Skip to main content

Full text of "Catholic controversy : a reply to Dr. Littledale's Plain reasons"

See other formats





H. I. D. RYDER, 


Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis, lingua dolosa. 





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. 


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

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


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. 


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






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 



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 




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 



(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 

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 


Uncertainty and Unsoundness in Morals . . . . 159 

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

2. Cardinal Bellarmine .171 

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


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 




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 

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 


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 


INDEX ... 281 



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. 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


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- 


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 


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. 




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. 



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 

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. 


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. 

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 


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 



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 


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. 


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 


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

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 


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 


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 


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 


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- 


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, 

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 : 


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. 


" 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. Irenaeus 1 
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. 

" 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). 


" 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. 


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). 



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 



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). 

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 


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. 

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 


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. 


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 


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 bte 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- 


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 : 


" 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. 


7. Dr. Littledale's Disproofs of Papal 

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 


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, 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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- 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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- 


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). 


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 

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. 



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)- 


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). 

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). 



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. 

" 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 


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. 


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, 

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. 


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 

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 


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, 


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 


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, 


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- 



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 


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 

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 

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 


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. 


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 


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- 


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 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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 


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. 


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 

"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 


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 


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 

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. 


et me'me metropolitaine comme le soutient M. de Marca." 
Tillemont indeed shrinks from the natural conclusion 
urged by the Ballerini (Observ. in i m part m Dissert 11 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 


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). 


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- 


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 


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'* 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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- 


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. 


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. 


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 

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." 


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, 


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). 

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 



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- 


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." 


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. 


'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" 



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- 


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 


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. 


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 


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* 


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. 


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 


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, 


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 

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


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." 


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. 


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. 



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

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 


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 


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. 


\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, 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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- 



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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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). 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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. 


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- 


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. 


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- 


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." 


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 


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 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 


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 


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 


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 


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 


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- 


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 



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 


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- 
$'io{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. 


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, 

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- 


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 


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 

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 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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, 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


"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- 


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." 


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, 

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



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 


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* 


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, 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 Jsus," 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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 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 


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- 

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 


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 

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


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 

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 


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. 


$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 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 


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, 


'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 


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 

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 

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 



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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 


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 


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 

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; 


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." 


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 


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." 


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 


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. 


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 


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 


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 


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. 



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 

10. Cardinal Newman. 

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


(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. " 


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 


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 


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 



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 


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 


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 

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 


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, 


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 


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 


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- 

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


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 


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 ; 


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 


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) 


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 


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 


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 


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- 

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 


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. 


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 
^ f ord 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. 


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- 


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." 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 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 


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 


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. 


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 3 m qu. xxv. art. 2. 

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


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. 


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 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- 

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 


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 


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, 


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 


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 


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, 


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 


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 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. 


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 



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 

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. 


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 


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 



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 


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 


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 ; 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 


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 


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 


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 

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 


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- 


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. 


(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 


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- 


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, 


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.* 


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. 


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; 


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. 


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 


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 



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 


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." 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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." 


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. 


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 


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. 


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." 


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 


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 


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 


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 

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." 


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 ? 


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 


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 


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 


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.) 


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 


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 

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, 


" 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. 


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 


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. 


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, 

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 

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, 

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 



Societies heretical in principle, 154 
Biblical studies in the Catholic C! 


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, 
J 35> I 37 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 

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, 

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- 

" 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, 

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, 

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 



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, 

"Compositio," an ecclesiastical fine, 228, 

Conception, of Christ afc Spir. S. t its signi- 
ficance, 136. See Immaculate 

Concomitance, its denial, a heresy, 142, 

" 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. 2 53 2 54 257 
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, 


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 

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. 

" Diurnut liber," 30 

See "Ccn 


" 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, 

England, and Papal Prerogative, 76-83 

Ephrem, St. Syrus, on Mary, 93, 101, 137, 

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, 

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 


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, 

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 


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 



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, 

Hilary, St., of Aries, and St. Leo, 65 

Hilarian fragment, the Sixth, 28 

Hincmar, 184 

Holiness. See Sanctity 

Honorary titles, 45 

Honorius, P., 21, 2830 

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 

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, 

Isidore, Mercator, 192 

Italian Editions of Bible before Luther, 

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 



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, 


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, 

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 li Orante" 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, 

Nicolas I., 20; defamed by L., 176, 177; 
his true character, 179, 186 


28 7 

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, 

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, 

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, 
2 35 

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, 

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 


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 



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, 

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, 4x k 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, 


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