the reason in matters of religion ; for, as Dr. Littledale fairly points out, it is as much an act of private judgment to say, This is an authority whose dicta I shall accept without question, as to say, I will only accept what I can get direct proof of; or, to make the parallel more pertinent, the recognition that an authority is such that I ought to submit to it without question, is no less the result of an act of private judgment than the recognition that I must receive nothing without direct proof. The difference between the two states is not in their origin, but in their relation to the future exercise of private judgment. The one has found an authority limiting that exercise in certain direc- tions, the other has found that no such authority exists. What the Church condemns is the extension of the exercise of private judgment to this exclusion of all authority; this refusal to accept even on an authority presumably divine what you cannot get other proof of. When private judgment is denounced as an evil by Catholic writers, it is this usurpation of private judgment that is meant ; just as when we condemn egotism, we are not condemning the action of the self-regarding principle itself, but its tyranny over the legitimate claims of other interests.

Of course, no religious Protestant allows himself to reject altogether an authority demanding the submission of his reason. He accepts what he conceives to be clear state- ments of Scripture for which he can obtain no other proof whatever. But such Protestant believer in authority, though that of the Bible only, has always been felt by the common instinct of mankind to be an anomaly, and is now a fast- diminishing survival ; and so the terms " authority " and " private judgment " have come to be looked upon, and not unfairly, as the distinguishing symbols of the Ca- tholic who believes in an abiding divine authority in

174 CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

the Church, and the Protestant who believes that no such authority exists.

Dr. Littledale's passages from Scripture on behalf of private judgment do not suggest even a superficial difficulty, but not so with his passage from St. Augus- tine, which is as follows : " Authority is first in time, but reason in fact. The learner must believe, but when taught he ought to judge" (De Ord. ii. c. ix.). The latter half which we have underlined certainly looks as if, according to St. Augustine, private judgment was to supersede authority. On turning, however, to the " De Ordine," one is relieved to find that this telling sentence is certainly not the immediate context of the words with which Dr. Littledale has united it in one continuous quo- tation ; nor is it any part of chapter ix. The sentence is a gloss of Dr. Littledale's which has unfortunately slipped into the text between the inverted commas ; and, more- over, it is a gloss which no one who has taken the trouble to read the whole of n. 26 can possibly accept as con- veying the Saint's meaning. St. Augustine is engaged in illustrating his favourite idea, " fides quaerens intellectum." faith learning how to reason ; or theological apprehen- sion, especially the theology of the spiritual life, the dis- cipline of the law of God. Authority is first in time, but " ratio," /.£, the perfection of theological knowledge, is first, " in re " or idea, inasmuch as it is the end to which authority is the means. " None but authority opens the gate, which each one having entered without any doubt- fulness follows the precepts of the most excellent life, through which when he has become a pupil, then at length he shall learn with what reason they are endued which he followed before reasoning on them, and what that reason is which, after the nursery of authority, he now, firm and fit, doth pursue and lay hold of." The function here of reason is intellectually to assimilate the teaching of authority, not to question its truth ; and so to be taught of God, who is at once the reason of authority and the authority of reason.

THE SIXTH CANON OF NIOEA. 175

Charge IV. — Untrustworthiness.

Dr. Littledale (p. 100), in words which, having already quoted at length, I do not care to repeat, charges the Roman Church, from the fifth to the nineteenth century, with systematic fraud and misrepresentation ; and her cpn- troversialists with "almost never" telling the truth, and " the whole truth in no case whatsoever." I will take his instances in order.

§ 1. The Nicene and Sardican Canons.

Various Popes — Zosimus, Leo, and Felix III. — quoted in bad faith the Sardican Canons for the Nicene. I answer that numbers of the ancient codices of the Councils had the Sardican Canons with the Nicene under the title of Nicene, and not merely Roman codices, but others of Gaul, Spain, and Ireland. This is the case with the very ancient codex published by Justellus. The Sardican Council was regarded as an appendix of the Nicene even in the East ; the Council of Constantinople of 382, in its letter to the Pope, quotes a Sardican canon as Nicene (see Ballerini, St. Leo, torn. iii. De Antiq. Collect. Can. pars. i. cap. 6, n. 14, and Coustant, p. 566, note). De Marca and Baluze — severe critics as they are where the Pope is concerned — admit — to use the words of the latter (ap. Ballerini, /. c. pars. 2, cap. i, n. xiii.) — "that Innocent, Zosimus, and Leo are to be wholly acquitted of fraud (alieni sunt ab omni dolo) in quoting the Sardican Canons as belonging to the Council of Nicsea, since they were supported by the authority of their scrinia and the old collection."

§ 2. The Sixth Canon of Nicaea.

"The Roman legates," says Dr. Littledale, "at the Council of Chalcedon produced a forged copy of the Nicene Canons, containing in the sixth canon the words,

1)6 THE BAPTISM OF CONSTANTINE.

'The Roman See has always had the primacy/ which were promptly repudiated by the Council." I answer that the Roman copy was never repudiated by the Council. A Greek copy without the clause in question appears in the Acts, besides the one read by the legates ; but, according to the Ballerini and Hefele, this was a later interpolation in the Acts, and the only one read at the Council was that of the legates. Anyhow, as Hefele observes, there is not a word suggestive of repudiation (Councils, vol. i. p. 402, Eng. tr.). After the reading of this sixth canon, and the first, second, and third canons of Constantinople, "the imperial commissioners who were present at the Synod" acknowledged that "the most ancient right of all (ir?b ndvrcav r« KguTtfa) and the pre-eminence (xa/ n$* Jga/psrov r/pw) belong to the Arch- bishop of old Rome," and then went on to make an analogous claim on behalf of Constantinople. As to the clause itself, its genuineness has been maintained by several distinguished modern scholars, amongst others by the learned Jesuit Zaccaria (Eccles. Hist, dissert, v. cap. 2). It is probably a gloss, but one almost syn- chronous with the original ; its appearance in so many and such various ancient codices shows that there is not the slightest ground for regarding it as a Roman forgery.

§ 3. The Baptism of Constantine.

The myth of Constantine's baptism in Rome by St. Sylvester was, Dr. Littledale maintains, a Roman forgery to secure the possession of territory, " the famous so- called Donation of Constantine."

I answer that the legend of Constantine's Roman baptism originated in the fifth century, but the " Dona- tion of Constantine " belongs at the earliest to the middle of the eighth century, so that the former could hardly have been invented to provide for the latter. Again, the Legend of Sylvester makes no mention of territorial

THE FALSE DECRETALS. 177

right. Dr. Dollinger (Papstfabeln, Eng. tr. pp. 89- 100) remarks that "the true account of the first Christian emperor's baptism at the end of his life by an Arian bishop soon became quite incredible both to West and East."

§ 4. St. Peter's Letter.

In 754, says Dr. Littledale, Pope Stephen III. forged a letter in the name of the Apostle St. Peter, and sent it to Pepin, king of France, urging him to come to his defence.

I answer that there is nothing in the letter to suggest more than a rhetorical impersonation. Neither Pepin nor his Franks were fools to be so played on. More- over, had the letter pretended to be a literal missive from St. Peter, there would necessarily be some legend to explain the Pope's getting it, of angelic visitation, or the like, but there is nothing of the kind. When Fleury is appealed to on the subject, it should be remembered that he belongs to a strain of writers to whom any license of the imagination was an unintelligible abomination. Even Fe'ne'lon himself had no word to say of the Gothic cathedrals of France, except to apologise for their bar- barism. Gibbon acquits the Pope of any dishonest in- tention. (D. and F. vol. vi. ch. 49 note.)

§ 5. The False Decretals.

The " False Decretals," a collection of letters and decrees of early Popes and Councils, " all intended to augment the Papal authority," we are told, "were fabri- cated in Western Gaul about 845, and were eagerly seized on by Pope Nicholas I., an ambitious and per- fectly unscrupulous pontiff, to aid in revolutionising the Church, as he, in fact, largely succeeded in doing." As a specimen of the principles by which the Church was " revolutionised," Dr. Littledale produces the following : " Not even amongst the Apostles was there equality, but

if

178 THE FALSE DECRETALS.

one was set over all." "The head of the Church is the Roman Church." " The Church of Rome, by a unique privilege, has the right of opening and shutting the gates of heaven to whom she will" Now, so far from these being new principles, any one who will turn to the patristic passages I have collected on Papal prerogative will find them almost word for word. The first is asserted by St. Chrysostom, in Joan. Horn. Ixxxviii. n. i. (quoted, p. 7) ; the second by St. Ambrose and Council of Aquileia (quoted, p. 42) ; and the third by St. Maxi- mus (quoted, p. 17).

As to the contents of these decretals a large number of critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, are quite in accord with the Ballerini's summing up (1. c. pars. iii. cap. 6, sec. 3), viz., that when they appeared they repre- sented a discipline " which had either been long estab- lished, or had been already introduced." For Protestant authorities, see Neander, "Church History," vol. vi. p. 7, ed. Bohn; Bowden, "Life of Gregory VII.," p. 56; and Milman, " Lat. Christ," vol. ii. p. 307.*

As to the statement in the False Decretals that no Coun- cil can be held without the leave of the Roman Pontiff, I grant that, as applied to all diocesan or provincial synods, this involves a disciplinary innovation ; but it is certain, says Blascus (Comment in Pseudo-Isidore, cap. 9, sec. 2), that the Popes did not apply it to any synod but such as pretended in some sense to be general, or to deal with the reserved cases of bishops. No writer, says the same authority, before the twelfth century applies this prohi- bition to synods generally; and the Roman correctors of Gratian, Annot, ad Can. 4, diss. 17, limit it expressly to synods pretending to judge General Synods. As to CEcumenical Councils, Socrates (A.D. 429) testifies that "our ecclesiastical canon decrees that the Churches

* The whole of what I say here on the False Decretals is taken almost word for word from my "Critique on Mr. Ffoulkes," Longmans, 1869.

THE FALSE DECRETALS. 179

should not pass laws without consulting the Roman Bishop" (Hist. Eccles. ii. 8), a canon which he quotes Pope Julius as appealing to more than a century before (ib. ii. 17); and Sozomen, in a passage already quoted, asserts that it is a law that what is passed in opposition to the Pope is null.

As regards the forgery itself, critics, Protestant and Catholic, are agreed that the Pope had nothing to do with it ; nay, that it was not executed directly in his interest. These decretals were forged in Gaul, not in Rome; and their immediate object was to relieve the bishops and the inferior clergy from the tyranny of the metropolitans, who were but too frequently the tools of the secular power. In pursuit of this end, they aimed at equalising, to a certain extent, the different orders of the clergy, by uniting them all equally with their head and centre, the Pope, and so giving them a point (Pappui outside the sphere of lay influence. When they exalt the Pope, it is only to pull themselves out of the mire ; and it has been observed (see Blascus, ib. c. 10), that these decretals, where the interests of the Episcopate are not at stake, do not concern themselves to uphold even the well-established privileges of the Holy See, and in some cases (whether wittingly or not is uncertain) actually contravene them.

But it is urged, if the Pope be not a coiner, he is at least the conscious utterer of false coin : he had dupli- cates of all the genuine letters of his predecessors in his portfolio ; and if he did not actually discover that these were forgeries, it was because he felt they were, and would not look. As to St. Nicholas I., the Pope in whose time the False Decretals first appeared, Protestant as well as Catholic writers bear witness to his heroic character, his unflinching championship of oppressed innocence, his magnanimity in times of peril and affliction: It is impossible not to feel that he is as unlikely a man to have lent himself to a lie as can well be imagined. As

l8o THE FALSE DECRETALS.

to the solemn and public lie with which Dr. Littledale- charges him, it has no existence out of Dr. Littledale's imagination. The Pope never asserted that he had copies of these documents, or, rather, of these extracts from documents, for nothing more had come under his notice ; he only insisted that the fact of not being in the codex of Adrian did not prevent a document extant in the Roman archives or elsewhere from having autho- rity. It is not, however, upon the Pope's good character alone that I would ground my defence. Dr. Littledale grounds his charge upon the assumption that the Pope was in a position naturally and easily to detect any fraud that should take the form of a Papal letter. This as- sumption I maintain to be utterly false. The fact of the duplicate of a Papal letter not being found in the Roman archives, not only did not prove it spurious, but in very many instances could not create any fair pre- sumption against it. It is true that the Popes, like other bishops, were by the way of laying up in their archives copies of the letters they wrote, and of the more im- portant letters which they received.* We have frequent references and appeals in the letters to and from the Holy See to the contents of the Roman archives ; but it is impossible not to be struck with the short periods of time which these appeals cover. I think I am right in saying that, with one exception, they do not extend beyond a century, and that most fall far short of it. I know of only one exception, and that was when in 531 Theodore of Thessalonica produced from his archives Papal letters from Damasus downwards, a space of about 150 years, all extant and all genuine, and asked Boni- face II. to verify them from the Roman scrinia. Curi- ously enough, we do not know how far the Roman

* There must have been many accidental exceptions to this rule* Nicholas I. (Ep. 27) mentions that this letter of his had not been officially transcribed, owing to his " scriniarii " not being at ths time available.

THE FALSE DECRETALS. l8l

scrinia stood the trial, for the narrative document (see Labbe, torn. v. p. 843) is imperfect.

Mabillon (De Re Diplom. suppl. p. 5) enumerates the many dangers that beset the ancient archives. They were, moreover, peculiarly liable both to be neglected -and tampered with, owing to the fact that the notarii and scriniarii, who were alone capable of reading, trans- scribing, and classifying the manuscripts, were a small and consequently irresponsible class. This was so much felt to be the case, that from time to time custodes were appointed to watch over the honesty of the notarii^ and keep them to their duty. The responsibility of these officials was, of course, in direct ratio to the want of cul- ture of their time and country ; thus in Italy we may presume they must have had things very much their own way for several centuries preceding the era we are con- sidering. Under these circumstances, nothing is more natural than that the Roman archives should have sus- tained vast and frequent losses ; and we are not surprised when Baronius (torn. v. an. 381, xxxi.) points out to us that the Roman archives had evidently suffered a serious loss between the times of Damasus and Gregory I. He quotes St. Gregory, lib. vi. ep. 15 (Ed. Ben. lib. vii. ep. 34) to the effect that the Roman Church knew nothing of the condemnation of the Eudoxians, except from doubtful or corrupt sources ; and remarks that, seeing that several of the ancient Fathers speak of Eudoxius as accused and convicted of frightful heresy, St. Gregory's words clearly show, "jacturam passa esse Romana arch- ivia." I may observe that the letter of Liberius to Con- stantius (see Coustant, p. 423) speaks of Eudoxius as having refused to condemn Arius, and being therefore excommunicate ; and this letter must have been origi- nally in the Roman archives.

In this same letter Liberius testifies that he has got the letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Pope Sylvester concerning the Arian controversy; " manent literse ;" and

1 82 THE FALSE DECRETALS.

Constant remarks that, of course, there were numbers of letters to and from Sylvester on the same subject, though none have come down to us (p. 247).

In the eighth century St. Boniface of Mainz (Ep. 40) tells Nothelm of Canterbury that, as regarded the famous letter of St. Gregory I. to St. Augustine, the Roman scriniarii had looked in the archives of the Roman Church and could not find it.

In 743 the Germans rested their right to marry " in quarta generatione" upon an indult of Pope Gregory II., which could not be discovered in the Roman archives, but which Pope Zachary did not on that account reject as spurious. These are his words : " We must confess that in Germany a document has been for some time current which we do not find in our archives. We are told by the Germans that Pope Gregory, of blessed memory, when he was leading them by the light of divine grace to the religion of Christ, granted them leave to marry in quarta generatione, whilst they were yet rude and had to be solicited to the faith. Although we cannot find the document, we do not hesitate to believe it genuine" (Labbe, torn. vii. p. 287).

We have only to look through Coustant's volume to see that numbers of the Papal letters do not come from the Roman archives, but from those of other sees, par- ticularly Vercellae and the famous Gallic sees of Aries and Vienne. The editor of the " Bullarium Romanum, Rome 1739," in his preface, after 'noticing the losses which the Roman archives had sustained, particularly in Papal letters, from Leo I. to Innocent III., observes that numbers of these autographs, " of which no longer any mention or trace remains in the Roman archives," have been found intact in the archives of other cathedral towns and monasteries.

It has been said that the fact that so many of the Pseudo- Decretals profess to be the letters of Popes of the times of persecution, should have awakened sus-

THE FALSE DECRETALS. 183

picion. But it must be remembered, first, that there is great reason for supposing that Pope Nicholas never saw more than certain portions of these decretals, with which he indicates an acquaintance, although nowhere formally quoting them ; secondly, that it is well known that the Popes, in the times of persecution, did write and write frequently; witness the genuine fragments of their letters in Eusebius, Hilary, and elsewhere. Moreover, the Fathers testify an acquaintance with other documents which are wholly lost; St. Augustine, for instance (Ep. 43, n. 16), shows that he knew, in extenso, the decree of Melchiades condemning Donatus ; and St. Jerome speaks of the four letters written by St. Cor- nelius to Fabius of Antioch as extant in his time.

There was nothing in these relics of the times of per- secution in that age to awaken suspicion, whilst there was much to attract devotion. Men naturally welcomed their discovery with the same devotion, and certainly with no greater surprise, than they did the kindred dis- covery of the martyrs' bodies. St. Nicholas in his letter to the Bishops of Gaul (Labbe, torn. x. p. 282) shows what idea was uppermost in his mind when he refers to these decrees, of which he had seen something and heard more, as the decrees of those " quorum videmus Deo auctore Sanctam Ecclesiam aut roseo cruore flori- dam, aut rorifluis sudoribus et salubribus eloquiis adorna- tam." Again, it must be remembered that the Holy See received these- decretals from the Gallic Church, upon whose learning it had been taught to depend in its con- troversies with the civil power and Greek heresy.

We find a remarkable instance of this dependence recorded by Paschasius, in his "Life of Wala" (ap. Mabillon, Act. S. Ord. Ben. sec. iv. pars, i, p. 511). He relates that he and Wala (A.D. 833) showed Gregory IV. — then in France, engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of reconciling the king and his sons — "sundry documents, confirmed by the authority of the holy Fathers

184 THE FALSE DECRETALS.

and his own predecessors, against which none might deny that he had the power — forsooth God's, the blessed Apostle Peter's, and his own — to go and send unto all nations for the faith of Christ, the peace of the Churches, the preaching of the Gospel, and the assertion of the truth; and that in him resided the supreme authority and living power of blessed Peter, in virtue of which he might judge all and himself be judged of none. Which documents he graciously received, and was exceedingly comforted."

Some writers have thought that they discerned here evidence of the Pseudo-Decretals, but the idea is very generally abandoned. One strong argument against it appears to me to be the fact that Agobard, who belonged to the same party as Wala and Paschasius, in his letter to the king, which exactly coincides in time with his friend's mission to Gregory, and in which he has the same object in view with them, viz., the exaltation of Papal pre- rogative, grounds his argument exclusively upon genuine documents. However this may be, the whole account is curiously illustrative of the influence of the French Church upon the Holy See.

But not only did the Pope receive these False Decretals from the French bishops, but the French bishops them- selves furnished him with what he might well regard as a crucial test of their genuineness. For even when Hincmar in his controversy with Nicholas does his best to disprove their cogency at law, he never so much as suggests a doubt of their genuineness. It is true that in his subsequent dispute with Adrian II. Hincmar uses rather different language; but even then he hints at nothing more than that they have been garbled and interpolated by his own nephew and others, to serve their private ends.

In the letter to the Bishops of Gaul, quoted above, the Pope clearly assumes that there may be other re- servoirs of authentic decretals besides the archives;

THE FALSE DECRETALS. 185

when, in meeting Hincmar's attempt to restrict the legal cogency of decretals to those contained in the codex of Adrian I., he says, " God forbid that we should not embrace the decretals which the Roman Church penes se in suis archivis et vetustis rite monument's, recondita venerantur." The "vetusta monumenta," no doubt, in- cluded all such well-authorised collections as the Pseudo- Isidorian professed to be.

Besides the fact of the frequent losses which the R man archives had sustained, rendering their contents at any given time an unsafe criterion of genuineness, it was exceedingly difficult to find out what they did con- tain ; for, as I have said, only a very small class, the " scriniarii," were competent to engage in the search. These were put upon their oath that they had produced all that they could find regarding the cause in hand, as we find, e.g., in the Acts of the Sixth Council. And, for these experts, the search was, doubtless, exceedingly difficult when covering any considerable length of time, and when documents were wanted that had not been previously arranged for controversial purposes. Often, indeed, it could have been little else than a wild hunt amongst boxes of manuscripts in various stages of decay, when the subject of any successful discovery might well be described as "Deo revelante reperta" (see Nicholas' Letter to Herard, Labbe, torn. x. p. 298).

The Ballerini (St. Leo, torn. i. p. 511), after remarking upon the number of St. Leo's letters that were lost, thus account for these and other losses : — "After the general collections of the canons and Papal letters, originally -compiled by private persons for private use, had got so generally into circulation that the Popes themselves took their predecessors' letters oftener from these private collections than from the Apostolic scrinia, it came about that the autographs of these same letters which were in the Apostolic scrinia, gradually falling into neglect as time went on, perished."

1 86 THE FALSE DECRETALS.

This, then, is St. Nicholas' position. He is presented with portions of documents — for we have no proof they were more — which accurately represent the ecclesias- tical spirit of the day, a recommendation rather than a difficulty in an uncritical age. Their genuineness was attested by the Church of Gaul, a Church incomparably more learned than his own ; and attested, moreover, even against its own interests. The genuineness of these documents was in no sense on its trial ; it was un- disputed. The presumption must have appeared strongly in favour of the genuineness of documents at once so orthodox and so apposite ; had any heresy cropped up in them, then, indeed, it would have been another matter. But more than this: the Pope, even if a doubt had crossed his mind, which is in the highest degree impro- bable, had not in the Roman archives any satisfactory test of their genuineness.

It is sometimes said that the detection of the Pseudo- Decretals was the work of the reformers, and would never have taken place without them. £t may be as well, before leaving the subject, briefly to notice this point. The war which the German reformers began in the sixteenth century to wage with Rome naturally gave a peculiar zest to the pursuit of any discovery which might seem detrimental to their great adversary; and it is undeniable that the Magdeburg Centuriators, as early as 1559, exposed the Pseudo-Decretals with a degree of completeness which had not been reached before. The controversial prominence which they naturally gave to the subject obtained for them very generally the credit of the discovery ; but it is a mistake to suppose that the forgery had not been substantially discovered before. As early as 1431 Cardinal de Cusa in his work, " De Con- cordia Catholica" (lib. iii. cap. 2), gives it as his opinion that the Donation of Constantine, as well as the writings attributed to St. Clement, St. Anastasius, and StMelchiades, were apocryphal ; and urges against them exactly the same

THE FALSE DECRETALS. 187

critical arguments — viz., their anachronisms, the silence of antiquity, &c. — which were afterwards applied by the Centuriators to others of the False Decretals. More- over, neither the Centuriators nor their successor in the next century, Blondel, by any means completed the dis- covery of the Pseudo-Isidorian forgery. Many of the documents which had passed these critics, keen and eager as they were, as genuine, were exploded as forgeries by the laborious industry and acumen of the Ballerini in the last century. Bellarmine and Baronius, who followed close upon the Centuriators, rejected the Pseudo-Decretals; and no one who at all realises what the spirit of historical criticism is, and to what an extent the great Catholic writers of the last three centuries, Baronius, the Bolland- ists, and the Ballerini, were animated by it, can doubt that the Pseudo-Decretals died a natural, not a violent, death. Dead ! it may be urged ; but they are not dead, the Church uses them still. Is it not intelligible that pas- sages from the Pseudo-Decretals may be used as texts, a? convenient traditionary formulae, simply for what they represent, and in no sense as authorities ; that they may be too closely associated with the practice of the ecclesias- tical courts to be eliminated without inconvenience ? The right which they represent is established on other grounds, and has long ago been realised by prescription ; and what the Canonist Wilhelm (ap. Mabillon de Re Diplom. torn. i. p. 248) says of " documenta suffecta, substituta, vicaria legitimorum," may be well applied to the Pseudo- Decretals. " Public instruments, sealed in court, strong in the authority of great names, are called in question by historians; and often what the judge has approved in the forum the man of letters condemns in his study. In which case I would compound and so attemper matters as that, whilst the learned should rightly reject such documents as historical evidence, their forensic repute and authority might still remain to them."

f 88 THE CYPRIANIC INTERPOLATIONS.

§ 6. The Cyprianic Interpolations.

The following probably spurious passages appear im- bedded in the " De Unitate Ecclesise," n. 4 :— " Upon him (Peter) alone He builds His Church and commits His sheep to be fed ; . . . and the primacy is given to Peter, that it might be shown that the Church is one and the Chair one. . . . He who opposes and resists the Church, who forsakes the Chair of Peter upon which the Church is built, can he trust that he is in the Church ? " The whole of this is very probably a gloss slipped into the text. It has a large weight of codices against it, some twenty-seven to eight. It is first quoted in the letter of Pelagius II. to the bishops of Istria, written at the end of the sixth century, and often ascribed to Gregory the Great, who was at that time Pelagius' secretary. It was first introduced into the text by Manutius on the authority of a Vatican MS. ; but, as Fell remarks, not without a note to say what he was doing. There has been nothing underhand whatever in our treatment of the text. The Benedictine editor, whilstretainingthe text, has introduced Baluze's damaging criticism in a note. If " Ultramon- tanes," as Dr. Littledale says, are constantly quoting this passage, it is not for lack of other Cyprianic passages to their purpose. Neander admits that these clauses contain nothing that St. Cyprian has not taught elsewhere in passages of admitted authenticity, one of which he regards as stronger than anything in the controverted clauses (ed. Bohn, v. i, p. 298). The following passages are uncontroverted : — " There is one Church and one Chair, founded by the voice of the Lord upon a rock " (Ep. 43, n. 5). " Peter, whom the Lord chose as chief, and upon whom he built His Church " (Ep. 71 ad Quint). "The Chair of Peter and the ruling Church, whence the unity of the priesthood has its source, and to which heretical perfidy cannot gain access " (Ep. 59 ad Cornel.) ; and (Ep. 45) St. Cyprian speaks of Pope Cornelius and "his

"ROMA LOCUTA EST." 189

communion, that is to say, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church," and of the Roman Church, as " the root and womb of the Catholic Church." The Protestant historian Mosheim expresses his conviction that they must be blind who do not see that St. Cyprian's theory of the Papacy must issue in the modern Catholic system (De Gall, appell. ad Cone. Univ. sec. 13). (See Allnatt, Cath. Pet. p. 41, and p. 93.)

§ 7. " Roma locuta est."

The attribution to St. Augustine of the phrase, " Rome has spoken, the cause is ended," no doubt involves a certain rhetorical exaggeration. The sentiment is far more intense in this terse form than as it really runs : " The results of two Councils on the matter (Pelagianism) have been sent to the Apostolic See, and replies have come thence ; the cause is ended, would that the error may end some time." Still the substance is the same. St. Augustine said that the cause was over when a report had been made to the Holy See and an answer received. The cause was over, />., the plea of error that it was, or might possibly be, Catholic truth ; just as Arius' cause was over after Nicaea, though his error endured much longer. As to the Council of Ephesus, there is no proof that it decided anything on the subject of Pelagianism ; but supposing it to have done so, yet this, according to ecclesiastical usage, need have involved no denial of the legal finality of the previous judgment; no con- tradiction of St. Augustine's "the cause is ended ;" but only an implication that the error still endured though it had no legal leg to stand on. Pope Zosimus never manifested the slightest sympathy with Pelagianism ; his fault was an over-readiness in accepting the explanations of the plausible Pelagian Celestius as real, in spite of the warnings of the African Church.* * See Appendix, Note G.

1 90 CARDINAL BARONIUS.

§ 8. Forged Greek Catena.

This was a forgery introduced into the West by Latin missionaries from the East in the thirteenth century; undoubtedly of Latin origin, the Greek being clearly a translation from the Latin. But there is nothing to make one suppose that the Pope (Urban IV.) was not as honest as every one admits St. Thomas was, in his acceptance of it

§ 9. Cardinal Baronius.

" Baronius," says Dr. Littledale, " has also falsified the Roman Martyrology by inventing statements that various early bishops, whose mere names stand in the old editions, were consecrated and given mission by St. Peter from Rome, so as to make Rome appear the mother Church of these places, and he has altered the date of St. Denis of Paris by 200 years with the same view." He refers to Janus, " The Pope and the Council," pp. 399, 400. But how, I would ask, can a man be said to " invent a statement " when he gives careful references to ancient authors, whose works, when consulted, are found actually to contain that very statement ? But this is Baronius' case. Dr. Littledale cannot have consulted the very work he is maligning, but has contented him- self with borrowing the convenient slander from "Janus." In his "Rejoinder" to Mr. Arnold he renews his appeal to "Janus, a title which — it is an open secret — veils the most illustrious modern name in ecclesiastical learning." Well, but no "illustrious name," whether "veiled" or otherwise, can gild an open falsehood. The three specimens of what Dr, Littledale calls an "invented statement" are nothing of the kind. The statements are as follow : — that St. Memmius (August 5) and St. Julian (January 27) were consecrated and sent to Gaul by St. Peter; and that Denis the Areopagite

CARDINAL BARONIUS. 19!

is identical with St. Denis of France, (i.) As to St Memmius, the statement appears in Frodoard, a monk of Rheims (A.D. 951), and also in an ancient biography attributed to the sixth century (see Ruinart's note in his edition of Gregory of Tours, p. 947.) (2.) As to St. Julian, the statement occurs in his biography by Lethald in the tenth century, an abstract from early sources (see " Acta Sanctorum" in die). (3. ) The theory of the identity of the Areopagite with St. Denis of France, and his mission from St. Clement, is allowed byLabbe (De Script. Eccles.) and by Morinus (De Ordinat. Sacr. par. ii. p. 26) — the last being its resolute opponent — to have very generally prevailed in the East and West ever since the ninth century. For ancient authorities on its behalf, both Gallic and Greek, see Halloix, Vita S. Dionysii, op. Dion. torn. ii. p. 522, ed. Paris, 1644.

Baronius' connection with the Roman Martyrology which bears his name is as follows : — He was employed on the work in 1580 when a simple Oratorian priest • — his cardinalate only dates from 1596 — by Cardinal Sirlet, who had been put by Gregory XIII. at the head of a commission for editing the Martyrology. The first edition appeared in 1584, to the correction of the text of which Baronius contributed ; but it is quite impossible to regard him as solely or even mainly responsible for the text. The second edition appeared in 1586, to which Baronius furnished a mass of learned annotations, after the accession of Sixtus V. These notes naturally led the whole work to be appropriated to him in the popular estimation. It must be remembered that there was no adequate textus receptus of the Martyrology for its editors to work on. In the city of Rome itself the different great Churches had for long had their own Martyrologies, and in Baronius' day there were two still in use — Usuard's and the old Vatican. The object cf the editors was to make one Martyrology that should embrace and supersede all others, and to that end they

IQ2 CARDINAL BARONIUS.

drew from every source available to them. The sources are thus enumerated by Laemmer (De Martyrol. Rom. Parerg. p. 22): — "A very ancient Greek Menology, Latinised by Cardinal William Sirlet, various writings of the Fathers, especially St. Gregory's Dialogues, and various catalogues and monuments, especially from the Churches of Italy." As to the Breviary, there was no textus receptus of the hagiographies of the second nocturn till Pius V.'s Breviary of 1568. With this edition no one has pretended that Baronius had anything whatever to do ; and it is in this edition that some of the state- ments about the early Popes which so excite Janus and Dr. Littledale's indignation first make their appearance. Here use has been made of various uncritical sources, such as the Papal Acts contained in the collection of Isidore Mercator, and the Liber Pontificalis. The sources are scrupulously indicated. There is not the least ground for supposing that even the passages taken from Isidore were recognised as spurious, although the col- lection itself was beginning to be viewed with suspicion. When these lections reappear substantially as they were, in Clement VIII.'s Breviary of 1602, revised by Bellar- mine, Baronius, and their coadjutors, the worst that can be said is that they let the original statements stand, which, if they had been true to their critical instinct, they would have eliminated. But it is hard to say what degree of liberty the commission may have enjoyed. For a list of their emendations, exclusively verbal and chronological, "see De Smedt (Introd. Gen. ad Hist. Eccles. Appendix C). Gavantus, a member of the Clementine Commission (Comment, in Rubric. Brev. sect. 5. cap. xii. n. 16), gives the following account :— " That it seemed good to them to restore the lections of the saints bona fide in correspondence to historical fact, and that with as little change as possible ; and where there was any controversy, and the statement, supported as it was by the authority of a grave author, might seem

CARDINAL BARONIUS. 193

to have some probability, it was retained as it was, since it could not be charged with untruth, although perhaps the opposite opinion might be more generally received ;" and Baronius himself, when people expressed their astonishment that he should have passed the legend of Marcellinus' sacrifice which he had rejected in his Annals, answered (Insert, ad An. 302, n. 103), " I would have men to know that the Roman Church, in her excessive tenacity of old usage, has considered that what she has found to have been publicly read for more than eight hundred years should not so lightly be done away, even though very irksome to her. For the rest, the same Roman Church (as Gelasius admonisheth) is not accustomed to read or put out for reading any saint's Acts as a Gospel, but rather leaves them all to be weighed in those scales of the Apostle : " Prove all things ; what is good, keep."* This is quite intelligible, and suggests anything but disingenuousness.

Doubtless the Annals of Baronius contain a multitude of statements and conclusions which have been rejected by subsequent criticism ; but the vastness of the erudition, the perseverance, which itself has something of the character of genius, and the candour which never cloaks a wrong, have been abundantly acknowledged by even his most unsparing critics. What Protestant ever lashed more fearlessly the vices of Popes than this their devoted champion ? Is not the denunciation of the tenth-century Popes inseparably connected with his name ? And yet, because the too realistic colouring of his conception of the Papacy now and again overpowered his historical sense, and gave rise to such theories as that of the falsifi- cation of the Acts of the Sixth Council, it has become the fashion amongst modern enemies of Rome to call Baronius dishonest. Critics, the eve\yday outcome of modern "learning made easy," with its infinite choice of apparatus,

* For this and other passages proving the absolute freedom of Catholic criticism on the subject, see De Smedt, I.e. pp. 181-192.

N

194 CARDINAL NEWMAN.

think they may take a sort of "lion's ride," snarling and tearing, as they go, upon one, but for whose labours they tvould have chosen some easier profession than that of ecclesiastical historian. Baronius in his lifetime had often to defend himself against the charge of ultra-criticism, for not presenting, to use his own metaphor, the whole mass of what came up in his net, instead of sitting on the shore and choosing out the good from the bad. See Laemmer, /. c. p. 69, and again p. 41, where Baronius complains of the jeopardy his Annotations were in, until God put " the spirit of Daniel in Cardinal Caraffa to defend his in- tegrity * contra seniores Israel.'"

Naturally and fairly the Church has been ever slow, and will be ever slow, in breaking with ancient traditions, especially such as are intertwined with popular devotion, at the bidding of criticism ; but gradually the final word of mature criticism is accepted. It would certainly be rash to reform our chronology at the suggestion of Dr. Littledale. In his " Rejoinder " to Mr. Arnold he says, " The plain fact that cannot be evaded is, that Baronius was intrusted by Urban VIII. with the reform of the Breviary and Martyrology." Now I have no wish to evade anything, but "the plain fact" happens to be that Baronius, who died 1607, had been in his grave some six- teen years before Urban came to the throne in 1623.

Professor Lsemmer, a most careful student of Baronius and everything connected with him, pronounces that in all his work he showed himself " a most sincere seeker after truth, a man who deemed it criminal and impious to assert or defend anything unsupported by some evidence of its truth " (/. c. p. 38). The words might serve as his epitaph.

§ 10. Cardinal Newman.

" Even Cardinal Newman's ' natural love of truth ' n as early as 1856 succumbed, Dr. Littledale informs us

CARDINAL NEWMAN. 1 95

(p. in), inthe atmosphere of Roman untruthfulness.* For, after pledging himself that " Callista " " has not admitted any actual interference with known facts without notice being taken of its having done so," he describes one picture of our Lady between St. Peter and St. Paul in the attitude of prayer, of a type unknown till the century after St. Cyprian's, and another of a still more recent type ; and under the first he has inscribed the word " advocata," which Dr. Littledale has not met with as an independent title before the Salve Regina of the eleventh century.

I answer — (i.) Picture No. i is taken from an ancient gilt glass, one of a number found in the catacombs and assigned to the third century, the century of St. Cyprian, by the principal authority on such matters when Cardinal Newman was in Rome in 1847. Subsequently to that date De Rossi, on the score not of the design but of the material, the gilt glass, " assigns them to a period ranging from the middle of the third century to the beginning of the fourth century " (Roma Sotterranea, Northcote and Brownlow, part ii. p. 302). Now it must be remembered that St. Cyprian did not die till 258. (2.) In the Orante of the catacomb frescoes — a female figure in the attitude of prayer — both De Rossi and his English exponents repeatedly recognise the Blessed Virgin, and this where they ascribe an earlier date to the painting than the third century. There is nothing, therefore, in the second picture in " Callista " — our Lady as an Orante at the back of the altar — to distinguish it as belonging to a later type than the first. As to the use of the word "advocata" — taken from the famous passage of St. Irenseus, who wrote in the previous century — as an independent title, I answer, Cardinal Newman did not pledge himself in a work of fiction to put in nothing for which he could not produce a distinct authority, but only to abstain from " actual interference with known facts." t What, I would ask, is the known fact interfered with here ? St. Gregory

* See Appendix, Note H.

t See remarks prefixed to the new edition of " Callista. "

196 SOME OTHER CONTROVERSIALISTS.

Nazianzen (vid. sup.) puts a direct invocation of our Lady's patronage into the mouth of St. Justina, whom he supposes. to have been a contemporary of St. Cyprian's; and the word "advocata'' even as a title of invocation — though there- is nothing to show that the Cardinal so uses it — was used centuries before the Salve Regina. The title " advocata " appears in the Serm. de Laudibus B. V. M., attributed, though improbably, to St. Ephrem, op. Graec. et Lat. ed Asseman, vol. iii. ; and such Greek equivalents as sra^axXjjroc, adixovftetuv Kgoffrarqs (patron), /agff/V?j£ (mediator), swarm in the Precationes (ib. vol. iii.), which, though probably not St. Ephrem's, no one has as yet rele- gated to the eleventh century.

According to the Benedictine Index it would appear^ as Dr. Littledale says, that the Blessed Virgin is not once mentioned by St. Cyprian ; but to talk as he does of that Father's " copious pen," is nonsense. Why, of the single, thin volume which contains his " Opera Omnia " in the Benedictine edition, nearly half is doubt- ful or spurious. Dr. Littledale has looked out "Maria" in the Benedictine Index ; let him look out " Scriptura Sacra," and he will find, if I am not mistaken, that it is not once mentioned, except in spurious or doubtful works. After all, Dr. Littledale is mistaken when he says> " there is not one solitary mention direct or indirect" Our Lady is mentioned by St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixxii. " Christum, de Maria Virgine natum."

§ 11. Some other Controversialists.

The honesty of St. Alfonso and of Cardinal Wiseman is called in question, because they have been convicted of quoting spurious patristic authorities. I suppose we may say of both that they were brought up in an uncritical school. It is by no means easy to wield vast learning like Cardinal Wiseman's, especially at the call of the moment, with perfect accuracy. Dr. Littledale's success

SOME OTHER CONTROVERSIALISTS. 197

in this line, with what excuse of learning I know not, has hardly been such as to warrant him in any great punctiliousness in his demands upon others.

Catholics have inherited a vast mass of literary pro- perty from their predecessors of different ages ; and, as is often the case with members of one household, there has been considerable misappropriation of things prac- tically held in common. Criticism had been for long more or less in abeyance ; and until controversy has forced us to be critical, we have been contented to enjoy a sort of literary communion of saints. I have no sympathy with an uncritical use of authorities; but I conceive that there is all the difference between the culpability, so to call it, of such uncritical enjoyment and the criminality of the uncritical aggressor — the man who supposes away a character when he should prove a charge, and claims a verdict in his favour by a dexter- ous misquotation or a non-existent precedent.

Father Anderdon and Padre Faa di Bruno are attacked for some very innocent remarks. Father Anderdon, in a small tract, "What do Catholics Really Believe ?" had written, " It is false to say that the Church forbids the reading Scripture in the true and correct translation." So it is; as false as any statement in the " Plain Reasons." And, again, " When Protestants invented their religion, they split the commandment (i.e., Com. I.) and the ex- planation (/>., Com. II.) in two, by way of being differ- ent from the Church." This is a popular rendering doubtless, but perfectly true as far as it goes. How is it to the purpose to appeal to Origen and Jerome? Doubtless it gave the Protestant division a convenient precedent; but this does not interfere with the fact that Protestants found the commandment one, and out of no reverence for Origen or Jerome, but solely to make a point against the Catholic Church, split it in twain.

Father Anderdon is much too acute to have appealed to the cultus of mayors, except as proving, what ordinary

198 FAITH NOT TO BE KEPT WITH HERETICS.

Englishmen are so apt to forget, that " worship " need not mean divine worship.

For a defence of Padre Faa di Bruno's appeal in " Catholic Belief" to the ancient Eastern liturgies on behalf of the doctrine of purgatory, I must refer to what I say below (p. 222) under the head of Indulgences.

I know two very honest and able persons who are devout believers in the reality of the " Nag's Head Fable," and who are ever ready to undertake its defence against all comers. The weight of historical probability is, to my mind, strongly against it; but as a myth, its growth was, under the circumstances, most natural and reasonable. As to disproof, it requires more than the disproof of a single circumstance, even if the fact of Scory's Edwardine consecration can be regarded as dis- proving its repetition at the Nag's Head, which I do not see. With regard to the recognition of the validity of the Edwardine rite, supposed to be involved in Bonner's license to Scory, Canon Estcourt has pointed out that the license has not one word of any episcopal function or of coadjutorship, and need mean nothing more than his rehabilitation as priest, an order he had received ac- cording to the Roman rite.

§ 12. Faith not to be kept with Heretics.

Inserted in the course of Dr. Littledale's treatment of Roman untrustworthiness, is a section on the old charge of "faith not to be kept with heretics." At first one is a little startled, and inclined to ask what a question of allegiance or safe conduct has to do with misstatement and misquotation. But Dr. Littledale's meaning is, after all, sufficiently clear. He would suggest that the rationale of what he calls our systematic untruthfumess is that faith is not to be kept with heretics, who are outlawed from truth as well as from charity. Now, as I under- stand the charge, it is nothing less than this : that

OLLKOI

FAITH NOT TO BE KEPT WITH HERETICS. *99Lw-

Roman Catholics justify the making promises to which they have no intention of keeping — promises which they could keep without sin, but because the recipients are heretics they may break without sinning. Now, I can only answer that this has always been de- nounced as abhorrent to the first principles of morality by every Catholic writer on the subject. At the same time, if a promise has been made to a heretic to assist him in any such evil purpose as the furtherance of his heresy or the injury of the Church, it follows the law of a promise to commit any other unlawful act, such as theft or murder, and not only need not, but must not. be fulfilled. Again, when an act of allegiance has been made to a Christian suzerain, the existence of an im- plicit contract has always been assumed by which the suzerain is pledged to remain what he was — a son of the Church — as a condition of retaining his vassal ; so that the tatter's repudiation of allegiance is only lawful when ensuing upon its ipso facto dissolution. This is the Catholic teaching on the subject, and the passages quoted by Dr. Littledale from the Canon Law have no other meaning.

But John Huss, in spite of a safe conduct granted by the Emperor Sigismund, " to go, stay, and return," was put to death by the Council of Constance. Upon this charge of Dr. Littledale I observe — ist. That one who stands up for the continuity of the Church of England, as Dr. Littledale does, can no more disclaim his share in the shame of any barbarity that may have been practised by the Council of Constance than I can. It was a council in which England was thoroughly represented, and the Papal power reduced to its lowest function. 2d. That a pledge granted by one party cannot be vio- lated by another. The General Council of Constance claimed a jurisdiction of its own, independent of the Emperor, so that no imperial safe conduct as such, what- ever force it might have as a recommendation, could be

200 FAITH NOT TO BE KEPT WITH HERETICS.

sufficient to pledge the Council This is clearly recog- nised by Huss, who no less than four times (Ep. 5, 6, and 49) boasts that he has come to Constance without the Pope's safe conduct (sine salvo conductu). 3d. The safe conduct given in extenso by Natalis Alexander (sec. 15 diss. vi. p. 499) is a mere passport, addressed to those communes through which Huss would have to pass to and from Constance, ordering protection and assistance for his transit, tarriance, and return (transire, stare, morari, et redire). It never pretends to address itself to the Council, and still less to speak in its name. 4th. It was never understood either by the Emperor or by Huss himself to bar the sentence of the Council, to which the latter had appealed, and at whose hands he had expressed his willingness to accept the punishment of heretics if convicted. All that the Emperor, and indeed Huss himself until the last desperate moment, claimed on the strength of his safe conduct was pro- tection from violence and liberty to plead. 5th. The utmost that the safe conduct could by any possibility be supposed to grant is immunity from the consequences of past crimes; it could have no effect upon subsequent crimes. Even if it may be supposed to hold Huss harmless, as regards any judicial action with regard to his past heresies and seditions, it could in no way cover the fresh offence he committed in persisting in his heresy after the decision of the Council. This the Emperor implies repeatedly (see Acta Hussii — a Hussite com- pilation— fol. 24, ap. Nat. Alex. /. c. p. 503) when he insists that if he will submit to the Council he will stand his friend and hold him harmless, but if he will not then he will be the first to move his burning. The status of heresy, as distinct from any other form of criminality, with rights of its own, had never been con- ceived at the time of the Council of Constance, and Huss had come facing the alternative of triumph or death, as his own words show (Act Hussii, fol. 2) : " If

FAITH NOT TO BE KEPT WITH HERETICS. 2OI

it convicts me of error, or shall prove me to have taught contrary to the faith, I do not refuse to undergo any punishment of heretics." He procured the imperial safe conduct, which was formally a mere passport and security against violence, and was anyhow a fair pretext, valeat quantum, for claiming that the Emperor should stand his friend and hold him harmless as regards the past ; and all this the Emperor certainly fulfilled to the utmost.

So far from its being true that, as Dr. Littledale says, Huss " was at once imprisoned, tried, and burnt," the exact contrary was the case. He arrived at Constance on the 3d of November 1414, and certainly remained in perfect liberty till his examination on the 28th, when it was proved that he had violated the express condition of the Council, that as an excommunicate he should neither celebrate nor preach. He was not sentenced until July 6, 1415, seven months after his arrest, during which time the Fathers and the Emperor did all they could to win him to a better mind. " This great crime," as Dr. Littledale calls it, far from arousing " a general outcry," was approved by the whole Christian world of the day, with the exception of the heretics who regretted their leader.

Of the two canons with which the Council is sup- posed to have met the Hussite charge against the Em- peror, the second is generally abandoned as spurious. The first, under Dr. Littledale's manipulation, has cer- tainly assumed an ugly look. " Notwithstanding safe con- ducts . . . the competent judge may," &c., looks as if the judge had granted a safe conduct, protecting against judgment, and might in the case of heretics then pro- ceed to violate it ; but when we supply the context after " safe conduct," " of kings or other secular princes, in the case of heresy," we encounter the obvious statement that one jurisdiction cannot bind another which is inde- pendent of it, and an assertion concerning the character

202 THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE IMPUTATION.

of " safe conducts," viz., that they are not " contra jus " but " contra vim." That this was the admitted charactei of the "salvus conductus" amongst jurists of every school, is abundantly proved by Natalis Alexander (/. <:. p. 499). Whatever may be our sentiments of pity for Huss, who certainly displayed a courage of a very noble type ; however much, in the light of subsequent events, we may deplore his execution as a mistake, it is a simple fact that the Council violated no safe conduct, and only acted on a maxim of criminal jurisprudence, which at that day was regarded as nothing less than a truism, when they dealt with an obstinate heretic in the one way in which it was considered reasonable to deal with an obsti- nate heretic. At the time of the Council of Trent heresy had vindicated for itself a status de facto though not de jure, and the Council, wishing to treat with it on that basis, formally set aside all possible precedent to the contrary, which it might be attempted to draw from the Council of Constance; but it certainly did not thereby sanction any particular version of what took place there.

Charge V. — Cruelty and Intolerance. I 1. The General Character of the Imputation.

The Roman Church is specially cruel and intolerant, says Dr. Littledale (p. 115-20); witness the massacre of St. Bartholomew and various assassinations of kings and others, successful or attempted, with which Popes or Jesuits, or at least Catholics, are supposed, rightly or wrongly, to have had something to do. Once Dr. Little- dale thought and wrote differently. In his lecture entitled " Innovations " (1868, p. 19), he says, " Everybody knows there was a horrible massacre of the French Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1572; but few know that the atrocities which the Protestants themselves, ten years before, had committed at Beaugeney, Montauban,

THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE IMPUTATION. 2OJ

Nismes, Montpellier, Grenoble, and Lyons equalled, if they did not exceed, that terrible crime. Again, I do not suppose there are ten people in this room who ever heard of the Nones of Haarlem. William the Silent, Prince of Orange, the famous leader of the revolt of the Netherlands against Spain, posted a large body of soldiers round the square of Haarlem one Corpus Christi Day when the Catholics were all at church. As soon as service was over, the congregation streamed out and were hemmed in and massacred by the Protestant soldiery. A slaughter of not much less atrocity signa- lised the introduction of Lutheranism into Sweden by the butcherly tyrant, Gustavus Wasa. Once more, dwell as much as you like upon Mary's three hundred victims ; she honestly thought (and she had a great deal to make her think) that she was saving England from a horde of licentious infidels." A very different writer, Mr. Lecky, "Rationalism in Europe" (vol. i. p. 51, ed. 1870), thus contrasts Catholic and Protestant intolerance : " Catholi- cism was an ancient Church. She had gained a great part of her influence by vast services to mankind. She rested avowedly on the principle of authority. She was defending herself against aggression and innovation. . . . She might point to the priceless blessings she had be- stowed upon humanity, to the slavery she had destroyed, to the civilisation she had founded, to the many genera- tions she had led with honour to the grave. She might show how completely her doctrines were interwoven with the whole social system, how fearful would be the convulsion if they were destroyed, and how absolutely incompatible they were with the acknowledgment of private judgment. These considerations would not make her blameless, but they would at least palliate her guilt. But what shall we say of a Church that was but a thing of yesterday, a Church that had as yet no services to show, no claims upon the gratitude of mankind, a Church that was by profession the creature of private

2O4 URBAN II. AND THE EXCOMMUNICATE.

judgment, and was in reality generated by the intrigues of a corrupt court, which nevertheless suppressed by force a worship that multitudes deemed necessary to their salvation ; and by all her organs and with all her energies persecuted those who clung to the religion of their fathers? What shall we say of a religion which comprised at most but a fourth part of the Christian world, and which the first explosion of private judgment had shivered into countless sects, which was nevertheless so pervaded by the spirit of dogmatism that each of these sects asserted its distinctive doctrines with the same confidence, and persecuted with the same un- hesitating violence, as a Church which was venerable with the homage of twelve centuries ? . . .So strong and so general was its intolerance that for some time it may, I believe, be truly said that there were more instances of partial toleration being advocated by Roman Catholics than by orthodox Protestants."

§ 2. Urban II. and the Excommunicate.

Urban II., we are told (p. 117), lays down the maxim, "We do not account them as murderers who, burning with zeal for their Catholic mother against excommunicate persons, have happened to slay some of them " (Ep. xxii. ed. Migne). The words quoted are the central sentence of the following fragment : — " Enjoin upon slayers of ex- communicate persons a measure of suitable satisfaction, according to their intention, as you have learned in the practice of the Roman Church (here follows the sentence quoted). But in order that the discipline of the said mother Church may not be departed from, impose upon them in the manner we have said a suitable penance, by means of which they may appease the eyes of the divine simplicity in case they may have incurred any guilt of mixed motive (dupliritatis) through human frailty in the said deed of violence." This is a

URBAN II. AND THE EXCOMMUNICATE. 2O$

mere fragment imbedded in Gratian, from which it is taken to do duty as Urban's Ep. cxxii. (not xxii.) in Migne's edition. It is quoted by Dr. Littledale as though it were a Papal license to private individuals to kill excommunicated persons at their discretion. This view of the passage is put out of court by the writer of " Replies to Lord Acton," " Dublin Review," January 7, 1875. I shall attempt a summary of his argument. Gratian where he quotes this passage is exclusively dis- cussing such legalised puttings to death as that by soldiers in time of war, or by the officers of a court of justice. The penance was imposed for slaying in a just war "according to their intention," i.*., so far as the soldier acknowledged an admixture of corrupt motives, such as greed or vengeance. The existence of this practice in the Church of that period is confirmed "by a passage from a Council of Mayence quoted by Ivo (Dec. x. 152) : " Concerning those who commit homicide in public war." The Pope speaks here of excommuni- cate, instead of any other form of public enemy, because he was legislating with a special view to the pertinacious breakers of the " Truce of God " who had incurred ex- communication, and whom all Christians in a position to do so were exhorted to repress by force. If acting from pure motives, with an honest desire to reduce the rebels against the Church's law to obedience, " they may happen to slay some of them ; " — Clearly this is no deli- berate making away with an excommunicated person, but a reference to the chances of battle ; — then it was to be accounted no homicide, nor deserving of penance ; not so if other evil motives had intruded. This is substan- tially the view of writers as different as De Marca* (Notae ad Cone. Claremont, ad can. i.), Berardi and Hergen- rother.

* De Marca maintains that the reference is not to public war strictly ipeaking, but to righteous armed repression on the part of individuals.

2O6 PIUS IV. AND LUCCA.

§ 3. Pius IV. and Lucca.

Pius IV., say? Dr. Littledale, approved of a decree of the state of Lucca setting a large price upon the heads of " Protestant refugees who had fled from that city," and described it as a pious and praiseworthy decree, and that nothing could redound more to God's honour, pro- vided it were thoroughly carried into execution." Now any one would gather from this indictment that this judgment of death was the substance of the Lucca decree, or at least that this special enactment had been singled out by the Pope for commendation. Neither is the case. The decrees, copies of which have been sent to the Pope, contain a variety of regulations for the conduct of Lucca merchants in such places as were open to Protestant influence, securing the fulfilment of their religious duties and their abstinence from any communication in sacred matters with heretics. We meet with much the same sort of legislation in the Councils of St. Charles Borromeo (see Acta Eccles. Mediolan. passim). Amongst these regulations it is laid down that if "certain declared heretics and rebels" among the refugees from Lucca should after a certain date be found in certain specified localities where the Lucca merchants were wont to resort, a price is set upon their heads. The government was driven to these strong measures by the number of hereti- cal and seditious pamphlets introduced by the exiles into their city in the bales of merchandise. Especial precautions were taken to prevent this dangerous inter- course in Lyons, one of their principal markets, which in 1562 was a chief headquarter of the Huguenots. It must be remembered that outlawry in the legislation of the time all over Europe, England included, involved the condition that the outlaw might be slain with im- punity; and here the outlaw was not unreasonably regarded as an aggressor, and as such was condemned to death. The points which Pius selects for commendation

PIUS V. AND QUEEN ELIZABETH. 207

are precisely those regulating the conduct of the Catholic Lucca merchants. Of this penalty upon "declared rebels and heretics " he says no word whatever. See the Letter of Pius IV. ap. Raynald. in an. 1562, n. cxxxviii containing all the material clauses, and, in extenso^ Archivio Storico Italiano, torn, x., ap. Bodl. Arm. i. n. 65, and the original Letter, Arch. Vat. Arm. xli. Ep. Pius IV. lib. \\. p. 244, of which last I have a copy before me.

§ 4. Pius V. and Queen Elizabeth.

Pius V., says Dr. Littledale, "plotted with Ridolfi, a Florentine, the assassination of Queen Elizabeth." He refers to Lord Acton's letters to the "Times" of November 9 and 27, 1874. Now any one who chooses to read the two articles entitled " The Mission of Ridolfi " in the " Month " for February and March 1875, in which Lord Acton is answered, may assure himself that Pius V. never did anything of the kind. The plot approved of was nothing less than an armed rising of the English Catholics under the leadership of the Duke of Norfolk. That the assassination of Elizabeth formed no part of the English project submitted to the king of Spain and the Pope, is made quite clear by detailed references to all the con- temporary state papers.

The following is a brief abstract of the evidence : —

1. Norfolk says that he and his friends are determined to hazard a battle, " ed insignorirmi a un tempo della propria persona della Regina d'Inghilterra per assicu- rarmi di quella della Regina di Scotia." Another of the conspirators, the Bishop of Ross, expressly provides that the life of the queen of England should " no way be put in peril."

2. No word of the intended assassination is to be found in any one of the trials of the conspirators ; nor in the detailed Spanish report on the English proposition ;

208 THE MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW.

nor in the report from Rome by the Spanish ambassador of Ridolfi's mission there ; nor again in Ridolfi's official report to the Spanish Court of what he had done in Rome.

3. The first appearance of the assassination project in the state papers of the time occurs in the shape of a sug- gestion of Alva's to the king, that it should be exacted as a pledge from the conspirators before giving them substantial assistance. When, however, Ridolfi, on his return from Rome, found that the king and Alva had taken up the idea, he at once volunteers the statement that the English lords were ready to kill the queen ; but the Spaniards did not attach any credence to this im- promptu, and Ridolfi, whom they have all along suspected to be a mere wind-bag, is quietly shelved.

The Spanish court never ventured to propose the assassination of the queen to the English conspirators, and we have a letter of Philip's to Alva in 1571, saying that it certainly must not be exacted as a condition of assistance. The idea of suggesting it to the Pope never seems to have entered any one's head. Thus the assassination plot ended, where it began, in the Spanish minds which invented it.

§ 5. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew.

As to this massacre of the Huguenots, the most recent researches have failed to show that Pope Gregory XIII. had either suggested or approved what he knew to be an act of treachery ; although he certainly approved the violent repression of a truculent heresy when it had taken place. It must be remembered that the Huguenots were in a state of almost chronic conspiracy. It was admitted by contemporary Protestants, Lutherans of Germany, " that the Huguenots were not martyrs, but rebels who had died not for religion but for sedition," and their own patriarch, Beza, protested that " nobody who had known the state of the French Protestants

THE INQUISITION. 209

could deny that it was a most just judgment upon them,'* quoted in an article on the subject in the " North British Review" for October 1869.

§ 6. Jacques Clement, Bavaillac, and Sundry.

As to the assassins of Henry III. and Henry IV. of France, they were both men whose fanaticism had more or less upset their reason, and who, so far as can be discovered, drew their inspiration entirely from their own disordered fantasy. To this isolation Ravaillac testified calmly and persistently throughout the course of his tremendous torments. The Catholic party was com- pletely reconciled with the king at the time of his death ; and the Jesuits especially were his staunch allies, whom he had bound to himself by signal favours. The as- sassin and the would-be assassin of William of Orange would seem to have been fanatics of much the same type, although the former appears to have been, at least after the act, formally approved by the Court of Spain. Dr. Littledale's statement that the Jesuits ventured upon the public cultus of the would-be assassin will appear sufficiently incredible if we recollect that — to say nothing of its monstrous impolicy — Rome has absolutely for- bidden any such anticipation of her judgment, even in the case of a notoriously holy person. The Gunpowder Plot the Jesuits did all they could to hinder, short of violating the seal of confession, which, I suppose, Dr. Littledale will hardly insist that it was their duty to do.

§ 7. The Inquisition.

Heresy presented itself to the medieval mind as the extremest form of high treason, the most unnatural and the least excusable of crimes. The medieval heretic was, as a rule, a very loathsome combination of the scamp and the ruffian. The English reformers as de- scribed by Dr. Littledale's eloquent pen (Innovations)

2IO THE INQUISITION.

are no unfit representatives of the class, profane, bloody, and treacherous, beside whom their Catholic opponents show as angels of light, and even the monsters of the French Revolution look almost amiable. Against such persons the action of the Inquisition, if severe, might well appear most necessary and salutary. What- ever may be said of its severity, it well deserved its reputation of ihejustesf tribunal in Christendom \ and its penal code, when contrasted with those of contemporary secular courts, may be fairly accounted mild. Bishop Hefele (Life of Ximenes, chap, xvii.), after giving a list of tortures from the code of Charles V., such as burying alive, red-hot pincers, mutilation, &c., continues, "the Inquisition knows nothing of such barbarous punish- ments." He quotes the admission of Llorente, the hostile historian of the Spanish Inquisition, that the Inquisitorial prisons, in marked contrast to all others, were decent and wholesome, and their inmates never weighed down by heavy "chains, handcuffs, iron collars," &c. Again, Hefele observes, while civil legislation admitted the repetition of the rack, the Inquisition allowed it but once in the same case ; and it took every precaution to ensure an absolutely fair trial, punishing with severity anything of the nature of false witness. " The Holy Office was not allowed to pronounce sen- tence as long as one witness for the defence remained unexamined, even if this witness lived in America; it was equally forbidden to protract the imprisonment by awaiting evidence against the prisoner from distant countries." (See Hefele, /. t.)

Dr. Littledale (116, note) asserts that 10,220 persons were burned in Spain by Torquemada in eighteen years. Llorente had put the number at 8800, but Hefele shows that this is a monstrous exaggeration, and that 2000 is nearer the mark. There is something very cynical in thus exaggerating an exaggeration. Again, there is another important consideration tending, as Dr. Hefele reminds

TOLERATION. 211

us, still further vastly to reduce the numbers of the victims of religious intolerance. The Inquisition had to deal with " Sodomites, polygamists, blasphemers, church- robbers, usurers, &c., &c.," and even with murderers and rebels, if their deeds were in any way connected with the affairs of the Inquisition."

§ 8. Busembaum's Teaching-.

"The Medulla Theologiae Moralis " of Herman Busembaum, S.J., we are told, contains a defence of parri- cide and regicide — why omit prelaticide ? — on theological grounds. Now this is true precisely in the sense, and in no other, in which it is true that every English law- book from Blackstone downwards contains a defence of murder upon legal grounds. The passage from Busem- baum is as follows (lib. iii. Tract iv. cap. i., Dub. 3, n. 8) : — " To defend life and limb, a son, a religious, a subject, if it be necessary, to the length of slaying, may defend him- self against his parent, abbot, prince ; unless, perchance, from his death should arise great inconvenience, such as wars," &c. I challenge the production of a single writer of repute on English law who speaks otherwise, unless it be to omit the amiable scruple of the " unless perchance." Will Dr. Littledale pretend that if once the hands of his angry Ordinary had made good their grasp upon his throat, he must submit to be strangled, and could not, if the worst came to the worst, slay him and escape, without incurring the guilt of prelaticide ? or have Dr. Littledale and his party any such tender scruples about kings as beset the Gallican and Anglican Churches of the seven- teenth century ?

§ 9. Toleration.

Mr. Lecky has, as we have seen, given it as his judg- ment that, for some time, there was more of toleration amongst Catholics than amongst Protestants. I will add

212 TOLERATION.

that, in spite of this, Catholics have far more commonly- proved the loyal subjects of a Protestant govern- ment than Protestants have of a Catholic government. This is made out very clearly in a little book entitled " Rome and Babel," ed. 2, 1653. But, urges Dr. Little- dale, " all other Christian bodies have repented of their intolerance. Rome alone refrains from persecution because she cannot help it." I answer, that this repen- tance of the other Christian bodies is a mere figure of speech; they look as if they would never any more commit the hideous anomaly of persecuting in the name of liberty, but that is all ; there is something in their initial inconsistency which precludes all confidence. As to actual cruelty, I do not suppose anybody believes that even such ardent Catholics as Pius IX. or the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster would be one whit more likely to exercise it, if they could, in the cause of religion, than Dr. Pusey or Archbishop Tait. The real difference lies in this, that the Roman Church has been always careful to prevent at all costs the false principle of religious in differ entism being introduced under the cloak of a sentimental reaction from persecution, how- ever natural and however right. The duty of all men in regard to the support of what they are convinced is true and salutary, and the extinction of what they know to be false and mischievous, cannot be less than com- mensurate with their power ; and so in days when government » could practically do what it would, its responsibility in this respect was enormous ; whereas to enforce a mere opinion one way or the other would be immoral. The only legitimate qualification of this duty is introduced by the question of expediency, which prac- tically may altogether suspend the legitimate exercise of the power in various spheres and under special conditions. This is admitted by all persons who regard religious, truth as an attainable certainty, and are speaking ad- visedly, as, for instance, Mr. Gladstone, "A Chapter of

INTENTION. 213

Autobiography," p. 58. This truth the Catholic Church has never lost sight of, and therefore alone, or at least sufficiently alone, to contrast sharply with " other Chris- tian bodies," she has declined to erect the toleration, which in various degrees she does not hesitate to practise, into a moral principle applicable to all times and cir- cumstances.

Charge VI. — Uncertainty as regards the Sacraments.

§ 1. Intention.

" There is the greatest possible doubt," says Dr. Little- tkle (p. 12), "as to the validity of every sacramental office or act performed in the Roman Church," because of the Tridentine doctrine of the necessity of an intention on the part of the minister to do what the Church does in that act. But it is only when the minister withholds his intention, or intends not to act as the minister of the sacrament he pretends, that there would be an in- validating want of intention. There is nothing, e.g., to prevent the operation of a sufficient intention, in the infidelity which would necessarily bar all formal intention of giving sacramental grace, or again in a positive inten- tion to bar one or more of the effects of the sacrament. That such necessary intention may conceivably be absent, is the common doctrine in the Church ; but the opinion of Catharinus and Salmeron, that an intention such as must inevitably accompany any externally proper performance of the rite is sufficient for validity, is ten- able ; and this opinion is practically identical with that which Dr. Littledale defends. Whilst insisting that this question is not closed amongst us, I profess my unhesi- tating adhesion to the common opinion, and deny that it is open in any way to Dr. Littledale's objection. The point in dispute admits of a very simple solution. We •Catholics think that, in addition to the matter and form

214 INTENTION.

of a sacrament, the intention to perform the rite qua rite is necessary ; whilst Anglicans deny that any such inten- tion is necessary. It is only fair to suppose that each party will, as a general rule, perform what they regard as necessary, and that each will from time to time omit what they consider irrelevant; now, if Anglicans are right, the surplusage in our practice can have no possible tendency to make the sacrament as administered by us invalid ; whereas, if our view be right and intention necessary, Anglicans are so far on the way to administer invalid sacraments. Thus, in proportion to the proba- bility of the Catholic view the Anglican sacraments are doubtful, whilst the probability of the Anglican view has no tendency to make Catholic sacraments doubtful.*

What Dr. Littledale should have said is, not that sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church have been rendered doubtful by the prevalent theory regarding intention, but that Catholics, if consistent, ought to feel doubtful, which is a very different matter. To this other objection I answer, that our confidence in God's provi- dence over His Church assures us that He would never allow any serious disturbance in the economy of the sacraments. Our efforts, meanwhile, are directed to- securing as far as possible that the " tutior pars," — the safer course — should ever be taken in the administration of the sacraments, and not to denaturalising the theology of the sacraments in order to bar an objection. The common view, supported by the great weight of both pre-Tridentine and post-Tridentine authorities, so far from being a piece of gratuitous subtlety, is the natural if not the inevitable outcome of the sacramental idea. In drawing this out, theologians have not been inventing a

* As a logical appreciation of Dr. Littledale's charge this is fair and just, but the argument does not admit of being pressed against ihe certainty of Anglican sacraments, inasmuch as no intention lhat mere carelessness can eliminate is necessary according to the Catholic view.

INTENTION. 215

system, but only analysing revealed facts by the light of reason, doing, indeed, in regard to the sacraments pre- cisely what the Fathers did in regard to the two natures of Christ.

The argument runs thus : — i. The valid administration of a sacrament must be an " actus humanus," an intelli- gent, moral act, since the administration of the sacra- ments is presented as a matter of moral obligation. " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. This will exclude the action of drunkards, madmen, or sleepers. 2. The action must be intended, and intended not merely as a certain material movement of the hands and lips, but with a sufficient specification of its object or idea, to distinguish it from other possible combina- tions of the same words and actions which have no sac- ramental effect. As St. Bonaventure says (4 Dist. 6, qu. i, art. 2), " Christ's institution, although He ordained the words and matter to one object, limited them not to it ; for they can be adapted and are adapted to other uses. Therefore that in the particular case they be so applied, it is necessary that the intention of the minister should come in wherewith he intends by that act and ^ford to produce that effect, or at least to do what the Church does, or to dispense what Christ instituted."

In respect to the ultimate effect, the sacramental grace -••-take Baptism, for instance — the minister is merely an instrument, a conduit ; and, supposing the baptism per- formed, no defect of intention, or contrary intention on the minister's part, in regard to the subsequent effect, can prove a bar. But, as regards the ablution, />., its specification as a sacred ablution, the minister is no mere instrument but an intelligent second cause, acting from internal motives, and with an intention of its own (cf. Scotus, lib. iv. Dist. 6, qu. 5).*

* See remark in the Introduction, to the effect that, so far as Anglicans had orders, they were derived from persons brought up in the Roman doctrine of intention.

2 1 6 INTENTION.

But, our adversaries urge, this makes everything un- certain ; for instance, it is uncertain if the priest has the proper intention of consecrating, and so, if our Lord is present under this or that particle. But just so is it uncertain, in nine cases out of ten, to the individual worshipper, whether this or that wine or flour was what •t pretended to be. It comes to this, that after every precaution has been taken we must accept the rest on trust. Certainly, when we compare the likelihood of the two cases, defect of intention and defect of matter, it irmst be evident that, whilst the latter may easily occur from accident, the former could only be the result of a malice so deliberate and so extravagant as almost to cross the bounds of sanity.

Dr. Littledale, in his third edition, appeals to the recent decision as to the nullity of the marriage of the Prince of Monaco and Lady Mary Hamilton, as though it illustrated the uncertainty introduced by the common doctrine of intention. The instance is quite beside the mark. The contract is the essence of the marriage, its matter and form, and the intention to contract is of the essence of the contract. Thus intention occupies a position in matrimony quite different from that which it occupies in other sacraments. Proof that the consent to the external ceremony was unlawfully constrained, and the internal "animus contrahendi" entirely wanting, would have sufficed for a declaration of nullity, although no theory as to the general necessity of sacramental intention had prevailed. The " animus contrahendi" is required for the validity of a contract by the great majority, not only of theologians, but of the writers on civil law, although, of course, an obligation either to contract or compensate would lie upon the fraudulent contractor. The nullity of the marriage in question turned, not merely on the lack of internal consent, but on the lack of freedom. In the case of marriage, that Church which almost alone maintains its strict indis-

PENANCE. — SATISFACTION. 21 7

solubleness naturally and most righteously insists that the contract should be absolutely free.

§ 2. Penance— Satisfaction.

Dr. Littledale (p. 127) lays down that the modern discipline, which gives absolution before penance and prescribes penance for forgiven sin, contradicts the teaching both of Scripture and the Fathers; and that when once "absolution had been received, the sin and its consequences, temporal and eternal, were blotted out by God's merciful forgiveness." On the contrary, Scrip- ture and the Fathers are at hopeless variance with Dr. Littledale. Nathan said at once upon David's repent- ance, " The Lord also hath taken away thy sin : thou shalt not die;" and as immediately subjoins, "nevertheless because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme, for this thing the child that is born to thee shall surely die," on which St. Gregory the Great (lib. 9, Moral, c. 34, op. t. i, p. 313) remarks, "In no- wise is sin spared, because it is never absolved without punishment. Thus David deserved to hear after his confession, ' The Lord hath taken away thy sin,' and yet, afflicted with many torments, he often paid the debt of the sin which he had committed ; " and St. Augustine in Ps. 1., "'Thou hast loved truth,' that is, Thou hast not left unpunished their sins, even whom Thou hast forgiven : Thou hast so far deferred mercy that Thou mightest preserve truth." And again (in Joan. Tract 124, lorn. iii. pars. 2, p. 821) : "Man is obliged to suffer even after his sins have been forgiven, although the cause of his coming into that misery was sin ; for the punishment is prolonged beyond the guilt, lest the guilt be accounted little if the punishment end with it, and so, either to show what misery is due, or for the amendment of an unstable life, or the practice of necessary patience, temporal punishment holdeth the man whom guilt doth not retain unto everlasting punishment."

2 1 8 PENANCE. — SATISFACTION.

When Dr. Littledale says of the ancient penances (p. 126), "Their object was on the one hand to be tests of sincerity, and on the other to associate suffering with sin in the penitent's memory," he falls lamentably short of the doctrine of the early Church. St. Cyprian, for example (Ep. 55 ad Corn.), speaks of penance " satisfying an indignant God," " redeeming sins," " washing away wounds." This is recognised by the Protestant Chem- nitius in his " Examination of the Council of Trent," who allows that Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine used equivalent language. Another famous Protestant controversialist, Flaccus Illyricus, denounces Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, Prosper, Maxitnus, Paulinus, Gregory the Great, Bede, and many others, for teaching the Roman doctrine of satisfaction.*

The Catholic doctrine now, as it was always, is that the penitential works done by one in a state of justi- fication satisfy, in the sense of applying to the individual penitent the satisfactions of Christ, through whose merits alone the penitential works are accepted as satisfactory ; whilst penitential works done out of a state of justifica- tion satisfy "de congruo" in the sense that they inv petrate and dispose towards the grace of justification, wherein real satisfaction may be made. Granting that it was the rule in the early Church to exact the penance before absolution, yet it is quite certain that this did not arise from any scruple at penance after forgiveness ; for penitents absolved on what was supposed to be their deathbed were, on recovery, required to complete their penance, and Dr. Littledale can hardly suppose that their guilt returned with their restoration to health, Again, perfect contrition, involving justification, must have been frequent enough amongst the early penitents, and in those cases a large part of the penance would be

* See Hurter, TheoL Dogm., torn. iii. n. 553, and note.

PENANCE. — SATISFACTION. 2 1 9

for forgiven sin. Moreover, it is highly probable that, even in the early Church, absolution was frequently given immediately after confession, and that the post- penitential absolution was only a formal admission to communion. (See Hurter, /. c. note to p. 551.)

As to the modern practice suggesting, as Dr. Little- dale insists, some insufficiency in Christ's blood to obtain redemption, it is obvious that a system in which forgive- ness is granted previous to the performance of the penance, tends not to make more, but rather to make less, of human satisfaction. That there is some special worth in suffering, not regarded in itself but as an -ex- pression of love, can hardly be denied in the presence of Christ's passion ; that punishment avails not merely so far as it is remedial, but also as an expiation to Divine justice, can hardly be denied by any honest believer in hell torments.

It is the sinner, Dr. Littledale complains, " for whom Rome makes things easy," while the saint " must lead a life of incessant torture." This complaint of the pro- digal's elder brother has ever been found in the mouths of heretics of the Montanist and Novatian type. It must be remembered — (i.) That what is made easy for the sinner is escape from hell, whilst the difficult labours of the saints are not a point of necessity but of love. (2.) That on the one hand, from him to whom much has been given much will be required, and none have received so bountifully of God as the saints have ; and on the other, that this very love makes the hardest labours light.

In conclusion, I would ask how Dr. Littledale recon- ciles his denunciation of the Roman practice of giving absolution before penance with the well-known fact that Ritualist clergymen habitually do the same? In the "Priest's Prayer- Bo ok" (fourth edition, Masters, 1870) the cases are enumerated in which absolution is to be deferred — which do not differ substantially from those in Catholic books — but such enumeration is absurd if absolution is habitually deferred until after penance.

320 INDULGENCES.

§ 3. Indulgences— Purgatory.

Dr. Littledale (p. 87) informs us that, on the subject of indulgences "the actual Roman doctrine is this: there are penalties attached to all sin, culpa or eternal punishment ; pcena or temporal punishment, including that of purgatory." This is only the outset of his ex- position, but I am obliged to stop short. What Roman theologian ever used culpa in the sense of "eternal punishment"? Culpa is guilt, and never has any other meaning or shade of meaning; poena, punishment, is divided into two, eternal and temporal; indulgences deal exclusively with the last subdivision, temporal punishment. The blunder is a convenient one, as en- abling Dr. Littledale to misread in his own favour "The Master of the Sentences." God alone, the Church only intra sacramentum where God's action predominates, can absolve from guilt and from eternal punishment. This is the doctrine of Lombard (Dist. xviii. lib. 4), to which Dr. Littledale appeals. The pcena he is speaking of, when he says that it is God who absolves "a pcena," is eternal punishment. He repeatedly uses the term " eternal" or its equivalent in this very distinction, never once the term "temporal." But Dr. Littledale having settled that culpa means " eternal punishment," there is nothing else for posna to mean except " temporal pun- ishment," and the qualification "eternal," by which the " Master" thought that he had secured his meaning, is quietly ignored.

No doubt the modern use of indulgences did not begin till the Middle Ages. But the question is, whether the change of practice involved any real change of principle or doctrine. Dr. Littledale deprecates our appeal to the indulgence of penance shown to the in- cestuous Corinthian, and to the lapsed at the martyrs' intercession; but both are assertions of principles which form the theological justification of the modern

INDULGENCES. 221

use, viz., vicarious satisfaction, and its application by Church authority. Neither can it be maintained for a moment that these ancient indulgences, so to call them, had no effect beyond the ecclesiastical forum, for Christ had promised that what was loosed upon earth should be loosed in heaven. Nothing indeed but the confidence inspired by this promise would justify such indulgences from the charge of grievous cruelty, for they would other- wise be simply reservations for other and more grievous torments.

Indulgences, Dr. Littledale insists, " destroy devo- tion." What, such a manifestation of God's mercy? In which the penitent finds Christ and His saints assisting him in his path of penance by helping him to bear his cross. Again, we are told it is "a coarse attempt at making a huckstering bargain with Almighty God." But we suppose that the bargain, such as it is, is made by God and not by the sinner. The Church, in virtue of Christ's promise, and in His name, accepts in lieu of periods of canonical penance certain pious or beneficent acts. She absolves directly from the canonical periods, indirectly from the unknown purgatorial periods which these anticipated and corresponded with. A knowledge of this might have saved Dr. Littledale from charging Catholic apologists, like Bishop Milner and Cardinal Wiseman, who speak of indulgences as absolutions from canonical penance, with the Lutheran doctrine which denies the extension of indulgences beyond the eccle- siastical forum.

The application of indulgences to the souls in purga- tory is only " per modum suffragii," *>., it is a ransom offered, admittedly sufficient, but the application of which in this or that degree, to this or that person, is not covenanted, though confidently expected in answer to the Church's prayer.

Dr. Littledale objects that, since God loves the souls in purgatory, it is for their disadvantage that they should

222 INDULGENCES.

be delivered from their prison before the term of their sentence has expired. But this, surely, is an objection to prayer altogether; if suffering enters into God's scheme of mercy in our regard, so too may deliverance therefrom by prayer. Souls in purgatory are not merely under- going a process of cleansing but of expiation, and it is in both processes that the suffrages of the Church militant bear a part.

Dr. Littledale quarrels with the conception of purga- tory as a place at once of rest and of suffering. Of course it is impossible to conceive, in the sense of picturing to oneself, that which has no precise parallel upon earth; but one can perfectly understand the elements out of which such an intellectual conception inevitably results, viz., on the one hand a perfect resignation to the Divine will, and freedom from that which alone can disturb an immortal soul fully self-conscious, that is, from sin ; and, on the other, separation from Him who is the one centre of their attraction.

Dr. Littledale protests against the existence of any torment in purgatory besides that of loss; but what spiritual torture can approach in intensity the conscious- ness of such loss ? He insists that the Greek Church has always rejected the idea of any other suffering. Now, it is true that the Greeks are not wont to represent to themselves purgatorial sufferings under the form of fire, but on the other hand they frequently speak of its pains under forms quite as material, " darkness " and " bonds " and " stripes." See the passages from Greek offices collected by Leo Allatius, "Consens. de Purgat." Nos. xii. xiii.

Dr. Littledale is indignant at the advantage the rich, who can leave copious alms for masses, may get in the way of indulgences and suffrages over the poor. He proceeds to denounce the Roman Church as the Church of the rich rather than of the poor. Nay, she is the Church of Him who, whilst He spake of the difficulty of

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 223

the rich man entering heaven, yet sufficiently indicated that riches well used had their own advantage, when He bade, " Make to yourselves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness, that when you are cast out they may receive you into everlasting tabernacles." This advan- tage, such as it is, is part of the Christian system. But can it in any sense be considered as turning the scale of spiritual advantage in favour of the rich ? Certainly not ; the difficulty under which the rich labour is something much more serious than that of getting out of purgatory, viz., that of saving their souls. And then each fresh degree of eternal glory, such as the poor have exceptional means of acquiring, would far more than compensate for any prolongation of purgatorial pains ; to say nothing of the poor being more likely to satisfy for their sins here, and so to anticipate purgatory. As to this last point Dr. Littledale demurs, and expresses a doubt as to whether it be generally received. I should like to know what other view he would suggest as conceivable.

As to the poor being comparatively ill off for masses, it may be true that those who do not by an alms secure a special application to themselves, do not get so many masses specially offered for them, yet the effective application of the mass cannot be supposed to be so limited as that there should not be abundant fruit for others both in the way of impetration and of satisfaction ; and the poor and the neglected occupy the next place naturally in every priest's intention to the giver of the alms, to say nothing of the numberless masses in which the celebrant is free to follow his own intention. After all, according to the theory of a special fruit accruing to the giver of the alms, he is enriched without making others poorer.

§ 4. The Roman Penitentiary.

Dr. Littledale not only tells us what is " the actual Roman doctrine" on the subject of indulgences, but he

224 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

proceeds to give us some curious information (p. 85 ) as- to "what indulgences used to be." Previous to the Council of Trent, he says there were, ist, "pardons" for sin ; 2d, " licenses to commit sin" both purchasable for money. His grounds for this horrible charge are — ist. Its appearance in more or less equivalent terms in the " Centum Gravamina," a list of grievances urged against Rome by what Dr. Littledale is pleased to describe as the " Roman Catholic princes of Germany alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism," who had assembled at Nuremberg in 1522. 2d. The fact that "the Pope (Adrian VI.), instead of indignantly denying the truth of these horrible charges, implicitly admitted the facts to be as stated. Indeed he could not have done otherwise, for the book entitled * Taxes of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary ' was then and is still extant with a regular tariff for the absolution of all kinds of sin." Dr. Little- dale concludes with referring his readers to a reprint of the Roman and Parisian editions, 1510 and 1520 re- spectively, of the " Taxae " by Professor Gibbings, where the whole matter is fully treated.

I must premise that I have no intention of denying that various abuses were rife in the action of the Roman curia previous to the Council of Trent of a more or less indefensible character. At the same time I do not include among abuses the Pope's claim to tax the revenues of the Church for the support of the curia, to impose pecuniary fines for various offences of a public character, and to direct their application to such object& of common religious interest as he might think fit, such as the building of churches or the repulse of the infidel. That such a right was sometimes abused, that certain exercises thereof as specially liable to abuse were to be deprecated in toto, cannot invalidate the right itself. Neither am I concerned to discuss the extravagant stories which the local distributors of indulgence, without the countenance of authority, may have put in circulation

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 225

concerning the extent of the privileges at their disposal. The idea of a money payment for an indulgence was, that in lieu of other penance you were giving an alms for a pious or charitable purpose, though in the hands of unscrupulous persons it may have sometimes become nothing less than a traffic. I admit that there is a fair field here for a Protestant critic, who is careful to dis- tinguish history from hearsay and invective from sober accusation, to select such charges as Catholics could only meet by an acknowledgment that various crying abuses in high places did exist which needed reformation, but which were reformed. The point here to be considered is, whether amongst other abuses, this particular one with which Dr. Littledale charges us ever existed, viz., that pardon for past sin and license for future sin, wa? sold by Rome.

We shall take the various points of Dr. Littledale's accusation in order, i. The charges of the German princes. If it be true that "the Catholic princes of Ger- many," i.e., the princes of the Catholic party in opposition to that of the Lutherans, really charged the Holy See with such a practice, this, without going any further, would be a most damaging fact. But instead of the con- stituents of the Assembly of Nuremberg of 1522 being properly described as "the Catholic princes of Germany alarmed at the progress of Lutheranism," it is on all hands admitted that Luther's sympathisers constituted by far the most active element in the Assembly. See Rinaldus(*Vz fl/z;20),Fleury's "Continuator,"and Cochlaeus' " Acta Lutheri." To speak precisely, it was an assembly of German princes, the great majority of whom, even where least committed to Luther's religious tenets, yet had the strongest sympathy for him on political grounds, and were wholly adverse to taking any active measures against him. The formal enactment passed by the Assembly, in deference to the Emperor, against the Lutherans, was stu- diously calculated to leave them practically unmolested.

226 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

1 The hundred grievances " were notoriously brought forward at the time to stop the legate's mouth when he urged on his master's part the adoption of active measures against the heretics.

But what were the charges brought by the princes, be they Catholic or Lutheran ? Do they amount to Dr. Littledale's ?

The ones bearing on the subject are as follows : — (Cap. i.) They charge, not Rome, but the local pur- veyors with attaching to their indulgences the promise of the forgiveness of " past and future sin." This is clearly an exaggerated representation of a dispensation called " confessionale," by which the reservation of certain sins and censures to the bishop or the Pope is taken off in favour of the recipient, so that he can get absolution for these sins on confessing them to a priest with ordinary faculties. This dispensation, though not itself an indul- gence, was often connected therewith ; and a survival of the connection remains to this day in the suspension of such reservations on the occasion of a jubilee.

It has been suggested with some probability by Sylvius, that this withdrawal of the reservation of sins often accompanying an indulgence, affords an explanation of the form in which some of the more ancient indulgences were wont to run " a culpa et pcena." * Before the rise of sectarian polemic this form had exercised the minds of theologians, and it makes conclusively against the Protestant interpretation, that it never entered into any theologian's head to interpret it as expressing a direct remission of guilt. St. Antoninus, in the fifteenth cen- tury, regards it as a mere expression of plenariness, and as only true as supposing the sacramental absolution of which the indulgence formed the complement.t Morinus explains it as dispensing from that part of the

* In 3m qu. xxv. art. 2.

t "Locutio tamen talis proprie non est vera." Summ. Pars i. Tit. x. cap. iii. p. 603.

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 22 /

ancient penance which preceded absolution, and so carry- ing with it, as it were, the absolution which it procured should be no longer deferred.* However this may be, the " confessionale " for a certain single time or number of times — the only extant examples, I believe, avail once and at the hour of death — removed the reservation with regard not only to past sins but also to such sins as might be subsequently committed. It came practically to this, that the recipient, so far as it availed, might find a con- fessor, even for such of his sins as were reserved, in any priest with ordinary faculties ; but, in itself, it gave him no absolution for the past, and secured him none for the future ; he must still satisfy his confessor, whoever he might be, of his good dispositions, and accept the pen- ance imposed, or he could not be absolved. For such an one matters were so far reduced to the original con- dition in which they were before the action of the Pope or bishop in reserving the sin. It is this freedom of confession, operative both for the present and for 'the future, which the princes denounce as a license to com- mit fresh sin. But it is obvious that this could only have had such an effect quite accidentally, as any copia confessoris might.

(Cap. iv.) They charge "his Papal Holiness and the other bishops and pillars of the Roman Church with obliging penitents to pay for receiving absolution from reserved sins." Here, at least, there is no suggestion of an absolution or license to commit fresh sin. It is probably a misrepresentation of the practice of exacting a " mulcta pecuniaria " or fine from such penitents as, in addition to their absolution in the sacrament, required a writ of absolution " in foro externo," — that is in the ecclesiastical public courts — from public excommunication or other censure, t by the production of which writ they might

* De Poen. Lib. x., cap. 22.

t A stigma barring the exercise of certain ecclesiastical functions and privileges.

228 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

stop legal action to their disadvantage. This custom was in no way peculiar to the Roman Curia, but prevailed in every episcopal chancery in Christendom. Although the "forum internum " (the private court of the sacra- ment of Penance, and of other business of analogous privacy) has always been the proper field of the Peniten- tiary, yet until the office of the Dataria was erected by Pius IV. into a distinct congregation, the Penitentiary had to deal with various business belonging to the "forum externum," in which 'case a fine called a " com- positio" was sometimes imposed.

Pope Adrian VI. during the few months of life remain- ing to him — he died in 1523 — may well have been too much engrossed in his measures of reform to criticise the insolent exaggerations of the German princes. These " Gravamina,5' with other documents and amongst them the " Taxae," were printed and circulated by the Lutheran party. Their edition of the " Taxae " was interpolated for controversial purposes, as were also a variety of other editions. They were made to do duty in controversy as nothing less than the Church of Rome's price-list of sins, in which you may discover the precise sum for which you can purchase forgiveness for the past, and immunity for the future, in regard to any sin you had committed or were minded to commit. The charge was so gross and so pestilent that Catholic apologists may well have felt that they had no resource but to rebut it roundly as an heretical forgery — as it stood it was nothing less. To analyse the elements of forgery and misinterpretation under the circumstances might naturally appear beside the mark, even where a criterion for such an analysis \vas available. In the latest and by far the most learned Catholic treatise on the subject, "Indulgences, Absolu- tions, and Tax Tables " (by the Very Rev. T. L. Green, Washbourne, 1872), the author admits that the Roman editions of the Penitentiary " Taxse " are genuine. In the same year, but subsequently, appeared " The Taxes of

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 2 29

the Apostolic Penitentiary," by Professor Gibbings, the work to which Dr. Littledale refers. Professor Gibbings nowhere, so far as I know, commits himself to what is by far the most outrageous part of Dr. Littledale's charge, viz., that Rome sold absolution for future sin. He is contented with maintaining that the sums mentioned in the Tax Tables are bona-fide prices for which absolution could be obtained for past crimes "toties quoties." So far as collecting authorities goes for the genuineness of the Tables, Professor Gibbings' work gives evidence of considerable industry and research, and I must confess that so far as I have tested his quotations their fairness stands in marked contrast to those of Dr. Littledale. The only marvel is his not seeing that the very same authorities which make for the genuineness of the Tables go far to prove that they could not possibly be a price- list of sins, but were a tariff-list of official fees for the expedition of documents, in some cases of a public character, accompanied by a fine under the title of " com- positio."

Before entering upon any detailed appreciation of these Tables, I must insist that it is quite gratuitous of Dr. Littledale to connect them in any way with the traffic of indulgences. Indulgences proper are not once mentioned in them from first to last. It is true that the " confessionale," or license to confess a reserved sin to an ordinary confessor, does appear j but this, although it sometimes accompanied an indulgence, has nothing really to do either with the essence of an indulgence — the remission of temporal punishment due to sin, in this world or in the next — or with the Protestant misconcep- tion thereof, the remission of sins.

I am inclined to accept Professor Gibbings' edition of Paris, 1520, as genuine, but I must nevertheless take exception to his misleading title, " The Taxes, &c., reprinted 'from the Roman edition of 1500, and the Pari- sian edition of 1520." In reality he has made no attempt

230 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

at collating the Roman edition, but gives the Parisian pure and simple-. No formal notice has been taken of the fact that the " Summarium Litterarum," occupying the last ten pages of the twenty-one pages of the " Taxes," is altogether wanting in the Roman edition ; nor that the phrase " in foro conscientiae " — upon which both Professor Gibbings and Dr. Green consider that a good deal turns — is found exclusively in this " Summa- rium." These are grave editorial faults, whatever may be their controversial importance.

The Tax Table of the Roman Penitentiary — assum- ing its genuineness precisely as it stands in Professor Gibbings' volume — consists of Dispensations, or releases from legal obligations and impediments ; Commuta- tions, or exchanges of one prescribed work for another; Licenses, perpetual or temporary, e.g., to say mass in places unlicensed by the Ordinary ; and Absolution, the meaning of which is in dispute ; to each of which -\ sum of money is appended. A single entry will serve as an example : — " Absolution for a canon who has elected an unworthy prelate, G. vii.," that is to say, seven grosse or is. 5jd., which might represent, accord- ing to present value, from 8s. to 143. Two points have to be considered : — I. What is this an absolution from? 2. In what relation does this tax of seven grosse stand to the absolution ?

(i.) Can this "absolutio" be an act of sacramental absolution from sin ? Now, on the face of it, it is a document, as the frequent expression " littera " and the title, " Summarium Litterarum Expediendarum," suffi- ciently prove. But no letter or document can be made a medium of sacramental absolution. No such use is admitted to be valid, or is recorded at any time to have prevailed in the Church. At most, then, this. " absolution " is a certificate that absolution has been given, or a form in which absolution may be given by the person to whom it is transmitted. That it is a

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 231

transmission of powers of some sort would appear from expressions such as this: " Absolutio ista committitur suo rectori." " "Si tamen sit clericus, committitur ordi- nario suo et non altero." But is it from sin at all that the form absolves? I believe it certainly is not. I believe it to be an absolution from a reserved censure, in virtue of which censure the sin was reserved, and on absolution from which the sin ceases to be reserved. My reasons for so believing are as follows : — i. As a general rule, the sins mentioned in the Tax Tables are known to have a reserved censure attached to them. 2. It is certain that some of these absolutions, which are prima facie absolutions from sin, are really absolutions from censure, e.g. (p. n.), "absolution for a priest, who, bouna by a certain special sentence, celebrates the divine offices, and does not care whether he is absolved or not, G. vii." Now, if this were an absolution from sin, it would merely IDC a bad joke, because the not caring would, as every Catholic knows, prove an effec- tual bar to any such absolution; but not so, neces- sarily, in the case of absolution from censure which is of ecclesiastical imposition, and may demand removal on grounds of expediency and charity quite independ- ently of the dispositions of the culprit. If it be urged that certain of the sins mentioned have no censure attached to them, it must be remembered that many- sins once incurred the grievous censure of excommuni- cation which do so no more ; again, that in such excep- tional cases, if there be any, the absolution is anyhow a form directly affecting the reservation of the sin and not the sin itself.

The following passage from St. Antoninus, the chief theological authority of the fifteenth century (Summ. Theol. pars. ii. tit. i. cap. 4), is much to the purpose, though the money payment which he mentions is clearly not the taxa of the Tables, but the compositio of which I have yet to speak. Money may be lawfully exacted,

232 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

he says, " on the score of punishment, as, in the case of absolution from excommunication, a sum is some- times exacted, not for the absolution, because that would be simony, but in punishment ; and so too in the reserved cases of sins. For a pecuniary penance may be imposed as a penalty for the foregoing sin. . . . But inasmuch as this looks to have the colour of avarice, therefore people had better refrain, or they should act at once so carefully and so openly as that it should be clear to those who pay, that the absolver in this way is not keeping such money for himself, but is distributing it to the poor." St. Antoninus is clearly contemplating public cases external to the sacrament ; and the clause " so too " (sic etiam), by which " the absolution from reserved cases of sins is subjoined to the absolution from excommunication," suggests that the latter is a sub- division and partial example of the former, the absolution in the latter instance being effected by an absolution from excommunication.

I believe, then, the " absolution " in question to be a form of absolution from censure, the transmission of which form to the ordinary or a selected confessor, removed the reservation pro hac vice, so that he might, after absolving the offender from the censure, afterwards proceed or not, according to the dispositions of the penitent, to absolve him in the sacrament of Penance.

As I have already observed, I can see no intrinsic grounds for objecting to the genuineness ofthe Paris edition. I cannot reject the " Summarium," because it is precisely this "Summarium" and nothing else which figures as the Tax Table of the Penitentiary in the Tractatus Univ. Juris, Venice, 1584, torn. xv. p. i, p. 376, "Duce et auspice Greg, xiii." Moreover, this same volume is appealed to as an authority on the Roman chancery by Rigaltius in his great work " De Cancellaria Romana," written under the eye of Pope Benedict XIV., without any hint of suspicion, as Professor Gibbings has pointed out.

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 235

Both Professor Gibbings and Dr. Green regard the expression " in foro conscientiae," which appears thrice in the " Summarium," and nowhere else, as equivalent to " in foro sacramentali," that is, in the sacrament of Penance. This, however, is certainly a mistake. The learned Franciscan Elbel (Theol. Decal. pars. v. p. 253) tells us that the " forum internum " is divided into the "forum pcenitentiae seu sacramentale," and the "forum conscientise seu non sacramentale." Ferraris' nomencla- ture, though differing slightly, substantially comes to the same thing (Bibl. verb. Forum). Whilst making the same division of the " forum internum " into " sacramentale " and non "sacramentale," he uses the term "forum con- scientiae" as its equivalent and so as applicable to either division. A matter was not considered as properly belonging to the " forum externum " until some kind of legal action had commenced. Certainly matters that concerned more than one person, which on the one hand had never come and were never meant to come into court, and on the other were no mere concern between confessor and penitent, were designated as appertaining to the "forum internum" or " conscientiae." When the phrase occurs in the " Summarium " it does not, as I conceive, exceptionalise those particular cases in contradistinction to the rest, which must be supposed to belong to the " forum externum," but merely lays stress upon the fact that certain particular cases which might naturally seem to belong to the external forum here, on one account or other, do not or need not. The practical difference was sufficiently important, as the documents issued " in foro externo " could be produced in court as legal evidence, not so those issued "in foro interno." In criminal cases belonging to the "forum externum," and therefore requiring the writ of absolution to run in the same forum, a penal fine was sometimes imposed under the title of "compositio" or commutation — a relic of the old "redemptio pecuniaria." But this, as the

234 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

Tax Tables are careful to say (p. 15), never takes place when the matter is secret, therefore a fortiori never in that most secret matter which lies between the con- fessor and his penitent.

(2.) But what are the " taxse ; " are they prices, or fines, or expeditionary fees ? I consider the arguments for their being expeditionary fees to be simply irresis- tible. Nothing can be clearer than that the taxes of the Chancery occupy exactly the same position in regard to the documents to which they are attached as these Penitentiary taxes ; but John XXII. , in instituting the former, lays down (see Green, p. 169), respecting the taxes of certain clauses, "that no account shall be taken of the greater or less value of the favour which is granted, or of the greater or less amount of revenue or income which may probably accrue from the same, so as on that account proportionately to tax the letter containing the said clauses ; but that such regard should be paid to the labour, as that a longer writing should be charged more and a shorter writing less." The Penitentiary tables, moreover, speak for themselves to the same effect (p. 12) : " Note, that when a letter is re- quired to be redated, a third part of the taxation is paid to the redater;" again, every time the conjunction "et" occurs the tax is doubled. Again, if we turn to the entry at the bottom of page 20, concerning the " compo- sitio " or fine paid in a public case to the Datary for con- tracting marriage in the second or third degree, we find that " it is very commonly twenty-five ducats, and four for the expediting of the Bulls" Whereas in the private case at p. 12, for contracting in the third degree the " taxa ;; is four ducats one grosse, as nearly as possible the expedi- tionary fee of the public case. The taxes were, then, expeditionary fees.

This view is further borne out by the English Act of Parliament of 1583 (see Green, p. 163), by which the whole tax system, "all the customable dispensations,

THE ROMA>* PENITENTIARY. 235

faculties, licenses, and other writings wont be sped at Rome" are transferred to Canterbury ; and order is taken " that no man suing for dispensation, &c., shall pay any more for their dispensations, &c., than shall be contained, taxed, and limited, in the said duplicate books of taxes (the drawing up of two books had been previously pre- scribed). Only composition excepted, of which being arbitrary no tax can be made, wherefore the tax thereof shall be set and limited by the discretion of the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor of Eng- land, or the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being," which tax, if it extend to £4 or above, <; shall be divided into three parts, whereof two shall be perceived by the said clerk of Chancery, . . . and the third shall be taken by the said clerk of the Archbishop, and his commissary, and his said clerk and registrar." Dr. Green (p. 167) quotes from Burns' "Ecclesiastical Law," the fees for absolution from excommunication and sus- pension, " one shilling and sixpence."

These taxes of the Roman Penitentiary, moderate as they were, were wholly suppressed by Pius V. His predecessor, Pius IV., had by erecting the Dataria into a separate court effectually restricted the Penitentiary to the internal forum. These measures were dictated by a sense of the importance of guarding the neighbourhood of the confessional from all semblance or possible suspicion of avarice, in accordance with the warning of St. Antoni- nus, and in no sense because the practice of exacting such fees was in itself simoniacal.

As to simony, the whole question is a most complicated and difficult one. There is, of course, simony proper, the direct bartering of spiritual goods for temporal, which, explicitly forbidden by the Word of God, the instinct of Christendom has always regarded as one of the most heinous sins that can possibly be committed. At the same time it has always been allowed, in accordance with Scripture, that the minister of the Gospel should

236 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

live by the Gospel ; and that he should be maintained in that status which belongs to his position in the hierarchy of the Church. Whatever may have been the complain ir made from time to time against particular exactions, it was a principle recognised thoroughly by the conscience of medieval Christendom, that the Pope and the whole apparatus of his world-wide government, as it certainly existed to the advantage, so had a right to exist at the expense, of universal Christendom. In taxing its various spiritual favours and dispensations, the Roman Curia was only carrying out on a scale proportionate to its larger wants a system that prevailed everywhere.

On the whole the money exacted as alms, or fine, or onus, or fee, was righteously expended in the interests of Christendom, but grievous abuses there doubtless were, ana yet more grievous reports. The vast machinery, compared with which the chancery of England or France was a trifle, was excessively difficult to revise and regulate. But Pope after Pope busied himself in the work of refor- mation, and the issue of the Tax Tables of the Roman Penitentiary, and of the Roman Chancery, which re- pressed arbitrary exaction by attaching a fixed fee to the deed, and the confining all " composition " to cases of public legal cognisance, were most important steps in the process of reformation. It was practically completed, as far as the Penitentiary was concerned, by the regulations of Pius IV. and Pius V. to which I have already referred.

As to the charge of reserving spiritual favours for the rich who could pay for them, nothing can be more grossly unjust. Roman ecclesiastical legislation teems with provisions for the gratuitous ministration of favours to the poor. In numberless cases they were excused from applying to the Curia at all, but might obtain the satisfaction they needed from their own ordinaries ; and where they were obliged to have recourse to Rome, advocates, as Dr. Green points out, were appointed to plead their causes gratuitously. What can better prove

THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY. 237

the reality of the provision made for the poor man in this respect than the fact of the frequent abuse of the rich man's pleading " in forma pauperis " ?

Of course where there was question of commuting other penance for alms, the poor were so far at a dis- advantage. But this disadvantage was shared by Rome's other darlings, the monks and friars. St. Peter Damian (ap. Morin. de Poen. lib. x. cap. 18) tells us that in the tenth century the monk's penance of fasting, watching, &c., was often commuted to stripes, a commutation cor- responding to that of the lay proprietor's into alms.

An intense appreciation of the advantage in which the poor stood, as compared with the rich, in respect to Christ's blessing, was a characteristic of the Middle Ages. It only seemed fair to the medieval mind that the rich should have what advantage in the way of almsgiving their wealth might give, towards redressing the balance. A great deal has been said about the brutality of the following note in the Paris edition of the Chancery Tax Tables : — " Note carefully that graces and dispensations of this sort are not granted to the poor, because they are not, and therefore cannot be, consoled (quia non sunt ideo non possunt consolari)." Dr. Green points out that it is appended to dispensations for contracting and solemni- zing marriages within the second degree of relationship, which the Council of Trent directs (sess. xxiv. ) should not be granted except to great princes, and only upon public grounds. Of course the poor had no place here. I demur at the justice of Dr. Green's remark as to the profanity of the supposed Scriptural allusion to Matt. ii. 1 8. " Consolari" was the technical term for receiving a dispensation grace, and medieval Latin ever ran quite naturally in the track of Scripture phraseology.*

We are now in a position to appreciate the gratuitous

malignity of Dr. Littledale's calumny, that the Popes

affixed prices to licenses for future and absolutions for

past sin, in the tax-book of the Roman Penitentiary.

* See Appendix, Note I.

238 THE ROMAN PENITENTIARY.

I have proved, in detail, that they have done neither the one nor the other.

The first is a monstrosity so subversive of the first principles of natural morality that we find no trace of its existence even in the records of ecclesiastical condem- nation. Had the Papacy ever identified itself with such a practice, it is no exaggeration to say that it would long ago have been swept away by the just indignation of Christendom. The second — an indefinitely milder charge — has ever been condemned as a most grievous form of simony, for which no shadow of excuse has ever been suggested. Every Pope, every theologian denounces it, and yet Dr. Littledale and Professor Gibbings would have us believe that Pope after Pope, reaching even into post-Tridentine times, in open defiance of the eagei criticism of hostile Protestants, has embodied this prac- tice in an official manual, and sanctioned its insertion in repeated collections of canon law. Is this charge in- telligible on any other ground than that embodied in the title of one of Cardinal Newman's Lectures, " Truth not sufficient for the Protestant view " ?

In Dr. Littledale's third edition, whilst the text remains unaltered, there is appended the following note (p. 100) : — " No doubt these charges began as mere legal costs in the ecclesiastical courts in suing out pardons, but there is no avoiding the conclusion that they were perverted into a tariff for sins themselves, though probably never by any lawful or binding authority." In this note Dr. Littledale talks of the " taxae " beginning as one thing and ending as another, quite forgetting that it is a docu- ment and not merely a practice to which he has appealed, and which is under consideration. A docu- ment cannot change. In the text the tax- book is sup- posed to have shut the Pope's mouth because it is a price-list of sins ; but if it was ever a table of expedi- tionary fees, instead of shutting the Pope's mouth it would have strengthened his hands. Even Dr. Littledale

REV. JAMES A. GRANT BEQUEST TO ST, MARY'S COLLEGE LIBRARY, 1926

MARRIAGE DISPENSATIONS. 239

can hardly suppose that the Holy See had turned the identical fixed expeditionary fees in the tax-book into prices of sins, for the mere sake of playing at simony gratuitously.

The text remaining in its original offensiveness, "there is no avoiding the conclusion " that the note is a mere expedient to bar criticism upon the falsehood which it does nothing effectually to correct.

§ 5. The Mass Honorarium.

As to what Dr. Littledale is pleased to call the mass- traffic, he ought to know that no priest is allowed to require as a mass-honorarium more than the slender alms fixed by the diocesan tax ; and that where he is obliged to get the mass said by another, he is forbidden to retain any portion of the alms for himself. No mass-traffic is possible, except in direct violation of the Church's ordinances ; and such violation even the prohibition of all honorarium would make no whit less possible.

§ 6. Marriage Dispensations.

As to marriage dispensations, Dr. Littledale insists that either there should be no prohibitory law or no dispensation. But this is certainly not in accordance with the general experience. It is often very important that the existence of a general law should bar a contrary use, and at the same time that some relaxation should be possible in particular cases. It is precisely the want of such dispensing authority in this country which has made the demand for the "Deceased Wife's Sister's" Bill so urgent. The dispensation may be thus indirectly as much in favour of the law as of the individual. The pecuniary fine or compensation exacted in such cases has at least the advantage of making the suit onerous and therefore more exceptional, whilst it can always be remitted in cases of real necessity.

240 UNITY OF FAITH AND CHARITY.

Charge VI L — Lack of the Four Notes of the Church.

Dr. Littledale (pp. 153-180) argues that the notes of the Church of Christ are conspicuously wanting to the Roman Catholic Church. I have already met, directly or indirectly, in other parts of this " Reply " much of what he says here, but something still remains to answer, and the roundness of Dr. Littledale's accusation here almost demands a special notice.

§ 1. Unity of Faith and Charity.

This unity we do not possess, says Dr. Littledale, — (i.) Because "there is a marked distinction between the religion of the vulgar and that of the educated." I insist that there is not the slightest doctrinal distinction between the devotion of the two classes ; and that, for the rest, you may as well deny the existence of a com- mon English language because the educated and un- educated articulate it differently. But, in reality, the wonder is all the other way. The striking thing about our Catholic Churches is precisely the unanimity of the de- votion, the absence of class distinction. At Mass and Benediction, Rosary and Stations, the educated and uneducated are equally at home. (2.) Because some persons shrink from using devotional language in regard to the Blessed Virgin which others approve of. I answer that, either this involves some doctrinal difference in their appreciation of the prerogatives of Mary, which Dr. Littledale does not venture to assert, or the difference is one of taste and temperament, and does not militate against unity of faith. (3.) Because there are maxi- misers and minimisers ; the former inclined to regard any Papal utterance as a final expression of authority, and so as an exercise of infallibility ; the latter more cautious and critical — unduly so, their adversaries would say — in their estimate of the functions and action of

UNITY OF FAITH AND CHARITY. 241

authority, and more apprehensive of the dangers of pre- cipitation than of the inconvenience of delay, in any matter admitting of a doubt. Whence it arises that several important Papal documents can be pointed to, wherein it is disputed amongst Catholics, whether the Pope has spoken infallibly. But here again the differ- ence is not one of doctrine ; and even as to the point of difference, viz., the formal authority of the particular document, there is a virtual agreement, a unity in posse, implied in the submission of both parties to the autho- rity from which the document emanated. Of course it is impossible that many minds should be actively en- gaged upon various theological questions without differ- ing upon numberless important points. The distinction between the condition of Roman Catholics and that of the sects in this respect is that, as regards a certain body of explicit doctrine, there is a unity of belief in esse; and as regards other theological points there is a unity of belief in posse, in the possession of an authority which alternately tolerates and settles these disputes with a discretion which is beyond question. On the con- trary, when we turn to the sects, and notably to Angli- canism, we find that this unity of faith exists neither in esse nor in posse. There is no body of doctrine in regard to which Anglicans can be said to be at one, or in defence of which they can eliminate gainsayers \ and no authority to deal with emergent questions.

The phenomenon of unity, which Dr. Littledale is obliged in some sort to concede to us, he insists is of artificial production, the result of a long course of re- pressive action on the part of authority. Of course it is to the persistent energy of a living authority that we owe oui unity ; but when Dr. Littledale would make out that it has this effect, not in virtue of the moral weight of a Divine sanction, but by a sort of physical terrorism, he should ask himself what physical material hold has the Holy See upon, say, the unendowed clergy of England

Q

*4 2 SANCTITY.

or France ? What material loss would the priest have to face who should be forced to abandon his meagre hardly- earned stipend for any other pursuit that can be sug- gested? Of the few who here and there have aban- doned their vocation, I do not think their acquaintance are ever tempted to feel that there has been any excep- tional courage on the part of the seceders which can reflect upon the courage of those who remain.

§ 2. Sanctity.

Anyhow, says Dr. Littledale, " the standard of life and conduct is, to say the very least, no higher in Roman Catholic populations than elsewhere. In England, on the contrary, whereas Roman Catholics are less than five per cent, of the population, they contribute, wherever they are collected — for, of course, there are many parts of England and Wales where there are none or few — from sixteen to more than twenty-four (in second and third editions " to sixty-seven ") per cent, of criminals to our prisons ; that is to say, from three to five (eds. 2 and 3, " thirteen ") times their fair share of crime."

I do not intend to follow Dr. Littledale into the sta- tistics he gives of various prisons (note, third edition), but one piece of unfairness I must point out which his statistics bear on their very face. Being, as we are, about five per cent, of the whole population, five per cent, is supposed to be our proper criminal proportion throughout England; but against this is set the fact, not of our criminal proportion throughout England, but of our proportion in places like Clerkenwell, Liverpool, or Manchester, where Catholics, instead of being five per cent., are from ten to thirty per cent, of the population. Whatever may be said of the accuracy of the statistics of the various prisons, quoted by Dr. Littledale, I deny that they can afford any criterion of the moral condition of the different denominations until (i) the proportion

SANCTITY. 243

of the very poor belonging to each denomination is discounted; and (2) the various crimes for which the prisoners are committed are tabulated. The moral quality of the causes of committal admits of almost in- finite variations. My own belief, grounded on a gaol experience of some years, is, that the admittedly large Catholic percentage is to be attributed to an excess of morally venial offences, which only just, but repeatedly, bring their perpetrators within the grasp of the law. The poor Irish, of whom our town congregations mainly consist, in their non-natural condition of close packing in the lowest parts of our great towns, are peculiarly liable to the temptations of a row, and are always getting into trouble from such causes. I believe the statistics of such crimes as deliberate murder, rape, or the more serious sort of fraud, would tell a very different tale.

As to a comparison of populations it is hard to find any satisfactory basis for the calculation. I can only express my belief that the morality of the average Irish, Italian, Breton, and Spanish village is as superior to its English counterpart — the village that has grown up beneath the fostering care of the Establishment — as, let us say, the spiritual life of a St. Vincent of Paul to that of an aver- age Low Church bishop.

The Roman Church is not holy (p. 167), because the Liguorianism she has adopted is " fatal to holiness." I fully admit that if the Church had adopted the opinions Dr. Littledale attributes to St. Alfonso, it would dis- tinctly militate against her holiness; but then I have already shown that those opinions are falsely imputed to the Saint.

But the local Church of Rome is so particularly wicked, insists Dr. Littledale. Here one subject of discussion is exchanged for another. We have been speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., of a body which, embracing the vast majority of Christians, is in communion with the See of Rome. Still, any reproach thrown upon the

244 SANCTITY.

local Church of Rome is indirectly a reproach to the whole Church, and merits a careful scrutiny.

No doubt there have been bad Popes and grievous disorders of one kind or another in the Roman Church. It must be remembered that the Pope's lot was cast in a city which was not merely the centre of Pagan supersti- tion but of national degeneration — a very focus of active dissolution. There were no materials there for forming an organic whole. When the Papal rule began the Roman people were a mixed race, without any national character to build upon, and their city a hostelry of nations. And yet Rome under the Popes has produced a con- tinual succession of brilliant examples of sanctity; has been ever foremost in the interests of religion, charity, and education. In no city in the world are there more institutions, such as hospitals, and refuges of all sorts for the needy and afflicted. In no city in the world are there fuller opportunities of education of the highest order, absolutely gratis, offered to all classes alike. And these advantages existed in Rome when they did not exist in any parallel degree elsewhere.

Various inaccuracies doubtless have crept into the catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, and it may fairly be maintained that one or two amongst them have been accredited with a title of sanctity to which they had no rigj.it ; but there still remains a goodly number of indis- putable saints. Dr. Littledale's attempts at correction can hardly be regarded as felicitous. He rejects Liberius, whose holy life and labours are attested by so many witnesses, on the ground of his having accepted, in a moment of weakness, a temporising creed which at least contained no positive error, and consented to a breach of communion with St. Athanasius ; although his whole subsequent career was a protestation of orthodoxy. It is obvious that such a line of criticism would tell severely against St. Peter's claims to a place in the calendar.

Again, he denounces St. Damasus as "a murderous

SANCTITY. 245

rioter," because he is charged by two partisans of the -anti-Pope Ursicinus with usurping the Papacy and taking an active share in the conflicts of the time. He enunci- ates this view as though there were no other, in the face of a cloud of witnesses including St. Jerome, his adver- sary Rufinus, St. Ambrose, and the Council of Aquileia, of which last testimony Tillemont (Mem. torn. viii. St. Damase, art. i.) says, after recounting the calumnies Dr. Littledale has made his own, " Mais il vaut mieux en juger par l'assemble"e des eveques les plus saints et les plus £clairez qui fussent alors dans 1'Occident, et qui n'avoient point d'autre interest dans cette affaire que celui de la ve'rite' et la justice."

Once indeed Dr. Littledale was far less indisposed to recognise the note of sanctity in the Roman Catholic Church. I have before me a sermon published by him in 1868, preached at the eleventh anniversary of the A. P. U. C., in which the Roman Catholic Church is presented under a very different aspect from that of the hideous beldame, idolatrous, mendacious, greedy, cruel, and unholy, of the "Plain Reasons;" with whom, •assuredly, any exchange of the offices of intercommunion would be nothing less than sacrilegious. In those days, however serious may have been the doctrinal misappre- hensions of Dr. Littledale and his friends, however im- possible for Catholics formally to co-operate with them upon the doctrinal basis of a "divided Church," we could not but sympathise deeply with their yearnings, not merely for union in the abstract, but for union with us. Dr. Littledale selects with admirable felicity for the text of his sermon on reunion Isaiah xix. 24, 25 : "In that day shall Israel be third with Egypt and Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land ; whom the Lord of Hosts shall bless, saying, ' Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine in- heritance. ' ' He then in a triptych picture presents us, tinder the figures of Egypt, Israel, and Assyria, with his

246 SANCTITY.

conceptions of the Greek, Roman, and English commu- nions. In each portraiture, as the necessity of his theory 'required, there is a distinctive excellence; in each, a particular want, which union with the other two is to supply. But that of the Roman Church is indefinitely the most noble portrait of the three, and indeed the only one in which the marks of the true Church, the traits of primitive Christianity, are distinctly visible. " The zeal (he says) of her priests, her monks, and her nuns (and below, 'the faith and holiness of her leaders ') remains undiminished. They teach by precept and. example, patience, hope, and repentance, to the suffering and dying outcast, . . . while a noble army of martyrs has come forward even in our days to bear the message of the cross to heathen nations." Shadows are thrown in, no doubt, but these cannot be said to fall so much upon the formal character of the Church as upon those masses of her subjects who inherit the Catholic name without attempting to lead Catholic lives. Whereas his criticism upon the Greek Communion is, that it possesses a 'eposit of truth which is no " vital principle ; " upon Anglicanism, that it is " a religion, calm, equable, comforting, useful in its degree," and, as a fact, has had more success in keeping out downright irreligion from the sheltered nationality to which it is confined than the Roman Church from her storm-swept masses ; " but that it rarely shows supernatural powers, or kindles amongst us the spirit which educates saints and martyrs, or trains its priestly members as leaders of the people, whom they will follow because of their holy life and burning words." What have the last twelve years done to Dr. Littledale that he should feel it his vocation to rake every gutter, old and new, for wherewithal to cast at her whom he once acknowledged as " Israel, mine inheritance " ? Perhaps she whom he designates "the great Latin Church," "the mightiest Church in the world," has failed to appreciate his proposal of an alliance upon

SANCTITY. 247

equal terms, and has hardly seen that she had aught to learn from "a religion" which, though "calm, equable, comforting, useful in its degree," yet " rarely shows super- natural powers." Whatever may be the cause, the fact is certain: Dr. Littledale spurns what he once almost worshipped.

And yet, even in the " Plain Reasons," he acknow- ledges that Rome can, and does, produce examples of heroic sanctity the like of which is not to be found else- where. I must allow that his one redeeming point is a certain obstinate instinct for the reality of Catholic sanctity ; but after kneeling for a moment at the shrines of St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis Xavier, and St. Vincent of Paul, he leaps up in the very spirit of an energumen, and strives desperately to wrest the fact of the existence of such saints into an argument against the Church which has produced them. They are, for- sooth, the prize scholars to whose elaborate training the interests of the community have been sacrificed ; the precious crop whose costly production exhausts the soil, leaving it too utterly impoverished for any further growth. Will any honest student of hagiography, whether appreciating the Catholic idea of sanctity or not, admit that this is the history of " the saint," either as distinguished from the worldling or from other good and edifying persons — that he is the prize outcome of systematic training? For the model semi- narist to turn out a saint, is surely an exception; whilst saints are met with in every class and condition of life, beggars and nobles, bishops and needlewomen, the rejected of all systems as often as the prizemen of any.

So far as the saints are taught of any save of God, it is by other saints, whose teaching is not so much a system as the manifestation of the Divine light within them in the intercourse of daily life. And what is there more generous, more overflowing, than sanctity, what less confined to system and routine, what more universal

248 CATHOLICITY.

in its influence ? Where do we ever meet with a saint in the pages of history without finding other saints about him, or at least a large circle of saintly souls, of disciples who can say in some degree of their earthly master what they say of their heavenly, " In thy light we have seen light " ? Is it not a fact that every saint pays back a thousand times over all that he has ever drawn in the way of sanctity from any human system, however en- lightened? Is not the whole world the richer, the better, the happier for him ? I wonder how much the three who occupy the foremost place in Dr. Littledale's calendar, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Francis Xavier, and St. Vincent of Paul, owed to systematic training. St. Charles had about as much of it as Joseph in Potiphar's house, St. Francis passed his novitiate in heroic vaga- bondage with St. Ignatius, and St. Vincent's sanctity was educated amid the jeers of Moslem taskmasters. No ! sanctity is not the result of any system ; it is the product of the Word of God, of the action of the sacra- ments, under the special instinct and seal of the Holy Spirit. It is the hundredfold yield of the same divine seed which, with some, brings forth thirtyfold, and with others lies idle. In a field where this highest yield is conspicuously wanting, there, assuredly, is some admix- ture of an alien seed, or some systematic frustration of the Divine sower.

§ 3. Catholicity.

The Roman Catholic Church is not Catholic, Dr. Littledale says, because — ist, she sometimes calls herself " Roman Catholic " and sometimes " Roman ;" 2dly, she is not as numerous as some people consider, and her increase does not keep up to the ratio of the increase of the population ; 3dly, in the centralising movement which has long been going on, many local and national religious usages have disappeared, and there is every-

CATHOLICITY. 249

where an increasing tendency to assimilation with the use of Rome ; 4thly, certain works which either repudi- ated the thesis of Papal infallibility as part of the neces- sary credettda, or rejected it altogether when urged in the form of a Protestant objection, are, since the Vatican decree, no longer tolerated.

I answer — (i.) The note of Catholicity is in contrast with that of nationality. It involves a claim to have been given a world-wide mission in the text, " Go and teach all nations," and by its historical position in the world to have realised that mission. It is precisely because it is " Roman," />., because it starts from a centre whose circumference is not commensurate with any national boundaries, but world- wide, that it can claim to be Catholic.

(2.) Though not all it is everywhere ; and if it does not increase in a corresponding ratio to the increase of the world's population, of what Christian body can the reverse be said ? Anyhow, it has still to be proved that the Catholic Church does not increase in a larger ratio than the sects. There is no tendency, as population increases, in men to cease to be men or Englishmen to be Englishmen ; but, alas ! there is a strong tendency in the members of a religious body, as generations succeed one another, to cease first from the practice and then from the name of religion. It may well be that our conversions are not sufficient to keep up a religious growth proportionate to the increase of the population.

(3.) Such assimilation of religious observance as Dr. Littledale points to, certainly cannot be construed into a derogation from Catholicity, the very idea of which is world-wide unity. This centralisation, whatever may be thought of this or that manifestation, is the result of an instinctive defensive action against aggressive secu- larism. It is the more natural in places where the local traditional usage has been to a great extent broken by a phenomenon like the French Revolution.

250 CATHOLICITY.

(4.) The very idea of a development of doctrine necessarily implies a corresponding change, in an op- posite direction, in the economy of toleration. Lan- guage that was allowed before Nicsea, ceased to be tolerable after that Council.

One very striking manifestation of the note of Catho- licity is the persistence and success of the Church's missionary labours amongst the heathen, in which she presents a very marked contrast to every other Christian body. How does Dr. Littledale face this ? By repeating the manoeuvre noted in the preceding section, and again adroitly changing the subject of debate from the Roman Catholic Church to the local Church of Rome. He observes that the Church of Rome is not the great missionary centre she has been taken for ; that she only originated one ancient Church outside Italy, the North African ; cannot prove that she really started the Churches of Gaul ; did really start the English mission, but did no more than aid and authorise the other medi- eval missions, the German, for instance ; only took to originating missions with the Jesuits in 1527, or more strictly with the Propaganda (1622-27), when she planted the Churches of Southern and Central America, and made more or less conversions in the East Indies, China, Japan, and the Pacific Islands. If this is the worst Dr. Littledale can say in depreciation of Rome as a missionary centre, one hardly sees that he has gained much. Here one naturally expects some comparison with the missionary exploits of other Christian bodies. Only one such attempt is made, and it is a sufficiently audacious one; he hurls the colossal empire of Russia at our heads. "The Eastern Church has made one mis- sionary conquest since its quarrel with Rome, greater than all Roman missionary efforts put together." But what sort of a Russia does Dr. Littledale suppose it to have been that the Church of Constantinople converted? The barbarous tribes on the shores of the Euxine and the

CATHOLICITY. 251

Caspian were indeed the germs of the mighty Russian empire, but their future greatness can hardly be allowed to enter into pur estimate of the missionary effort in- volved in their original conversion before they had grown to be great. At the same time I am not denying that the conversion of Russia was a real and very magni- ficent missionary achievement ; and it took place after the schismatical quarrel of the Greek Church had begun. To quote the words of one of the profoundest students of Russian history, Mr. W. Palmer (Preface to "The Replies of Nicon"),— "It was obtained chiefly during those two centuries of alternate schisms and reunions which intervened between Photius and Cerula- rius, and it by no means stopped short on the consum- mation of the schism by Cerularius, but continued still to spread till 1240.'' This phenomenon is not the difficulty to us which Dr. Littledale supposes. The main work was done before the consummation of the schism ; and even into the schism was carried an orthodox belief, true sacraments, and a widely distributed stock of invin- cible ignorance. The half-felled tree bore its crop of fruit for a season or two, and then acquiesced in hopeless barrenness, as the schism gradually hardened down from an act into a state, and a dogmatic apology for schism became more and more incorporated with it, and so in- vested it more and more with the character of heresy. Protestant missions, Anglican or otherwise, Dr. Littledale has not thought it wise to mention.

In a note which appears ed. 3, p. 205, Dr. Littledale says that nothing so Erastian can be laid to the charge of the Anglican clergy as the official erection of the con- fessional into an organ of political information, which he says was done in Naples under the Bourbons. I demur at any acute phase of Erastianism however monstrous, in the teeth of Church authority, being accepted, even if it were true, as an equivalent to the quiet functionalising as a state-creature, which has ever characterised Angli-

252 APOSTOLICITY.

canism. But the real difference here is, that whilst the facts of our charge of Erastianism against the Church of England are matters of history, admitted on all hands, Dr. Littledale's charge against the Church in Naples rests exclusively upon the bon motoia. French infidel racon- teur. M. Mazade, Dr. Littledale's authority, recounts, "Revue des Deux Mondes," December i, 1866, that when Victor Emmanuel was entering Naples in triumph, an ecclesiastical dignitary stepped up and asked in a low voice " to whom were the reports of confessions to be transmitted thenceforward ? " He adds that such was found to have been the practice. But it is precisely the evidence for this practice that is completely wanting. Thus it is in a " mauvaise plaisanterie," whether on the part of the actor or the narrator, that Dr. Littledale is reduced to look for his equivalent to Anglican Erastian- ism. Had the monstrous charge been true, does any one believe that there would have been this jaunty publicity with its stage whisper ? Assuredly, long before such a usage could have been established, a Neapolitan mob would have made short work with the Bourbons.

§ 4. Apostolicity.

Dr. Littledale's charge of deviation from Apostolic doc- trine has been answered by me in other places. As to lapse of succession, owing to a defective intention, which Dr. Littledale would argue from the supposed infidelity of certain priests and bishops, I answer that it is no part of the Catholic doctrine of intention that any invalidating defect therein can be argued from defect in faith. Neither do we hold that consecration by one bishop only, when authorised by the Holy See, imports any doubt of the validity of a consecration — which is another of Dr. Littledale's arguments for an interrupted succession. The truth is, all these charges are in their very nature beside the mark. We are discussing a note of the Church,

CONCLUSION. 253

and a note is a conspicuous quality, not an obscure suspicion, or a far-fetched and doubtful conclusion. Apostolicity of doctrine, or the personal faith of a minister, or canonical observance, cannot possibly form a note of the Church, which, to be a note, should appeal at once to the understanding of commonly intelligent persons. The note of Apostolicity means simply the continuous solidarity of the institution. It necessarily assumes that an institution founded by the Apostles is extant somewhere, for without this assumption it would be open to the objection that it could only manifest itself as the result of an antiquarian investigation, which few are capable of understanding, fewer of conducting. On the aforesaid assumption the note vindicates itself by an exhaustive process intelligible to every one. The con- clusion that the Roman Catholic Church is Apostolic results from the fact that every other body of Christians started with a schism, the leaders and date of which are a matter of history ; whereas nothing of the kind can by any possibility be said of the Roman Catholic Church, the Apostolicity of which therefore you can only escape admitting, by maintaining that the institution of the Apostles is no longer extant.*

Conclusion.

I have now finished my defence of the various points of Catholic faith and practice which it has pleased Dr. Littledale to impugn. I have no desire to convert my defence into an attack. It is notorious that we are for ever standing on the defensive, whilst assaults are made upon us from every point of the compass ; and we may be tempted from time to time to complain that this should be the case. It is so much more easy to catch popular approval by the brilliancy of an assault, than to

* Various points brought by Dr. Littledale under this head I have answered, p. 10, pp. 21-25, PP- 38-83.

254 CONCLUSION.

command it by the steady virtues of a defence. But a little consideration should convince us that our relative positions are precisely what they should be. We are on the defensive, because we alone hold a position that is worth defending. We are in possession of the tradition of the medieval Church, itself an outgrowth of the Church of the Fathers, and severed from it by no period of convulsion and division such as brought our adversaries into the world. On this ground, if on no other, the presumption is in our favour that the territory we oc- cupy is our own, and it must remain in our favour until we are proved wrong. We must, then, look to be incessantly attacked, and we must be prepared for some- thing less than justice even from the fairest of our foes. To establish our hopelessly evil character, if not in one way then in another, is, for them, a matter of life and death. It is necessary for them to prove that we are antichrist, otherwise they are shown to be Christ's enemies by the mere fact of their division from us. On our side there is not the same temptation to be aggres- sive ; we are not called upon to establish anything in our enemy's regard, they are " jam judicati ; '; their initial act presumably condemns them, and renders their position to the end of time damnable, whatever may be said of the personal innocence of individuals who have inherited a state they had no part in forming. We are not distressed, but pleased, when we meet with a true zeal for Christianity amongst Protestants, because it makes the distanc; between us less, and suggests that ultimate union is less . mprobable than it might seem. We cannot, for the sake of an additional argument that we do not want, wish our adversaries one whit worse than they are. And yet, although this is true on the whole, and will remain true to the end, there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent our taking up the aggressive. There is no reason why we should not make as much of their ill deeds as they have tried to make of ours;

CONCLUSION. 255

only " bad luck to us," to use Cardinal Newman's word, " we have never kept a register of Protestant scandals."* However, we may be fairly content to let Protestant authorities speak for themselves ; and I would have my readers forecast as a possible contribution for " promoting Christian knowledge " " a History of the Church of England," of which the first chapter should contain a vivid description, by Dr. Littledale, of the unmitigated scoundrelism of the reformers ; t in which the same author should be allowed to carry on a history of the episcopate down to the present date, and that of the second order of the clergy down to the recent High Church revival ; and of which the last chapter should be a reproduction of himself as the modern Anglican controversialist, whose "Plain Reasons" High Church and Low Church have been contented to accept as a model of English integrity.

I have no intention of becoming a chronicler of An- glican scandals. Nevertheless, I cannot admit that there is anything either in their past history or their present condition to make us reconsider, were that pos- sible, our judgment that Anglicans ceased to be part of the Church of Christ when they forsook Rome. We may have a certain regard for Anglicanism as a state function, as representing the adhesion of a great nation to Chris- tianity, nay a sentiment for it as the religious habitat of many whose memories we cherish with affection and respect. Anglicanism so considered is the creation of its best men, and lives only in their memories. But as a kingdom, a fold, a ship, a mother, all images under which Christ's Church is presented to us, it is absolutely featureless, it is simply nothing. Like the room set apart for family prayers, it may deserve re-

* Speech at the Catholic Reunion, Jan. 27, 1880. t "Cruelty, impiety, and licentious foulness" are Dr. Little- dale's words. — " Innovations," note F.

256 CONCLUSION.

spect as a place where good men have worshipped, but it is not a consecrated Church, has no sacramental pre- sence, is no House of God.

Anglicanism is no Church, because it has not, and never has had, any effective spiritual authority ; it can- not eject from its body manifest heretics ; nor even pro- nounce with a recognised voice that such ought to be ejected. It escapes formal heresy in its Articles, if it does escape, only in virtue of its not being quite sure what it meant by its Articles, and what it did not mean. Again, those who allow themselves to form one church with persons they regard as heretics cannot belong to the Church of Christ, for " what communication has light with darkness?" This last argument applies to Ritualists with special force, because they regard nine- tenths of their brethren, and almost all their superiors, as nothing less than heretics ; and when they are called upon to prove a continuity of Catholic doctrine in the Church of England, are just able here and there to lay their finger upon a single thread of orthodox testimony which, absolutely invisible in the storm of the Reforma- tion, shines out for a moment among the Caroline divines, and then once again under Victoria. If ortho- dox doctrine just now asserts itself in fuller volume and more sonorous tone, it is precisely because all legal repression in this country is fast becoming impossible.

Pope Pelagius II., writing to schismatics pure and simple, insists that they are " without the fold/' " torn from the vine," whilst the " unity " and " soundness " of the Church remains, though she suffers in the sympathy of charity with those who are parted from her. (Ep. ad. Episcopos Istriae. Labbe, torn. vi. p. 259). But of schismatics in heretical communion Pope St. Gelasius speaks far more severely. " You say, it is not read anywhere that Acacius said aught against the faith, as did Eutyches and his successors ; as though it were not worse to know the truth and yet to communicate with

CONCLUSION. 257

the enemies of the truth. ... Of such indeed it is well said — ' they go down alive into hell ; ' who, whilst they seem to live with that true and Catholic life by which * the just man liveth/ do straightway fall down the precipice of evil into the hell of heretical communion " (Ep. i, ad. Euphem. Labbe, torn. v. p. 286).

I have said that we must be prepared for something less than justice. We can hardly look for the philo- sophical appreciation of a Guizot or a Hurter in any mere writer of polemic ; and we must expect to hear the changes rung upon such topics as the " St. Bartholomew" and the " False Decretals " with a somewhat wearisome persistency. But even polemical license has its limits ; a controversialist is bound to ask himself whether the particular statement he is making is in itself true; whether it comes from a respectable source or is mere gossip. It is not enough to say, " The cause I oppose is so very evil, that whatever may be the truth of my par- ticular imputation, its equivalent if not itself is deserved ;" or again, " The effect of my statements or misstatements on the public is to produce, on the whole, a very righteous impression of my enemy; and thus the very misstate- ments become in a certain sense truths, inasmuch as they contribute to truth." This would seem to be the theory upon which many an electioneering speech is made; but then it is excused, I will not say justified, by the implication that it is only for the moment, as a set-off to the other side; that it is an understood thing that all floating unpleasantnesses may be utilised, without any call to test their value, by either side against its opponent ; that nothing of this sort is exactly believed. It would be sad indeed if religious controversy should be reduced to such a level. And yet Dr. Littledale has gone far towards recognising it as his own. (" Rejoinder," Con- temporary Review, May 1880) — the italics are mine : — '* I have been unable to find room for digressions, explana- tions, and guardings of statements. Knowing how hard

R

258 CONCLUSION.

it is to drive ideas into untutored minds, I have been compelled to aim primarily at incisiveness, and to omit nearly all qualifications of leading propositions, which I could and would use in fuller writing for a more learned class of readers, or in detailed conversation with any one. For ordinary persons, to set down everything which con- ditions a statement is not to make their view more accurate, but to attenuate it till it eludes their grasp altogether." I see, Dr. Littledale — in view probably of uniting Christendom against the advance of infidelity — presents one body of Christians to another in a series of "unqualified propositions " for the sake of "incisiveness;" or, in other words, deliberately paints us ten times blacker than he really thinks, and under other circum- stances would not mind acknowledging, that we are, lest we should somehow be thought too well of.

This is my solution of a problem which has been teasing me through many a weary month, viz., how Dr. Littledale could possibly have said a number of the things he has said. I am wholly unable to treat such points after the summary fashion of my antagonist. _The " solemn lie " theory, to which he is so partial, is utterly repulsive to me, and is so contrary to my experience of human nature that my relief at being thus helped to an explanation is considerable.

Dr. Littledale then, I am willing to admit, has com- mitted himself to an illicit pursuit of truth, truth politic, truth artistic, it may be, at the expense of truths of detail, a respect for which ordinary folks associate with common honesty ; and he has failed, as such unscrupulous efforts deserve to fail. His theory is an utterly dangerous one, and it is excessively difficult to keep it within any sort of bounds. It has led Dr. Littledale into a variety of scrapes, amongst others, that of quoting a nameless Arian for a Father, and putting his own words into St. Augus- tine's mouth. Nay, the very last sentence of his book, with its triumphant ring, in which the great Doctor of Hippo

CONCLUSION. 259

is made to do duty as such an uncompromising anti- papalist, is a mere misquotation. The words he quotes are, " We who are Christians in name and deed do not believe in Peter, but in Him on whom Peter himself believed" (De Civit. Dei. xviii. 54). Neither do we believe in Peter, *>., as the supreme object and ultimate autho- rity of our belief. But are we to believe Peter ? Hear St. Augustine in the words immediately following those quoted by Dr. Littledale : " Built up by the words of Peter concerning Christ, not charm-poisoned, not deceived by his witchcraft, but supported by his beneficence ; that Master of Peter in the doctrine which leads to eternal life, the same is our Master."

APPENDIX TO SECOND EDITION.

Note A, p. 35.

DR. LlTTLEDALE says (p. 147) that the Inquisition's formal notice to Galileo (1633) "states expressly that the declaration of 1616 was made by the Pope himself, and that resistance to it was therefore heresy." This is anything but the case. Galileo had put into court in 1633, as a defence against the charge of relapse and dis- obedience, a certificate in Italian which he had obtained from Bellarmine in 1616, to the effect that he had never been made to abjure, or submitted to penance, but merely had communicated to him "una dichiarazione fatta da nostro Signore (the Pope), e publicato dalla Sacra Con- gregatione dell' Indice," containing the statement that the Copernican doctrine was " contrary to Holy Scripture, and therefore could not be defended or held." In the notice of 1633 the Inquisitors, in their recapitulation of Galileo's defence, simply recite the words of the certificate which he had put in. Whilst remarking upon its inadequacy as a plea, they do nothing to make its description of the document of 1616 their own. They make no charge of heresy on the ground of resistance to a declaration of the Pope, neither does the certificate. No doubt, the Index decree of 1616, as well as the Inquisitional Process of 1633, are fairly regarded as in some sense Papal acts ; but this does not make them definitions ex cathedra.

APPENDIX. 26l

The attempt to establish the ex cathedra character of decrees of the Index as such, by an appeal to Pius VI., may be best tested by the words of his two Briefs to the Bishop of Chiusi.

In his first Brief the Pope charges the Bishop with deliberately departing " ab Apostolica doctrina non semel ; " with favouring propositions already " ab ea proscriptis ; " and finally with recommending catechisms " censura Apostolicae sedis notatos." Again, " If you had submitted to us " the two pastorals, one of which contained ' speci- men catecheseos,' " you would not have dared to embrace propositions often proscribed by the definitive judgment of the Roman Pontiffs."

In reply, the Bishop asks what are his " errors," what the sentiments in any degree deflecting "dalle decisioni dommatiche."

In his second Brief the Pope answers, " You ask an explanation as to what your letter contains at variance " cum dogmaticis Apostolicae sedis judiciis ; " and then tells him that it is principally his maintaining that " the Jansenist heresy is a mere phantasm and pretence," although so many Popes have condemned it ; and his use and praise of books in which " the decrees of the Apostolic See are attacked and detracted from ; " and his " making light of the censures attached to them." Amongst the books praised and distributed by the Italian Jansenists was the " Reflections " of Quesnel, the subject matter of the " Unigenitus" condemnation, which Ricci was never tired of pronouncing "a golden book."

Throughout these two Briefs the Pope is careful to treat the neglect of the "censura" of the Index merely as an aggravating circumstance or specification of the substantial charge, which was the maintenance of propositions already condemned by the "judicia dogmatica," although subse- quently the Bishop tried to make capital out of the Galileo case by identifying them. Nothing but a belief in the infallibility of any one who contradicts the Pope even in his

262 APPENDIX.

interpretation of his own acts, can account for Canon Jenkins maintaining that Pius VI. has declared a mere censure of the Index to be a dogmatic judgment ex cathedra.

Note B, p. 43.

Pope Julius, in his letter to the Eusebians, preserved by St. Athanasius (Hist Tract., Eng. tr., p. 56), thus asserts his prerogative : " Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon these persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all (the Pope and the Synod over which he was presiding), that so a just sentence might proceed from all ; for the sufferers were Bishops and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had* governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular ? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just sentence to be passed from this place ? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place ; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceed- ing on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decision, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul (dictrdfyis), not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed ; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you readily bear with me ; what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you ; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceed- ings so disturbed us."

APPENDIX. 263

Sozomen's paraphrase of what Julius says is in my text. Socrates, H. E., lib. ii. c. 8, commits himself to the follow- ing direct statement in regard to the Council of Antioch : — " Neither was Julius the bishop of the city of Rome there, neither did he send any one thither to fill his place, although a canon of the Church forbids that the Churches should make laws against the judgment (votoct rqv yv<jj[*w} of the Bishop of Rome." This reappears (c. 17) as a paraphrase of Pope Julius' letter.

Note C,* p. 88.

That the theophanies of the Old Testament are repre- sentations of the Divinity by the medium of created angels, and not direct manifestations of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the view which, since its exposition by St. Augustine in the second and third books of his " De Trinitate," gradually prevailed in the Church. It was the view of the old synagogue, according to Delitzsch (in Gen. ed. 4, p. 484), perhaps the most learned Hebraist amongst orthodox Protestants, who advocates it ; of the Septuagint, as Keil, who opposes it, admits. It is defended by Kalisch, an equally learned Jew (on Leviticus, vol. ii. p. 295), and by Dr. Pusey (on Daniel, pp. 515-521). The scriptural objections to the uncreated theophany are very serious, and to my mind irresistible. I. Acts vii. 30: St. Stephen, referring to Exodus iii., says, "There appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai an angel (ayyjXo?) in a flame of fire in a bush." This, which is the Vulgate reading, the "Revised Version" has adopted for "an angel of the Lord" of the "Authorised." Now "an angel" cannot possibly mean "Almighty God." 2. Heb. ii. 2, 3: " For if the word

* The substance of this note, together with the German references, has been supplied me by the kindness of the Rev. Fr. Addis.

264 APPENDIX.

spoken by angels became steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward ; how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him ? " " Angels " (dyyiXwv) cannot mean God. Moreover, St. Paul's distinction between the " word spoken by angels " and " declared by the Lord" would be lost if the " angel of the Lord " of the Old Testa- ment is God the Son. See, too, Gal. iii. 19, on the law " ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator ; " and Acts vii. 53 (the last words of St. Stephen's speech), " who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it " (sis 3/arayag, Vulg. " ex dispositione," St. Augustine "ex edictis"). St. Paul and St. Stephen are witnesses for the teaching of the ancient synagogue and the Gentile dispersion, and their words are a portion of Holy Writ. See St. Augustine's argument (De Trin., lib. iii. in fin.)

It is admitted, of course, that the "angel of the Lord" in a certain sense identifies himself with God ; so too do the prophets in different degrees. But he also emphatically distinguishes himself from Him. Thus, Gen. xxii. 16, he says, "'I have sworn by myself,' saith the Lord (or 'it is an oracle of the Lord ')," the very formula the prophets use in repeating God's words; he contrasts himself with the Lord to whom sacrifice is to be offered (Judges xiii. 16), and prays to the Lord of Hosts (Zach. i. 12).

As regards the three who appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii.), it has been maintained that the one whom he addressed (ver. 3) as "Lord" (Adonai), did not merely repre- sent God but was God, whereas if, following St. Augustine (De Trinitate, lib. ii. in fin.), we compare this chapter with the next, we find that though the Lord or the one more specially representing God stayed to converse with Abraham, whilst the two others fulfilled their mission to Sodom, yet Lot prostrates himself before the latter, and (vers. 1 8, 19) addressed one of them by the same Divine

APPENDIX. 265

name (Adonai), showing that each was capable of repre- senting the Divinity according as the Divine countenance was sealed upon him, whereas only one could ever have been God.

Although great names are quoted amongst the early Fathers for the uncreated theophany (see Petavius de Trin., lib. viii. c. 2), it is fair to remark — I. That the scope of many of these Fathers is rather to appropriate the mani- festations to the Second Person than to deny His repre- sentation by angels. St. Athanasius, e.g. (Orat., iii. c. Arian, § 14) ap. Puseyin Dan., p. 5 1 6, says of the manifes- tation to Moses in the wilderness, " He who appeared was an angel, but God spoke in him." 2. That the language of Borne of them, e.g., Justin and Tertullian, is hardly to be reconciled with any adequate conception of the Son's Divinity. A middle theory is maintained by Mill in his " Essay on the Historical Character of St. Luke's First Chapter" (note A), which distinguishes the theophanies subsequent to the idolatrous worship of the calf, as appear- ances of created angels, from the preceding ones, in which God manifested Himself immediately. He maintains especially that " the leader of the army of the Lord," before whom Josue bows down, is a created angel, quoting in this sense, and for his general theory, Theodoret (Quaest. IV. in Jesum filium Nave).

In conclusion, I would submit that even precluding the interposition of any angelic intelligence, the appearance of a human or an angelic figure performing a variety of material actions, such as eating, &c., implies a created objective phenomenon, a true image essentially distinct from the Creator ; for no Father, unless it be Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iii. 9), has ventured to suggest an hypostatic union.

266 APPENDIX.

Note D, p. 135.

The words of the Council of Trent (Decretum de edi- tione et usu sacrorum librorum, sess. iv.) prohibit an inter- pretation "contra unanimem consensum Patrum." The Profession, or Creed, of Pius IV. enacted on admission to " ecclesiastical cures, benefices, or dignities," promises not to interpret Scripture " Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum." An attempt has been made to insist upon this difference, as though it were a setting aside on the part of the Pope of the previous decree, and a substitution of the prohibition of any interpretation of Scripture unsupported by a unanimous consent of the Fathers. To this absurd suggestion it is a sufficient answer to insist that in order to go " otherwise than according to," even as to go " con- trary to," a unanimous consent, the unanimous consent must be first obtained, seeing that where it does not exist, neither prohibition finds its subject matter ; and this is quite sufficient for my controversial purpose. But it may be further asked whether some alteration of the Tridentine decree in the direction of increased stringency, is not implied in the new phrase in Pope Pius' Creed. I answer that this is precluded by the character of the latter document. A profession of faith exacted from certain individuals under special circumstances is not the form in which an alteration in a decree of a General Council con- firmed by the Pope could be introduced. Moreover, the Vatican Council (Constit. de Fid. Cath., c. 2), in renewing the Tridentine decree, adopts the phrase "contra," not " nisi juxta." Cardinal Franzelin (De Div. Trad, et Script., Thes. xviii. p. 186) lays down that what is forbidden by both phrases is neither more nor less than this — (i.) the formal rejection of a sense defined by the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; (2.) any interpreta- tion so different as to be incompatible with that sense. Thus no additional sense, however new, need on this account be regarded as transgressing the " nisi juxta."

APPENDIX. 207

Note E, p. 151.

Since my first edition Canon Jenkins has published (Religious Tract Society) "The Devotion of the Sacred Heart." This tract, as others from the same pen, deserves the praise of considerable industry of a certain kind, though, I cannot but think, most captiously and perversely applied. It affords an opponent a fair opportunity for an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject, but I must content myself here with noticing a few points bearing more or less directly upon what I have written.

i. A passage is quoted by Canon Jenkins (p. 27) from the pastoral of the Jansenist Bishop of Chiusi, attributing the origin of the cult of the Sacred Heart to Goodwin. " It is certain that it has its origin from Thomas Goodwin of the Calvinistic or Nestorian sect." Thus Dr. Littledale is relieved of the credit of its first attribution to Goodwin. Canon Jenkins, after professing a perfect reliance on the trustworthiness of the Italian Jansenists, hardly compatible with much knowledge of their history, proceeds, as he says, " to trace the connection " for himself. All that he does, however, is to show that Goodwin's book has a certain character of devotion which, if Fr. Colombiere came across it, might suggest that it was possible to introduce the devotion to the Sacred Heart into England. The fact that Goodwin (The Heart of Christ, p. 128) quotes a certain Catholic theologian whom he calls Justinian as coinciding with him, proves, I would submit, that the Puritan borrowed from the Catholic rather than the Catholic from the Puritan. Justinian is none other, according to Canon Jenkins, than " one of the greatest of the practical and devotional writers of the Church of Rome, St. Laurence Justiniani." Now, the quotation in question is a grave piece of scholastic insistence upon the duration in heaven of such affections as are unconnected with sin and shame, and is as unlike in texture and colour the writings of St. Laurence as may well be. The passage, m

268 APPENDIX.

fact, forms part of the commentary of a very different writer, Benedict Justiniani, SJ. (published in Lyons, J^is), on St. Paul's Epistles. It comments on Hebrews iv. 15, — " For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities " (" that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities," Authorised and Re- vised versions). There are no more indications here of a cultus of the Sacred Heart than there are in Goodwin ; but there is much on the tenderness of Christ for sinners, and of a special readiness arising from past human experience to have pity, but which excludes all present suffering. This is substantially the teaching of all Catholic theologians on the subject, and I do not think Goodwin means to go beyond it : his strongest phrases are qualified with an " as it were."

Before Canon Jenkins complains that a present suffering in heaven is taught in the devotional language addressed to Christ in heaven outraged by sinners, it is but fair that he should handle the many passages in Scripture to the full as anthropomorphic, e.g., Eph. iv. 30, Heb. iv. 15, Micheas vii. i, Ezechiel xvi. 43. Whether we understand this heavenly grief in Justiniani's sense, or content ourselves with contemplating the sympathetic union of Christ's mystic body, it can hardly be unsafe that our devotional language should run in the lines of Scripture phraseology. "Who," exclaims St. Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. lii., torn, iv. p. 486), "brings forth and is in anguish? The faithful know well, for from thence they spring. Here Christ brings forth, here Christ suffers, the Head is above, the members below. Nor otherwise than as bringing forth and suffering pain would He have cried out, ' Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?'" We are cruel to Christ in heaven, inasmuch as we are cruel to ourselves and others for whom Christ died, and whom He espoused in His Blood.

2. Canon Jenkins lays great stress (p. 46 and se.q^ upon the fact that Cardinal Lambertini, afterwards Benedict XIV., opposed, as " Promotor Fidei," the institution of the Feast

APPENDIX. 269

of the Sacred Heart with a vast array of arguments ; which opposition was never retracted. Canon Jenkins can never have realised the meaning of the office of " Promotor Fidei." This is explained by Lambertini himself (De Serv. Dei Beatif., lib. i. c. 18, n. I and 2) to involve the duty " of raising difficulties of all sorts for the better bringing out the truth." He points out that since the decrees of Urban VIII., the " Promotores " have never failed to raise objections, though often, " ex defectu materise," of the slightest kind, in order " not to seem to fall short of their office." He insists that there is no necessary correspond- ence between the Promoter's real opinion and the difficulties which he raises " officially " (ratione officii). To his own animadversions on this very case, he is careful to append a protestation, "eas omnes exaratas a se fuisse ut munus sibi commissum adimpleret " (Posit. Causse, an. 1765, part iii. p. 8 ; ap Nilles de Sac. Cord., torn. i. p. n.) As Pope, he issued no less than 419 Briefs of Indulgence to as many confraternities of the Sacred Heart. Canon Jenkins pooh-poohs any argument being drawn from these concessions, as to the Pope's sentiment ; and he does so on the singular ground that Cajetan will not allow the indul- gence on the Feast of the Conception to militate for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. The Canon forgets that Cajetan only justifies himself by the alleged uncertainty of the object of the feast and indulgence, which might, he thinks, be the " sancti- fication in utero" and not the conception. (See Tract, de Concep. B. V., c. v.)

3. The charge of Nestorianism made against the cult of the Sacred Heart is to the last degree baseless. The Nesto- rians actually separated in their belief the human nature from the Divine by the introduction of a human personality, thus depriving the human nature of all claim to Divine worship ; whereas the Catholic worshipper of the Sacred Heart " praecisione pure mentali," by a mere concentration of the attention, dwells on one part in order more perfectly to worship the whole as its perfections are symbolised in

2 70 APPENDIX.

that part. It is in this sense only that the worship is accounted symbolic. Not that in this devotion the heart is a mere figure under which Christ's love is symbolised, but that in the worship of the whole Christ His most Sacred Heart is explicitly and precisely contemplated, because it is the natural symbol of His love for us and of the virtues of which He is the exemplar, according to His own words, " Learn of Me, for I am meek and humble of heart."

Such division of its subject matter naturally belongs to all vehement human affection, whether bestowed on the creature or the Creator. It is not the " disjecta membra " of childhood that Longfellow addresses so pathetically in his " Weariness " through the successive stanzas which begin « O little feet," " O little hands," " O little heart ; " but it is the pathos and beauty of childhood contemplated in symbolic parts that we may the better grasp the whole. It is another thing to say that amongst Nestorians such a cult would be suspicious ; so too would be the use of the crucifix in its representation of bare humanity. In matter of fact, it is precisely in England, where the cult of the Sacred Heart is regarded as superstitious, that religious literature and religious art reek of Nestorianism, whereas in France and Italy, as a religious feature, it is not known.

4. In conclusion, it may be as well to point out to Ritualists who are inclined to welcome Canon Jenkins as an ally, that he admits (p. 21) that the cult of the Sacred Heart which he denounces is the natural outcome of that " gravest and most fruitful of all the errors of mediae val Romanism, the doctrine of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, absolutely, and without respect to the recipient."

APPENDIX. 271

Note F, p. 171.

Dr Littledale, in his leaf of additions and corrections prefixed to his fourth edition, throws another stone at St. Alfonso. ' Add " that a litigant in a just cause may suborn perjured evidence, in order to obtain a judgment in his own favour (III. iii. 77.)"' He charges St. Alfonso with teaching that such a litigant may bribe a man to •swear what he knows to be false, in order that he, the litigant, may obtain a verdict. If this is Dr. Littledale's meaning, and I can divine no other, I answer that St. Alfonso teaches nothing of the kind. The question he is consider- ing is this : " whether it is lawful to put a man who will perjure himself upon his oath " (an liceat petere juramen- tum a pejeraturo) ; and he answers, following the Salmanti- censes, the Continuator of Tournely, Cajetan, Suarez, &c., that, " if there be a sufficient reason " (modo adsit justa causa), not "in a just cause," as Dr Littledale translates it, it is lawful. The instances he gives of such lawful action are that of a judge administering an oath, " ratione officii," and that of a litigant who has a strong interest in putting a scamp into the witness-box in order to expose a conspiracy by exhibiting one of the conspirators as a perjurer. It is hardly necessary to say that the justice of such a course is recognised every day in the practice of our law courts. Even if St. Alfonso were in any degree obscure, a reference to any of the authorities to which he appeals would sufficiently show that this is the point under consideration, and no other. All theologians unite in condemning the procuring any sort of false evidence, whether it is believed true by the suborner and disbelieved by the witness, or believed true by the witness and false by the suborner. No moral theologian could express the opinion Dr. Littledale attributes to St. Alfonso and retain his reputation for sanity Has Dr. Littledale no friend to tell him that, if he is an honest man, he is not doing him- self justice ?

272 APPENDIX.

Note G, p. 189.

The perfect orthodoxy of Pope Zosimus in the affair of Celestius is repeatedly asserted by St. Augustine. Celestius vfas not indeed submitted to penitence. St. Augustine's word is "purgatio," which here means the exaction of a profession of faith by authority ; Zosimus obliged Celestius to make a profession in the words of Pope Innocent, and suffered him to explain the "libellus" which' he had offered Pope Zosimus, in the sense of the profes- sion ; and so Celestius was sent back to Africa, to use St. Augustine's words, " tied in a wholesome knot " (vinculo saluberrimo obstrictus.) This is his comment on the whole proceeding: — " Profecto quidquid interea lenius actum est cum Celestio, servata dumtaxat antiquissimae et robustissimae fidei firmitate, correctionis fuit clementissimae suasio, non approbatio exitiosissimse pravitatis. Et quod ab eodem sacerdote (Zosimo) postea Celestius et Pelagius repetita auctoritate damnati sunt paululum intermissae jam necessario proferendae severitatis fuit, non pnevaricatio prius cognitae, vel nova cognitio, veritatis." (See Hurter, Ep. Sel. Pont. Rom., note, pp. 133-136 ; and Coustant, Ad- monitio in Duas Epistolas, Ep. R. P., pp. 938-943.)

Note H, p. 195.

The " Church Quarterly " in its article " Fr.ther Ryder and Dr. Littledale" (July 1881, p. 566) remarks that "if Cardinal Newman's most unfortunate preface to Mr. Hutton's work on the Anglican ministry, to which we have called particular attention ourselves, had been in existence when ' Plain Reasons ' was on the stocks, Dr. Littledale would have had ample materials for a much graver charge than that of mere bias in that eminent person, which he based on a passage in * Callista.'" It is highly

APPENDIX. 273

characteristic of the school of controversy to which the " Church Quarterly " belongs, to meet the refutation of one charge by the production of a second.

The writer's reference is to an article in the same Review of April 1880, entitled "Anglican Orders." Here the Cardinal's preface is styled " disingenuous," inasmuch as he " therein pledges himself to this belief on a point of history ; that Anglican doctrine upon the Christian sacrifice does not rise higher than in the quotation from Water- land," whereas, of course, he was well aware of the catena of Anglican divines in the appendix to Dr. Pusey's tract on the Eucharist (No. 81, Tracts for the Times), some of whom held a far higher doctrine than the highest indicated by Waterland. The Cardinal quotes (Pre£, pp. xi. xii. ) Waterland's enumeration of the various forms of Anglican doctrine on the Eucharistic sacrifice, to the effect that, setting aside the spiritual sacrifice of the heart, the highest view of what is sacrificed therein does not rise above the idea of a sacrifice of Bread and Wine. The Cardinal instances, among others, Hickes and Johnson as maintain- ing this doctrine. The reviewer quotes nearly three pages of extracts from the appendix, insists that the Cardinal (Apologia, p. 181) had already admitted the exhibition of a far higher doctrine in Andrews when he says, " I claimed in behalf of who would, that he might hold in the Anglican Church the mass all but transubstantiation with Andrews ; " u can it be," exclaims the reviewer, " that the habit of saying the things required for his position, which formerly produced utterances against Rome, is now producing utter- ances against Anglicanism ? It is no moral blessing, but an immense moral calamity, when a habit of thinking what one's controversial position requires, and saying it, obtains the sanction of infallibility, and so passes beyond reforma- tion, probably beyond consciousness." Nothing can make this language other than indecent ; the question is whether the charge of error has any basis in fact.

The Cardinal contrasts the doctrine of the Sacerdotium

274 APPENDIX.

held by Catholics and Ritualists, that "in the Holy Eucharist the Gospel priest offers Christ in His Body and Blood for the living and the dead, and that by virtue of such offering he is a priest," with the highest doctrine on the subject previously maintained, and asks, " Is there not an infinite difference " between them ? The " Church Quarterly" does not complain that the Cardinal has set the Ritualist doctrine too high, but that in order to support his charge of innova- tion he has set the previous teaching too low.

The question to be considered is, what theological posi- tion these Anglican divines took up with regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice ; not whether there are not expres- sions here and there in their writings which, taken by themselves, might seem by the higher level of their devo- tional appreciation to suggest a higher doctrine. The Caroline divines were exceedingly anxious to make every patristic expression they came across their own, and the Nonjurors, rejected by their Church of the present, naturally turned with the stronger yearning to the Church of the past. As a whole, the writers in Dr. Pusey's Catena held a sacrifice of Bread and Wine representing the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross, in which the Bread and Wine after consecration became the instrument to the faithful communi- cant of a union with Christ's Body and Blood, i.e., with the merits of His Passion. But did any of them reach a higher doctrinal level ? I believe that, as regards the sacrifice, they certainly did not.

When asked the precise question what is it that is offered, they had only one answer, " Bread and Wine." Indeed there was no other answer they could make, whilst reject- ing the doctrine of Trent (Sess. xiii. c. i), that Christ is really present on the altar after consecration and (Sess. xii. c. 2 ) is indeed offered up in the sacrifice.

They never answered " Christ," nor even " the Body and Blood of Christ," unless with the qualification, " mystically present," which they always took — at least except in the act of communion — in the sense of " symbolically

APPENDIX. 275

represented." Neither does Dr. Pusey's own doctrine in the tract go beyond this (p. 6). " They first offered to God His gifts in commemoration of His inestimable gift, and placed them upon His altar here, to be received and pre- sented on the heavenly altar by Him our High Priest ; and then trusted to receive them back, conveying to them the ttfe-giving Body and Blood." And then (p. 10), after rejecting transubstantiation with Bishop Andrews, whose words he quotes (Respons. ad Card. Bellarm., c. 8), " Do ye take away from the mass your transubstantiation, and we shall not long have any question about the sacrifice," Dr. Pusey involves in this rejection the whole edifice of Catholic doctrine concerning the real presence and the sacrifice built upon it, by identifying himself with Ridley, whom he thus quotes (Brief. Declaration, p. 6), "What is the matter of the sacrament ? whether it is the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ's own Body? For if it be Christ's own natural Body, born of the Virgin, then assuredly they must needs grant transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's Body. Then also they must needs grant the carnal and corporeal presence of Christ's Body. Then must the sacrament be adored with the honour due to Christ Himself for the unity of the two natures in one per- son. Then if the priest do offer the sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ Himself."

When Hickes says that "the mystical or sacramental Body and Blood of Christ " is " offered up unto God " (ap. " Church Quarterly," p. 213), it is certain that he simply means the Bread and Wine symbolising Christ's Body and Blood ; for he says that Christ's presence is "imputed" by a sort of " legal fiction " (Christian Priesthood Asserted, p. 151), which virtually by its effects makes as though He were present.* This too is Johnson's doctrine (The Unbloody

* A doctrine identical with his own is attributed by Hickes to Thorndike (Account of Third Edit., p. xxxi.) and by Johnson to Hickes (Pref. Ep., p. xv.)

276 APPENDIX.

Sacrifice, vol. i. p. 214). Under the title "A distinct answer to those who ask what is offered," he says, " We offer the Bread and Wine, separated from all other obla- tions of the people ; we offer them as having been solemnljr pronounced, by the words of institution, to be the full representatives of Christ's Body and Blood. And we make propitiation with them, after God has first by the illapse of the Holy Spirit perfected the consecration of them. When we say we offer Bread and Wine, and that we offer the Body and Blood of Christ, we mean the same material things. . . . When we say we offer Bread and Wine, we don't mean the products and first-fruits of the earth ; but the memorials of Christ's Passion, the authoritative repre- sentations of Christ's Body and Blood ; or, if you will speak with the primitive Church, the true Body and Blood of Christ ; and on the other side, when we say we offer the Body and Blood, we don't mean, what is commonly called the sacrifice of the mass, not the substantial Body and Blood of Christ, much less His divinity ; but the Bread and Wine substituted by the Divine Word for His own Body and Blood j and upon which God, at the prayers of the priests and people, sends down His peculiar spiritual benediction, by which it becomes a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour, as being therefore fully consecrated into the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore fit wherewith to propitiate the Divine mercy."

Again, in his " Propitiatory Oblation," published anony- mously (Pusey's Append., p. 310): — I. "The Papists hold that, in the sacrifice of the mass, the whole Christ, God and man, is offered up hypostatically to the Father in the Eucharist, and is to be worshipped there by men under the species of bread and wine. This doctrine is utterly re- nounced by all Protestants, by those who assert the Eucha- ristic oblation as well as by those who deny it. 2. The Papists assert the substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood, under the species of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist ; and that the sacrifice of the cross and altar are

APPENDIX. 277

substantially the same. But this is peremptorily denied by those who declare for the oblation of the Eucharist in the Church of England."

Again (Preface to vol. ii. p. xxviii. ) : " Dr. Wise slily in- sinuates that it is my practice to elevate the bread and ivine^ and it is true, that I did sometimes, about four or five years ago, in the act of consecration, lift up the bread and wine higher than usual, that the people might see the bread broken, and the cup taken into my hand, as the rubric directs, and for no other reason, some people who seemed very desirous to see the holy action sitting at a great distance from the Lord's table in this very large church • but I never elevated the elements after consecra- tion; nay, I believe it horrible superstition in those that do it, if any such there be ; and I do further solemnly declare it to be my sentiment, that to elevate and adore the sacrament, according to the practice of the Church of Rome,is downright idolatry." All this, be it remembered, whilst maintaining (see vol. i. p. 249,) that the " consecration was permanent," and approving of reservation. Neither could the real pre- sence of the Body and Blood of Christ be supposed without His hypostatic presence, for that would be the heresy of dividing Christ; therefore there can be no real presence but such as demands the adoration these writers persistently refuse.

With the passages just given contrast the manuals of modern Ritualism, e.g., Mr. Carter's " Treasury of Devo- tion," so cordially, and, I would add, so justly, approved by the late Bishop of Salisbury.

" After the Act of Consecration."

" Hail ! most Holy Flesh of Christ." " Hail ! heavenly Drink of Jesus' Blood."

"Acts of Adoration." " Hail to thee, true Body sprung from the Virgin Mary's womb ! The same that on the Cross was hung and bore for man the bitter doom." ft I adore. Thee, O Lord my God, whom I now behold veiled beneath these earthly forms. Prostrate I adore Thy Majesty." Again,

278 APPENDIX.

" O most merciful Father, who hast so loved me as to give to me Thy only-begotten Son for my food and drink, and with Him all things, look upon the face of Thy anointed, in whom Thou art well pleased. This Thy Beloved Son, and with Him my heart, I offer and present to Thee." Again, compare " The Priest's Prayer-Book" (p. 16, London: 1 870): " Let this holy mixture of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ be to me and all who partake thereof salvation of body and soul," and (p. 1 7), addressing Christ, Thou " dost still expose Thyself to the profanity of ungodly men rather than withdraw Thy Sacred Body from our churches/' Neither of these manuals are accounted at all extreme, and yet they exhibit Christ upon the altar as hypostatically pre- sent under the sacramental veils, and thus offered, worshipped, and reserved. All which points of doctrine are emphatically rejected by Hickes and Johnson, and certainly never have been produced from the works of earlier writers.*

It is true, however, that, as regards the real presence, Andrews and Cosin, in words at least, go further than Hickes and Johnson. Andrews in his answer to Bellarmine, c. i. p. 1 1 (ap. Cosin. Hist, of Transub.,p. 21), admits a "vera praesentia " (transl. " real "), and says, that it is only the manner of the presence that is in dispute. And again, in words already quoted, " But do ye take away from the mass your transubstantiation-, and there will not be long any con^ troversy with us concerning the sacrifice." And Cosin (see p. 53) speaks of the "real and substantial presence of the Body of Christ in the sacrament." Yet when these writers come to speak of the sacrifice, it is never the real substantial body, still less the whole Christ, that is offered, but a symbolic commemoration of the past sacrifice of the Cross, only not a "naked commemoration" (See Cosin ap. Pusey, Append., p. 136), in virtue of a presence of the "Body and Blood" "to all that faithfully receive it" That this presence is merely " in usu " and relative is brought out with perfect clearness

* This is not the case, I admit, with Sir W. Palmer, who wrote his hook ** On the Church '' after the Movement had begun.

APPENDIX. 279

by Cosin (Hist, of Transub., p. 61) : " We also deny that the elements still retain the nature of sacraments when not used according to Divine institution, that is given by Christ's ministers, and received by His people ; so that Christ in the consecrated bread ought not, cannot be kept and preserved, to be carried about, because He is present only to the com- municants." Andrews himself gives plain proof that when he said, " Do ye take away . . . your transubstantiation," he did in fact put away all substantial presence " extra usum," all presence that could be offered, or reserved, and not merely a particular manner of substantiation. For thus he speaks of the words of institution : — " De ' hoc est ' fide firma tenemus quod sit, de * hoc modo est/ ut sit Per, sive In, sive Cum, sive Sul>, sive Trans, nullum inibi Verbum est." Thus, in the language of Andrews, a "real presence" need not involve the presence of a substantial reality ; and " trans " and " sub " disappear together. In this sense, as we have seen, does Dr. Pusey understand Andrews to reject transubstantiation ; and in this sense, assuredly, did Cardinal Newman in his Apologia accredit Andrews with holding "the mass short of transubstantiation."

I think I have made it sufficiently clear that Dr. Water- land's and Cardinal Newman's doctrinal estimate of Anglican teaching on the Eucharistic sacrifice is the true one, and that the "Church Quarterly" is left without any cloak in fact, to cover its solemn impertinence.

There is something irresistibly amusing in the reproaches which the "Church Quarterly" addresses to the "great apostle of development " for not applying its principles to their teaching on the Eucharistic sacrifice as related to that of their predecessors. No theory of development that I ever heard of, certainly not Cardinal Newman's, could pretend to recognise the germ of a doctrine in a system which begins with a rejection of that doctrine in its fully developed form, with which it finds itself face to face. The gradual process by which Anglicans have worked their way back to the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice which they

280 APPENDIX.

originally rejected may doubtless be regarded as a process of moral and intellectual recovery, but it certainly is not a development in the theological sense of the word, the gradual maturing and realisation of a theological idea. The bud indeed develops into the full flower, and we may recognise in its earlier stages its ultimate outcome, but the stamen of the fully developed bloom when once stripped of its leaves has no future contained within itself; it can only give place to another flower.

Note I, p. 237.

Dr. Green, in the preface to his second edition (p. vi.), points out that Dr. Littledale had in his first and second editions left out the word " hujusmodi," " of this sort," which limited the application of the note excluding the poor to dispensations "in secundo gradu;" when, however, in his third edition he finds it necessary to insert the word, the amended sentence retains its place immediately after a recapitulation of the whole subject matter of the Peniten- tiary Taxae, "parricide, incest," &c., as though these were all taken in by what is really a form of exclusion. Neither does Dr. Littledale notice that the note appears, not in the Penitentiary Taxae at all, but in those of the Chancery, which are of a very different character (See Gibbings, Pre- face, p. 95). Dr. Green, it is only fair to say, regards the note as the sarcastic comment of a hostile critic. The only editions, he considers, in which it occurs bear all the marks of private compilation.

INDEX.

ABSOLUTION, from poena, 217 seg. mis- rep, by Dr. L., 218, 219, 220; among Ritualists, 219 ; from culpa. et poena, not always meaning directly from "guilt," 226 ; in foro extemo, 227 J from "future sin," sold, a false charge, 224-229 ; in connection with the taxae, 230, 231

Addis, Fr., 40, 137, 263

Adoration, acts of, 88, 90; of the image of Christ, 97 ; of the cross, 114, 116, 121, 122

Advocate, advocata, title of Mary, 101, 102, 195, 196

Aelred, St., on Papal Supremacy, 81

Agatho, P., 5, 19, 78, 133

Alcuin, on Papal Prerogative, 80 ; on images, 116

Aldhelm, St., on Papal Prerogative, 79 ; on images, 116

Alfonso, St. Liguori, on Mary, 129 ; his authority as Doctor of the Church ex- aggerated by L., 159 ; his Probabilism, 161-163 ; falsely charged by L. with teaching immoral doctrine, 163, 164, 271 ; on equivocation and stealing in ex- trentfi, 166, 167

Allatius, Leo, on Purgatory, 222

Allies, Mr., 59, 62

Allnatt, Mr., 4, 158, 186, xvi.

Ambrose, St., on the Peti ine texts, 2, 7 ; on Infallibility, 15 ; on Jurisdiction, 42 ; on Mary, 93, 101 ; on adoration of the cross,

121, 122

Anastasius, I. P., 24 ; on Jurisdiction, 42

Anastasius, Bibl., on the cross and images, 117

Andrews, 273, 279

Angels, worship of, 87, 88; of the Gnostics, 89 ; the Angel of the Lord, 263-265

Anglican, controversialists, 46, 78; first and second commandment, 112; sacra- ments, 214 ; Divines on the Eucharistic sacrifice, 273 seq.

Anglicanism, no Church, 255, 256

Ansel m, St., on Papal Prerogative, 80

Anthropomorphism, 112, 120

Ante-Nicene, testimony for St. Peter's Ro- man Episcopate, 48 ; Fathers on Mary, 93

Anti-Vatican dilemma, 37, 38

Antoninus, St., 161, 226, 231, 435

Apiarius, 60

Apostles, how infallib'e, 4 ; whether all equal, 22 ; as to Jurisdiction, 39, 41

Apostolicity, Note of the Church, 252, 253

Apostolic See, its importance as to Chris- tian religion, 12, 19

Apparition of our Lady, 97, 101.

Appeals, 43 ; of Bishops, 49, 52, 60, 61 ; not contested by St. Augustine, 62 ; resisted by Hilary of Aries, 65

Archives, Roman, 180-182 ; losses of, 185

Arian heresy, 26 ; appealed against to the Pope, 43 ; an Arian taken by L. for a Father, 258

Arnold, Dr., or the second commandmenti 113

Asterius, on Infall., 15 ; on Intercession, 91

Athanasius, St., and Liberius, 27, 28; on Angel-worship, 89 ; on Idolatry, 120

Augustine, St., on the Petrine texts, 3, 7 ; on Primacy, 63 J on St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, 58, 59 ; and the Holy See, 60 seg. ; on Intercession, 90 ; on miracles by relics, 92 ; on Mary, 93, 100 ; on Idolatry, 119,1122, 123; on BibleJ authority, 152, 153 ; on private judgment, 174 ; on pen- ance, 217 ; on the Immaculate Concep- tion, 135, 136 ; on Theophanies, 263 ; mis- 2uoted by L., 258, 259 ; his " Roma icuta. est," 189

Augustine, St., of England, ordained by order of the Pope, 77

Authority and private judgment, 173

Avitus of Vienne, on Supremacy, 44

BALUZE, 69, 175

Ballerini, 51, 60, 66, 69, 175, 176, 178, 185,

187 Baptism, minister of, 215 ; conditional,

xiii. ; of Constantine, 176, 177 Barbosa, 135 Baronius, Card., 65, 187 ; wrongly charged

by L. with falsifying the Roman Martyr-

ology and Breviary, 190 Basil, St., on the Petrine texts, 2 ; on sin

in Mary, 108 ; on Communion sub un&, 140 Basil, of Seleucia, on Mary, 98 Becanus, 27, 135

232

INDEX.

Societies heretical in principle, 154 Biblical studies in the Catholic C!

hurch,

bede, Yen., on the Petrine texts, 8 ; on Pa- pal Prerogative, 77, 79 ; on images, 116

Bellarmine, Card., 10, 30, 34 ; charged by L. with having invented the Catholic in- terpretation of Luke xxii., 4, 6 ; on im- ages, 114; on external acts of worship, 130 ; on Pope and conscience, 171 ; his share in the R. Breviary, 192

Benedict IX., 30, 31

Benedict XIV., misquoted by L., 159, 169. See also JLambertini

Bennettis, 57, 58

Bernard, St., on Infallibility, 20; on Supre- macy, 44 ; on Immaculate Conception, J35> I37 J explained, 138

Bib.e, Sixtine Edition of, 33 ; Editions be- fore Reformation, 158 ; and Church, 152 ; Bible- reading pernicious if independent, 153-157 ; B. Interpretation, 135, 266 ; B. il in L the 154-158

Bishop, his authority limited, 53 ; B. of bishops, 40 ; universal, 70. See Title

Bishops, equality of, 23, 71 ; contrasted with Apostles, 39 ; their relation to the Pope, 44, 82

Bonaventure, St., on Communion sub utra- que, 141 ; on Intention in Sacraments, 215

Boniface L, 57, 60; II., 180 ; IV., 77; VIII., on Doctors of the Church, 159

Boniface, St. of Mainz, 182

Borromeo, St. Charles, 161, 206, 247, 248

Bramhall, 48, 145

Bieen, 83

Breviary. See Baronius

Bright, Canon, 78

Bruno, of Asti, on the Petrine texts, 7

Bull of Leo X., 32, 33 ; of Paul IV., ex apostolatus officio, 73, 74

Burns, on fees fur absolution from cen- sures, 235

Busenbaum, S. ]., 167 ; misrepr. by L., 211

CAJETAN, 30, 269

Canons of Councils and Papal Supremacy,

Canons of Nicea and Sardica, 50, 51, 61 ;

how these came to be confused, 175 Canons of Sardica in the old Gallican col- lections, 57

Canons the Sixth of Nicea, 175, 176 - — the Ninth of Chalcedon, 50, 51, 52

the Twenty-eighth of Chalcedon, 50, 54

• of Elvira, 120 ; of Trullo, 51 ; of Cler-

mont, 141 Canterbury, its rank and authority from

the Pope, 79 Caramue!, 34

Carpocratians, 120 ; and image of Christ, fa

Cartwright, 146

Casuistry, its origin and nature according to L. , 160, 161

Catacombs, 103, 109, 113, 131

Catechisms, Jansenistic, 35 ; Catholic cal- umniated by L., in; of Council of Trent, 112; Lutheran, 113

Catena. See England and Papal Preroga- tive. Greek forged, 190

Catharinus, 6, 213

"Cathedra," Petri, the all-ruling, pre- siding, 18 ; "ex cathedra," 13, 26; re- quirements for, 28, 37, 74

Catholic and Roman, 17, 20, 41, 75, seq. See also 248 seq.

Catholicity, as a Note of the Church, 248- 250

" Causae maiores," 52, 67

Cave, 48, 97; on Opus Imperfectum, 155

Ceillier, 44

Celestine, P., 42, 61, 63, 77

Celestius, 189, 272

Centuriators, 186, 187

Chair of Peter, 40, 41 ; of Antioch, 47, 48

Chancery. See Taxes

Charges, L.'s, against the Church, reduced to seven, 86-240. See vi.-viii.

" Charismata," personal, 39, 154

Chillingworth, 36

Chiusi, Bishop of, 35; and Pius VI., 261, 267

Christ, divine personality and invocation of, 104 ; not divided, 147 ; not suffering in heaven, 268 seq.

Chrysologus, St. Peter, on Infallibility, 15

Chrysostom, St. John, on the Petrine texts, 3, 7 ; on Papal Supremacy, 47, 48 ; on angel worship, 89; on Intercession, 90, 91 ; on images, 124, 131 ; on Bible reading, 152, 153, 154; false passage quoted by L., 155

Church, of Antioch, 46, 47 ; of Corinth, 14 ; of Constantinople, 71 ; of Gaul, 179- 186; of Ireland, 77; of Jerusalem, 18 ; how mother of all the churches, 47 ; her dying words, 18 J the Jewish, 27 ; of Rome, its praises by the Fathers, 14, 16, 17 ; by L. formerly, 246, 247 ; head of all the churches, 20, 81, passim', ambiguity of the term in L.'s mouth, 243, 250; whether the whole Church, 75 ; seq. ; charged by L., with depending on one, 132

Church Quarterly, its impertinent charg* against Cardinal Newman, 272-280

Clement, St., of Rome, 14, 40, 186

Clement, of Alexandria, on Worship o£ Angels, 89

Cloveshoe, Council of, 79

INDEX.

283

Coleridge, Fr., 108

Collyridians, 105, no

Commandment, the Fiist, 111-113

Communion, with Apostolic See, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 25; necessary, 56-58. See also 81, 83

Communion, under one and two kinds, 138-143

"Compositio," an ecclesiastical fine, 228, 235

Conception, of Christ afc Spir. S.t its signi- ficance, 136. See Immaculate

Concomitance, its denial, a heresy, 142, 143

" Confessionale, " an ecclesiastical dispen- sation, 226, 227, 229

Confessors, and St. Alfonso's Theology, 159 ; physicians and judges, 162 ; prac- tically Probabi lists, ib. Special faculties for, see ' ' Confessionale "

Confirmation, Papal, of a sentence, 13, 19 ; of a Synod, 43 ; of the Fifth Council, 69

Coninck, 114

Conscience, its rights, 172, 173

Consent, of the Fathers, falsely stated by L., 1-9 ; as a rule of interpretation, 135, 266 '

Constance, 31 ; on communion, 141 ; and Huss, 199

Constantinople, its privileges and rank,

" Constitutum" of P. Vigilius, 69 Controversialists, Catholic and Protestant,

^75, 196. 253» 254» 257 Converts, their motives, XL, xn. Copernicanism, 34-36 ; also 260, 261 Cosmas, of Jerusalem, on Mary, 96 Cossart, 72

" Contemporary Review," 48, 75, 170, 257 Council, of Antioch, 58 ; Aries, 6, 77 ; Aquileia, 42 ; Chalcedon, 16, 42, 43, 64, 68, 69, 147, 175, 176 ; Constantinople, 42 ; Ephesus, 15, 63, 147 ; Frankfort, 115 ; Laodicea, 98 ; Lateran, 18 ; Milevis, 50 ; Nicea, 47 ; Rome, 50 j Tarragon, 16 ; Trent, 32, 33 ; on images, misrepresented by L., 122, 123; Sardica, 77 the Va- tican, 13 ; the Third on Mary, 93, 94 ; the Fourth, 42, 43 ; the Fifth, 29, 68 ; on Mary, 94 ; the Sixth, 5, 9 ; in re Hon- orius, 28 seq. ; acts of, 185 ; the Seventh on Intercession, 95 ; on images, 114 seq. ; its cecumenicity, 115, 117 ; the Eighth,

12

Constant, 27, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 69, 182, 272 Creeds, see Papal Prerogative ; the Sir- mian, 27, 28 ; of Pope Pius IV., 185, 266 Creature worship, 86 seq. Croiset, 151 Cultus, of Christ, 104, 105 ; of hi» human

nature, 126; of the Sacred Heart, its ob- ject, 147 ; not new, 148 ; absurd charge of heresy against it, 147, 267, 269, 270 Cultus of AJary, 92-111; its logical ne cessity, 104 ; authority in Scripture, 106, 108; in Fathers, 108-110; its imperfect development in early church accounted for, 104-108; see also 127; alleged ex- cess in, 124 seq. ; L.'s objections from Scripture, 131 Cultus, of Relics, 91

of the Cross, 114, 116, 121, 122 of the Book of Gospels, 116, 117 of saints, 89 ; its end, 128 ; an obli-

gation of reason, 131 ; character of saint worship among Anglicans, 124, 125

Cures, by relics, 91, 92

Cyprian, St., on the Petrine texts, 4 ; on Infallibility, 15 ; on Jurisdiction, 40 ; on Peter's Roman Episcopate, 49 ; whether excommunicated, 58 ; on penance, 218 J mentions our Lady, 196

Cyprianic Interpolations, 188

Cyril, St., of Alexandria, on the Petrine texts, 3, 6, 7 ; on Papal Supremacy, 42, 63 ; on worship of God and saints, 90 ; on Mary, 107, 108 ; on idolatry, 120 ; on images, 124

DAMASUS, P. 21 ; his moral character vin

dicated against L., 244, 245 Debituin, culpae et mortis, 136 De Cusa, Cardinal, 186 Defensive, why Catholics always on the

254 Definition, of faith, condition of, 28 ; bj

Pope alone, 37, 38 " Deipara," 96, 98 Deluzsch, 263 De Maica, 66, 175, 205 Denis, St., the Areopagite, and of Paris, 90, 191

Deposition, of Nestorius, 63 ; of Arnulf, 71 ; of popes, 30 ; of a bishop, a causti inaior, 52 ; of bishops by Apostolic See alone, 43

De Rossi, 113

De Smedt, 192

Development, 83-85, 134. See C. of Mary

, Anglican, 279, 280

Devotion, its true idea and conditions, 126, 127 : see also 105 ; its language, 128 ; 10. particular shrines and images, 118; of Ritualists to Mary, 124, 127 ; not de- stroyed by Indulgences, 221

Dioscorus, 57

Diptychs, 57, 58, note, 69 Dispensation, in marriage, 239.

fessionale" " Diurnut liber," 30

See "Ccn

INDEX.

" Divided" church, in what sense, 75

Divinisation, of creatures by grace, 126

•Divus, Diva (title of Mary), really taken from Scripture and Fathers, 126

Doctor, of the Church, his authority, 159, 160, 169

Doctor, omni exceptione tnaior mistrans- lated by L., 163

Dollinger, Dr., 10, 177

Donation of Constantine, 176, 177, 186

Donatists, 62

Donatus, 183

Doubts, religious, how solved, 44

Dulia, 86, 90, 115, 126

Dungal, 116

Du Pin, 97

EDWARDINE Rite, 198

Election, of Pope, 73

Elizabeth, plotted assassination of, 207, 208

England, and Papal Prerogative, 76-83

Ephrem, St. Syrus, on Mary, 93, 101, 137, 196

Epiphanius, St., on the Petrine texts, 2; on Mary, 93 ; against Collyridians, 105, no ; on images, xai

Error, charge of, in faith, 132 ; in morals, 159

Escobar, 167

Estcourt, Canon, 198

Eucharist, its connection with devotion to the Sacred Heart recognised by Canon Jenkins, 270; as a sacrifice among An- glicans, 273 seq.

Eusebius, of Cesarea, on images, 121

Eusebians, 262

Evagrius, 22, 24

" Exarch," 52

Excommunication, sometimes partial only, 57 ; of a Pope monstrous, 57, 58, 69 ; of Meletius, 59 ; absolution from, 232

Excommunicate persons, their murder, 204 seq.

" Execittores" Papal, in Africa, 61

FABIAN, 49

Fabius, of Antioch, 183

Fabri, 34

Faith, its certainty and integrity, how through the Pope, 20 ', its wounds, how healed, 20, 80 ; its unconditional charac- ter, 132, 133 ; articles of, their growth, 134 ; necessity of, 143, 144 ; whether to be kept with heretics, 198 seq.

False Decretals, 45, 76, 78 ; examined, 177 seq. ; how still used by the Church, 187

Fathers (see Consent), term including the Apostles, 54 ; quoted by L. against cultus < if Saints. 89

Faure, S. J., 35

Felix III., P., 175

Firmilian, St., 58

Fisher, Cardinal, 83

Flacius Illyricus, 218

Flavian, 52

Flemish Editions of the Bible before

Luther, 158 Foundation of the Church, 16, 17, 18, 19,

65, 79

Forbes, John, 145 "Formula," the, of St. Peter's tradition is

enunciated by the Pope, 19 Forgeries, 21 ; alleged Roman, 175 seq Forum intemum, externum, Sacrameo-

tale, conscientiae, 166, 227, 228, 233 Franzelin, Cardinal, 266 Frodoard, monk, 191 Fromond of Louvain, 34 " Full of grace," 98, 100

GALILEO, 33, 34, 35, 36, 260, 261

Gavantus, 192

Gelasius, P., on Papal Supremacy, 43 ;

Sacramentary of, 98 ; on comm. sub.

•uir&que, 141 ; on schismatics, 256 General Councils, their object, 84, 85 ;

L.'s test of their validity, 115 ; infall. of,

132, 133, 178, 179 Gebert, 71 German Editions of Bible before Luther,

158 Gibbings, Taxae, 224, 229 ; Parisian not

Roman Edition, 230 Gibbon, 177 " Glories of Mary, ' 128 Gnostics, 89, 131 Goodwin, 150, 267 Grace, what it is, 126 ; Sacramental, 2131

215

Grassi, S. J., 34 " Gravamina centum," 224 Giaveson, 58 Green, Dr., 228, 237, 280 Gregory, St. Naz., on Petrine texts, 7, 8;

on Mary's intercession, 101, 195, 196 ',

on Bible-reading, 154 Gregory, St. Nyssen, on c. of Saints, 91 ;

on Mary, 101 Gregory, St., the Great, on the Petrine

texts,' 3, s, 8 ; rejects the title of " Uni- versal Bishop, 70 ; and England, 76, 80,

182 ; on Mary, 96, 97 ; on Roman Ar- chives, 181 ; on Satisfaction, 217

Gregory II., P., 28, 30 ; on picture-worship, 95, 97! his marriage Indult, 182; IV^,

183 ; V., 72; VI., 31; VII. invoked by L., 4; IX., 76; XII , 31; XIII. and the massacre of St. Bartholomew, 208 ; and Tax-tables, 232

INDEX.

23,

Grostete, on Papal supremacy, 82 Grotius, 48

Growth of Papal power, 83, 85 Gunpowder Plot, 209

Gury, 143, 144; misquoted by L., 145; misrepresented, 163

HAKPER, S. J., 136

Hearer, must be infallible? answer to L.'s sceptical remark, 36

Hefele, 28, 176, 210

Helena, St., adoring the cross, 121, 122

Heresy, the Monothelite, 18 ; whether in the letters of Honorius, 29, 30 ', in Popes, 30 ; before election, 73 ; its status at the Council of Trent, 202 ; its nature in Middle Ages, 209; its unconcern for truth, 89

Heretical mouth, "shut and fastened "by Rome, 17

Heretics, how convicted, 20, 44, 81, 82

Hergenrother, Cardinal, 5, 205

Hilary, St., on the Petrine texts, 3 ; on supremacy, 41 ; on Mary in judgment, no

Hilary, St., of Aries, and St. Leo, 65

Hilarian fragment, the Sixth, 28

Hincmar, 184

Holiness. See Sanctity

Honorary titles, 45

Honorius, P., 21, 28—30

Hormisdas, formula of, 12

Hurter, S. J., 94, 148, 218, 272

Huss, 199, 200

Hussites, 142

" Hyperdulia," in

IB AS, 69 ; epistle of, 70

Idolatry, charged on Catholics, 118, 122, 123, 124 ; in Scripture, 119

Ignatius, St., on Infallibility, 14

Images, 88, in, 124

Immaculate Conception, 134-138

Incarnation not disregarded in the Ro- mish Church, 143 ; L.'s self-contradic- tion, 146

Indefectibility of the Church, how under- stood by L., 26

Index, Congregation, 33, 34; its decisions not ex cathedra, 35, also 260, 261

Indulgences, principle of, use ancient and modern, 220-223 ', local abuses, 224, 225 ; their connection with dispensation from reserved sin, 226; whether a disadvan- tage to the poor, 222, 223 ; horribly mis- represented, 224

Infallibility, Papal (see also xii., xiii.), 6, 12, 13; proofs from the Fathers from the First to the Twelfth century, 14-20 ; not articulately present in the minds of all

the Fathers, 21 ; the a priori argument for, misunderstood by L., 26; L.'s dis- proofs, 26-33 » belongs to an undoubted Pope, 30, 31 ; is not Inspiration, 32 ; passive, 133 ; Bellarmine's argument, 172

Innocent I., 25, 47, 63, 67 ; XL, and Quietism, 151

Inquisition, Congregation, 33, 34

Intention, in Sacraments generally, 213 seq. ; in matrimony specially, 216, 252. See also xii., xiii.

Intercession of Saints, 90, 91, 95 seq.

Intolerance, Catholic and Protestant, 2oa seq.

Invocation, of Angels, 89 ; of Saints, 90, 91 ; of Christ in the New Testament and early Church, 104 J mediate, 129

Irenaeus, St., on Infallibility, 14 ; on Su- premacy, 40 ; on Angel worship, 89 ; on Mary, 93, 101, 102 ; against image wor- ship, 89 ; onr danger of Bible reading, 153, 154

Irregularity, 73, 165

Isidore, St., Hisp., on Supremacy, 44

Isidore, of Pelusium, on Bible reading, 155, 156

Isidore, Mercator, 192

Italian Editions of Bible before Luther, 158

Ivo, on Communion sub utr&que, 141, 205

JACQUES Clement, 209 Jansenists, 35, 261 Jansenius, 32 Janssen, 158

Jerome, St., on the Petrine texts, 2 ; on I Infallibility, 21 ; never changed his view,

22-25 ; see also, 38 ; on intercession, 90 ;

on worship of relics, 91 ; on Mary, 93,

j IO°

I Jesuits, cruelly accused by L., 146 ; also

I 202 Jews, their worship, 113 , John, St., pillar of all the churches, 47; ! his relation to St. Peter, 48 I John, St., Damascene, on worship of Saints,

Jonas, of Orleans, 116 Jovinian, 22

"Judicia. dogmatica" 35, 261 Judicium elucidationis, 65 Julian, St., 190 Julius, P., 43, 262

Jurisdiction, definition and division of, 38 ; source of, 50 ; the Pope's, in England, 76 Justin, St., on Mary, 93

286

INDEX.

Justina, St., 101, 196

fustiniani, St. Laurence, confused with

Benedict, S.J., 267, 268 Juvenal, of Jerus., 47

'CALISCH, 263 Keil, 263

Keys, of the Kingdom of Heaven, 15 ', of aith, 20 ; how far common to all the Apostles, 47 tCuinoel, 108

LABBB, passim

I^actantius quoted against image worship,

120

Laemmer, on the Roman Martyrology, 192, 194

La Marca, 56, 141

Lambertini, Cardinal, 268, 269

Lanfranc, on Papal Supremacy, 80

Lansperg, on the Sacred Heart, 149

Latria, 86, 90, 126. See also 114, 115

Latrocinium, of Ephesus, 52

Lecky, 203, 211

f^eo, St., on the Petrine texts, 2, § ; on Papal Supremacy, 43 ; on restoration to communion, 57 ; and Chalcedon, 64 ; and Hilary, 65 ; degraded by L., 68, 175 ; lost letters of, 185

Leo II., 29, 30, 79 ; IX., on Infallibility, 20; XII., on Protestant Bibles, 154

Liber diurnus, 30 ; Pontificalis, 192

Liberius, P., 27, 181 ; his character, 244

Licenses, to commit sin, a false charge, 224 seq.

Lingard, 77, 78, 116

" Litterae formatae" 41

Ultledale, Dr., his retractations without Acknowledgment, 144, 145, 156, 168, 169, 238, 242 ; his ignorance of theology and theological language, 27, 55, 142, 145 ; his method of controversy, 89, 112, 124 ; 146, 147, 168, 224, 243, 250, 258 ; his mis- quotations, 163, 164, 167, 174, 259 ; his misrepresentations, 172, 220, 224, 271 ; his mis-statements, 9, 63, 64, 69, 159, 168, 169, 196, 224, 271 ; his mistransla- tions, 156, 163, 167, 220, 271

Llorente, 210

London, churches of, in honour of Mary,

Lucca, decrees of, against Protestant refu- gees, 206 Luther, 32, 33, 157

Mabillon, 181 _

Macao, Inquisition of, 146

Madonna and Child, 103, 113 ; of St. Luke,

118 Vlalou, 152

Margaret Mary, Alacoque, 150

Marcellinus, P., 193

Marriage, a declaration of nullity, 216 ; dispensation, 239

Martyrology, Roman. See Baronius

Mary, according- to the Fathers t tlie second Eve, who wrought the world's salvation, 93 ; staff of orthodoxy, 94 ; Domino. Angelorum, above Angels and Saints, nearest to God, 95, 96, 97, 99 ; Mediatrix and ladder of God, 95, 98, 196 ; Champion of Christians, all hope in her, whose intercession suffers no refusal, 96 ; to be venerated by all, 94, 96 ; her superior power of working miracles, 98 ; in Scripture, not rebuked, 106, 107 ; sin- less, 108, 109; as liOrante" 113, 195

Mass, application of, 223 ; honorarium, 239 ; traffic, charge of L. , 239

Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 202, 208

Massacres by Protestants, 203

Maximus, St., on Infallibility, 16 ; on Mary, 93, 94

Mayence, Council of, 205

Melchiades, P., 183, 186

Meletius and the Holy See, 59

Memmius, St., 190, 191

Members of the Church, who? 75 seq,

Mennas, 58

Metropolitans, of Cesarea, 47 ; of Cyprus, 115 ; of England, 78, 79

Mill, on Theophanies, 265

Milman, 84, 178

Milner misrepresented, 221

Miracles wrought through invocation of Saints and by relics, 91, 92. See also 98, 107

Minucius Felix, his protest against wor- ship of crosses, 120

Missions, Catholic and Schismatic, 250, 251

Molinos, 151

Morinus, 57, 191, 226

Muratori, 98

NAG'S Head fable, 198

Natalis, Alexander, 44, 47, 51, 57, 58, 66, 1 1 6, 120, 200, 202

Neander, 178, 188

Necessitas, praecepti et medii, 139 ; not understood by L., 143 ; admitted by An- glican Divines, 145

Nestorianism, 70

Mestorius, 63

Newman, Cardinal, 26, 85, 93, 101, 103. 104, 107, 109, 131, 238, 255 ; L.'s wan- ton charge against him, 194, 195; vin- dicated against the Church-Quarterly, 273-279

Nicolas I., 20; defamed by L., 176, 177; his true character, 179, 186

INDEX.

287

Nilles, 269 Nil us, on Mary, 93 Norfolk, Duke of, 207 Noris, Cardinal, 69 Northcote and Brownlow, 91, 113, 195 Notes of the Church ; what a Note is, 253 ; not wanting in the Roman Church, 240

Nothelm of Canterbury, 182 Nuremberg, Assembly of, 225

OBEDIENCE, of Mary, 102; of God to man, 128; to the Pope in matters doubtful, 172

Obscurity of the Vatican definition al- leged, 36

" Operations" in Christ, 29 seg.

Optatus of Milevis, 41

" Orante," 113, 195

Origen, on the Petrine texts, 2 ; on Angel- worship, 89; quoted against image- worship, 120, 131 ; on Bible-reading, 154

Original sin, 136

Osservatore Romano, 75

PAGI, 28, 31

Paley, on the First Commandment, 112

Pallium, 72

Papacy, no human institution, 39, 45, 73 ; in the tenth century, 71 J contested, 31

Papal, Prerogative and the Creeds, n, 12 ; Infallibility and the Fathers, 12 seg. Prerogative and Conciliar Canons, 49 seg. ; Prerogative and England, 76 ; proved from catena of English authori- ties, 79

Papebroch, 65

Paschasius, 183

Patriarchate, of the Pope, 39, 46, 54 ; of Antioch, 47

Paul, St., 9, 10, 87

Paul IV., 73

Paulinus, of Antioch, 59 ; of Nola on images, 121; on adoration of the cross, 122, 131

Pearson, 48

Pelagius, 136, 189

Pelagius, P. II., 5, 188; on schismatics, 256

Penance. See Satisfaction

Penitentiary, congregation. See Taxae

Petavius, 28

Peter, St., his privilege and titles, 1-9; never degraded from Apostolic office, 8 ; not restricted, 9, 10 ; his privilege accord- ing to L., 10, ii ; his praises in the Church of Ephesus and Chalcedon, 15, 16 ; his connection with Rome, 48 ; his so-called letter, 177

Peter, of Antioch, 43 ; of Celle, 160; Chry-

sologus, on Mary, 100; Damiun, 8, 9; Lombard, on the knowledge Saints have of our prayers, 131, 132

Philip, the Legate, 15, 42

Photius, 51, 57

Pictures. See Images

Pisa, 31

Pistoja, 35

Pius IV., i, 135 ; and decrees of Lucca, 206 ; erects Dataria, 235

Pius V., his Breviary, 192 ; charged falsely with plotting against the life of Eliza- beth, 207 ; suppresses Penitentiary taxes, 235

Pius VI., 34, 35

Pius IX., calumniously called afree-mason,

Pope, the centre of a twofold unity in the Church, 12, 13; apostolic head, 19; suc- cessor of St. Peter, 10, 19, 20, 72, 184 ', Prince of the whole Church, 43 ; vicar ol God, 44 ; and Canon law, 55 ; un-poping himself, 48, 75 ; if doubtful, 30, 31

Popes, 32 ; quoting Sardican Canons, 175 J have no share in the issue of the false Decretals, 179 ; their moral character and sanctity maintained against L., 244

Prayers, of saints, 90 ; to saints, 91, 94-96

Price list, falsely supposed for sins, 229 ; calumny in regard to, 237; L.'s shift, 238

Primacy. See Papal Prerogative

Private judgment, 172, 173

Privilegiutn, personate, reale, 55

Privilege, meaning of, 50

Probabilisrn, 159 ; wrongly described by L., 160,' itsjorigin and true notion, 162

Proclus, St., on Mary, 99, 100

Promoter fidei, office of, 269

Protestant, authorities for Peter in Rome, 48 ; on the necessity of Papal power, 84 ; on the false Decretals, 178 ; on the Cy- prianic testimonies as to the Papacy, 188, 189 ; on Protestant intolerance, 203, 208, 209 ; on satisfaction, 218

Purgatory, L.'s strange objections, 222

Pusey, Dr., 212, 263, 273 seg

QUALITY and quantity in devotion, 125 Quesnel, 65 Quietism, 151

RAVAILLAC, 209

Reformers, 32 ; and Pseudo-decretals, 186 ;

those of England characterised by L.,

209, 210, 255 Relative latria, 87 Relics. See Cultus Resistance to Pope, 46 ; but cf. 57. 59 Revelation, its interpreter, 26, 27

288

INDEX-

Ricci, 261. Ridolfi, 207

Kigali! us, 239 Rinaldus, 225 Ritualists, and comm. sub utr&que, 142 ;

and casuistry, 101 ; and absolution, 219 ;

their Eucharistic Manuals, 277 * Roma locuta est" See St. Augustine " Roma Sotteranea," 91, 113, 195 Russia, conversion of, 251

SACRAMENTAL system, 73

Sacraments, uncertainty in, 213 seq

Sanctity in the Church of Rome, 247, 248

Satisfaction, 217 seq.

Schism guarded against by Peter's privi- lege, 22, 38.

Schismatics, who are, 41, 80, 82, 256

Schneeman, S.J., 40

Self-defence, 167, 17^1, 211

Seminaries, studies in, 158

Simon Stylites, devotion to in Rome, 124

Simony, 73, 170, 235

Smcius, P., 42

Sirlet, Cardinal, 191, 192

Sixtus V., 33, 157

Socrates, 178, 263

Sozomen, on Papal supremacy, 43, 179, 263

Statistics of L. regarding Catholic prison- ers, unfair, 242, 243

Stephen, of Dora, on Infallibility, 18

Stephen III. and St. Peter's letter, 177

Stigmata, borne by saints in heaven, 91

Suarez on image-worship, 114

Succession in the Roman See, 72 ; uninter- rupted, 252

Successors of Peter, 15, 20, 21, 25, 80

Sylvester, St., 176, 181, 182

Sylvius, 226

TABLET, 25, 144, 168

Taxae, Tax-tables, 224-238

Tertullian, 4, n, 40, 49, 93, 108, 265

Theodoret, 59, 69, 92, 119, 124

Theophanies, 87, 88, 263-265

Thomas, St., of Canterbury, on Papal Supremacy, 81, 82

Thomas, St., Aquinas, 86 ; doctrine dis- torted by L., 114; on Immaculate Con- ception, 135, 138 ; on Communion sub utrdque, 141

Thomassin, 97, 140, 142

" Three Chapters," 29, 68

Tillemont, 24, 27, 60, 65, 243

Title, of Son of God, 51 ; of Universal

Bishops, 70, 78 ; of servus servonan

Dei, 71

Titles, honorary, 45, 46 Titles of Mary, 93 seq. Toleration in principle and fact, 211, 213 Tostatus, 9

Tournon, Cardinal, 146 Trinity, belief in, 143-145 Truilo, council in, 51 Turrecremata, 30

UNCERTAINTY. See Faith and Sacrament Unity of the Church, 12 ; how preserved,

32, 40, 4xk 188 : possible and actual in the

Roman Cfcurui, 241, 242 Untrustworthiness, charge of, 175 Unfaithfulness, charge of, 195, 198. See

also St. Alfcnso, Cardinal Newman,

Controversialists

Urban II., 204; IV., 190 ; VIII., 159 Ursicinus, Antipope, 245

VALLARSI, 22, 24

Vasquez, 114, 135

Vatican. See Council and Definition

Vercellone, 157

Vicar, of Christ's love (Peter), 7 ; of God,

44 ; Popes, Vicars of Peter, 16, 80, 81 Vicariate, its highest characteristic, 8 Victor, St., 57 Vigilantius, 91

Vigilius, P., 29, 58, 68; of Aries, 76 Vincent, St., of Lerins, 83, 133; of Paul,

247, 248 Vitalian, P., 78 " Voto, in" 139 Vulgate, 33

WARD, Dr., 107

Wasa, Gustav, 203

Wicliffites, 142

Wilfrid, St., 79

Wilhelm, Canonist, 187

Wills, in Chri>t, two morally one, 99

Wiseman, Cardinal, false charge against,

196, 197 ; misrepresented, 221 Wordsworth, 95 Worship. See Cultus, Latria, and Dulia

YORK, raised to metropolitan rank by Pope Leo II., 79

ZACHARIA, S. J., 176 Zachary, P., 79, 182 Zephyrinus, P., 40 Zosimus, P., 60, 175, 189, £73

Date Due

12208