Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic teaching considered

!LO

!CT)

■CD

00

MI^L

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2008 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/certaindifficult02newmuoft

CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES

FELT BY

ANGLICANS IN CATHOLIC TEACHING

CONSIDERED.

Longmans^ Pocket Library

Fcap. Svo. Gilt top.

WORKS BY CARDINAL NEWMAN

Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

3s. 6d. net in leather.

2S. 6d. net in cloth ;

The Church of the Fathers. Reprinted from
" Historical Sketches ". Vol. 2.
28. net in cloth; 3s. net in leather.

University Teaching. Being the First Part of
" The Idea of a University Defined and Illus-
trated ". 2S. net in cloth ; 3s. net in leather.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.,
39 Paternoster Row, London, E.G.,

New York, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras.

CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES

FELT BY ANGLICANS

IN CATHOLIC TEACHING

CONSIDERED:

In a Letter addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D.,

on occasion of his Eirenicon tf/ 1864 ;

And in a Letter addressed to the Duke of Norfolk, on

occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation of iZ'jd^

JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN
VOL. II.

NEW IMPRESSION

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON

FOURTH AVENUE & 30tii STREET, NEW YORK

BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS

I914

615138

CONIENTS.

1. Introductory Remarks . . . . .

2. Various Statements introduced into tiii!:

Eirenicon

3. The Belief op Catholics concerning the

Blessed Virgin, as distinct from their
Devotion to her

4. Belief of Catholics concern ino the Blessed

Virgin, as coloured by their Devotion to
HER .....

5. Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic Ex

CESSES IN Devotion to the Blessed Virgin

Note I

Note II

Note III.
Note IV..
Note V. .

PACE
1.

2t)

77

89
119
125
128
153
165

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE REV. E. B. PUSEY. D.D.,

ON OCCASION OF HIS EIRENICON.

A LETTEE,

due.

VrO one who desires the union of Christendom after
its many and long-standing divisions, can have
any other feeling than joy, my dear Pusey, at finding
from your recent Volume, that you see your way to
make definite proposals to us for effecting that great
object, and are able to lay down the basis and condi-
tions on which you could co-operate in advancing it.
It is not necessary that we should concur in the details
of your scheme, or in the principles which it involves,
in order to welcome the important fact, that, with your
personal knowledge of the Anglican body, and your
experience of its composition and tendencies, you con-
sider the time to be come when you and your friends
may, without imprudence, turn your minds to the con-
templation of such an enterprise. Even were you an
individual member of that Church, a watchman upon a
high tower in a metropolis of religious opinion, we
should naturally listen with interest to what you had to
report of the state of the sky and the progress of the

2 Introductory Remarks.

night, what stars were mounting up or what clouds
gathering, — what were the prospects of the three great
parties which Anglicanism contains within it, and what
was just now the action upon them respectively of the
politics and science of the time. You do not go into
these matters ; but the step you have taken is evidently
the measure and the issue of the view which you have
formed of them all.

However, you are not a mere individual ; from early
youth you have devoted yourself to the Established
Church, and, after between forty and fifty years of un-
remitting labour in its service, your roots and your
branches stretch out through every portion of its large
territory. You, more than any one else alive, have been
the present and untiring agent by whom a great work
has been efiected in it; and, far more than is usual,
you have received in your lifetime, as well as merited,
the confidence of your brethren. You cannot speak
merely for yourself ; your antecedents, your existing
influence, are a pledge to us, that what you may deter-
mine will be the determination of a multitude. Num-
bers, too, for whom you cannot properly be said to
speak, will be moved by your authority or your argu-
ments ; and, numbers, again, who are of a school more
recent than your own, and who are only not your
followers because they have outstripped you in their
free speeches and demonstrative acts in our behalf,
will, for the occasion, accept you as their spokesman.
There is no one anywhere, — among ourselves, in your
own body, or, I suppose, in the Greek Church, — who
can affect so large a circle of men, so virtuous, so able.

Introductory Remarks. 3

so learned, so zealous, as come, more or less, under
your influence ; and I cannot pay them a greater com-
pliment than to tell them they ought all to be Catholics,
nor do them a more afiectionate service than to pray
that they may one day become such. Nor can I address
myself to an act more pleasing, as I trust, to the Divine
Lord of the Church, or more loyal and dutiful to His
Vicar on earth, than to attempt, however feebly, to
promote so great a consummation.

I know the joy it would give those conscientious men,
of whom I am speaking, to be one with ourselves. I
know how their hearts spring up with a spontaneous
transport at the very thought of union ; and what
yearning is theirs after that great privilege, which they
have not, communion with the see of Peter, and its
present, past, and future. I conjecture it by what I
used to feel myself, while yet in the Anglican Church.
1 recollect well what an outcast I seemed to myself,
when I took down from the shelves of my library the
volumes of St. Athanasius or St. Basil, and set myself
to study them ; and how, on the contrary, when at
length I was brought into Catholic communion, I
kissed th ra with delight, with a feeling that in them I
had more than all that I had lost ; and, as though I were
directly addressing the glorious saints, who bequeathed
them to the Church, how I said to the inanimate pages,
" You are now mine, and I am now yours, beyond any
mistake." Such, I conceive, would be the joy of the
persons I speak of, if they could wake up one morning,
and find themselves rightfully possessed of Catholic
traditions and hopes, without violence to their own

B 2

4 J N troductory Remarks.

tiense of duty ; and, certainly, I am the last man to
say that such violence is in any case lawful, that the
claims of conscience are not paramount, or that any one
may overleap what he deliberately holds to be God's
command, in order to make his path easier for him or
his heart lighter.

I am the last man to quarrel with them for this jealous
deference to the voice of their conscience, whatever be the
judgment that others may form of them in consequence,
for this reason, because their present circumstances have
once, as you know, been my own. You recollect well
what hard things were said against us twenty-five years
ago, which we knew in our hearts we did not deserve.
Accordingly, I am now in the position of the fugitive
Queen in the well-known passage ; who, " non ignara
mali " herself, had learned to sympathize with those who
were the inheritors of her past wanderings. There were
Priests, good men, whose zeal outstripped their know-
ledge, and who in consequence spoke confidently, when
it would have been wiser in them to have suspended
their adverse judgment of those whom, in no long time,
they had to welcome as brethren in communion. We
at that time were in worse plight than your friends are
now, for our opponents put their very hardest thoughts
of us into print. One of them wrote thus in a Letter
addressed to one of the Catholic Bishops : —

"That this Oxford crisis is a real progress to
Catholicism, I have all along considered a perfect
delusion. . I look upon Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, and
their associates, as wily and crafty, though unskilful
guides. . The embrace of Mr. Newman is the kiss

Introductory Remarks. 5

that would betray us. . But, — what is the most
striking feature in the rancorous malignity of these
men, — their calumnies are often lavished upon us, when
we should be led to think that the subject-matter of
their treatises closed every avenue against their vitupe-
ration. The three last volumes [of the Tracts] have
opened my eyes to the craftiness and the cunning, as
well as the malice, of the members of the Oxford
Convention. . If the Puseyites are to be the new
Apostles of Great Britain, my hopes for my country
are lowering and gloomy. . I would never have con-
sented to enter the lists against this strange confrater-
nity . . if I did not feel that my own Prelate was
opposed to the guile and treachery of these men. .
I impeach Dr. Pusey and his friends of a deadlj^ hatred
of our religion. . What, my lord, would the Holy See
think of the works of these Puseyites ? . . ."
Another priest, himself a convert, wrote : —
" As we approach towards Catholicity, our love and
respect increases, and our violence dies away ; but the
bulk of these men become more rabid as they become
like Rome, — a plain proof of their designs. . I do
not believe that they are any nearer the portals of the
Catholic Church than the most prejudiced Methodist
and Evangelical preacher. . Such, Rev. Sir, is an out-
line of my views on the Oxford movement."

I do not say that such a view of us was unnatural ;
and, for myself, I readily confess, that I had at one time
used about the Church such language, that I had no claim
on Catholics for any mercy. But, after all, and in fact,
they were wrong in their anticipations, — nor did their

6 Introductory Remarks.

brother Catholics agree with them at the time. Espe-
cially Dr. Wiseman (Co-ad jutor Bishop as he was then)
took a larger and more generous view of us, nor did
the Holy See interfere against us, though the writer of
one of these passages invoked its judgment. The event
showed that the more cautious line of conduct was the
more prudent ; and one of the Bishops, who had taken
part against us, with a supererogation of charity, sent
me on his deathbed an expression of his sorrow for
having in past years mistrusted me. A faulty con-
science, faithfully obeyed, through God's mercy, had
in the long-run brought me right.

Fully, then, do I recognize the rights of conscience
in this matter. I find no fault with your stating, as
clearly and completely as you can, the diflSculties which
stand in the way of your joining us. I cannot wonder
that you begin with stipulating conditions of union,
though I do not concur in them myself, and think that
in the event you yourself would be content to let them
drop. Such representations as yours are necessary to
open the subject in debate; they ascertain how the land
lies, and serve to clear the ground. Thus I begin : — but
after allowing as much as this, I am obliged in honesty
to add what I fear, my dear Pusey, will pain you.
Yet I am confident, my very dear friend, that at least
you will not be angry with me if I say, what I must
say if I say anything at all, viz., that there is much,
both in the matter and in the manner of your Volume,
calculated to wound those who love you well, but love
truth more. So it is; with the best motives and
kindest intentions, — " Csedimur, et totidem plagis con-

Introductory Remarks. 7

sumimus hostem." We give you a sharp cut, and you
return it. You complain of our being " dry, hard and
unsympathizing ; " and we answer that you are unfair
and irritating. But we at least have not professed to
be composing an Irenicon, when we were treating you
as foes. There was one of old time who wreathed his
sword in myrtle; excuse me — you discharge your olive-
branch as if from a catapult.

Do not think I am not serious ; if I spoke as seri-
ously as I feel, I should seem to speak harshly. Who
will venture to assert, that the hundred pages which you
have devoted to the subject of the Blessed Virgin give
other than a one-sided view of our teaching about her,
little suited to win us ? This may be a salutary casti-
gation of us, if any of us have fairly provoked it ; but
it is not making the best of matters ; it is not smooth-
ing the way for an understanding or a compromise.
Your representation of what we hold, leads a writer in
the most moderate and liberal Anglican newspaper of
the day, the Guardian, to turn away from us, shocked
and dismayed. " It is language," says your reviewer,
" which, after having often heard it, we still can only
hear with horror. We had rather not quote any of it,
or of the comments upon it." What could an Exeter Hall
orator, what could a Scotch commentator on the Apoca-
lypse, do more for his own side of the controversy in the
picture he drew of us ? You may be sure that charges
which create horror on one side, will be repelled by in-
dignation on the other; and these are not the most
favourable dispositions of mind for a peace conference.
I had been accustomed to suppose, that you, who in

8 Introductory Remarks.

times past were ever less declamatory in controversy
than myself, now that years had gone on, and circum-
stances changed, had come to look on our old warfare
against Rome as cruel and inexpedient. Indeed, I
know that it was a chief objection urged only last year
against the scheme then in agitation of introducing the
Oratory into Oxford, that such an undertaking on my
part would be a signal for the rekindling of that fierce
style of polemics which is now long out of date. I had
fancied you shared in that opinion ; but now, as if to
show how imperative you deem the renewal of that old
violence, you actually bring to life one of my own strong
sayings in 1841, which had long been in the grave,
that " the Roman Church comes as near to idolatry as
can be supposed in a Church, of which it is said, ' Tlie
idols He shall utterly abolish.' ''— P, 111.

Various Statements in the Eirenicon.

§ 2. — Remarks on various statements introduced into the
Eirenicon.

I KNOW, indeed, and feel deeply, that your frequent
references, in your Volume, to what I have lately or
formerly written, are caused by your strong desire to be
still one with me as far as you can, and by that true af-
fection, which takes pleasure in dwelling on such sayings
of mine as you can still accept with the full approbation
of your judgment. I trust I am not ungrateful or irre-
sponsive to you in this respect; but other considerations
have an imperative claim to be taken into account.
Pleasant as it is to agree with you, I am bound to explain
myself in cases in which I have changed my mind, or
have given a wrong impression of my meaning, or have
been wrongly reported ; and, while I trust that I have
higher than mere personal motives for addressing you in
print, yet it will serve to introduce my main subject,
and give me an opportunity for remarks which bear
upon it indirectly, if I dwell for a page or two on such
matters contained in your Volume as concern myself.

1. The mistake which I have principally in view is
the belief which is widely spread, that I have publicly
spoken of the Anglican Church as " the great bulwark
against infidelity in this land." In a pamphlet of
yours a year old, you spoke of " a very earnest body
of Roman Catholics/' who " rejoice in all the workings

lo Various incidental Statements

of God the Holy Ghost in the Church of England
(whatever they think of her), and are saddened by
what weakens her who is, in God*s hands, the great
bulwark against infidelity in this land/' The conclud-
ing words you were thought to quote from my Apologia.
In consequence. Dr. Manning, now our Archbishop,
replied to you, asserting, as you say, "the contradic-
tory of that statement." In that counter-assertion.
he was at the time generally considered (rightly or
wrongly as it may be), though writing to you, to be
reall}^ glancing at my Apologia, and correcting it,
without introducing my name, where he thought it
needed correction. Further, in the Volume, which you
have now published, you recur to the phrase ; and you
speak of its author in terms which, did I not know
your partial kindness for me, would hinder me from
identifying him with myself. You say, " The saying
was not mine, but that of one of the deepest thinkers and
observers in the Roman Communion,*' p. 7. A friend
has suggested to me that perhaps you mean De Maistre;
and, from an anonymous letter which I have received
from Dublin, I find it is certain that the very words
in question were once used by Archbishop Murray;
however, you speak of the author of them as if now
alive. At length, a reviewer of your Volume in the
" Weekly Register,'* distinctly attributes them to me
by name, and gives me the first opportunity I have had
of disowning them ; and this I now do. What, at some
time or other, I may have said in conversation or in
private letter, of course I cannot tell; but I have
never, I am sure, used the word "bulwark" of the

in the Eirenicon, 1 1

Anglican Church deliberately, or speaking of it in its
religious aspect, nor, as I think, at all.^ What I said
in my Apologia was this : — that that Church was " a
serviceable breakwater against errors more fundamental
than its own." A bulwark is an integral part of the
thing it defends; whereas the word "breakwater"
implies such a protection of the Catholic truth, as is, in
its nature, accidental and de facto, — and again, such a
protection as does not utterly exclude error, but detracts
from its volume and force. " Serviceable," too, implies
a something es.*^^ernal to the thing served. Again, in
saying that the Anglican Church is a defence against
" errors more fundamental than its own," I imply that
it has errors, and those fundamental.

2. There is another passage of your book, at p. 337,
which it may be right to observe upon. You have
made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as
witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole
Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your
sense of the words. Catholics contradicted you here.
And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as con-
tributing passages to your list ; but, after all, neither
do you, nor do I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine
which Eome denies. Those Notes also make frequent
reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith
ever so certainly contained in Scripture), still is neces-
sary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is
contained there ; vid. pp. 283. 341 ' ; and this tradition,

* In the former of these volumes, p. 1, speaking of " Institutions "
(i.e. "the Church and Universities of the nation "), I call them " the
only political bulwarks " remaining of the " dogmatic principle."

» Oxford Edition.

1 2 I/Carious incidenial Statements

I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in
question. In consequence, you allow that there is a
two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition ; and this is all
that Catholics say. How, then, do Anglicans differ
from Rome here ? I believe the difference is merely
one of words i and I shall be doing, so far, the work
of an Irenicon, if I make clear what this verbal differ-
ence is. / Catholics and Anglicans (I do not say Pro-
testants), attach different meanings to the word
** proof," in the controversy as to whether the whole
faith is, or is not, contained in Scripture. We mean
that not every article of faith is so contained there, that
it may thence be logically proved, independently of the
teaching and authority of the Tradition ; but Anglicans
mean that every article of faith is so contained there,
that it may thence be proved, provided there be added
the illustrations and compensations supplied by the
Tradition. And it is in this latter sense that the
Fathers also speak in the passages which you quote
from them. I am sure at least that St. Athanasius
frequently adduces passages in proof of points in con-
troversy, which no one would see to be proofs, unless
Apostolical Tradition were taken into account, first as
suggesting, then as authoritatively ruling their meaning.
Thus you do not say, that the whole revelation is in
Scripture in such sense that pure unaided logic can draw
it from the sacred text ; nor do we say, that it is not
in Scripture, in an improper sense, in the sense that the
Tradition of the Church is able to recognize and deter-
mme it there. You do not profess to dispense with
Tradition; nor do we forbid the idea of probable,

in the Eirenicon, 1 3

secondary, symbolical, connotative, senses of Scripture,
over and above those which properly belong to the
wording and context/ I hope you will agree with me
in this.

3. Nor is it only in isolated passages that you give
me a place in your Volume. A considerable portion of
it is written with a reference to two publications of
mine, one of which you name and defend, the other you
implicitly protest against ; Tract 90, and the Essay on
Doctrinal Development. As to Tract 90, you have
from the first, as all the world knows, boldly stood up
for it, in spite of the obloquy which it brought upon you,
and have done me a great service. You are now repub-
lishing it with my cordial concurrence ; but I take this
opportunity of noticing, lest there should be any mistake
on the part of the public, that you do so with a difiierent
object from that which I had when I wrote it. Its
original purpose was simply that of justifying myself
and others in subscribing to the Thirty-nine Articles,
while professing many tenets which had popularly
been considered distinctive of the Roman faith. I con-
sidered that my interpretation of the Articles, as I gave
it in that Tract, would stand, provided the parties im-
posing them allowed it ; otherwise, I thought it could
not stand; and, when in the event the Bishops and
public opinion did not allow it, I gave up my Living,
as having no right to retain it. My feeling about the
interpretation is expressed in a passage in " Loss and
Gain," which runs thus : —

" ' Is it,' asked Reding, ' a received view ? ' * No
view is received,' said the other ; ' the Articles them-

14 Various incidental Statements

selves are received, but there is no authoritative inter-
pretation of them at all/ * Well/ said Reding, * is it a
tolerated view ? * * It certainly has been strongly
opposed,* answered Bateman ; * but it has never been
condemned.* * That is no answer,' said Charles.
' Does any one Bishop hold it ? Did any one Bishop ever
hold it ? Has it ever been formally admitted as tenable
by any one Bishop ? Is it a view got up to meet existing
difficulties, or has it an historical existence ? ' Bateman
could give only one answer to these questions, as they
were successively put to him. * I thought so,' said
Charles ; ' the view is specious certainly. I don't see
why it might not have answered, had it been tolerably
aanctioned ; but you have no sanction to show me. As
it stands, it is a mere theory struck out by individuals.
Our Church might have adopted this mode of inter-
preting the Articles ; but, from what you tell me, it
certainly has not done so.' " — Ch. 15.

However, the Tract did not carry its object and con-
ditions on its face, and necessarily lay open to interpre-
tations very far from the true one. Dr. Wiseman (as
he then was), in particular, with the keen apprehension
which was his characteristic, at once saw in it a basis of
accommodation between Anglicanism and Rome. He
suggested broadly that the decrees of the Council of
Trent should be made the rule of interpretation for the
Thirty-nine Articles, a proceeding, of which Sancta
Clara, I think, had set the example ; and as you have
observed, published a letter to Lord Shrewsbury on the
subject, of which the following are extracts : —

" We Catholics must necessarily deplore [England's]

iji the Eirenicon.

15

separation as a deep moral evil, — as a state of schism,
ot' which nothing can justify the continuance. Many
members of the Anglican Church view it in the same
light as to the first point — its sad evil, though they ex-
cuse their individual position in it as an unavoidable
misfortune. . . . We may depend upon a willing, an
able, and most zealous co-operation with any effort
which we may take, towards bringing her into her
rightful position, into Catholic unity with the Holy See
and the Churches of its obedience, — in other words, with
the Church Catholic. Is this a visionary idea ? Is it
merely the expression of a strong desire ? I know that
many will so judge it ; and, perhaps, were I to consult
my own quiet, I would not venture to express it. But
I will, in simplicity of heart, cling to hopefulness,
cheered, as I feel it, by so many promising appear-
ances ....

"A natural question here presents itself; — whai iaci-
lities appear in the present state of things for bringing
about so happy a consummation, as the reunion of Eng-
land to the Catholic Church, beyond what have before
existed, and particularly under Archbishops Laud or
Wake. It strikes me, many. First, &c. . A still more
promising circumstance I think your Lordship will
with me consider the plan which the eventful Tract
No. 90 has pursued, and in which Mr. Ward, Mr.
Oakeley, and even Dr. Pusey have agreed. I allude to
the method of bringing their doctrines into accordance
with ours hy explanation. A foreign priest has pointed
nut to us a valuable document for our consideration, —
' liossuet's Reply to the Pope,' — when consulted on the

1 6 Various incidental Statements

best method of reconciling the followers of the Augsburg
Confession with the Holy See. The learned "Bishop
observes, that Providence had allowed so much Catholic
truth to be preserved in that Confession, that full advan-
tage should be taken of the circumstance ; that no re-
tractations should be demanded, but an explanation of
the Confession in accordance with Catholic doctrines.
Now, for such a method as this, the way is in part pre-
pared by the demonstration that such interpretation
may be given of the most difficult Articles, as will strip
them of all contradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine
Synod. The same method may be pursued on other
points; and much pain may thus be spared to individuals,
and much difficulty to the Church." — Pp. 11, 35, 38.

This us><5 of my Tract, so different from my own, but
sanctioned by the great name of our Cardinal, you are
now reviving; and I gather from your doing so, that your
Bishops and the opinion of the public are likely now, or
in prospect, to admit what twenty-five years ago they
refused. On this point, much as it rejoices me to know
your anticipation, of course I cannot have an opinion.

4. So much for Tract 90. On the other hand, as to
my hypothesis of Doctrinal Development, I am sorry
to find you do not look upon it with friendly eyes;
though how, without its aid, you can maintain the doc-
trines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, and others
which you hold, I cannot understand. You consider my
principle may be the means, in time to come, of intro-
ducing into our Creed, as portions of the necessary
Catholic faith, the Infallibility of the Pope, and various
opinions, pious or profane, as it may be, about our

in the Eirenicon. ly

Blessed Lady. I hope to remove your anxiety as to the
character of these consequences, before I bring my obser-
vations to an end f at present I notice it as my apology
for interfering in a controversy which at first sight is
no business of mine.

5. I have another reason for writing; and that is,
unless it is rude in me to say so, because you seem to
think writing does not become me, as being a convert.
I do not like silently to acquiesce in such a judgment.
You say at p. 98 : —

" Nothing can be more unpractical than for an indi-
vidual to throw himself into the Roman Church, because
he could accept the letter of the Council of Trent. Those
who were born Roman Catholics, have a liberty, which,
in the nature of things, a person could not have, who left
another system, to embrace that of Rome. I cannot
imagine how any faith could stand the shock of leaving
one system, criticizing it, and cast himself into another
system, criticizing it. For myself, I have always felt that
had (which Grod of His mercy avert hereafter also) the
English Church, by accepting heresy, driven me out of
it, I could have gone in no other way than that of closing
my eyes, and accepting whatever was put before me.
But a liberty which individuals could not use, and ex-
planations, which so long as they remain individual,
must be unauthoritative, might be formally made by
the Church of Rome to the Church of England as the
basis of re-union."

• Father Ryder of the Oratory remoyed the neceHsity of my fnlfilHng
tnis intention as far as Infallibility is oonoemed, by hia able pam-
phlets in answer to Mr. Ward.

1 8 Various incidental Statements

And again, p. 210 : —

" It seems to me to be a psycliological impossibility
for one who has already exchanged one system for
another to make those distinctions. One who, by his
own act, places himself under authority, cannot make
conditions about his submission. But definite explana-
tions of our Articles have, before now, been at least
tentatively offered to us on the Roman and Greek side,
as sufficient to restore communion ; and the Roman ex-
planations too were, in most cases, mere supplements to
our Articles, on points upon which our Church had
not spoken."

Now passages such as these seem almost a challenge
to me to speak ; and to keep silence would be to assent
to the justice of them. At the cost, then, of speaking
about myself, of which I feel there has been too much
of late, I observe upon them as follows : — Of course,
as you say, a convert comes to learn, and not to pick
and choose. He comes in simplicity and confidence,
and it does not occur to him to weigh and measure
every proceeding, Qvexy practice which he meets with
among those whom he has joined. He comes to Catho-
licism as to a living system, with a living teaching,
and not to a mere collection of decrees and canons,
which by themselves are of course but the framework,
not the body and substance of the Church. And this
is a truth which concerns, which binds, those also who
never knew any other religion, not only the convert.
By the Catholic system, I mean that rule of life, and
those practices of devotion, for which we shall look in
vain in the Creed of Pope Pius. The convert comesj

in the Eirenicon. 19

not only to believe the Church, but also to trust and
obey her priests, and to conform himself in charity to
her people. It would never do for him to resolve that
he never would say a Hail Mary, never avail himself
of an indulgence, never kiss a crucifix, never accept the
Lent dispensations, never mention a venial sin in con-
fession. All this would not only be unreal, but would
be dangerous, too, as arguing a wrong state of mind,
which could not look to receive the divine blessing.
Moreover, he comes to the ceremonial, and the moral
theology, and the ecclesiastical regulations, which he
finds on the spot where his lot is cast. And again, as
regards matters of politics, of education, of general ex-
pedience, of taste, he does not criticize or controvert.
And thus surrendering himself to the influences of his
new religion, and not risking the loss of revealed truth
altogether by attemptingby a private rule to discriminate
every moment its substance from its accidents, he is
gradually so indoctrinated in Catholicism, as at length
to have a right to speak as well as to hear. Also in
course of time a new generation rises round him ; and
there is no reason why he should not know as much,
and decide questions with as true an instinct, as those
who perhaps number fewer years of life than he numbers
Easter communions. He has mastered the fact and the
nature of the difierences of theologian from theologian,
school from school, nation from nation, era from era.
He knows that there is much of what may be called
fashion in opinions and practices, according to the cir-
cumstances of time and place, according to current
politics, the character of the Pope of the day, or the

c 2

20 Various incidental Statements

chief Prelates of a particular country ; — and that fashions
change. His experience tells him, that sometimes what
is denounced in one place as a great offence, or preached
up as a first principle, has in another nation been im-
memorially regarded in just a contrary sense, or has
made no sensation at all, one way or the other, when
brought before public opinion; and that loud talkers
are apt to carry all before them in the Church, as else-
where, while quiet and conscientious persons commonly
have to give way. He perceives that, in matters which
happen to be in debate, ecclesiastical authority watches
the state of opinion and the direction and course of
controversy, and decides accordingly ; so that in certain
cases to keep back his own judgment on a point, is to
be disloyal to his superiors.

So far generally; now in particular as to myself.
After twenty years of Catholic life, I feel no delicacy in
giving my opinion on any point when there is a call
for me, — and the only reason why I have not done so
sooner or more often than I have, is that there has
been no call. I have now reluctantly come to the
conclusion that your Volume is a call. Certainly, in
many instances in which theologian differs from theo-
logian and country from country, I have a definite
judgment of my own ; I can say so without offence to
any one, for the very reason that from the nature of
the case it is impossible to agree with all of them. I
prefer English habits of belief and devotion to foreign,
from the same causes, and by the same right, which
justifies foreigners in preferring their own. In follow-
ing those of my people, I show less singularity, and

in the Eirenicon. 2 1

create less disturbance than if I made a flourish with
what is novel and exotic. And in this line of conduct
I am but availing myself of the teaching which I fell
in with on becoming a Catholic ; and it is a pleasure to
me to think that what I hold now, and would transmit
after me if I could, is only what I received then. The
utmost delicacy was observed on all hands in giving
me advice : only one warning remains on my mind,
and it came from Dr. Griffiths, the late Vicar- Apostolic
of the London district. He warned me against books
of devotion of the Italian school, which were just at
that time coming into England ; and when I asked
him what books he recommended as safe guides, he
bade me get the works of Bishop Hay. By this I did
not understand that he was jealous of all Italian books,
or made himself responsible for all timt Dr. Hay hap-
pens to have said; but I took him to caution me against
a character and tone of religion, excellent in its place,
not suited for England.

When I went to Rome, though it may seem strange
to you to say it, even there I learned nothing incon-
sistent with this judgment. Local influences do not
form the atmosphere of its institutions and colleges,
which are Catholic in teaching as well as in name. I
recollect one saying among others of my Confessor, a
Jesuit Father, one of the holiest, most prudent men I
ever knew. He said that we could not love the Blessed
Virgin too much, if we loved our Lord a great deal
more. "When I returned to England, the first expres-
sion of theological opinion which came in my way, was
apropos of the series of transhited Haints' Lives which

22

Various incidental Statements

the late Dr. Faber originated. That expression pro-
ceeded from a wise prelate, who was properly anxious
as to the line which might be taken by the Oxford
converts, then for the first time coming into work.
According as I recollect his opinion, he was apprehensive
of the efiect of Italian compositions, as unsuited to this
country, and suggested that the Lives should be original
works, drawn up by ourselves and our friends from
Italian sources. If at that time I was betrayed into
any acts which were of a more extreme character than I
should approve now, the responsibility of course is my
own ; but the impulse came, not from old Catholics or
superiors, but from men whom I loved and trusted, who
were younger than myself But to whatever extent I
might be carried away, and I cannot recollect any
tangible instances, my mind in no long time fell back
to what seems to me a safer and more practical course.
Though I am a convert, then, I think I have a right
to speak out ; and that the more because other converts
have spoken for a long time, while I have not spoken ;
and with still more reason may I speak without offence
in the case of your present criticisms of us, considering
that, in the charges you bring, the only two English
writers you quote in evidence, are both of them converts,
younger in age than myself. I put aside the Archbishop
of course, because of his office. These two authors are
worthy of all consideration, at once from their character
and from their ability. In their respective lines they
are perhaps without equals at this particular time ; and
they deserve the influence they possess. One is still in
the vigour of his powers j the other has departed amid

in the Eirenicon. 23

the tears of hundreds. It is pleasant to praise them
for their real excellences ; but why do you rest on them
as authorities ? You say of the one that he was " a
popular writer;" but is there not sufficient reason for
this in the fact of his remarkable gifts, of his poetical
fancy, his engaging frankness, his playful wit, his
affection ateness, his sensitive piety , without supposing
that the wide diffusion of his works is caused by a
general sympathy with his particular sentiments about
the Blessed Virgin? And as to our other friend, do not
his energy, acuteness, and theological reading, displayed
on the vantage ground of the historic "Dublin Review,'*
fully account for the sensation he has produced, without
supposing that any great number of our body go his
lengths in their view of the Pope's infallibility ? Our
silence as regards their writings is very intelligible : it
is not agreeable to protest, in the sight of the world,
against the writings of men in our own Communion
whom we love and respect. But the plain fact is this, —
they came to the Church, and have thereby saved their
souls ; but they are in no sense spokesmen for English
Catholics, and they must not stand in the place of those
who have a real title to such an office. The chief
authors of the passing generation, some of them still
alive, others gone to their reward, are Cardinal Wise-
man, Dr. Ullathorne, Dr. Lingard, Mr. Tierney, Dr.
Oliver, Dr. Rock, Dr. Waterworth, Dr. Husenbeth, and
Mr. Flanagan; which of these ecclesiastics has said
anything extreme about the prerogatives of the Blessed
Virgin or the infallibility of the Pope ?

I cannot, then, without remonstrance, allow you to

24 Various incidental Statements

identify the doctrine of our Oxfoid friends in question,
on the two subjects I have mentioned, with the present
spirit or the prospective creed of Catholics; or to assume,
as you do, that, because they are thorough-going and
relentless in their statements, therefore they are the
harbingers of a new age, when to show a deference to
Antiquity will be thought little else than a mistake. For
myself, hopeless as you consider it, I am not ashamed
still to take my stand vipon the Fathers, and do not
mean to budge. The history of their times is not yet
an old almanac to me. Of course I maintain the value
and authority of the " Schola," as one of the loci theolo-
gici ; nevertheless I sympathize with Petavius in pre-
ferring to the " contentious and subtle theology" of the
middle age, that " more elegant and fruitful teaching
which is moulded after the image of erudite Antiquity."
The Fathers made me a Catholic, and I am not going
to kick down the ladder by which I ascended into the
Church. It is a ladder quite as serviceable for that
purpose now, as it was twenty years ago. Though I
hold, as you know, a process of development in Apos-
tolic truth as time goes on, such development does not
supersede the Fathers, but explains and completes
them. And, in particular, as regards our teaching
concerning the Blessed Virgin, with the Fathers I am
content ; — and to the subject of that teaching I mean
to address myself at once. I do so, because you say, as
I myself have said in former years, that " That vast
system as to the Blessed Virgin . . to aU of us has
been the special crux of the Roman system.'' — P. 101.
Here, let me say, as on other points, the Fathers are

in the Eirenicon. 25

enough for me. I do not wish to say more than they
suggest to me, and will not say less. You, I know, will
profess the same ; and thus we can join issue on a clear
and broad principle, and raay hope to come to some
intelligible result. We are to have a Treatise on the
subject of our Lady soon from the pen of the Most
Reverend Prelate ; but that cannot interfere with such
a mere argument from the Fathers as that to which I
shall confine myself here. Nor indeed, as regards that
argument itself, do I profess to be offering you any new
matter, any facts which have not been used by others, — by
great divines, as Petavius, — by living writers, nay, by
myself on other occasions. I write afresh nevertheless,
and that for three reasons ; first, because I wish to
contribute to the accurate statement and the full exposi-
tion of the argument in question ; next, because I may
gain a more patient hearing than has sometimes been
granted to better men than myself ; lastly, because there
just now seems a call on me, under my circumstances,
to avow plainly what I do and what I do not hold about
the Blessed Virgin, that others may know, did they
come to stand where I stand, what they would, and
what they would not, be bound to hold concerning her.

26 Belief distinct from Devotion of Catholics

§ 3. — The Belief of Catholics concerning the blessed Virgin,
as distinct from their Devotion to her.

I begin by making a distinction which will go far to
remove good part of the difficulty of my undertaking,
as it presents itself to ordinary inquirers, — the distinc-
tion between faith and devotion. I fully grant that de-
votion towards the blessed Virgin has increased among
Catholics with the progress of centuries ; I do not allow
that the doctrine concerning her has undergone a growth,
for I believe that it has been in substance one and the
same from the beginning.

By " faith " I mean the Creed and assent to the
Creed ; by " devotion " I mean such religious honours
as belong to the objects of our faith, and the payment
of those honours. Faith and devotion are as distinct in
fact, as they are in idea. We cannot, indeed, be devout
without faith, but we may believe without feeling devo-
tion. Of this phenomenon every one has experience
both in himself and in others ; and we bear witness to it
as often as we speak of realizing a truth or not realizing
it. It may be illustrated, with more or less exactness,
by matters which come before us in the world. For
instance, a great author, or public man, may be acknow-
ledged as such for a course of years ; yet there may be
an increase, an ebb and flow, and a fashion, in his popu-

as regards the Blessed Virgin. 27

larity. And if he takes a lasting place in the minds of
his countrymen, he may gradually grow into it, or sud-
denly be raised to it. The idea of Shakespeare as a great
poet, has existed from a very early date in public opinion;
and there were at least individuals then who understood
him as well, and honoured him as much, as the English
people can honour him now ; yet, I think, there is a
national devotion to him in this day such as never has
been before. This has happened, because, as education
spreads in the country, there are more men able to enter
into his poetical genius, and, among these, more capacity
again for deeply and critically understanding him ; and
yet, from the first, he has exerted a great insensible in-
fluence over the nation, as is seen in the circumstance
that his phrases and sentences, more than can be num-
bered, have become almost proverbs among us. And so
again in philosophy, and in the arts and sciences, great
truths and principles have sometimes been known and
acknowledged for a course of years ; but, whether from
feebleness of intellectual power in the recipients, or ex-
ternal circumstances of an accidental kind, they have not
been turned to account. Thus the Chinese are said to
have known of the properties of the magnet from time
immemorial, and to have used it for land expeditions, yet
not on the sea. Again, the ancients knew of the prin-
ciple that water finds its own level, but seem to have
made little application of their knowledge. And Aris-
totle was familiar with the principle of induction ; yet
it was left for Bacon to develope it into an experimental
philosophy. Illustrations such as these, though not al-
together apposite, serve to convey that distinction be-

28 Belief distinct from Devotion oj Catholics

tween faith and devotion on which I am insisting. It
is like the distinction between objective and subjective
truth. The sun in the spring-time will have to shine
many days before he is able to melt the frost, open the
soil, and bring out the leaves ; yet he shines out from
the first notwithstanding, though he makes his power
felt but gradually. It is one and the same sun, though
his influence day by day becomes greater ; and so in the
Catholic Church it is the one Virgin Mother, one and
the same from first to last, and Catholics may have ever
acknowledged her ; and yet, in spite of that acknow-
ledgment, their devotion to her may be scanty in one
time and place, and overflowing in another.

This distinction is forcibly brought home to a convert,
as a peculiarity of the Catholic religion, on his first in-
troduction to its worship. The faith is everywhere one
and the same, but a large liberty is accorded to private
Judgment and inclination as regards matters of devotion.
Any large church, with its collections and groups of
people, will illustrate this. The fabric itself is dedicated
to Almighty God, and that, under the invocation of the
Blessed "Virgin, or some particular Saint ; or again, of
some mystery belonging to the Divine Name or the In-
carnation, or of some mystery associated with the Blessed
Virgin. Perhaps there are seven altars or more in it,
and these again have their several Saints. Then there
is the Feast proper to this or that day ; and during the
celebration of Mass, of all the worshippers who crowd
around the Priest, each has his own particular devotions,
with which he follows the rite. No one interferes with
his neighbour ; agreeing, as it were, to differ, they pur-

as regards the Blessed Virgin. 29

sue independently a common end, and by paths, distinct
but converging, present themselves before God. Then
there are confraternities attached to the church, — of the
Sacred Heart, or of the Precious Blood ; associations of
prayer for a good death, or for the repose of departed
souls, or for the conversion of the heathen ; devotions
connected with the brown, blue, or red scapular ; not to
speak of the great ordinary Ritual observed through the
four seasons, or of the constant Presence of the Blessed
Sacrament, or of its ever-recurring rite of Benediction,
and its extraordinary forty hours' Exposition. Or, again,
look through such manuals of prayers as the Raccolta,
and you at once will see both the number and the variety
of devotions, which are open to individual Catholics to
choose from, according to their religious taste and pros-
pect of personal edification.

Now these diversified modes of honouring God did not
come to us in a day, or only from the Apostles ; they are
the accumulations of centuries ; and, as in the course of
years some of them spring up, so others decline and die.
Some are local, in memory of some particular Saint, who
happens to be the Evangelist, or Patron, or pride of the
nation, or who lies entombed in the church or in the city
where it is found ; and these devotions, necessarily, can-
not have an earlier date than the Saint's day of death
or interment there. The first of these sacred observ-
ances, long before such national memories, were the de-
votions paid to the Apostles, then those which were paid
to the Martyrs ; yet there were Saints nearer to our
Lord than either Martyrs or Apostles ; but, as if these
sacred persons were immersed and lost in the effulgence

30 Belief of Catholics

of His glory, and because they did not manifest them-
selves, when in the body, in external works separate
from Him, it happened that for a long while they were
less dwelt upon. However, in process of time, the
Apostles, and then the Martyrs, exerted less influence
than before over the popular mind, and the local Saints,
new creations of God's power, took their place, or again,
the Saints of some religious order here or there estab-
lished. Then, as comparatively quiet times succeeded,
the religious meditations of holy men and their secret
intercourse with heaven gradually exerted an influence
out of doors, and permeated the Christian populace, by
the instrumentality of preaching and by the ceremonial
of the Church. Hence at length those luminous stars
rose in the ecclesiastical heavens, which were of more
august dignity than any which had preceded them, and
were late in rising, for the ver}^ reason that they were so
specially glorious. Those names, I say, which at first
sight might have been expected to enter soon into the
devotions of the faithful, with better reason might have
been looked for at a later date, and actually were late in
their coming. St. Joseph furnishes the most striking
instance of this remark ; here is the clearest of instances
of the distinction between doctrine and devotion. Who,
from his prerogatives and the testimony on which they
come to us, had a greater claim to receive an early re-
cognition among the faithful than he ? A Saint of
Scripture, the foster-father of our Lord, he was an
object of the universal and absolute faith of the
Christian world from the first, yet the devotion to him
is comparatively of late date. When once it began,

that she is the Second Eve, 3 1

men seemed surprised that it had not been thought of
before ; and now, they hold him next to the Blessed
Virgin in their religious affection and veneration.

As regards the Blessed Virgin then, I shall postpone
the question of devotion for a while, and inquire first
into the doctrine of the undivided Church (to use
your controversial phrase), on the subject of her pre-
rogatives.

1.

What is the great rudimental teaching of Antiquity
from its earliest date concerning her ? By " rudimental
teaching," I mean the prima facie view of her person
and office, the broad outline laid down of her, the
aspect under which she comes to us, in the writings
of the Fathers. She is the Second Eve.* Now let us
consider what this implies. Eve had a definite,
essential position in the First Covenant. The fate
of the human race lay with Adam ; he it was who
represented us. It was in Adam that we fell ; though
Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should
not have lost those supernatural privileges which were
bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though
Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards
the race, she had a place of her own ; for Adam, to
whom was divinely committed the naming of all things,
named her ''the Mother of all the living," a name
•surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity ;
but further, as she thus had her own general relation
to the human race, so again had she her own special

* Vide Essay on Developirent of Doctrine, 1845, p. 384, &q.

3 2 Belief of Catholics

place, as regards its trial and its fall in Adam. In
those primeval events, Eve had an integral share.
" The woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.'^
She listened to the Evil Angel ; she offered the fruit to
her husband, and he ate of it. She co-operated, not as
an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and person-
ally in the sin : she brought it about. As the history
stands, she was a sine-qiia-non, a positive, active, cause
of it. And she had her share in its punishment ; in the
sentence pronounced on her, she was recognized as a
real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she
suffered accordingly. In that awful transaction there
were three parties concerned, — the serpent, the woman,
and the man ; and at the time of their sentence, an event
was announced for a distant future, in which the three
same parties were to meet again, the serpent, the woman,
and the man ; but it was to be a second Adam and a second
Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new
Adam. " I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed." The Seed
of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman,
whose seed or son He is, is His mother Mary. This
interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seem to
me undeniable; but at all events (and this is my point)
the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the
earliest times ; and, this being established, we are able,
by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine
the position and office of Mary in our restoration.

I shall adduce passages from their writings, noting
their respective countries and dates; and the dates
shall extend from their births or conversions to their

that she is the Second Eve. 33

deaths, since what they propound is at once the doctrine
which they had received from the generation before
them, and the doctrine which was accepted and re-
cognized as true by the generation to whom they trans-
mitted it.

First, then, St. Justin Martyr (a.d. 120—165), St.
Irenaeus (120—200), and TertuUian (160—240). Of
these Tertullian represents Africa and Rome ; St. Justin
represents Palestine ; and St. Irenseus Asia Minor and
Gaul; — or rather he represents St. John the Evangelist,
for he had been taught by the Martyr St. Poly carp, who
was the intimate associate of St. John, as also of other
Apostles.

1. St. Justin: 6—

" We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded
from the Father by His power and wiU, . . . and by
means of the Virgin became man, that by what way the
disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning,
by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve,
being a Virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that
was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and
death ; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when
the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of
the Lord should come upon her and the power of the
Highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One
that was born of her was Son of God, answered, ' Be it
to me according to thy word."*
^Trijph. 100.

* I have attempted to translate literally without caring to write
English. The original passages are in Note I. infr.

D

34 Belief of Catholics

2. Tertullian:—

" God recovered His image and likeness, whicli the
devil had seized, by a rival operation. For into Eve, as
yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer
of death. Equally into a virgin was to be introduced
the Word of God which was the builder-up of life; that,
what by that sex had gone into perdition by the same
sex might be brought back to salvation. Eve had
believed the serpent ; Mary believed Gabriel ; the fault
which the one committed by believing, the other by
believing has blotted out." — Be Cam. Christ. 17.

3. St. IrensEus : —

" "With a iitness, Mary the Virgin is found obedient,
saying, ' Behold Thy handmaid, 0 Lord ; be it to me
according to Thy word.* But Eve was disobedient; for
she obeyed not, while she was yet a virgin. As she,
having indeed Adam for a husband, but as yet being
a virgin . . . becoming disobedient, became the cause
of death both to herself and to the whole human race, so
also Mary, having the predestined man, and being yet a
Virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to
the whole human race the cause of salvation . . . And
on account of this the Lord said, that the first should be
last and the last first. And the Prophet signifies the
same, saying, ' Instead of fathers you have children.'
For, whereas the Lord, when bom, was the first-begotten
of the dead, and received into His bosom the primitive
fathers, He regenerated them into the life of God, He
Himself becoming the beginning of the living, since
Adam became the beginning of the dying. Therefore
also Luke, commencing the line of generations from

that she is the Second Eve. 35

the Lord, referred it back to Adam, signifying that
He regenerated the old fathers, not they Him, into
the Gospel of life. And so the knot of Eve's dis-
obedience received its unloosing through the obedience
of Mary ; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity,
that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith/' — Adv. Hcer. iii.
22. 34.

And again, —

" As Eve by the speech of an Angel was seduced, so
as to flee God, transgressing His word, so also Mary
received the good tidings by means of the Angel's
speech, so as to bear God within her, being obedient to His
word. And, though the one had disobeyed God, yet the
other was drawn to obey God ; that of the virgin Eve
the Virgin Mary might become the advocate. And, as
by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by
a virgin it is saved,® the balance being preserved, a
virgin's disobedience by a Virgin's obedience.'* — Ibid.
v. 19.

Now, what is especially noticeable in these three
writers, is, that they do not speak of the Blessed Virgm
merely as the physical instrument of our Lord's taking
flesh, but as an intelligent, responsible cause of it;
her faith and obedience being accessories to the Incar-
nation, and gaining it as her reward. As Eve failed in
these virtues, and thereby brought on the fall of the race
in Adam, so Mary by means of the same had a part in its

* Salvatur ; some MSS. read Solvatur, " [that] it might be loosed ; "
and so Augustine contr. Jul. i. n. 5. This variety of reading does
not affect the general sense of the passage. Moreover, the word
"salvation" occurs in the former of these two passages.
D 2

36 Belief of Catholics

restoration. You surely imply, pp. 151 — 156, that the
Blessed Virgin was only a physical instrument of our
redemption ; " what has been said of her by the Fathers
as the chosen vessel of the Incarnation, was applied joer-
sonally to her," (that is, by Catholics,) p. 15 1 , and again
" the Fathers speak of the Blessed Virgin as the instru-
ment of our salvation, in that she gave birth to the
Redeemer," pp. 155, 156; whereas St. Augustine, in
well-known passages, speaks of her as more exalted by
her sanctity than by her relationship to our Lord.'' How-
ever, not to go beyond the doctrine of the Three Fathers,
they unanimously declare that she was not a mere instru-
ment in the Incarnation, such as David, or Judah, may
be considered; they declare she co-operated in our salva-
tion not merely by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon
her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy
Ghost within her soul ; that, as Eve forfeited privileges
by sin, so Mary earned privileges by the fruits of grace ;
that, as Eve was disobedient and unbelieving, so Mary
was obedient and believing ; that, as Eve was a cause of
ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all ; that
as Eve made room for Adam's fall, so Mary made room
for our Lord's reparation of it ; and thus, whereas the
free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it
follows that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil,
Mary co-operated in effecting a much greater good.

And, besides the run of the argument, which reminds
the reader of St. Paul's antithetical sentences in tracing
the analogy between Adam's work and our Lord's work,

1 0pp. t. 8, p. 2, col. 369, t. 6, col. 342.

that she is the Second Eve. 37

it is well to observe the particular words under which
the Blessed Virgin's office is described. Tertullian says
that Mary " blotted out " Eve's fault, and " brought
back the female sex," or " the human race, to salvation ; "
and St. Irenaeus says that *' by obedience she was the
cause or occasion " (whatever was the original Greek
word) " of salvation to herself and the whole human
race ; " that by her the human race is saved ; that by
her Eve's complication is disentangled ; and that she is
Eve's Advocate, or friend in need. It is supposed by
critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the Greek
word for Advocate in the original was Paraclete ; it
should be borne in mind, then, when we are accused of
giving our Lady the titles and offices of her Son, that
St. Irenaeus bestows on her the special Name and Office
proper to the Holy Ghost.

So much as to the nature of this triple testimony ;
now as to the worth of it. For a moment put aside
St. Irenaeus, and put together St. Justin in the East with
Tertullian in the West. I think I may assume that the
doctrine of these two Fathers about the Blessed Virgin,
was the received doctrine of their own respective times
and places ; for writers after all are but witnesses of
facts and beliefs, and as such they are treated by all
parties in controversial discussion. Moreover, the coin-
cidence of doctrine which they exhibit, and again, the
antithetical completeness of it, show that they them-
selves did not originate it. The next question is. Who
did ? for from one definite organ or source, place or
person, it must have come. Then we must inquire, what
length of time would it take for such a doctrine to have

3 S Belief of Catholics

extended, and to be received, in the second century over
so wide an area \ that is, to be received before the year
200 in Palestine, Africa, and Eome. Can we refer tlie
common source of these local traditions to a date much
later than that of the Apostles, since St. John died
within twenty years of St. Justin's conversion and sixty
of TertuUian's birth ? Make what allowance you will
for whatever possible exceptions can be taken to this
representation ; and then, after doing so, add to the
concordant testimony of these two Fathers the evidence
of St. Ireuseus, which is so close upon that of the School
of St. John himself in Asia Minor. ''A three-fold
cord," as the wise man says, " is not quickly broken.-"
Only suppose there were so early and so broad a testi-
mony, to the effect that our Lord was a mere man, the
^on of Joseph ; should we be able to insist upon the
faith of the Holy Trinity as necessary to salvation ? Or
supposing three such witnesses could be brought to
the fact that a consistory of elders governed the local
churches, or that each local congregation was an inde-
pendent Church, or that the Christian community was
without priests, could Anglicans maintain their doc-
trine that the rule of Episcopal succession is necessary
to constitute a Church ? And then recollect that the
Anglican Church especially appeals to the ante-Nicene
centuries, and taunts us with having superseded their
testimony.

Having then adduced these Three Fathers of the
second century, I have at least got so far as this : viz.,
that no one, who acknowledges the force of early testi-
mony in determining Christian truth, can wonder, no

that she is the Second Eve, 39

one can complain, can object, that we Catholics should
hold a very high doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin,
unless indeed stronger statements can be brought for a
contrary conception of her, either of as early, or at least
of a later date. But, as far as I know, no statements
can be brought from the ante-Nicene literature, to
invalidate the testimony of the Three Fathers concerning
her ; and little can be brought against it from the fourth
century, while in that fourth century the current of
testimony in her behalf is as strong as in the second ;
and, as to the fifth, it is far stronger than in any former
time, both in its fulness and its authority. That such
is the concordant verdict of " the undivided Church "
will to some extent be seen as I proceed.

4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315 — 386) speaks for
Palestine : —

'^ Since through Eve, a Virgin, came death, it be-
hoved, that through a Virgin, or rather from a Virgin,
should life appear ; that, as the Serpent had deceived
the one, so to the other Gabriel might bring good
things." — Cat. xii. 15.

5. St. Ephrem Syrus (he died 378) is a witness for
the Syrians proper and the neighbouring Orientals, in
contrast to the Grgeco- Syrians. A native of Nisibis on
the farther side of the Euphrates, he knew no language
but Syriac.

" Through Eve, the beautiful and desirable glory of
men was extinguished; but it has revived through
Mary."— Ojo;j. S(/r. ii. p. 318.

Again : —

"' In the beginning, by the sin of our first parents,

4© Belief of Catholics

death passed upon all men ; to-day^ through Mary we
are translated from death unto life. In the beginning,
the serpent filled the ears of Eve, and the poison spread
thence over the whole body ; to-day, Mary from her
ears received the champion of eternal happiness : what,
therefore, was an instrument of death, was an instru-
ment of life also." — iii. p. 607.

I have already referred to St. Paulas contrast between
Adam and our Lord in his Epistle to the Romans, as
also in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Some
writers venture to say that there is no doctrinal truth,
but a mere rhetorical display, in those passages. It is
quite as easy to say so, as to attempt so to dispose of
this received comparison, in the writings of the Fathers,
between Eve and Mary.

6. St. Epiphanius (320-400) speaks for Egypt,
Palestine, and Cyprus : —

" She it is, who is signified by Eve, enigmatically
receiving the appellation of the Mother of the living.
.... It was a wonder, that after the transgression she
had this great epithet. And, according to what ie
material, from that Eve all the race of men on earth
is generated. But thus in truth from Mary the Life
itself was born in the world, that Mary might bear
living things, and become the Mother of living things.
Therefore, enigmatically, Mary is called the Mother of

living things Also, there is another thing to

consider as to these women, and wonderful, — as to Eve
and Mary. Eve became a cause of death to man . .
and Mary a cause of life ; . that life might be instead of
death, life excluding death which came from the woman,

that she is the Second Eve. 4 1

viz., He who through the woman has become our life/'
—Ear. 78. 18.

7. By the time of St. Jerome (331 — 420), the con-
trast between Eve and Mary had almost passed into a
proverb. He says (^. xxii. 21, ad Eustoch.), "Death
by Eve, life by Mary." Nor let it be supposed that he,
any more than the preceding Fathers, considered the
Blessed Virgin a mere physical instrument of giving
birth to our Lord, who is the Life. So far from it, in
the Epistle from which I have quoted, he is only adding
another virtue to that crown which gained for Mary
her divine Maternity. They have spoken of faith, joy,
and obedience; St. Jerome adds, what they had only
suggested, virginity. After the manner of the Fathers
in his own day, he is setting forth the Blessed Mary to
the high-born Roman Lady, whom he is addressing, as
the model of the virginal life ; and his argument in its
behalf is, that it is higher than the marriage-state, not
in itself, viewed in any mere natural respect, but as
being the free act of self-consecration to God, and from
the personal religious purpose which it involves.

*' Higher wage,^' he says, " is due to that which is
not a compulsion, but an offering ; for, were virginity
commanded, marriage would seem to be put out of the
question; and it would be most cruel to force men
against nature, and to extort from them an angePs
life."— 20.

I do not know whose testimony is more important
than St. Jerome's, the friend of Pope Damasus at Rome,
the pupil of St. Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople,
and of Didymus in Alexandria, a native of Dalmatia,

42 Belief of CatJiolics

yet an inhabitant, at different times of his life, of Gaul,
Syria, and Palestine.

8. St. Jerome speaks for the whole world, except
Africa ; and for Africa in the fourth century, if we must
limit so world-wide an authority to place, witnesses
St. Augustine (354—430). He repeats the words as
if a proverb, " By a woman death, by a woman life *'
{0pp. t. V. Serm. 232) ; elsewhere he enlarges on the idea
conveyed in it. In one place he quotes St. Irenaeus's
words, as cited above {adv. Julian i. n. 5.). In another
he speaks as follows : —

"It is a great sacrament that, whereas through
woman death became our portion, so life was born to us
by woman ; that, in the case of both sexes, male and
female, the baffled devil should be tormented, when on
the overthrow of both sexes he was rejoicing; whose
punishment had been small, if both sexes had been
liberated in us, without our being liberated through
both.'' — 0pp. t. vi. De Agon. Christ, c. 24.

9. St. Peter Chrysologus (400—450), Bishop of
Ravenna, and one of the chief authorities in the 4th
General Council : —

" Blessed art thou among women j for among women,
on whose womb Eve, who was cursed, brought punish-
ment, Mary, being blest, rejoices, is honoured, and is
looked up to. And woman now is truly made through
grace the Mother of the living, who had been by nature
the mother of the dying. . . . Heaven feels awe of God,
Angels tremble at Him, the creature sustains Him
not, nature sufficeth not ; and yet one maiden so takes,
receives, entertains Him, as a guest within her breast.

that she is the Scco7id Eve* 43

that, for the very hire of her home, and as the price of
her womb, she asks, she obtains peace for the earth,
glory for the heavens, salvation for the lost, life for the
dead, a heavenly parentage for the earthly, the union ol
God Himself with human flesh." — Serm. 140.

It is diflBcult to express more explicitly, though in
oratorical language, that the Blessed Virgin had a real
meritorious co-operation, a share which had a " hire"
and a " price," in the reversal of the fall.

10. St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (468—
533). The Homily which contains the following pas-
sage, is placed by Ceillier (t. xvi. p. 127), among his
genuine works : —

" In the wife of the first man, the wickedness of the
devil depraved her seduced mind ; in the mother of the
Second Man, the grace of God preserved both her mind
inviolate and her flesh. On her mind it conferred the
most firm faith ; from her flesh it took away lust
altogether. Since then man was in a miserable way
condemned for sin, therefore without sin was in a
marvellous way born the God-man." — Serm. 2, p. 124.
J)e Dupl. Nativ.

Accordingly, in the Sermon which follows (if it is
his), he continues thus, illustrating her ofiice of uni-
versal Mother, as ascribed to her by St. Epiphanius : —

" Come ye virgins to a Virgin, come ye who conceive
to her who conceived, ye who bear to one who bore,
mothers to a mother, ye that suckle to one who suckled,
young girls to the young girl. It is for this reason that
tlie Virgin Mary has taken on her in our Lord Jesus
Christ all these divisions of nature, that to all women

44 Belief of Catholics

who have recourse to her, she may be a succour, and so
restore the whole race of women who come to her, being
the new Eve, by keeping virginity, as the new Adam
the Lord Jesus Christ, recovers the whole race of men."

Such is the rudimental view, as I have called it,
which the Fathers have given us of Mary, as the Second
Eve, the Mother of the living: I have cited ten authors.
I could cite more, were it necessary : except the two
last, they write gravely and without any rhetoric. I
allow that the two last write in a different style, since
the extracts I have made are from their sermons ; but
I do not see that the colouring conceals the outline.
And after all, men use oratory on great subjects, not on
small ; — nor would they, and other Fathers whom I
might quote, have lavished their high language upon
the Blessed Virgin, such as they gave to no one else,
unless they knew well that no one else had such claims,
as she had, on their love and veneration.

And now, I proceed to dwell for a while upon two
inferences, which it is obvious to draw from the rudi-
mental doctrine itself; the first relates to the sanctity
of the Blessed Virgin, the second to her dignity.

1. Her sanctity. She holds, as the Fathers teach
us, that office in our restoration which Eve held in our
fall:— now, in the first place, what were Eve's endow-
ments to enable her to enter upon her trial? She
could not have stood against the wiles of the devil,
though she was innocent and sinless, without the grant
of a large grace. And this she had; — a heavenly
gift, which was over and above and additional to that
nature of hers, which she received from Adam, a gift

in her Immaculate Conception. 4 5

which had been given to Adam also before her, at the
very time (as it is commonly held) of his original
formation. This is Anglican doctrine, as well as
Catholic; it is the doctrine of Bishop Bull, He has
written a dissertation on the point. He speaks of the
doctrine which "many of the Schoolmen affirm, that
Adam was created in grace, that is, received a principle
of grace and divine life from his very creation, or in
the moment of the infusion of his soul ; of which," he
says, '* for my own part I have little doubt." Again,
he says, " It is abundantly manifest from the many
testimonies alleged, that the ancient doctors of the
Church did, with a general consent, acknowledge, that
our first parents in the state of integrity, had in them
something more than nature, that is, were endowed
with the divine principle of the Spirit, in order to a
supernatural felicity."

Now, taking this for granted, because I know that
you and those who agree with you maintain it as well
as we do, I ask you, have you any intention to deny
that Mary was as fully endowed as Eve? is it any
violent inference, that she, who was to co-operate in the
redemption of the world, at least was not less endowed
with power from on high, than she who, given as a help-
mate to her husband, did in the event but co-operate
with him for its ruin ? If Eve was raised above human
nature bv that indwelling moral gift which we call
grace, is it rash to say that Mary had even a greater
grace ? And this consideration gives significance to the
Angel's salutation of her as " full of grace,*' — an inter-
pretation of the original word which is undoubtedly the

46 Belief of Catholics

right one, as soon as we resist the common Protestant
assumption that grace is a mere external approbation or
acceptance, answering to the word "favour," whereas it
is, as the Fathers teach, a real inward condition or
superadded quality of soul. And if Eve had this super-
natural inward gift given her from the first moment of
her personal existence, is it possible to deny that Mary
too had this gift from the very first moment of her
personal existence? I do not know how to resist
this inference: — well, this is simply and literally the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I say the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in its sub-
stance this, and nothing more or less than this (putting
aside the question of degrees of grace) ; and it really
does seem to me bound up in the doctrine of the
Fathers, that Mary is the second Eve.

It is indeed to me a most strange phenomenon that so
many learned and devout men stumble at this doctrine ;
and I can only account for it by supposing that in matter
of fact they do not know what we mean by the Immacu-
late Conception ; and your Volume (may I say it ?)
bears out my suspicion. It is a great consolation to
have reason for thinking so, — reason for believing that in
some sort the persons in question are in the position of
those great Saints in former times, who are said to have
hesitated about the doctrine, when they would not have
hesitated at all, if the word " Conception" had been
clearly explained in that sense in which now it is univer-
sally received. I do not see how any one who holds with
Bull the Catholic doctrine of the supernatural endow-
ments of our first parents, has fair reason for doubting

in her Immaculate Conception. \y

our doctrine about the Blessed Virgin. It has no re-
ference whatever to her parents, but simply to her own
person ; it does but affirm that, together with the nature
which she inherited from her parents, that is, her own
nature, she had a superadded fulness of grace, and that
from the first moment of her existence. Suppose Eve
had stood the trial, and not lost her first grace ; and
suppose she had eventually had children, those children
from the first moment of their existence would, through
divine bounty, have received the same privilege that she
had ever had ; that is, as she was taken from Adam's
side, in a garment, so to say, of grace, so they in turn
would have received what may be called an immaculate
conception. They would have then been conceived in
grace, as in fact they are conceived in sin. What is
there difficult in this doctrine ? What is there un-
natural ? Mary may be called, as it were, a daughter
of Eve unfallen. You believe with us that St. John
Baptist had grace given to him three months before his
birth, at the time that the Blessed Virgin visited his
mother. He accordingly was not immaculately con-
ceived, because he was alive before grace came to him ;
but our Lady's case only differs from his in this respect,
that to her the grace of God came, not three months
merely before her birth, but from the first moment of
her being, as it had been given to Eve.

But it may be said, How does this enable us to say
that she wsls conceived without original sin ? If Angli-
cans knew what we mean by original, sin, they w^ould
not ask the question. Our doctrine of ongmal sin is
not the same as the Protestant doctrine. " Original

48 Belief of Catholics

sin," with us, cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary
sense of the word " sin ; " it is a term denoting Adam's
sin as transferred to us, or the state to which Adam's
sin reduces his children ; but by Protestants it seems to
be understood as sin, in much the same sense as actual
sin. We, with the Fathers, think of it as something
negative, Protestants as something positive. Protes-
tants hold that it is a disease, a radical change of
nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul,
infecting its primary elements, and disorganizing it;
and they fancy that we ascribe a different nature from
ours to the Blessed Virgin, different from that of her
parents, and from that of fallen Adam. We hold
nothing of the kind ; we consider that in Adam she
died, as others; that she was included, together with
the whole race, in Adam's sentence ; that she incurred
his debt, as we do ; but that, for the sake of Him who
was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the
debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence
was not carried out, except indeed as regards her natural
death, for she died when her time came, as others.^ All
this we teach, but we deny that she had original sin ;
for by original sin we mean, as I have already said,
something negative, viz., this only, the deprivation of
that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and
Eve had on their iirst formation, — deprivation and the
consequences of deprivation. Mary could not merit,
any more than they, the restoration of that grace ; but
it was restored to her by God's free bounty, from the

* Vid. Note II. intr.

in her Immaculaie ConceJ)iion. 49

very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact,
she never carae under the original curse, which consisted
in the loss of it. And she had this special privilege,
in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our
Redeemer, to fit her mentally, spiritually for it ; so that,
bj the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in
grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at
hand, she might be " full of grace,'* prepared as far as
a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her
bosom.

1 have drawn the doctrine of the Immaculate Con-
ception, as an immediate inference, from the primitive
doctrine that Mary is the second Eve. The argument
seems to me conclusive : and, if it has not been imi-
versally taken as such, this has come to pass, because
there has not been a clear understanding among Catho-
lics, what exactly was meant by the "Immaculate
Conception." To many it seemed to imply that the
Blessed Virgin did not die in Adam, that she did not
come under the penalty of the fall, that she was not
redeemed, that she was conceived in some way incon-
sistent with the verse in the Miserere Psalm. If con-
troversy had in earlier days so cleared the subject as
to make it plain to all, that the doctrine meant nothing
else than that in fact in her case the general sentence
on mankind was not carried out, and that, by means of
the indwelling in her of divine grace from the first
moment of her being (and this is all the decree of 1854
bas declared), I cannot believe that the doctrine would
have ever been opposed ; for an instinctive sentiment
has led Christians jealously to put the Blessed Mary

£

50 Belief of Catholics

aside when sin comes into discussion. This is expressed
in the well-known words of St. Augustine, All have
sinned ''except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning
whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish no question
to be raised at all, when we are treating of sins" {de-
Nat, et Orat. 42) ; words which, whatever was St.
Augustine's actual occasion of using them (to which
you refer, p. 176), certainly, in the spirit which they
breathe, are well adapted to convey the notion, that,
though her parents had no privilege beyond other
parents, she had not personally any part in sin whatever.
It is true that several great Fathers of the fourth century
do imply or assert that on one or two occasions she
did sin venially or showed infirmity. This is the only
real objection which I know of; and as I do not wish
to pass it over lightly, I propose to consider it at the
end of this Letter.'

2. Now, secondly, her dignity. Here let us suppose
that our first parents had overcome in their trial ; and
had gained for their descendants for ever the full posses-
sion, as if by right, of the privileges which were pro-
mised to their obedience, — grace here and glory here-
after. Is it possible that those descendants, pious and
happy from age to age in their temporal homes, would
have forgotten their benefactors ? Would they not have
followed them in thought into the heavens, and grate-
fully commemorated them on earth ? The history of
the temptation, the craft of the serpent, their Bteadfast-

» Vid. Note III. infr.

in her Exaltation, 5 1

ness in obedience,— the loyal vigilance, the sensitive
purity of Eve, — the great issue, salvation wrought out
for all generations, — would have been never from their
minds, ever welcome to their ears. This would have
taken place from the necessity of our nature. Every
nation ha^ its mythical hymns and epics about its first
fathers and its heroes. The great deeds of Charlemagne,
Alfred, Cceur de Lion, Louis the ninth, Wallace, Joan
of Arc, do not die ; and though their persons are gone
from us, we make much of their names. Milton's
Adam, after his fall, understands the force of this law
and shrinks from the prospect of its operation.

"Who of all ages to succeed, but, feeling
The evil on him brouglit by me, will curao
My head ? Ill fare our aucestor impure,
For this we may thank Adam."

If this anticipation of the first man has not been ful-
filled in the event, it is owing to the exigencies of our
penal life, our stateof perpetual change, and the ignorance
and unbelief incurred by the fall ; also because, fallen as
we are, still from the hopefulness of our nature, we feel
more pride in our national great men, than dejection at
our national misfortunes. Much more then in the great
kingdom and people of God ; — the Saints are ever in our
sight, and not as mere ineffectual ghosts or dim memo-
ries, but as if present bodily in their past selves. It is said
of them, " Their works do follow them ; '* what they were
here, such are they in heaven and in the Church. As
we call them by their earthly names, so we contemplate
them in their earthly characters and histories. Their acts,
calings, and relations below, are types and anticipations

E 2

5 2 Belief of Catholics

of their present mission above. Even in tlie case of
our Lord Himself, wl)ose native home is the eternal
heavens, it is said of Him in His state of glory., that
He is " a Priest for ever ; " and when He comes again,
He will be recognized by those who pierced Him^ as
being the very same that He was on earth. The only
question is, whether the Blessed "Virgin had a part, a
real part, in the economy of grace, whether, when she
was on earth, she secured by her deeds any claim on
our memories ; for, if she did, it is impossible we should
put her away from us, merely because she is gone hence,
and should not look at her still according to the mea-
sure of her earthly history, with gratitude and expecta-
tion. If, as St. Irenseus says, she acted the part of an
Advocate, a friend in need, even in her mortal life, if as
St. Jerome and St. Ambrose say, she was on earth the
great pattern of Virgins, if she had a meritorious share
in bringing about our redemption, if her maternity was
gained by her faith and obedience, if her Divine Son
was subject to her, and if she stood by the Cross with a
mother's heart and drank in to the full those sufferings
which it was her portion to gaze upon, it is impossible
that we should not associate these characteiistics of her
life on earth with her present state of blessedness ; and
this surely she anticipated, when she said in her hymn
that all " generations should call her blessed."

I am aware that, in thus speaking, I am following a
line of thought which is rather a meditation than an
argument in controversy, and I shall not carry it further ;
but still, before turning to other topics, it is to the
point to inquire, whether the popular astonishment, ex-

in her Exaltation, 53

cited by our belief in the blessed Virgin's present dignity,
does not arise from the circumstance that the bulk of
men, engaged in matters of this world, have never calmly-
considered her historical position in the gospels, so as
rightly to realize (if I may use the word a second time)
what that position imports. I do not claim for the
generaKty of Catholics any greater powers of reflection
upon the objects of their faith, than Protectants com-
monly have ; but, putting the run of Catholics aside,
there is a sufficient number of religious men among
us who, instead of expending their devotional energies
(as so many serious Protestants do) on abstract doctrines,
such as justification by faith only, or the sufficiency of
Holy Scripture, employ themselves in the contemplation
of Scripture facts, and bring out before their minds in a
tangible form the doctrines involved in them, and give
such a substance and colour to the sacred history, as to
influence their brethren ; and their brethren, though super-
ficial themselves, are drawn by their Catholic instinct to
accept conclusions which they could not indeed themselves
have elicited, but which, when elicited, they feel to be
true. However, it would be out of place to pursue this
course of reasoning here ; and instead of doing so, I
ehall take what perhaps you may think a very bold
step, — I shall find the doctrine of our Lady's present
exaltation in Scripture.

I mean to find it in the vision of the Woman and
Child in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse •} — now
here two objections will be made to me at once ; first

' Vid. Essay on Doctr. Development, p. 384, and Bishop Ullathorno'f
work on the Immaculate Conception, p. 77.

54 Belief of Catholics

that such an interpretation is but poorly supported by
the Fathers, and secondly that in ascribing such a
picture of the Madonna (as it may be called) to the
Apostolic age, I am committing an anachronism.

As to the former of these objections, I answer as
follows : — Christians have never gone to Scripture for
proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from
the pressure of controversy ; — if in those times the
Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all hands,
as a matter of doctrine, Scripture, as far as its argumen-
tative matter was concerned, was likely to remain a
sealed book to them. Thus, to take an instance in
point ; the CathoKc party in the Anglican Church (say,
the Nonjurors), unable by their theory of religion
simply to take their stand on Tradition, and distressed
for proof of their doctrines, had their eyes sharpened to
scrutinize and to understand in manj'^ places the letter of
Holy Scripture, which to others brought no instruction.
And the peculiarity of their interpretations is this, —
that these have in themselves great logical cogency, yet
are but faintly supported by patristical commentators.
Such is the use of the word irotelv or facers in our Lord's
institution of the Holy Eucharist, which, by a reference
to the Old Testament, is found to be a word of sacrifice.
Such again is XeirovpyovvTcov in the passage in the Acts
"As they ministered to the Lord and fasted," which
again is a sacerdotal term. And such the passage in
E-om. XV. 16, in which several terms are used which
have an allusion to the sacrificial Eucharistic rite. Such
too is St. Paul's repeated message to the houHehold of
Onesiphorus, with no meutionof Onesipliorus himself, but

ill her Exaltation. 55

in one place with the addition of a prayer that "he might
find mercy of the Lord " in the day of judgment, which,
taking into account its wording and the known usage of the
first centuries, we can hardly deny is a prayer for his souL
Other texts there are, which ought to finda place inancient
controversies, and the omission of which hy the Fathers
a fiords matter for more surprise ; those for instance,
which, according to Middleton^s rule, are real proofs of
our Lord's divinity, and yet are passed overby Catholic dis-
putants ; for these bear upon a then existing controversy
of the first moment, and of the most urgent exigency.

As to the second objection which I have supposed, so
far from allowing it, T consider that it is built upon a
mere imaginarj^ fact, and that the truth of the matter
lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and
Child is not a mere modern idea ; on the contrary, it is
represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is
aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is
there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with
hands extended in prayer, He with His hand in the at-
titude of blessing. No representation can more forcibly
convey the doctrine of the high dignity of the Mother,
and, I will add, of her influence with her Son. Why
should the memory of His time of subjection be so dear
to Christians, and so carefully preserved ? The only
question to be determined, is the precise date of these
remarkable monuments of the first age of Christianity.
That they belong to the centuries of what Anglicans
call the " undivided Church " is certain ; but lately in-
vestigations have been pursued, which place some of
them at an earlier date than any one anticipated as pos-

56 Belief of Catholics

sible. I am not in a position to quote largely from the
works of the Cavaliere de Rossi, who has thrown so
much light upon the subject ; but I have his " Imagini
Scelte," published in 1863, and they are sufficient for
my purpose. In this work he has given us from the
Catacombs various representations of the Virgin and
Child ; the latest of these belong to the early part of
the fourth century, but the earliest he believes to be re-
ferable to the very age of the Apostles. He comes to
this conclusion from the style and the skill of its com-
position, and from the history, locality, and existing in-
scriptions of the subterranean in which it is found.
However he does not go so far as to insist upon so early
a date ; yet the utmost concession he makes is to refer
the painting to the era of tbe first Antonines, that is,
to a date within half a century of the death of St. John.
I consider then, that, as you would use in controversy
with Protestants, and fairly, the traditional doctrine of
the Church in early times, as an explanation of a parti-
cular passage of Scripture, or at least as a suggestion, or
as a defence, of the sense which you may wish to put
upon it, quite apart from the question whether your in-
terpretation itself is directly traditional, so it is lawful
for me, though I have not the positive words of the
Fathers on my side, to shelter my own interpretation of
the Apostle's vision in the Apocalypse under the fact of
the extant pictures of Mother and Child in the Eoman
Catacombs. Again, there is another principle of Scrip-
ture interpretation which we should hold as well as you,
viz., when we speak of a doctrine being contained in
Scripture, we do not necessarily mean that it is contained

in her Exaltation, 57

there in direct categorical terms, but that there is no
satisfactory way of accounting for the language and ex-
pressions of the sacred writers, concerning the subject-
matter in question, except to suppose that they held
concerning it the opinion which we hold, — that they
would not have spoken as they have spoken, unless they
held it. For myself I have ever felt the truth of this
principle, as regards the Scripture proof of the Holy
Trinity ; I should not have found out that doctrine in
the sacred text without previous traditional teaching ;
but, when once it is suggested from without, it com-
mends itself as the one true interpretation, from its ap-
positeness, — because no other view of doctrine, which
can be ascribed to the inspired writers, so happily solves
the obscurities and seeming inconsistencies of their
teaching. And now to apply what I have been saying
to the passage in the Apocalypse.

If there is an Apostle on whom, et priori, our eyes
would be fixed, as likely to teach us about the Blessed
Virgin, it is St. John, to whom she was committed by
our Lord on the Cross ; — with whom, as tradition goes,
she lived at Ephesus till she was taken away. This an-
ticipation is confirmed a posteriori ; for, as I have said
above, one of the earliest and fullest of our informants
concerning her dignity, as being the second Eve, is
Irenaeus, who came to Lyons from Asia Minor, and had
been taught by the immediate disciples of St. John.
The Apostle's vision is as follows : —

" A great sign appeared in heaven : A woman clothed
with the Sun, and the Moon under her feet ; and on her
head a crown 01 twelve stars. And being with child,

58 Belief of Catholics

she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be de-
livered. And there was seen another sign in heaven ;
and behold a great red dragon . , . . And the dragon
stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered,
that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her
son. And she brought forth a man child, who was to
rule all nations with an iron rod ; and her son was taken
up to God and to His throne. And the woman fled into
the wilderness." Now I do not deny of course, that
under the image of the Woman, the Church is signified ;
but what I would maintain is this, that the Holy
Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under
this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed
Virgin Marj^, who was exalted on high, and tlie object
of veneration to all the faithful.

No one doubts that the " man-child " spoken of is an
allusion to our Lord: why then is not "the Woman''
an allusion to His Mother ? This surely is the obvious
sense of the words ; of course they have a further sense
also, which is the scope of the image ; doubtless the
Child represents the children of the Church, and doubtless
the Woman represents the Church ; this, I grant, is the
real or direct sense, but what is the sense of the symbol
under which that real sense is conveyed ? w}io are the
Woman and the Child ? I answer, they are not personi-
fications but Persons. This is true of the Child, there-
fore it is true of the Woman.

But again : not only Mother and Child, but a serpent
is introduced into the vision. Such a meeting of man,
woman, and serpent has not been found in Scripture,
since the beginning of Scriptui'e, and now it is found

in her Exaltation, 59

in its end. Moreover, in the passage in the Apocalypse,
as if to supply, before Scripture came to an end, what
was wanting in its beginning, we are told, and for the
first time, that the serpent in Paradise was the evil
spirit. If the dragon of St. John is the same as the
serpent of Moses, and the man-child is " the seed of the
woman," why is not the woman herself she, whose seed
the man-child is ? And, if the first woman is not an
allegory, why is the second ? if the first woman is Eve,
why is not the second Mary ?

But this is not all. The image of the woman, ac-
cording to general Scripture usage, is too bold and pro-
minent for a mere personification. Scripture is not
fond of allegories. We have indeed frequent figures
there, as when the sacred writers speak of the arm or
sword of the Lord ; and so too when they speak of
Jerusalem or Samaria in the feminine ; or of the Church
as a bride or as a vine ; but they are not much given
to dressing up abstract ideas or generalizations in
personal attributes. This is the classical rather than
the Scriptural style. Xenophon places Hercules between
Virtue and Vice, represented as women ; -i^schylus in-
troduces into his drama Force and Violence ; Virgil
gives personality to public rumour or Fame, and Plautus
to Poverty. So on monuments done in the classical
style, we see virtues, vices, rivers, renown, death, and
the like, turned into human figures of men and women.
Certainly I do not deny there are some instances of this
method in Scripture, but I say that such poetical com-
positions are strikingly unlike its usual method. Thus,
we at once feel the difference from Scripture, when we

6o Belief of Catholics

betake ourselves to the Pastor of Hermas, and find the
Church a woman ; to St. Methodius, and find Virtue a
woman ; and to St. Gregory^s poem, and find Virginity
again a woman. Scripture deals with types rather than
personifications. Israel stands for the chosen people,
David for Christ, Jerusalem for heaven. Consider the
remarkable representations, dramatic I may call them, in
Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Hosea: predictions, threatenings,
and promises, are acted out by those Prophets. Ezechiel
is commanded to shave his head, and to divide and scatter
his hair; and Ahias tears his garment, and gives ten
out of twelve parts of it to Jeroboam. So too the struc-
ture of the imagery in the Apocalypse is not a mere
allegorical creation, but is founded on the Jewish ritual.
In like manner our Lord's bodily cures are visible types
of the power of His grace upon the soul ; and His pro-
phecy of the last day is conveyed under that of the fall
of Jerusalem. Even His parables are not simply ideal,
but relations of occurrences, which did or might take
place, under which was conveyed a spiritual meaning.
The description of Wisdom in the Proverbs and other
sacred books, has brought out the instinct of com-
mentators in this respect. They felt that Wisdom could
not be a mere personification, and they determined that
it was our Lord : and the later-written of these books,
by their own more definite language, warranted that
interpretation. Then, when it was found that the Arians
used it in derogation of our Lord's divinity, still, unable
to tolerate the notion of a mere allegory, commentators
applied the description to the Blessed Virgin. Coming
back then to the Apocalyptic vision, I ask. If the Woman

in her Exaltation. 6 1

ought to be some real person, who can it be whom the
Apostle saw, und intends, and delineates, but that same
Great Mother to whom the chapters in the Proverbs
are accommodated ? And let it be observed, moreover,
that in this passage, from the allusion made in it to the
history of the fall, Mary may be said still to be repre-
sented under the character of the Second Eve. I make
a farther remark : it is sometimes asked. Why do not
the sacred writers mention our Lady's greatness? I
answer, she was, or may have been alive, when the
Apostles and Evangelists wrote; — there was just onp
book of Scripture certainly written after her death, and
that book does (so to say) canonize and crown her.

But if all this be so, if it is really the Blessed Virgin
whom Scripture represents as clothed with the sun,
crowned with the stars of heaven, and with the moon
as her footstool, what height of glory may we not
attribute to her? and what are we to say of those
who, through ignorance, run counter to the voice of
Scripture, to the testimony of the Fathers, to the
traditions of East and West, and speak and act
contemptuously towards her whom her Lord delighteth
to honour ?

2.

JN^ow I have said all I mean to say on what I have
called the rudimental teaching of Antiquity about the
Blessed Virgin ; but after all I have not insisted on the
highest view of her prerogatives, which the Fathers
have taught us. You, my dear Friend, who know so
well the ancient controversies and Councils, may have

62 Belief of Catholics

been surprised why I should not have yet spoken of her
as the Theotocos ; — but I wished to show on how broad
a basis her dignity rests, independent of that wonderful
title ; and again I have been loth to enlarge upon the
force of a word, which is rather matter for devotional
thought than for polemical dispute. However, I might
as well not write to you at all, as altogether be silent
upon it.

It is then an integral portion of the Faith fixed by
Ecumenical Council, a portion of it which you hold as
well as I, that the Blessed Virgin is Theotocos, Deipara,
or Mother of God; and this word, when thus used,
carries with it no admixture of rhetoric, no taint of
extravagant affection, — it has nothing else but a well'
weighed, grave, dogmatic sense, which corresponds and
is adequate to its sound. It intends to express that
God is her Son, as truly as any one of us is the son of
his own mother. If this be so, what can be said of any
creature whatever, which may not be said of her?
what can be said too much, so that it does not com-
promise the attributes of the Creator? He indeed
might have created a being more perfect, more ad-
mirable, than she is; He might have endued that being,
,80 created, with a richer grant of grace, of power, of
blessedness : but in one respect she surpasses all even
possible creations, viz., that she is Mother of her
Creator. It is this awful title, which both illustrates
and connects together the two prerogatives of Mary, on
which I have been lately enlarging, her sanctity and
her greatness. It is the issue of her sanctity ; it is the
origin of her greatness. What dignity can be too great

that she is Tkeo tocos. 63

to attribute to her who is as closely bound up, as inti-
mately one, with the Eternal Word, as a mother is
with a son ? What outfit of sanctity, what fulness and
redundance of grace, what exuberance of merits must
have been hers, when once we admit the supposition,
which the Fatliers justify, that her Maker really did
regard those merits, and take them into account, when
He condescended "not to abhor the Virgin's womb''?
Is it surprising then that on the one hand she should
be immaculate in her Conception ? or on the other that
•she should be honoured with an Assumption, and ex-
alted as a queen with a crown of twelve stars, with the
rulers of day and night to do her service ? Men some-
times wonder that we call her Mother of life, of mercy,
of salvation ; what are all these titles compared to that
one name, Mother of God ?

I shall say no more about this title here. It is
scarcely possible to write of it without diverging into
a style of composition un suited to a Letter ; so I will
but refer to the history and to instances of its use.

The title of Theotocos,^ as ascribed to the Blessed
Mary, begins with ecclesiastical writers of a date hardly
later than that at which we read of her as the second
Eve. It first occurs in the works of Origen (185 — 254);
but he, witnessing for Egypt and Palestine, witnesses
also that it was in use before his time ; for, as Socrates
informs us, he "interpreted how it was to be used,
and discussed the question at length" {Uial. vii. 32).
Within two centuries of his time (431), in the General

« Vid. Oxford Translation of St. Athanasiua, pp. 420, 410, 447 ; and
Essay on Doct. Development, pp. 407 — 409.

64 Belief of Catholics

Council -held against Nestorius, it was made part of
the formal dogmatic teaching of the Church. At that
time, Theodoret, who from his party connexions might
have been supposed disinclined to its solemn recog-
nition, owned that " the ancient and more than ancient
heralds of the orthodox faith taught the use of the
term according to the Apostolic tradition." At the
same date John of Antioch, the temporary protector of
Nestorius, whose heresy lay in the rejection of the
term, said, " This title no ecclesiastical teacher has put
aside. Those who have used it are many and eminent;
and those who have not used it, have not attacked those
who did." Alexander again, one of the fiercest par-
tisans of Nestorius, witnesses to the use of the word,
though he considers it dangerous ; " That in festive
solemnities," he says, "or in preaching or teaching,
theotocos should be unguardedly said by the orthodox
without explanation is no blame, because such state-
ments were not dogmatic, nor said with evil meaning."
If we look for those Fathers, in the interval between
Origen and the Council, to whom Alexander refers as
using the term, we find among them no less names
than Archelaus of Mesopotamia, Eusebius of Palestine,
Alexander of Egypt, in the third century; in the
fourth, Athanasius. who uses it many times with
emphasis, Cyril of Palestine, Gregory Nyssen and
Gregory Nazianzen of Cappadocia, Antiochus of Syria,
and Ammonius of Thrace : — not to refer to the Em-
peror Julian, who, having no local or ecclesiastical
domicile, is a witness for the whole of Christendom.
Another and earlier Emperor, Coustantiue, in his speech

that she is the Theotocos. 65

before the assembled Bishops at Nicsea, uses the still
more explicit title of ''the Virgin Mother of Godj"
which is also used by Ambrose of Milan, and by
Vincent and Cassian in the south of France, and then
by St. Leo.

So much for the term ; it would be tedious to pro-
duce the passages of authors who, using or not using
the term, convey the idea. " Our God was carried in
the womb of Mary," says Ignatius, who was martyred
A.D. 106. "The Word of God/' says Hippolytus, "was
carried in that Virgin frame." " The Maker of all/'
says Amphilochius, " is born of a Virgin." " She did
compass without circumscribing the Sun of justice, —
the Everlasting is born," says Chrysostom. " God
dwelt in the womb," says Proclus. " When thou
hearest that God speaks from the bush," asks Theodotus,
"in the bush seest thou not the Virgin?" Cassian
says, " Mary bore her Author." " The One God only-
begotten," says Hilary, " is introduced into the womb
of a Virgin." "The Everlasting," says Ambrose,
"came into the Virgin." "The closed gate," says
Jerome, " by which alone the Lord God of Israel enters,
is the Virgin Mary." " That man from heaven," says
Capriolus, " is God conceived in the womb." " He is
made in thee," says St. Augustine, " who made thee."

This being the faith of the Fathers about the Blessed
Virgin, we need not wonder that it should in no long
time be transmuted into devotion. No wonder if their
language .should become unmeasured, when so great a
term as " Mother of God" had been formally set down

66 Belief of Catholics

as the safe limit of it. No wonder if it should he
stronger and stronger as time went on, since only in a
long period could the fulness of its import he exhausted.
And in matter of fact, and as might be anticipated,
(with the few exceptions which I have noted above, and
which I am to treat of below), the current of thought
in those early ages did uniformly tend to make much
of the Blessed Virgin and to increase her honours, not
to circumscribe them. Little jealousy was shown of
her in those times ; but, when any such niggardness of
affection occurred, then one Father or other fell upon
the offender, with zeal, not to say with fierceness.
Thus St. Jerome inveighs against Helvidius ; thus St.
Epiphanius denounces Apollinaris, St. Cyril Nestorius,
and St. Ambrose Bonosus ; on the other hand, each
successive insult offered to her by individual adversaries
did but bring out more fully the intimate sacred affec-
tion with which Christendom regarded her. " She was
alone, and wrought the world's salvation and conceived
the redemption of all," says Ambrose ; ^ " she had so
great grace, as not only to preserve virginity herself,
but to confer it on those whom she visited." " She is
the rod out of the stem of Jesse," says St. Jerome,
" and the Eastern gate through which the High Priest
alone goes in and out, which still is ever shut." " She
is the wise woman," says Nilus, who " hath clad be-
lievers, from the fleece of the Lamb born of her, with
the clothiri<>- of incorruption, and delivered them from
their spiritual nakedness." "She is the mother of life,

8 Essay on Doctr. Dev. vhi swpr.

that she is the Tkeotocos. 67

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 translated from death unto life,"
according to St. Ephrem. "The manna, which is
delicate, bright, sweet, and virgin, which, as though
coming from heaven, has poured down on all the people
of the Churches a food pleasanter than honey," accord-
ing to St. Maximus.

Basil of Seleucia says, that " she shines out above
all the martyrs as the sun above the stars, and that she
mediates between God and men." " Run through all
creation in your thought,'' says Proclus, " and see if
there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin,
Mother of God." " Hail, Mother, clad in light, of the
light which sets not," says Theodotus, or some one else
atEphesus; " hail, all undefiled mother of holiness ; hail,
most pellucid fountain of the life-giving stream." And
St. Cyril too at Ephesus, " Hail, Mary, Mother of God,
majestic common- treasure of the whole world, the laiiip
unquenchable, the crown of virginity, the sceptre of
orthodoxy, the indissoluble temple, the dwelling of the
Illimitable, Mother and Virgin, through whom He in
the holy gospels is called blessed who couieth 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.* "
Such is but a portion of the panegyrical langmigo
which St. Cyril used in the third Ecumenical Council.

^ 0pp. t. 6, p. 355.
F 2

68 Belief of Catholics

1 must not close my review of the Catholic doctrine
concerning the Blessed Virgin, without directly speaking
of her intercessory power, though I have incidentally
made mention of it already. It is the immediate result
of two truths, neither of which you dispute ; — first, that
" it is good and useful," as the Council of Trent says,
" suppliantly to invoke the Saints and to have recourse
to their praj'ers ;" and secondly, that the Blessed Mary
is singularly dear to her Son and singularly exalted in
sanctity and glory. However, at the risk of becoming
didactic, I will state somewhat mure fully the grounds
on which it rests.

To a candid pagan it must have been one of the most
remarkable points of Christianity, on its first appearance,
that the observance of prayer formed so vital a part of
its organization ; and that, though its members were
scattered all over the world, and its rulers and subjects
had so little opportunity of correlative action, yet they,
one and all, found the solace of a spiritual intercourse
and a real bond of union, in the practice of mutual in-
tercession. Prayer indeed is the very essence of all re-
ligion ; but in the heathen religions it was either public
or personal; it was a state ordinance, or a selfish ex-
pedient for the attainment of certain tangible, temporal
goods. Very different from this was its exercise among
Christians, who were thereby knit together in one body,
different, as they were, in races, ranks, and habits,
distant from each other in country, and helpless amid
hostile populations. Yet it pro\ed sufficient for itspur-^

zn her Intercessory Power. 6q

pose. Christians could not correspond ; they could not
combine ; but they could pray one for another. Eveu
their public prayers partook of this character of inter-
cession ; for to pray for the welfare of the whole Church
was in- fact a prayer for all the classes of men and all
the individuals of which it was composed. It was in
prayer that the Church was founded. For ten days all
the Apostles " persevered with one mind in prayer and
supplication, with the women, and Mary the Mother of
Jesus, and with his brethren." Then again at Pentecost
" they were all with one mind in one place ;" and the
converts then made are said to have " persevered in
prayer.^^ And when, after a while, St. Peter was seized
and put in prison with a view to his being put to death,
" prayer was made without ceasing '^ by the Church of
God for him ; and, when the Angel released him, he
took refuge in a house " where many were gathered
together in prayer."

We are so accustomed to these passages as hardly to
be able to do justice to their singular significance ; and
they are followed up by various passages of the Apostolic
Epistles. St. Paul enjoins his brethren to " pray with
all prayer and supplication at all times in the Spirit,
with all instance and supplication for all saints," to
" pray in every place," " to mak(! supplication, prayers,
intercessions, giving of thanks, for all men." And in
his own person he " ceases not to give thanks for them,
commemorating them in his prayers," and "always in
all his prayers making supplication for them all witli

joy"

Now, was this spiritual bond to ceaso with life? or

yo Belief of Catholics

had Christians similar duties to their brethren departed?
From the witness of the early ages of the Church, it ap-
pears that they had ; and you, and those who agree with
you, would be the last to deny that they were then in
the practice of praying, as for the living, so for those
also who had passed into the intermediate state between
earth and heaven. Did the sacred communion extend
further still, on to the inhabitants of heaven itself?
Here too you agree with us, for you have adopted in
your Volume the words of the Council of Trent which
I have quoted above. But now we are brought to a
higher order of thought.

It would be preposterous to pray for those who are
already in glory ; but at least they can pray for us, and
we can ask their prayers, and in the Apocalypse at least
Angels are introduced both sending us their blessing and
offering up our prayers before the Divine Presence. We
read there of an angel who ''came and stood before the
altar, having a golden censer j" and " there was given
to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers
of all saints upon the golden altar which is before the
Throne of God." On this occasion, surely the Angel
performed the part of a great Intercessor or Mediator
above for the children of the Church Militant below.
Again, in the beginning of the same book, the sacred
writer goes so far as to speak of " grace and peace *'
coming to us, not only from the Almighty, " but from
the seven Spirits that are before His throne/' thus asso-
ciating the Eternal with the ministers of His mercies :
and this carries us on to the remarkable passage of St
Justin, one of the earliest Fathers, who, in his Apology,

in her Intercessory Pozuer. j i

says, " To Hini (God), and His Sou who came from Him
and taught us these things, and the host of the other
good Angels who follow and resemble Him, and the
Prophetic Spirit, we pay veneration and homage."
Further, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul intro-
duces, not only Angels, but "the spirits of the just"
into the sacred communion : " Ye have come to Mount
Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels,
to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of the just made
perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Testa-
ment.-*' What can be meant by having "come to the
spirits of the just," unless in some way or other, they
do us good, whether by blessing or by aiding us ? that
is, in a word, to speak correctly, by praying for us, for
it is surely by prayer that the creature above is able to
bless and aid the creature below.

Intercession thus being a first principle of the Church's
life, next it is certain again, that the vital force of that
intercession, as an availing power, is, (according to the
will of God), sanctity. This seems to be suggested by
a passage of St. Paul, in which the Supreme Intercessor
is said to be " the Spirit : " — " the Spirit Himself
maketh intercession for us ; He maketh intercession for
the saints according to God." And, indeed, the truth
thus implied, is expressly brought out for us in other
parts of Scripture, in the form both of doctrine and of
example. The words of the man born blind speak the
common-sense of nature : — " if any man be a worshipper
of God, him He heareth." And Apostles confirm them :
— '' the prayer of a just man availeth much," and
" whatever wo ask, we receive, because we keep his com-

7 2 Belief of Catholics

1 11 an dm exits." Then, as for examples, we read of the
Almighty's revealing to Abraham and Moses beforehand,
His purposes of wrath, in order that they by their in-
tercessions might avert its execution. To the friends of
Job it was said, " My servant Job shall pray for you ;
his face I will accept." Elias by his prayer shut and
opened the heavens. Elsewhere we read of *' Jeremias,
Moses, and Samuel ;" and of " Noe, Daniel, and Job,"
as being great mediators between God and His people.
One instance is given us, which testifies the continuance
of this high office beyond this life. Lazarus, in the
parable, is seen in Abraham's bosom. It is usual to
pass over this striking passage with the remark that it
is a Jewish mode of speech ; whereas, Jewish belief or
not, it is recognized and sanctioned by our Lord Him-
self. What do Catholics teach about the Blessed Virgin
more wonderful than this ? H Abraham, not yet as-
cended on high, had charge of Lazarus, what ofience is
it to affirm the like of her, who was not merely as Abra-
ham, " the friend," but was the very "Mother of Grod'' ?
It may be added, that, though, if sanctity was want-
ing, it availed nothing for influence with our Lord, to
be one of His company, still, as the Gospel shows. He
on various occasions actuall)^ did allow those who were
near Him, to be the channels of introducing supplicants
to Him or of gaining miracles from Him, as in the in-
stance of the miracle of the loaves ; and if on one occa-
sion. He seems to repel His Mother, when she told Him
that wine was wanting for the guests at the marriage
feast, it is obvious to remark on it, that, by saying that
she was then separated from Him {" What have I to do

in her Inter cesso7y Power. 73

with thee?") because His hour was not yet come, He
implied, that wheu that hour was come, such separation
would be at an end. Moreover, in fact He did at her
intercession work the miracle to which her words
pointed.

I consider it impossible then, for those who believe
the Church to be one vast body in heaven and on earthy
in which every holy creature of God has his place, and
of which prayer is the life, when once they recognize
the sanctity and dignity of the Blessed Virgin, not to
perceive immediately, that her office above is one of
perpetual intercession for the faithful militant, and that
our very relation to her must be that of clients to a
patron, and tliat, in the eternal enmity which exists
between the woman and the serpent, while the serpent's
strength lies in being the Tempter, the weapon of the
Second Eve and Mother of God is prayer.

As then these ideas of her sanctity and dignity
gradually penetrated the mind of Christendom, so did
that of her intercessory power follow close iipon them
and with them. From the earliest times that mediation
is symbolized in those representations of her with up-
lifted hands, which, whether in plaster or in glass, are
still extant in Rome, — that Church, as St. Ironacus says,
with which " every Church, that is, the faithful from
every side, must agree, because of its more powerful
principality;" "into which," as TertuUian adds, "the
Apostles poured out, together with their blood, their
whole doctrine." As far indeed as existing documents
are concerned, I know of no instance to my purpose
earlier than a.d. 234, but it is a very remarkable one ;

74 Belief of Cat Jio tics

and, though it has been often quoted in the controversy,
an argument is not weaker for i'requent use.

St. Gregory Nyssen/ then, a native of Cappadocia in
the fourth century, relates that his namesake, Bishop
of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, surnamed Thaumaturgus, in
the century preceding, shortly before he was called to the
priesthood, received in a vision a Creed, which is still
extant, from the Blessed Mary at the hands of St. John.
The account runs thus : — He was deeply pondering
theological doctrine, which the heretics of the day
depraved. " In such thoughts," says his namesake of
Nyssa, " he was passing the night, when one appeared,
as if in human form, aged in appearance, saintly in the
fashion of his garments, and very venerable both in
grace of countenance and general mien. Amazed at the
sight, he started from his bed, and asked who it was,
and why he came ; but, on the other calming the per-
turbation of his mind with his gentle voice, and saying
he had appeared to him by divine command on account
of his doubts, in order that the truth of the orthodox
faith might be revealed to him, he took courage at the
word, and regarded him with a mixture of joy and
fright. Then, on his stretching his hand straight for-
ward and pointing with his fingers at something on
one side, he followed with his eyes the extended hand,
and saw another appearance opposite to the former, in
shape of a woman, but more than human. . . . When
his eyes could not bear the apparition, he heard them
conversing together on the subject of his doubts ; and

» Vid. Essay on Bnctr. Dev., y> S86.

in her hiiei^cessory Powei\ 75

thereby not only gained a true knowledge of the faith,
but learned their names, as they addressed each other
by their respective appellations. And thus he is said to
have heard the person in woman's shape bid ' John the
Evangelist' disclose to the young man the mystery of
godliness ; and he answered that he was ready to comply
in this matter with the wish of 'the Mother of the
Lord/ and enunciated a formulary, well-turned and
complete, and so vanished. He, on the other hand,
immediately committed to writing that divine teaching
of his mystagogue, and henceforth preached in the
Church according to that form, and bequeathed to
posterity, as an inheritance, that heavenly teaching, by
means of which his people are instructed down to this
day, being preserved from all heretical evil." He
proceeds to rehearse the Creed thus given, " There is
One God, Father of a Living Word," &c. Bull, after
quoting it in his work on the Nicene Faith, alludes to
this history of its origin, and adds, " No one should
think it incredible that such a providence should befall
a nan whose whole life was conspicuous for revelations
and miracles, as all ecclesiastical writers who have
mentioned him (and who has not ?) witness with one
voice."

Here our Lady is represented as rescuing a holy soul
from intellectual error. This leads me to a further
reflection. You seem, in one place of your Volume, to
object to the Antiphon, in which it is said of her, " All
heresies thou hast destroyed alone.*' Surely the truth
of it is verified in this age, as in former times, and
especially by the doctrine concerning her, on which F

76 ' Belief of Cat Jwlics.

have been dwelliiig'. She is the great exemplar of
prayer in a generation, which emphatically denies the
power of prayer in toto, which determines that fatal
laws govern the universe, that there cannot be any
direct communication between earth and heaven, that
God cannot visit His own earth, and that man cannot
influence His ^ rovidence.

Belief of Catholics aboiU the Blessed Virgin, ly

SJ 4. — Bclirf of Catholics concerving the Blessed Virgin,
as coloured by their Devotion to her.

I CANNOT help hoping that your own reading of the
Fathers will on the whole bear me out in the above
account of their teaching concerning the Blessed Virgin.
Anglicans seem to me simply to overlook the strength of
the argument adducible from the works of those ancient
doctors in our favour; and they open the attack upon
our medieeval and modern writers, careless of leaving a
host of primitive opponents in their rear. I do not
include you among such Anglicans, as you know what
the Fathers assert ; but, if so, have you not, my dear
Friend, been unjust to yourself in your recent Volume,
and made i'ar too much of the differences which exist
between Anglicans and us on this particular point ? It
is the office of an Irenicon to smoothe difficulties ; I
shall be pleased if I succeed in removing some of yours.
Let the public judge between us here. Had you hap-
pened in your Volume to introduce your notice of our
teaching about the Blessed Virgin, with a notice of the
teaching of the Fathers concerning her, which you
follow, ordinary men would have considered that there
was not much to choose between you and us. Though
you appealed ever so raucli, in your defence, to the
authority of the " undivided Church," they would have

78 Belief of Cat ho lies aboiU the Blessed Virgin

said that you, who had such high notions of the Blessed
Mtiry, were one of the last men who had a right to
accuse us of quasi- idolatry. When they found you
with the Fathers calling her Mother of God, Second
Eve, and Mother of all Living, the Mother of Life, the
Morning Star, the Mystical New Heaven, the Sceptre
of Orthodoxy, the All-undefiled Mother of Holiness,
and the like, they would have deemed it a poor com-
pensation for such language, that you protested against
her being called a Co-redemptress or a Priestess. And,
if they were violent Protestants, they would not have
read you with the relish and gratitude with which, as
it is, they have perhaps accepted your testimony against
us. Not that they would have been altogether fair in
their view of you ; — on the contrary I think there is a
real difference between what you protest against, and
what with the Fathers you hold ; but unread men of
the world form a broad practical judgment of the
things which come before them, and they would have
felt in this case that they had the same right to be
shocked at you, as you have to be shocked at us ; — and
further, which is the point to which I am coming, they
would have said, that, granting some of our modern
writers go beyond the Fathers in this matter, still the
line cannot be logically drawn between the teaching
of the Fathers concerning the Blessed Virgin and our
own. This view of the matter seems to me true and
important; I do not think the line can be satisfac-
torily drawn, and to this point 1 shall now direct my
attention.

It is impossible, I say, in a doctrine like this, to draw

Coloured by their Devotion to her. 79

the line cleanly between truth and error, right and
wrong. This is ever the case in concrete matters,
which have life. Life in this world is motion, and
involves a continual process of change. Living things
grow into their perfection, into their decline, into their
death. No rule of art will suffice to stop the operation
of this natural law, whether in the material world or in
the human mind. We can indeed encounter disorders,
when they occur, by external antagonism and remedies;
but we cannot eradicate the process itself, out of which
they arise. Life has the same right to decay, as it has
to wax strong. This is specially the case with great
ideas. You may stifle them ; or you may refuse them
elbow-room ; or again, you may torment them with
your continual meddling ; or you may let them have
free course and range, and be content, instead of antici-
pating their excesses, to expose and restrain those ex-
cesses after they have occurred. But you have only this
alternative ; and f-^r myself, I prefer much wherever
it is possible, to be first generous and then just; to
grant full liberty of thought, and to cull it to account
when abused.

If what I have been saying be true of energetic ideas
generally, much more is it the case in matters of religion.
Religion acts on the affections ; who is to hinder these,
when once roused, from gathering in their strength
and running wild ? They are not gifted with any
connatural principle within them, which renders them
self-governing, and self-adjusting. They hurry right
on to their object, and often in their case it is, the
more haste, the worse speed. Their object engrosses

So Belief of Catholics about the Blessed Virgin.

tbem, and they see nothing else. And of all passions
love is the most unmanageable ; nay more, I would not
o-ive much for that love which is never extravagant,
which always observes the proprieties, and can move
about in perfect good taste, under all emergencies.
What mother, what husband or wife, what youth or
maiden in love, but says a thousand foolish things, in
the way of endearment, which the speaker would be
sorry for strangers to hear; yet they are not on that
account unwelcome to the parties to whom they are
addressed. Sometimes by bad luck they are written
down, sometimes they get into the newspapers; and
what might be even graceful, when it was fresh from
the heart, and interpreted by the voice and the coun-
tenance, presents but a melancholy exhibition when
served up cold for the public eye. So it is with devo-
tional feelings. Burning thoughts and words are as
open to criticism as they are beyond it. What is
abstractedly extravagant, may in particular persons be
becoming and beautiful, and only fall under blame when
it is found in others who imitate them. When it is
formalized into meditations or exercises, it is as re-
pulsive as love-letters in a police report. Moreover,
even holy minds readily adopt and become familiar with
language which they would never have originated them-
selves, when it proceeds from a writer who has the same
objects of devotion as they have; and, if they find a
stranger ridicule or reprobate supplication or praise
which has come to them so recommended, they feel it as
keenly as if a direct insult were offered to those to whom
that homage is addressed. In the next place, what has

Coloured by their Devotion to her. 81

power to stir holy and refined souls is potent also with
the multitude ; and the religion of the multitude is ever
vulgar and abnormal ; it ever will be tinctured with
fanaticism and superstition, while men are what they
are. A people's religion is ever a corrupt religion, in
spite of the provisions of Holy Church. If she is to
be Catholic, you must admit within her net fish of
every kind, guests good and bad, vessels of gold, vessels
of earth. You may beat religion out of men, if you
will, and then their excesses will take a different
direction ; but if you make use of religion to improve
them, they will make use of religion to corrupt it. And
then you will have effected that compromise of which
our countrymen report so unfavourably from abroad : —
a high grand faith and worship which compels their
admiration, and puerile absurdities among the people
which excite their contempt.

Nor is it any safeguard against these excesses in a
religious system, that the religion is based upon reason,
and developes into a theology. Theology both uses
logic and baffles it ; and thus logic acts both for the pro-
tection and for the perversion of religion. Theology is
occupied with supernatural matters, and is ever running
into mysteries, which reason can neither explain nor
adjust. Its lines of thought come to an abrupt termina-
nation, and to pursue them or to complete them is to
plunge down the abyss. But logic blunders on, forcing
its way, as it can, through thick darkness and ethereal
mediums. The Arians went ahead with logic for their
directing principle, and so lost the truth ; on the other
hand, St. Augustine intimates that, if we attempt to finrl

82 Belief of Catholics about the Blessed Virghi

and tie together the ends o£ lines which run into infinity
we shall only succeed in contradicting ourselves, when,
in his Treatise on the Holy Trinity, he is unable to find
the logical reason for not speaking of three Gods as well
as of One, and of one Person in the Godhead as well as
of Three. I do not mean to say that logic cannot be
used to set right its own error, or that in the hands of
an able disputant it may not trim the balance of trutk
This was done at the Councils of Antioch and Nicsea,
on occasion of the heresies of Paulus and Arius. But
such a process is circuitous and elaborate ; and is con-
ducted by means of minute subtleties which will give it
the appearance of a game of skill in matters too grave
and practical to deserve a mere scholastic treatment.
Accordingly St. Augustine, in the Treatise above men-
tioned, does no more than simply lay it down that the
statements in question are heretical, that is to say there
are three Gods is Tritheism, and to say there is but one
Person, Sabellianism. That is, good sense and a large
view of truth are the correctives of his logic. And
thus we have arrived at the final resolution of the whole
matter, for good sense and a large view of truth are
rare gifts ; whereas all men are bound to be devout,
and most men busy themselves in arguments and
inferences.

Now let me apply what I have been saying to the
teaching of the Church on the subject of the Blessed
Virgin. I have to recur to a subject of so sacred a
nature, that, writing as I am for publication, I need
the apology of my purpose for venturing to pursue it.
I sa^i^ then, when once we have mastered the idea, that

Colou7'ed by their Devotion to her. 83

Mary bore, suckled, and handled the Eternal in the
form of a child, what limit is conceivable to the rush
and flood of thoughts which such a doctrine involves 1
What awe and surprise must attend upon the know-
ledge, that a creature has been brought so close to the
Divine Essence ? It was the creation of a new idea
and of a new sympathy, of a new faith and worship,
when the holy Apostles announced that God had be-
come incarnate ; then a supreme love and devotion
to Him became possible, which seemed hopeless before
that revelation. This was the first consequence of
their preaching. But, besides this, a second range of
thoughts was opened on mankind, unknown before, and
unlike any other, as soon as it was understood that that
Incarnate God had a mother. The second idea is per-
fectly distinct from the former, and does not interfere
with it. He is God made L^w, she is a woman made
high. I scarcely like to use a familiar illustration on
the subject of the Blessed Virgin's dignity among
created beings, but it will serve to explain what I mean,
when I ask you to consider the difference of feeling,
with which we read the respective histories of Maria
Theresa and the Maid of Orleans ; or with which the
middle and lower classes of a nation regard a first
minister of the day who has come of an aristocratic
house, and one who has risen from the ranks. May
God's mercy keep me from the shadow of a thought,
dimming the purity or blunting the keenness of that
love of Him, which is our sole happiness and our sole
salvation ! But surely when He became man. He
brought home to us His incommunicable attributes

84 Belief of Catholics about the Blessed Virgin

with a distinctiveness, which precludes the possibility
of our lowering Him merely by our exalting a creature.
He alone has an entrance into our soul, reads our
secret thoughts, speaks to our heart, applies to us
spiritual pardon and strength. On Him we solely de-
pend. He alone is our inward life; He not only
regenerates us, but (to use the words appropriated to a
higher mystery) semri'per gignit ; He is ever renewing
our new birth and our heavenly sonship. In this
sense He may be called, as in nature, so in grace, our
real Father. Maryisonlyourmotherbydivineapppoint-
ment, given us from the Cross ; her presence is above
not on earth ; her office is external, not within us. Her
name is not heard in the administration of the Sacra-
ments. Her work is not one of ministration towards
as ; her power is indirect. It is her prayers that avail,
and her prayers are effectual by the flat of Him who is
our all in all. Nor need she hear us by any innate
power, or any personal gift ; but by His manifestation
to her of the prayers which we make to her. When
Moses was on the Mount, the Almighty told him of
the idolatry of his people at the foot of it, in order that
he might intercede for them ; and thus it is the Divine
Presence which is the intermediating Power by which
we reach her and she reaches us.

Woe is me, if even by a breath I sully these ineffable
truths ! but still, without prejudice to them, there is,
I say, anothei* range of thought quite distinct from
them, incommensurate with them, of which the Blessed
Virgin is the centre. If we placed our Lord in that

Coloured by their Devotion to her 85

centre, we should only be dragging Him from His
throne, and making Him an Arian kind of a God;
that is, no God at all. He who charges us with
making Mary a divinity, is thereby denying the divinity
of Jesus. Such a man does not know what divinity
is. Our Lord cannot pray for us, as a creature prays, as
Mary prays ; He cannot inspire those feelings which a
creature inspires. To her belongs, as being a creature,
a natural claim on our sympathy and familiarity, in
that she is nothing else than our fellow. She is our
pride, — in the poet's words, " Our tainted nature's
solitary boast ". We look to her without any fear, any
remorse, any consciousness that she is able to read us,
judge us, punish us. Our heart yearns towards that
pure Virgin, that gentleMother, and our congratulations
follow her, as she rises from Nazareth and Ephesus,
through the choirs of angels, to her throne on high,
so weak, yet so strong ; so delicate, yet so glorious ;
so modest and yet so mighty. She has sketched
for us her own portrait in the Magnificat. " He hath
regarded the low estate of His hand-maid ; for, behold,
from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat ; and
hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry
with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty
away." I recollect the strange emotion which took by
surprise men and women, young and old, when, at the
Coronation of our present Queen, they gazed on the
figure of one so like a child, so small, so tender, so
shrinking, who had been exalted to so great an inherit-

86 Belief of Catholics about the Blessed Virgin

ance and so vast a rule, who was such a contrast in
her own person to the solemn pageant which centred
in her. Could it be otherwise with the spectators, if
they had human affection ? And did not the All-wise
know the human heart when He took to Himself a
Mother ? did He not anticipate our emotion at the
sight of such an exaltation in one so simple and so
lowly? If He had not meant her to exert that wonder-
ful influence in His Church, which she has in the event
exerted, I will use a bold word, He it is who has per-
verted us. If she is not to attract our homage, why
did He make her solitary in her greatness amid Hih
vast creation ? If it be idolatry in us to let oui
affections respond to our iaith. He would not have
made her what she is, or He would not have told us
that He had so made her ; but, far from this, He has
sent His Prophet to announce to us, "A Virgin shall
conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name
Emmanuel,"" and we have the same warrant for hailing
her as God's Mother, as we have for adoring Him as
God.

Christianity is eminently an objective religion. For
the most part it tells us of persons and facts in simple
words, and leaves that announcement to produce its
effect on such hearts as are prepared to receive it. This
at least is its general character ; and Butler recognizes
it as such in his Analogy, when speaking of the Second
and Third Persons of the Holy Trinity: — "The internal
worship," he says, " to the Son and Holy Ghost is no
farther matter of pure revealed command than as

Coloured by their Devotion to her, 87

the relations they stand in to us are matters of pwre
revelation ; for the relations being known, the obliga-
tions to such internal worship . are obligations of reason
arising out of those relations themselves."* It is in this
way that the revealed doctrine of the Incarnation
exerted a stronger and a broader influence on Ohiistians,
as they more and more apprehended and mastered its
meaning and its bearings. It is contained in the brief
and simple declaration of St. John, " The Word was
made flesh ;" but it required century after century to
spread it out in its fulness, and to imprint it energeti-
cally on the worship and practice of the Catholic people
as well as on their faith. Athanasius was the first and
the great teacher of it. He collected together the in-
spired notices scattered through David, Isaias, St. Paul,
and St. John, and he engraved indelibly upon the ima-
ginations of the faithful, as had never been before, that
man is God, and God is man, that in Mary they meet,
and that in this sense Mary is the centre of all things.
He added nothing to what was known before, nothing
to the popular and zealous faith that her Son was God j
he has left behind him in his works no such definite
passages about her as those of St. Irenaeus or St. Epi-
phaniusj but he brought the circumstances of the
Incarnation home to men's minds, by the multiform
evolutions of his analysis, and thereby secured it to us
for ever from perversion. Still, however, there was
much to be done ; we have no proof that Athanasius

" Vid. Essay on Doctr. Dev., p. 50

88 Belief of Catholics about the Blessed Virgin,

himself had any special devotion to the Blessed Virgin ;
but he laid the foundations on which that devotion was
to rest, and thus noiselessly and without strife, as the
first Temple was built in the Holy City, she grew up
into her inheritance, and was " established in Sion and
her power was in Jerusalem."

Anglican Muconceptions, &c. 89

§ 5. — Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic Excesses; n
Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

Such was the origin of that august cultus which has
been paid to the Blessed Mary for so many centuries in
the East and in the West. That in times and places it
has fallen into abuse, that it has even become a super-
stition, I do not care to deny ; for, as I have said above,
the same process which brings to maturity carries on to
decay, and things that do not admit of abuse have very
little life in them. This of course does not excuse such
excesses, or justify us in making light of them, when
they occur, I have no intention of doin;^ so as regards
the particular instances which you bring against us,
though but a ^GVf words will suffice for what I need
say about them : — before doing so, however, I am
obliged to make three or four introductory remarks in
explanation.

1. I have almost anticipated my first remark already.
It is this : that the height of our offending in our devo-
tion to the Blessed Virgin would not look so great in
your Volume as it does, had you not deliberately placed
yourself on lower ground than your own feelings to-
wards her would have spontaneously prompted )'ou to
take. I have no doubt you had some good reason for

90 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

adopting this course, but I do not know it ; what I do
know is, that, for the Fathers' sake who so exalt her,
you really do love and venerate her, though you do not
evidence it in your book. I am glad then in this place
to insist on a fact which will lead those among us, who
know you not, to love you from their love of her, in
spite of what you refuse to give her; and lead Anglicans,
on the other hand, who do know you, to think better of
us, who refuse her nothing, when they reflect that, if
you come short of us, you do not actually go against us
in your devotion to her.

2. As you revere the Fathers, so you revere the Greek
Church ; and here again we have a witness on our be-
half, of which you must be aware as fully as we are, and
of which you must really mean to give us the benefit.
In proportion as the Greek ritual is known to the re-
ligious public, that knowledge will take off the edge of
the surprise of AngKcans at the sight of our devotions
to our Lady. It must weigh with them, when they
discover that we can enlist on our side in this contro-
versy those "seventy millions'' (I think they do so con-
sider them) of Orientals, who are separated from our
communion. Is it not a very pregnant fact, that the
Eastern Churches, so independent of us, so long sepa-
rated from the West, so jealous for Antiquity, should
even surpass us in their exaltation of the Blessed Virgin ?
That they go further than we do is sometimes denied,
on the ground that the Western devotion towards her is
brought out into system, and the Eastern is not ; yet
this only means really, that the Latins have more mental
activity, more strength of intellect, less of routine, less

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 9 1

of mechanical worship among them, than the Grooks.
We are able, better than they, to give an account of
what we do ; and we seem to be more extreme, merely
because we are more definite. But, after all, what have
the Latins done so bold, as that substitution of the
name of Mary for the Name of Jesus at the end of the
collects and petitions in the Breviary, nay, in the Ritual
and Liturgy ? Not merely in local or popular, and in
semi-authorized devotions, which are the kind of sources
that supply you with your matter of accusation against
us, but in the formal prayers of the Greek Eucharistic
Service, petitions are oflfered, not in " the name of Jesus
Christ," but in that " of the Tbeotocos." Such a phe-
nomenon, in such a quarter, I think ought to make
Anglicans merciful towards those writers among our-
selves, who have been excessive in sing'ng the praises of
the Deipara. To make a rule of substituting Mary with
all Saints for Jesus in the public service, has more
" Mariolatry " in it, than to alter the Te Deum to her
honour in private devotion,'

3. And thus I am brought to a third remark, supple-
mental to your accusation of us. Two large views, as I
have said above, are opened upon our devotional thoughts
in Christianity ; the one centering in the Son of Mary,
the other in the Mother of Jesus. Neither need obscure
the other ; and in the Catholic Church, as a matter of
fact, neither does. I wish you had either frankly
allowed this in your Volume, or proved the contrary. I
wish, when you report that " a certain proportion " of

' Vid. Note IV. iiifr.

92 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

Catholics, "it has been ascertained by those who have
inquired, do," in their devotions, "stop short in her,"'
p. 107, that you had added your belief, that the case
was far otherwise with the great bulk of Catholics.
Might I not have expected such an avowal ? May 1
not, without sensitiveness, be somewhat pained at the
omission ? From mere Protestants, indeed, I expect
nothing better. They content themselves with saying
that our devotions to our Lady must necessarily throw
our Lord into the shade ; and thereby they relieve them-
selves of a great deal of trouble. Then they catch at
any stray fact which countenances or seems to coun-
tenance their prejudice. Now I say plainly, I never will
defend or screen any one from your just rebuke, who,
through false devotion to Mary, forgets Jesus. But I
should like the fact to be proved first ; I cannot hastily
admit it. There is this broad fact the other way ; —
that, if we look through Europe, we shall find, on the
whole, that just those nations and countries have lost
their faith in the divinity of Christ, who have given
up devotion to His Mother, and that those on the
other hand, who had been foremost in her honour,
have retained their orthodoxy. Contrast, for instance,
the Calvin is ts with the Greeks, or France with the
North of Germany, or the Protestant and Catholic
communions in Ireland. As to England, it is scarcely
doubtful what would be the state of its Established
Church, if the Liturgy and Articles were not an in-
tegral part of its Establishment ; and, when men bring
so grave a churge against us, as is implied in your
Volume, they cannot be surprised if we in turn say

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Viro^in. 93

hard things of Anglicanism,' In the Catholic Cliurch
jVTary has shown herself, not the rival, but the minister
of her Son ; she has protected Him, as in His infancy,
80 in the whole history of the Religion. There is
then a plain liistorical truth in Dr. Faber's words, which
you quote to condemn, "Jesus is obscured, because Mary
is kept in the back-ground."

This truth, exemplified in history, might also be
abundantly illustrated, did my space admit, from the
lives and writings of holy men in modern times. Two
of them, St. Alfonso Liguori and the Blessed Paul of
the Cross, for all their notorious devotion to tlie Mother,
have shown their supreme love of her Divine Son, in
the names which they have given to their respective
Congregations, viz. that " of the Redeemer," and that
"of the Cross and Passion." However, I will do no
more than refer to an apposite passage in the Italian
translation of the work of a French Jesuit, Fr. Nepveu,
" Christian Thoughts for every Day in the Year," which

* ] have spoken more on this subject in my Essay on Development,
p. '138, "Nor does it avail to object, that, in this contrast of devotional
exercises, the human is sure to supplant the Divine, from the infirmity
of our nature ; for, I repeat, the question is one of fact, whether it
has done so. And next, it must be asked, whether the cha/iacter of Pro-
testant devotion towards our Lord, has been that of worship at all ; and
i\i>t rather such as we pay to an excellent human being. . . . Carnal
niiuds will ever create a carnal worship for themselves ; and to fox-bid
them the service of the saints, will have no tendency to teach them
tlie worship of God. Moreover, . . . great and constant as is the
devotion which the Catholic pays to St. Mary, it has a special pro-
vince, and has fa/r more connexion with the public services and the
festive aspect of Christianity, and with certain extraordinary offices
which she holds, than with what is strictly personal and primary in
religion." Our late Cardinal, on my recaption, singled out to ma this
last sentence, for the expression of his especial approbation.

94 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

was recommended to the friend who went with ine to
Rome, by the same Jesuit Father there, with whom, as
I Lave ah'eady said, I stood myself in such intimate
relations; I believe it is a fair specimen of the teaching
of our spiritual books.

''The love of Jesus Christ is the most sure pledge of
our future happiness, and the most infallible token of our
predestination. Mercy towards the poor, devotion to
the Holy Virgin, are very sensible tokens of predestina-
tion ; nevertheless they are not absolutely infallible ;
but one cannot have a sincere and constant love of Jesus
Christ, M'ithout being predestinated, . . . The destroy-
ing angel, which bereaved the houses of the Egyptians
of their first-born, had respect to all the houses which
wore marked with the blood of the Lamb."

And it is also exemplified, as I verily believe, not
only in formal and distinctive Confessions, not only in
books intended for the educated class, but also in the
personal religion of the Catholic populations. When
strangers are so unfavourably impressed with us, because
they see Images of our Lady in our churches, and
crowds flocking about her, they forget that there is a
Presence within the sacred walls, infinitely more awful,
which claims and obtains from us a worship transcen-
dently difierent from any devotion we pay to her. That
devotion to her might indeed tend to idolatry, if it
were encouraged in Protestant churches, where there is
nothing higher than it to attract the worshipper : but
all the images that a Catholic church ever contained, all
the Crucifixes at its Altars brought together, do not so
afiect its frequenters, as the lamp which betokens the

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 95

presence or absence there of the Blessed Sacrament. Is
not this so certain, so notorious, that on some occasions
it has been even brought as a charge against us, that
we are irreverent in church, when what seemed to the
objector to be irreverence was but the necessary change
of feeling, which came over those who were in it, on their
knowing that their Lord was no longer there, but away?

The Mass again conveys to us the same lesson of the
sovereignty of the Incarnate Son; it is a return to
Calvary, and Mary is scarcely named in it. Hostile
visitors enter our churches on Sunday at midday, the
time of the Anglican Service. They are surprised to see
the High Mass perhaps poorly attended, and a body of
worshippers leaving the music and the mixed multitude
who may be lazily fulfilling their obligation, for the
silent or the informal devotions which are offered at an
Image of the blessed Virgin. They may be tempted,
with one of your informants, to call such a temple, not
a "Jesus church," but a " Mary church". But, if
they understood our ways, they would know that we
begin the day with our Lord and then go on to His
Mother. It is early in the morning that religious
persons go to Mass and Communion. The High Mass,
on the other hand, is the festive celebration of the day,
not the special devotional service; nor is there any
reason why those who have been at low Mass already,
should not at that hour proceed to ask the intercession
of the Blessed Virgin for themselves and all that is
dear to them.

Communion, again, which is given in the morning,
is a solemn unequivocal act of faith in the Incarnate

96 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

Grod, if any can be such ; and the most gracious of
admonitions, did we need one. of His sovereign and sole
right to possess us. I knew a lady, who on her death-
bed was visited by an excellent Protestant friend. The
latter, with great tenderness for her souPs welfare,
asked her whether her prayers to the Blessed Virgin
did not, at that awful hour, lead to forgetfulness of
her Saviour. "Forget Him?" she replied with sur-
prise, " Why, He was just now here." She had been
receiving Him in communion. When then, my dear
Pusey, you read anything extravagant in praise of our
Lady, is it not charitable to ask, even while you con-
demn it in itself, did the author write nothing else ?
Had he written on the Blessed Sacrament? had he
given up "all for Jesus?" I recollect some lines, the
happiest, I think, which that author wrote, whicli bring
out strikingly the reciprocity, which I am dwelling on,
of the respective devotions to Mother and Son : —

" But scornful men have coldly said
Tliy love was leading me from God ;
And yet in this I did but tread
The very path my Saviour trod.

" They know but little of thy worth

Who speak these heartless words to mej
For what did Jesus love on earth
One half so tenderly as thee ?

*' Get me the grace to love thee more ;
Jesus will give, if thou wilt plead ;
And, Mother, when life's cares are o'er,
Oh, I shall love thee then indeed.

" Jesus, when His three hours were rmi,
Bequeath 'd thee from the Cross to me i
And oh ! how can I love thy Son,
Sweet Mother, if 1 love not thee ''

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virf^in. 97

4. Thus we are brought from the consideration of
the sentiments themselves, of which you complain, to
the persons who wrote, and the places where they wrote
them. I wish you had been led, in this part of your
work, to that sort of careful labour which you have
employed in so masterly a way in your investigation of
the circumstances of the definition of the Immaculate
Conception. In the latter case you have catalogued
the bishops who wrote to the Holy See, and analyzed
their answers. Had you in like manner discriminated
and located the Marian writers as you call them, and
observed the times, places, and circumstances of their
works, I think, they would not, when brought together,
have had their present startling effect on the reader.
As it is, they inflict a vague alarm upon the mind, as
when one hears a noise, and does not knew whence it
comes and what it means. Some of your authors, I
know are Saints; all, I suppose, are spiritual writers
and holy men ; but the majority are of no great
celebrity, even if they have any kind of weight.
Suarez has no business among them at all, for, when
he says that no one is saved without the Blessed
Virgin, he is speaking not of devotion to her, but of
her intercession. The greatest name is St. Alfonso
Liguori ; but it never surprises me to read anything
extraordinary in the devotions of a saint. Such men
are on a level very different from our own, and we can-
not understand them. I hold this to be an important
canon in the Lives of the Saints, accordiog to the
words of the Apostle, "The spiritual man judges all
things, and he himself is judged of no one." But we

H

9 8 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

may refrain from judging, without proceeding to imitate.
1 hope it is not disrespectful to so great a servant of
God to say, that I never have read his Glories of Mary ;
but here I am speaking generally of all Saints, whether
1 know them or not ; — and I say that they are beyond
us, and that we must use them as patterns, not as
copies. As to his practical directions, St. Alfonso
wrote them for Neapolitans, whom he knew, and we do
not know. Other writers whom you quote, as De
Salazar, are too ruthlessly logical to be safe or pleasant
guides in the delicate matters of devotion. As to De
Montford and Oswald, I never even met with their
names, till I saw them in your book ; the bulk of our
laity, not to say of our clergy, perhaps know them little
better than I do. Nor did I know till I learnt it from
your Volume, that there were two Bernardines. St,
Bernardino of Sienna, I knew of course, and knew too
that he had a burning love for our Lord. But about
the other, " Bernardino de Bustis," I was quite at
faxdt. I find from the Protestant Cave, that he, as well
as his namesake, made himself also conspicuous for his
zeal for the Holy Name, which is much to the point
here. " With such devotion was he carried away," says
Cave, " for the bare Name of Jesus, (which, by a new
device of Bernardino of Sienna, had lately begun to
receive divine honours,) that he was urgent with Inno-
cent YIII. to assign it a day and rite in the Calendar."

One thing, however, is clear about all these writers ;
that not one of them is an Englishman. I have gone
through your book, and do not find one English name
among the various authors to whom you refer, except of

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 99

course the name of the author whose lines I have been
quoting, and who, great as are his merits, cannot, for
the reasons I have given in the opening of my Letter ' be
considered a representative of English Catholic devotion.
"Whatever these writers may have said or not said, what-
ever they may have said harshly, and whatever capable of
fair explanation, still they are foreigners ; we are not
answerable for their particular devotions; and as to
themselves, I am glad to be able to quote the beautiful
words which you use about them in your letter to the
Weekly Register of November 25th last. " I do not
presume," you say, "to prescribe to Italians or
Spaniards, what they shall hold, or how they shall
express their pious opinions ; and least of all did I
think of imputing to any of the writers whom I quoted
that they took from our Lord any of tne love which
they gave to His Mother." In these last words too you
have supplied one of the omissions in your Volume
which I noticed above.

5. Now then we come to England itself, which after
all, in the matter of devotion, alone concerns you and
me ; for though doctrine is one and the same everywhere,
devotions, as I have already said, are matters of the
particular time and the particular country. I suppose
we owe it to the national good sense, that English Catho-
lics have been protected from the extravagances which
are elsewhere to be found. And we owe it also to the
wisdom and moderation of the Holy See, which, in
giving us the pattern for our devotion, as well as the

9 Supra, p. 22.

H 2

lOO Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

rule of our faith, has never indulged in those curiosities
of thought which are both so attractive to undisciplined
imaginations and so dangerous to grovelling hearts.
In the case of our own common people I think such a
forced style of devotion would be simply unintelligible ;
as to the educated, I doubt whether it can have more
than an occasional or temporary influence. If the Catho-
lic faith spreads in England, these peculiarities will not
spread with it. There is a healthy devotion to the
Blessed Mary, and there is an artificial ; it is possible to
love her as a Mother, to honour her as a Virgin, to seek
her as a Patron, and to exalt her as a Queen, without
any injury to solid piety and Christian good sense : — I
cannot help calling this the English style. I wonder
whether you find anything to displease you in the
Garden of the Soul, the Key of Heaven, the Vade
Mecum, the Golden Manual, or the Crown of Jesus.
These are the books to which Anglicans ought to
appeal, who would be fair to us in this matter. I do
not observe anything in them which goes beyond the
teaching of the Fathers, except so far as devotion goes
beyond doctrine.

There is one collection of Devotions besides, of the
highest authority, which has been introduced from
abroad of late years. It consists of prayers of very
various kinds which have been indulgenced by the
Popes ; and it commonly goes by the name of the
Raccolta. As that word suggests, the language of
many of the prayers is Italian, while others are in Latin.
This circumstance is unfavourable to a translation,
which, however skilful, must ever savour of the word^

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, loi

and idioms of the original ; but, passing over this neces-
sary disadvantage, I consider there is hardly a clause in
the goodsized volume in question which even the sensi-
tiveness of English Catholicism would wish changed.
Its anxious observance of doctrinal exactness is almost
a fault. It seems afraid of using the words " give me,*'
"make me,'' in its addresses to the Blessed Virgin,
which are as natural to adopt in speaking to her, as in
addressing a parent or friend. Surely we do not
disparage Divine Providence when we say that we are
indebted to our parents for our life, or when we ask their
blessing ; we do not show any atheistical leaning,
because we say that a man's recovery must be left to
nature, or that nature supplies brute animals with
instincts. In like manner it seems to me a limple purism,
to insist upon minute accuracy of expression in devotional
and popular writings. However, the Raccolta, as coming
from responsible authority, for the most part observes it.
It commonly uses the phrases " gain for us by thy
prayers," " obtain for us," " pray to Jesus for me,"
" speak for me, Mary," " carry thou our prayers," " ask
for us grace, ' " intercede for the people of God," and
the like, marking thereby with great emphasis that she
is nothing more than an Advocate, and not a source of
mercy. W or do I recollect in this book more than one
or two ideas to which you would be likely to raise an
objection. The strongest of these is found in the No vena
before her Nativity, lq which, apropos of her Birth, we
pray that she " would come down again, and be reborn
spiritually in our souls ;" — but it will occur to you that
St. Paul speaks of his wish to impart to his converts,

I02 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

" not only the gospel, but his own soul ;*' and writing
to the Corinthians, he says he has *' begotten them by
the gospel/' and to Philemon, that he had " begotten
Onesimus, in his bonds ;*' whereas St. James, with
greater accuracy of expression, says " of His own will
hath God begotten us with the word of truth." Again,
we find the petitioner saying to the Blessed Mary, " In
thee I place all my hope •" but this is explained by
another passage, " Thou art my best hope after Jesus."
Again, we read elsewhere, "I would I had a greater
love for thee, since to love thee is a great mark of pre-
destination ;*' but the prayer goes on, "Thy Son
deserves of us an immeasurable love ; praj'' that I may
have this grace, a great love for Jesus,'' and further
on, " I covet no good of the earth, but to love my God
alone."

Then again, as to the lessons which our Catholics
receive, whether by catechising or instruction, you
would find nothing in our received manuals to which
you would not assent, I am quite sure. Again, as to
preaching, a standard book was drawn up three cen-
turies ago, to supply matter for the purpose to the
parochial clergy. You incidentally mention, p. 153,
that the comment of Cornelius a Lapide on Scripture is
" a repertorium for sermons ;" but I never heard of this
work being so used, nor indeed can it, because of its
size. The work provided for the purpose by the Church
is the " Catechism of the Council of Trent," and nothing
extreme about our Blessed Lady is propounded there.
On the whole I am sanguine that you will come to the
conclusion, that Anglicans may safely trust themselves

Excesses in Devotion to tJie Blessed Virgin. 103

to us English Catholics, as regards any devotions to the
Blessed Virgin which might be required of them over
and above the rule of the Council of Trent.

6. And, now at length coming to the statements,
not English, but foreign, which offend you in works
written in her honour, I will allow that I like some
of those which you quote as little as you do. I will
frankly say that, when I read them in your volume,
they affected me with grief and almost anger ; for they
seemed to me to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin a power
of ** searching the reins and hearts/* which is the at-
tribute of God alone ; and I said to myself, how can we
any longer prove our Lord's divinity from Scripture, if
those cardinal passages which invest Him with divine
prerogatives, after all invest Him with nf thing beyond
what His Mother shares with Him? And how, again,
is there anything of incommunicable greatness in His
death and passion, if He 'who was alone in the garden,
alone upon the cross, alone in the resurrection, after all
is not alone, but shared His solitary Work with His
Blessed Mother, — with her to whom, when He entered
on His ministry, He said for our instruction, not as
grudging her her proper glory, " Woman, what have I
to do with thee ? " And then again, if I hate those
perverse sayings so much, how much more must she, in
proportion to her love of Him ? and how do we show
our love for her, by wounding her in the very apple of
her eye ? This I felt and feel ; but then on the other
hand I have to observe that these strange words after
all are but few in number, out of the many passages
you cite; that most of them exemplify whrit T said

I04 Anglican Misconceptions a7id Catholic

above about the difficulty of determining the exact
point where truth passes into error, and that they are
allowable in one sense or connection, though false in
another. Thus to say that prayer (and the Blessed
Virgin's prayer) is omnipotent, is a harsh expression
in every-day prose ; but, if it is explained to mean that
there is nothing which prayer may not obtain from God,
it is nothing else than the very promise made us in
Scripture. Again, to say that Mary is the centre of all
being, sounds inflated and profane ; yet after all it is
only one way, and a natural way, of saying that the
Creator and the creature met together, and became one
in her womb ; and as such, I have used the expression
above. Again, it is at first sight a paradox to say that
" Jesus is obscured, because Mary is kept in the back-
ground ;" yet there is a sense, as I have shown above,
in which it is a simple truth.

And so again certain statements maj^ be true, under
circumstances and in a particular time and place, which
are abstractedly false ; and hence it may be very unfair
in a controversialist to interpret by an English or a
modern rule, whatever may have been asserted by a
foreign or medieval author. To say, for instance, dog-
matically, that no one can be saved without personal
devotion to the Blessed Virgin, would be an untenable
proposition ; yet it might be true of this man or that,
or of this or that country at this or that date ; and, if
that very statement has ever been made by any writer of
consideration (and this has to be ascertained), then
perhaps it was made precisely under these exceptional
circumstances. If an Italian preacher made it, T should

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 105

feel no disposition to doubt him, at least if he spoke of
Italian youths and Italian maidens.

Next I think you have not always made your quota-
tions with that consideration and kindness which is
your rule. At p. 106, you say, " It is commonly said
that, if any Roman Catholic acknowledges that 'it is
good and useful to pray to the saints,' he is not bound
himself to do so. Were the above teaching true, it
would be cruelty to say so; because, according to it,
he would be forfeiting what is morally necessary to his
salvation." But now, as to the fact, by whom is it
said that to pray to our Lady and the Saints is
necessary to salvation ? The proposition of St. Alfonso
is, that " God gives no grace except through Mary ;"
that is through her intercession. But irtercession is
one thing, devotion is another. And Suarez says, " It
is the universal sentiment that the intercession of Mary
is not only useful, but also in a certain manner neces-
sary ;" but still it is the question of her intercession,
not of our invocation of her, not of devotion to her. If
it were so, no Protestant could be saved ; if it were so,
there would be grave reasons for doubting of the sal-
vation of St. Chrysostom or St. Athanasius, or of the
primitive Martyrs ; nay, I should like to knov whether
St. Augustine, in all Ids voluminous writings, invokes
her once. Our Lord died for those heathens who did
not know Him ; and His Mother intercedes for those
Christians who do not know her; and she intercedes
according to His will, and, when He wills to save a
particular soul, she at once prays for it. I say, He
wills indeed according to her prayer, but then slic prays

io6 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

according to His will. Though then it is natural and
prudent for those to have recourse to her, who from the
Church's teaching know her power, yet it cannot be
said that devotion to her is a sine-qud-non of salvation.
Some indeed of the authors, whom you quote, go fur-
ther ; they do speak of devotion ; but even then, they
do not enunciate the general proposition which I have
been disallowing. For instance, they say, " It is
morally impossible for those to be saved who neglect
the devotion to the Blessed Virgin ;" but a simple
omission is one thing, and neglect another. " It is
impossible for any to be saved who turns away from
her,'' yes; but to " turn away" is to oflfer some positive
disrespect or insult towards her, and that with sufficient
knowledge ; and I certainly think it would be a very
grave act, if in a Catholic country (and of such the
writers were speaking, for they knew of no other), with
Ave-Marias sounding in the air, and images of the
Madonna in every street and road, a Catholic broke off
or gave up a practice that was universal, and in which
he was brought up, and deliberately put her name out
of his thoughts.

7. Though, then, common sense may determine for
us, that the line of prudence and propriety has been
certainly passed in the instance of certain statements
about the Blessed Virgin, it is often not easy to convict
them of definite error logically ; and in such cases
authority, if it attempt to act, would be in the position
which so often happens in our courts of law, when the
commission of an offence is morally certain, but the
government prosecutor cannot find legal evidence suffi-

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 107

cient to insure conviction. I am not denying the right
of sacred Congregations, at their will, to act peremp-
torily, and without assigning reasons for the judgment
they pass upon writers ; but, when they have found it
inexpedient to take this severe course, perhaps it may
happen from the circumstances of the case, that there
is no other that they can take, even if they would. It
is wiser then for the most part to leave these excesses
to the gradual operation ot public opinion, that is, to
the opinion of educated and sober Catholics ; and this
seems to me the healthiest way of putting them down.
Yet in matter of fact I believe the Holy See has inter-
fered from time to time, when devotion seemed running
into superstition ; and not so long ago. I recollect
hearing in Gregory the XVI.'s time, of books about
the Blessed Virgin, which had been suppressed by
authority; and in particular of a pictorial representation
of the Immaculate Conception which he had forbidden ;
and of measures taken against the shocking notion that
the Blessed Mary is present in the Holy l^^ucharist, in
the sense in which our Lord is present; but I have no
means of verifying the information I then received.'

Nor have I time, any more than you have had, to
ascertain how far great theologians have made protests
against those various extravagances of which you so
rightly complain. Passages, however, from three well-
known Jesuit Fathers have opportunely come in my
way, and in one of them is introduced in confirmation,
the name of the great Gerson. They are Canisius,
Petuvius, and Raynaudus; and as thoy speak very
> Vid. Note V. infr.

io8 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

appositely, and you do not seem to know them, I will
here make some extracts from them : —

(1.) Canisius : —

" We confess that in the cultus of Mary it has heen,
and is possible for corruptions to creep in ; and we have
a more than ordinary desire that the Pastors of the
Church should be carefully vigilant here, and give no
place to Satan, whose characteristic office it has ever
been, while men sleep, to sow the cockle amid the Lord's
wheat. . . . For this purpose it is his wont gladly to
avail himself of the aid of heretics, fanatics, and false
Catholics, as may be seen in the instance of this
Marianus cultus. This cultus, heretics, suborned by
Satan, attack with hostility. . . . Thus too, certain
mad heads are so demented by Satan, as to embrace
superstitions and idolatries instead of the true cultus,
and neglect altogether the true measures whether in
respect to God or to Mary. Such indeed were the
Collyridians of old. . . . Such that German herdsman
a hundred years ago, who gave out publicly that he
was a new prophet, and had had a vision of the
Deipara, and told the people in her name to pay no
more tributes and taxes to princes. . . . Moreover, how
many Catholics does one see who, by great and shocking
negligence, have neither care nor regard for her cultus ;
but, given to profane and secular objects, scarce once a
year raise their earthly minds to sing her praises or to
venerate her.'* — De Maria Deipara, p. 518.

(2.) Father Petau says, when discussing the teaching
of the Fathers about the Blessed Virgin (de. Incarn. xiv.

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 109

" I will venture to give this advice to all who would
be devout and panegyrical towards the Holy Virgin,
viz., not to exceed in their piety and devotion to her,
but to be content with true and solid praises, and to cast
aside what is otherwise. This kind of idolatry, lurking,
as St. Augustine says, nay implanted in human hearts,
is greatly abhorrent from Theology, that is, from the
gravity of heavenly wisdom, which never thinks or
asserts anything, but what is measured by certain and
accurate rules. What that rule should be, and what
caution is to be used in our present subject, I will not
determine of myself ; but according to the mind of a
most weighty and most learned theologian, John Gerson,
who in one of his Epistles proposes certain canons,
which he calls truths, by means of which are to be
measured the assertions of theologians concerning the
Incarnation. . . . By these truly golden precepts Gerson
brings within bounds the immoderate licence of praising
the Blessed Virgin, and restrains it within the measure
of sober and healthy piety. And from these it is evi-
dent that that sort of reasoning is frivolous and nugatory,
in which so many indulge, in order to assign any sort
of grace they please, however unusual, to the Blessed
Virgin. For they argue thus ; ' Whatever the Son of
God could bestow for the glory of His Mother, that it
became Plim in fact to furnish ;' or again, ' Whatever
honours or ornaments He has poured out on other saints,
those altogether hath He heaped upon His Mother ;'
whence they draw their chain of reasoning to their de-
sired conclusion ; a mode of argumentation which Gerson
treats with contempt as captious and sophistical.'^

I JO Anglican Alisconc options and Catholic

He adds, what of course we all should say, that, in
thus speaking, he has no intention to curtail the liberty
of pious persons in such meditations and conjectures, on
the mysteries of faith, sacred histories, and the Scripture
text, as are of the nature of comments, supplements,
and the like.

(3.) Raynaud is an author, full of devotion, if any
one is so, to the Blessed Virgin j yet in the work which
he has composed in her honour {Diptycha Mariana), he
says more than I can quote here, to the same purpose as
Petau. I abridge some portions of his text : —

" Let this be taken for granted, that no praises of ours
can come up to the praises due to the Virgin Mother.
But we must not make up for our inability to reach
her true praise, by a supply of lying embellishment and
false honours. For there are some whose affection for
religious objects is so imprudent and lawless, that they
transgress the due limits even towards the saints. This
Origen has excellently observed upon in the case of the
Baptist, for very many, instead of observing the measure
of charity, considered whether he might not be the
Christ," p. 9. . . . *' St. Anselm, the first, or one of
the first champions of the public celebration of the
Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception, says, de Excell.
Virg., that the Church considers it indecent, that any-
thing that admits of doubt should be said in her praise,
when the things which are certainly true of her supply
such large materials for laudation. It is right so to
interpret St. Epiphanius also, when he says that human
tongues should not pronounce anything lightly of the
Deipara; and who is more jusLly to be charged with

Excesses in Devotion- to the Blessed Virgin. 1 1 1

speaking lightly of the most Holy Mother of God, than
he, who, as if what is certain and evident did not suffice
for her full investiture, is wiser than the aged, and
obtrudes on us the toadstools of his own mind, and
devotions unheard of by those Holy Fathers who loved
her best ? Plainly, as St. Anselm says, that she is the
Mother of God, this by itseK exceeds every elevation
which can be named or imagined, short of God. About
so sublime a majesty we should not speak hastily from
prurience of wit, or flimsy pretext of promoting piety ;
but with great maturity of thought ; and whenever the
maxims of the Church and the oracles of faith do not
suffice, then not without the suffrages of the Doctors.
. . . Those who are subject to this prurience of innova-
tion, do not perceive how broad is the difference between
subjects of human science, and heavenly things. All
novelty concerning the objects of our faith is to be put
far away ; except so far as by diligent investigation of
God's "Word, written and unwritten, and a well-founded
inference from what is thence to be elicited, something
is brought to light which though already indeed there,
has not hitherto been recognized. The innovations
which we condemn are those which rest neither on the
written nor unwritten Word, nor on conclusions from
it, nor on the judgment of ancient sages, nor sufficient
basis of reason, but on the sole colour and pretext of
doing more honour to the Deipara," p. 10.

In another portion of the same work, he speaks in
particular of one of those imaginations to which you
especially refer, and for which, without strict necessity
(as it seems to me) you allege the authority of a Lapide.

1 12 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

" Nor is that honour of the Deipara to be offered,
yiz. that the elements of the body of Christ, which the
Blessed Virgin supplied to it, remain perpetually un-
altered in Christ, and thereby are found also in the
Eucharist. . . . This solicitude for the Virgin's glory
must, I consider, be discarded ; since, if rightly con-
sidered, it involves an injury towards Christ, and such
honour the Virgin loveth not. And first, dismissing
philosophical bagatelles about the animation of blood,
milk, &c., who can endure the proposition that a good
portion of the substance of Christ in the Eucharist
should be worshipped with a cultusX&m than latria ? viz.
by the inferior eultus of hyperdulia f The preferable class
of theologians contend that not even the humanity of
Christ, is to be materially abstracted from the Word of
God, and worshipped by itself ; how then shall we intro-
duce a cultus of the Deipara in Christ, which is inferior
to the cultus proper to Him ? How is this other than
a casting down of the substance of Christ from His
Royal Throne, and a degradation of it to some inferior
sitting place ? It is nothing to the purpose to refer to
such Fathers, as say that the flesh of Clirist is the flesh
of Mary, for they speak of its origin. What will hinder,
if this doctrine be admitted, our also admitting that
there is something in Christ which is detestable ? for, as
the first elements of a body which were communicated
by the Virgin to Christ, have (as these authors say) re-
mained perpetually in Christ, so the same materia, at
least in part, which belonged originally to the ancestors
of Christ, came down to the Virgin from her father, un-
changed, and taken from her grandfather, and so on.

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 1 1 3

And thus, since it is not unlikely that some of these
ancestors were reprobate, there would now be some-
thing actually in Christ, which had belonged to a
reprobate, and worthy of detestation." — p. 237.

8. After such explanation, and with such authorities,
to clear my path, I put away from me, as you would
wish, without any hesitation, as matters in which my
heart and reason have no part, (when taken in their
literal and absolute sense, as any Protestant would
naturally take them, and as the writers doubtless did
not use them), such sentences, and phrases, as these ; —
that the mercy of Mary is infinite ; that God has
resigned into her hands His omnipotence; that it is
safer to seek her than to seek her Son ; that the Blessed
Virgin is superior to God ; that our Lord is subject to
her command; that His present disposition towards
sinners, as well as His Father^s, is to reject them,
while the Blessed Mary takes His place as an Advo-
cate with Father and Son ; that the Saints are more
ready to intercede with Jesus than Jesus with the
Father; that Mary is the only refuge of those with
whom God is angry ; that Mary alone can obtain a
Protestant's conversion ; that it would have suflBced
for the salvation of men if our Lord had died, not in
order to obey His Father, but to defer to the decree of
His Mother ; that she rivals our Lord in being God's
daughter, not by adoption, but by a kind of nature; that
Christ fulfilled the office of Saviour by imitating her
virtues ; that, as the Incarnate God bore the image of
His Father, so He bore the image of His Mother ; that

ri4 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

redemption derived from Christ indeed its sufficiency, but
from Mary its beauty and loveliness ; that, as we are
clothed with the merits of Christ, so we are clothed with
the merits of Mary ; that, as He is Priest, in a like sense
is she Priestess ; that His Body and Blood in the Eucha-
rist are truly hers and appertain to her ; that as He is
present and received therein, so is she present and re-
ceived therein ; that Priests are ministers as of Christ,
so of Mary ; that elect souls are born of God and Mary ;
that the Holy Ghost brings into f ruitfulness His action
by her, producing in her and by her Jesus Christ in His
members ; that the kingdom of God in our souls, as our
Lord speaks, is really the kingdom of Marj"- in the soul;-
that she and the Holy Ghost produce in the soul extra-
ordinary things ; and that when the Holy Ghost finds
Mary in a soul He flies there.

Sentiments such as these I freely surrender to your
animadversion ; I never knew of them till I read your
book, nor, as I think, do the vast majority of English
Catholics know them. They seem to me like a bad
dream. I could not have conceived them to be said.
I know not to what authority to go for them, to Scrip-
ture, or to the Fathers, or to the decrees of Councils,
or to the consent of schools, or to the tradition of the
faithful, or to the Holy See, or to Reason. They defy
all the loci theologici. There is nothing of them in the
Missal, in the Roman Catechism, in the Roman Raccolta,
in the Imitation of Christ, in Gother, Challoner, Milner
or Wiseman, as far as I am aware. They do but scare
and confuse me. I should not be holier, more spiritual,
more sure of perseverance, if I twisted my moral being

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgiri. 1 1 5

into the reception of them ; I should but be guilty of
fulsome frigid flattery towards the most upright and
noble of God's creatures, if I professed them, — and of
stupid flattery too ; for it would be like the compliment
of painting up a young and beautiful princess with the
brow of a Plato and the muscle of an Achilles. And I
should expect her to tell one of her people in waiting
to turn me off her service without warning. Whether
thus to feel be the scandalum parvulorum in my case,
or the scandalum Pharisceortim, I leave others to decide ;
but I will say plainly that I had rather believe (which is
impossible) that there is no God at all, than that Mary
is greater than God. I will have nothing to do with
statements, which can only be explained, by being
explained away. I do not, however, speak of these
statements, as they are found in their authors, for I
know nothing of the originals, and cannot believe that
they have meant what you sayj but I take them as
they lie in your pages. Were oxiy of them the sayings
of Saints in ecstasy, I should know they had a good
meaning; still I should not repeat them myself; but
I am looking at them, not as spoken by the tongues of
Angels, but according to that literal sense which they
bear in the mouths of English men and English women.
And, as spoken by man to man, in England, in the
nineteenth century, I consider them calculated to pre-
judice inquirers, to frighten the unlearned, to unsettle
consciences, to provoke blasphemy, and to work the loss
of souls.

9. And now, after having said so much as this, bear
with me, my dear Friend, if I end with an expostulu-

I 2

1 1 6 Anglican Misconceptions and Catholic

tion. Have you not been touching us on a very tender
point in a very rude way ? is it not the effect of what you
have said to expose her to scorn and obloquy, who is
dearer to us than any other creature ? Have you even
hinted that our love for her is anything else than an
abuse ? Have you thrown her one kind word yourself
all through your book ? I trust so, but I have not
lighted upon one. And yet I know you love her well.
Can you wonder, then, — can I complain much, much as
I grieve, — that men should utterly misconceive of you,
and are blind to the fact that you have put the whole
argument between you and us on a new footing ; and
that, whereas it was said twenty- five years ago in
the British Critic, " Till Rome ceases to be what
practically she is, union is impomhle between her and
England," you declare on the contrary, "Union is
possible, as soon as Italy and England, having the same
faith and the same centre of unity, are allowed to hold
severally their own theological opinions " ? They have
not done you justice here ; because in truth, the honour
of our Lady is dearer to them than the conversion of
England.

Take a parallel case, and consider how a'ou would
decide it yourself. Supposing an opponent of a doctrine
for which you so earnestly contend, the eternity of pun-
ishment, instead of meeting you with direct arguments
against it, heaped together a number of extravagant
descriptions of the place, mode, and circumstances of its
infliction, quoted TertuUian as a witness for the primitive
Fathers, and the Covenanters and Ranters for these last
centuries ; brought passages from the Inferno of Dante,

Excesses in Devotion to the Blessed Virgin. \ i 7

and from the Sermons oi" Wesley and Whitlield; nay,
supposing he confined himself to the chapter on the
subject in the work, which has the sanction of Jeremy
Taylor, on " The State of Man," or to his Sermon on
-' The Foolish Exchange," or to particular passages in
Leighton, South, Beveridge, and Barrow, would you
think this a fair and becoming method of reasoning ?
and if he avowed that he should ever consider the
Anglican Church committed to all these accessories of
the doctrine, till its authorities formally denounced
Beveridge, and Whitfield, and a hundred others, would
you think this an equitable determination, or the pro-
cedure of a theologian ?

So far concerning the Blessed Virgin ; the chief but
not the only subject of your Volume, And now, when
[ could wish to proceed,^ she seems to stop all contro-
versy, for the Feast of her Immaculate Conception is
upon us ; and close upon its Octave, which is kept with
special solemnities in the Churches of this town, come
the great Antiphons, the heralds of Christmas. That
joyful season, joyful for all of us, while it centres in
Him who then came on earth, also brings before us in
peculiar prominence that Virgin Mother, who bore and
nursed Him. Here she is not in the background, as at
Easter-tide, but she brings Him to us in her arms.
Two great Festivals, dedicated to her honour, to-mor-
row's and the Purification, mark out and keep the

*The sequel to this letter never was written. Vid. supr., note
p. 17.

ii8 Anglic an Misconceptions, &c.

ground, and, like the towers of David, open the way to
and fro, for the high holiday season of the Prince of
Peace. And all along it her image is upon it, such as
we see it in the typical representation of the Catacombs.
May the sacred influences of this tide bring us all
together in unity ! May it destroy all bitterness on
your side and ours ! May it quench all jealous, sour,
proud, fierce antagonism on our side ; and dissipate all
captious, carping, fastidious refinements of reasoning on
yours ! May that bright and gentle Lady, the Blessed
Virgin Mary, overcome you with her sweetness, and
revenge herself on her foes by interceding effectually
for their conversion !

I am,
Yours, most affectionately,

John H, Newman.

The Oratory, Birmingham,
Dec. 7, 1866.

NOTES.

NOTE I. Page 33.

TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS TO THE DOCTRINE THAT
MARY IS THE SECOND EVE.

St. Justin : — Tlov ©eoO fyefypafifievov avrbv iv rots
d'iro/jbvr)/u,ovevfia<Ti rSiv airoarokwv avTov e')(pvTe<i, Kal vlov
avTov Xeyome^;, vevorjKUfiev, koX irpo irdvratv ttoitj/mtiov
dirb Tov 7raTpo<; Svvd/u.€i avrov koX ^ovky wpoekOovra
. . . . KoX Zid rrj<i irapOivov dv6p(07ro<i\ov] ye'yovevai/Cva
KCbi hC ^9 bhov rj dirb tov 6<peo)<; irapaKorj r-qv dp^r]v eXa^e,
Kal Scd TavT7}<i t^? oSov kol KardXva lv Xd^y irapOivof
yap ovaa Em kol d(f>6opo^ tov \6yop tov diro tov 6(p6co<i
avXXafiovaa, TrapaKorjv Kal ddvaTov €T€Ke' irlaTiv Se Kal
"X^apdv Xa^oiKTa M^apia 17 nrapdevos, evayyeXi^o/uuevov amij
Va^pcrjX dyyiXov, oti IlveufMa K.vpiov eV avTrjv iireXev-
acTai, See. . . . direKplvaTO, TevoiTO fioi Kara to pi] fid
aov. — Try ph. 100.

2. Tertullian : — " Ne mihi vacet incursus nominis
AdsB, unde Christus Adam ab Apostolo dictus est, si
terreni non fuit census homo ejus ? Sed et hie ratio
defendit, quod Deus imaginem et similitudinem suam a
diabolo captam semula operatione recuperavit. In vir-
ginemenim udhuc Evam irrepserat verbum aedificatorium

1 20 Notes.

mortis. In virginem aeque introducendum erat Dei
verbum extructorium vitas ; ut quod per ejusmodi sexum
abierat in perditionem, per eundem sexum redigeretur
in salutem. Crediderat Eva serpenti ; credidit Maria
Gabrieli; quod ilia credendo deliquit, haec credendo
delevit."— De Garn.Chr. 17.

3. St. IreuaBus : — " Consequenter autem et Maria virgo
obediens invenitur, dicens, Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat
mihi secundum verbum tuum. Eva vero inobediens :
non obedivit enim, adhuc quum asset virgo. Quemad-
modum ilia, virum quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen
adhuc existens (erant enim utrique nudi in Paradiso, et
non confundebantur, quoniam, pauUo ante facti, non
intellectum habebant filiorum generationis ; oportebat
enim illos primo adolescere, dehinc sic multiplicari),
inobediens facta, et sibi et universo generi humano causa
facta est mortis : sic et Maria, habens preedestinatum
virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi et universo
generi humano causa facta est salutis. Et propter hoc
Lex eam, quae desponsata erat viro, licet virgo sit adhuc,
uxorem ejus, qui desponsaverat, vocat ; eam quae est a
Maria in Evam recirculationem signifieans : quia non
aKter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsae com-
pagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus; ut primae
conjunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundas rursus
liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem
a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colliga-
tionem primae solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc
Dominus dicebat, primos quidem novissimos futuros, et
novissimos primos. Et propheta autem hoc idem signi-
ficat, dicens, ' Pro patribus nati sunt tibi filii.' ' Pri-

Notes.

121

mogenitus ' enim ' mortuorum ' natus Dominus et in
sinum suum recipiens pristinos patres, regeneravit eos in
vitam Dei, ipse initium viventium factus,quoniain Adam
initium morientium factus est. Propter hoe et Lucas
initium genera tionis a Domino in choans, in Adamretulit,
significans, quoniam non illi hunc, sed hie illos in Evan-
gelium vitae regeneravit. Sic autem et E vae inobedientise
nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam MariaB. Quod
enim alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoe virgo
Maria solvit per fidem." — S. Iren. contr. Hcer. iii. 22.

"Quemadmodum enim ilia per Angeli sermonem
seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, prsevaricata verbum
ejus ; ita et haec per Angelicum sermonem evangelizata
est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et si ea
inobedierat Deo; sed hsec suasa est obedire D^d, uti Vir-
ginis EvsB Virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemad-
modum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per Vir-
ginem, salvatur [solvatur] per Virginem, sequa lance
disposita, virginalis inobedientia, per virginalem obedi-
entiam."— Ihid. v. 19.

4. St. Cyril : — Ata irapdevov t^9 Em? rjXOev 6 ddvuTO^,
eSei Sia TrapOivov, fxaXkov 8e e'/c Trapdivov, (f)ainjvai rr/v
^(ojjv iva Mairep eKelvijv o^t? rjirdr'qaeVy ovtq) koI ravTrjp
Ta^ptTjX eva'yyeXiariTaL. — Oat. xii. 1.

5. St. Ephrem. : — "Per Evam nempe decora et
amabilis hominis gloria extincta est, quae tamen rursus
per Mariam refloruit.^' — 0pp. Syr. ii. p. 318.

" Initio protoparentura delicto in omnes homines
mors pertransiit ; hodie vero per Mariam translati sura us
de morte ad vitam. Initio serpens, Evae auribus occu-
patisj inde virus in totuiii corpus dilafavit; hodie Maria

122 Notes.

ex auribus perpetuae f elicitatis assertorem excepit. Quod
ergo mortis fuit, simul et vitae extitit instrumentum."—
iii. p. 607.

6. St. EpiphaNIUS i—Avrrj iarh 7) iraph, fih) ttj Eva
a-rjfiatvofievr} St alviy/Maro'i Xa^ovaa to KoXela-Qav firjTTjp
iwvrcov. . . . Kol rjv davfia on fjuera t7}v Trapd^aa-tv ravrrjv
Trjv fi6jd\7}v eaxev iirwvvfiiav. koL Kara fiev rb al(T6r)rov
(Ztt' itcelvqf; Trj<; Eva<i iracra rcbv dvdpuiTroav r] yevvrjat^ eVi
ryij<; ye<y€vvi]Tai ' &Se Be a\,r)0(o<i dnro Mapia<; avrrj tj ^cot]
T(p Kocr/jbO) yey€vvr)Tai ' iva ^(ovra yevvijcrr/, Kai yivvrjTai rj
Mapia iirjTqp ^(ovtcoV St,' alvir/fiaTO<; ovv r) Mapia firiTrjp
^(ovT(ov KeKXrjrai . . . dWa Kal erepov irepl tovtwv Sia-
voeiaOat io-ri 0av/J>a(TTov,7repl Se T7]<;Eva^ Kal r?}? Mapia<;.
Tj fiev yap Eva 'rrp6<^a(Ti^ yevewqrai Oavdrov rot? dvdpco-
TTOt?' . . . T) Be Mapia 'jrp6(j}a(Ti<i ^co^? . . , tva ^cor) dvrl
Oavdrov y€VVT)rai,€KK\€iaaaarov Odvarov rov ck yvvaiKO';
irdXiv 6 Bia yvvaiKO^ 'q/uv^wrjyeyevvrjfievo'i. — E^cer. 78. 18.

7. St. Jerome: — "Postquam vero Virgo concepit in
utero, et peperit nobis puerum . , . soluta maledictio
est. Mors per Evam, vita per Mariam." — JEp. 22. ad
Eustochmm, 21.

8. St. Augustine : — " Hue accedit magnum sacra-
mentum, ut, quoniam per feminam nobis mors acciderat,
vita nobis per feminam nasceretur : utde utraque natural,
id est, femininS, et masculinS,, vietus diabolus cruciaretur,
quoniam de ambarum subversione laetabatur, cui parum
fuerat ad pcBnam si ambas naturae in nobis liberarentur,
nisi etiam perambas liberaremur". — De Agone Christ 24.

9. St. Peter Chrysologus : — " Benedicta tu in mulie-
ribus. Quia in quibus Eva maledicta puniebat viscera ;
tunc in illis gaudet, honoratur, suspicitur Maria bene-

Notes. . 123

dicta. Et facta est vere nunc mater viveiitiuui per
^ratiamqusemater extititmorientium pernaturam. . . .
Quantus sit Deus satis ignorat ille, qui hujus Virginia
mentem non stupet, animum non miratur : pavet coelunij
tremunt Angeli, creatura non sustinet, natura non
suflficit, et una puella sic Deum in sui pectoris capit,
recipit, oblectat hospitio, ut pacem terris^ ccelis gloriam,
salutem perditis, vitam mortuis, terreuis cum coelestibus
parentelam, ipsius Dei cum carne commercium, pro
ipsa domus exigat pensione, pro ipsius uteri mercede
conquirat, et impleat illud Prophetse : Ecce hsereditas
Domini, filii merces fructus ventris. Sed jam se
concludat sermo ut de partu Virginis, donante Deo, et
indulgente tempore, gratius proloquamur." — Serm. 140.

10. St. Fulgentius: — "In primi hominis conjuge,
nequitia diaboli seductam depravavit mentem : in secundi
autem hominis matre, gratia Dei et mentem integram
servavit, et carnem : menti contulit firmissimara fidem,
carni abstulit omnino libidinem. Quoniam igitur mise-
rabiliter pro peccato damnatus est homo, ideo sine peccato
mirabiliter natus est Deus homo." — Serm. iL

" Yenite, virgines, ad virginem ; venite, concipientcs,
ad concipientem ; venite, parturientes, ad parturientem ;
venite, matres, ad matrem ; venite, lactantes, ad lactan-
tem ; venite, juvenculaB, ad juvenculara. Ideo omnes
istos cursus naturae virgo Maria in Domino nostro Jesu
Christo 8uscepit,ut omnibus ad se confugientibusfceminis
subveniret, et sic restauraret omne genus fceminarum ad
se advenientium nova Eva servando virginitatem, sicut
omne genus virorum Adam novus recuperat dominus
Jesus Chiistus." — Ibid. iii.

1 24 Notes.

I have omitted, among the instances of the comparison
of Eve with Mary, the passage at the end of the Epistle
to Diognetus, a testimony which would be most impor-
tant from the great antiquity of that work, from the
religious beauty of its composition, and the stress laid
upon it by Protestants. But I cannot construe it satis-
factorily as it stands in the received text. Should not
the semicolon be placed after <ji9ecp€Tai, not, as in the
editions, after Tna-Teverai ? thus : — wv 6j)L<i ovx aTrrcTac
ovSe TrKavT) avyxmpi^eTai, ovBe Eva (f)6€i,p€Tat ' aWa
Trapdevo'i irKneverai, Koi acoTr/piov BeiKwrai, koi airo-
aroXoL K.T.X,

Noles.

125

NOTE II. Page 48.

SUAREZ ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

Abridged from Suarez. 0pp. fc. 17, p. 7 — EA Venet.
1746 :—

" 1. Statuendum est B. Virginem fuisse a Christo
redemptam, quia Christus fuit universalis rederaptor
totius generis humani, et pro omnibus hotninibus mor-
tuus est.'' — p. 15.

" 2. Praeterea constat indiguisse Virginem redemptione,
quia nimirum descendebat ex Adamo per seminalem
generationem." — p. 7.

"3. Tanquam certum statuendum est, B. Virginem
procreatam esse ex viri et foeminae commixtione carnali,
ad modum aliorura hominum. Habetur certa traditione
et communi consensu totius Ecclesiae." — p. 7.

"4. Absolute et simpliciter fatendum B. Virginem
in Adam peccasse." — p. 16.

" 5. B. Virgo peccavit in Adamo, ex quo tanquam ex
radice infecta per seminalem rationem est orta ; hsec
«st tota ratio contrahendi originale peccatum, quod est
ex vi conceptionis, nisi gratia Dei praeveniat." — p. 16.

" 6. Certum est B. Virginem fuisse raortuam saltern
in Adamo. Sicut in Christo vitani habuit, ita et in

126 Notes.

Adam fuit mortua. Alias B. Virgo non contraxisset
mortem aliasve corporis poenalitates ex Adamo ; conse-
quens [autem] est omnino falsum. Habuit B. Virgo
meritum mortis saltem in Adamo. Ilia vere habuit
mortem carnis ex peecato Adami contractam." — p. 16.

"7. B, Virgo, ex vi suae conceptionis fuit obnoxia
originali peecato, seu debitum habuit contrahendi illud,
nisi divina gratia fuisset impeditum." — p. 16.

" 8. Si B, Virgo non fuisset (ut ita dicam) vendita in
Adamo, et de se servituti peccati obnoxia, non fuisset
vere redempta." — p. 16.

**9. Dicendum est, potuisse B. Virginem praeservari
ab originali peecato, et in prime suse conceptionis instanti
sanctificari." — p. 17.

" 1 0. Potuit B. Virgo ex vi suae originis esse obnoxia
culpae, et ideo indigere rederaptione, et nihilominus in
eodem momento, in quo erat obnoxia, praeveniri, ne
illam contraheret.'* — p. 14.

" 1]. Dicendum B. Virginem in ipso primo instanti
conceptionis suae fuisse sanctificatam, et ab originali
peecato praeservatam." — p. 19.

** 12. Carnem Virginis fuisse carnem peccati ....
verum est, non quia ilia caro aliquando fuit subdita
peecato aut informata anima carente gratia, sed quia
fuit mortalis et passibilis ex debito peccati, cui de se
erat obnoxia, si per Christi gratiam non fuisset
praeservata.*' — p. 22.

" 13. Quod B. Virgo de se fuerit obnoxia peecato, (si
illud revera nunquam habuit) non derogat perfectae ejus
sanctitati et puritati.'' — pp. 16, 17.

A''oies 1 2 7

Cornelius k Lapide, Comment, in Ep. ad Rom.
V. 12, says : —

" The Blessed Virgin sinned in Adam, and incurred
this necessity of contracting original sin ; but original
sin itself she did not contract in herself in fact, nor had
it ; for she was anticipated by the grace of God, which
excluded all sin from her, in the first moment of her
conception."

In 2 Ep. ad Corinth, v. 15 : —

" All died, namely, in Adam, for in him all contracted
the necessity of sin and death, even the Deipara; so
that both herself and man altogether needed Christ
as a Redeemer and His death. Therefore the Blessed
Virgin sinned and died in Adam, but in her own person
she contracted not sin and the death of the soul, for she
was anticipated by God and God's grace."

If any one wishes to see our doctrine drawn out in a
Treatise of the present day, he should have recourse to
Dr. UUathorne's Exposition of the Immaculate Con-
ception, a work full of iastruction and of the first
authority.

1^8 Notes.

NOTE III. Page 50.

THE ANOMALOUS STATEMENTS OF ST. BASIL, ST. CHBTSOSTOM,
AND ST. CYRIL ABOUT THE BLESSED VIRGIN.

I HAVE admitted that several great Fathers of the
Church of the fourth and fifth centuries speak of the
Blessed Virgin in terms which we never should think of
using now, and which at first sight are inconsistent with
the belief and sentiment concerning her, which I have
ascribed to their times. These Fathers are St. Basil,
St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria ; and the
occasion of their speaking is furnished by certain pas-
sages of Scripture on which they are commenting. It
may in consequence be asked of me, why I do not
take these three, instead of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and
Tertullian, as my authoritative basis for determining the
doctrine of the primitive times concerning the Blessed
Mary : why, instead of making St. IrensBus, &;c., the
rule, and St. Basil, &c., the exception, I do not make the
earlier Fathers the exception, and the latter the rule.
Since I do not, it may be urged against me that I am
but making a case for my own opinion, and playing the
part of an advocate.

Now I do not see that it would be illogical or nuga-
tory, though I did nothing more than make a case ;

Notes. 129

indeed I have worded myself in my Letter as if I wished
to do little more. For so much as this would surely be
to the purpose, considering that the majority of Angli-
cans ha vea supreme confidence that no case whatever can
be made in behalf of our doctrine concerning the Blessed
Virgin from the ancient Fathers. I should have gained a
real point if I did anything to destroy this imagination ;
but I intend to attempt something more than this. I shall
attempt to invalidate the only grounds on which any
teaching contrary to the Catholic can be founded on
Antiquity.

1.

First, I set down the passages which create the diffi-
culty, as they are found in the great work of Petavius,
a theologian too candid and fearless to put out of sight
or explain away adverse facts, from fear of scandal, or
from the expedience of controversy.

1. St. Basil then writes thus, in his 260th Epistle,
addressed to Optimus : —

" [Symeon] uses the word ' sword,' meaning the word
which is tentative and critical of the thoughts, and
reaches unto the separation of soul and spirit, of the
joints and marrow. Since then every soul, at the time
of the Passion, was subjected in a way to some unsettle-
ment (BLaKpiaei), according to the Lord's word, who
said, ' All ye shall be scandalized in Me,' Symeon pro-
phesies even of Mary herself, that, standing by the Cross,
and seeing what was doing, and hearing the words, after
the testimony of Gabriel, after the secret knowledge of
the divine conception, after the great manifestation of

miracles. Thou wilt experience, he says, a certain tossing

K

1 30 Notes.

{adXoi}) of tby soul. For it beseemed the Lord to taste
death for every one, and to become a propitiation of the
world, in order to justify all in His blood. And thee
thyself who hast been taught from above the things con-
cerning the Lord, some unsettlement {hMKpiai^) will
reach. This is the sword ; ' that out of many hearts
thoughts may be revealed.' He obscurely signifies, that,
after the scandalizing which took place upon the Cross
of Christ, both to the disciples and to Mary herself,
some quick healing should follow upon it from the Lord,
confirming their heart unto faith in Him."
2. St. Chrysostom, in Matth. Horn. iv. : —
" * Wherefore,^ a man may say, ' did not the Angel do
in the case of the Yirgin [what he did to Joseph ? '"
viz., appear to her after, not before, the Incarnation],
" ' why did he not bring her the good tidings after her
conception ?' lest she should be in great disturbance and
trouble. For the probability was, that, had she not
known the clear fact, she would have resolved something
strange {ajoirov) about herself, and had recourse to rope
or sword, not bearing the disgrace. For the Yirgin was
admirable, and Luke shows her virtue when he says
that, when she heard the salutation, she did not at once
become extravagant, nor appropriated the words, but
■was troubled, searching what was the nature of the
salutation. One then of so refined a mind {BLrjKpi^co/jievi])
would be made beside herself with despondency, con-
sidering the disgrace, and not expecting, whatever she
may say, to persuade any one who hears her, that adul-
tery had not been the fact. Lest then these things
should occur, the Angel came before the conception ; for

Notes. 1 3 1

it beseemed that that womb should be without disorder,
which the Creator of all entered, and that that soul
should be rid of all perturbation, which was counted
worthy to become the minister of such mysteries."

In Matth. Horn. xliv. (vid. also in Joann. Horn,
xxi.) : —

" To-day we learn something else even further, viz.,
that not even to bear Christ in the womb, and to have
that wonderful childbirth, has any gain without virtue.
And this is especially true from this passage, ' As He was
yet speaking to the multitude, behold His Mother and
His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him/
&c. This He said, not as ashamed of His Mother, nor as
denying her who bore Him ; for, had He been ashamed,
He had not passed through that womb ; i>at as showing
that there was no profit to her thence, unless she did all
that was necessary. For what she attempted, came of
overmuch love of honour ; for she wished to show to the
people that she had power and authority over her
Son, in nothing ever as yet having given herself airs
{(f)avTa^o/jLevr]) about Him. Therefore she came thus
unseasonably. Observe then her and their rashness
{aTTovoiav). . . . Had He wished to deny His Mother,
then He would have denied, when the Jews taunted Him
with her. But no : He shows such care of her as to
commit her as a legacy on the Cross itself to the dis-
ciple whom He loved best of all, and to take anxious
oversight of her. But does He not do the same now,
by caring for her and His brethren ? . . . And consider,
not only the words which convey the considerate rebuke,
but also . . , who He is who utters it . . . and what He

K 2

132 Notes.

aims at in uttering it ; not, that is, as wishing to cast
her into perplexity, but to release her from a most
tyrannical affection, and to bring her gradually to the
fitting thought concerning Him, and to persuade her
that He is not only her Son, but also her Master."
3. St. Cyril, in Joann. lib. xii. 1064 : —
" How shall we explain this passage ? He introduces
both His Mother and the other women with her standing
at the Cross, and, as is plain, weeping. For somehow the
race of women is ever fond of tears ; and especially given
to laments, when it has rich occasions for weeping. How
then did they persuade the blessed Evangelist to be so
minute in his account,asto make mention of this abidance
of the women ? For it was his purpose to teach even
this, viz., that probably even the Mother of the Lord
herself was scandalized at the unexpected Passion, and
that the death upon the Cross, being so very bitter, was
near unsettling her from her fitting mind j and in addi-
tion to this, the mockeries of the Jews, and the soldiers
too, perhaps, who were sitting near the Cross and making
a jest of Him who was hanging on it, and daring, in the
sight of His very mother, the division of His garments.
Doubt not that she admitted {^La^hk^a-ro) some such
thoughts as these : — I bore Him who is laughed at on the
wood ; but, in saying He was the true son of the Omni-
potent God, perhaps somehow He was mistaken. He
said He was the Life, how then has He been crucified ?
how has He been strangled by the cords of His mur-
derers? how prevailed He not over the plot of His
persecutors ? why descends He not from the Cross,
f bpugh He J)a.de Lazarus to return to life, and amazed all

Azotes. I -^ -^

Judaea with His miracles ? And it is very natural that
the woman in her (to juvaiov), not knowing the mystery,
should slide into some such trains of thought. For we
must conclude, if we judge well, that the gravity of
the circumstances was enough to overturn even a self-
possessed mind; it is no wonder then if a woman
(to yvvatov) slipped into this reasoning. For if Peter
himself, the chosen one of the holy disciples, once was
scandalized ... so as to cry out hastily, Be it far from
Thee, Lord . . . what paradox is it, if the soft mind of
womankind was carried off to weak ideas ? And this
we say, not idly conjecturing, as it may strike one, but
enteitaining the suspicion from what is written con-
cerning the Mother of the Lord. For we remember that
Simeon the Just, when he received the Lord as a little
child into his arms, . . . said to her, * A sword shall go
through thine own soul, that out of many hearts thoughts
may be revealed.' By sword he meant the sharp excess
of suffering cutting down a woman's mind into extra-
vagant thoughts. For temptations test the hearts of
those who suffer them, and make bare the thoughts
which are in them.'*

Now what do these three Fathers say in these pas-
sages ?

1. St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only
doubt, but the sin of doubt. On the other hand, 1. he
imputes it only on one occasion ; 2. he does not consider
it to be a grave sin ; 3. he implies that, in point of
spiritual perfection, she is above the Apostles.

2. St. Chrysostom, in his first passage, does not im-

134 Notes.

pute sin to her at all. He says God so disposed things
for her as to shield her from the chance of sinning ; that
she was too admirable to be allowed to be betrayed by
her best and purest feelings into sin. All that is implied
repugnant to a Catholic's reverence for her, is, that her
woman's nature, viewed in itself and apart from the
watchful providence of God's grace over her, would not
have had strength to resist a hypothetical temptation, —
a position which a Catholic will not care to affirm or
deny, though he will feel great displeasure at having to
discuss it at all. This, moreover, at least is distinctly
brought out in the passage, viz., that in St. Chry-
sostora's mind, our Lady was not a mere physical instru-
ment of the Incarnation, but that her soul, as well as
her body, "ministered to the mystery," and needed to
be duly prepared for it.

As to his second most extraordinary passage, I should
not be candid, unless I simply admitted that it is as
much at variance with what we hold, as it is solitary
and singular in the writings of Antiquity. The saint
distinctly and {pace illius) needlessly, imputes to the
Blessed Virgin, on the occasion in question, the sin or
infirmity of vainglory. He has a parallel passage in
commenting on the miracle at the marriage-feast. All
that can be said to alleviate the startling character of
these passages is, that it does not appear that St. Chry-
sostom would account such vainglory in a woman as any
great failing.

3. Lastly, as to St. Cyril, I do not see that he declares
that Mary actually doubted at the Crucifixion, but that,
considering she was a woman, it is likely she was tempted

Notes. 135

to doubt, and nearly doubted. Moreover, St. Cyril does
not seem to consider such doubt, had it occurred, as
any great sin.

Thus on the whole, all three Fathers, St. Basil and
St. Cyril explicitly, and St. Chrysostom by implication,
consider that on occasions she was, or might be, exposed
to violent temptation to doubt ; but two Fathers con-
sider that she actually did sin, though she sinned
lightly; — the sin being doubt, and on one occasion,
according to St. Basil ; and on two occasions, the sin
being vainglory, according to St. Chrysostom.

However, the strong language of these Fathers is not
directed against our Lady's person, so much as against
her nature. They seem to have participated with
Ambrose, Jerome, and other Fathers, in that low esti-
mation of woman's nature which was general in their
times. 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 was then known of that true
nobility, which is exemplified in the females of the
Gothic and German races, and in those of the old Jewish
stock, Miriam, Deborah, Judith, and Susanna, the fore-
runners of Mary. When then St. Chrysostom imputes
vainglory to her, he is not imputing to her anything
worse than an infirmity, the infirmity of a nature, in-
ferior to man's, and intrinsically feeble ; as though the
Almighty could have created a more excellent being
than Mary, but could not have made a greater woman.
Accordingly Chrysostom does not say that she sinned.
He does not deny that she had all the perfections which

t^6 Notes.

womam could have ; but he seems to have thought the
capabilities of her nature were bounded, so that the
utmost grace bestowed upon it could not raise it above
that standard of perfection in which its elements resulted,
and that to attempt more, would have been to injure,
not to benefit it. Of course I am not stating this as
brought out in any part of his writings, but it seems to
me to be the real sentiment of many of the ancients.

I will add that such a belief on the part of these
Fathers, that the Blessed Virgin had committed a sin or
a weakness, was not in itself inconsistent with the exer-
cise of love and devotion to her (though I am not pre-
tending that there is proof of any such exercise on their
part in fact) ; and for this simple reason, that if sinless-
ness were a condition of inspiring devotion, we should
not feel devotion to any but our Lady, not to St. Joseph,
or to the Apostles, or to our Patron saints.

Such then is the teaching of these three Fathers ; now
how far is it in antagonism to ours ? On the one hand,
we will not allow that our Blessed Lady ever sinned ;
we cannot bear the notion, entering, as we do, into the
full spirit of St. Augustine's words, " Concerning the
Holy Virgin Mary, I wish no question to be raised at
all, when we are treating of sins." On the other hand,
we admit, rather we maintain, that, except for the grace
of God, she might have sinned ; and that she may have
been exposed to temptation in the sense in which our
Lord was exposed to it, though as His Divine Nature
made it impossible for Him to yield to it, so His grace
preserved her under its assaults also. While then we do

Notes. 137

not hold that St. Simeon prophesied of temptation, when
he said a sword would pierce her, still, if any one likes to
say he did, we do not consider him heretical, provided he
does not impute to her any sinful or inordinate emotion as
the consequence to it. In this way St. Cyril may be let
oflF altogether ; and we have only to treat of the paradoxa
or anomala of those great Saints, St. Basil and St.
Chrysostom. I proceed to their controversial value.

2.

I mean, that having determined what the Three
Fathers say, and how far they are at issue with what
Catholics hold now, I now come to the main question,
viz., What is the authoritative force in controversy of
what they thus say in opposition to Cath<^1ic teaching ?
I think I shall be able to show that it has no contro-
versial force at all.

1. I begin by observing, that the main force of pas-
sages which can be brought from any Father or Fathers
in controversy, lies in the fact that such passages repre-
sent the judgment or sentiment of their own respective
countries ; and again, I say that the force of that local
judgment or sentiment lies in its being the existing ex-
pression of an Apostolical tradition. I am far, of course,
from denying the claim of the teaching of a Father on
our deference, arising out of his personal position and
character ; or the claims of the mere sentiments of a
Christian population on our careful attention, as a fact
carrying with it, under circumstances, especial weight ;
but, in a question of doctrine, we must have recourse to
the great source of doctrine, Apostolical Tradition, and a

1 3S Notes,

Father must represent his own people, and that people
must be the witnesses of an uninterrupted Tradition
from the Apostles, if anything decisive is to come of
any theological statement which is found in his writings;
and if, in a particular case, there is no reason to suppose
that he does echo the popular voice, or that that popular
voice is transmitted from Apostolic times, — or (to take
another channel of Tradition) unless the Father in ques-
tion receives and reports his doctrine from the Bishops
and Priests who instructed him on the very under-
standing and profession that it is Apostolical, — then,
though it was not one Father but ten who said a thing,
it would weigh nothing against the assertion of only one
Father to the contrary, provided it was clear that that
one Father witnessed to an Apostolical Tradition. Now
I do not say that I can decide the question by this issue
with all the exactness which is conceivable, but still this
is the issue by which it must be tried, and the issue by
which I shall be enabled, as I think, to come to a satis-
factory conclusion upon it.

2. Such, I say, being the issue, viz., that a doctrine
reported by the Fathers, in order to have dogmatic force,
must be a Tradition in its source or form, next, what is a
Tradition, considered in its matter ? It is a belief, which,
be it affirmative or negative, is positive. The mere absence
of a tradition in a country, is not a tradition the other
way. If, for instance, there was no tradition in Syria
and Asia Minor that the phrase " consubstantial with
the Father," came from the Apostles, that would not be
a tradition that it did not come from the Apostles ;
though of course it would be necessary for those who

Notei. 1 39

said that it did, to account for the ignorance of those
countries as to the real fact.

3. The proposition " Christ is God/' serves as an ex-
ample of what I mean hy an affirmative tradition ; and
" no one born of woman is born in God's favour," is an
example of a negative tradition. I observe then, in the
third place, that a tradition does not carry its own full
explanation with it ; it does but land (so to say) a pro-
position at the feet of the Apostles, and its interpretation
has still to be determined, — as the Apostles' words in
Scripture, however much theirs, need an interpretation.
Thus I may accept the above negative Tradition, that
" no one woman-born is born in God's favour," yet ques-
tion its strict universality, as a point of criticism, saying
that a general proposition admits of excep*^'ons, that our
Lord was born of woman, yet was the sinless and accept-
able priest and sacrifice for all men. So again the Arians
allowed that " Christ was God," but they disputed about
the meaning of the word " God."

4. Further, there are explicit traditions and implicit.
By an explicit tradition I mean a doctrine which is con-
veyed in the letter of the proposition which has been
handed down ; and by implicit, one which lies in the
force and virtue, not in the letter of the proposition.
Thus it might be an Apostolical tradition that our Lord
was the very Son of God, of one nature with the Father,
and in all things equal to Him ; and again a tradition
that there was but one God : these would be explicit,
but in them would necessarily be conveyed, more-
over, the implicit tradition, that the Father and the
Son were numerically one. Implicit traditions are

1 4<5 Notes.

positive traditions, as being strictly conveyed in
positive.

5. Lastly, there are at least two ways of determining
an Apostolical tradition: — (1.) When credible witnesses
declare that it ts Apostolical; as when three hundred
Fathers at Nicsea stopped their ears at Arius's blas-
phemies: (2.) When, in various places, independent
witnesses enunciate one and the same doctrine, as St.
Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and Eusebius assert, that the
Apostles founded a Church, Catholic and One.

Now to apply these principles to the particular case
on account of which I have laid them down.

1. That " Mary is the new Eve," is a proposition
answering to the idea of a Tradition. I am not prepared
to say that it can be shown to have the first of the above
two tests of its Apostolicity, viz. that the writers who
record it, profess to have received it from the Apostles ;
but I conceive it has the second test, viz. that the
writers are independent witnesses, as I have shown at
length in the course of my Letter.

It is an explicit tradition ; and by the force of it
follow two others, which are implicit: — first (considering
the condition of Eve in paradise), that Mary had no
part in sin, and indefinitely large measures of grace;
secondly (considering the doctrine of merits), that she
has been exalted to glory proportionate to that grace.

This is what I have to observe on the argument in
behalf of the Blessed Virgin. St. Justin, St. Iren^us,
Tertullian, are witnesses of an Apostolical tradition.

Notes, 141

because in three distinct parts of the world they enunciate
one and the same definite doctrine. And it is remark-
able that they witness just for those three seats of Catholic
teaching, where the truth in this matter was likely to
be especially lodged. St. Justin speaks for Jerusalem,
the see of St. James ; St. Irenaeus for Ephesus, the
dwelling-place, the place of burial, of St. John ; and
Tertullian, who made a long residence at Rome, for the
city of St. Peter and St. Paul.

2. Now, what can be produced on the other side,
parallel to an argument like this ? A tradition in its
matter is a positive statement of belief ; in its form it is
a statement which comes from the Apostles : (1.) now,
first in point of matter, what definite statement of belief
at all, is witnessed to by St. Basil, St. Ch^ysostom, and
St. Cyril ? I cannot find any. They do but interpret
certain passages in the Gospels to our Lady's disadvan-
tage; is an interpretation a distinct statement of belief?
but even if it was, there is no joint interpretation in this
case ; they do not all three interpret one and the same
passage. Nor do they agree together in their interpreta-
tion of those passages, which either one or other of them
interprets so harshly ; for, while St. Chiysostom holds
that our Lord spoke in correction of His Mother at the
wedding feast, St. Cyril on the contrary says that He
wrought a miracle 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 fitting." But, taking the statements
which are in her dirfparageraent as we find them, can we

142 JNotes.

generalize them into one proposition ? Shall we make
it such as this, viz. " The Blessed Virgin during her
earthly life committed actual sin " ? If we mean by
this, that there was a positive recognition of such a
proposition in the country of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom,
this surely is notto be gathered merely from their separate
and independent comments on passages of Scripture.
All that can be gathered thence legitimately is, that, had
there been a positive belief in her sinlessness in those
countries, the Fathers in question would not have spoken
of her in the terms which they have used ; in other words,
that there was no belief in her sinlessness then and there ;
but the absence of a belief is not a belief to the contrary,
it is not that positive statement, which, as I have said,
is required for the matter of a tradition.

(2.) Nor do the passages which I have quoted from
these Fathers, supply us with any tradition, viewed in
its form, that is, as a statement which has come down
from the Apostles. I have suggested two tests of such
a statement : — one, when the writers who make it so
declare that it was from the Apostles ; and the other
when, being independent of one another, they bear
witness to one and the same positive statement of
doctrine. Neither test is fulfilled in this case. The
three Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries are but com-
menting on Scripture ; and comments, though carrying
with them of course, and betokening, the tone of thought
of the place and time to which they belong, are, prima
facie, of a private and personal character. If they are
more than this, the onu& prohandi lies with those who so
maintain. Exegetical theology is one department of

Notes, 143

divine science, and dogmatic is another. On the other
hand, the three Fathers of the 2nd century are all writing
on dogmatic subjects, when they compare Mary to Eve.

4.

Now to take the Three later Fathers, viewed as organs
of tradition, one by one : —

1. As to St. Cyril, as I have said, he does not, strictly
speaking, say more than that our Lady was grievously
tempted. This does not imply sin, for our Lord was
•' tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin."
Moreover, it is this St. Cyril who spoke at Ephesus of
the Blessed Virgin in terms of such high panegyric, as
to make it more consistent in him to suppose that shti
was sinless, than that she was not.

2. St. Basil derives his notion from Origen, that the
Blessed Virgin at the time of the Passion admitted a
doubt about our Lord's mission, and Origen, so far from
professing to rest it on Tradition, draws it as a theolo-
gical conclusion from a received doctrine. Origen's
characteristic fault was to prefer scientific reasonings to
authority ; and he exemplifies it in the case before us.
In the middle age, the great obstacle to the reception of
the doctrine of the Blessed Mary's immaculate concep-
tion, was the notion that, unless she had been in some
sense a sinner, she could not have been redeemed. By
an argument parallel to this, Origen argues, that since
she was one of the redeemed, she must at one time or
another have committed an actual sin. He says : " Are
we to think, that the Apostles were scandalized, and
not the Lord's Mother ? If she suffered not scandal at

144 Notes.

our Lord's passion, then Jesus died not for her sins.
If all have sinned and need the glory of God, being
justified by His grace, and redeemed, certainly Mary
at that time was scandalized." This is precisely the
argument of Basil, as contained in the passage given
above ; his statement then of the Blessed Virgin's
wavering in faith, instead of professing to be the tra-
dition of a doctrine, carries with it an avowal of its being
none at alL

However, I am not unwilling to grant that, whereas
Scripture tells us that all were scandalized at our Lord's
passion, there was some sort of traditional interpretation
of Simeon's words, to the effect that she was in some
sense included in that trial How near the Apostolic
era the tradition existed, cannot be determined; but
such a belief need not include the idea of sin in the
Blessed Virgin, but only the presence of temptation and
darkness of spirit. This tradition, whatever its autho-
rity, would be easily perverted, so as actually to impute
sin to her, by such reasonings as that of Origen. Origen
himself, in the course of the passage to which I have
referred, speaks of " the sword " of Simeon, and is the
first to do so. St. Cyril, who, though an Alexandrian
as well as Origen, represents a very difierent school of
theology, has, as we have seen, the same interpretation
for the piercing sword. It is also found in a Homily
attributed to St. Amphilochius; and in that sixth Oration
of Proclus, which, according to Tillemont and Ceillier,
is not to be considered genuine. It is also found in a
work incorrectly attributed to St. Augustine.

3. St. Chrysostom is, far excellence, the Commentator

Notes. 145

of the Church. As Commentator and Preacher, he, of
all the Fathers, carries about him the most intense per-
sonality. In this lies his very charm, peculiar to himself.
He is ever overflowing with thought, and he pours it
forth with a natural engaging frankness, and an un-
wearied freshness and vigour. If he really was in the
practice of deeply studying and carefully criticizing
what he delivered in public, he had in perfection the
rare art of concealing his art. He ever speaks from him-
self, not of course without being impregnated with the
fulness of a Catholic training, but, still, not speaking by
rule, but as if, " trusting the lore of his own loyal heart.'*
On the other hand, if it is not a paradox to say it, no
one carries with him so little of the science, precision,
consistency, gravity of a Doctor of the Church, as he
who is one of the greatest. The diflBiculties are well
known which he has occasioned to school theologians :
his obiter dicta about our Lady are among them.

On the whole then I conclude that these three Fathers
supply no evidence that, in what they say about her
having failed in faith or humility on certain occasions
mentioned in Scripture, they are reporting the enun-
ciations of Apostolical Tradition.

5.

Moreover, such diflBculties as the above are not un-
common in the writings of the Fathers. I will mention
several : —

1. St. Gregory Nyssen is a great dogmatic divine;
he too, like St. Basil, is of the school of Origen ; and, in
several passages of his works, he, like Origen, declares or

L

146 Notes,

suggests that future punishment will not be eternal.
Those Anglicans who consider St. Chrysostom's passages
in his Commentary on the Gospels to be a real argument
against the Catholic belief of the Blessed Virgin's sin-
lessness, should explain why they do not feel St. Gregory
Nyssen's teaching in his Catechetical Discourse, an
argument against their own belief in the eternity of
punishment.

2. Again, Anglicans believe in the proper Divinity of
our Lord, in spite of Bull's saying of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, "Nearly all the ancient Catholics, who pre-
ceded Arius, have the appearance of being ignorant of
the invisible and incomprehensible (immensam) nature of
the Son of God ;" an article of faith expressly contained
in the Athanasian Creed, and enforced by its anathema.

3. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost is an integral part
of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity ; yet St.
Basil, in the fourth century, apprehending the storm of
controversy which its assertion would raise, refrained
from asserting it on an occasion when the Arians were
on watch as to what he would say. And, on his keeping
silence, St. Athanasius took his part. Such inconsis-
tencies take place continually, and no Catholic doctrine
but suffers from them at times, until what has been
preserved by Tradition is formally pronounced to be
Apostolical by definition of the Church.

6.

Before concluding, I shall briefly take notice of two
questions which may be asked me.

1. How are we to account for the absence, at Antioch

Notes. 147

or Caesarea, of a tradition of our Lady's sinlessness ? I
answer that it was obliterated or confused for the time
by the Arian troubles in the countries in which those
Sees are situated.

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 obscured
together with the essential glory of the Son, or if they
who denied the tradition of His divinity, forgot the
tradition of her sinlessness. Christians in those coun-
tries and times, however religious themselves, however
orthodox their teachers, were necessarily under peculiar
disadvantages.

Now let it be observed that Basil grew up in the very
midst of Semi-Arianism, and had direct relations with
that portion of its professors who had been reconciled
to the Church and accepted the Homoiision. It is not
wonderful then, if he had no firm habitual hold upon a
doctrine which (though Apostolical) in his day was as
yet so much in the background all over Christendom, as
our Lady's sinlessness.

As to Chrysostom, not only was he in close relations
with the once Semi- Arian Cathedra of Antioch, to the
disowning of the rival succession there, recognized by
Rome and Alexandria, but, as his writings otherwise
show, he came under the teaching of the celebrated
Antiochene School, celebrated, that is, at once for its
method of Scripture criticism, and (orthodox as it was
itself) for the successive outbreaks of heresy among its
members. These outbreaks began in Paul of Samosata,
were continued in the Semi- Arian pupils of Lucian, and

L 2

148 Notes,

ended in Nestorlus. The famous Theodore, and Diodorus,
of the same school, who, though not heretics themselves,
have a bad name in the Church, were, Diodorus the
master, and Theodore the fellow-pupil, of St. Chry-
sostom. (Yid. E^my on Doctr. Bevel, chap. v. § 2.)
Here then is a natural explanation, why St. Chrysostom,
even more than St. Basil, might be wanting, great
doctor as he was, in a clear perception of the place of
the Blessed Virgin in the Evangelical Dispensation.

2. How are we to account for the passages in the
Gospels which are the occasion of the three Fathers'
remarks to her disparagement ? I answer, they were
intended to discriminate between our Lord^s work who
is our Teacher and Redeemer, and the ministrative
office of His Mother.

As to the words of Simeon, indeed, as interpreted by
St. Basil and St. Cyril, there is nothing in the sacred
text which obliges us to consider the " sword " to mean
doubt rather than anguish ; but Matth. xii. 46 — 50,
with its parallels Mark iii. 31 — 35, and Luke viii. 19 —
21 : and with Luke xi. 27, 28, and John ii. 4, requires
some explanation.

I observe then, that, when our Lord commenced His
ministry, and during it, as one of His chief self-sacrifices,
He separated Himself from all ties of earth, in order to
fulfil the typical idea of a teacher and priest ; and to give
an example to His priests after Him ; and especially to
manifest by this action the cardinal truth, as expressed
by the Prophet, " I am the Lord, and there is no Saviour
besides Me.^'' As to His Priests, they, after Him, were
to be of the order of that Melchizedech, who was

Notes. 149

" without father and without mother ;" for " no man,
being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular
business :'' and ** no man putting his hand to the plough,
and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Again, as to the Levites, who were His types in the Old
Law, there was that honourable history of their zeal
for God, when they even slew their own brethren and
companions who had committed idolatry ; " who said
to his father and to his mother, I do not know you, and
to his brethren, I know you not, and their own children
they have not known.'* To this His separation even
from His Mother He refers by anticipation at twelve
years old in His words, " How is it that you sought Me ?
Did you not know that I must be about My Father's
business ? "

The separation from her, with whom He had lived
thirty years and more, was not to last beyond the time
of His ministry. She seems to have been surprised when
she first heard of it, for St. Luke says, on occasion of
His staying in the Temple, " they understood not the
word that He spoke to them." Nay, she seems
hardly to have understood it at the marriage -feast ; but
He, in dwelling on it more distinctly then, implied also
that it was not to last long. He said, '■' Woman, what
have I to do with thee ? My hour is not yet come," —
that is, the hour of His triumph, when His Mother was
to take her predestined place in His kingdom. In
saying the hour was not yet come. He implied that the
hour would come, when He would have to "do with
her," and she might ask and obtain from Him miracles.
Accordingly, St. Augustine thinks that that hour had

1 50 Notes.

come, when He said upon the Cross, *' Conmmmatum est"
and, after this ceremonial estrangement of years, He
recognized His Mother and committed her to the be-
loved disciple. Thus, by marking out the beginning
and the end of the period of exception, during which she
could not exert her influence upon Him, He signifies
more clearly by the contrast, that her presence with Him,
and Her power, was to be the rule of His kingdom. In
a higher sense than He spoke to the Apostles, He seems
to address her in the words, " Because I have spoken
these things, sorrow hath filled your heart. But I will
see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy
no man shall take from you." {Vid. Sermon iii. in
Sermons on Subjects of the Day. Also the comment of
St. Irenseus, &c,, upon John ii. 4, in my note on
Athanas. Orat. iii. 41.)

Also, I might have added the passage in Tertul-
lian. Cam. Christ. § 7, as illustrating, by its contrast
with § 17 (quoted above, p. 34), the distinction be-
tween doctrinal tradition and personal opinion, if it
were clear to me that he included the Blessed Virgin
in the unbelief which he imputes to our Lord^s brethren ;
on the contrary, he expressly separates her ojQF from them.
The passage runs thus on the text, " Who is My Mother ?
and who are My Brethren ? "

" The Lord's brothers had not believed in Him, as is
contained in the Gospel published before Marcion. His
Mother, equally, is not described (non demonstratur) as
having adhered to Him, whereas other Marthas and
Maries are frequent in intercourse with him. In this
place at length their (eorum) incredulity is evident ;

Notes, 1 5 1

while He was teaching the way of life, was preaching tlie
kingdom of God, was working for the cure of ailments and
diseases, though strangers were riveted to Him, these, so
much the nearest to Him (tam proximi), were away. At
length they come upon Him, and stand without, nor enter,
not reckoning forsooth on what was going on within/'

Additional Note, Ed. 5.— It may be added to the
above, that Fr. Hippolyto Maracci, in his " Vindicatio
Chrysostomica/' arguing in behalf of St. Chrysostom's
belief in the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception,
maintains that a real belief in that doctrine is compatible
with an admission that she was not free from venial sin,
granting for argument's sake that St. Chrysostom held
the latter doctrine. If this be so, it follows that we
cannot at once conclude that either he or the other two
Fathers deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,
because here and there in their writings they impute to
the Blessed Virgin infirmities or faults. He writes as
follows : —

'* Demus,quod dandum non est, scilicet Chrysostomum
tribuisse Deiparae Virgin i peccatum actuale veniale, nun-
quid ex hoc potest solid e inferri ipsum eidem tribuisse
etiam peccatum originale ? Minime quidem. Non enim
apparet necessaria connexio inter carentiam peccati
venialis et carentiam origin alls, ita ut ex una possit
inferri alia. Potuit Chrysostomus liberare B. Virginem
a peccato originali, licet non liberaverit a veniali. Pec-
catum veniale, juxta doctrinain Angelici Doctoris, non
causat maculam in anima, nee spiritualem pulchritudinem
ineji demolitur, stareque potest cumelogiis'immaculatse,*

152 Notes,

' incontaminataB/ 'impollutse,' &c. Cseterum peccatum
originale, cum penitus omnem gratiae ornatum explodat,
eum decore immaculatae, incontaminatae, impollutaa &c.,
minime potest consistere. Chrysostomus arbitratus est,
minus indecorum f uisse Christo nasci ex matre, quae levi
veniali macula afficeretur, quam quae originali ignominia
dehonestaretur. Prasservare Virginem a peccato origi-
nali majusprivilegium et excellentius beneficium est ex
parte Dei, quam eam non permittere macula veniali ali-
quantulum opacari. Stante enim praeservatione a pec-
cato originali, nee anima Dei inimicitiam contrahit,
nee diaboli mancipium evadit, nee denique redditur
inepta ad recipienda plura auxilia gratiae an nexa, quibus
plura peccata venialia declinare posset. Ex alia parte,
peccatum veniale ex se his bonis recipiendis obicem non
adeo ponit, nee animas pulchritudini, nee amicitias, nee
charitati machinatur exilium/'

Notes. 153

NOTE IV. Page 91.

ON THE TEACHING OF THE GREEK CHURCH ABOUT
THE BLESSED VIRGIN.

Canisius, in his work de, Marid Devpard Virgine, p. 514,
while engaged in showing the carefulness with which
the Church distinguishes the worship of God from the
cultiis of the Blessed Virgin, observes, " Lest the
Church should depart from Latvia (i.e. the worship of
God) she has instituted the public supplications in the
Liturgy in perpetuity in such wise as to address them
directly to God the Father, and not to the Saints, accord-
ing to that common form of praying, ' Almighty, ever-
lasting God, ' &c ; and the said prayers which they also
call ' Collects, ' she generally ends in this way, ' through
Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. ' " He says more to
the same purpose, but the two points here laid down are
sufficient ; viz. that as to the Latin Missal, Ritual, and
Breviary, (1.) Saints are not directly addressed in these
authoritative books : and (2.) in them prayers end with
the name of Jesus. An apposite illustration of both of
these, that is, in what is omitted and what is introduced,
is supplied by the concluding prayer of the Offertory in
the Latin Mass. If in any case the name of " our Lady
and all Saints " might at the end of a prayer be sub-

154 Notes.

stituted for our Lord's name^ it would be when the object
addressed is, not God the Father, but the Son, or the
Holy Trinity ; but let us observe how the prayer in
question runs : —

" Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas '' — " Receive, 0 Holy
Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in
memory of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of the Blessed
Mary, Ever- Virgin, of Blessed John Baptist, and of the
Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these and all
Saints, that it may avail for their honour and our salva-
tion, and that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in
heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through
the same Christ our Lord. Amen/'

When in occasional Collects the intercession of the
Blessed Mary is introduced, it does not supersede men-
tion of our Lord as the Intercessor. Thus in the Post-
Communion on the Feast of the Circumcision, —

" May this Communion, 0 Lord, purify us from guilt ;
and at the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, make us partakers of the heavenly re-
medy, through the same our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."

In like manner, when the Son is addressed, and the
intercession of Mary and the Saints is supplicated. His
atoning passion is introduced at the close, as on the
Feast of the Seven Dolours : —

" God, at whose passion, according to the prophecy of
Simeon, the most sweet soul of the glorious Virgin-
Mother Mary was pierced through with the sword of
sorrow, mercifully grant, that we, who reverently com-
memorate her piercing and passion, may, by the inter-

Notes. 155

cession of the glorious merits and prayers of the Saints
who faithfully stood by the Cross, obtain the happy fruit
of Thy Passion, who livest and reignest, &c."

" We offer to Thee, Lord Jesus Christ, our prayers
and sacrifices, humbly supplicating, that we, who renew
in our prayers the piercing of the most sweet soul of
Thy Blessed Mother Mary, by the manifold compas-
sionate intervention of both her and her holy companions
under the Cross, by the merits of Thy death, may merit a
place with the Blessed, who livest, &c."

Now let us observe how far less observant of dogmatic
exactness, how free and fearless in its exaltation of the
Blessed Virgin, is the formal Greek devotion : —

1. "We have risen from sleep, and we fall down
before Thee, O good God; and we sing to Thee the
Angelic Hymn, O powerful God. Holy, holy, holy art
Thou, God ; have mercy on us through the Theotocos.

" Thou hast raised me from my bed and slumber, O
God. Lighten my mind, and open my heart and lips,
to sing of Thee, Holy Trinity. Holy, holy, holy art
Thou, God ; have mercy on us through the Theotocos.
*' Soon will come the Judge, and the deeds of all will
be laid bare . . . Holy, holy, holy art Thou, God ; have
mercy on us through the Theotocos." — Horologium, p. 2,
Venet. 1836 : vide also, pp. 34. 48. 52. Also Eucholog.
Venet. p. 358.

2. "O God, who lookest on the earth, and makest
it tremble, deliver us from the fearful threatenings of
earthquake, Christ our God ; and send down on us Thy
rich mercies, and save us, at the intercessions [Trpea^eiaisi)

1 56 Notes,

of the Theotocos." — Ihid. p. 224. Vid. also Pentecostar
p. 14.

3. "O Holy God, . . . visit us in Thy goodness,
pardon us every sin^ sanctify our souls, and grant us to
serve Thee in holiness all the days of our life, at the
intercessions (7rpecr^eLai<;) of the Holy Theotocos and all
the Saints, &c.^' — Euchologium^ p. 64. Venet. 1832.

4. "Again, and still again, let us beseech the Lord
in peace. Help, save, pity, preserve us, 0 God [through]
her, the all-holy, Immaculate, most Blessed, and glorious
{SiacfjvXa^ov rjij,a<; 6 @eo9, t^9 Travayla'i), &c." — Eucho-
logium, p. 92. Venet. 1832. Vid. also Pentecostar. p.
232 ; and passim.

5. "Lord, Almighty Sovereign, . . . restore and
raise from her bed this Thy servant, &c. ... at the
intercession {irpea-^eiai^) of the all-undefiled Theotocos
and all the Saints."— J^/rf. p. 142.

6. '* Have mercy and pardon, (for Thou alone hast
power to remit sins and iniquities,) at the intercession
of Thy all-holy Mother and all the Saints."— iS/rf.
p. 150.

7. *' 0 Lord God Almighty, . . . bless and hallow
Thy place ... at the intercession (Trpecr/Seiai?) of our
glorious Lady, Mary, Mother of God and Ever- Virgin."
— Eucholog. p. 389.

Is the Blessed Virgin ever called " our Lady," as
here, in the Latin Prayers? whereas it is a frequent
title of her in the Greek.

8. " Save me, my God, from all injury and harm.
Thou who art glorified in Three Persons . . . and guard
Thy flock at the intercessions {ivrev^eaiv) of the Theo-

Notes. 157

tocos **-^Pentecostariwn, p. 5U. Venet. 1820. Vid. also
Goar, Eticholog. p. 30.

9. " In the porch of Solomon there lay a multitude of
sick . . . Lord, send to us Thy great mercies at the
intercession {irpea^elai';) of the Theotocos." — Pente-
costar. p. 84. Yid. also Goar^ Eticholog. pp. 488. 543.

10. "0 great God, the Highest, who alone hast
immortality . . . prosper our prayer as the incense
before Thee . . . that we may remember even in the
night Thy holy Name, . . . and rise anew in gladness of
soul . . . bringing our prayers and supplications to
Thy loving kindness in behalf of our own sins and of all
Thy people, whom visit in mercy at the intercessions
{•rrpea^eiat,^) of the Holy Theotoco^:*— Ibid. p. 232.
Vid. Horolog. p. 192. Venet, 1836.

11. Between the Trisagion and Epistle in Mass.
" 0 Holy God, who dweUest in the holy place, whom
with the voice of their Trisagion the Seraphim do praise,
&c. . . . sanctify our souls and bodies, and grant us to
serve Thee in holiness all the days of our life, at the
intercession (irpea^eiais:) of the Hoi)'- Theotocos and all
the ^ami&."—Eucholog. p. 64. Venet. 1832.

12. In the early part of Mass. " Lift up the horn of
Christians, and send down on us Thy rich mercies, by the
power of the precious and life-giving Cross, by the grace
of Thy light-bringing, third-day resurrection from the
dead, at the intercession {irpea^elaa) of our All-holy
Blessed Lady, Mother of God and Ever- Virgin, and
all Thy Saints." — Assemani, Codex Liturg. t. v. p. 71.
Bite of St. James.

13. At the Ofl'ertory at Mass. "In honour and

158 Notes,

memory of our singularly blessed and glorious Queen,
Mary Theotocos and Ever- Virgin; at whose interces-
sion, 0 Lord, receive, 0 Lord, this sacrifice unto Thy
altar which is beyond the heavens." — Goar, Euchol. p.
58. Rite of St. Chrysostom.

14. In the Commemoration at Mass. ** Cantors.
Hail, Mary, full of grace, &c. &c. ... for thou hast
borne the Saviour of our souls. Priest. [Remember,
Lord] especially the most Holy Immaculate, &c. . . .
Mary. Cantors. It is meet truly to bless {fiaKapi^cLv)
thee, the Theotocos . . . more honourable than the
Cherubim, &c. . . . thee we magnify, who art truly the
Theotocos. O Full of Grace, in thee the whole creation
rejoices, the congregation of Angels, and the race of
men, 0 sanctified shrine, and spiritual Paradise, boast of
virgins," &c. — Assemani, t. v. p. 44. Jerusalem Rite.

15. In the Commemoration at Mass. ^^ Priest.
Especially and first of all, we make mention of the Holy,
glorious, and Ever- Virgin Mary, &c. Deacon. Re-
member her, Lord God, and at her holy and pure prayers
be propitious, have mercy upon us, and favourably hear
us. Priest. Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, pray
for me to thy Son Only-begotten, who came of thee,
that, having remitted my sins and debts. He may accept
from my humble and sinful hands this sacrifice, which
is offered by my vileness on this altar, through thy in-
tercession, Mother most holy." — Ihid. p. 186. Syrian
Rite.

16. Apparently, after the Consecration. " The Priest
incenses thrice before the Image {or Picture, imagine) of
the Virgin and says : Rejoice, Mary, beautiful dove, who

Noles» 159

hast borne for us God, the Word ; thee we salute with
the Angel Gabriel, saying, Hail, full of grace, the Lord
is with thee, Hail, Virgin, true Queen ; hail, glory of
our race, thou hast borne Emmanuel. We ask, remem-
ber us, O faithful advocate, in the sight of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that He put away from us our sins." —
Ibid. t. \i\.,pars 2da. in fin. p. 20. Alexandrian Rite.

17. At the Communion in Mass. " Forgive, our God,
remit, pardon me my trespasses as many as I have com-
mitted, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, whether
in word or in deed. All these things pardon me, as
Thou art good and kind to men, at the intercession
(rrpeo-ySetat?) of Thy all-undefiled and Ever- Virgin
Mother. Preserve me uncondemned, that I may receive
Thy precious and undefiled Body, for the healing of my
body and soul.'^ — Goar, Euchologium, p. 66.

18. After Communion at Mass. " 0 Lord, be mer-
ciful to us, bless us, let Thy countenance be seen upon us,
and pity us. Lord, save Thy people, bless Thine heritage,
&c., . . . through the prayers and addresses (orationes)
which the Lady of us all, Mother of God, the divine
(diva) and Holy Mary, and the four bright holy ones,
Michael," &c., &c. — Renaudot, Liturg. Orient, t, i. p.
29. Coptic Rite of St. Basil. Vid. also ibid. pp. 29. 37.
89. 515, of St. Basil, Coptic ; of St. Gregory, Coptic; of
Alexandria, Greek; and of Ethiopia.

19. After Communion at Mass. " We have consum-
mated this holy service {Xeirovpyiav), as we have been
ordered, 0 Lord . . . we, sinners, and Thine unworthy
servants, who have been made worthy to serve at Thy
holy altar, in offering to Thee the bloodless sacrifice, the

1 60 Notes.

immaculate Body, and the precious Blood of the Great
God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to Thy glory, the unori-
ginate Father, and to the glory of Him, Thy only-
begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, good, life-giving,
and consubstantial with Thee. "We ask a place on Thy
right hand in Thy fearful and just day through the inter-
cession l^ia rtiiv TTpear^eLOiv) and prayers of our most
glorious Lady, Mary, Mother of God, and Ever- Virgin.
and of all saints." — Assemani, Cod. Liturg. t vii. p. 85'
Bite of Alexandria.

20. After Communion at Mass. " We thank Thee,
Lord, Lover of men. Benefactor of our souls, that also on
this day Thou hast vouchsafed us Thy heavenly and
immortal mysteries. Direct our way aright, confirm us
all in Thy fear, &c., ... at the prayers and supplica-
tions of the glorious Theotocos and Ever-Yirgin Mary,
and of all Thy saints."— ^mc-^o%. p, 86. Venet. 1832.

21. Concluding words of Mass. " Blessed is He who
has given us His holy Body and precious Blood. We
have received grace and found life, by virtue of the Cross
of Jesus Christ. To Thee, 0 Lord, we give thanks, &c.
Praise to Mary, who is the glory of us all, who has
brought forth for us the Eucharist.-"— Eenaudot, Liturg.
Orient, t. i. p. 522. Rite of Ethiopia.

I will add some of the instances, which have caught
my eye in these ecclesiastical books, of expressions used
of the Blessed Virgin, which, among Latins, though
occurring in some Antiphons, belong more to the
popular than to the formal and appointed devotions
paid to her.

22. " Thee we have as a tower and harbour, and an

Notes. 1 6 1

acceptable ambassadress {Trpia/Siv) to the God whom thou
didst bear^ Mother of God who hadst no spouse, the
salvation of believers." — Pentecostar. p. 209. Venet.
1820.

23. " 0 Virgin alone holy and undefiled, who hast
miraculously {dairopo)^) conceived God, intercede
{irpear^eve) for the salvation of the soul of thy ser-
vant."—^mc>^o%. p. 439. Venet. 1832.

24. " Show forth thy speedy protection and aid and
mercy on thy servant, and still the waves, thou pure
one, of vain thoughts, and raise up my fallen soul, 0
Mother of God. For I know, 0 Virgin, I know that
thou hast power for whatever thou wiliest." — Ibid.
p. 679.

25. " Joachim and Anna were set free from the re-
proach of childlessness, and Adam and Eve from the
corruption of death, 0 undefiled, in thy holy birth.
And thy people keeps festival upon it, being ransomed
from the guilt of their offences in crying to thee. The
barren bears the Theotocos, and the nurse of Life." —
Horolog. p. 198. Venet. 1836.

26. '' Let us now run earnestly to the Theotocos,
sinners as we are, and low, and let us fall in repentance,
crying from the depths of our souls. Lady, aid us,
taking compassion on us. Make haste, we perish under
the multitude of our offences. Turn us not, thy
servants, empty away ; for we have thee as our only
hope." — Ibid. p. 470. Vid. *' My whole hope I repose
m thee." — Triodion, p. 94. Venet. 1820.

27. ** We have gained thee for a wall of relief, and the
all-perfect salvation of souls, and a relief {irXaTva-fiov)

1 62 Notes,

in afflictions, and in tby light we ever rejoice ; O Queen,
even now through suffering and danger preserve us/' —
Ihid. p. 474.

28. " By thy mediation. Virgin, I am saved." — Triod.
p. 6. Venet 1820.

29. " The relief of the afflicted, the release of the
sick, 0 Virgin Theotocos, save this city and people ;
the peace of those who are oppressed by war, the calm
of the tempest-tost, the sole protection of the faithful."
— Goar, Eucholog. p. 478.

30. All through the Office Books are found a great
number of Collects and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin,
called Theotocia, whereas in the Latin Offices addresses
to her scarcely get beyond the Antiphons. There are
above 100 of them in the Euchology, above 170 in the
Pentecostarium, close upon 350 in the Triodion. These,
according to Renaudot, are sometimes collected together
into separate volumes. {Liturg. Orient, t. ii. p. 98.)

31. At p. 424 of the Horologium there is a collection
of 100 invocations in her honour, arranged for the year.

32. At page 271 of the Euchologiwm, is a form of
prayer to her " in the confession of a sinner," consisting
of thirty-six collects, concluding with a Gospel, suppK-
cation, &c. If there were any doubt of the difference
which the Greeks make between her and the Saints,
one of these would be evidence of it. '' Take mth you
{irapaXa^e) the multitude of Archangels and of the
heavenly hosts, and the .Forerunner, &c., . . . and
make intercession {irpea^eutv), Holy one, in my behalf
with God," p. 275. Vid. also ihid. p. 390, &c.

33. There is another form of prayer to her at p. 640,

Notes. 163

of forty-three collects or verses, "in expectation of
war/* arranged to form an Iambic acrostic, " 0 undefiled,
be the ally of my household." Among other phrasea
we read here, " Thou art the head commander (6
apxio'TpdT7)yo<i) of Christians ;...." They in
their chariots and horses, we, thy people, in thy name ;"
" with thy spiritual hand cast down the enemies of thy
people ;" " Thy power runs with thy will ( avvSpofiov
exei<i)," &c. " Deliver not thine heritage, O holy one,
into the hands of the heathen, lest they shall say, Where
is the Mother of God in whom they trusted ? '* " Hear
from thy holy Temple, thy servants, 0 pure one, and
pour out God's wrath upon the Gentiles that do not
know thee, and the kingdoms that have not faithfully
called upon thy glorious name."

34. It is remarkable, that, not only the Jacobites,
but even the Nestorians agree with the Orthodox in the
unlimited honours they pay to the Blessed Virgin.
" No one," says Renaudot, " has accused the Orientals
of deficiency in the legitimate honours, which are the
right of the Deipara ; but many have charged them
with having sometimes been extravagant in that devo-
tion, and running into superstition, which accusation is
not without foundation." — t. i. p. 257.

Another remark of his is in point here. The extract s
above made are in great measure from Greek service-
books of the day ; but even those which are not such
are evidence, according to their date and place, of
opinions and practices, then and there existing. " Their
weight does not depend on the authority of the writers,
but on the use of the Churches. Those prayers had

M 2.

164

Notes.

their authors, who indeed were not known ; but, when
once it was clear that they had been used in Mass, who
their authors were ceased to be a question/' — t. i. p.
173. The existing manuscripts can hardly be supposed
to be mere compositions, but are records of rites.

I say then, first : — That usage, which, after a split
has taken place in a religious communion, is found to
obtain equally in each of its separated parts, may fairly
be said to have existed before the split occurred. The
concurrence of Orthodox, Nestorian, and Jacobite in the
honours they pay to the Blessed Virgin, is an evidence
that those honours were in the irsubstance paid to her
in their " Undivided Church."

Next : — Passages such as the above, taken from the
formal ritual of the Greeks, are more compromising to
those who propose entering into communion with them,
rhan such parallel statements as occur in unauthoritative
devotions of tiie l^atins.

2^'otes, 165

NOTE V. Page 107.

ON A SCANDALOUS TENET CONCERNING THE BLESSED
VIRGIN,

I FIND the following very apposite passage at note t,
p. 390, of vol. i. of Mr. Morris's " Jesus the Son of
Mary/' a work full of learning, which unhappily I for-
got to consult, till my Letter was finished and in type.

" An error of this sort [that our Lady is in the Holy
Eucharist] was held by some persons, and is condemned
in the following language by Benedict XIV. [i.e. by Car-
dinal Lambertini] , as has been pointed out to me by my
old and valued friend, Father Faber : 'This doctrine was
held to be erroneous, dangerous, and scandalous, and the
yultus was reprobated, which in consequence of it they
asserted was to be paid to the most Blessed Virgin in
the Sacrament of the Altar.'

" Lauibertini de Canonizatione Sanctorum, lib. iv.
p. 2, c. 31, n. 32.

" De cultu erga Deiparam in Sacramento Altaris.

"• Non multis abhinc annis prodiit Liber de cultu erga
Deiparam in Sacramento altaris, auctore Patre Zephy-
rino de Someire Recollecto Sancti Francisci, in quo
asserebatur, in Sacramento altaris aliquam illius partem
udesse, eandem videlicet camera, quam olim ejus sauctis-
sima anima viviticavit, eumdemque ilium sanguineus,

1 66 Notes.

qui in ejus venis continebatur, et ipsum lac, quo ejus
ubera plena erant. Addebatur, nos habere in Sacra-
mento non tantum sanguinem DeiparaD, quatenus in
carnem et ossa Christi mutatus est, sad etiam partem
sanguinis in propria specie ; neque solum veram carnem
ipsius, sed etiam aliquid singulorum membrorum, quia
sanguis, et lac, ex quibus formatum et nutritum fuit
(corpus Christi, missa fuerunt ab omnibus et singulis
membris Beatissimse Virginis.

Etiam Christophorus de Yega in volumine satis
amplo, quod inscribitur " Theologia Mariana," Lugduni
edito ann. 1653, fusius ea omnia prosecutus est : sed
Theophilus Raynaudus in suis Diptychis Marianis, t. 7,
p. 65, ea reprobat, asseritque haeresim sapere juxta
Guidonera Carmelitara in Summa de haeresibus tract, de
haeresi Graecorum, c. 18, cujus verba sunt haec : "Tertiua
decimus error Grajcorum est. Dicunt enim, quod re-
liquiae Panis consecrati sunt reliquiae corporis Beataa
Virginis. Hie error stultitiae et amentiae plenus est.
Nam corpus Christi sub qualibet parte hostiae consecrataB
integrum manet. Itaque quaelibet pars, a tota con-
secrata hostia divisa et separata, est verum corpus
Christi. Haereticum autem est et fatuum dicere, quod
corpus Christi sit corpus V^irginis matris suae,sicut haereti-
cum esset dicere, quod Christus esset Beata Virgo : quia
distinctorum hominum distincta sunt corpora, nee tantus
honor debetur corpori virginis, quantus debetur corpori
Christi, cui ratione Divini Suppositi debetur honor
latriae, non corpori Virginis. Igitur dicere, reliquias
hostiae consecrata3 esse reliquias corporis Beatae Virginis
est haereticum manifeste."

Notes, 167

Porro Theologorum Princeps D. Thomas, 3 part,
quaest. 31 , art. 5, docet prirao, Christi corpus conceptum
fuisse ex Beatae Virginis castissimis et purissimia
sanguinibus non quibuscunque, sed "perductis ?^.
quamdam ampliorem digestionem per virtutem genera-
tivam ipsius, ut essent materia apta ad conceptum/'
cum Christi conceptio fuerit secundum conditionem
naturae; materiamque aptam, sive purissimum san-
guinem in couceptione Christi sola Spiritus Sancti opera-
tione in utero Virginis adunatum, et in prolem formatum
fuisse ; ita ut vere dicatur corpus Christi ex purissimis et
castissimis sanguinibus Beatse Virginis fuisse formatum.
Docet secundo, non potuisse corpus Christi formari de
aliqua substantia, videlicet de carne et ossibus Beatissimae
Virginis, cum sint partes integrantes corpus ipsius :
ideoque subtrahi non potuissent sine corruptione, et ejus
diminutione : illud vero, quod aliquando dicitur, Chris-
tum de Beata Virgine carnem sumpsisse, intelligendum
esse et explicandum, non quod materia corporis ejus
fuerit actu caro, sed sanguis qui est potentia caro.
Docet demum tertio, quomodo subtrahi potuerit ex
corpore Adam aliqua ejus pars absque ipsius diminu-
tione, cum Adam institutus ut principium quoddam
humanas nature, aliquid habuerit ultra partes sui cor-
poris personalea, quod ab eo subtractum est pro formanda
Heva, salva ipsius integritate in rutione perfecti corporis
humani : quae locum habere non potuerunt in Beatis-
sima Virgine, quae uti singulare individuum habuit
perfectissimum corpus humanum, et aptissimam ma
teriam ad Christi corpus formandtim, quantum est e^
parte feminae, et ad ejus naturalem generatiouem. Ex

i6S Notes,

quo fit^ ut non potuerit, salva integritate Beatae Vir-
giuis, aliquid subtrahi, quod dici posset de substantia
corporis ipsius.

Itaque, cum per hano doctrinara, Fidei principiis con-
junctissimam, directe et expressis verbis improbata
remanserint asserta in citato libro Patris Zephyrini, ejus
doctrina habita est tanquam ''erronea, periculosa, et
scandalosa/' reprobatusque fuit cultus, quern ex ea prae-
standum Beatissinise Yirgini in Sacramento altaris
asserebat. Loquendi autem formulae a nonnullis
Patribus adhibitse, Caro Marise est caro Christi etc.
Nobis carnem Marise manducandum ad salutem dedit,
ita explicandae sunt, non ut dicamus, in Christo aliquid
esse, quod sit Mariae ; sed Christum conceptum esse ex
Maria Virgine, materiam ipsa ministrante in similitu-
dinem naturae et speciei, et ideo filium ejus esse. Sic,
quia caro Christi fuit sumpta de David, ut expresse
dicitur ad Romanos 1 : " Qui factus est ex semine
David secundum carnem," David dicitur Christus, ut
notat S. Augustinus enarrat, in Psalm. 144, num.
2 : " Intelligitur laus ipsi David, laus ipsi Christo."
Christus autem secundum carnem David, quia Filius
David." Et infra : "^ Quia itaque ex ipso Christus
secundum carnem, ideo David." Est item solemnis
Scripturae usus, loquendo de parentibus, ut caro unius
vocitetur caro alterius. Sic Laban, Gen. 29, dixit Jacob:
" Os meum es, et caro mea ;" et Judas, loquendo de
fratre suo Joseph, Gen. 27, ait : " Frater enim, et caro
nostra est ;" et Lev. 18 legitur : " Soror patris tui
caro est patris tui, et soror matris tuae caro est matris
tuae ;" absque eo quod hinc inferri possit, ut in Jacob

Notes. 169

fuerit aliqua actualis pars corporis Laban, aut in Joseph
pars Judae, aut in filio pars aliqua patris. Igitur id
solum affirmare licet, in Sacramento esse carnem Christi
assumptam ex Maria, ut ait Sanctus Ambrosius relatus
in canone Omnia, de Consecrat. distinct. 2 his verbis :
*' Ilaec caro mea est pro mundi vita, et, ut mirabilius
loquar, non alia plane quam qua) nata est de Maria, et
passa in cruce, et resurrexit de sepulcro ; haec, inquam,
ipsa est." Et infra loquens de corpore Christi : " Illud
vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de Virgine, quod
passum est, et sepultum."

So much for Fr. de Someire's wild notion. As to
Oswald, his work is on the Index. Vide page 5 of
" Appendix Librorum Prohibitorum a die 6 Septembris,
1852, ad mensem Junium, 1858."

Additional Note, Ed. 5. — As another and recent in-
stance of the jealousy with which the Holy See preserves
the bounds, within which both tradition and theology
confine the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, I refer to a
Decree of Inquisition of February 28, 1875, addressed
to the Bishop of Presmilia, in which the title of" Queen
of the Heart of Jesus," as well as a certain novelty in
the representation of Madonna and Child, as in use in
a certain Sodality, are condemned, on the ground that
they may be understood in a sense inconsistent with the
true faith. It will be found in the *' Irish Ecclesiastical
Eecord '' for April 1875.

The Bishop had forbidden the above innovations, and
\he Sacred Congregation, " to which the examination of
he matter was committed by the Holy Father," says to

1 70 Notes.

the Bishop, it cannot but " acknowledge and praise youf
Excellency's zeal and care in defending the purity of the
faith, especially in these days, when it seems not to be
held in much account by men, who, whatever their
piety, are led by a sovereign love of novelty to neglect
the danger, incurred in consequence by the simple among
the faithful, of deviating from the right sense of piety
and devotion by means of strange and foreign doctrines.

*' To obviate this danger/' the letter proceeds to say,
the Sacred Congregation has at other times {altre Mite)
interposed, '* to warn and reprehend*' those who, by such
language about the Blessed Virgin, " have not suffi-
ciently conformed to the right Catholic sense/' but
"ascribe power to her, as issuing from her divine
maternity, beyond its due limits ; as if this new title
nad brought her an accession of greatness and glory
hitherto unknown, and, in the notion of her sublime
dignity hitherto held by the Church according to the
doctrine of the Holy Fathers, there were something still
wanting, not considering that, although she has the
greatest influence {possa moUissimo) with her Son, still
it cannot be piously affirmed that she exercises command
over Him {eserciti impero)."

Further, in order apparently to mark the ministrative
office of the Blessed Virgin, and her dependence as a
creature on her Son, " it has been ruled by the Sovereign
Pontifi\, that the images or pictures to be consecrated to
the culius in question, must represent the Virgin as
carrying the infant Jesus, not placed before her knees,
\>ut in her arms."

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

flIS GRACE TEE DUKE OF NORFOLK ON OCCASION OF

MR. GLADSTONE'S RECENT EXPOSTULATION.

CONTENTS.

1. Introductory Remarks

PAGE

. 179

2. The Ancient Church

. 195

3. The Papal Church .

. 206

4. Divided Allegiance .

. 223

5. Conscience .

. 246

6. The Encyclical of 1864 .

. 262

7. The Syllabus

. 276

8. The Vatican Council ,

. 299

9. The Vatican Definition

. 320

10. Conclusion

. 341

Postscript .

. 348

TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

HEBEDITAKY EARL MARSHAi OF ENGLAND, ETC., ETC.

My deak Duke of Norfolk,

When I yielded to the earnest wish which you, fjo-
gether with many others, urged upon me, that I should
reply to Mr. Gladstone's recent expostulation, a friend
suggested that I ought to ask your Grace's permission
to address my remarks to you. Not that for a moment
he or I thought of implicating you, in any sense or
measure, in a responsibility which is solely and entirely
my own ; but on a very serious occasion, when such
heavy charges had been made against the Catholics of
England by so powerful and so earnest an adversary, it
seemed my duty, in meeting his challenge, to gain the
support, if I could, of a name, which is the special re-
presentative and the fitting sample of a laity, as zealous
for the Catholic Religion as it is patriotic.

You consented with something of the reluctance which
I had felt myself when called upon to write ; for it was

176 Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.

hard to be summoned at auy age, early or late, from a
peaceful course of Kfe and the duties of one's station, to
a scene of war. Still, you consented ; and for mySelf,
it is the compensation for a very unpleasant task, that
I, who belong to a generation that is fast flitting away,
am thus enabled, in what is likely to be my last publi-
cation, to associate myself with one, on many accounts
so dear to me, — so full of young promise — whose career
is before him.

I deeply grieve that Mr. Gladstone has felt it his
duty to speak with such extraordinary severity of our
Religion and of ourselves. I consider he has committed
himself to a representation of ecclesiastical documents
which will not hold, and to a view of our position in
the country which we have neither deserved nor can be
patient under. None but the Schola Theologorum is
competent to determine the force of Papal and Synodal
utterances, and the exact interpretation of them is a
work of time. But so much may be safely said of the
decrees which have lately been promulgated, and of the
faithful who have received them, that Mr. Gladstone's
account, both of them and of us, is neither trustworthy
nor charitable.

Yet not a little may be said in explanation of a step,
which so many of his admirers and well-wishers deplore.
I own to a deep feeling, that Catholics may in good
measure thank themselves, and no one else, for having
alienated from them so religious a mind. There are those
among us, as it must be confessed, who for years past
have conducted themselves as if no responsibility at-
tached to wild words and overbearing deeds ; who have

Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. 177

stated truths in the most paradoxical form, and stretched
principles till they were close upon snapping ; and who
It length, having done their best to set the house on
,re, leave to others the task of putting out the flame.
The English people are sufficiently sensitive of the claims
of the Pope, without having them, as if in defiance,
flourished in their faces. Those claims most certainly I
am not going to deny ; I have never denied them. I
have no intention, now that I have to write upon them,
to conceal any part of them. And I uphold them as
heartily as I recognize my duty of loyalty to the con-
stitution, the laws and the government of England. I see
no inconsistency in my being at once a good Catholic and
a good Englishman. Yet it is one thing to be able to
satisfy myself as to my consistency, quite another to satisfy
others ; and, undisturbed as I am in my own conscience,
I have great difficulties in the task before me. I have
one difficulty to overcome in the present excitement of
the public mind against our Religion, caused partly by
the chronic extravagances of knots of Catholics here and
there, partly by the vehement rhetoric which is the oc-
casion and subject of this Letter. A worse difficulty lies
in getting people, as they are commonly found, to put
off" the modes of speech and language which are usual
with them, and to enter into scientific distinctions and
traditionary rules of interpretation, which as being new
to them, appear evasive and unnatural. And a third
difficulty, as 1 may call it, is this — that in so very wide
a subject, opening as great a variety of questions, and of
opinions upon them, while it will be simply necessary to
take the objections made against us and our faith, one by

i 7S Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.

one, readers may think me trifling with their patience,
because they do not find those points first dealt with, on
which they lay most stress themselves.

But I have said enough by way of preface ; and
without more delay turn to Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet.

Introductory Remarks, tyg

§ 1. Introductory Remarks,

The main question which Mr. Gladstone has started I
consider to be this : — Can Catholics be trustworthy
subjects of the State ? has not a foreign Power a hold
over their consciences such, that it may at any time
be used to the serious perplexity and injury of the civil
government under which they live ? Not that Mr.
Gladstone confines himself to these questions, for he goes
out of his way, I am sorry to say, to taunt us with our
loss of mental and moral freedom, a vituperation which
is not necessary for his purpose at all. He informs us
too that we have " repudiated ancient history,*^ and are
rejecting modern " thought," and that our Church has
been " refurbishing her rusty tools," and has been lately
aggravating, and is likely still more to aggravate, our
state of bondage. I think it unworthy of Mr. Glad-
stone's high character thus to have inveighed against
us ; what intellectual manliness is lelt to us according to
him ? yet his circle of acquaintance is too wide, and his
knowledge of his countrymen on the other hand too
accurate, for him not to know that he is bringing a
great amount of odium and bad feeling upon excellent
men, whose only offence is their religion. The more

N 2

i8o Introductory Remarks.

intense is the prejudice with which we are regarded by
whole classes of men, the less is there of generosity in
his pouring upon us superfluous reproaches. The graver
the charge which is the direct occasion of his writing
against us, the more careful should he be not to prejudice
judge and jury to our disadvantage. No rhetoric is
needed in England against an unfortunate Catholic at
any time ; but so little is Mr. Gladstone conscious of
his treatment of us, that in one place of his Pamphlet,
strange as it may seem, he makes it his boast that he
has been careful to " do nothing towards importing
passion into what is matter of pure argument," pp. 15,
16. I venture to think he will one day be sorry for what
he has said.

However, we must take things as we find them ; and
what I propose to do is this — to put aside, unless it
comes directly in my way, his accusation against us of
repudiating ancient history, rejecting modern thought,
and renouncing our mental freedom, and to confine
myself for the most part to what he principally insists
upon, that Catholics, if they act consistently with
their principles, cannot be loyal subjects ; — I shall not,
however, omit notice of his attack upon our moral
uprightness.

The occasion and the grounds of Mr. Gladstone's im-
peachment of us, if I understand him, are as follows : —
He was alarmed, as a statesman, ten years ago by the
Pope's Encyclical of December 8, and by the Syllabus of
Erroneous Propositions which, by the Pope's authority,
accompanied its transmission to the bishops. Then came

Introductory Remarks. i8i

the Definitions of tlie Vatican Council in 1870, upon the
universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the
Pope. And lastly, as the event which turned alarm
into indignation, and into the duty of public remon-
strance, " the Roman Catholic Prelacy of Ireland thought
fit to procure the rejection of ^' the Irish University
Bill of February, 1873, " by the direct influence which
they exercised over a certain number of Irish Members
of Parliament,*' &c. p. 60. This step on the part of the
bishops showed, if I understand him, the new and mis-
chievous force which had been acquired at Rome by the
late acts there, or at least left him at liberty, by causing
his loss of power, to denounce it. " From that time
forward the situation was changed," and an opening was
made for a "broad political discussion" on the subject
of the Catholic religion and its professors, and " a debt
to the country had to be disposed of." That debt, if 1
am right, will be paid, if he can ascertain, on behalf of the
country, that there is nothing in the Catholic Religion to
hinder its professors from being as loyal as other subjects
of the State, and that the See of Rome cannot interfere
with their civil duties so as to give the ci\il power
trouble or alarm. The main ground on which he relies
for the necessit}'' of some such inquiry is, first, the tex'
of the authoritative documents of 1864 and 1870 ; next,
and still more, the animus which they breathe, and the
sustained aggiessive spirit which they disclose ; and
thirdlv, the daring deed of aggression in 1873, when th*
Pope, acting (as it is alleged) upon the Irish Members
of Parliament, succeeded in ousting from their seats a
ministry who, besides past benefits, were at tliat very

1 82 Introductory Remarks.

time doing for Irish Catholics, and therefore ousted for
doing, a special service.

Now, it would be preposterous and officious in me to
put myself forward as champion for the Venerable
Prelacy of Ireland, or to take upon myself the part of
advocate and representative of the Holy See. ** Non
tali auxilio -" in neither character could I come forward
without great presumption ; not the least for this reason,
because I cannot know the exact points which are really
the gist of the affront, which Mr. Gladstone conceives he
has sustained, whether from the one quarter or from the
other ; yet in a question so nearly interesting myself as
that February bill, which he brought into the House,
in great sincerity and kindness, for the benefit of the
Catholic University in Ireland, I may be allowed to say
thus much — that I, who now have no official relation to
the Irish Bishops, and am not in any sense in the counsels
of Rome, felt at once, when I first saw the outline of
that bill, the greatest astonishment on reading one of its
provisions, and a dread which painfully affected me, lest
Mr. Gladstone perhaps was acting on an understanding
with the Catholic Prelacy. I did not see how in honour
they could accept it. It was possible, did the question
come over again, to decide in favour of the Queen^s
Colleges, and to leave the project of a Catholic Univer-
sity alone. The Holy See might so have decided in 1847.
But at or about that date, three rescripts had come from
Rome in favour of a distinctively Catholic Institution ;
a National Council had decided in its favour ; large offers
of the Government had been rejected ; great commotions
had been caused in the political world ; munificent con-

Introductory Re-marks. 183

«)ributions had been made ; — all on the sole principle
that Catholic teaching was to be upheld in the country
inviolate. If, then, for the sake of a money grant, or
other secular advantage, this ground of principle was
deserted, and Catholic youths after all were allowed to
attend the lectures of men of no religion, or of the Pro-
testant, the contest of thirty years would have been
stultified, and the Pope and the Bishops would seem to
have been playing a game, while putting forward the
plea of conscience and religious duty. I hoped that the
clause in the Bill, which gave me such uneasiness, could
have been omitted from it; but, anyhow, it was an
extreme relief tome when the papers announced that the
Bishops had expressed their formal dissatisfaction with it.
They determined to decline a gift laden with such a
condition, and who can blame them for so doing ? who
uin be surprised that they should now do what they did
m 1847 ? what new move in politics was it, if they so
determined? what was there in it of a factious character?
Is the Catholic Irish interest the only one which is not
to be represented in the House of Commons ? Why is
not that interest as much a matter of right as any other?
I fear to expose my own ignorance of Parliamentary
rules and proceedings, but I had supposed that the rail-
way interest, and what is called the publican interest,
were very powerful there : in Scotland, too, I believe, a
government has a formidable party to deal with ; and, to
revert to Ireland, there are the Home-rulers, who have
objects in view quite distinct from, or contrary to, those
of the Catholic hierarchy. As to the Pope, looking at
the surface of things, there is nothing to suggest that he

184 Introauctory Remarks.

interfered, there was no necessity of interference, on so
plain a point ; and, when an act can be sufficiently
accounted for without introducing an hypothetical cause,
it is bad logic to introduce it. Speaking according to
my lights, I altogether disbelieve the interposition of
Rome in the matter. In the proceedings which they
adopted, the Bishops were only using civil rights, com-
mon to all, M'^hich others also used and in their own way.
Why might it not be their duty to promote the interests
of their religion by means of their political opportu-
nities ? Is there no Exeter HaU interest ? I thought
it was a received theory of our Reformed Constitution
that Members of Parliament were representatives, and in
some sort delegates of their constituents, and that the
strength of each interest was shown, and the course oj
the nation determined, by the divisions in the House of
Commons. I recollect the TiTties intimating its regret,
after one general election, that there was no English
Catholic in the new House, on the ground that every
class and party should be represented there. Surely the
Catholic religion has not a small party in Ireland ; why
then should it not have a corresponding number of
exponents and defenders at Westminster? So clear does
this seem to me, that I think there must be some defect
in my knowledge of facts to explain Mr. Gladstone's
surprise and displeasure at the conduct of the Irish
Prelacy in 1873 ; yet I suspect none ; and, if there be
none, then his unreasonableness in this instance of
Ireland makes it not unlikel}'- that he is unreasonable
also in his judgment of the Encyclical, Syllabus, and
Vatican Decrees,

Introductory Remarks. 185

However, the Bishops, I believe, not only opposed Mr.
Gladstone's bill, but, instead of it, they asked for some
money grant towards the expenses of their University.
If so, their obvious argument was this — that Catholics
formed the great majority of the population of Ireland,
and it was not fair that the Protestant minority should
have all that was bestowed in endowment or otherwise
upon education. To this the reply, I suppose, would
be, that it was not Protestantism, but liberal education
that had the money, and that, if the Bishops chose to
give up their own principles and act as Liberals, they
might have the benefit of it too. I am not concerned
here with these arguments, but I wish to notice the
position which the Bishops would occupy in urging such
a request : — I must not say that they were Irishmen
first and Catholics afterwards, but I do say that in such
a demand they spoke not simply as Catholic Bishops, but
as the Bishops of a Catholic nation. They did not speak
from any promptings of the Encyclical, Syllabus, or
Vatican Decrees. They claimed as Irishmen a share in
the endowments of the country; and has not Ireland
surely a right to speak in such a matter, and might not
ner Bishops fairly represent her ? It seems to me a
great mistake to think that everything that is done by
the Irish Bishops and clergy is done on an ecclesiastical
motive ; why not on a national ? but if so, such acts
have nothing to do with Rome. I know well what
simple firm faith the great body of the Irish people have,
and how they put the Catholic Religion before anything
else in the world. It is their comfort, their joy, their
treasure, their boast, their compensation for a hundred

1 86 Introductory Remarks.

worldly disadvantages ; but who can deny that in poli-
tics their conduct at times — nay, more than at times —
has had a flavour rather of their nation than of their
Church ? Only in the last general election this was
said, when they were so earnest for Home Rule. Why,
then, must Mr. Gladstone come down upon the Catholic
Religion, because the Irish love dearly the Green Island,
and its interests ? Ireland is not the only country in
which politics, or patriotism, or party, has been so
closely associated with religion in the nation or a class,
that it is difficult to say which of the various motive
principles was uppermost. "The Puritan," says
Macaulay, " prostrated himself in the dust before his
Maker, but he set his foot on the neck of his king :" I
am not accusing such a man of hypocrisy on account of
this ; having great wrongs, as he considered, both in
religious and temporal matters, and the authors of these
distinct wrongs being the same persons, he did not
nicely discriminate between the acts which he did ass
a patriot and the acts which he did as a Puritan.
And so as regards Irishmen, they do not, cannot, dis-
tinguish between their love of Ireland and their love
of religion ; their patriotism is religious, and their reli-
gion is strongly tinctured with patriotism ; and it is hard
to recognize the abstract and Ideal Ultramontane, pure
and simple, in the concrete exhibition of him in flesh and
blood as found in the polling-booth or in his chapel. I do
not see how the Pope can be made answerable for him in
iny of his political acts during the last fifty years.

This leads me to a subject, of which Mr. Gladstone
makes a good deal in his pamphlet. I will say of a

Introductory Remarks, 187

great man, whom he quotes, and for whose memory 1
have a great respect, I mean Bishop Doyle, that there
was just a little tinge of patriotism in the way in which,
on one occasion, he speaks of the Pope. I dare say any
of us would have done the same, in the heat of a great
struggle for national liberty, for he said nothing but
what was true and honest ; I only mean that the ener-
getic language which he used was not exactly such as
would have suited the atmosphere of Rome. He says to
Lord Liverpool, " We are taunted with the proceedings
of Popes. What, my Lord, have we Catholics to do
with the proceedings of Popes, or why should we be
made accountable for them ? " p. 27. Now, with some
proceedings of Popes, we Catholics have very much to do
indeed ; but, if the context of his words is consulted, I
make no doubt it would be found that he was referring
to certain proceedings of certain Popes, when he said that
Catholics had no part of their responsibility. Assuredly
there are certain acts of Popes in which no one would
like to have part. Then, again, his words require some
pious interpretation when he says that " the allegiance
due to the king and the allegiance due to the Pope, are
as distinct and as divided in their nature as any two
things can possibly be,^^ p. 30. Yes, in their nature, in
the abstract, but not in the particular case -, for a heathen
State might bid me throw incense upon the altar of
Jupiter, and the Pope would bid me not to do so. I
venture to make the same remark on the Address of the
Irish Bishops to their clergy and laity in 1826, quoted
at p. 31, and on the Declaration of the Vicars Apostolic
in England, {hid.

1 88 Introductory Remarks »

But I must not be supposed for an instant to mean, in
what I have said, that the venerable men, to whom I
have referred, were aware of any ambiguity either in
such statements as the above, or in others which were
denials of the Pope's infallibility. Indeed, one of them
at an earlier date, 1793, Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin,
had introduced into one of his Pastorals the subject
which Mr. Gladstone considers they so summarily dis-
posed of. The Archbishop says, "Many Catholics
contend that the Pope, when teaching the universal
Church, as their supreme visible head and pastor, as suc-
cessor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises of special
assistance made to him by Jesus Christ, is infallible ;
and that his decrees and decisions in that capacity are to
be respected as rules of faith, when they are dogmatical
or confined to doctrinal points of faith and morals
Others deny this, and require the expressed or tacit
acquiescence of the Church, assembled or dispersed, to
stamp infallibility on his dogmatical decrees. Until the
Church shall decide upon this question of the Schools,
either opinion may be adopted by individual CathoKcs.
without any breach of Catholic communion or peace.
The Catholics of Ireland have lately declared, that it is
not an article of the Catholic faith ; nor are they thereby
required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible,
without adopting or abjuring either of the recited
opinions which are open to discussion, while the Church
continues silent about them." The Archbishop thus
addressed his flock, at the time when he was informing:
them that the Pope had altered the oath which was
taken by the Catholic Bishops,

Introductory Remarks. 189

As to the language of the Bishops in 1826, we must
recollect that at that time the clergy, both of Ireland and
England, were educated in Galilean opinions. They
took those opinions for granted, and they thought, if
they went so far as to ask themselves the question, that
the definition of Papal Infallibility was simply impos-
sible. Even among those at the Vatican Council, who
themselves personally believed in it, I believe there were
Bishops who, until the actual definition had been passed,
thought that such a definition could not be made.
Perhaps they would argue that, though the historical
evidence was sufficient for their own personal conviction,
it was not sufficiently clear of difficulties to be made the
ground of a Catholic dogma. Much more would this be
the feeling of the Bishops in 1826. " How/^ they
would ask, *' can it ever come to pass that a majority of
our order should find it their duty to relinquish their
prime prerogative, and to make the Church take the
shape of a pure monarchy ? " They would think its
definition as much out of the question, as the prospect
that, in twenty-five years after their time, there would
be a hierarchy of thirteen Bishops in England, with a
cardinal for Archbishop.

But, all this while, such modes of thinking were
foreign altogether to the minds of the entourage of the
Holy See. Mr. Gladstone himself says, aijd the Duke of
Wellington and Sir Robert Peel must have known it as
<veJl as he, " The Popes have kept up, with compara-
tively little intermission, for well-nigh a thousand years,
their claim to dogmatic infallibility," p. 28. Then, if
the Pope's claim to infallibility was so patent a fact.

190 Introductory Remarks,

could they ever suppose that he could be brought to
admit that it was hopeless to turn that claim into a
dogma? In truth, Wellington and Peel were very
little interested in that question; as was said in a
Petition or Declaration, signed among others by Dr. Troy,
it was "immaterial in a political light;" but, even if
they thought it material, or if there were other questions
they wanted to ask, why go to Bishop Doyle ? If they
wanted to obtain some real information about the proba-
bilities of the future, why did they not go to head-
quarters? Why did they potter about the halls of
Universities in this matter of Papal exorbitances, or
rely upon the pamphlets or examinations of Bishops
whom they never asked for their credentials? Wh}^
not go at once to Rome ?

The reason is plain : it was a most notable in-
stance, with a grave consequence, of what is a fixed
tradition with us the English people, and a great em-
barrassment to every administration in its dealings with
Catholics. I recollect, years ago. Dr. Griffiths, Vicar
Apostolic of the London District, giving me an account
of an interview he had with the late Lord Derby, then I
suppose Colonial Secretary. I understood him to say
that Lord Derby was in perplexity at the time, on some
West India matter, in which Catholics were concerned,
because he could not find their responsible representative.
He wanted Dr. Griffiths to undertake the office, and ex-
pressed something of disappointment when the Bishop
felt obliged to decline it. A chronic malady has from
time to time its paroxysms, and the history on which
I am now eugag^ed is a serious instance of it. I think

Introductory Remarks. 191

it is impossible that the British government could have
entered into formal negotiations with the Pope, with-
out its transpiring in the course of them, and its bb-
coming perfectly clear, that Rome could never be a
party to such a pledge as England wanted, and that no
pledge from Catholics was of any value to which Rome
was not a party.

But no ; they persisted in an enterprise which was
hopeless in its first principle, for they thought to break
the indissoluble tie which bound together the head and
the members, — and doubtless Rome felt the insult,
though she might think it prudent not to notice it
France was not the keystone of the ecumenical power,
though her Church was so great and so famous ; noi
could the hierarchy of Ireland, in spite of its fidelity
to the Catholic faith, give any pledge of the future
to the statesmen who required one ; there was but one
See, whose word was worth anything in the matter,
"that church " (to use the language of the earliest of
our Doctors) " to which the faithful all round about are
bound to have recourse." Yet for three hundred years
it has been the official rule with England to ignore the
existence of the Pope, and to deal with Catholics in
England, not as his children, but as sectaries of the
Roman Catholic persuasion. Napoleonsaid to his envoy,
" Treat with the Pope as if he was master of 100,000
mea" So clearly did he, from mere worldly sagacity,
comprehend the Pope'e place in the then state of European
affairs, as to say that, " if the Pope had not existed, it
would have been well to have created him for that occa
sion, as the Roman consuls created a dictator in difficult

192 Introductory Remarks.

circumstances." (Alison's Eid. ch. 35.) But we, in
the instance of the greatest, the oldest power in Europe,
a church whose grandeur in past history demanded, one
would think, some reverence in our treatment of her, the
mother of English Christianity, who, whether her subse-
quent conduct had always been motherly or not, had
been a true friend to us in the beginning of our history,
her we have not only renounced, but, to use a familiar
word, we have absolutely cut. Time has gone on and
we have no relentings ; to-day, as little as yesterday, do
we understand that pride was not made for man, nor the
cuddling of resentments for a great people. I am enter-
ing into no theological question : I am speaking all
along of mere decent secular intercourse between Eng-
land and Rome. A hundred grievances would have
been set right on their first uprising, had there been ^
frank diplomatic understanding between two great
powers ; but, on the contrary, even within the last few
weeks, the present Ministry has destroyed any hope of
a better state of things by withdrawing from the Vatican
the makeshift channel of intercourse which had of late
years been permitted there.

The world of politics has its laws ; and such abnormal
courses as England has pursued have their Neviesis.
An event has taken place which, alas, already makes
itself felt in issues, unfortunate for English Catholics
certainly, but also, as I think, for our country. A great
Council has been called ; and as England has for so long a
time ignored Rome, Rome, I suppose, it must be said, has
in turn ignored England. I do not mean of set purpose
ignored, but as the natural consequence of our act,

Introductory Remarks. IQ3

Bishops brought from the corners of the earth, in 1870,
what could they know of English blue books and Par-
liamentary debates in the years 1826 and 1829 ? It
was an extraordinary gathering, and its possibility, its
purpose, and its issue, were alike marvellous, as depend-
ing on a coincidence of strange conditions, which, as
might be said beforehand, never could take place. Such
was the long reign of the Pope, in itself a marvel, as
being the sole exception to a recognized ecclesiastical
tradition. Only a Pontiff so unfortunate, so revered,
so largely loved, so popular even with Protestants, with
such a prestige of long sovereignty, with such claims
on the Bishops around him, both of age and of paternal
gracious acts, only such a man could have harmonized
and guided to the conclusion which he pointed out, an
assembly so variously composed. And, considering the
state of theological opinion seventy years before, not
less marvellous was the concurrence of all but a few out
of so many hundred Bishops in the theological judg-
ment, so long desired at Rome ; the protest made by
some eighty or ninety, at the termination of the
Council, against the proceedings of the vast majority
lying, not against the truth of the doctrine then de-
fined, but against the fact of its definition. Nor less to
be noted is the neglect of the Catholic powers to send
representatives to the Council, who might have laid
before the Fathers its political bearings. For myself, I
did not caJl it inopportune, for times and seasons are
known to God alone, and persecution may be as oppor-
tune, though not so pleasant as peace ; nor, in accepting

as a dogma what I had ever held as a truth, could I be

o

194 Introductory Remarks.

doing violence to any theological view or conclusion of
my own ; nor has the acceptance of it any logical or
practical effect whatever, as I consider, in weakening
my allegiance to Queen Victoria; but there are few
Catholics, I think, who will not deeply regret, though
no one be in fault, that the English and Irish Prelacies
of 1826 did not foresee the possibility of the Synodal
determinations of 1870, nor can we wonder that
Statesmen should feel themselves aggrieved that
stipulations, which they considered necessary for
Catholic emancipation, should have been, as they may
think, rudely cast to the winds.

And now I must pass from the mere accidents of the
controversy to its essential points, and I cannot treat
them to the satisfaction of Mr. Gladstone, unless I go
back a great way, and be allowed to speak of the
ancient Catholic Church.

The Ancient Cku^xh. 19c

§ 2, The Ancient Chuveih.

When Mr. Gladstone accuses us of "repudiating
ancient history," he means the ancient history of the
Church; also, I understand him to be viewing that
history under a particular aspect. There are many
aspects in which Christianity presents itself to us ; for
instance, the aspect of social usefulness, or of devotion
or again of theology ; but, though he in one place
glances at the last of these aspects, his own view of it
is its relation towards the civil power. He writes " as
one of the world at large ; " as a " layman who has
spent most and the best years of his life in the observa-
tion and practice of politics " (p. 7) ; and, as a statesmen,
he naturally looks at the Church on its political side.
Accordingly, in his title-page, in which he professes to
be expostulating with us for accepting the Vatican
Decrees, he does so, not for any reason whatever, but
because of their incompatibility with our civil allegiance.
This is the key-note of his impeachment of us. As a
public man, he has only to do with the public action
and effect of our Religion, its aspect upon national
affairs, on our civil duties, on our foreign interests ;

and he tells us that our Religion has a bearing and be-

o 2

196 The Ancient Church.

haviour towards the State utterly unlike that of ancient
Christianity, so unlike that we may be even said to
repudiate what Christianity was in its first centuries, so
unlike to what it was then, that we have actually for-
feited the proud boast of being " Everoneand the same;"
unlike, I say, in this, that our action is so antagonistic
to the State's action, and our claims so menacing to
civil peace and prosperity.

Indeed ! then I suppose that St. Ignatius of Antioch,
and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and St. Cyprian of Carthage,
and St. Laurence of Rome, that St. Alexander and St.
Paul of Constantinople, that St. Ambrose of Milan, that
Popes Leo, John, Sylverian, Gregory, and Martin, all
members of the " undivided Church," cared supremely
and laboured successfully, to cultivate peaceful relations
with the government of Rome. They had no doctrines
and precepts, no rules of life, no isolation and aggres-
siveness, which caused them to be considered, in spite of
themselves, the enemies of the human race ! May I
not, without disrespect, submit to Mr. Gladstone that
this is very paradoxical ? Surely it is our fidelity to
the history of our forefathers, and not its repudiation,
which Mr. Gladstone dislikes in us. When, indeed,
was it in ancient times that the State did not show
jealousy of the Church? Was it when Decius and
Dioelesian slaughtered their thousands who had abjured
the religion of old Rome ? or, was it when Athanasius
was banished to Treves ? or when Basil, on the Im-
perial Prefect's crying out, " Never before did any man
make so free with me," answered, " Perhaps you never
before fell in with a Bishop " ? or when Chrysostom was

The A ncient Church. 197

sent off to Cucusus, to be worried to deatli by an
Empress P Go through the long annals of Church
History,, century after century, and say, was there ever
a time when her Bishops, and notably the Bishop of
Rome, were slow to give their testimony in belialf of
the moral and revealed law and to suffer for their
obedience to it? ever a time when they forgot that
they had a message to deliver to the world, — not the
task merel}'' of administering spiritual consolation, or of
making the sick-bed easy, or of training up good mem-
bers of society, or of " serving tables *' (though all
this was included in their ransje of duty), — but spe-
cially and directly, a definite message to high and low,
from the world's Maker, whether men would hear or
whether they would forbear ? The history surely of the
Church in all past times, ancient as well as medieval,
is the very embodiment of that tradition of Apos-
tolical independence and freedom of speech which in the
eyes of man is her great offence now.

Nav, that independence, I may say, is even one of
her Notes or credentials ; for where shall we find it ex-
cept in the Catholic Church ? "I spoke of Thy
testimonies,'* says the Psalmist, " even before kings,
and I was not ashamed/' This verse, I think Dr.
Arnold used to say, rose up in judgment against the
Anglican Church, in spite of its real excellences. As to
tbe Oriental Churches, every one knows in what bond-
age they lie, whether they are under the rule of the
Czar or of the Sultan. Such is the actual fact that,
whereas it is the very mission of Christianity to bear
witness to the Creed and Ten Commandmcnrs in a

1 98 The Ancient Church.

world which is averse to them, Rome is now the one
faithful representative, and thereby is heir and successorj
of that free-spoken dauntless Church of old, whose
political and social traditions Mr. Gladstone sa^'s the
said Rome has repudiated.

I have one thing more to say on the subject of the
" semper eadem." In truth, this fidelity to the ancient
Christian system, seen in modern Rome, was ine
luminous fact which more than any other turned men's
minds at Oxford forty years ago to look towards her
with reverence, interest, and love. It affected individual
minds variously of course ; some it even brought on
eventually to conversion, others it only restrained from
active opposition to her claims ; but none of us could read
the Fathers, and determine to be their disciples, without
feeling that Rome, like a faithful steward, had kept m
fulness and in vigour what our own communion had let
drop. The Tracts for the Times were founded on a
deadly antagonism to what in these last centuries has
been called Erastianism or Caesarism. Their writers con-
sidered the Church to be a divine creation, " not of men,
neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," the Ark of Salva-
tion, the Oracle of Truth, the Bride of Christ, with a
message to all men everywhere, and a claim on their
love and obedience ; and, in relation to the civil power,
the object of that promise of the Jewish prophets,
*' Behold, I will lift up My Hand to the Gentiles, and
will set up My standard to the peoples : kings and their
queens shall bow down to thee with their face toward
the earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet/*
No Ultramontane (so called) could go beyond those

The Ancient Chufch. 199

writers in the account which they gave of her from the
Prophets, and that high notion is recorded beyond
mistake in a thousand passages of their writings.

There is a fine passage of Mr. Keble's in the British
Critic, in animadversion upon a contemporary reviewer.
Mr. Hurrell Froude, speaking of the Church of England,
had said that " she was ' united ' to the State as Israel
to Egypt." This shocked the reviewer in question,
who exclaimed in consequence, ''The Church is not
united to the State as Israel to Egypt ; it is united as a
believing ivife to a husband who threatened to apostatize ;
and, as a Christian wife so placed would act . . cling-
ing to the connexion . . so the Church must struggle
even now, and save, not herself, but the State, from the
crime of a dimrce." On this Mr. Keble says, ""We
had thought that the Spouse of the Church was a very
different Person from any or all States, and her relation
to the State through Him very unlike that of hers, whose
duties are summed up in * love, service, cherishing, and
ohedience.' And since the one is exclusively of this
world, the other essentially of the eternal world, such
an Alliance as the above sentence describes, would have
seemed to us, 7iot only fatal, hut monstrous ! " * Aud he
quotes the lines, —

" Mortua quinetiam jungebat corpora vivia,
Componens manibusque manus, atque oribus ora :
Tormenti genus ! "

It was this same conviction that the Church had rights
which the State could not touch, and was prone to

' Review of Glaclstono's "The State in its Relationa with the
niinrch." October, 1839.

200 The Ancient Church.

ignore, and which in consequence were the occasion of
great troubles between the two, that led Mr. Fronde at
the beginning of the movement to translate the letters
of St. Thomas Becket, and Mr. Bowden to write the
Life of Hildebrand. As to myself, I will but refer, as
to one out of many passages with the same drift, in the
books and tracts which I published at that time, to my
Whit-Monday and Whit-Tuesday Sermons.

I believe a large number of members of the Church
of England at this time are faithful to the doctrine
which was proclaimed within its pale in 1833, and
following years ; the main difference between them and
Catholics being, not as to the existence of certain high
prerogatives and spiritual powers in the Christian
Church, but that the powers which we give to the Holy
See, they lodge in her Bishops and Priests, whether as
a body or individually. Of course, this is a very im-
portant difference, but it does not interfere with ray
argument here. It does seem to me preposterous to
charge the Catholic Church of to-day with repudiating
ancient history by certain political acts of hers, and
thereby losing her identity, when it was her very like-
ness in political action to the Church of the first
centuries, that has in our time attracted even to her
communion, and at least to her teaching, not a few
educated men, who made those first centuries their
special model.

But I have more to say on this subject, perhaps too
much, when I go on, as I now do, to contemplate the
Christian Church, when persecution was exchanged for

The Ancient CJnii'ch. 201

establishment, and her enemies became her children.
As she resisted and defied her persecutors^ so she ruled
her convert people. And surely this was but natural,
and will startle those only to whom the subject is new.
If the Church is independent of the State, so far as she
is a messenger from God, tlierefore, should the State,
with its high officials and its subject masses, come into
her communion, it is plain that they must at once
change hostility into submission. There was no middle
term ; either they must deny her claim to divinity or
humble themselves before it, — that is, as far as the
domain of reli<^ion extends, and that domain is a wide
one. They could not place God and man on one level.
We see this principle carried out among ourselves in all
sects every day, though with greater or less exactness of
application, according to the supernatural power which
they ascribe to their ministers or clergy. It is a senti-
ment of nature, which anticipates the inspired command,
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves, for they watch for your souls."

As regards the Roman Emperors, immediately on their
becoming Christians, their exaltation of the hierarchy
was in proportion to its abject condition in the heathen
period. Grateful converts felt that they could not do
too much in its honour and service. Emperors bowed
the head before the Bishops, kissed their hands and
asked their blessing. When Constantino entered into
the presence of the assembled Prelates at Nicaea, his
eyes fell, the colour mounted up into his clieek, and his
mien was that of a suppliant ; he would not sit, till the
Bishops bade him, and he kissed the wounds of the

202 The Ancient Chu7xh.

Confessors. Thus he set the example for the successors
of his power, nor did the Bishops decline such honours.
Royal ladies served them at table ; victorious generals
did penance for sin and asked forgiveness. When they
quarrelled with them, and would banish them, their hand
trembled when they came to sign the order, and after
various attempts they gave up their purpose. Soldiers
raised to sovereignty asked their recognition and were
refused it. Cities under imperial displeasure sought
their intervention, and the master of thirty legions found
himself powerless to withstand the feeble voice of some
aged travel-stained stranger.

Laws were passed in favour of the Church ; Bishops
30uld only be judged by Bishops, and the causes of their
clergy were withdrawn from the secular courts. Their
sentence was final, as if it were the Emperor's own, and
the governors of provinces were bound to put it in
execution. Litigant? everywherewere allowed the liberty
of referring their causes to the tribunal of the Bishops,
who, besides, became arbitrators on a large scale in
private quarrels ; and the public, even heathens, wished
it so. St. Ambrose was sometimes so taken up with
business of this sort, that he had time for nothing else.
St. Austin and Theodoret both complain of the weight of
such secular engagements, as were forced upon them by
the importunity of the people. Nor was this all ; the
Emperors showed their belief in the divinity of the
Church and of its creed by acts of what we should now
call persecution. Jews were forbidden to proselytize a
Chri&cian ; Christians were forbidden to become pagans ;
pagan rights were abolished, the books of heretics and

The Ancient Church. 203

infidels were burned wholesale ; their chapels were razed
to the ground, and even their private meetings were
made illegal.

These characteristics of the convert Empire wore the
immediate, some of them the logical, consequences of its
new faith. Had not the Emperors honoured Christianity
in its ministers and in its precepts, they would not
properly have deserved the name of converts. Nor was
it unreasonable in litigants voluntarily to frequent the
episcopal tribunals, if they got justice done to them there
better than in the civil courts. As to the prohibition
of heretical meetings, I cannot get myself quite to believe
that Pagans, Marcionites, and Manichees had much
tenderness of conscience in their religious profession, or
were wounded seriously by the Imperial rescripts to their
disadvantage. Many of these sects were of a most
immoral character, whether in doctrine or practice ;
others were forms of witchcraft ; often they were little
better than paganism. The Novatians certainly stand
on higher ground ; but on the whole, it would be most
unjust to class such wild, impure, inhuman rites with
even the most extravagant and grotesque of American
sectaries now. They could entertain no bitter feeling
that injustice was done them in their repression. They
did not make free thought or private judgment their
watch-words. The populations of the Empire did not
rise in revolt when its religion was changed. There
were two broad conditions which accompanied the grant
of all this ecclesiastical power and privilege, and made
the exercise of it possible ; first, that the people con-
sented to it, secondly, that the law of the Empire enacted

204 The Ancient Church.

and enforced it. Thus high and low opened the door to it.
The Church of course would say that such prerogatives
were justly hers, as being at least congruous grants
made to her, on the part of the State, in return for the
benefits which she bestowed upon it. It was her right
to demand them, and the State's duty to concede them.
This seems to have been the basis of the new state of
society. And in fact these prerogatives were in force
and in exercise all through those troublous centuries
which followed the break-up of the Imperial sway : and,
though the handling of them at length fell into the
hands of one see exclusively (on which I shall re-
mark presently), the see of Peter, yet the sub-
stance and character of these prerogatives, and the
Churches claim to possess them, remained untouched.
The change in the internal allocation of power did
not affect the existence and the use of the power
itself.

Ranke, speaking of this development of ecclesiastical
supremacy upon the conversion of the Empire, remarks
as follows : —

" It appears to me that this was the result of an
internal necessity. The rise of Christianity involved the
liberation of religion from all political elements. FroTii
this followed the growth of a distinct ecclesiastical class
with a peculiar constitution. In this separation of the
Church from the State consists, perhaps the greatest, the
most pervading and influential peculiarity of all Chris-
tian times. The spiritual and secular powers may come
into near contact, may even stand in the closest com-
munity ; but they c;iii be thoroughly incoi-porated onl}' at

The Ancient Church. 205

rare conj unctures and for a short period . Their mutua I
relations, their positions with regard to each other, form,
from this time forward, one of the most important con-
siderations in all history.""—?'-^ Po'pcs, vol. i. p. 10,
irand.

2o6 The Papal Church.

§ 8. The, Pa'pal Church.

Now we come to the distinctive doctrine of the Catholic
Religion, the doctrine which separates us from all other
denominations of Christians however near they may
approach to us in other respects, the claims of the see of
Rome, which have given occasion to Mr. Gladstone's
Pamphlet and to the remarks which I am now making
upon it. Of those rights, prerogatives, privileges, and
duties, which I have been surveying in the ancient Church,
the Pope is historically the heir. I shall dwell now upon
this point, as far as it is to my purpose to do so, not
treating it theologically (else I must define and prove
from Scripture and the Fathers the " Primatus jure
divino Romani Pontificis," which of course I firmly
hold), but historically,^ because Mr. Gladstone appeals
to history. Instead of treating it theologically I wish
to look with (as it were) secular, or even non-Catholic
eyes at the powers claimed during the last thousand
years by the Pope — that is, only as they lie in the
nature of the case, and on the surface of the facts which
come before us in history.

' History never serves as the measure of dogmatic truth in its
fulness. Vid. infr. § 8.

The Papal Church. loy

T. I say the Pope is the heir of the Ecumenical
Hierarchy of the fourth century, as being, what I may
call, heir by default. No one else claims or exercises its
rights or its duties. Is it possible to consider the
Patriarch of Moscow or of Constantinople, heir to the
historical pretensions of St. Ambrose or St. Martin?
Does any Anglican Bishop for the last 300 years recall
to our minds the image of St. Basil ? Well, then, has
all that ecclesiastical power, which makes such a show
in the Christian Empire, simply vanished, or, if not,
where is it to be found ? I wish Protestants would
throw themselves into our minds upon this point ; I am
not holding an argument with them ; I am only wishing
them to understand where we stand and how we look at
things. There is this great difference of belief between
us and them : they do not believe that Christ set up a
visible society, or rather kingdom, for the propagation
and maintenance of His religion, for a necessary home
and a refuge for His people ; but we do. We know the
kingdom is still on earth : where is it ? If all that can
be found of it is what can be discerned at Constantinople
or Canterbury, I say, it has disappeared; and either
there was a radical corruption of Christianity from the
first, or Christianity came to an end, in proportion as
the type of the Nicene Church faded out of the world :
for all that we know of Christianity, in ancient history,
as a concrete fact, is the Church of Athanasius and his
fellow Bishops : it is nothing else historically but that
bundle of phenomena, that combination of claims, prero-
gatives, and corresponding acts, some of which I have
recounted above. There is no help for it then ; we can-

2o8 The Papal CJmrck.

not take as inucli as we please, and no more, of an insti-
tution which has a monadic existence. We must either
give up the belief in the Church as a divine institution
altogether, or we must recognize it at this day in that
communion of which the Pope is the head. With him
alone and round about him are found the claims, the
prerogatives, and duties which we identify with the
kingdom set up by Christ. We must take things as
they are ; to believe in a Church, is to believe in the
Pope. And thus this belief in the Pope and his attri-
butes, which seems so monstrous to Protestants, is bound
up with our being Catholics at all ; as our Catholicism
is bound up with our Christianity. There is nothing
then of wanton opposition to the powers that be, no din-
ning of novelties in their startled ears in what is often
unjustly called Ultramontane doctrine ; there is no per-
nicious servility to the Pope in our admission of his pre-
tensions. I say, we cannot help ourselves — Parliament
may deal as harshly with us as it will ; we should not
believe in the Church at all, unless we believe in its
visible head.

So it is ; the course of ages has fulfilled the prophecy
and promise, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.*' That which in
substance was possessed by the Nicene Hierarchy, that
the Pope claims now. I do not wish to put difficulties
in my way : but I cannot conceal or smooth over what I
believe to be a simple truth, though the avowal of it will
be very unwelcome to Protestants, and, as I fear, to some

The Papal Church, 209

Catholics. However, I do not call upon another to
believe all that I believe on the subject myself. I
declare it, as my own judgment, that the prerogatives,
such as, and in the way in which, I have described them
in substance, which the Church had under the Roman
Power, those she claims now, and never, never will
relinquish ; claims them, not as having received them
from a dead Empire, but partly by the direct endowment
of her Divine Master, and partly as being a legitimate
outcome of that endowment; claims them, but not
except from Catholic populations, not as if accounting
the more sublime of them to be of every-day use, but
holding them as a protection or remedy in great emer-
gencies or on supreme occasions, when nothing else will
serve, as extraordinary and solemn acts of her religious
sovereignty. And our Lord, seeing what would be
brought about by human means, even had He not willed
it, and recognizing, from the laws which He Himself had
imposed upon human society, that no large community
could be strong which had no head, spoke the word in
the beginning, as He did to Judah, " Thou art he whom
thy brethren shall praise,'^ and then left it to the course
of events to fulfil it.

2. Mr. Gladstone ought to have chosen another issue
for attack upon us, than the Pope's special power. His real
diflBculty lies deeper ; as little permission as he allows to
the Pope, would he allow to any ecclesiastic who would
wield the weapons of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine.
That concentration of the Church's powers which history
brings before us ought not to be the simple object of his
indignation. It is not the existence of a Pope, but of

p

2IO The Papal Church,

a Churcb., which is his aversion. It is the powers them
selves, and not their distribution and allocation in the
ecclesiastical body which he writes against. A triangle
is the same in its substance and nature, whichever
side is made its base. " The Pontiffs," says Mr. Bowden,
who writes as an Anglican, *' exalted to the kingly
throne of St. Peter, did not so much claim new privileges
for themselves, as deprive their episcopal brethren of
privileges originally common to the hierarchy. Even
the titles by which those autocratical prelates, in the
plenitude of their power, delighted to style themselves,
' Summus Sacerdos/ ' Pontif ex Maximus,' * Yicarius
Christi/ ' Papa' itself, had, nearer to the primitive times,
been the honourable appellations of every bishop ; as
'Sedes Apostolica' had been the description of every
Bishop's throne. The ascription of these titles, therefore,
to the Pope only gave to the terms new force, because
that ascription became exclusive ; because, that is, the
bishops in general were stripped of honours, to which
their claims were as well founded as those on;heir Roman
brother, who became, by the change, not so strictly
universal as sole Bishop." {Greg. VII. vol. i. p. 64.)

Say that the Christian polity now remained, as history
represents it to us in the fourth century, or that it was,
if that was possible, now to revert to such a state, would
politicians have less trouble with 1800 centres of power
than they have with one ? Instead of one, with tradi-
tionary rules, the trammels of treaties and engagements,
public opinion to consult and manage, the responsibility
of great interests, and the guarantee for his behaviour
in his temporal possessions, there would be a legion of

The Papal Church. 2 1 1

ecclesiastics, each bishop with his following, each in-
dependent of the others, each with his own views,
each with extraordinary powers, each with the risk of
misusing them, all over Christendom. It would be the
Anglican theory, made real. It would be an ecclesiastical
communism ; and, if it did not benefit religion, at least
it would not benefit the civil power. Take a small
illustration : — what interruption at this time to Parlia-
mentary proceedings, does a small zealous party occasion,
which its enemies call a mere "handful of clergy ;" and
why ? Because its members are responsible for what
they do to God alone and to their conscience as His voice.
Even suppose it was only here or there that episcopal
autonomy was vigorous ; yet consider what zeal is
kindled by local interests and national spirit. One
John of Tuam, with a Pope's full apostolic powers, would
be a greater trial to successive ministries than an Ecu-
menical Bishop at Rome. Parliament understands this
well, for it exclaims against the Sacerdotal principle.
Here, for a second reason, if our Divine Master has
given those great powers to the Church, which ancient
Christianity testifies, we see why His Providence has
also brought it about that the exercise of them should
be concentrated in one see.

But, anyhow, the progress of concentration was not
the work of the Pope; it was brought about by the
changes of times and the vicissitudes of nations. It
was not his fault that the Vandals swept away the African
sees, and the Saracens those of Syria and Asia Minor,
or that Constantinople and its dependencies became the
creatures of Imperialism, or that Frunc-e, i^^nglun*), and

P 2

212 1 he Papal Church.

Germany would obey none but the author of *heir own
Christianity, or that clergy and people at a distance
were obstinate in sheltering themselves under the majesty
of Rome against their own fierce kings and nobles or
imperious bishops, even to the imposing forgeries on
the world and on the Pope in justification of their
proceedings. All this will be fact, whether the Popes
were ambitious or not ; and still it will be fact that the
issue of that great change was a great benefit to the
whole of Europe. No one but a Master, who was a
thousand bishops in himself at once, could have tamed
and controlled, as the Pope did, the great and little
tyrants of the middle age.

3. This is generally confessed now, even by Protestant
historians, viz., that the concentration of ecclesiastical
power in those centuries was simply necessary for the
civilization of Europe. Of course it does not follow
that the benefits rendered then to the European common-
wealth by the political supremacy of the Pope, would, if
he was still supreme, be rendered in time to come. I
have no wish to make assumptions ; yet conclusions
short of this will be unfavourable to Mr. Gladstone's
denunciation of him. We reap the fruit at this day of
his services in the past. With the purpose of showing
this I make a rather long extract from Dean Milman's
"Latin Christianity;" he is speaking of the era of
Gregory I., and he says, the Papacy "was the only
power which lay not entirely and absolutely prostrate
before the disasters of the times — a power which had an
inherent strength, and might resume its majesty. It
was this power which was most imperatively required

The Papal Church. 2 1 3

to preseVve all which was to survive out of the crumbling
wreck of Kouian civilization. To Western Christianity
was absolutely necessary a centre, standing alone, strong
in traditionary reverence, and in acknowledged claims
to supremacy. Even the perfect organization of the
Christian hierarchy might in all human probability have
fallen to pieces in perpetual conflict : it might have
degenerated into a half-secular feudal caste, with here-
ditary benefices more and more entirely subservient to
the civil authority, a priesthood of each nation or each
tribe, gradually sinking to the intellectual or religious
level of the nation or tribe. On the rise of a power
both controlling and conservative hung, humanly speak-
ing, the life and death of Christianity — of Christianity
as a permanent, aggressive, expansive, and, to a certain
extent, uniform system. There must be a counter-
balance to baibaric force, to the unavoidable anarchy of
Teutonism, with its tribal, or at the utmost national
independence, forming a host of small, conflicting,
antagonistic kingdoms. All Europe would have been
what England was under the Octarchy, what Germany
was when her emperors were weak; and even her
emperors she owed to Rome, to the Church, to Chris-
tianity. Providence might have otherwise ordained;
but it is impossible for man to imagine by what other
organizing or consolidating force the commonwealth of
the Western nations could have grown up to a dis-
cordant, indeed, and conflicting league, but still a league,
with that unity and conformity of manners, usages,
laws, religion, which have made their rivalries, oppug-
nancies, and even their long ceaseless wars, on tho whole

2 1 4 The Papal Church.

to issue in the noblest, highest, most intellectual form
of civilization known to man. ... It is impossible to
conceive what had been the confusion, the lawlessness,
the chaotic state of the middle ages, without the medieval
Papacy ; and of the medieval Papacy the real father is
Gregory the Great. In all his predecessors there was
much of the uncertainty and indefiniteness of a new
dominion. . . . Gregory is the Roman altogether merged
in the Christian Bishop. It is a Christian dominion of
which he lays the foundations in the Eternal City, not
the old Rome, associating Christian influence to her
ancient title of sovereignty." (Vol. i. p. 401, 402.)

4. From Gregory I. to Innocent III. is six hundred
years; a very fair portion of the world's history, to
have passed in doing good of primary importance to a
whole continent, and that the continent of Europe ;
good, by which all nations and their governors, all
statesmen and legislatures, are the gainers. And, again,
should it not occur to Mr. Gladstone that these services
were rendered to mankind by means of those very instru-
ments of power on which he thinks it proper to pour
contempt as " rusty tools " ? The right to warn and
punish powerful men, to excommunicate kings, to preach
aloud truth and justice to the inhabitants of the earth,
to denounce immoral doctrines, to strike at rebellion in
tlie garb of heresy, were the very weapons by which
Europe was brought into a civilized condition ; yet he
calls them *' rusty tools " which need " refurbishing."
Does he wish then that such high expressions of eccle-
siastical displeasure, such sharp penalties, should be of
daily use 't If they are rusty, because they have been

The Papal Clm^'ch. 2 j 5

lona^ without using, then have they ever been rusty. Is
a Council a rusty tool, because none had been held, till
1870, since the sixteenth century ? or because there
have been but nineteen in 1900 years? How many
times is it in the history of Christianity that the Pope
has solemnly drawn and exercised his sword upon
a king or an emperor? If an extraordinary weapon
must be a rusty tool, I suppose Gregory VII/s sword was
not keen enough for the German Henry ; and the
seventh Pius too used a rusty tool in his excommunica-
tion of Napoleon. How could Mr Gladstone ever
" fondly think that Pome had disused " her weapons,
and that they had hung up as antiquities and curiosities
in her celestial armoury, — or, in his own words, as
" hideous mummies," p. 46, — when the passage of arms
between the great Conqueror and the aged Pope was
so close upon his memory ! Would he like to see a
mummy come to life again ? That unexpected miracle
actually took place in the first years of this century.
Gregory was considered to have done an astounding
deed in the middle ages, when he brought Henry, the
German Emperor, to do penance and shiver in the snow
at Canossa ; but Napoleon had his snow-penance too,
and that with an actual interposition of Providence
in the infliction of it. I describe it in the words of
Alison : —

"'What does the Pope mean,* said Napoleon to
Eugene, in July, 1807, ' by the threat of excommuni-
cating me? does he think the world has gone back a
thousand years? does he suppose the arms will fall
from the hands of my soldiers ? ' Within two years

2 1 6 riie Papal Church.

after these remarkable words were written, the Pope did
excommunicate him, in return for the confiscation of his
whole dominions, and in less than four years more, the
arms did fall from the hands of his soldiers ; and the
hosts, apparently invincible, which he had collected were
dispersed and ruined by the blasts of winter. ' The
weapons of the soldiers,' says Segur, in describing the
Russian retreat, ' appeared of an insupportable weight
to their stiffened arms. During their frequent falls
they fell from their hands, and destitute of the power
of raising them from the ground, they were left in the
snow. They did not throw them away : famine and
cold tore them from their grasp.' ' The soldiers could
no longer hold their weapons/ says Salgues, ' they fell
from the hands even of the bravest and most robust.
The muskets dropped from the frozen arms of those who
bore them.' " {Rkt ch. Ix. 9th ed.)

Alison adds : " There is something in these marvel-
lous coincidences beyond the operations of chance, and
which even a Protestant historian feels himself bound
to mark for the observation of future ages. The world
had not gone back a thousand years, but that Being
existed with whom a thousand years are as one day,
and one day as a thousand years." As He was with
Gregory in 1077, so He was with Pius in 1812, and He
will be with some future Pope again, when the necessity
shall come.

5. In saying this, I am far from saying that Popes
are never in the wrong, and are never to be resisted ; or
that their excommunications always avail. I am not
bound to defend the policy or the acts of particular

The Papal Ckurch. 217

Popes, whether before or after the great revolt from their
authority in the 16th century. There is no reason that
I should contend, and I do not contend, for instance,
that they at all times have understood our own people,
our natural character and resources, and our position in
Europe ; or that they have never suffered from bad
counsellors or misinformation. I say this the more
freely, because Urban VIII., about the year 1641 or
1642, seems to have blamed the policy of some Popes
of the preceding century in their dealings with our
country.^

But, whatever we are bound to allow to Mr. Glad-
stone on this head, that does not warrant the passionate
invective against the Holy See and us individually,
which he has carried on through sixty-four pages.
What we have a manifest right to expect from him is
lawyer-like exactness and logical consecutiveness in his
impeachment of us. The heavier that is, the less does
it need the exaggerations of a great orator. If the Pope's
conduct towards us three centuries ago has righteously
wiped out the memory of his earlier benefits, yet he
should have a fair trial. The more intoxicating was his
solitary greatness, when it was in the zenith, the greater

' " When he was urged to excommunicate the Kings of France and
Sweden, he made answer^ 'We may declare them excommunicate, as
Pius V. declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him
Oloment VII. the King of England, Henry VIII. . . but with what
success? The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it with tears of
blood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V. or Clement VII.,
but Paul V. who, in the beginning, being many times urged by the
Spaniards to excommunicate James, King of England, never would
consent to it.' " (State Ppper Office, Italy, 1641 — ]662.) Yide Mr.
Simpson's very able and careful life of Campion, 1867, p. 371.

2i8 The Papal Church.

consideration should be shown towards him in his present
temporal humiliation, when concentration of ecclesias-
tical functions in one man, does but make him, in the
presence of the haters of Catholicism, what a Roman
Emperor contemplated, when he wished all his sub-
jects had but one neck that he might destroy them
by one blow. Surely, in the trial of so august a criminal,
one might have hoped, at least, to have found gravity
and measure in language, and calmness in tone — not
a pamphlet written as if on impulse, in defence of an
incidental parenthesis in a previous publication, and
then, after being multiplied in 22,000 copies, appeal-
ing to the lower classes in the shape of a sixpenny
tract, the lowness of the price indicating the width of
the circulation. Surely Nana Sahib will have more
justice done to him by the English people, than has
been shown to the Father of European civilization.

6. I have been referring to the desolate state in which
the Holy See has been cast during the last years, such
that the Pope, humanly speaking, is at the mercy of his
enemies, and morally a prisoner in his palace. That state
of secular feebleness cannot last for ever; sooner or
later there will be, in the divine mercy, a change for the
better, and the Vicar of Christ will no longer be a mark
for insult and indignity. But one thing, except by an
almost miraculous interposition, cannot be ; and that is,
a return to the universal religious sentiment, the public
opinion, of the medieval time. The Pope himself calls
those centuries " the ages of faith." Such endemic faith
may certainly be decreed for some future time ; but,
as far as we have the means of judging at present,

The Fapal Ckurcli. 219

oenturies must run out first. Even in the fourth centurv
the ecclesiastical privileges, claimed on the one hand,
granted on the other, came into effect more or less
under two conditions, that they were recognized by public
law, and that they had the consent of the Christian
populations. Is there any chance whatever, except bj
miracles which were not granted then, that the public
law and the inhabitants of Europe will allow the Pope
that exercise of his rights, which they allowed him as
a matter of course in the 11th and 12th centuries? If
the whole world will at once answer No, it is surely
inopportune to taunt us this day with the acts of medi-
eval Popes towards certain princes and nobles, when
the sentiment of Europe was radically Papal. How does
the past bear upon the present in this matter ? Yet
Mr. Gladstone is in earnest alarm, earnest with the
earnestness which distinguishes him as a statesman, at
the harm which society may receive from the Pope, at a
time when the Pope can do nothing. He grants (p. 46)
that "the fears are visionar}' . . that either foreign
foe or domestic treason can, at the bidding of the
Court of Rome, disturb these peaceful shores ;" he allows
that " in the middle ages the Popes contended, not by
direct action of fleets and armies," but mainly *' by
interdicts," p. 35. Yet, because men then believed in
interdicts, though now they don't, therefore the civil
Power is to be roused against the Pope. But his animus
is bad; his animus! what cdin animus do without matter
to work upon? Mere animus, like big words, breaks
no bones.

As if to answer Mr. Gladstone by anticipation, and to

2 20 The Papal Church.

allay his fears, the Pope made a declaration three years
ago on the subject, which, strange to say, Mr. Gladstone
quotes "without perceiving that it tells against the very
argument which he brings it to corroborate ; — that is ex-
cept as the Pope's a7iimusgoe8. Doubtless he would wish
to have the place in the political world which his prede-
cessors had, because it was given to him by Providence,
and is conducive to the highest interests of mankind,
but he distinctly tells us in the declaration in question
that he has not got it, and cannot have it, till the time
comes, which we can speculate about as well as he,
and which we say cannot come at least for centuries.
He speaks of what is his highest political power, that
of interposing in the quarrel between a prince and his
subjects, and of declaring upon appeal made to him
from them, that the Prince had or had not forfeited
their allegiance. This power, most rarely exercised,
and on very extraordinary occasions, it is not necessary
for any Catholic to acknowledge ; and I suppose, com-
paratively speaking, few Catholics do acknowledge it ;
to be honest, I may say, I do ; that is, under the con-
ditions which the Pope himself lays down in the de-
claration to which I have referred, his answer to the
address of the Academia. He speaks of his right " to
depose sovereigns, and release the people from the
obligation of loyalty, a right which had undoubtedly
sometimes been exercised in crucial circumstances," and
he says, " This right (diritto) in those ages of faith, —
(which discerned in the Pope, what he is, that is to say,
the Supreme Judge of Christianity, and recognized the
advantages of his tribunal in tlie great contests of

The Papal Church. 221

peoples and sovereigns) — was freely extended, — (aided
indeed as a matter of duty by the public law [diritto)
and by the common consent of peoples) — to the most
important (ijoiit ^ram") interest of states and their rulers "
{Guardian, Nov. 11, 1874.)

Now let us observe how the Pope restrains the exercise
of this right. He calls it his right — that is in the sense
in which right in one party is correlative with duty in
the other, so that, when the duty is not observed, the
right cannot be brought into exercise; and this is
precisely what he goes on to intimate ; for he lays down
the conditions of that exercise. First it can only be
exercised in rare and critical circumstances {supreme
circonstanze, ipiu yravi interessi). Next he refers to his
being the supreme judge of Christendom and to his
decision as coming from a tribunal; his prerogative then
is not a mere arbitrary power, but must be exercised by
a process of law and a formal examination of the case,
and in the presence and the hearing of the two parties
interested in it. Also in this limitation is implied that
the Pope's definite sentence involves an appeal to the
supreme standard of right and wrong, the moral law, as
its basis and rule, and must contain the definite reasons
on which it decides in favour of the one party or the
other. Thirdly, the exercise of this right is limited to
the ages of faith; ages which, on the one hand, inscribed
it among the provisions of the^'us publicum, and on the
other so fully recognized the benefits it conferred, as to
be able to enforce it by the common consent of the peoples.
These last words should be dwelt on : it is no consent
which is merely local, as of one country, of Ireland or

2 22 The Papal Church.

of Belgium, if that were probable; but a united consent
of various nations of Europe, for instance, as a common
wealth, of which the Pope was the head Thirty years
ago we heard much of the Pope being made the head of
an Italian confederation : no word came from England
against such an arrangement. It was possible, because
the members of it were all of one religion ; and in like
manner a European commonwealth would be reasonable,
if Europe were of one religion. Lastly, the Pope de-
clares with indignation that a Pope is not infallible in
the exercise of this right ; such a notion is an invention
of Lhe enemy ; he calls it " malicious."

What is there in all this to arouse the patriotic
anxieties of Mr. Gladstone ?

Divided A Uegiancs. 22^

§ 4. Divider} Allegiance.

But one attribute the Church has, and the Pope as
head of the Church, whether he be in high estate, as this
world goes, or not, whether he has temporal possessions
or not, whether he is in honour or dishonour, whether he
is at home or driven about, whether those special claims
of which I have spoken are allowed or not, — and that is
Sovereignty. As God has sovereignty, though He may
be disobeyed or disowned, so has His Yiear upon earth ;
and farther than this, since Catholic populations are
found everywhere, he ever will be in fact lord of a vast
empire ; as large in numbers, as far spreading as the
British ; and all his acts are sure to be such as are in
keeping with the position of one who is thus supremely
exalted.

I beg not to be interrupted here, as many a reader
will interrupt me in his thoughts, for I am using these
words, not at random, but as the commencement of a
long explanation, and, in a certain sense, limitation, of
what I have hitherto been saying concerning theChurch's
and the Pope's power. To this task the remaining pages,
which I have to address to your Grace, will be directed ;
and I trust that it will turn out, when I come to the end
of them, that, by tirst stating fully what the Pope's

224 Divided Allegiance.

claims are, I shall be able most clearly to show what he
does not claim.

Now the main point of Mr. Gladstone's Pamphlet is
this : — that, since the Pope claims infallibility in faith
and morals, and since there are no " departments and
functions of human life which do not and cannot fall
within the domain of morals/^ p. 36, and since he claims
also " the domain of all that concerns the government
and discipline of the Church/' and moreover, " claims
the power of determining the limits of those domains,"
and " does not sever them, by any acknowledged or
intelligible line from the domains of civil duty and
allegiance," p. 45, therefore Catholics are moral and
mental slaves, and " every convert and member of the
Pope's Church places his loyalty and civil duty at the
mercy of another," p. 45.

I admit Mr. Gladstone's premisses, but I reject his
conclusion ; and now I am going to show why I reject it.

In doing this, I shall, with him, put aside for the pre-
sent and at first the Pope's prerogative of infallibility in
general enunciations, whether of faith or morals, and
confine myself to the consideration of his authority (in
respect to which he is not infallible) in matters of conduct,
and of our duty of obedience to him. " There is some-
thingwider still," he says, (than the claim of infallibility,)
" and that is the claim to an Absolute and entire Obe-
dience," p. 37. " Little does it matter to me, whether
my Superior claims infallibility, so long as he is entitled
to demand and exact conformity," p. 39. He speaks of a
third province being opened, "not indeed to the abstract

Divided Allegiance. 225

assertion of Infallibility, but to the far more practical
and decisive demand of Absolute Obedience," p, 41,
" the Absolute Obedience, at the peril of salvation, of
every member of his communion," p. 42.

Now, I proceed to examine this large, direct, religious,
sovereignty of the Pope, both in its relation to his sub-
jects, and to the Civil Power; but first, I beg to be
allowed to say just one word on the principle of
obedience itself, that is, by way of inquiring whether
it is or is not now a religious duty.

Is there then such a duty at all as obedience to eccle-
siastical authority now ? or is it one of those obsolete
ideas, which are swept away, as unsightly cobwebs, by
the New Civilization ? Scripture says, " Remember
them which have the rule, over you, who have spoken
unto you the word of God, whose faith follow." And,
" Obey them that have the rvle over you, and sulmit your-
selves ; for they watch for your souls, as they that must
give account, that they may do it with joy and not
with grief ; for that is unprofitable for you." The margin
in the Protestant Version reads, " those who are your
guides ;" and the word may also be translated "leaders,"
Well, as rulers, or guides and leaders, whichever word
be right, they are to be obeyed. Now Mr. Gladstone
dislikes our way of fulfilling this precept, whether as
regards our choice of ruler and leader, or our " Absolute
Obedience " to him ; but he does not give us his own.
Is there any liberalistic reading of the Scripture passage?
Or are the words only for the benefit of the poor and
ignorant, notforthe Schola (as it may be called)of politi-
cal and periodical writers, not for individual members

2?6 Divided A llegia7ue.

of Parliament;, not for statesmen and Cabinet ministers,
and people of Progress ? Which party then is the more
'* Scriptural/' those who recognize and carry out in their
conduct texts like these, or those who don't ? May not
we Catholics claim some mercy from Mr. Gladstone,
though we be faulty in the object and the manner of
our obedience, since in a lawless day an object and a
manner of obedience we have ? Can we be blamed, if,
arguing from those texts which say that ecclesiastical
authority comes from above, we obey it in that one form
in which alone we find it on earth, in that one person
who, of all the notabilities of this nineteenth century
into which we have been born, alone claims it of us ? The
Pope has no rival in his claim upon us ; nor is it our
doing that his claim has been made and allowed for
centuries upon centuries, and that it was he who made
the Vatican decrees, and not they him. If we give him
up, to whom shall we go ? Can we dress up any civil
functionary in the vestments of divine authority ? Can
I, for instance, follow the faith, can I put my soul into
the hands, of our gracious Sovereign ? or of the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury? or of the Bishop of Lincoln,
albeit he is not broad and low, but high ? CathoKcs
have " done what they could," — all that any one could :
and it should be Mr Gladstone's business, before telling
us that we are slaves, because we obey the Pope, first
of all to tear away those texts from the Bible.

With this preliminary remark, I proceed to consider
whether the Pope's authority is either a slavery to his
subjects, or a menace to the Civil Power ; and first, as
to his power over his flock.

Divided A llegia lue. 227

1. Mr. Gladstone says that "the Pontiff declares to
belong to him the supreme direction of Catholics in
respect to all duty," p. 37. Supreme direction ; true,
but " supreme" is not " minute/' nor does " direc-
tion " mean " supervision" or " management." Take the
parallel of human law ; the Law is supreme^ and the Law
directs our conduct under the manifold circumstances in
which we have to act, and may and must be absolutely
obeyed ; but who therefore says that the Law has the
" supreme direction " of us ? The State, as well as the
Church, has the power at its will of imposing laws upon
us, laws bearing on our moral duties, our daily con-
duct, affecting our actions in various ways, and circum-
scribing our liberties ; yet no one would say that the
Law, after all, with aU its power in the abstract and its
executive vigour in fact, interferes either with our com-
fort or our conscience. There are numberless laws about
property, landed and personal, titles, tenures, trusts,
wills, covenants, contracts, partnerships, money trans-
actions, life-insurances, taxes, trade, navigation, educa-
tion, sanitary measures, trespasses, nuisances, all in
addition to the criminal law. Law, to apply Mr. Glad-
stone's words, "is the shadow that cleaves to us, go
where we will." Moreover, it varies year after year,
and refuses to give any pledge of fixedness or finality.
Nor can any one tell what restraint is to come next,
perhaps painful personally to himself. Nor are its
enactments easy of interpretation ; for actual cases,
with the opinions and speeches of counsel, and the
decisions of judges, must prepare the raw material, as it
proceeds from the Legislature, before it can be rightly

ft2

228 Divided Allegiance.

understood ; so that " the glorious uncertainty of the
Law " has become a proverb. And, after all, no one is
sure of escaping its penalties without the assistance of
lawyers, and that in such private and personal matters
that the lawyers are, as by an imperative duty, bound to
a secrecy which even courts of justice respect. And
then, besides the Statute Law, there is the common and
traditional ; and, below this, usage. Is not all this
enough to try the temper of a free-born Englishman, and
to make him cry out with Mr. Gladstone, " Three-
fourths of my life are handed over to the Law ; I care
not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life,
such as can escape from the description and boundary
of Parliamentary tyranny ? " Yet, though we may dis-
like it, though we may at times suffer from it ever so
much, who does not see that the thraldom and irk-
someness is nothing compared with the great blessings
which the Constitution and Legislature secure to us ?

Such is the jurisdiction which the Law exercises over
us. What rule does the Pope claim which can be com-
pared to its strong and its long arm? What inter-
ference with our liberty of judging and acting in our
daily work, in our course of life, comes to us from
him ? Really, at first sight, I have not known where
to look for instances of his actual interposition in our
private affairs, for it is our routine of personal duties
about which I am now speaking. Let us see how we
stand in this matter.

We are graded in our ordinary duties by the books of
moral theology, which are drawn up by theologians of
authority and experience, as an instruction for our Con-

Divided A llegiance. 229

fessors. These books are based on the three Christian
foundations of Faith, Hope, and Charity, on the Ten
Commandments, and on the six Precepts of the Church,
which relate to the observance of Sunday, of fast days, of
confession and communion, and, in one shape or othur, to
paying tithes. A great number of possible cases are
noted under these heads, and in difficult questions a
variety of opinions are given, with plain directions, when
it is ihat private Catholics are at liberty to choose for
themselves whatever answer they like best, and when
they are bound to follow some one of them in particular.
Reducible as these directions in detail are to the few and
simple heads which I have mentioned, they are little
more than reflexions and memoranda of our moral sense,
unlike the positive enactments of the Legislature ; and,
on the whole, present to us no difficulty — though now and
then some critical question may arise, and some answer
may be given (just as by the private conscience itself)
which it is difficult to us or painful to accept. And
again, cases may occur now and then, when our private
judgment differs from what is set down in theological
works, but even then it does not follow at once that our
private judgment must give way, for those books are no
utterance of Papal authority.

And this is the point to which I am coming. So little
does the Pope come into this whole system of moral
theology by which (as by our conscience) our lives are
regulated, that the weight of his hand upon us, as private
men, is absolutely unappreciable. I have had a difficulty
where to find a measure or gauge of his interposition.
At length I have looked through Busenbaum's " Me-

230 Divided Allegiance.

dulla/' to ascertain what light such a book would throw
upon the question. It is a book of casuistry for the use
of Confessors, running to 700 pages, and is a large
repository of answers made by various theologians on
points of conscience, and generally of duty. It was first
published in 1645 — my own edition is of 1844 — and
in this latter are marked those propositions, bearing on
subjects treated in it, which have been condemned by
Popes in the intermediate 200 years. On turning over
the pages I find they are in all between fifty and sixty.
This list includes matters sacramental, ritual, ecclesias-
tical, monastic, and disciplinarian, as well as moral, —
relating to the duties of ecclesiastics and regulars, of
parish priests, and of professional men, as well as of pri-
vate Catholics. And these condemnations relate for the
most part to mere occasional details of duty, and are in
reprobation of the lax or wild notions of speculative
casuists, so that they are rather restraints upon theo-
logians than upon laymen. For instance, the following
are some of the propositions condemned: — "The eccle-
siastic, who on a certain day is hindered from saying
Matins and Lauds, is not bound to say, if he can, the
remaining hours ;*' ** Where there is good cause, it is
lawful to swear without the purpose of swearing, whether
the matter is of light or grave moment ;'' " Domestics
may steal from their masters, in compensation for their
service, which they think greater than their wages ;"
" It is lawful for a public man to kill an opponent, who
tries to fasten a calumny upon him, if he cannot other-
wise escape the ignominy." I have taken these instances
at random. It must be granted, I think, that in the

Divided Allegiance. 231

long course of 200 years the amount of the Pope's
authoritative enunciations has not been such as to press
heavily on the back of the private Catholic. He leaves
us surely far more than that " one fourth of the depart-
ment of conduct/^ which Mr. Gladstone allows us. In-
deed, if my account and specimens of his sway over us in
morals be correct, I do not see what he takes away at
all from our private consciences.

But here Mr. Gladstone will object, that the Pope
does really exercise a claim over the whole domain of
conduct, inasmuch as he refuses to draw any line across
it in limitation of his interference, and therefore it
is that we are his slaves : — let us see if another
illustration or parallel will not show this to be a non-
sequitur. Suppose a man, who is in the midst of various
and important lines of business^ has a medical adviser, in
whom he has full confidence, as knowing well his con-
stitution. This adviser keeps a careful and anxious eye
upon him ; and, as an honest man, says to him, " You
must not go off on a journey to-day," or " You must
take some days' rest," or " You must attend to your
diet." Now, this is not a fair parallel to the Pope's
hold upon us ; for the Pope does not speak to us per-
sonally, but to all, and, in speaking definitively on ethical
subjects, what he propounds must relate to things good
and bad in themselves, not to things accidental, change-
able, and of mere expedience ; so that the argument
which I am drawing from the case of a medical adviser
is a fortiori in its character. However, I say that
though a medical man exercises a " supreme direction "
over those who put themselves under him, yet we do not

232 Divided A llegiance.

therefore say, even of him, that he interferes with our
daily conduct, and that we are his slaves. He cer-
tainly does thwart many of our wishes and purposes ;
and in a true sense we are at his mercy: he may
interfere any day, suddenl)'; he will not, he cannot,
draw any intelligible line between the acts which he
has a right to forbid us, and the acts which he has
not. The same journey, the same press of busi-
ness, the same indulgence at table, which he passes
over one year, he sternly forbids the next. There-
fore if Mr. Gladstone's argument is good, he has
a finger in all the commercial transactions of the
great trader or financier who has chosen him. But
surely there is a simple fallacy here. Mr. Gladstone
asks us whether our political and civil life is not at the
Pope's mercy ; every act, he says, of at least three-
quarters of the day, is under his control. No, not every,
but any, and this is all the difierence — that is, we have
no guarantee given us that there wiR never be a case,
when the Pope's general utterances may come to have a
bearing upon some personal act of ours. In the same
way we are all of us in this age under the control of
public opinion and the public prints ; nay, much more
intimately so. Journalism can be and is very personal ;
and, when it is in the right, more powerful just now than
any Pope; yet we do not go into fits, as if we were
slaves, because we are under a surveillance much more
like tyranny than any sway, so indirect, so practically
limited, so gentle, as his is.

But it seems the cardinal point of our slavery lies, not
simply in the domain of morals, but in the Pope's

Divided A Uegiance. 233

general authority over U8 in all things whatsoever. This
count in his indictment Mr. Gladstone founds on a pas-
sage in the third chapter of the Pastor aternus, in which
the Pope, speaking of the Pontifical jurisdiction, says,
— " Towards it (erga quam) pastors and people of what-
soever rite or dignity, each and all, are bound by the
duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,
not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals,
but also in those which pertain to the discipline and the
regimen of the Church spread throughout the world ; so
that, unity with the Roman PontiflF (both of communion
and of profession of the same faith) being preserved, the
Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Shep-
herd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which
no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation."

On Mr. Gladstone's use of this passage I observe first,
that he leaves out a portion of it which has much to do
with the due understanding of it (ita ut custodita, &c.)
Next, he speaks of " absolute obedience',' so often, that
any reader, who had not the passage before him, would
think that the word " absolute " was the Pope's word,
not his. Thirdly, three times (at pp. 38, 41, and 42)
does he make the Pope say that no one can disobey him
without risking his salvation, whereas what the Pope
does say is, that no one can disbelieve the duty of
obedience and unity without such risk. And fourthly,
in order to carry out this false sense, or rather to hinder
its being evidently impossible, he mistranslates, p. 38,
"doctrina" (Haec est doctrina) by the word " rule."

But his chief attack is directed to the words "disci-
plina " and " regimen." " Thus," he says, " are swept

234 Divided Allegiance.

mto the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole
systems of government, prevailing, though in different
degrees, in every country of the world,'' p. 41. That is,
disciplina and regimen are words of such lax, vague,
indeterminate meaning, that under them any matters can
he slipped in, which may be required for the Pope's pur-
pose in this or that country, such as, to take Mr. Glad-
stone's instances, blasphemy, poor-relief, incorporation,
and mortmain ; as if no definitions were contained in
our theological and ecclesiastical works of words in such
common use, and as if in consequence the Pope was at
liberty to give them any sense of his own. As to dis-
cipline, Fr. Perrone says, " Discipline comprises the
exterior worship of God, the liturgy, sacred rites,
psalmody, the administration of the sacraments, the
canonical form of sacred elections and the institution of
ministers, vows, feast-days, and the like ;" all of them
(observe) matters internal to the Church, and without
any relation to^the Civil Power and civil affairs. Per-
rone adds, " Ecclesiastical discipline is a practical and
external rule, prescribed by the Church, in order to
retain the faithful in their faith, and the more easily
lead them on to eternal happiness," Prcel. Theol., t. 2,
p. 381, 2nd ed., 1841. Thus discipline is in no sense a
political instrument, except as the profession of our faith
may accidentally become political. In the same sense
Zallinger : " The Roman Pontiff has by divine right the
power of passing universal laws pertaining to the disci-
pline of the Church ; for instance, to divine worship,
sacred rites, the ordination and manner of life of the
clergy, the order of the ecclesiastical regimen, and the

Divided A llegiance. 235

right administration of the temporal possessions of the
church."— J"wr. :Eccle8., lib. i. t. 2, \ 121.

So too the word " regimen " has a definite meaning,
relating to a matter strictly internal to the Church : it
means government, or the mode or form of government,
or the course of government ; and, as, in the intercourse
of nation with nation, the nature of a nation's govern-
ment, whether monarchical or republican, does not come
into question, so the constitution of the Church simply
belongs to its nature, not to its external action. Cer-
tainly there are aspects of the Church which involve
relations toward secular powers and to nations, as, for
instance, its missionary office; but regimen has relation to
one of its internal characteristics, viz., its form of govern-
ment, whether we call it a pure monarchy or with others
a monarchy tempered by aristocracy. Thus Tournely
says, " Three kinds of regimen or government are set
down by philosophers, monarchy, aristocracy, and demo-
cracy."— TheoL, t. 2, p. 100. Bellarmine says the same,
Rom. Pont., i. 2 ; and Perrone takes it for granted, ibid.
pp. 70, 71.

Now, why does the Pope speak at this time of
regimen and discipline? He tells us in that portion
of the sentence, which, thinking it of no account, Mr.
Gladstone has omitted. The Pope tells us that all
Catholics should recollect their duty of obedience to
him, not only in faith and morals, but in such matters
of regimen and discipline as belong to the universal
Church, " so that unity with the Roman Pontiff, both of
communion and of profession of the same faith being
preserved, the Church of Christ may be one flock under

236 Divided Allegiance.

one supreme Shepherd." I consider this passage to be
especially aimed at Nationalism : " Recollect," the Pope
seems to say, " the Church is one, and that, not only in
faith and morals, for schismatics may profess as much as
this, but one, wherever it is, all over the world ; and not
only one, but one and the same, bound together by its
one regimen and discipline and by the same regimen
and discipline, — the same rites, the same sacraments,
the same usages, and the same one Pastor ; and in these
bad times it is necessary for all Catholics to recollect,
that this doctrine of the Church's individuality and,
as it were, personality, is not a mere received opinion
or understanding, which may be entertained or not.
as we please, but is a fundamental, necessary truth."
This being, speaking under correction, the drift of the
passage, I observe that the words " spread throughout
the world " or " universal " are so far from turning " dis-
cipline and regimen " into what Mr. Gladstone calls a
" net," that they contract the range of both of them, not
including, as he would have it, " marriage," here, " blas-
phemy" there, and "poor-relief" in a third country,
but noting and specifying that one and the same struc-
ture of laws, rites, rules of government, independency,
everywhere, of which the Pope himself is the centre and
life. And surely this is what every one of us will say as
well as the Pope, who is not an Erastian, and who believes
that the Gospel is no mere philosophy thrown upon the
world at large, no mere quality of mind and thought,
no mere beautiful and deep sentiment or subjective
opinion, but a substantive message from above, guarded
and preserved in a visible polity.

Divided A llegiance. 237

2. And now I am naturally led on to speak of the
Pope's supreme authority, such as I have described it,
in its bearing towards the Civil Power all over the
world, — a power which as truly comes from God, as hi/
own does, though diverse, as the Church is invariable.

That collisions can take place between the Holy See and
national governments, the history of fifteen hundred years
sufficiently teaches us ; also, that on both sides there may
occur grievous mistakes. But my question all along
lies, not with " quicquid delirant reges," but with what,
under the circumstance of such a collision, is the duty of
those who are both children of the Pope and subjects of
the Civil Power. As to the duty of the Civil Power, I
have already intimated in my first section, that it should
treat the Holy See as an independent sovereign, and if
this -rule had been observed, the difficulty to Catholics
in a country not Catholic, would be most materially
lightened. Great Britain recognizes and is recognized
by the United States ; the two powers have ministers at
each other's court ; here is one standing prevention of
serious quarrels. Misunderstandings between the two co-
ordinate powers may arise; but there follow explanations,
removals of the causes of offence, acts of restitution. In
actual collisions, there areconferences, compromises, arbi-
trations. Now the point to observe here is, that in such
cases neither party gives up its abstract rights, but neither
party practically insists on them. And each party thinks
itseK in the right in the particular case^ protests against
any other view, but still concedes. Neither party
says, " I will not make it up with you, till you draw an
intelligible line between your domain and mine." I

238 Divided A llegiance,

suppose in the Geneva arbitration, though we gave way,
we still thought that, in our conduct in the American
civil war, we had acted within our rights. I say all this
in answer to Mr. Gladstone's challenge to us to draw
the line between the Pope's domain and the State's
domain in civil or political questions. Many a private
American, I suppose, lived in London and Liverpool, all
through the correspondence between our Foreign Office
and the government of the United States, and Mr.
Gladstone never addressed any expostulation to them,
or told them they had lost their moral freedom because
they took part with their own government. The French,
when their late war began, did sweep their German
sojourners out of France, (the number, as I recollect, was
very great,) but they were not considered to have done
themselves much credit by such an act. When we went
to war with Russia, the English in St. Petersburg made
an address, I think to the Emperor, asking for his pro-
tection, and he gave it ; — I don't suppose they pledged
themselves to the Russian view of the war, nor would
he have called them slaves instead of patriots, if they
had refused to do so. Suppose England were to send
her ironclads to support Italy against the Pope and his
allies, English Catholics would be very indignant, they
would take part with the Pope before the war began,
they would use all constitutional means to hinder it ; but
who believes that, when they were once in the war, their
action would be anything else than prayers and exertions
for a termination of it ? What reason is there for say-
ing that they would commit themselves to any step of a
treasonable nature, any more than loyal Germans, had

Divided A llegiance . 239

they been allowed to remain in France ? Yet, because
those Germans would not relinquish their allegiance to
their country, Mr. Gladstone, were he consistent, would
at once send them adrift.

Of course it will be said that in these cases, there is no
double allegiance, andagain that the German government
did not call upon Germans in France, as the Pope might
call upon English Catholics, nay command them, to
take a side ; but my argument at least shows this, that
till there comes to us a special, direct command from
the Pope to oppose our country, we need not be said to
have " placed our loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of
another," p. 45. It is strange that a great statesman,
versed in the new and true philosophy of compromise,
instead of taking a practical view of the actual situation,
should proceed against us, like a Professor in the schools,
with the " parade " of his " relentless " (and may I
add "rusty"?) "logic," p. 23.

I say, till the Pope told us to exert ourselves for his
cause in a quarrel with this country, as in the time of
the Armada, we need not attend to an abstract and hypo-
thetical difficulty : — then and not till then. I add, as
before, that, if the Holy See were frankly recognized by
England, as other Sovereignties are, direct quarrels be-
tween the two powers would in this age of the world be
rare indeed ; and still rarer, their becoming so energetic
and urgent as todescend into the hearts of the community,
and to disturb the consciences and the family unity of
private Catholics.

But now, lastly, let us suppose one of these extraor-
dinary cases of direct and open hostility between the two

2 40 Divided A llegiance.

powers actually to occur; — here first, we must bring
before us the state of the case. Of course we must re-
collect, on the one hand, that Catholics are not only
bound by allegiance to the British Crown, but have
special privileges as citizens, can meet together, speak
and pass resolutions, can vote for members of Parliament,
and sit in Parliament, and can hold office, all which are
denied to foreigners sojourning among us ; while on the
other hand there is the authority of the Pope, which,
though not " absolute ^' even in religious matters, as
Mr. Gladstone would have it to be, has a call, a supreme
call on our obedience. Certainly in the event of such a
collision of jurisdictions, there are cases in which we
should obey the Pope and disobey the State. Suppose,
for instance, an Act was passed in Parliament, bidding
Catholics to attend Protestant service every week, and
the Pope distinctly told us not to do so, for it was to
violate our duty to our faith : — I should obey the Pope
and not the Law. It will be said by Mr. Gladstone, that
such a case is impossible. I know it is ; but why ask
me for what I should do in extreme and utterly impro-
bable cases such as this, if my answer cannot help bearing
the character of an axiom ? It is not my fault that I
must deal in truisms. The circumferences of State
jurisdiction and of Papal are for the most part quite apart
from each other; there are just some few degrees out of
the 360 in which they intersect, and Mr. Gladstone,
instead of letting these cases of intersection alone, till
they occur actually, asks me what I should do, if I found
myself placed in the space intersected. If I must answer
then, I should say distinctly that did the State tell me in

Divided A llegiance, 2 4 1

a question of worship to do what the Pope told me not to
do, I should obey the Pope, and should think it no sin,
if I used all the power and the influence I possessed as a
citizen to prevent such a Bill passing the Legislature,
and to effect its repeal if it did.

But now, on the other hand, could the case ever occui,
in which I should act with the Civil Power, and not
with the Pope ? Now, here again, when I begin to
imagine instances, Catholics will cry out (as Mr. Glad-
stone, in the case I supposed, cried out in the interest of
the other side), that instances never can occur. I know
they cannot ; I know the Pope never can do what I am
going to suppose ; but then, since it cannot possibly
happen in fact, there is no harm in just saying what I
should (hypothetically) do, if it did happen. I say then
in certain (impossible) cases I should side, not with the
Pope, but with the Civil Power. For instance, let us
suppose members of Parliament, or of the Privy Council,
took an oath that they would not acknowledge the right
of succession of a Prince of Wales, if he became a
Catholic : in that case I should not consider the Pope
could release me from that oath, had I bound myself by
it. Of course, I might exert myself to the utmost to
get the act repealed which bound me ; again, if I could
not, I might retire from parliament or office, and so rid
myself of the engagement I had made ; but I should
be clear that, though the Pope bade all Catholics to
stand firm in one phalanx for the Catholic Succes-
sion, still, while I remained in office, or in my place
in Parliament, I could not do as he bade me.

Again, were I actually a soldier or sailor in her Ma-

R

242 Divided A llegiance,

jesty's service, and sent to take part in a war which I
could not in my conscience see to be unjust, and should
the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers and sailors
to retire from the service, here again, taking the advice
of others, as best I could, I should not obey him.

What is the use of forming impossible cases ? One
can find plenty of them in books of casuistry, with the
answers attached in respect to them. In an actual case,
a Catholic would, of course, not act simply on his own
judgment ; at the same time, there are supposable cases
in which he would be obliged to go by it solely — ^viz.,
when his conscience could not be reconciled to any
of the courses of action proposed to him by others.

In support of what I have been saying, I refer to
one or two weighty authorities : —

Cardinal Turrecremata says, " Although it clearly
follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at
times, and command things which must not be done, that
we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things,
that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all
when his commands are good. To know in what cases
he is to be obeyed and in what not ... it is said in the
Acts of the Apostles, ' One ought to obey God rather
than man :' therefore, were the Pope to command any-
thing against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or
the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the
natural or divine law, he ought not to he obeyed, but in
such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus)."
— Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48.

Bellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says,

Divided Allegiance. 243

**In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is
required. . . . Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the
Pope, if he assaulted a man^s person, so it is lawful
to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state
(turban ti rempublicam), and much more if he strove to
aestroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him,
by not doing what he commands, and hindering the
execution of his will." — Be Rom. Pont., ii. 29.

Archbishop Kenrick says, " His power was given
for edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from
the love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he
meet with obedient populations." — Theolog. Moral., t. i.
p. 158.

"When, then, Mr. Gladstone asks Catholics how they
can obey the Queen and yet obey the Pope, since it may
happen that the commands of the two authorities may
clash, I answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one
and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this
world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the
Queen demanded of me an "Absolute Obedience,"
he or she would be transgressing the laws of human
society. I give an absolute obedience to neither. Fur-
ther, if ever this double allegiance pulled me in con-
trary ways, which in this age of the world I think it
never will, then I should decide according to the parti-
cular case, which is beyond all rule, and must be decided
on its own merits. I should look to see what theo-
logians could do for me, what the Bishops and clergy
around me, wisat my confessor ; what friends whom I
revered : and if, after all, I could not take their view of

£ 2

2 44 Divided A llegiaitce .

the matter, then I must rule myself by my own judw-
ment and my own conscience. But all this is hypo-
thetical and unreal.

Here, of course, it will be objected to me, that I am.
after all, having recourse to the Protestant doctrine of
Private Judgment ; not so ; it is the Protestant doctrine
that Private Judgment is our ordinary guide in religious
matters, but I use it, in the case in question, in very
extraordinary and rare, nay, impossible emergencies. Do
not the highest Tories thus defend the substitution of
William for James II. ? It is a great mistake to sup-
pose our state in the Catholic Church is so entirely sub-
jected to rule and system, that we are never thrown
upon what is called by divines " the Providence of God.'*
The teaching and assistance of the Church does not
supply all conceivable needs, but those which are ordi-
nary ; thus, for instajice, the sacraments are necessary
for dying in the grace of God and hope of heaven, yet,
when they cannot be got, acts of faith, hope, and contri-
tion, with the desire for those aids which the dying man
has not, will convey in substance what those aids ordi-
narily convey. And so a Catechumen, not yet baptized,
may be saved by his purpose and preparation to receive
the rite. And so, again, though " Out of the Church
there is no salvation," this does not hold in the case of
good men who are in invincible ignorance. And so it
is also in the case of our ordinations ; Chillingworth and
Macaulay say that it is morally impossible that we
should have kept up for 1800 years an Apostolical
succession of ministers without some breaks in the
chain; and we ip answer say that, however true this

Divided Allegiance. 245

may be humanly speaking, there has been a special
Providence over the Church to secure it. Once more,
how else could private Catholics save their souls when
there was a Pope and Anti-popes, each severally
claiming their allegiance P

24-6 Conscience.

§ 5. Conscience..

It seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which
Conscience may come into collision with the word of a
Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. Now
I wish to place this proposition on a broader basis,
acknowledged by all CathoKcs, and, in order to do this
satisfactorily, as I began with the prophecies of Scripture
and the primitive Church, when I spoke of the Pope's
prerogatives, so now I must begin with the Creator and
His creature, when I would draw out the prerogatives
and the supreme authority of Conscience.

I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certain
character, which, expressed in human language, we call
ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wisdom,
sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal characteristics
in His nature, the very Law of His being, identical with
Himself; and next, when He became Creator, He im-
planted this Law, which is Himself, in the intelligence of
all His rational creatures. The Divine Law, then, is the
rule of ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a
sovereign, irreversible, absolute authority in the presence
of men and Angels. *' The eternal law/' says St. Augus-
tine, " is the Divine Reason or Will of God, commanding

Conscience. * 247

the observance, forbi riding the disturbance, of the natural
order of things/' " The natural law/' says St. Thomas,
" is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participa-
tion of the eternal law in the rational creature/' (Gousset,
Theol. Moral., t. i. pp. 24, &c.) This law, as apprehended
in the minds of individual men, is called " conscience ;'^
and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the
intellectual medium of each, it is not therefore so affected
as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but
still has, as such, the prerogative of commanding
obedience. " The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset,
" is the supreme rule of actions ; our thoughts, desires,
words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of
the law of God ; and this law is the rule of our conduct
by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful
to go against our conscience ; as the fourth Lateran
council says, * Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, sedificat
ad gehennam/ "

This view of conscience, I know, is very different from
that ordinarily taken of it, both by the science and litera-
ture, and by the public opinion, of this day. It is founded
on the doctrine that conscience is the voice of God,
whereas it is fashionable on all hands now to consider it in
one way or another a creation of man. Of course, there are
great and broad exceptions to this statement. It is not
true of many or most religious bodies of men ; especially
not of their teachers and ministers. When Anglicans,
Wesleyans, the various Presbyterian sects in Scotland,
and other denominations among us, speak of conscience,
they mean what we mean, the voice of God in the nature
and heart of man, as distinct from the voice of Eevelatioo

248 Conscience.

They speak of a principle planted within us, before we
have had any training, although training and expe-
rience are necessary for its strength, growth, and due
formation. They consider it a constituent element of
the mind, as our perception of other ideas may be, as
our powers of reasoning, as our sense of order and the
beautiful, and our other intellectual endowments. They
consider it, as Catholics consider it, to be the internal
witness of both the existence and the law of God. They
thiuk it holds of God, and not of man, as an Angel
walking on the earth would be no citizen or dependent
of the Civil Power. They would not allow, any more
than we do, that it could be resolved into any combination
of principles in our nature, more elementary than itself,
nay, though it may be called, and is, a law of the mind,
they would not grant that it was nothing more ; I mean,
that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of
responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise, with a
vividness which discriminated it from all other consti-
tuents of our nature.

This, at least, is how I read the doctrine of Protestant*
as well as of Catholics. The rule and measure of duty
is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the
greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness,
order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-
sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with
oneself ; but it is a messenger from Him, who, both in
nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and
teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience
is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its inform-
ations, a monarch in its peremptorinesSj a priest in its

Conscience. 249

blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal
priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in
it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have
a sway.

Words such as these are idle empty verbiage to the
great world of philosophy now. All through my day
there has been a resolute warfare, I had almost said
conspiracy against the rights of conscience, as I have
described it. Literature and science have been embodied
in great institutions in order to put it down. Noble
buildings have been reared as fortresses against that
spiritual, invisible influence which is too subtle for
science and too profound for literature. Chairs in
Universities have been made the seats of an antagonist
tradition. Public writers, day after day, have indoc-
trinated the minds of innumerable readers with theories
subversive of its claims. As in Roman times, and in
the middle age, its supremacy was assailed by the arm ol
physical force, so now the intellect is put in operation to
sap the foundations of a power which the sword could
not destroy. We are told that conscience is but a twist
in primitive and untutored man ; that its dictate is an
imagination ; that the ver)"^ notion of guiltiness, which
that dictate enforces, is simply irrational, for how can
there possibly be freedom of will, how can there be con-
sequent responsibility, in that infinite eternal network oi
cause and effect, in which we helplessly lie ? and what
retribution have we to fear, when we have had no real
choice to do good or evil?

So much for philosophers ; now let us see what is the
notion of conscience in this day in the popular mind.

2 50 Conscience.

I

There, no more than in the intellectual world, does
"conscience" retain the old, true, Catholic meaning of
the word. There too the idea, the presence of a Moral
Governor is far away from the use of it, frequent and
emphatic as that use of it is. When men advocate the
rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of
the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed,
of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking,
writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their
humour, without any thought of God at all. They do
not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they
demand, what they think is an Englishman's prerogative,
for each to be his own master in all things, and to profess
what he pleases, asking no one's leave, and accounting
priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably im-
pertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to
perdition, if he like it, in his own way. Conscience has
rights because it has duties ; but in this age, with a large
portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom
of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a
Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen
obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no
religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to
go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all
relii^ions and to be an impartial critic of each of them.
Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has
been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen
centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have
mistaken for it, if they had. It i» the right of self-
wiU.

And now I shall turn aside for a moment to show

Conscience. 251

how it is that the Popes of our century have been
misunderstood by the English people, as if they really
were speaking against conscience in the true sense of the
word, when in fact they were speaking against it in the
various false senses, philosophical or popular, which in
this day are put upon the word. The present Pope, in
his Encyclical of 1864, Quardd curd, speaks (as will come
before us in the next section) against " liberty of con-
science,''' and he refers to his predecessor, Gregory XVI.,
who, in his Mirari vos, calls it a " deliramentum/' It is
a rule in formal ecclesiastical proceedings, as I shall have
occasion to notice lower down, when books or authors
are condemned, to use the very words of the book or
author, and to condemn the words in that particular sense
which they have in their context and their drift, not in
the literal, not in the religious sense, such as the Pope
might recognize, were they in another book or author.
To take a familiar parallel, among many which occur
daily. Protestants speak of the " Blessed Reformation ;"
Catholics too talk of " the Reformation,'^ though they
do not call it blessed. Yet every " reformation " oughtj
from the very meaning of the word, to be good, not bad ;
so that Catholics seem to be implying a eulogy on an
event which, at the same time, they consider a surpassing
evil. Here then they are taking the word and using it
in the popular sense of it, not in the Catholic. They
would say, if they expressed their full meaning, " the
so-called reformation.'^ In like manner, if the Pope
condemned ''the Reformation,'' it would be utterly
sophistical to say in consequence that he had declared
himself against all reforms ; yet this is how Mr. Glad-

252 Conscience.

stone treats him, when he speaks of (so-called) liberty of
conscience. To make this distinction clear, viz., between
the Catholic sense of the word " conscience," and that
sense in which the Pope condemns it, we find in the
Recueil des Allocutions, &c., the words accompanied with
quotation-marks, both in Pope Gregory's and Pope Pius's
Encyclicals, thus: — Gregory's, "Ex hoc putidissimo
• indifferentismi ' fonte," (mind, " indifferentismi " is
under quotation-marks, because the Pope will not make
himself answerable for so unclassical a word) " absurda
ilia fluit ac erronea sententia, seu potius deliramentum,
asserendam esse ac vindicandam cuilibet 'libertatem
conscientise. ' " And that of Pius, " Hand timent erroneam
iUam fovere opinionem a Gregorio XVI. deliramentum
appellatam, nimirum ' libertatem conscientiae ' esse pro-
prium cuiuscunque hominis jus." Both Popes certainly
scoff at the so-called " liberty of conscience," but there
is no scoffing of any Pope, in formal documents addressed
to the faithful at large, at that most serious doctrine, the
right and the duty of following that Divine Authority,
the voice of conscience, on which in truth the Church
herself is built.

So indeed it is ; did the Pope speak against Conscience
in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal
act. He would be cutting the ground from under his
feet. His very mission is to proclaim the moral law, and
to protect and strengthen that" Light which enlighteneth
every man that cometh into the world." On the law
of conscience and its sacredness are founded both his
authority in theory and his power in fact. Whether this
or that particular Pope in this bad world always kept

Conscience. 253

this great truth in view in all he did, it is for history to
telL I am considering here the Papacy in its office and
its duties, and in reference to those who acknowledge
its claims. They are not bound by the Pope's personal
character or private acts, but by his formal teaching.
Thus viewing his position, we shall find that it is by the
universal sense of right and wrong, the consciousness
of transgression, the pangs of guilt, and the dread of
retribution, as first principles deeply lodged in the hearts
of men, it is thus and only thus, that he has gained his
footing in the world and achieved his success. It is his
claim to come from the Divine Lawgiver, in order to
elicit, protect, and enforce those truths which the Law-
giver has sown in our very nature, it is this and this only
that is the explanation of his length of life more than
antediluvian. The championship of the Moral Law and
of conscience is his raison d'etre. The fact of his mission
is the answer to the complaints of those who feel the
insufficiency of the natural light ; and the insufficiency
of that light is the justification of his mission.

All sciences, except the science of Religion, have their
certainty in themselves ; as far as they are sciences, they
consist of necessary conclusions from undeniable pre-
mises, or of phenomena manipulated into general truths
by an irresistible induction. But the sense of right and
wrong, which is the first element in religion, is so deli-
cate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so
subtle in its argumentative methods, so impressible by
education, so biassed by pride and passion, so unsteady
in its course, that, in the struggle for existence amid the
various exercises and triumphs of the human intellect.

254 Conscience.

this sense is at once the highest of all teachers, yet the
least luminous ; and the Church, the Pope, the Hierarchy
are, in the Divine purpose, the supply of an urgent
demand. Natural Religion, certain as are its grounds
and its doctrines as addressed to thoughtful, serious
minds, needs, in order that it may speak to mankind
with effect and subdue the world, to be sustained and
completed by Revelation.

In saying all this, of course I must not be supposed
to be limiting the Revelation of which the Church is the
keeper to a mere republication of the Natural Law ; but
still it is true, that, though Revelation is so distinct
from the teaching of nature and beyond it, yet it is not
independent of it, nor without relations towards it. but
is its complement, reassertion, issue, embodiment, and
interpretation. The Pope, who comes of Revelation, has
no jurisdiction over Nature. If, under the plea of his
revealed prerogatives, he neglected his mission of
preaching truth, justice, mercy, and peace, much more
if he trampled on the consciences of his subjects, — if he
had done so all along, as Protestants say, then he could
not have lasted all these many centuries till now, so as
to supply a mark for their reprobation. Dean Milman
has told us above, how faithful he was to his duty
in the medieval time, and how successful Afterwards,
for a while the Papal chair was filled by men who gave
themselves up to luxury, security, and a Pagan kind of
Christianity ; and we all know what amoral earthquake
was the consequence, and how the Church lost, thereby,
and has lost to this day, one-half of Europe. The
Popes could not have recovered from so terrible a cata-

Conscience. 255

strophe, as they have done, had they not returned to their
first and better ways, and the grave lesson of the past is
in itself the guarantee of the future.

Such is the relation of the ecclesiastical power to the
human conscience : — however, a contrary view may be
taken of it. It may be said that no one doubts that the
Pope's power rests on those weaknesses of human nature,
that religious sense, which in ancient days Lucretius
noted as the cause of the worst ills of our race ; that he
uses it dexterously, forming under shelter of it a false
code of morals for his own aggrandisement and tyranny ;
and that thus conscience becomes his creature and his
slave, doing, as if on a divine sanction, his will ; so that
in the abstract indeed and in idea it is free, but never
free in fact, never able to take a flight of its own, inde-
pendent of him, any more than birds whose wings are
clipped ; — moreover, that, if it were able to exert a will
of its own, then there would ensue a collision more
unmanageable than that between the Church and the
State, as being in one and the same subject-matter —
viz., religion; for what would become of the Pope's
*' absolute authority," as Mr. Gladstone calls it, if the
private conscience had an absolute authority also ?

I wish to answer this important objection distinctly.

1. First, I am using the word ** conscience " in the
high sense in which I have already explained it, — not aa
a fancy or an opinion, but as a dutiful obedience to what
claims to be a divine voice, speaking within us; and
that this is the view properly to be taken of it, I shall
not attempt to prove here, but shall assume it as a first
principle.

256 Conscience.

2. Secondly, I observe that conscience is not a judg-
ment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine,
but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be
done or not done. " Conscience/' says St. Thomas, " is
the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which
we judge what hie et nunc is to be done as being good, or
to be avoided as evil.'' Hence conscience cannot come
into direct collision with the Church's or the Pope's
infallibility; which is engaged on general proposi-
tions, and in the condemnation of particular and given
errors.

3. Next, I observe that, conscience being a practical
dictate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope's
authority only when the Pope legislates, or gives parti-
cular orders, and the like. But a Pope is not infallible
in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of
state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy.
Let it be observed that the Vatican Council has left him
just as it found him here. Mr. Gladstone's language on
this point is to me quite unintelligible. Why, instead of
using vague terms, does he not point out precisely the
very words by which tbe Council has made the Pope in
his acts infallible ? Instead of so doing, he assumes a
conclusion which is altogether false. He says, p. 34,
" First comes the Pope's infallibility:" then in the next
page he insinuates that, under his infallibility, come acts
of excommunication, as if the Pope could not make mis-
takes in this field of action. He says, p. 35, " It may
be sought to plead that the Pope does not propose
to invade the country, to seize Woolwich, or burn
Portsmouth. He will only, at the worst, excommunicate

Conscience. 257

opponents. ... Is this a good answer? After all, even
in the Middle Ages, it was not by the direct action of
fleets and armies of their own that the Popes contended
with kings who were refractory; it was mainly by inter-
dicts," &c. What have excommunication and interdict
to do with Infallibility ? Was St. Peter infallible on
that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him?
was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his
communion the Asiatic Churches? or Liberius when in
like manner he excommunicated Athanasius ? And, to
come to later times, was Gregory XIII., when he had
a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre?
or Paul IV, in his conduct towards Elizabeth ? or
Sextus V. when he blessed the Armada? or Urban VIII.
when he persecuted Galileo ? No CathoKc ever pretends
that these Popes were infallible in these acts. Since
then infallibility alone could block the exercise of con-
science, and the Pope is not infallible in that subject-
matter in which conscience is of supreme authority, no
dead-lock, such as is implied in the objection which I
am answering, can take place between conscience and
the Pope.

4. But, of course, I have to say again, lest I should be
misunderstood, that when I speak of Conscience, I mean
conscience truly so called. When it has the right of
opposing the supreme, though not infallible Authority
of the Pope, it must be something more than that miser-
able counterfeit which, as I have said above, now goes
by the name. If in a particular case it is to be taken as
a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to
prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon

258 Conscience.

serious thought, prayer, and all available means of
arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question.
And further, obedience to the Pope is what is called " in
possession ; " that is, the onusprohandi of establishing a
case against him lies, as in all cases of exception, on the
side of conscience. Unless a man is able to say to him-
self, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and
dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to
obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it.
Primd facie it is his bounden duty, even from a senti-
ment of loyalty, to believe the Pope right and to act
accordingly. He must vanquish that mean, ungenerous,
selfish, vulgar spirit of his nature, which, at the very
first rumour of a command, places itself in opposition to
the Superior who gives it, asks itself whether he is not
exceeding his right, and rejoices, in a moral and prac»
tical matter to commence with scepticism. He must
have no wilful determination to exercise a right of
thinking, saying, doing just what he pleases, the ques-
tion of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, the duty if
possible of obedience, the love of speaking as his Head
speaks, and of standing in all cases on his Head's side,
being simply discarded. If this necessary rule were
observed, collisions between the Pope's authority and the
authority of conscience would be very rare. On the
other hand, in the fact that, after all, in extraordinary
cases, the conscience of each individual is free, we have a
safeguard and security, were security necessary (which is
a most gratuitous supposition), that no Pope ever will
be able, as the objection supposes, to create a false con-
science for his own ends.

Conscience. 259

Now, I shall end this part of the subject, for I have
not done with it altogether, by appealing to various of
our theologians in evidence that, in what I have been
saying, I have not misrepresented Catholic doctrine on
these important points.

That is, on the duty of obeying our conscience at all
hazards.

I have already quoted the words which Cardinal
Gousset has adduced from the Fourth Lateran ; that
" He who acts against his conscience loses his soul."
This dictum is brought out with singular fulness and
force in the moral treatises of theologians. The cele-
brated school, known as the Salmanticenses, or Car-
melites of Salamanca, lays down the broad proposition,
that conscience is ever to be obeyed whether it tells truly
or erroneously, and that, whether the error is the fault of
the person thus erring or not.^ They say that this
opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing with them,
to St Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Caietan, Vasquez,
Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, and
fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is de
fide. Of course, if a man is culpable in being in error,
which he might have escaped, had he been more in
earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but
still he must act according to that error, while he is in
it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to be
truth.

1 " Aliqui opinantur quod consciontia erronea non obligat ; Secun-
dam sententiam, et certam, asserentem esse peccatum discordaro a
conscientia erronea, invincibili aut vincibili, tenet D. Thomas ; quern
Bequuntur omnes Scholastici."— T/ieoZ. Moral., t. v. p. 12, ed. 1728.

S 2

26o Conscience,

Thus, if the Pope told the English Bishops to order
their priests to stir themselves energetically in favour of
teetotalism, and a particular priest was fully persuaded
that abstinence from wine, &c., was practicallya Gnostic
error, and therefore felt he could not so exert himself
without sin ; or suppose there was a Papal order to hold
lotteries in each mission for some religious object, and a
priest could say in God's sight that he believed lotteries
to be morally wrong, that priest in either of these cases
would commit a sin liic et nunc if he obeyed the Pope,
whether he was right or wrong in his opinion, and, if
wrong, although he had not taken proper pains to get
at the truth of the matter.

Busenbaum, of the Society of Jesus, whose work I
have already had occasion to notice, writes thus : — " A
heretic, as long as he judges his sect to be more or
equally deserving of belief, has no obligation to believe
[in the Church]." And he continues, " When men who
have been brought up in heresy, are persuaded from boy-
hood that we impugn and attack the word of God, that
we are idolators, pestilent deceivers, and therefore are to
be shunned as pests, they cannot, while this persuasion
lasts, with a safe conscience, hear us." — t. 1, p. 54.

Antonio Corduba, a Spanish Franciscan, states the
doctrine with still more point, because he makes mention
of Superiors. " In no manner is it lawful to act against
conscience, even though a Law, or a Superior com-
mands it." — De Conscicnt., p. 138.

And the French Dominican, Natalis Alexander: —
"If, in the judgment of conscience, through a mistaken
conscience, a man is persuaded that what his Superior

Conscience. 261

commands is displeasing^ to God, he is bound not to
o\iQyr—Theol. t. 2, p. 32.

The word " Superior '^ certainly includes the Pope ;
Cardinal Jacobatius brings out this point clearly in
his authoritative work on Councils, which is contained
in Labbe^s Collection, introducing the Pope by name :
— " If it were doubtful,^' he says, " whether a precept
[of the Pope] be a sin or not, we must determine
thus : — that, if he to whom the precept is addressed has
a conscientious sense that it is a sin and injustice, first
it is duty to put off that sense ; but, if he cannot, nor
conform himself to the judgment of the Pope, in that
case it is his duty to follow his own private conscience,
and patiently to bear it, if the Pope punishes him." —
lib. iv. p. 241.

Would it not be well for Mr. Gladstone to bring
passages from our recognized authors as confirmatory of
his view of our teaching, as those which I have quoted
are destructive of it ? and they must be passages declar-
ing, not only that the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but
that there are no exceptions to the rule, for exceptions
there must be in all concrete matters.

I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to
bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed
does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink — to the
Pope, if you please, — still, to Conscience first, and to
the Pope afterwards.

262 The Encyclical of 1804.

§ 6. The Encyclical of 1861.

The subject of Conscience leads us to the Encyclical,
which is one of the special objects of Mr. Gladstone's
attack ; and to do justice to it, I must, as in other
sections, begin from an earlier date than 1864.

Modern Rome then is not the only place where the
traditions of the old Empire, its principles, provisions,
and practices, have been held in honour ; they have been
retained, they have been maintained in substance, as the
basis of European civilization down to this day, and
notably among ourselves. In the Anglican establish-
ment the king took the place of the Pope ; but the
Pope's principles kept possession. When the Pope was
ignored, the relations between Pope and king were
ignored too, and therefore we had nothing to do any
more with the old Imperial laws which shaped those
relations; but the old idea of a Christian Polity was
still in force. It was a first principle with England
that there was one true religion, that it was inherited
from an earlier time, that it came of direct Kevelation,
that it was to be supported to the disadvantage, to saj^
the least, of other religions, of private judgment, of per-
sonal conscience. The Puritans held these principles as
firmly as the school of Laud. As to the Scotch Presby-

The Encyclical of 1864. 263

terians, we read enough about them in the pages of
Mr. Buckle. The Stuarts went, but still their principles
suffered no dethronement : their action was restrained,
but they were still in force^ when this century opened.

It is curious to see how strikingly in this matter the
proverb has been fulfilled, " Out of sight, out of mind."
Men of the present generation, born in the new civiliza-
tion, are shocked to witness in the abiding Papal system
the words, ways, and works of their grandfathers. In
my own lifetime has that old world been alive, and has
gone its way. Who will say that the plea of conscience
was as effectual, sixty years ago, as it is now in England,
for the toleration of every sort of fancy religion ? Had
the Press always that wonderful elbow-room which it has
now ? Might public gatherings be held, arid speeches
made, and republicanism avowed in the time of the
Regency, as is now possible ? Were the thoroughfares
open to monster processions at that date, and the squares
and parks at the mercy of Sunday manifestations?
Could savants in that day insinuate in scientific assemblies
what their hearers mistook for atheism, and artisans
practise it in the centres of political action ? Could
public prints day after day, or week after week, carry
on a war against religion, natural and revealed, as now
is the case? No; law or public opinion would not
suffer it ; we may be wiser or better now, but we were
then in the wake of the Holy Roman Church, and had
been so from the time of the Reformation. We were
faithful to the tradition of fifteen hundred years. All
this was called Toryism, and men gloried in the name ;
now it is called Popc^ry and reviled.

264 The Encyclical ^ 1 864.

When I was young the State had a conscience, and
the Chief Justice of the day pronounced, not as a point
of obsolete law, but as an energetic, living truth, that
Christianity was the law of the land. And by Chris-
tianity was meant pretty much what Bentham calls
Church-of-Englandism, its cry being the dinner toast,
" Church and king." Blackstone, though he wrote a
hundred years ago, was held, I believe, as an authority
on the state of the law in this matter, up to the begin-
ning of this century. On the supremacy of Religion he
writes as follows, that is, as I have abridged him for my
purpose.

" The belief of a future state of rewards and punish-
ments, &c., &c., . . . these are the grand foundation of
all judicial oaths. All moral evidence, all confidence in
human veracity, must be weakened by irreligion, and
overthrown by infidelity. Wherefore all affronts to
Christianity, or endeavours to depreciate its efficacy, are
highly deserving of human punishment. It was enacted
by the statute of William III. that if any person educated
in, and having made prof ession of, the Christian religion,
shall by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking,
deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy
Scriptures to be of divine authority," or again in like
manner, " if any person educated in the Christian religion
shall by writing, &c., deny any one of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity to be God, or maintain that there are more
gods than one, he shall on the first ofience be rendered
incapable to hold any office or place of trust ; and for the
second, be rendered incapable of bringing any action,
being guardian, executor, legatee, or purchaser of lands,

The Encyclical of 1864. 265

and shall suffer three years' imprisonment without bail.
To give room, however, for repentance, if, within four
months after the first conviction, the delinquent will in
open court publicly renounce his error, he is discharged
for that once from all disabilities."

Again : *' those who absent themselves from the divine
worship in the established Church, through total irreli-
gion, and attend the service of no other persuasion,
forfeit one shilling to the poor every Lord's day they so
absent themselves, and £20 to the king, if they continue
such a default for a month together. And if they keep
any inmate, thus irreligiously disposed, in their houses,
they forfeit £10 per month."

Further, he lays down that " reviling the ordinances
of the Church is a crime of a much grosser nature than
the other of non-conformity ; since it carries with it
the utmost indecency, arrogance, and ingratitude; —
indecency, by setting up private judgment in opposition
to public ; arrogance, by treating with contempt and
rudeness what has at least a better chance to be right
than the singular notions of any particular man ; and
ingratitude, by denying that indulgence and liberty of
conscience to the members of the national Church,
which the retainers to every petty conventicle enjoy."

Once more : "In order to secure the established Church
against perils from non-conformists of all denominations,
infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there
are two bulwarks erected, called the Corporation and
Test Acts; by the former, no person can be legally
elected to any ofiice relating to the Government of any
city or corporation, unless, within a twelvemonth before,

266 The Encyclical oj \Z(:>^.

he has received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
according to the rites of the Church of England ; . . •
the other, called the Test Act, directs all officers, civil
and military, to make the declaration against transub-
stantiation within six months after their admission,
and also within the same time to receive the sacrament
according to the usage of the Church of England."
The same test being undergone by all persons who
desired to be naturalized, the Jews also were excluded
from the privileges of Protestant churchmen.

Laws, such as these, of course gave a tone to society,
to all classes, high and low, and to the pubKcations,
periodical or other, which represented public opinion.
Dr. Watson, who was the liberal prelate of his day, in
his answer to Paine, calls him (unless my memory betrays
me) " a child of the devil and an enemy of all righteous-
ness." Cumberland, a man of the world, (here again I
must trust to the memory of many past years) reproaches a
Jewish writer with ingratitude for assailing, as he seems
to have done, a tolerant religious establishment ; and
Gibbon, an unbeliever, feels himself at liberty, in his
posthumous Autobiography, to look down on Priestly,
whose " Socinian shield," he says, " has been repeatedly
pierced by the mighty spear of Horsley, and whose
trumpet of sedition may at length awake the magistrates
of a free country."

Such was the position of free opinion and dissenting
worship in England till quite a recent date, when one
after another the various disabilities which I have been
recounting, and many others besides, melted away, like
snow at spring-tide; and we all wonder how they

The Encyclical oj 1864. 267

could ever have been in force. The cause of this
great revolution is obvious, and its effect inevitable.
Though I profess to be an admirer of the principles now
superseded in themselves, mixed up as they were with
the imperfections and evils incident to everything human,
nevertheless I say frankly I do not see how they could
possibly be maintained in the ascendant. When the
intellect is cultivated, it is as certain that it will develope
into a thousand various shapes, as that infinite hues and
tints and shades of colour will be reflected from the earth's
surface, when the sun-light touches it ; and in matters
of religion the more, by reason of the extreme subtlety
and abstruseness of the mental action by which they are
determined. During the last seventy years, first one
class of the community, then another, has awakened up
to thought and opinion. Their multiform views on
sacred subjects necessarily affected and found expression
in the governing order. The State in past time had a
conscience ; George the Third had a conscience ; but
there were other men at the head of affairs besides him
with consciences, and they spoke for others besides
themselves, and what was to bo done, if he could not
work without them, and they could not work with him,
as far as religious questions came up at the Council-
board ? This brought on a dead-lock in the time of his
successor. The ministry of the day could not agree
together in the policy or justice of keeping up the state
of things which Blackstone describes. The State ought
to have a conscience ; but what if it happened to have
half-a-dozen, or a score, or a hundred, in religiousmatters,
each different from each ? I think Mr. Gladstone has

2 68 TJie Encyclical ^1864.

brought out the difficulties of the situation himself m his
Autobiography. No government could be formed, if
religious unanimity was a mie qua non. What then was
to be done? As a necessary consequence^ the whole
theory of Toryism, hitherto acted on, came to pieces and
went the way of all flesh. This was in the nature of
things. Not a hundred Popes could have hindered it,
unless Providence interposed by an effusion of divine
grace on the hearts of men, which would amount to a
miracle, and perhaps would interfere with human respon-
sibiKty. The Pope has denounced the sentiment that
he ought to come to terms with " progress, liberalism,
and the new civilization." I have no thought at all of
disputing his words. I leave the great problem to the
future. God will guide other Popes to act when Pius
goes, as He has guided him. No one can dislike the
democratic principle more than I do. No one mourns,
for instance, more than I, over the state of Oxford,
given up, alas! to "liberalism and progress," to the
forfeiture of her great medieval motto, " Dominus illu-
minatio mea," and with a consequent call on her to go to
Parliament or the Heralds' College for a new one ; but
what can we do ? All I know is, that Toryism, that is»
loyalty to persons, "springs immortal in the human
breast " ; that religion is a spiritual loyalty ; and that
Catholicity is the only divine form of reKgion. And
thus, in centuries to come, there may be found out some
way of uniting what is free in the new structure of
society with what is authoritative in the old, without any
base compromise with " Progress " and " Liberalism."
But to return : — I have noticed the great revolution in

The Encyclzcal of 1^6^. 269

the state of the Law which has taken place since 1828
for this reason : — to suggest that Englishmen, who
within fifty years kept up the Pope's system, are not
exactly the parties to throw stones at the Pope for

keeping it up still.

But I go further : — in fact the Pope has not said on
this subject of conscience (for that is the main subject
in question) what Mr. Gladstone makes him say. On
this point I desiderate that fairness in his Pamphlet
which we have a right to expect from him ; and in truth
his unfairness is wonderful. He says, pp. 15, 16, that
the Holy See has " condemned " the maintainers of " the
Liberty of the Press, of conscience, and of worship."
Again, that the "Pontiff has condemned free speech,
free writing, a free press, toleration of non-conformity,
liberty of conscience," p. 42. Now, is not this accusa-
tion of a very wholesale character ? Who would not
understand it to mean that the Pope had pronounced a
universal anathema against all these liberties in toto,
and that English law, on the contrary, allowed those
liberties in toto, which the Pope had condemned ? But
the Pope has done no such thing. The real question is,
in w*hat respect, in what measure, has he spoken against
liberty : the grant of liberty admits of degrees. Black-
stone is careful to show how much more liberty the law
allowed to the subject in his day, how much less severe
it was in its safeguards against abuse, than it had used
to be ; but he never pretends that it is conceivable tliat
liberty should have no boundary at all. The very idea
of political society is based upon the principle that each

2 yo The Encyclical of 1 864.

member of it gives up a portion of his natural liberty
for advantages which are greater than that liberty ;
and the question is, whether the Pope, in any act of his
which touches us Catholics, in any ecclesiastical or theo-
logical statement of his, has propounded any principle,
doctrine, or view, which is not carried out in fact at
this time in British courts of law, and would not be
conceded by Blackstone. I repeat, the very notion of
human society is a relinquishment, to a certain point,
of the liberty of its members individually, for the sake
of a common security. Would it be fair on that account
to say that the British Constitution condemns all liberty
of conscience in word and in deed ?

"VVe Catholics, on our part, are denied liberty of our
religion by English law in various ways, but we do not
complain, because a limit must be put to even innocent
liberties, and we acquiesce in it for the social compen-
sations which we gain on the whole. Our school boys
cannot play cricket on Sunday, not even in country
places, for fear of being taken before a magistrate and
fined. In Scotland we cannot play music on Sundays.
Here we cannot sound a bell for church. I have had
before now a lawyer's authority for saying that a religious
procession is illegal even within our own premises. Till
the last year or two we could not call our Bishops by the
titles which our Religion gave them. A mandate from
the Home Secretary obliged us to put off our cassocks
when we went out of doors. We are forced to pay rates
for the establishment of secular schools which we cannot
use. and then we have to find means over again for
))iulding schools of our own. Why is not all this as much

The Encyclical of 1 864. 2 7 1

an outrage on our conscience as the prohibition upon
Protestants at Rome, Naples, and Malaga, before the
late political changes — {not, to hold their services in a
private house, or in the ambassador's, or outside the
walls), — but to flaunt them in public and thereby to
irritate the natives ? Mr. Gladstone seems to think it
is monstrous for the Holy See to sanction such a pro-
hibition. If so, may we not call upon him to gain for
us in Birmingham " the free exercise of our religion,"
in making a circuit of the streets in our vestments, and
chanting the " Pange Lingua," and the protection of the
police against the mob which would be sure to gather
round us — particularly since we are English born, where-
as the Protestants at Malaga or Naples were foreigners.^
But we have the good sense neither to feel such disabilities
a hardship, nor to protest against them as a grievance.

But now for the present state of English Law : — I
say seriously Mr. Gladstone's accusation of us avails
quite as much against Blackstone's four volumes, against
laws in general, against the social contract, as against
the Pope. What the Pope has said, I will show pre-
sently : first let us see what the statute book has to tell
us about the present state of English liberty of speech,
of the press, and of worship.

First, as to public speaking and meetings : — do we
allow of seditious language, or of insult to the sovereign,
or his representatives ? Blackstone sa)^s, that a misprision
is committed against him by speaking or writing against

■ " Hominibus illuc immigrantibus." These words Mr. Glail tone
omits ; also ho translates " publicum " " free," pp. 17, 18, aa if worship
oould not bo free without being public. %

2 72 The Encyclical of 1 864.

him, cursing or wishing him ill^ giving out scandalous
stories concerning him, or doing anything that may tend
to lessen him in the esteem of his subjects, may weaken
his government, or may raise jealousies between him
and his people. Also he says, that " threatening and
reproachful words to any judge sitting in the Courts^*
involve " a high misprision, and have been punished
with large fines, imprisonment, and corporal punish-
ment." And we may recollect quite lately the judges
of the Queen's Bench prohibited public meetings and
speeches which had for their object the issue of a case
then proceeding in Court.

Then, again, as to the Press, there are two modes of
bridling it, one before the printed matter is published,
the other after. The former is the method of censorehip,
the latter that of the law of libel. Each is a restriction
on the liberty of the Press. We prefer the latter. I
never heard it said that the law of libel was of a mild
character ; and I never heard that the Pope, in any
Brief or Rescript, had insisted on a censorship.

Lastly, liberty of worship : as to the English restric-
tion of it, we have had a notable example of it in the
last session of Parliament, and we shall have still
more edifying illustrations of it in the next, though
certainly not from Mr. Gladstone. The ritualistic
party, in the free exercise of their rights, under the
shelter of the Anglican rubrics, of certain of the Angli-
can offices, of the teaching of their great divines, and of
their conscientious interpretation of the Thirty-nine
Articles have, at their own expense, built churches for
worship after their own way ; and, on the other hand,

Tlu Encyclical of 1864. 273

Parliament and the newspapers are attempting to put
them down, not so much bec&\use they are acting against
the tradition and the law of the Establishment, but be-
cause of the national dislike and dread of the principles
and doctrines which their worship embodies.

When Mr, Gladstone has a right to say broadly, by
reason of these restrictions, that British law and the
British people condemn the maintainors of liberty of
conscience, of the press, and of worship, in toto, then
may he say so of the Encyclical, on account of those
words which to him have so frightful a meaning.

But now let us see, on the other hand, what the pro-
position really is, the condemnation of which leads him
to say, that the Pope has unrestrictedly " condemned
those who maintain the liberty of the Press, the liberty
of conscience and of worship, and the liberty of speech,"
p. 16, — has " condemned free speech, free writing, and
a free press," p. 42. The condemned proposition speaks
as follows : —

" Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherent
right of all men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in every
rightly constituted society. 3. It is a right to all sorts
of Uherty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it ought
not to be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical or
civil, as far as public speaking, printing, or any other
public manifestation of opinions is concerned."

Now, is there any government on earth that could
stand the strain of such a doctrine as this ? It starts
by taking for granted that there are certain Eights of
man ; Mr. Gladstone so considers, I believe ; but other
deep thinkers of the day are quite of another opinion ;

274 The Encyclical of 1864.

however, if the doctrine of the proposition is true, then
the right of conscience, of which it speaks, being in-
herent in man, is of universal force — that is, all over
the world — also, says the proposition, it is a right
which must be recognised by all rightly constituted
governments. Lastly, what is the right of conscience
thus inherent in our nature, thus necessary for all
states ? The proposition tells us. It is the liberty of
every one to give fvMic utterance, in every possible shape,
by every possible channel, without any let or hindrance
from God or man, to all his notions lohatsoever,^

Which, of the two in this matter is peremptory and
sweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesis him-
self, or the Pope who has condemned what the other has
uttered ? "Which of the two is it who would force upon
the world a universal ? All that the Pope has done is to
deny a universal, and what a universal ! a universal liberty
to all men to say out whatever doctrines they may hold by
preaching, or by the press, uncurbed by church or civU
power. Does not this bear out what I said in the fore-
going section of the sense in which Pope Gregory denied
a " liberty of conscience " ? It is a liberty of self-will.
What if a man's conscience embraces the duty of regi-
cide ? or infanticide ? or free love ? You may say that
in England the good sense of the nation would stifle and
extinguish such atrocities. True, but the proposition
says that it is the \evy right of every one, by nature, in

* " Jus civibus inesse ad omnimodam libertatem, nulld vel eccle-
siastica vel civili auctoritate coarctandam, quo suos conceptus gwos-
cunque sive voce, sive typis, sive aliS, ratione, palam jiuhliceque mitiii'
festare ac declarare valeant."

The Encyclical of 1864. 275

every well constituted society. If so, why have we
gagged the Press in Ireland on the ground of its being
seditious ? Why is not India brought within the British
constitution ? It seems a light epithet for the Pope to
use, when he calls such a doctrine of conscience delira-
mentum : of all conceivable absurdities it is the wildest
and most stupid. Has Mr. Gladstone really no better
complaint to make against the Pope's condemnations
than this ?

Perhaps he will say. Why should the Pope take the
trouble to condemn what is so wild?^ But he does:
and to say that he condemns something which he does
not condemn, and then to inveigh against him on the
ground of that something else, is neither just nor
logical.

^ This question is directly answered, in the Postscrij)t on this Sec-
tion, infr. pp. 362—364.

T 2

276 The Syllabus.

§ 7. The Syllahu%.

Now I come to the Syllabus of " Errors," the publica-
tion of which has been exclaimed against in England as
such a singular enormitj'', and especially by Mr. Glad-
stone. The condemnation of theological statements
which militate against the Catholic Faith is of long
usage in the Church. Such was the condemnation of
the heresies of Wickliffe in the Council of Constance ;
such those of Huss, of Luther, of Baius, of Jansenius ;
such the condemnations which were published by Sextus
IV., Innocent XI., Clement XI., Benedict XIV., and
other Popes. Such condemnations are no invention of
Pius IX. The Syllabus is a collection of such erroneous
propositions as he has noted during his Pontificate ;
there are eighty of them.

What does the word " Syllabus " mean ? A collec-
tion ; the French translation calls it a " Resume;" — a
Collection of what ? I have already said, of proposi-
tions,— propositions which the Pope in his various Allo-
cutions, Encyclicals, and like documents, since he has
been Pope, has pronounced to be Errors. Who gathered
the propositions out of these Papal documents, and put
them together in one ? We do not know ; all we know
is that, by the Pope's command, this Collection of Errors
was sent by his Foreign Minister to the Bishops. He,

The Syllabus. 277

Cardinal Antonellij sent to them at the same time the
Encyclical of December, 1864, which is a document of
dogmatic authority. The Cardinal says, in his circular
to them, that the Pope ordered him to do so. The
Pope thought, he says, that perhaps the Bishops had
not seen some of his Allocutions, and other authori-
tative letters and speeches of past years ; in consequence
the Pope had had the Errors which, at one time or
other he had therein noted, brought together into one,
and that for the use of the Bishops.

Such is the Syllabus and its object. There is not a
word in it of the Pope's own writing ; there is nothing
in it at all but the Erroneous Propositions themselves —
that is, except the heading " A Syllabus, containing the
principal Errors of our times, which are noted in the
Consistorial Allocutions, in the Encyclicals, and in other
Apostolical Letters of our most Holy Lord, Pope Pius
IX." There is one other addition — viz., after each
Error a reference is given to the Allocution, Encyclical,
or other document in which it is proscribed.

The Syllabus, then, is to be received with profound
submission, as having been sent by the Pope's authority
to the Bishops of the world. It certainly comes to them
with his indirect extrinsic sanction ; but intrinsically,
and viewed in itself, it is nothing more than a digest
of certain Errors made by an anonymous writer. There
would be nothing on the face of it, to show that the
Pope had ever seen it, page by page, unless the
'' Imprimatur " implied in the Cardinal's letter had
been an evidence of this. It has no mark or seal put
upon it which gives it a direct relation to the Pope.

278 The Syllabus.

Who is its author? Some select theologian or high
official doubtless ; can it be Cardinal Antonelli himself ?
No surely : anyhow it is not the Pope, and I do not
see my way to accept it for what it is not. I do not
speak as if I had any difficulty in recognizing and con-
demning the Errors which it catalogues, did the Pope
himself bid me ; but he has not as yet done so, and he
cannot delegate his Magisterium to another. I wish
with St. Jerome to " speak with the Successor of the
Fisherman and the Disciple of the Cross.*' I assent to
that which the Pope propounds in faith and morals,
but it must be he speaking officially, personally, and
immediately, and not any 6ne else, who has a hold over
me. The Syllabus is not an official act, because it is
not signed, for instance, with " Datum Pomse, Pius P.
P. IX.," or " sub annulo Piscatoris,'' or in some other
way ; it is not a personal, for he does not address his
" Yenerabiles Fratres,*' or " Dilecto Filio/* or speak as
** Pius Episcopus ;" it is not an immediate, for it comes
to the Bishops only through the Cardinal Minister of
State.

If, indeed, the Pope should ever make that anonymous
compilation directly his own, then of course I should bow
to it and accept it as strictly his. He might have done
so ; he might do so still ; again, he might issue a fresh
list of Propositions in addition, and pronounce them to
be Errors, and I should take that condemnation to be of
dogmatic authority, because I believe him appointed by
his Divine Master to determine in the detail of faith and
morals what is true and what is false. But such an act
of his he would formally authenticate ; he would speak

The Syllabus, 279

in his own name^as Leo X. or Innocent XI. did, by Bull
or Letter Apostolic. Or, if he wished to speak less
authoritatively, he would speak through a Sacred Con-
gregation ; but the Syllabus makes no claim to be
acknowledged as the word of the Pope. Moreover, if
the Pope drew up that catalogue, as it may be called, he
would have pronoimced in it some definite judgment on
the propositions themselves. What gives cogency to
this remark is, that a certain number of Bishops and
theologians, when a Syllabus was in contemplation, did
wish for such a formal act on the part of the Pope, and
in consequence they drew up for his consideration the
sort of document on which, if he so willed, he might
suitably stamp his infallible sanction ; but he did not
accede to their prayer. This composition is contained
in the " Recueil des Allocutions" &c., and is far more
than a mere "collection of errors." It is headed, '' Theses
ad Apostolicam Sedem delatae cum censuris," &c., and
each error from first to last has the ground of its con-
demnation marked upon it. There are sixty-one of
them. The first is " impia, injuriosa religioni," &c. ;
the second is " complexive sumpta, falsa," &c. ; the
third the same ; the fourth, " hseretica,'' and so on, the
epithets affixed having a distinct meaning, and denoting
various degrees of error. Such a document, unlike the
Syllabus, has a substantive character.

Here I am led to interpose a remark ; — it is plain,
then, that there are those near, or with access, to the
Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much furthei
in the way of assertion and command, than the divine
Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits : so

28o The Syllabus.

that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must he
carefully scrutinized and weighed, before we can be sure
what really he has said. Utterances which must be re-
ceived as coming from an Infallible Voice are not made
every day, indeed they are very rare ; and those which
are by some persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do
not always turn out what they are said to be ; nay, even
such as are really dogmatic must be read by definite
rules and by traditional principles of interpretation,
which are as cogent and unchangeable as the Pope's own
decisions themselves. What I have to say presently
will illustrate this truth ; meanwhile I use the circum-
stance which has led to my mentioning it, for another
purpose here. When intelligence which we receive
from Rome startles and pains us from its seemingly
harsh or extreme character, let us learn to have some
little faith and patience, and not take for granted that
all that is reported is the truth. There are those who
wish and try to carry measures, and declare they have
carried, when they have not carried them. How many
strong things, for instance, have been reported with a
sort of triumph on one side and with irritation and
despondency on the other, of what the Vatican Council
has done ; whereas the very next year after it. Bishop
Fessler, the Secretary General of the Council, brings
out his work on *'True and False Infallibility,^' reducing
what was sa '.d to be so monstrous to its true dimensions.
When I see all this going on, those grand lines in the
Greek Tragedy alwaj^s rise on my lips —
OvTTOTe Tav Aio9 dpfxovtav

OvarSiv irape^iacn, ^ovkai,—

The Syllabus. 281

and still more the consolation given us by a Divine
Speaker that, though the swelling sea is so threatening
to look at, yet there is One who rules it and says,
" Hitherto shalt thou come and no further, and here
shall thy proud waves be stayed ! "

But to return : — the Syllabus then has no dogmatic
force ; it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as
a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of
obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by
having recourse to the original and authoritative docu-
ments, (Allocutions and the like,) to which it pointedly
refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents,
which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even
be called an echo of the Apostolic Yoice ; for, in matters
in which wording is so important, it is not an exact
transcript of the words of the Pope, ia its account of the
errors condemned, — just as is natural in what is pro-
fessedly an index for reference.

Mr. Gladstone indeed wishes to unite the Syllabus to
that Encyclical which so moved him in December, 1864,
and says that the Errors noted in the Syllabus are aU
brought under the infallible judgment pronounced on
certain errors specified in the Encyclical. This is an
untenable assertion. He says of the Pope and of the
Syllabus, p. 20 : " These are not mere opinions of the
Pope himself, nor even are they opinions which he might
paternally recommend to the pious consideration of the
faithful. With the promulgation of his opinions is
unhappily combined, in the Encyclical Letter which
virtually, though not expreH^hj, includes the whole, a com-
mand to all his spiritual children (from which command

2«2

The Syllabus.

we, the disobedient children, are in no way excluded) to
hold them," and Mr. Gladstone appeals in proof of this to
the language of the Encyclical ; but let us see what that
language is. The Pope speaks thus, as Mr. Gladstone
himself quotes him: "All and each of the wrong opinions
and doctrines, mentioned one by one in this Encyclical
(hisce Ulteris), by our Apostolical authority, we reprobate,
&c/' He says then, as plainly as words can speak, that
the wrong opinions which in this passage he condemns,
are specified in the Encyclical, not outside of it ; and,
when we look into the earlier part of it, there they are,
about ten of them ; there is not a single word in the
Encyclical to show that the Pope in it was alluding to
the Syllabus. The Syllabus does not exist, as far as the
language of the Encyclical is concerned. This gratuitous
assumption seems to me marvellously unfair.

The only connexion between the Syllabus and the
Encyclical is one external to them both, the connexion of
time and organ ; Cardinal Antonelli sending them both
to the Bishops with the introduction of one and the same
letter. In that letter he speaks to the Bishops thus, as
T paraphrase his words : ' — " The Holy Father sends you

' His actual words (abridged) are these :— " Notre T.S.S. Pius IX.,
n'a jamais cess^ de proscrire les principales erreurs de notre tr^s-
malheureuse epoque, par ses Encycliques, et par ses Allocutions, &c.
Mais comme il peut arriver que tons les actes pontificaux ne per.
viennent pas h, chacun des Ordinaires, le meme Souverain Pontife a
vonlu que Ton redigeat un Syllabus de ces memes erreurs, destine k
etre envoye k tons les Eveques, &o. II m'a ensuite ordonn^ de veiller
a ce que ce Syllabus iuiprime fut envoye a V.E.R. dans ce temps oil
le meme Souverain Pontife a juge h, propos d'ecrire un autre Lettre
Enoyclique. Ainsi, je m'empresse d'envoyer h, V.E. ce Syllabus aveo
ges Jjettres."

The Syllabus. 283

by me a list, which he has caused to be drawn up and
printed, of the errors which he has in various formal
documents, in the course of the last eighteen years,
noted. With that list of errors, he is also sending
you a new Encyclical, which he has judged it apropos
to write to the Catholic Bishops ; — so I send you both at
once/'

The Syllabus, then, is a list, or rather an index, of the
Pope's Encyclical or Allocutional " proscriptions," an
index raisonne, — (not alphabetical, as is found, for in-
stance, in Bellarmine's or Lambertini's works,) — drawn
up by the Pope's orders, out of his paternal care for the
flock of Christ, and conveyed to the Bishops through his
Minister of State. But we can no more accept it as de
fide, as a dogmatic document, than any other index or
table of contents. Take a parallel case, mutatis mutandis :
Counsel's opinion being asked on a point of law, he goes
to his law books, writes down his answer, and, as autho-
rity, refers his client to 23 George III., c. 5, s. 11 ;
11 Victoria, c. 12, s. 19, and to Thomas v. Smith, Att.
Gen. V. Roberts, and Jones v. Owen. Who would say
that that sheet of foolscap has force of law, when it was
nothing more than a list of references to the Statutes
of the Realm, or Judges' decisions, in which the Law's
voice really was found ?

The value of the Syllabus, then, lies in its references ;
but of these Mr. Gladstone has certainly availed himself
very little. Yet, in order to see the nature and extent
of the blame cast on any proposition of the Syllabus, it
is absolutely necessary to turn out the passage of the
Allocution, Encyclical, or other document, in which the

284 The Sy Habits.

error is noted ; for the wording of the errors which the
Syllabus contains is to be interpreted by its references.
Instead of this Mr. Gladstone uses forms of speech
about the Syllabus which only excite in me fresh wonder.
Indeed, he speaks upon these ecclesiastical subjects
generally in a style in which priests and parsons are ac-
cused by their enemies of speaking concerning geology.
For instance, the Syllabus, as we have seen, is a list or
index ; but he calls it " extraordinary declarations,"
p. 21. How can a list of errors be a series of Pontifical
" Declarations " ?

However, perhaps he would say that, in speaking of
" Declarations," he was referring to the authoritative
allocutions, &c., which I have accused him of neglecting.
With all my heart; but then let us see how the statements
in these allocutions fulfil the character he gives of them.
He calls them " Extraordinary declarations on personal
and private duty," p. 21, and "stringent condemna-
tions," p. 19. Now, I certainly must grant that some
are stringent, but only some. One of the most severe
that I have found among them is that in the Apostolic
Letter of June 10, 1851, against some heretic priest out
at Lima, whose elaborate work in six volumes against the
Curia Romana, is pronounced to be in its various state-
ments "scandalous, rash, false, schismatical, injurious to
the Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils, impious
and heretical." It well deserved to be called by these
names, which are not terms of abuse, but each with its
definite meaning ; and, if Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of
the condemnations, had confined his epithet "stringent"
to it, no one would have complained of hira. And

The Syllabus. 285

another severe condemnation is that of the works of
Professor Nuytz. But let us turn to some other of the
so-called condemnations, in order to ascertain whether
they answer to his general description of them.

1. For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the
'•' erroneous Propositions"), that, " It is no longer expe-
dient that the Catholic Religion should be established
to the exclusion of all others." When we turn to the
Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the
Syllabus, what do we find there ? First, that the Pope
was speaking, not of States universally, but of one
particular State, Spain, definitely Spain ; secondly, that
he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or
categorically, but was protesting against the breach in
many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish
government ; further, that he was not referring to any
work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating
any proposition at all ; nor, on the other hand, using any
word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher
terms of the Government in question than an expression
of "^ his wonder and distress." And again, taking the
Pope's remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of
complaint to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in
their legislation upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers,
and others, that the Pope merely does not think it expe-
dient ioreveri/ state /ro7n this time forth to tolerate every
sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the
Church at once ? for this is all that he denies. As in
the instance in the foregoing section, he does but deny
a universal, which the " erroneous proposition" asserts
without any explanation.

286 The Syllabus.

2. Another of Mr. Gladstone's "stringent Condemna-
tions" (his 18th) is the Pope's denial of the proposition
that " the Roman Pontiff can and ought to come to terms
with Progress, Liberalism, and the New Civilization/'
I turn to the Allocution of March 18, 1861, and find
there no formal condemnation of this Proposition at all.
The Allocution is a long argument to the effect that the
moving parties in that Progress, Liberalism, and New
Civilization, make use of it so seriously to the injury of
the Faith and the Church, that it is both out of the
power, and contrary to the duty, of the Pope to come
to terms with them. Nor would those prime movers
themselves differ from him here ; certainly in this
country it is the common cry that Liberalism is and will
be the Pope's destruction, and they wish and mean it so
to be. This Allocution on the subject is at once beauti-
ful, dignified, and touching : and I cannot conceive how
Mr. Gladstone should make stringency his one charac-
teristic of these condemnations, especially when after all
there is here no condemnation at all.

3. Take, again, Mr. Gladstone's 15th— "That the
abolition of Temporal Power of the Popedom would be
highly advantageous to the Church.'* Neither can I
find in the Pope's Allocution any formal condemnation
whatever of this proposition, much less a " stringent "
one. Even the Syllabus does no more in the case of any
one of the eighty, than to call it an " error;" and what
the Pope himself says of this particular error is only
this : — " We cannot but in particular warn and reprove
(monere et redarguere) those who applaud the decree by
which the Roman Pontiff has been despoiled of all the

The Syllabus. 287

honour and dignity of his civil rule, and assert that the
said decree, more than anything else, conduces to the
liberty and prosperity of the Church itself." — Alloc,
April 20, 1849.

4. Take another of his instances, the 17th, the " error"
that '' in countries called Catholic the public exercise of
other religions may laudably be allowed." I have had
occasion to mention already his mode of handling the
Latin text of this proposition — viz., that whereas the
men who were forbidden the public exercise of their
religion were foreigners, who had no right to be in a
country not their own at all, and might fairly have
conditions imposed upon them during their stay there,
nevertheless Mr. Gladstone {apparently through haste)
has left out the word " hominibus iUuc immigrantibus,"
on which so much turns. Next, as I have observed
above, it was only the sufferance of their public worship,
and again of all worships whatsoever, however many
and various, which the Pope blamed ; and further, the
Pope's words do not apply to all States, but specially,
and, as far as the Allocution goes, definitely, to New
Granada.

However, the point I wish to insist upon here is, that
there was in this case no condemned proposition at all,
but it was merely, as in the case of Spain, an act of the
Government which the Pope protested against. The
Pope merely told that Government that that act, and
other acts which they had committed, gave him very
great pain ; that he had expected better things of them ;
that the way they went on was all of a piece ; and they
had his best prayers. Somehow, it seems to me strange,

288 The Syllabus,

for any one to call an expostulation like this one of a
set of " extraordinary declarations " " stringent con-
demnations/'

I am convinced that the more the propositions and
the references contained in the Syllabus are examined,
the more signally will the charge break down, brought
against the Pope on occasion of it : as to those Proposi-
tions which Mr. Gladstone specially selects, some of
them I have already taken in hand, and but few of them
present any difficulty.

5. As to those on Marriage, I cannot follow Mr.
Gladstone's meaning here, which seems to me very con-
fused, and it would be going out of the line of remark
which I have traced out for myself, (and which already
is more extended than I could wish), were I to treat of
them.^

6. His fourth Error, (taken from the Encyclical) that
"Papal judgments and decrees may, without sin, be
disobeyed or differed from,'' is a denial of the principle
of Hooker's celebrated work on Ecclesiastical Polity, and
would be condemned by him as well as by the Pope.
And it is plain to common sense that no society can
stand if its rules are disobeyed. What club or union
would not expel members who refused so to be
bound ?

7. And the 5th ,^ 8 th, and 9th propositions are neces-

* I have observed on them in Postscript on § 7, infr. pp. 368 — 370.

2 Father Coleridge, in his Sermon on " The Abomination of Deso-
lation," observes that, whereas Proposition 5th speaks of "jura,"
Mr. Gladstone translates "cwi7jura." Vid. also the "Month" for
December, but above all Mgr. Dupanloup's works on the geneiul
subject.

The Syllabus. 289

sarily errors, if the Sketch of Church Polity drawn out
in my former Sections is true, and are necessarily con-
sidered to be such by those, as the Pope, who maintain
that Polity.

8. The 10th Error, as others which I have noticed
above, is a universal (that " in the conflict of laws, civil
and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail^'), and
the Pope does but deny a universal.

9. Mr. Gladstone's 11th, which I do not quite under-
stand in his wording of it, runs thus : — " Catholics can
approve of that system of education for youth which is
separated from the Catholic faith and the Church's
power, and which regards the science only of physical
things, and the outlines (fines) of earthly social life alone
or at least primarily." How is this not an " Error" ?
Surely there are Englishmen enough who protest
against the elimination of religion from our schools ; is
such a protest so dire an offence to Mr. Gladstone ?

10. And the 12th Error is this : — That " the science
of philosophy and of morals, also the laws of the State,
can and should keep clear of divine and ecclesiastical
authority." This too will not be anything short of an
error in the judgment of great numbers of our own
people. Is Benthamism so absolutely the Truth, that
the Pope is to be denounced because he has not yet
become a convert to it ?

11. There are only two of the condemnations which
really require a word of explanation ; I have already
referred to them. One is that of Mr. Gladstone's sixth
Proposition, " Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils,
have departed from the limits of their power, have

D

290 The Syllabus.

usurped the rights of Princes, and even in defining mat-
ters of faith and morals have erred." These words are
taken from the Lima Priest's book. We have to see
then what he means by " the Rights of Princes," for
the proposition is condemned in his sense of the word.
It is a rule of the Church in the condemnation of a
book to state the proposition condemned in the words of
the book itself, without the Church being answerable for
those words as employed.* I have already referred to
this rule in my 5th Section. Now this priest includes
among the rights of Catholic princes that of deposing
Bishops from their sacred Ministry, of determining the
impediments to marriage, of forming Episcopal sees,
and of being free from episcopal authority in spiritual
matters. When, then, the Proposition is condemned
" that Popes had usurped the rights of Princes ; " what
is meant is, "the so-called rights of Princes," which
were really the rights of the Church, in assuming which
there was no usurpation at all.

12. The other proposition, Mr. Gladstone's seventh,
the condemnation of which requires a remark, is this :
"The Church has not the power to employ force (vis
inferendae) nor any temporal power direct or indirect.'

* Propositiones, de quibiis Ecclesia judicium suum pronunciat,
duobus preesertim modis spectari possunt, vel absolute ac in se ipsis,
vel relative ad sensum libri et auctoris. In censura propositionis
alicujus auctoris vel libri, Ecclesia attendit ad sensum ab eo intentum,
qui quidem ex verbis, ex tota doctrinse ipsius serie, libri textura
et confirmatioue, consilio, institutoque elicitur. Propositio libri vel
auctoris (Zguivoca esse potest, duplicemque habere sensum, rectum
unum et alterum malum. Ubi contingit Ecclesiam propositiones
hujusmodi (zqtdvocas absque prmvid distinctione sensuwm configere,
censura urUci cadit in sensum perversum libri vel auctoris. — Toumely,
t. 2, p. 170, ed. 1752,

The Syllabus. 291

This is one of a series of Propositions found in the
work of Professor Nujrtz, entitled, " Juris Ecclesiastici
Institutiones," all of which are condemned in the
Pope's Apostolic Letter of August 22, 1851. Now
here " employing force " is not the Pope's phrase but
Professor Nuytz's, and the condemnation is meant to
run thus, '' It is an error to say, with Professor Nuy tz,
that what he calls ^ employing force ' is not allowable to
the Church." That this is the right interpretation of
the " error " depends of course on a knowledge of the
Professor's work, which I have never had an oppor-
tunity of seeing ; but here I will set down what the re-
ceived doctrine of the Church is on ecclesiastical punish-
ments, as stated in a work of the highest authority,
since it comes to us with letters of approval from
Gregory XVI. and Pius IX.

''The opinion/' says Cardinal Soglia, "that the
coercive power divinely bestowed upon the Church con-
sists in the infliction of spiritual punishments alone,
and not in corporal or temporal, seems more in har-
mony with the gentleness of the Church. Accordingly
I follow their judgment, who withdraw from the Church
the corporal sword, by which the body is destroyed or
blood is shed. Pope Nicholas thus writes : ' The Church
has no sword but the spiritual. She does not kill, but
gives life, hence that well-known saying, ' Ecclesia
abhorret a sanguine.' But the lighter punishments,
though temporal and corporal, such as shutting up in a
monastery, prison, flogging, and others of the same
kind, short of efiusion of blood, the Church jure suo can
inflict."— (Institut, Jur., pp. 167-8, Paris.)

¥ 2

292 The Syllabus,

And the Cardinal quotes the words of Fleury " The
Church has enjoined on penitent sinners almsgivings,
fastings, and other corporal inflictions. . . . Augustine
speaks of beating with sticks, as practised by the
Bishops, after the manner of masters in the case of
servants, parents in the case of children and school-
masters in that of scholars. Abbots flogged monks in
the way of paternal and domestic chastisement. . . .
Imprisonment for a set time or for life is mentioned
among canonical penances; priests and other clerics,
who had been deposed for their crimes, being committed
to prison in order that they might pass the time to
come in penance for their crime, which thereby was
withdrawn from the memory of the public."

But now I have to answer one question. If what I
have said is substantially the right explanation to give
to the drift and contents of the Syllabus, have not 1 to
account 'for its making so much noise, and giving such
deep and wide offence on its appearance ? It has already
been reprobated by the voice of the world. Is there not,
then, some reason at the bottom of the aversion felt by
educated Europe towards it, which I have not men-
tioned ? This is a very large question to entertain, too
large for this place ; but I will say one word upon it.

Doubtless one of the reasons of the excitement and dis-
pleasure which the Syllabus caused and causes so widely,
is the number and. variety of the propositions marked as
errors, and the systematic arrangement to which they
were subjected. So large and elaborate a work struck
the public mind as a new law, moral, social, and eccle-

The Syllabus. 293

siastical, which was to be the foundation of a European
code, and the beginning of a new world, in opposition
to the social principles of the 19th century ; and there
certainly were persons in high station who encouraged
this idea. When this belief was once received, it became
tlie interpretation of the whole Collection through the
eighty Propositions, of which it recorded the erroneous-
ness ; as if it had for its object in all its portions one
great scheme of aggression. Then, when the public
mind was definitively directed to the examination of
these erroneous Theses, they were sure to be misunder-
stood, from their being read apart from the context,
occasion, and drift of each. They had been noted as
errors in the Pope's Encyclicals and Allocutions in the
course of the preceding eighteen years, and no one had
taken any notice of them ; but now, when they were
brought all together, they made a great sensation.
Why were they brought together, except for some
purpose sinister and hostile to society ? and if they
themselves were hard to understand, still more so, and
doubly so was their proscription.

Another circumstance, which I am not theologian
enough to account for, is this, — that the wording of
many of the erroneous propositions, as they are drawn
up in the Syllabus, gives an apparent breadth to the
matter condemned which is not found in the Pope's own
words in his Allocutions and Encyclicals. Not that
really there is any difference between the Pope's words
and Cardinal Antonelli's, for (as I have shown in various
instances) what the former says in the concrete, the
latter does but repeat in the abstract. Or, to speak

294 l^f^ Syllabus.

logically, when the Pope enunciates as true the par-
ticular aflSrmative, " Spain ought to keep up the esta-
blishment of the Catholic Religion," then (since its
contradictory is necessarily false) the Cardinal declares,
" To say that no State should keep up the establish-
ment of the Catholic Religion is an error.*' But there
is a dignity and beauty in the Pope's own language
which the Cardinal's abstract Syllabus cannot have,
and this gave to opponents an opportunity to deciaim
against the Pope, which opportunity was in no sense
afforded by what he said himself.

Then, again, it must be recollected, in connexion with
what I have said, that theology is a science, and a
science of a special kind ; its reasoning, its method, its
modes of expression, and its language are all its own.
Every science must be in the hands of a comparatively
few persons — that is, of those who have made it a
study. The courts of law have a great number of rules
in good measure traditional ; so has the House of Com-
mons, and, judging by what one reads in the public
prints, men must have a noviceship there before they
can be at perfect ease in their position. In like manner
young theologians, and still more those who are none,
are sure to mistake in matters of detail ; indeed a really
first-rate theologian is rarely to be found. At Rome
the rules of interpreting authoritative documents are
known with a perfection which at this time is scarcely
to be found elsewhere. Some of these rules, indeed, are
known to all priests ; but even this general knowledge
is not possessed by laymen, much less by Protestants,
however able and experienced in their own several

The Syllabus. 295

lines of study or profession. One of those rules I have
had several times occasion to mention. In the censure
of books, which offend against doctrine or discipline,
it is a common rule to take sentences out of them in
the author's own words, whether those are words in
themselves good or bad, and to affix some note of con-
demnation to them in the sense in which they occur in
the book in question. Thus it may happen that even
what seems at first sight a true statement, is condemned
for being made the shelter of an error ; for instance :
" Faith justifies when it works," or " There is no reli-
gion where there is no charity," may be taken in a
good sense ; but each proposition is condemned in
Quesnell, because it is false as he uses it.

A further illustration of the necessity of a scientific
education in order to understand the value of Proposi-
tions, is aflbrded by a controversy which has lately gone
on among us as to the validity of Abyssinian Orders, In
reply to a document urged on one side of the question, it
was allowed on the other, that, " if that document was
to be read in the same way as we should read any
ordinary judgment, the interpretation which had been
given to it was the most obvious and natural" " But
it was well known," it was said, " to those who are
familiar with the practical working of such decisions,
that they are only interpreted with safety in the light
of certain rules, which arise out of what is called the
stylus cur ice." And then some of these rules were
given ; first, " that to understand the real meaning of a
decision, no matter how clearly set forth, we should
know the nature of the difficulty or dubium, as it was

296 The Syllabus »

understood by the tribanal that had to decide upon it.
Next, nothing but the direct proposition, in its nudest
and severest sense, as distinguished from indirect pro-
positions, the grounds of the decision, or implied state-
ments, is ruled by the judgment. Also, if there is
anything in the wording of a decision which appears
inconsistent with the teaching of an approved body of
theologians, &c., the decision is to be interpreted so as
to leave such teaching intact ;" and so on.^ It is plain
that the view thus opened upon us has further bearings
than that for which I make use of it here.

These remarks on scientific theology apply also of
course to its language. I have employed myself in
illustration in framing a sentence, which would be plain
enough to any priest, but I think would perplex any
Protestant. I hope it is not of too light a character to
introduce here. We will suppose then a theologian to
write as follows : — " Holding, as we do, that there is only
material sin in those who, being invincibly ignorant,
reject the truth, therefore in charity we hope that thej*^
have the future portion of /orwc/ believers, as consider-
ing that by virtue of their good faith, though not of the
body of the faithful, they implicitly and interpretatively
believe what they seem to deny." Now let us consider
what sense would this statement convey to the mind of
a member of some Reformation Society or Protestant
League ? He would read it as follows, and consider it
all the more insidious and dangerous for its being so
very unintelligible : — " Holding, as we do, that there is

» Month, Nov, and Dec, 1873.

The Syllabus. 297

only a very considerable sin in those who reject the
truth out of contumacious ignorance, therefore in charity
we hope that they have the future portion of nominal
Christians, as considering, that by the excellence of
their living faith, though not in the number of believers,
they believe without any hesitation, as interpreters [of
Scripture ?] what they seem to deny."

Now, considering that the Syllabus was intended for
the Bishops, who would be the interpreters of it, as the
need arose, to their people, and it got bodily into
English newspapers even before it was received at
many an episcopal residence, we shall not be sur-
prised at the commotion which accompanied its pub-
lication.

I have spoken of the causes intrinsic to the Syllabus,
which have led to misunderstandings about it. As to
external, I can be no judge myself as to what Catholics
who have means of knowing are very decided in de-
claring, the tremendous power of the Secret Societies.
It is enough to have suggested here, how a wide-
spread organization like theirs might malign and
frustrate the most beneficial acts of the Pope. One
matter I had information of myself from Rome at the
time when the Syllabus had just been published, before
there was yet time to ascertain how it would be taken
by the world at large. Now, the Rock of St. Peter on
its summit enjoys a pure and serene atmosphere, but
there is a great deal of Roman malaria at the foot of it.
While the Holy Father was in great earnestness and
charity addressing the Catholic world by his Cardinal
Minister, there were circles of light-minded men in his

29S The Syllabus.

city who were laying bets with each other whether the
Syllabus would " make a row in Europe " or not. Of
course it was the interest of those who betted on the
affirmative side to represent the Pope's act to the
greatest disadvantage ; and it was very easy to kindle a
flame in the mass of English and other visitors at Rome
which with a very little nursing was soon strong enough
to take care of itself.

The Vatican Council. 299

§ 8. The Vatican Council.

In beginning to speak of the Vatican Council, I am
obliged from circumstances to begin by speaking of
myself. The most unfounded and erroneous assertions
have publicly been made about my sentiments towards
it, and as confidently as they are unfounded. Only a
few weeks ago it was stated categorically by some
anonymous correspondent of a Liverpool paper, with
reference to the prospect of my undertaking the task on
which I am now employed, that it was, " in fact undei--
stood that at one time Dr. Newman was on the point of
uniting with Dr. DoUinger and his party, and that it
required the earnest persuasion of several members of
the Roman Catholic Episcopate to prevent him from
taking that step," — an unmitigated and most ridiculous
untruth in every word of it, nor would it be worth while
to notice it here, except for its connexion with the
subject on which I am entering.

But the explanation of such reports about me is easy.
They arise from forgetfulness on the part of those who
spread them, that there are two sides of ecclesiastical
acts, that right ends are often prosecuted by very un-
worthy means, and that in consequence those who,
like myself, oppose a line of action, are not necessarily
opposed to the issue for wliich it has been adopted.

300 The Vatican Council.

Jacob gained by wrong means his destined blessing.
"All are not Israelites, who are of Israel," and there
are partisans of Rome who have not the sanctity and
wisdom of Borne herself

I am not referring to anything which took place
within the walls of the Council chambers ; of that of
course we know nothing; but even though things
occurred there which it is not pleasant to dwell upoU;
tnat would not at all affect, not by an hair's breadth, the
validity of the resulting definition, as I shall presently
snow. What I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, while life
lasts, is the violence and cruelty of journals and other
publications, which, taking as they professed to do the
Catholic side, employed themselves by their rash lan-
guage (though, of course, they did not mean it so), in
unsettling the weak in faith, throwing back inquirers,
and shocking the Protestant mind. Nor do I speak of
publications only ; a feeling was too prevalent in many
places that no one could be true to God and His
Church, who had any pity on troubled souls, or any
scruple of " scandalizing those little ones who believe
in " Christ, and of " despising and destroying him for
whotn He died/'

It was this most keen feeling, which made me say, as
I did continually, " I will not believe that the Pope's
Infallibility will be defined, till defined it is."

Moreover, a private letter of mine became public pro-
perty. That letter, to which Mr. Gladstone has referred
with a compliment to me which I have not merited, was
one of the most confidential I ever wrote in my life.
I wrote it to my own Bishop, under a deep sense of the

The Vatican Council, 301

responsibility I should incur, were I not to speak out to
him my whole mind. I put the matter from me when
I had said my say, and kept no proper copy of the
letter. To my dismay I saw it in the public prints : to
this day I do not know, nor suspect, how it got there ;
certainly from no want of caution in the quarter to
which it was addressed. I cannot withdraw it, for
I never put it forward, so it will remain on the columns
of newspapers whether I will or not ; but 1 withdraw it
as far as I can, by declaring that it was never meant for
the public eye.

1. So much as to my posture of mind before the De-
finition : now I will set down how I felt after it. On
July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows; —

" I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased
at its moderation — that is, if the doctrine in question is
to be defined at all. The terms are vague and compre-
hensive ; and, personally, I have no difficulty in ad-
mitting it. The question is, does it come to me with
the authority of an Ecumenical Council ?

" Now the prima facie argument is in favour of its
having that authority. The Council was legitimately
called ; it was more largely attended than any Council
before it ; and innumerable prayers from the whole of
Christendom, have preceded and attended it, and merited
a happy issue of its proceedings.

" Were it not then for certain circumstances, under
which the Council made the definition, I should receive
that definition at once. Even as it is, if I were called
upon to profess it, I should be unable, considering it
came from the Holy Father and the competent local

302 The Vatican Council.

authorities, at once to refuse to do so. On the other
hand, it cannot be denied that there are reasons for a
Catholic, till better informed, to suspend his judgment
on its validity.

"We all know that ever since the opening of the
Council, there has been a strenuous opposition to the
definition of the doctrine ; and that, at the time when
it was actually passed, more than eighty Fathers absented
themselves from the Council, and would have nothing to
do with its act. But, if the fact be so, that the Fathers
were not unanimous, is the definition valid ? This de-
pends on the question whether unanimity, at least
moral, is or is not necessary for its validity ? As at
present advised I think it is ; certainly Pius IV. lays
great stress on the unanimity of the Fathers in the
Council of Trent. * Quibus rebus perfectis,' he says in
his Bull of Promulgation, * concilium tanta omnium qui
tin interfuerunt concordia peractum" fuit, ut consensum
plane a Domino effectum esse constiterit; idque in
nostris atque omnium oculis valde mirabile fuerit."

" Far diflferent has been the case now, — though the
Council is not yet finished. But, if I must now at once
decide what to think of it, I should consider that all
turned on what the dissentient Bishops now do.

" If they separate and go home without acting as a
body, if they act only individually, or as individuals,
and each in his own way, then I should not recognize
in their opposition to the majority that force, firmness,
and unity of view, which creates a real case of want of
moral unanimity in the Council.

" Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dissen-

The Vatican Council. 303

tient Bishops more or less take part in it, and concur in
its acts ; if there is a new Pope, and he continues the
policy of the present; and if the Council terminates
without any reversal or modification of the definition, or
any effective movement against it on the part of the
dissentients, then again there will be good reason for
saying that the want of a moral unanimity has not been
made out.

" And further, if the definition is consistently received
by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or as the
expression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent
by the force of the great dictum, 'Securusjudicat orbis
terrarum.'

" This indeed is a broad principle by which all acts
of the rulers of the Church are ratified. But for it, we
might reasonably question some of the past Councils or
their acts.''

Also 1 wrote as follows to a friend, who was troubled
at the way in which the dogma was passed, in order to
place before him in various points of view the duty of
receiving it : —

July 27, 1870.

" I have been thinking over the subject which just
now gives you and me with thousands of others, who
care for religion, so much concern.

" First, till better advised, nothing shall make me say
that a mere majority in a Council, as opposed to a moral
unanimity, in itself creates an obligation to receive its
dogmatic decrees. This is a point of history and prece-
dent, and of course on further examination I may find
myself wrong in the view which I take of history and

304 The Vatican Council.

precedent ; but I do not, cannot see, that a majority in
the present Council can of itself rule its own sufficiency,
without such external testimony.

"But there are other means by which I can be
brought under the obligation of receiving a doctrine as
a dogma. If I am clear that there is a primitive and
uninterrupted tradition^ as of the divinity of our Lord;
or where a high probability drawn from Scripture or
Tradition is partially or probably confirmed by the
Church. Thus a particular Catholic might be so nearly
sure that the promise toPeter in Scripture proves that the
infallibility of Peter is a necessary dogma, as only to be
kept from holding it as such by the absence of any judg-
ment on the part of the Church, so that the present
unanimity of the Pope and 500 Bishops, even though not
sufficient to constitute a formal Synodal act, would at
once put him in the position, and lay him under the
obligation, of receiving the doctrine as a dogma, thafr
is, to receive it with its anathema.

" Or again, if nothing definitely sufficient from Scrip-
ture or Tradition can be brought to contradict a defini-
tion, the fact of a legitimate Superior having defined it,
may be an obligation in conscience to receive it with an
internal assent. For myself, ever since I was a Catholic,
I have held the Pope's infallibility as a matter of theo-
logical opinion ; at least, I see nothing in the Defini-
tion which necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition,
or History ; and the " Doctor Ecclesiae " (as the Pope is
styled by the Council of Florence) bids me accept it.
In this case, I do not receive it on the word of the
Council; but on the Pope's self-assertion.

The Vatican Council. 305

" And I confess, the fact that all along for so many
centuries the Head of the Church and Teacher of the
faithful and Yicar of Christ has been allowed by God to
assert virtually his own infallibility, is a great argument
in favour of the validity of his claim.

" Another ground for receiving the dogma, still not
upon the direct authority of the Council, or with accept-
ance of the validity of its act per se, is the consideration
that our Merciful Lord would not care so little for His
elect people, the multitude of the faithful, as to allow
their visible Head, and such a large number of Bishops
to lead them into error, and an error so serious, if an
error it be. This consideration leads me to accept the
doctrine as a dogma, indirectly indeed from the Council,
but not so much from a Council, as from the Pope and
a very large number of Bishops. The question is not
whether they had a right to impose, or even were right
in imposing the dogma on the faithful ; but whether,
having done so, I have not an obligation to accept it, ac-
cording to the maxim, 'Fieri non debuit, factum valet."*

This letter, written before the minority had melted
away, insists on this principle, that a Council's definition
would have a virtual claim on our reception, even though
it were not passed conciliariter, but in some indirect
way ; the great object of a Council being in some way or
other to declare the judgment of the Church. I think
the Third Ecumenical will furnish an instance of what
I mean. There the question in dispute was settled and
defined, even before certain constituent portions of the
Episcopal body had made their appearance ; and this,
with a protest of sixty-eight of the Bishops then presen/

3o6 The Vatican CounciL

against the opening of the Council. When the expected
party arrived, these did more than protest against vhe
definition which had been carried ; they actually anathe-
matized the Fathers who carried it, and in this state of
disunion the Council ended. How then was its defini-
tion valid ? In consequence of after events, which I
suppose must be considered complements, and integral
portions of the Council. The heads of the various
parties entered into oorrespondence with each other, and
at the end of two years their differences with each other
were arranged. There are those who have no belief in
the authority of Councils at all, and feel no call upon
them to discriminate between one Council and another ;
but Anglicans, who are so fierce against the Vatican, and
so respectful towards the Ephesine, should consider
what good reason they have for swallowing the third
Council, while they strain out the nineteenth.

The Council of Ephesus furnishes us with another
remark, bearing upon the Vatican. It was natural for
men who were in the minority at Ephesus to think that
the faith of the Church had been brought into the utmost
peril by the definition of the Council which they had
unsuccessfully opposed. They had opposed it on the
conviction that the definition gave great encouragement
to religious errors in the opposite extreme to those which
it condemned ; and, in fact, I think that, humanly speak-
ing, the peril was extreme. The event proved it to be so,
when twenty years afterwards another Council was held
under the successors of the majority at Ephesus and carried
triumphantly those very errors whose eventual success
had been predicted b}' the minority. But Providence is

Xhe Vatican Council, 307

never wanting to His Church. St. Leo, the Pope of
the day, interfered with this heretical Council, and the
innovating party was stopped in its career. Its acts
were cancelled at the great Council of Chalcedon, the
Fourth Ecumenical, which was held under the Pope's
guidance, and which, without of course touching the
definition of the Third, which had been settled once for
all, trimmed the balance of doctrine by completing it,
and excluded for ever from the Church those errors which
seemed to have received some sanction at Ephesus.
There is nothing of course that can be reversed in the
definitions of the Vatican Council ; but the series of its
acts was cut short by the great war, and, should the need
arise (which is not likely) to set right a false interpret-
ation, another Leo will be given us for the occasion ; •' in
monte Dominus videbit."

In this remark, made for the benefit of those who need
it, as I do not mj^self, I shelter myself under the follow-
ing passage of Molina, which a friend has pointed out to
me : — " Though the Holy Ghost has always been present
to the Church, to hinder error in her definitions, and in
consequence they are all most true and consistent, yet it
is not therefore to be denied, that God, when any matters
have to be defined, requires of the Church a co-operation
and investigation of those matters, and that, in propor-
tion to the quality of the men who meet together in
Councils, to the investigation and diligence which is
. applied, and the greater or less experience and knowledgf
which is possessed more at one time than at other times,
■ definitions more or less perspicuous are drawn up and
matters are defined more exactly and completely at one

I 2

3o8 The Vatican Council.

time than at other times. , . . And, whereas by disputa-
tions, persevering reading, meditation, and investigation
of matters, there is wont to be increased in course of time
the knowledge and understanding of the same, and the
Fathers of the later Councils are assisted by the investi-
gation and definitions of the former, hence it arises that
the definitions of later Councils are wont to be more
luminous, fuller, more accurate and exact than those of
the earlier. Moreover, it belongs to the later Councils
to interpret and to define more exactly and fully what
in earlier Councils have been defined less clearly, fully
and exactly." {De Concord. Lib. Arbit., &c., xiii. 15,
p. 59. ) So much on the circumstances under which the
Vatican Council passed its definition.

2. The other main objection made to the Council is
founded upon its supposed neglect of history in the
decision which its B^efinition embodies. This objection
is touched upon by Mr. Gladstone in the beginning of
his Pamphlet, where he speaks of its " repudiation of
ancient history,*' and I have an opportunity given me of
noticing it here.

He asserts that, during the last forty years, " more
and more have the assertions of continuous uniformity of
doctrine '* in the Catholic Church " receded into scarcely
penetrable shadow. More and more have another series
of assertions, of a living authority, ever ready to open,
adopt, and shape Christian doctrine according to the
times, taken their place.*' Accordingly, he considers
that a dangerous opening has been made in the authori-
tative teaching of the Church for the repudiation of
ancient truth and the rejection of new. However, as

The Vatican Council. 309

I understand him, he withdraws this charge from the
controversy he has initiated (though not from his
Pamphlet) as far as it is aimed at the pure theology
of the Church. So far it " belongs," he says, " to the
theological domain," and " is a matter unfit for him to
discuss, as it is a question of divinity." It has been,
then, no duty of mine to consider it, except as it relates
to matters ecclesiastical ; but I am unwilling, when a
charge has been made against our theology, unsup-
ported indeed, yet unretracted, to leave it altogether
without reply; and that the more, because, after re-
nouncing " questions of divinity " at p. 14, nevertheless
Mr. Gladstone brings them forward again at p. 15,
speaking, as he does, of the '* deadly blows of 1854 and
1870 at the old, historic, scientific, and moderate school"
by the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and
Papal Infallibility.

Mr. Gladstone then insists on the duty of "maintaining
the truth and authority of history, and the inestimable
value of the historic spirit ;" and so far of course I have
the pleasure of heartily agreeing with him. As the
Church is a sacred and divine creation, so in like manner
her history, with its wonderful evolution of events, the
throng of great actors who have a part in it, and its
multiform literature, stained though its annals are with
human sin and error, and recorded on no system, and by
uninspired authors, still is a sacred work also ; and those
who make light of it, or distrust its lessons, incur a grave
responsibility. But it is not every one that can read its
pages rightly ; and certainly I cannot follow Mr. Glad-
stone's reading of it. lie is too well informed indeed,

3IO The Vatican Council.

too large in his knowledge, too acute and compre-
hensive in his views, not to have an acquaintance with
history, far beyond the run of even highly educated
men ; still when he accuses us of deficient attention
to history, one cannot help asking, whether he does
not, as a matter of course, take for granted as true the
principles for using it familiar with Protestant divines,
and denied by our own, and in consequence whether his
impeachment of us does not resolve itself into the fact
that he is Protestant and we are Catholics. Nay, has it
occurred to him that perhaps it is the fact, that we have
views on the relation of History to Dogma different from
those which Protestants maintain ? And is he so certain
of the facts of History in detail, of their relevancy, and
of their drift, as to have a right, I do not say to have an
opinion of his own, but to publish to the world, on his
own warrant, that we have "repudiated ancient history"?
He publicly charges us, not merely with having *' neg-
lected ^' it, or " garbled " its evidence, or with having
contradicted certain ancient usages or doctrines to which
it bears witness, but he says " repudiated." He could
not have used a stronger term, supposing the Vatican
Council had, by a formal act, cut itself off from early
times, instead of professing, as it does (hypocritically, if
you will, but still professing) to speak, "supported by
Holy Scripture and the decrees both of preceding Popes
and General Councils," and " faithfully adhering to the
aboriginal tradition of the Church." Ought any one
but an oculatus testis, a man whose profession was to
acquaint himself with the details of histor}^ to claim to
himself the right of bringing, on his own authority, so

The Vatican Council, 3 1 1

extreme a charge against so august a power, so inflexible
and rooted in its traditions through the long past, as
Mr. Gladstone would admit the Roman Church to be ?
Of course I shall be reminded that, though Mr.
Gladstone cannot be expected to speak on so large a
department of knowledge with the confidence decorous
in one who has made a personal study of it, there are
others who have a right to do so ; and that by those
others he is corroborated and sanctioned. There are
authors, it may be said, of so commanding an authority
from their learning and their honesty, that, for the
purposes of discussion or of controversy, what they say
may be said by any one else without presumption or risk
of confutation. I will never say a word of my own
against those learned and distinguished men to whom I
refer. No : their present whereabout, wherever it is, is
to me a thought full of melancholy. It is a tragical event,
both for them and for us, that they have left us. It robs
us of a great prestige ; they have left none to take their
place. I think them utterly wrong iu what they have
done and are doing ; and, moreover, I agree as little in
their view of history as in their acts. Extensive as may
be their historical knowledge, I have no reason to think
that they, more than Mr. Gladstone, would accept the
position which History holds among the Loci Theologici,
as Catholic theologians determine it ; and I am denying
not their report of facts, but their use of the facts they
report, and that, because of that special stand-point from
which they view the relations existing between the records
of History and the enunciations of Popes and Councils.
They seem to me to expect from History more than

312 The Vatican Council.

History can furnish, and to have too little confidence
in the Divine Promise and Providence as guiding and
determining those enunciations.

Why should Ecclesiastical History, any more than the
text of Scripture, contain in it " the whole counsel of
God " ? Why should private judgment be unlawful in
interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority, and
yet be lawful in the interpretation of history ? There are
those who make short work of questions such as these by
denying authoritative interpretation altogether ; that is
their private concern,and no one hasarightto inquire into
their reason for so doing ; but the case would be different
were one of them to come forward publicly, and to arraign
others, without first confuting their theological jorceaw-
bula, for repudiating history, or for repudiating the Bible.

For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine
of the Church can be rigorously proved by historical
evidence : but at the same time that no doctrine can be
simply disproved by it. Historical evidence reaches a
certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic
doctrines ; often nearly the whole way ; sometimes it
goes only as far as to point in their direction ; sometimes
there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion
contrary to them ; nay, sometimes there is an apparent
leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which
has to be explained ; — in all cases there is a margin left
for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He
who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he
has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic.
It is the Church's dogmatic use of History in which the
Cfit)io]ic believes ; and she uses other informants also,

The Vatican Council. 313

Scripture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense or (f)p6vr]iJt,a,
and a subtle ratiociuative power, which in its origin is
a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or" renun-
ciation of mental freedom '^ in this view, any more than
in the converts of the Apostles believing what the
Apostles might preach to them or teach them out of
Scripture.

What has been said of History in relation to the formal
Definitions of the Church, applies also to the exercise of
Ratiocination. Our logical powers, too, being a gift from
God, may claim to have their informations respected ;
and Protestants sometimes accuse our theologians, for
instance, the medieval schoolmen, of having used them
in divine matters a little too freely. Still it has ever been
our teaching and our protest that, as there are doctrines
which lie beyond the direct evidence of history, so there
are doctrines which transcend the discoveries of reason ;
and, after all, whether they are more or less recommended
to us by the one informant or the other, in all cases
the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his
reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by
Reason orby History, but because Revelation has declared
them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium
which is their legitimate exponent.

What has been said applies also to those other truths,
with which Ratiocination has more to do than History,
which are sometimes called developments of Christian
doctrine, truths which are not upon the surface of the
Apostolic deposUum—ihut is, the legacy of Revelation, —
but which from time to time are brought' into form by
theologians, and sometimes have been proposed to the

314 The Vatican Council.

faithful by the Church, as direct objects of faith. No
Catholic would hold that they ought to be logically
deduced in their fulness and exactness from the belief of
the first centuries, but only this, — that,on the assumption
of the Infallibility of the Church (which will overcome
eyery objection except a contradiction in thought), there
is nothing greatly to try the reason in such difiiculties
as occur in reconciling those evolved doctrines with the
teaching of the ancient Fathers ; such development being
evidently the new form, explanation, transformation, or
carrying out of what in substance was held from the
first, what the Apostles said, but have not recorded in
writing, or would necessarily have said under our cir-
cumstances, or if they had been asked, or in view of
certain uprisings of error, and in that sense being really
portions of the legacy of truth, of which the Church, in
all her members, but especially in her hierarchy, is the
divinely appointed trustee.

Such an evolution of doctrine has been, as I would
maintain, a law of the Church's teaching from the earliest
times, and in nothing is her title of " semper eadem "
more remarkably illustrated than in the correspondence
of her ancient and modern exhibition of it. As to the
ecclesiastical Acts of 1854 and 1870, I think with Mr.
Gladstone that the principle of doctrinal development,
and that of authority, have never in the proceedings of
the Church been so freely and largely used as in the
Definitions then promulgated to the faithful ; but I deny
that at either time the testimony of history was repu-
diated or perverted. The utmost that can be fairly said
by an opponent against the theological decisions of those

The Vatican Council. 315

years is, that antecedently to the event, it might appear
that there were no sufficient historical grounds in behalf
of either of them — I do not mean for a personal belief in
either, but — for the purpose of converting a doctrine
long existing in the Church into a dogma, and making
it a portion of the Catholic Creed. This adverse anti-
cipation was proved to be a mistake by the fact of the
definition being made.

3. I will not pass from this question of History without
a word about Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by
anathema in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is certaii^ly a
strong prima facie argument against the Pope's doctrinal
infallibility. His case is this : — Sergius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, favoured, or rather did not condemn, a
doctrine concerning our Lord's Person which afterwards
the Sixth Council pronounced to be heresy. He con-
sulted Pope Honorius upon the subject, who in two
formal letters declared his entire concurrence with Ser-
gius's opinion. Honorius died in peace, but, more than
forty years after him, the Sixth Ecumenical Council was
held, which condemned him as a heretic on the score of
those two letters. The simple question is, whether the
heretical documents proceeded from him as an infallible
authority or as a private Bishop.

Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has
determined that the Pope is infallible only when he
speaks ex cathedra, and that, in order to speak ex cathedra,
he must at least speak " as exercising the office of Pastor
and Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his
Apostolical authority, a doctrine whetlier of faith or of
morals for the acceptance of the universal Church "

3i6 The Vatican Council. \

\
(though Mr. Gladstone strangel}^ says, p. 34, " There is I
no established or accepted definition of the phrase e^
cathedra"^, from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation
of the phrase it follows, that, whatever Honorius said \
in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words \
were not ex cathedra, and therefore did not proceed from '
his infallibility. i

I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above ,
conditions of an ex cathedra utterance, if he did not ]
actually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the
question about the Sacraments ; external and positive j
acts, whether material actions or formal words, speak for j
themselves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacra- i
mental visible signs ; it is an opus operantis, and mainly i
a question of intention. Who would say that the archi- i
triclinus at the wedding- feast who said, " Thou hast kept |
the good wine until now,'' was teaching the Christian i
world, though the words have a great ethical and evan- '\
gelical sense ? What is the worth of a signature, if a j
man does not consider he is signing ? The Pope cannot i
address his people East and West, North and South, j
without meaning it, as if his very voice, the sounds from !
his lips, could literally be heard from pole to pole ; nor \
can he exert his "Apostolical authority'* without know- '\
ing he is doing so ; nor can he draw up a form of words j
and use care and make an efibrt in doing so accurately, \
without intention to do so ; and, therefore, no words of
Honorius proceeded from his prerogative of infallible ;
teaching, which were not accompanied with the inten- j
tion of exercising that prerogative ; and who will dream
of saying, be he Anglican, Protestant, unbeliever, or on ,

The Vatican Council. 317

the other hand Catholic, that Honorius on the occasion
in question did actually intend to exert that infallible
teaching voice which is heard so distinctly in the Quanta
curd and the Pastor ^ternus ?

What resemblance do these letters of his, written
almost as private instructions, bear to the " Pius Epis-
copus, Servus Servorum Dei, Sacro approbante Concilio,
ad perpetuam ret memoriam," or with the *' Si quis huic
nostras definitioni contradicere (quod Deus avertat)
prsesurapserit, anathema sit " of the Pastor ^ternus ?
what to the " Yenerabilibus fratribus, Patriarchis pri-
matibus, Archiepiscopis, et Episcopis universis, &c., with
the "reprobamus, proscribimus, atque damnamus," and
the date and signature, " Datum Romse apud Sanctum
Petrum, Die 8 Dec. anno 1864, &c., Pius P.P. IX/' of
the Quanta curd ?

Secondly, it is no part of our doctrine, as I shall say
in my next section, that the discussions previous to a
Council's definition, or to an ex cathedra utterance of e
Pope, are infallible, and these letters of Honorius or
their very face are nothing more than portions of a dis-
cussion with a view to some final decision.

For these two reasons the condemnation of Honorius
by the Council in no sense compromises the doctrine ot
Papal Infallibility. At the utmost it only decides that
Honorius in his own person was a heretic, which is
inconsistent with no Catholic doctrine ; but we luay
rather hope and believe that the anathema fell, not upon
him, but upon his letters in their objective sense, he
not intending personally what his letters legitimately
expressed.

3i8 The Vatican Council.

4. And I have one remark to make upon the argu-
mentative method by which the Vatican Council was
carried on to its definition. The Pastor ^ternus refers
to various witnesses as contributing their evidence
towards the determination of the contents of the depo-
situm, such as Tradition, the Fathers and Councils,
History, but especially Scripture. For instance, the
Bull, speaks of the Gospel (" juxtaEvangelii testimonia,"
c. 1 ) and of Scripture (" manifesta S.S. Scripturarum
doctrina," c. 1 : " apertis S.S. Literarum testimoniis,"
c. 3. " S S. Scripturis consentanea/' c. 4.) And it
lays an especial stress on three passages of Scripture in
particular — viz., " Thou art Peter," &e., Matthew xvi
16 — 19 ; " I have prayed for thee," &c., Luke xxii. f32,
and " Feed My sheep," &c., John xxi. 15 — 17. Now I
wish all objectors to this method of ours, viz. of reasoning
from Scripture, would view it in the light of the following
passage in the great philosophical work of Butler, Bishop
of Durham.

He writes as follows : — " As it is owned the whole
scheme of Scripture is not yet understood, so, if it ever
conies to be understood, before the ' restitution of all
things,' and without miraculous interpositions, it must
be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at, by
the continuance and progress of learning and of liberty,
and by particular persons attending to, comparing, and
pursuing intimations scattered up and down it, which
are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the
world. For this is the way in which all improvements
are made by thoughtful men tracing on obscure hints,
as it were, dropped us by nature accidentally, or which

The Vatican Council. 319

seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor is it at all
incredible that a book, which has been so long in the
possession of mankind, should contain many truths as
yet undiscovered. For all the same phenomena,, and
the same faculties of investigation, from which such
great discoveries in natural knowledge have been made
in the present and last age, were equally in the posses-
sion of mankind several thousand years before. And
possibly it might be intended that events, as they come
to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of several
parts of Scripture,** ii 3, vide also ii. 4, fin.

What has the long history of the contest for and
against the Pope's infallibility been, but a growing
insight through centuries into the meaning of those
three texts, to which I just now referred, ending at
length by the Church's definitive recognition of the
doctrine thus gradually manifested to herf

120 The Vatican DeJi7iition,

§ 9. The Vatican Definition.

Now I am to speak of the Vatican definition, by which
the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility has become de fide,
that is, a truth necessary to be believed, as being included
in the original divine revelation, for those terms, revela-
tion, depositum, dogma, and de fide, are correlatives ; and
I begin with a remark which suggests the drift of all I
have to say about it. It is this : — that so difficult a
virtue is faith, even with the special grace of God, in
proportion as the reason is exercised, so difficult is it to
assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by
reason nor experience, but depending for their reception
on the word of the Church as God's oracle, that she has
ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible,
the range of truths and the sense of propositions, of which
she demands this absolute reception. " The Church,''
says Pallavicini, " as far as may be, has ever abstained
from imposing upon the minds of men that command-
ment, the most arduous of the Christian Law — viz., to be-
lieve obscure matters without doubting."* To co-operate
in this charitable duty has been one special work of her
theologians, and rules are laid down by herself, by

• Qaoted by Father Ryder (to whom I am indebted for other of my
references), in his " dealism in Theology," p. 25.

The Vatican Defiiiition, 321

tradition, and by custom, to assist them in the task.
She only speaks when it is necessary to speak; but
hardly has she spoken out magisterially some great
general principle, when she sets her theologians to
work to explain her meaning in the concrete, by strict
interpretation of its wording, by the illustration of its
circumstances, and by the recognition of exceptions, in
order to make it as tolerable as possible, and the least of
a temptation, to self-willed, independent, or wrongly
educated minds. A few years ago it was the fashion
among us to call writers, who conformed to this rule of
the Church, by the name of " Minimizers ;" that day
of tyrannous ipse-dixits, I trust, is over : Bishop Fessler,
a man of high authority, for he was Secretary General of
the Yatican Council, and of higher authority still in his
work, for it has the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff,
clearly proves to us that a moderation of doctrine, dic-
tated by charity, is not inconsistent with soundness in
the faith. Such a sanction, I suppose, will be considered
sufEcient for the character of the remarks which I am
about to make upon definitions in general, and upon the
Vatican in particular.

The Vatican definition, which comes to us in the shape
of the Pope's Encyclical Bull called the Pastor ^tej-nus,
declares that " the Pope has that same infalL'bility which
the Church has'': * to determine therefore what is meant
by the infallibility of the Pope we must turn first to
consider the infallibility of the Church. And again, to

2 RomanuTii Pontificem e^ iufallibilitato pollere, qnil divinus Ee-
demptiT Ecclesiam swam in definiendA doctrina de fide vel moiibus
instmctam esse voluit.

Y

322 The Vatican Definition,

determine tlie character of the Church's infallibility, we
must consider what is the characteristic of Christianity,
considered as a revelation of God's will.

Our Divine Master might have communicated to us
heavenly truths without telling us that they came from
Him, as it is commonly thought He has done in the case,
of heathen nations ; but He willed the Gospel to be a
revelation acknowledged and authenticated, to be public,
fixed, and permanent; and accordingly, as Catholics
hold. He framed a Society of men to be its home, its
instrument, and its guarantee. The rulers of that
Association are the legal trustees, so to say, of the sacred
truths which He epoke to the Apostles by word of mouth.
As He was leaving them. He gave them their great
commission, and bade them " teach " their converts
all over the earth, " to observe all things whatever
He had commanded them •" and then He added,
" Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
world."

Here, first. He told them to " teach " His revealed
Truth ; next, " to the consummation of all things ;"
thirdly, for their encouragement. He said that He would
be with them " all days," all along, on every emergency
or occasion, until that consummation. They had a duty
put upon them of teaching their Master's words, a duty
which they could not fulfil in the perfection which
fidelity required, without His help ; therefore came His
promise to be with them in their performance of it.
Nor did that promise of supernatural help end with the
Apostles personally, for He adds, " to the consummation
of the world," implying that the Apostles would have .

i

The Vatican Definition. 323

successors, and engaging that He would be with those
successors as He had been with them.

The same safeguard of the Revelation — viz. an au-
thoritative, permanent tradition of teaching, is insisted
on by an informant of equal authority with St. Matthew,
but altogether independent of him, I mean St. Paul.
He calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the
Truth ;" and he bids his convert Timothy, when he had
become a ruler in that Church, to " take heed unto his
doctrine,^' to " keep the deposit " of the faith, and to
" commit " the things which he had heard from himself
** to faithful men who should be fit to teach others."

This is how Catholics understand the Scripture record,
nor does it appear how it can otherwise be understood ;
but, when we have got as far as this, and look back, we
find that we have by implication made profession of a
further doctrine. For, if the Church, initiated in the
Apostles and continued in their successors, has been set
up for the direct object of protecting, preserving, and
declaring the Revelation, and that, by means of the
Guardianship andProvidence of its Divine Author, we are
led on to perceive that, in asserting this, we are in other
words asserting, that, so far as the message entrusted to it
is concerned, the Church is infallible ; for what is meant
by infallibility in teaching but that the teacher in his
teaching is secured from error? and how can fallible
man be thus secured except by a supernatural infallible
guidance ? And what can have been the object of the
words, " I am with you all along to t'ne end," but to give
thereby an answer by anticipation to the spontaneous,
silent alarm of the feeble company of fishermen and
T 2

324 '■!■ li'i^ VaticLiii DeJliuUoii.

labourers, to whom tliey were addressed, on their finding
themselves laden with superhuman duties and respon-
sibilities ?

Such then being, in its simple outline, the infallibility
of the Church, such too will be the Pope's infallibility, as
the Vatican Fathers have defined it. And if we find
that by means of this outline we are able to fill out in
all important respects the idea of a Councirs infallibility,
we shall thereby be ascertaining in detail what has been
defined in 1870 about the infallibility of the Pope. Wi( h
an attenjpt to do this I shall conclude.

1. The Church has the office of teaching, and the
matter of that teaching is the body of doctrine, which the
Apostles left behind them as her perpetual possession.
If a question arises as to what the Apostolic doctrine is
on a particular point, she has infallibility promised to
her to enable her to answer correctly. And, as by the
teaching of the Church is understood, not the teaching of
this or that Bishop, but their united voice, and a Council
is the form the Church must take, in order that all men
may recognize that in fact she is teaching on any point
in dispute, so in like manner the Pope must come before
us in some special form or posture, if he is to be understood
to be exercising his teaching office, and that form is
called ex cathedra. This term is most appropriate, as
being on one occasion used by our Lord Himself. When
the Jewish doctors taught, they placed themselves in
Moses' seat, and spoke ex cathedra ; and then, as He tells
us, they were to be obeyed by their people, and that,
whatever were their private lives or characters. *' The

The Vatican Dcfinilion. 325

Scribes and Pharisees, " He says, " are seated on the
chair of Moses : all things therefore whatsoever they
shall say to you, observe and do ; but according to their
works do you not, for they say and do not. "

2. The forms, by which a General Council is identified
as representing the Church herself, are too clear to need
drawing out ; but what is to be that moral cathedra,
or teaching chair, in which the Pope sits, when he is to
be recognized as in the exercise of his infallible teaching?
the new definition answers this question. He speaks ex
cathedra, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the
Universal Teacher ; secondly, in the name and with the
authority of the Apostles ; thirdly, on a point of faith or
morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every
member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.

3. These conditions of course contract the range of his
infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking
of the Pope says, " Neither in conversation, nor in dis-
cussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor
in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point
which he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in
private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his
own opinion, is the Pope infallible,"! ii.p. 110. ^ And for
this simple reason, because on these various occasions of
speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal
doctor.

4. Nor is this all ; the greater part of Billuart's nega-

» And so the Swiss Bishops : " The Popo is not infallible as a man,
or a theologian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a
judge, or a legislator, or in his political views, or even in his govern-
ment of the Church. "—Yid. Fcssler, French Transl., p. iv.

326 The Vatican Definition.

tives refer to the Pope's utterances when he is out of the
Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do
not necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has
no wider prerogative than a Council, and of a Council
Perrone says, " Councils are not infallible in the reasons
by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making
their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons,
nor to physical matters which have no necessary con-
nexion with dogma." Pr(Bl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. Thus, if
a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret,
it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself ;
it did not touch the persons of either. Since this holds of
a Council, it also holds in the case of the Pope ; therefore,
supposing a Pope has quoted the so-called works of the
Areopagite as if really genuine, there is no call on us
to believe him ; nor again, if he condemned Galileo's
Copernicanism, unless the earth's immobility has a
"necessary connexion with some dogmatic truth,-" which
the present bearing of the Holy See towards that philo-
sophy virtually denies.

5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and
introductions to its definitions. There are theologians
of name, as Tournely and Amort,* who contend that
even those most instructive capitula passed in the Tri-
dentine Council, from which the Canons with anathemas
are drawn up, are not portions of the Church's infallible
teaching ; and the parallel introductions prefixed to the
Vatican anathemas have an authority not greater nor
less than that of those capitula.

* Vid. Amorfc. Dom. Cr., pp. 205-6. This applies to tbe Unarn
Sauctam, vid. Fesaler, Engl. TiauB., p. 67.

The Vatican Definition. 327

6. Such passages, however, as these are too closely
connected with the definitions themselves, not to be what
is sometimes called, b}' a catachresis, " proxiraum fidei ;"
still, on the other hand, it is true also that, in those cir-
cumstances and surroundings of formal definitions, which
I have been speaking of, whether on the part of a Council
or a Pope, there may be not only no exercise of an infal-
lible voice, but actual error. Thus, in the Third Council,
a passage of an heretical author was quoted in defence
of the doctrine defined, under the belief he was Pope
Julius, and narratives, not trustworthy, are introduced
into the Seventh.

This remark and several before it will become intel-
ligible if we consider that neither Pope nor Council are
on a level with the Apostles. To the Apostles the
whole revelation was given, by the Church it is trans-
mitted ; no simply new truth has been given to us since
St. John's death ; the one office of the Church is to
guard ''that noble deposit of truth, as St. Paul
speaks to Timothy, which the Apostles bequeathed to
her, in its fulness and integrity. Hence the infallibility
of the Apostles was of a far more positive and wide
character than that needed by and granted to the
Church. "We call it, in the case of the Apostles, inspi-
ration ; in the case of the Church, assistentia.

Of course there is a sense of the word " inspiration "
in which it is common to all members of the Church,
and therefore especially to its Bishops, and still more
directly to those rulers, when solemnly called together
in Council, after much prayer throughout Christendom,
and in a frame of mind especially serious and earnest by

328 The Vatican Dejinitiun.

reason of the work thej have in hand. The Paraclete
certainly is ever with them, and more efi'ectively in a
Council, as being •' in Spiritu Sancto congregataj" but
I speak of the special and promised aid necessary for
their fidelity to Apostolic teaching; and, in order to
secure this fidelity, no inward gift of infallibility is
needed, such as the Apostles had, no direct suggestion
of divine truth, but simply an external guardianship,
keeping them off from error (as a man's good Angel,
without at all enabling him to walk, might, on a night
journey, keep him from pitfalls in bis way^, a guardian-
ship, saving them, as far as their ultimate decisions are
concerned, from the effects of their inherent infirmities,
from any chance of extravagance, of confusion of thought,
of collision with former decisions or with Scripture,
which in seasons of excitement might reasonably be
feared.

" Never,'* says Perrone, "have Cathoh'cs taught that
the gift of infallibility is given by God to the Church
after the manner of inspiration." — t. 2, p. 253. Again :
"[Human] media of arriving at the truth are excluded
neither by a Council's nor by a Pope's infallibility, for
God has promised it, not by way of an infused " or
habitual "gift, but by the way of assidentia." — ibid
p. 541.

But since the process of defining truth is human, it is
open to the chance of error; what Providence has gua-
ranteed is only this, that there ehould be no error in
the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that
the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the

TJie Vatican Dejmitioii. 329

special question which he happens to be considering ; his
prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his
Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. " Nothing,"
says Perrone, " but the objects of dogmatic definitions
of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils
infallible, not in their reasons" &c. — ibid.

8. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though
dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a
Pope^s Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted
to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only
obiter — by the way, and without direct intention to
define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condi-
tion is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the
Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when admi-
nistered simply in our Lord's Name, without distinct
mention of the Three Persons ; but he is not teaching
and speaking ex cathedra, because no question on this
matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The
question asked of him was concerning the minister of
baptism — viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly
baptize ; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter,
as a private doctor, says Bollarmine, " that the baptism
was valid, whether adminstered in the name of the
three Persons or in the name of Christ only." ( De Rom.
Pont., iv. 12.)

9. Another limitation is given in Pope Pius's own
conditions, set down in the Pastor jltJtcrnns, for the exer-
cise of infallibility : viz., the proposition defined will be
without any claim to be considered binding on the belief
of Catholics, unless it is referuble to the Apostolic
depo.sitiim, through the channel either of Scripture or

^2)0 The Vatican Definition.

Tradition ; and, though the Pope is the judge whether it
is so referable or not, yet the necessity of his professing
to abide by this reference is in itself a certain limitation
of his dogmatic action. A Protestant will object indeed
that, after his distinctly asserting that the Immaculate
Conception and the Papal Infallibility are in Scripture
and Tradition, this safeguard against erroneous defini-
tions is not worth much, nor do I say that it is one of
the most effective : but anyhow, in consequence of it,
no Pope any more than a counsel, could, for instance,
introduce Ignatius's Epistles into the Canon of Scrip-
ture ; — and, as to his dogmatic condemnation of parti-
cular books, which, of course, are foreign to the depo-
situm, I would say, that, as to their false doctrine there
can be no diiEculty in condemning that, by means of
that Apostolic deposit ; nor surely in his condemning
the very wording, in which they convey it, when the
subject is carefully considered. For the Pope's con-
demning the language, for instance, of Jansenius is a
parallel act to the Church's sanctioning the word " Con-
substantial,'' and if a Council and the Pope were not
infallible so far in their judgment of language, neither
Pope nor Council could draw up a dogmatic definition at
all, for the right exercise of words is involved in the
ri":ht exercise of thoufyht.

10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts con-
cerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that
the Pope is infallible." As a definition of faith must be

* It is observable that the Pastor Mternus does not speak of " prao-
cepta" at all in its definition of the Pope's Infallibility, only of his
" defining doctrine," and of his " definitions."

The Vatican DeJiniCLoii. 331

drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order
that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility,
whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of
morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice,
must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary reve-
lation to us from God.

That is, in the first place, it must relate to things in
themselves good or evil. If the Pope prescribed lying or
revenge, his command would simply go for nothing, as
if he had not issued it, because he has no power over
the Moral Law. If he forbade his flock to eat any but
vegetable food, or to dress in a particular fashion (ques-
tions of decency and modesty not coming into the ques-
tion), he would also be going bo3^ond the province of
faith, because such a rule does not relate to a matter in
itself good or bad. But if he gave a precept all over the
world for the adoption of lotteries instead of tithes or
offerings, certainly it would be very hard to prove that
he was contradicting the Moral Law, or ruling a prac-
tice to be in itself good which was in itself evil ; and
there are few persons but would allow that it is at least
doubtful whether lotteries are abstractedly evil, and in
a doubtful matter the Pope is to be believed and obeyed.

However, there are other conditions besides this,
necessary for the exercise of Papal infallibility, in moral
subjects : — for instance, his definition must relate to
things necessary for salvation. No one would so speak
of lotteries, nor of a particular dross, nor of a particular
kind of food ; — such precepts, then, did he make
them, would be simply external to the range of his
prerogative.

3j2 1 he yaticaii DeJLiulion.

And again, his infallibility in consequence is not
called into exercise, unless he speaks to the whole
world; for, if his precepts, in order to be dogmatic,
must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they must be
necessary for all men. Accordingly orders which issue
from him for the observance of particular countries, or
political or religious classes, have no claim to be the
utterances of his infallibility. If he enjoins upon the
hierarchy of Ireland to withstand mixed education, this
is no exercise of his infallibility.

It may be added that the field of morals contains so
little that is unknown and unexplored, in contrast with
revelation and doctrinal fact, which form the domain of
faith, that it is difficult to say what portions of moral
teaching in the course of 1800 years actually have pro-
ceeded from the Pope, or from the Church, or where to
look for such. Nearly all that either oracle has done
in this respect, has been to condemn such propositions
as in a moral point of view are false, or dangerous or
rash ; and these condemnations, besides being such as
in fact will be found to command the assent of most
men, as soon as heard, do not necessarily go so far
as to present any positive statements for universal
acceptance.

11. With the mention of condemned propositions I
am brought to another and large consideration, which is
one of the best illustrations that I can give of that
principle of minimizing so necessary, as I think, for a
wise and cautious theology : at the same time I cannot
insist upon it in the connexion into which I am going
to introduce it, without submitting myself to the cor-

The Vatican Definition, 2)2)7i

rection of divines more learned than I can pretend to be
myself.

The infallibility, whether of the Church or of the
Pope, acts principally or solely in two channels, in direct
statements of truth, and in the condemnation of error.
The former takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the
latter stigmatizes propositions as heretical, nexttoheresy,
erroneous, and the like. In each case the Church, as
guided by her Divine Master, has made provision for
weighing as lightly as possible on the faith and con-
science of her children.

As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us
is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or,
again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blas-
phemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes
to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow our-
selves to be warned against the thesis, or the work con-
taining it. Theologians employ themselves in determin-
ing what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis
or treatise ; and doubtless in most cases they do so with
success; but that determination is not rfe^^r/e ; all that
is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which
is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter,
as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremp-
tory command to theologians, preachers, students, and
all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so
light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur,
when it is successfully maintained by some new writer,
that the Pope^s act does not imply what it has seemed to
imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after
a course of years re-opened. In discussions such as

334 ^^^^ Vatican Definition.

these, there is a real exercise of private judgment and
an allowable one ; the act of faith, which cannot be
superseded or trifled with, being, I repeat, the unre-
served acceptance that the thesis in question is heretical,
or the like, as the Pope or the Church has spoken of it.^

In these cases which in a true sense may be called the
Pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of a legiti-
mate minimizing lies in the intensely concrete character
of the matters condemned ; in his afiirmative enuncia-
tions a like opportunity is afforded by their being more
or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such as relate to
persons, that is, to the Trinity in Unity, the Blessed
Virgin, the Saints, and the like, all the dogmas of Pope
or of Council are but general, and so far, in consequence,
admit of exceptions in their actual application, — these
exceptions being determined either by other authoritative
utterances, or by the scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness,
and subtlety of the Schola Theologormn.

One of the most remarkable instances of what I am
insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholic can
ever think of disputing, viz., that "Out of the Church,
and out of the faith, is no salvation. '' Not to go to
Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenseus,
St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augus-
tine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It
can never be other than an elementary truth of Chris-
tianity ; and the present Pope has proclaimed it as all
Popes, doctors, and bishops before him. But that truth
has two aspects, according as the force of the negative

^ Pesslor seems to confine the exercise of infallibility to tlie Nott;.
« heretical," p. 11, Engl. Transl.

The Vatica7i Dejhation. 335

falls upon the " Church '* or upon the '^ salvation.** The
main sense is, that there is no other communion or so-
called Church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the
promises, the sacraments, and other means of salvation ;
the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved
who is not in that one and only Church. But it does
not follow, because there is no Church but one, which
has the Evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that
therefore no one can be saved without the intervention
of that one Church. Anglicans quite understand this
distinction ; for, on the one hand, their Article says,
*'They are to be had accursed (anathematizandi) that
presume to say, that every man shall be saved hy (in)
the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be dili-
gent to frame his life according to that law and the light
of nature ;'* while on the other hand they speak of and
hold the doctrine of the " uncovenanted mercies of God.'*
The latter doctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of
invincible ignorance — or, that it is possible to belong to
the soul of the Church without belonging to the body ;
and, at the end of 1800 years, it has been formally and
authoritatively put forward by the present Pope (the
first Pope, I suppose, who has done so), on the very
same occasion on which he has repeated the fundamental
principle of exclusive salvation itself. It is to the pur-
pose here to quote his words ; they occur in the course
of his Encyclical, addressed to the Bishops of Italy,
under date of August 10, 1863.

*' We and you know, that those who lie under invin-
cible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, and
who, diligently observing the natural law and its pre-

335 The Vatican Definition. i

cepts, whicli are engraven by God on the hearts of all, :;

and prepared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, ;

are able, by the operation of the power of divine light ;i

and grace, to obtain eternal life/' '^ \

Who would at first sight gather from the wording of \

80 forcible a universal, that an exception to its operation, |

euch as this, so distinct, and, for what we know, so very \

wide, was consistent with holding it P |

Another instance of a similar kind is suggested by the i

V

o-eneral acceptance in the Latin Church, ^ince the time \

of St. Augustine, of the doctrine of absolute predesti- \

nation, as instanced in the teaching of other great saints |

besides him, such as St. Fulgentius, St. Prosper, St. |

Gregory, St. Thomas, and St. Buonaventure. Yet in |

the last centuries a great explanation and modifica- |
tion of this doctrine has been effected by the efforts
3f the Jesuit School, which have issued in the re-
ception of a distinction between predestination to

grace and predestination to glory; and a consequent j

admission of the principle that, though our own works j

do not avail for bringing us under the action of grace j

here, that does not hinder their availing, when we are ;

in a state of grace, for our attainment of eternal glory j

hereafter. Two saints of late centuries, St. Francis de |

Sales and St. Alfonso, seemed to have professed this less |

rigid opinion, which is now the more common doctrine j

of the day. \

7 The Pope speaks more forcibly still in an earlier Allocution. ;

After mentioning invincible ignorance ho adds :— " Quis tantum sibi j
arroget, nt hujusmodi ignorantisa designare limites queat, juxta

populorum, regionum, ingeniorum, aliarumque rerum tarn multanim .
rationem et varietateui ? " — f^ec. 9, l^Si.

TJie Vatican Definition. ^'^']

Another instance is supplied by the Papal decisions
concerning Usury. Pope Clement V., in the Council of
Vienne, declares, " If any one shall have fallen into the
error of pertinaciously presuming to affirm that usury
is no sin, we determine that he is to be punished as a
heretic." However, in the year 1831 the Sacred Pmni-
tentiaria answered an inquiry on the subject, to the effect
that the Holy See suspended its decision on the point,
and that a confessor who allowed of usury was not to
be disturbed, " non esse inquietandum." Here again a
double aspect seems to have been realized of the idea
intended by the word usury.

To show how natural this process of partial and gra-
dually developed teaching is, we may refer to the appa-
rent contradiction of Bellarmine, who says " the Pope,
whether he can err or not, is to be obeyed by all the
faithful" {Eorii. Pont. iv. 2), yet, as I have quoted him
above, p. 52 — 53, sets down (ii. 29) cases in which he
is not to be obeyed. An illustration may be given in
political history from the discussions which took place
years ago as to the force of the Sovereign's Coronation
Oath to uphold the Established Church. The words
were large and general, and seemed to preclude any act
on his part to the prejudice of the Establishment; but
lawyers succeeded at length in making a distinction
between the legislative and executive action of the
Crown, which is now generally accepted.

These instances out of many similar are sufficient to
show what caution is to be observed, on the part of
private and unauthorized persons, in imposing upon
the consciences of others any interpretation of dogmatic

2^S The Vatican Definition.

enunciations which is beyond the legitimate sense of
the words, inconsistent with the principle that all
general rules have exceptions, and uni-ecognized by
the Theological Schola.

12. From these various considerations it follows, that
Papal and Synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith,
are of rare occurrence ; and this is confessed by all sober
theologians. Father O'Reilly, for instance, of Dublin,
one of the first theologians of the day, says : —

" The Papal Infallibility is comparatively seldom
brought into action. I am very far from denying that
the Vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the
fulfilment of his sublime office, that he receives great
light and strength to do well the great work entrusted
to him and imposed on him, that he is continually guided
from above in the government of the Catholic Church.
But this is not the meaning of Infallibility, . . . What
is the use of dragging in the Infallibility in connexion
with Papjal acts with which it has nothing to do, — papal
acts, which are very good and very holy, and entitled
to all respect and obedience, acts in which the Pontift
is commonly not mistaken, but in which he could be
mistaken and still remain infallible in the only sense in
which he has been declared to be so ? " (The Irish
Monthly, Vol. ii. No. 10, 1874.)^

This great) authority goes on to disclaim any desire
to minimize, but there is, I hope, no real difierence be-
tween us here. He, I am sure, would sanction me in
my repugnance to impose upon the faith of others more
than what the Church distinctly claims of them : and I

" Vid. Fessler also ; and I believe Father Perrone says the same.

The Vatican Definition. 339

hIiouIcI follow him in thinking it a more scriptural,
Christian, dutiful, happy frame of mind, to be easy,
than to be difficult, of belief. I have already spoken of
that uncatholic spirit, which starts with a grudging
I'aith in the w^ord of the Church, and determines to hold
nothing but what it is, as if by demonstration, compelled
to believe. To be a true Catholic a man must have a
generous loyalty towards ecclesiastical authority, and
accept what is taught him with what is called the pie^as
jidei, and only such a tone of mind has a claim, and it
certainly has a claim, to be met and to be handled with
^ wise and gentle minimism. Still the fact remains,
that there has been of late years a fierce and intolerant
temper abroad, which scorns and virtually tramples on
the little ones of Christ.

1 end with an extract from the Pastoral of the Swiss
Bishops, a Pastoral which has received the Pope's
approbation.

" It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope,
or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doc-
trine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up
and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths
which that revelation contains. He is tied up and
limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the
preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and
limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the
Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that d«JC-
u'ine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside
religious society there is civil society, that alongside tlic

Z 2

340 The Vatican Definition.

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal
Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full
sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obe-
dience and respect in all things morally permitted, an<l
belonging to the domain of civil society."

Conclusion. 34 1

§ 10. Conclusion.

I have now said all that I consider necessary in order
to fulfil the task which I have undertaken, a task very
painful to me and ungracious. I account it a great
misfortune, that my last words, as they are likely to be,
should be devoted to a controversy with one whom I
have always so much respected and admired. But I
should not have been satisfied with myself, if I had not
responded to the call made upon me from such various
quarters, to the opportunity at last given me of breaking
a long silence on subjects deeply interesting to me, and
to the demands of my own honour.

The main point of Mr. Gladstone's charge against us
is that in 1870, after a series of preparatory acts, a great
change and irreversible was efiected in the political atti-
tude of the Church by the third and fourth chapters of
the Vatican Fastor JMernus, a change which no state or
statesman can afibrd to pass over. Of this cardinal
assertion I consider he has given no proof at all ; and
my object throughout the foregoing pages has been to
make this clear. The Pope's infallibility indeed and
his supreme authority have in the Vatican capita been
declared matters of faith ; but his prerogative of infal-
libility lies in matters speculative, and his prerogative
of authority is no infallibility in laws, commands, or
measures. His infallibility bears upon the domain of
thought, not directly of action, and while it may fairly

342 Conclusion,

exercise the theologian, philosopher, or man of science,
it scarcely concerns the politician. Moreover, whether
the recognition of his infallibility in doctrine will increase
his actual power over the faith of Catholics, remains to
be seen, and must be determined by the event ; for there
are gifts too large and too fearful to be handled freely.
Mr. Gladstone seems to feel this, and therefore insists upon
the increase made by the Vatican definition in the Pope's
authority. But there is no real increase ; he has for cen-
turies upon centuries had and used that authority, which
the Definition now declares ever to have belonged to him.
Before the Council there was the rule of obedience and
there were exceptions to the rule ; and since the Council
therule remains, and with it the possibility of exceptions.

It may be objected that a representation such as this,
is negatived by the universal sentiment, which testifies
to the formidable effectiveness of the Vatican decrees,
and to the Pope's intention that they should be effective ;
that it is the boast of some Catholics and the reproach
levelled against us by all Protestants, that the Catholic
Church has now become beyond mistake a despotic
aggressive Papacy, in which freedom of thought and ac-
tion is utterly extinguished. But I do not allow that this
alleged unanimous testimony exists. Of course Prince
Bismarck ^ and other statesmen such as Mr. Gladstone,

3 Let me, from this accidental mention of Prince Bismarck, make
for myself an opportunity, which my subject has not given me, of
expressing my deep sympathy with the suffering Catholics of Ger-
many. Who can doubt that, in their present resolute disobedience
to that statesman's measures, they are only fulfilling their duty to
God and His Church? Who can but pray that, were English
Cathohcs in a similar trial, they might have grace to act as bravely
in the cause of religion ?

Conclusion. 343

rest their opposition to Pope Pius on the political
ground; but the Old-Catholic movement is based, not
upon politics, but upon theology, and Dr. Bollinger has
more than once, I believe, declared his disapprobation
of the Prussian acts against the Pope, while Father
Hyacinth has quarrelled with the anti-Catholic politics
of Geneva. The French indeed have shown their sense
of the political support which the Holy Father's name
and influence would bring to their country ; but does
any one suppose that they expect to derive support defi-
nitely from the Vatican decrees, and not rather from
the 'prestige, of that venerable Authority, which those
decrees have rather lowered than otherwise in the eyes of
the world ? So again the Legitimists and Carlists in
France and Spain doubtless wish to associate themselves
with E-ome ; but where and how have they signified that
they can turn to profit the special dogma of the Pope's
infallibility, and would not have been better pleased to
be rid of the controversy which it has occasioned ? In
fact, instead of there being a universal impression that
the proclamation of his infallibility and supreme au-
thority has strengthened the Pope's secular position in
Europe, there is room for suspecting that some of the
politicians of the day, (I do not mean Mr. Gladstone)
were not sorry that the Ultramontane party was suc-
cessful at the Council in their prosecution of an object
which those politicians considered to be favourable to the
interests of the Civil Power. There is certainly some
plausibility in the view, that it is not the " Curia
Romana," as Mr. Gladstone considers, or the " Jesuits,"'
who are the ''astute" party, but that rather they

344 Conclusion,

themselves have fallen into a trap, and are victims of
the astuteness of secular statesmen

The recognition, which I am here implying, of the
existence of parties in the Church reminds me of what,
while I have been writing these pages, I have all along
felt would be at once the jjWma facie and also the most
telling criticism upon me. It will be said that there
are very considerable differences in argument and opinion
between me and others who have replied to Mr. Glad-
stone, and I shall be taunted with the evident break-
down, thereby made manifest, of that topic of glorifica-
tion so commonly in the mouths of Catholics, that they
are all of one way of thinking, while Protestant bodies
are all at variance with each other, and by reason of
that very variation of opinion can have no ground of
certainty severally in £heir own.

This is a showy and serviceable retort in controversy ;
but it is nothing more. First, as regards the arguments
which Catholics use,it has to be considered whether these
are really incompatible with each other ; if they are not,
then surely it is generally granted by Protestants as well
as Catholics, that two distinct arguments for the same
conclusion, instead of invalidating that conclusion, ac-
tually strengthen it. And next, supposing the difference
to be one of conclusions themselves, then it must be
considered whether the difference relates to a matter of
faith or to a matter of opinion. If a matter of faith is in
question I grant there ought to be absolute agreement,
or rather I maintain that there is ; I mean to say that
only one out of the statements put forth can be true, and
that the other statements Tvill be at once withdi'awn b}'

Conclusion. 345

their authors, by virtue of their being Catholics, as soon
as they learn on good authority that they are erroneous.
But if the differences which I have supposed are only in
theological opinion, they do but show that after all
private judgment is not so utterly unknown among
Catholics and in Catholic Schools, as Protestants are
desirous to establish.

I have written on this subject at some length in Lec-
tures which I published many years ago, but, it would
appear, with little practical effect upon those for whom
they were intended. " Left to himself," I say, "each
Catholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and
his private judgment just as much as a Protestant ; and
he has it and he maintains it, just so far as the Church
does not, by the authority of Revelation, supersede it.
The very moment the Church ceases to speak, at the
very point at which she, that is, God who speaks by her,
circumscribes her range of teaching, then private judg-
ment of necessity starts up ; there is nothing to hinder

it A Catholic sacrifices his opinion to the Word

of God, declared through His Church ; but from the
nature of the case, there is nothing to hinder him having
his own opinion and expressing it, whenever, and so
far as, the Church, the oracle of Revelation, does not
speak." ^

In saying this, it must not be supposed that I am
denying what is called W\q pietas field, that is, a sense of
the great probability of the truth of enunciations made
by the Church, which are not formally and actually to be
considered as the " Word of God." Doubtless it is our
' Fide " DilTlcultics felt by Anglicans," Lecture X.

34 6 Conclusion.

duty to check many a speculation, or at least many an ,
utterance, even though we are not bound to condemn it
as contrary to religious truth. But, after all, the field
of religious thought which the duty of faith occupies, is
small indeed compared with that which is open to our
free, though of course to our reverent and conscientious,
speculation.

I draw from these remarks two conclusions ; first as
regards Protestants, — Mr. Gladstone should not on the
one hand declaim against us as having " no mental free-
dom," if the periodical press on the other hand is to
mock us as admitting a liberty of private judgment,
purely Protestant. We surely are not open to contra-
dictory imputations. Every note of triumph over the
differences which mark our answers to Mr. Gladstone is
a distinct admission that we do not deserve his inju-
rious reproach that we are captives and slaves of the
Pope.

Secondly, for the benefit of some Catholics, I would
observe that, while I acknowledge one Pope,y70'e divino,
I acknowledge no other, and that I think it a usurpa-
tion, too wicked to be comfortably dwelt upon, when
individuals use their own private judgment, in the dis-
cussion of religious questions, not simply " abundare
in suo sensu," but for the purpose of anathematizing the
private judgment of others.

I say there is only one Oracle of God, the Holy Ca-
tholic Church and the Pope as her head. To her
teaching I have ever desired all my thoughts, all my
words to be conformed ; to her judgment I submit what
I have now written, what I have ever written, not only

Conclusion. 347

as regards its truth, but as to its prudence, its suitable-
ness, and its expedience. I think I have not pursued
any end of my own in anything that I have published,
but I know well, that, in matters not of faith, I may
have spoken, when I ought to have been silent.

And now, my dear Duke, I release you from this
long discussion, and, in concluding, beg you to accept
the best Christmas wishes and prayers for your present
and future from

Your affectionate Friend and Servant,

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.

The Oratory,
Bee. 27, 1874.

J48 Postscript.

POSTSCRIPT. \

\

February 26, 1875. Mr. Gladstone's new Pamphlet, |

which hasjust appeared, is only partially directed against |

the foregoing Letter, and, when he remarks on what I %

have written, he does so with a gentleness which may be j
thought to be unfair to his argument. Moreover he,

commences with some pages about me persoually of so |

special a character, that, did I dare dwell upon them in \
their direct import, they would of course gratify me

exceedingly. But I cannot do so, because I believe that, |

with that seriousness which is characteristic of him, he ]

has wished to say what he felt to be true, not what was j
complimentary ; and because, looking on beyond his
words to what they imply, I see in them, though he did

not mean it so himself, a grave, or almost severe question j
addressed to me, which effectually keeps me from taking

pleasure in them, however great is the honour they dome. |

It is indeed a stern question which his words sug- i

gest, whether, now that I have come to the end of my j

days, I have used aright whatever talents God has given ;

me, and as He would have had me use them, in building I

up religious truth, and not in pulling down, breaking j

up, and scattering abroad. All I can say in answer to I

it, is, that from the day I became a Catholic to this day, ■
now close upon thirty years, I have never had a moment's

Postscript. 349

misgiving that the communion of Rome is that Church
which the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has
" the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the revealed law, and the service of God, and the
promises," and in which the Anglican communion, what-
everits merits and demerits, whatever the great excellence
of individuals in it, has, as such, no part. Nor liave I
ever, since 1845, for a moment hesitated in my conviction
that it was my clear duty to join, as I did then join, that
Catholic Church, which in my own conscience I felt to
be divine. Persons and places, incidents and circum-
stances of life, which belong to my first forty-four years,
are deeply lodged in my memory and my affections ;
moreover, I have had more to try and afflict me in various
ways as a Catholic than as an Anglican ; but never for a
moment have I wished myself back ; never have I ceased
to thank my Maker for His mercy in enabling me to
make the great change, and never has He let me feel for-
saken by Him, or in distress, or any kind of religious
trouble. I do not know how to avoid thus meeting Mr.
Gladstone's language about me : but I can say no more.
The judgment must be left to a day to come.

In the remarks that follow I shall take the order of my
Sections.

§ 1.
My first reason for writing in answer to Mr. Glad-
stone's Expostulation was his charge against us, " that
Catholics, if they act consistently with their principles,
cannot be loyal subjects," mpr. p. 180. And he withdraws
this in his new Pamphlet ( Vaticanism, p. 14), though not

35^ Postscript.

in very gracious language, "The immediate purpose of
my appeal/-' he says, " has been attained, in so fai- that
the loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the
mass remains evidently untainted and secure/'

My second reason was to protest against '' his attack
upon our moral uprightness," &upr. ibid. Here again he
seems to grant that, if what I say can be received as
genuine Catholic teaching, I have succeeded in my
purpose. He has a doubt, however, whether it does not
" smack of Protestantism/' Vat p. 69. He does not
give any distinct reason for this doubt ; and, though I
shall notice it in its place, infr. § 5, 1 tliink it but fair to
maintain as a plain principle of controT'ersy, that it is the
accuser who has to prove his point, and that he must not
content himself with professing that the accused parties
have not succeeded to his satisfaction in disproving it.

Lastly, as springing out of these two charges and
illustrating them, was his exaggerated notion of the force,
drift, and range of the Vatican definition of the Pope's
infallibility and supremacy. Here again I consider he
leaves my interpretation of it without reply, though ap-
parently it does not content him. Some of the objec-
tions to what I have said, which he throws out obiter,
as well as some made by others, shall now be noticed.

Supr. pp. 190, 191. I have saiJ, a[ ropos of the pro-
spect of a definition of the Pope's Infallibility in the
times of Pitt and Peel, " If [the government] wanted to
obtain some real information about the probabilities of the
future, why did they not go to head-quarters ? why not
go to Rome? ... It is impossible tha^they could have

Postscript. 351

entered into formal negotiations with the Pope, without
its becoming perfectly clear that E-ome could never be a
party to such a pledge as England wanted, and that
no pledge from Catholics was of value to which Rome
was not a party .'^ To my astonishment Mr. Gladstone
seems to consider this a fatal admission. He cries out,
" Statesmen of the future, recollect the words ! . . . The
lesson received is this : although pledges were given,
although their validity was formally and even pas-
sionately asserted, although the subject-matter was one
of civil allegiance, ' no pledge from Catholics was of
any value, to which Rome was not a party,' "p. 39.

I deny that the question of infallibility was one of
civil allegiance, but let that pass ; as to the main prin-
ciple involved in what I have said, it certainly does
perplex and confuse me that a statesman with Mr.
Gladstone's experience should make light of credentials,
and should not recognize the difference between party
opinion and formal decisions and pledges. What is the
use of accredited ministers and an official intercourse
between foreign powers, if the acts of mere classes or
interests will do instead of them ? At a congress, I
believe the first act of plenipotentiaries is to show to
each other their credentials. What minister of foreign
affairs would go to the Cesarowitch, who happened to
be staying among us, for an explanation of an expedi-
tion of Russia in upper Asia, instead of having recourse
to the Russian ambassador ?

The common saying, that ** Whigs are Tories out of
place" illustrates again what is in itself so axiomatic
{Successive ministries of opposite views show in history^

352 Postscript.

for the most part, as one consistent national government,
and, when a foreign power mistakes the objections which
public men in opposition make to the details, circum-
stances, or seasonableness of certain ministerial measures,
for deliberate judgments in its favour, it is likely, as in
the case of the great Napoleon, to incur eventually, when
the opposition comes into office, great disappointraeiit,
and has no one to blame but itself. So again, the Czar
Nicholas seems to have mistaken the deputation of the
peace party before the Crimean war for the voice of the
English nation. It is not a business-like way of acting
to assume the assurances of partisans, however sincerely
made, for conditions of a contract. There is nothing
indeed to sbow that the Holy See in 1793 or 1829 had any
notion that the infallibility of the Pope, even if ever made
a dogma, would be so made within such limits of time
as could affect the bond fide character of the prospects
which English and Irish Catholics opened upon Mr. Pitt
or Mr. Peel. The events in Europe of the foregoing half
century had given no encouragement to the Papal cause.
Nor did Catholics alone avow anticipations which helped
to encourage the latter statesman in the course, into
which the political condition of Ireland, not any kindness
to the Irish religion, primarily turned him. There were
Anglican ecclesiastics, whom he deservedly trusted, who
gave it to him as their settled opinion, as regards the
Protestantism of England, that, if the emancipation of
Catholics could but be passed in the night, there would
be no excitement about it next morning. Did such an
influential judgment, thus offered to Mr., Peel, involve
a breach of a pledge, because it was not fulfilled ^

Postscript. 353

It was notorious all over the world that the North
of Catholic Christendom took a different view of Papal
infallibility from the South. A long controversy had
gone on ; able writers were to be found on either side ;
each side was positive in the truth of its own cause ;
each hoped to prevail The Galilean party, towards
which England and Ireland inclined, thought the other
simply extravagant ; but with the Ultramontane stood
Rome itself. Ministers do not commonly believe all the
representations of deputations who come to them with
the advocacy of particular measures, though those depu-
tations may be perfectly sincere in what they aver. The
Catholics of England and Ireland in 1826 were almost
as one man in thinking lightly of the question, but even
then there were those who spoke out in a different sense,
and warned the government that there was a contrary
opinion, and one strong both in its pretensions and its
prospects. I am not bound to go into this subject at
length, for I have allowed that the dominant feeling
among our Catholics at that day was against the prudence
or likelihood of a definition of Papal infallibility ; but I
will instance one or two writers of name who had spoken
in a different sense.

I cannot find that Mr. Gladstone deals with my
reference to Archbishop Troy, whose pastoral bears the
date (1793) of the very year in which as Mr. Gladstone
tells us, Vat., p. 48, a Relief Act was granted to Ireland.
The Archbishop, as I have quoted him {supr., p. 188),
says, " Many Catholics contend that the Pope ... is
infallible. . . . others deny this. . . . Until i\iQ ChuYch
sjiall decid,f- . . . either opinion may be adopted." This

354 Postscript.

is a very significant, as well as an authoritative pas-
sage.

Again: Father Mumford's Catholic Scripturist is a
popular Address to Protestants, in the vernacular, which
has gone through various editions in the 17th, 18th, and
19th centuries. The edition from which I quote is that
of 1863. He says, p. 39, " Whether the definition of a
council alone, defining without their chief pastor, or the
definition of the chief pastor alone, defining without a
council, be infallible or no, there be several opinions
amongst us, in which we do and may vary without any
prejudice to our faith, which is not built upon what is
yet under opinion, but upon that which is delivered as
infallible."

Again, Bishop Hay is one of the most conspicuous
Prelates and authoritative writers amongst us of the 18th
century. In his " Sincere Christian" published between
1770 and 1780, he treats of the infallibility of the Pope
at considerable length, and in its favour. He says, p.
188 {ed. 1871) that that doctrine " is not proposed to us
as an article of divine faith, nor has the Church ever
made any decision concerning it. Great numbers of the
most learned divines are of opinion that, in such a case,
the Head of the Church is infallible in what he teaches,
but there are others who are of a contrary opinion." He
proceeds, "On what grounds do those divines found their
opinion, who believe that the Pope himself, when he
speaks to the faithful as head of the Church, is infallible
in what he teaches ? " and he answers, " On very strong
reasons both from Scripture, tradition, and reason."
These he goes through seriatim; then he adds, p. 194,

Postscript. 355

" What proof do the others bring for their opinion,
that the Head of the Church is not infallible ? They
bring not a single text of Scripture, nor almost one
argument from tradition to prove it."

I might add that the chief instrument in rousing and
rallying the Protestant sentiment against Catholic eman-
cipation was from first to last the episcopate and clergy
of the Church Established ; now, if there was any body
of men who were perfectly aware of the division of senti-
ment among Catholics as to the seat of infallibility, it
was they. Their standard divines, writing in the verna-
cular, discharge it, as one of their most effective taunts,
against their opponents, that, whilst the latter hold the
doctrine of infallibility, they differ among themselves
whether it is lodged in an Ecumenical Council or in the
Roman See. It never can be said then that this opinion,
which has now become a dogma, was not perfectly well
known to be living and energetic in the Catholic com-
munion, though it was not an article of faith, and was
not spoken of as such by Catholics in this part of the
world during the centuries of persecution.

Mr. Gladstone, as his mildest conclusion against us, is
inclined to grant that it was not an act of duplicity in
us, that in 1826 our Prelates spoke against the Pope's
infallibility, though in 1870 they took part in defining
it ; but then he maintains it to be at least a proof that
the Church has changed its doctrine, and thereby for-
feited its claim to be "semper eadem." But it is no
change surely to decide between two prevalent opinions;
however, if it is to be so regarded, then change has been

the characteristic of the Church from the earliest times,
A a 2

35^ Postscript,

as, for instance, in the third century, on the point of the
validity of baptism by heretics. And hence such change
as has taken place (which I should prefer to call doc-
trinal development), is in itself a positive argument in
favour of the Church's identity from first to last ; for a
growth in its creed is a law of its life. I have already
insisted upon this, mpra, p. 314 ; also in former volumes,
as in my Apologia, and Difficulties of Anglicans.

§.3.

Supr. p. 195. As Mr. Gladstone denied that the
Papal prerogatives were consistent with ancient history,
I said in answer that that history on the contrary was
the clearest witness in their favour, as showing how the
promises made to St. Peter were providentially fulfilled
by political, &c., changes, external to the Pope, which
worked for him. I did not mean to deny that those
prerogatives were his from the beginning, but merely
that they were gradually brought into full exercise by a
course of events, which history records. Thus it was a
mistake to say that Catholics could not appeal in favour
of the Papal power to history. To make my meaning
quite clear, as I hoped, I distinctly said T was not
speaking theologically, but historically, nay, looking at
the state of things with "non-Catholic eyes." How-
ever, as the following passage from the Etudes Religieuses
shows, it seems that I have been misunderstood, though
the writer himself, Pere Iftimiere, does me the justice
and the favour to defend me, and I here adopt his words
as my defence. He says, —

"Ppur exprimer cette concentration providentielle,

Postscript. 327

dans les mains du Pape, du pouvoir ecclesiastique partage
autrefois dans une plus large mesure par I'episcopat, le
P. Newman se sert d'un terme legal qu'il ne faut pas
prendre a la lettre. II dit que le Pape est heritier par
defaut de la hierarchie ecumenique du iv* siecle. Le
savant directeur de la Voce della Veritd blame cette ex-
pression, qui impliquerait, selou lui, qui le Pape tient son
pouvoir de la hierarchie : mais le P. Newman exclut
cette interpretation, puis qu'il fait deriver le plenitude
du pouvoir pontifical de la promesse faite par Jesus-
Christ a Saint Pierre/* p. 256, 7, note.

§ 4.

Supr., p. 242. I here say that " were I actually a
soldier or sailor in hei Majesty's service in a just war,
and should the Pope t uddenly bid all Catholic soldiers
and sailors to retire from her service, taking the advice,
&c., ... I should not obey him." Here I avail myself
of a passage in Canon Neville's recent pamphlet ("A
few Comments, &c.," Pickering), in which he speaks with
the authority belonging to a late theological Professor of
Maynooth : —

" In the impossible hypothesis of the Pope being
engaged in a war with England, how would the alle-
giance of English Catholics be affected ? . . how would
it be, if they were soldiers or sailors ? . . . . Some one
will urge, the Pope may issue a mandate enforced by an
annexed excommunication, forbidding all Catholics to
engage in the war against him. . . . The supposed action
of the Pope does not change the question materially. . .
The soldiers and sailors would not incur it, because

35^ Postsc7'-ipt.

' gra re fears' excuse from censure [excommunication],
censures being directed against the contumacious, not
against those who act through fear or coercion. ... It
is a trite principle, that mere ecclesiastical laws do not
bind, when there would be a very grave inconvenience
in their observance; and it denies as a rule to any
human legislator {e.g., the Pope) the power of making
laws or precepts, binding men to the performance of
actions, which, from the danger and difficulty attendant
on their fulfilment, are esteemed heroic,^' pp. 101, 2.

§5.

Sirpr., p. 254. I have said, "The Pope, who comes of
Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature," i.e. the
natural Law. Mr. Gladstone on the other hand says,
" Idle it is to tell us, finally, that the Pope is bound by
the moral and divine law, by the commandments of God,
by the rules of the Gospel : . . . for of these, one and
all, the Pope himself, by himself, is the judge without
appeal," p. 102. That is, Mr. Gladstone thinks that
the Pope may deny and anathematize the proposition,
"There is one God :" and may proceed to circulate by
Cardinal Antonelli a whole Syllabus of kindred " erro-
neous theses" for the instruction of the Bishops. Ca-
tholics think this impossible, as believing in a Divine
Providence ever exercised over the Church. But let us
grant, for argument-sake, that a Pope could commit so
insane a violation of the Natural and the Revealed
Law : — we know what would be the consequence to such
a Pope. Cardinal Turrecremata teaches, as I have
quoted him, that " were the Pope to command anything

Postscript. 359

against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the
truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the
natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in
such commands to be ignored." Supr., p. 242. Other,
and they the highest Ultramontane theologians, hold
that a Pope who teaches heresy ipso facto ceases to be
Pope.

Supr., p. 261. Here, after stating that there are
cases in which the Pope's commands are to be resisted by
individual Catholics, I challenge Mr. Gladstone to bring
passages from our authoritative writers to the con-
trary : and I add, " they must be passages declaring not
only that the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but that there
are no exceptions to this rule, for exceptions ever must
be in all concrete matters." Instead of doing so, Mr.
Gladstone contents himself with enunciating the contra-
dictory to what I have said. " Dr. Newman says there
are exceptions to this precept of obedience. But this
is just what the Council has not said. The Church by
the Council imposes Aye. The private conscience
reserves to itself the title to say No. I must confess
that in this apology there is to me a strong, undeniable
smack of Protestantism,'^ p. 69.

Mr. Gladstone says " there is to me '" yes, certainly
to him and other Protestants, because they do not know
our doctrine. I have given in my Pamphlet, three rea-
sons in justification of what I said; first that exceptions
must be from the nature of the case, " for in a// concrete
matters," not only in precepts of obedience, rules are
but general, and exceptions must occur. Then, in a
later page, p. 334, I give actual instances, which have

360 Postscript.

occurred in tlie history of Catholic teaching, of excep-
tions after large principles have been laid down. But
my main reason lies in the absolute statements of theolo-
gians. I willingly endure to have about me a smack of
Protestantism, which attaches to Cardinal Turrecre-
mata in the 15 th century, to Cardinals Jacobatius and
Bellarraine in the 16th, to the Carmelites of Salamanca
in the 17th, and to all theologians prior to them ; and
also to the whole Schola after them, such as to Fathers
Corduba, Natalis Alexander, and Busenbaum, and so
down to St. Alfonso Liguori, the latest Doctor of the
Church, in the 18th, and to Cardinal Gousset and
Archbishop Kenrick in the 19th.

On the subject of the supremacy of Conscience a cor-
respondent has done me the favour of referring me to
a passage in the life of the well-known M. Emery
(Paris, 1862), Superieur of St. Sulpice. It runs as fol-
lows : —

" La celebration du mariage de Napoleon avec
FArchiduchesse d'Autriche donna lieu a une autre diffi-
culte sur la quelle M. Emery fut dans le cas de s'expli-
quer, non avec le gouvernement, mais avec quelques
cardinaux qui desiraient connaitre son sentiment. II
s'agissait de savoir si les cardinaux resident a Paris, au
nombre de vingt-six, pouvaient en conscience assister a
la cer^monie religieuse du mariage. Quelques jours
avant cette ceremonie, M. Emery, consulte la-dessus
par le cardinal della Somaglia, qui paraissait regarder
cette assistance comme illicite, lui repondit que, s'«7 etait
effectivement dans cette persuasion, il ne pouvait en con-
science assister a la ceremonie, parce qu'il n'est jamais

Postsc7'ipt. 361

permis cCagir contre sa conscience. Mais il ajouta que
cette assistance, au fond, ne lui paraissait pas illicite/' &o.

It got about in consequence that he had denied that
any cardinal could with a safe conscience be present at,
the religious ceremony. This led Cardinal Fesch to write
him a letter asking for an explanation, inasmuch as a
cardinal had distinctly stated " que M. Emery avait
confirme ce cardinal dans son opinion, qu'il ne pouvait
pas, en conscience, assister au mariage de I'Empereur;'*
whereas, Cardinal Fesch proceeds, " hier meme, a trois
heures apres midi, M. Emery, pour la seconde ou troi-
sieme fois, m'avait proteste qui'l etait d'une opinion
toute contraire, et qu'il pensait que les cardinaux
pouvaient assister a la ceremonie." In consequence he
asked for " une reponse categorique " from M. Emery.

M. Emery in consequence wrote letters to both car-
dinals to show his consistency in the language he had
used in conversation with each of them, insisting for that
purpose on the distinction which has led to the intro-
duction of his name and conduct into this place, viz.,
that every man must go by his own conscience, not by
that of another. He says to Cardinal Somaglia, " Vous
m'avez dit qu'apres avoir fait les recherches les plus
exactes, vous etiez convaincu que vous ne pouviez aller
au mariage sans blesser voire conscience. J'ai dii vous
dire, et je vous ai dit, que, dans cette supposition, vous no
deviez point y assister, parce que j'etais persuade comme
vous, qu'on ne pouvait, qu'on ne devait jamais, agir contre
sa conscience, meme erronee." He adds, " Non que les
inconvenients soient une raison d'autoriser I'assi^tance
qui serait d'ailleurs illicito, mais ces inconvenients sent

362 Postscript.

une raison tres- forte d^exarainer le plus attentivement

qu'il est possible, si reellement TassistaDce est illicite,

et si la conscience qu'on s'est formee a cette sujet n'est

point une conscience erronee." — t. 2, pp. 249 — 254.

In the event Cardinal Somaglia kept to his view,

contrary to M. Emery, and did not attend the marriage

ceremony.

§6.

^upr., pp. 274, 275. Speaking of the proposition
condemned in the Encyclical of 1864, to the effect that
it is the right of any one to have liberty to give public
utterance, in every possible shape, by every possible
channel, without any let or hindrance from God or
man, to all his notions wliatever, I have said that " it
seems a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he called
such a doctrine of conscience a deliramentum. Presently
I add, " Perhaps Mr. Gladstone will say. Why should
the Pope take the trouble to condemn what is so wild ?
but he does," &c.

On this Mr. Gladstone remarks. Vat, p. 21, 22, " It
appears to me that this is, to use a mild phrase, merely
trifling with the subject. We are asked to believe that
what the Pope intended to condemn was a state of
things which never has existed in an)"^ country in the
world. Now he says he is condemning one of the
commonly prevailing errors of the time, familiarly
known to the Bishops whom he addresses. What
bishop knows of a State which by law allows a perfectly
free course to blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition ? "

I do not find anything to show that the Pope is
speaking of States, and not of writers; and, though I

Postscript. 363

do not pretend to know against what writers he is
speaking, yet there are writers who do maintain doc-
trines which carried out consistently would reach that
deliramentum which the Pope speaks of, if they have not
rather already reached it. We are a sober people ; but
are not the doctrines of even so grave and patient a
thinker as the late Mr. J. S. Mill very much in that
direction ? He says, " The appropriate region of human
liberty comprises first the inward domain of conscious-
ness ; demanding liberty of conscience in the most com-
prehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute
freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects prac-
tical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The
liberty of expressing and publishing opinion may seem to
fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that
part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other
people ; but, being almost of as much importance as the
liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the
same reasons, is practically inseparable from it., &c. &c.
. . . No society in which these liberties are not on the
whole respected, is free, whatever may be its form of
government.^' {On Liberty, Introd.) Of course he does
not allow of a freedom to harm others, though we have
to consider well what he means by harming : but his is a
freedom which must meet with no " impediment from
our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm
them, even though they should think our conduct foolisli,
perverse, or wrong." " The only freedom," he con-
tinues, "which deserves the name is that of pursuing
our own good in our own way, so long as we do not
attempt to deprive othora of theirs, or impede their

364 PosiscripL

efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his
own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual."

That is, no immoral doctrines, poems, novels, plays,
conduct, acts, may be visited by the reprobation of
public opinion ; nothing must be put down, I do not say
by the laws, but even by society, by the press, by
religious influence, merely on the ground of shocking
the sense of decency and the modesty of a Christian
community. Nay, the police must not visit Holywell
Street, nor a licence be necessary for dancing-rooms :
but the most revolting atrocities of heathen times and
countries must for conscience-sake be allowed free exer-
cise in our great cities. Averted looks indeed and silent
disgust, or again rational expostulation, is admissible
against them, but nothing of a more energetic character.

T do not impute this to Mr. Mill. He had too much
English common sense to carry out his principles to
these extreme but legitimate conclusions ; he strove to
find means of limiting them by the introduction of
other and antagonist principles ; but then that such a
man held the theory of liberty which he has avowed, and
that he has a great following, is a suggestion to us that
the Holy See may have had abundant reason in the
present state of the continent to anathematize a pro-
position, which to Mr. Gladstone seems so wild and
unheard of.

§7.

Supr., pp. 277, 281. I have said that the Syllabus is to
be received from the Pope with "profound submission."
p. 277, and " by an act of obedience," p. 281 ; 1 add.

Postscript. 365

" but not of faith," for it " has no dogmatic force." I
maintain this still. I say, in spite of Professor Schulte,
and the English Catholic writer to whom Mr. Gladstone
refers, p. 32, 1 have as much right to maintain that the
implicit condemnation with which it visits its eighty
propositions is not ex cathedra, or an act of the Infallible
Chair, as have those " gravest theologians," as Bishop
Fessler speaks, who call its dogmatic force in question,
Fesskr, p. 91. I do not know what Fessler himself
says of it more than that it is to be received with sub-
mission and obedience. I do not deny another's right
to consider it in his private conscience an act of infalli-
bility, or to say, in Mr. Gladstone's words, p. 35, that
" utterances ex cathedra are not the only form in which
Infallibility can speak;" I only say that I have a right to
think otherwise. And when the Pope by letters approves
of one writer who writes one way, and of another
who writes in another, he makes neither opinion dog-
matic, but both allowable. Mr. Gladstone speaks as if
what the Pope says to Fr. Schrader undoes what he
says to Bishop Fessler ; why not say that his letter to
Fessler neutralizes his letter to Schrader ? I repeat,
when I speak of minimizing, I am not turning the
. profession of it into a dogma ; men, if they will, may
maximize for me, provided they too keep from dogma-
tizing. This is my position all through these discus-
sions, and must be kept in mind by any fair reasonor.

I giant the Pope has laid a great stress on the Syl-
labus ; he is said in 1867 to have spoken of it as a
" regula docendi ;" I cannot tell whether viva voce, or in
writing ; any how this did not interfere with Fessler'y

366 Postscript.

"grave theologians" in 1871 consideringthePope was not
in 1867 teaching dogmatically and infallibly. Moreover,
how can a list of proscribed propositions be a "rule/' ex-
cept by turning to the Allocutions, &c., in which they are
condemned ? and in those Allocutions, when we turn to
them, we find in what sense, and with what degree of
force, severally. In itself the Syllabus can be no more
than what the Pope calls it, a syllabus or collection of
errors. Led by the references inserted in it to the
Allocutions, &c., I have ventured to call it something
more, viz., a list or index raisonne ; an idea not attached
to it by me first of all, for P^re Daniel, in the October of
that very year, 1867, tells us, in the Etudes Religieuses,
"Au Syllabus lui-meme il ne faut pas demander que
le degre de clarte qui convient a une bonne table des
matieres," p. 614.

But, whether an index or not, and though it have a
substantive character, it is at least clear that the only
way in which it can be a " rule of teaching " is by its
tellir)g us what to avoid ; and this consideration will
explain what I mean by receiving it with " obedience,"
which to some persons is a difiicult idea, when contrasted
with accepting it with faith. I observe then that obe-
dience is concerned with doing, but faith with affirming.
Now, when we are told to avoid certain propositions, we
are told primarily and directly not to do something;
whereas, in order to affirm, we must have positive state-
ments put before us. For instance, it is easy to under-
stand, and in our teaching to avoid the proposition,
" Wealth is the first of goods ;" but who shall attempt
to ascertain what the affirmative propositions are.

Postscript, 367

one or more, which are necessarily involved in the
prohibition of such a proposition, and which must be
clearly set down before we can make an act of faith in
them ?

However, Mr. Gladstone argues, that, since the Pope's
condemnation of the propositions of the Syllabus has, as
I have allowed, a claim on the obedience of Catholics,
that very fact tells in favour of the propositions con-
demned by him ; he thinks I have here made a fatal
admission. It is enough, he says, that the Syllabus
" unquestionably demands obedience \'' that is, enough,
whether the propositions condemned in it deserve con-
demnation or not. Here are his ver)' words : *' Whai
is conclusive ... is this, that the obligation to obey ii
is asserted on all hands ; ... it is therefore absolutely
superfluous to follow Dr. Newman through his references
to the Briefs and Allocutions marginally noted,*' in
order to ascertain their meaning and drift. . . . '* I abide
by my account of the contents of the Syllabus," p. 36.
That is, the propositions may be as false as heathenism,
but they have this redeeming virtue, that the Pope
denounces them. His judgment of them may be as true
as Scripture, but it carries this unpardonable sin with
it, that it is given with a purpose, and not as a mere
literary flourish. Therefore I will not inquire into the
propositions at all; but my original conclusion shall
be dogmatic and irrcformable. Sit pro ratione
voluntas.

Swpra, p. 288, T have declined to discuss the difliculties
which Mr. Gladstone raises upon our teaching respecting

368 Postscript.

the marriage contract (on which I still think him either
obscure or incorrect), because they do not fall within the
scope to which I professed to confine my remarks ; how-
ever, his fresh statements, as they are found, Vat.y p. 28,
lead me to say as follows : —

The non-Roman marriages in England, he says, " do
not at present fall under the foul epithets of Rome. But
why ? not because we marry . . . under the sanctions
of religion, for our marriages are, in the eye of the Pope,
purely civil marriages, but only for the technical . . .
reason that the disciplinary decrees of Trent are not
canon ically in force in this country,'* &c.

Here Mr, Gladstone seems to consider that there are
only two ways of marrying according to Catholic
teaching ; he omits a third, in which we consider the
essence of the sacrament to lie. He speaks of civil mar-
riage, and of marriage " under the sanctions of religion,"
by which phrase he seems to mean marriage with a rite
and a minister. But it is also a religious marriage, if
the parties, without a priest, by a mutual act of consent,
as in the presence of God, marry themselves ; and such
a vow of each to other is, according to our theology,
really the constituting act, the matter and form, the
sacrament of marriage. That is, he omits the very con-
tract which we specially call marriage. This being the
case, it follows that every clause of the above passage is
incorrect.

I. Mr. Gladstone says, that English non-Roman
marriages are held valid at Rome, not because they are
contracted "under the sanctions of religion." On the
contrary, this is the very reason why they are held valid

Postscript. 369

there; viz., only because parties who have already
received the Christian rite of baptism, proceed to give
themselves to each other in the sight of God sacra-
mentally, though they may not call it a sacrament.

2. Mr. Gladstone says, " our marriages are in the eye
of the Pope j9wre/y civil marriages." Just the reverse,
speaking, as he is, of Church of England marriages.
They are considered, in the case of baptized persons,
sacramental marriages.

3. Mr. Gladstone says, that they are received at Rome
as valid, " only for the technical, &c., reason that the
disciplinary decrees of Trent are not canonically in force
in this country. There is nothing, unless it be motives
of mere policy, to prevent the Pope from giving them
[those decrees] force here, when he pleases. If, and
when that is done, every marriage thereafter concluded in
the English Church, will, according to his own words, be
* a filthy concubinage* " This is not so ; I quote to the
point two sufficient authorities, St. Alfonso Liguori and
Archbishop Kenrick.

Speaking of the clandestinity of marriage (that is,
when it is contracted without parish priest and wit-
nesses,) as an impediment to its validity, St. Alfonso
says, " As regards non-Catholics (infideles), or Ca-
tholics who live in non-Catholic districts, or where the
Council of Trent has not been received . . . mch a mar-
riage is valid." — torn, viii., p. 67, ed. 1845. Even then
though the discipline of Trent tvas received in England,
still it would not cease to be a Protestant country,
and therefore marriages in Protestant churches would
be valid.

jt b

370 Postscript.

Archbishop Kenrick is still more explicit. He says,
" Constat Patres Tridentinos legem ita tulisse, ut haere-
ticorum ccetus jam ab Ecclesia divulsos non respiceret
.... Hoc igitur clandestinitatis impedimentum ad
hsereticos seorsim convenientes in locis ubi grassantur
baereses, non est extendendum.'' — Theol. Mor., t. 3.
p. 351.

Such being the Catholic rule as to recognition of Pro-
testant marriages, the Pope could not, as Mr. Gladstone
thinks, any day invalidate English Protestant marriages
by introducing into England the discipline of Trent.
The only case, in which, consistently with the Council,
any opportunity might occur to the Pope, according to
his accusation, of playing fast and loose, is when there
was a doubt whether the number of Protestants in a
Catholic country was large enough to give them a clear
footing there, or when the Government refused to
recognize them. Whether such an opportunity has
practically occurred and has ever been acted on, I have
not the knowledge either to aflfirm or deny.

§8.

Stipr., p. 302. *' But if the fact be so that the Fathers
were not unanimous, is the definition valid? This
depends on the question whether unanimity, at least
moral, is or is not necessary for its validity.'' Vid. also
p. 303.

It should be borne in mind that these letters of mine
were not intended for publication, and are introduced
into my text as documents of 1870, with a view of
refuting the false reports of my bearing at that time

Postscript, 2>7^

towaids the Vatican Council and Definition. To alter
their wording would have been to destroy their argu-
mentative value. I said nothing to imply that on
reflection I agreed to every proposition which I set down
on my primd faeie view of the matter.

One passage of it, perhaps from my own fault, Mr.
Gladstone has misunderstood. He quotes me. Vat, p. 13,
as holding that " a definition which the Pope approves,
is not absolutely binding thereby, but requires a moral
unanimity, and a subsequent reception by the Church."
Nay, I considered that the Pope could define without
either majority or minority ; but that, if he chose to go
by the method of a Council, in that case a moral
unanimity was required of its Fathers. I say a few
lines lower down, waiving the difficulty altogether, " Our
merciful Lord would not care so little for His people
... as to allow their visible head and such a large
number of Bishops to lead them into error." Pere
Ramiere, in his very kind review of me in the Etudes
Religieuses for February, speaks of the notion of a moral
unanimity as a piece of Gallicanism ; but anyhow it has
vanished altogether from theology now, since the Pope,
if the Bishops in the Council, few or many, held back,
might define a doctrine without them. A council of
Bishops of the world around him, is only one of the
various modes in which he exercises his infallibility. The
seat of infallibility is in him, and they are adjuncts.
The Pastor JEternus says, " Romani Pontifices, prout
temporum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis
oecumenicis conciliis, aut rogata Eeclesise per orbem dis-
persEe sententia, nwic per synodos particulares, nnnc aliis,
B b 2

372 Postscript.

quae Divina suppeditabat Providentia, adhibitis auxiliis,
ea tenenda definiverunt, qu8D sacris Scripturis et Apos-
tolicis Traditionibus consentanea, Deo adjutore, cogno-
verant."

Nor have I spoken of a subsequent reception by the
Church as entering into the necessary conditions of a
de fide decision. I said that by the " Securus judicat
orbis terrarum'' all acts of the rulers of the Church are
ratified," p. 303. In this passage of ray private letter I
meant by "ratified" brought home to us as authentic.
At this very moment it is certainly the handy, obvious,
and serviceable argument for our accepting the Vatican
definition of the Pope^s Infallibility.

Snpr., p. 306, I said in my first edition, at this page,
that the definition at Ephesus seemed to be carried by
124 votes against 111 ; as this was professedly only an
inference of my own, I have withdrawn it. Confining
myself to the facts of the history, which are perplexed, I
observe : — The Council was opened by St. Cyril on
June 22 of the current year, without waiting for the
Bishops representing the great Syrian patriarchate, who
were a few days' journey from Ephesus, in spite of the
protest on that account of sixty-eight of the Bishops
already there. The numbers present at the opening are
given in the Acts as about 150. The first Session in
which Nestorius was condemned and a definition or
exposition of faith made, was concluded before night.
That exposition, as far as the Acts record, was contained
in one of the letters of St, Cyril to Nestorius, which the
Bishops in the Council one by one accepted as conform-

Postscript. 373

able to Apostolic teaching. "Whether a further letter of
St. CyriPs with his twelve anathematisras, which was
also received by the Bishops, was actually accepted by
them as their dogmatic utterance, is uncertain ; though
the Bishops distinctly tell the Pope and the Emperor
that they have accepted it as well as the others, as being
in accordance with the Catholic Creed. At the end of
the acts of the first Session the signatures of about 200
Bishops are found, and writers of the day confirm this
number, though there is nothing to show that the addi-
tional forty or fifty were added on the day on which the
definition was passed, June 22, and it is more probable
that they were added afterwards ; vid. Tillemont, Cyril^
note 34, and Fleury, Hut., xxv. 42. And thus Tille-
mont, ihid., thinks that the signatures in favour of Cyril
altogether amounted to 220. The Legates of the Pope
were not present; but they had arrived by July 10.
The Syrian Bishops arrived on June 26th or 27th. As
to Africa, then overrun by the Vandals, it was repre-
sented only by the deacon of the Bishop of Carthage,
who sent him to make his apologies for Africa, to warn
the Council against the Pelagians, and to testify the
adherence of the African Churches to Apostolic doctrine.
The countries which were represented at the Council, and
took part in the definition were Egypt, Asia Minor, and
Thrace, Greece, &c. The whole number of Bishops in
Christendom at the time was about 1800 ; not 6000, as
St. Dalmatius says at random. Gibbon says, " The
Catholic Church was administered by the spiritual and
legal jurisdiction of 1800 bishops, of whom 1000 were
seated in the Greek, and 800 in the Latin provinces of

374 Postscript.

the empire." He adds, "The numbers are not ascer-
tained by any ancient writer or original catalogue ; for
the partial lists of the eastern churches are comparatively
modern. The patient diligence of Charles a S. Paolo,
of Luke Holstein, and of Bingham, has laboriously in-
vestigated all the episcopal sees of the Catholic Church."

To the same purport Fr. Ryder of this Oratory wrote,
after my first edition, in answer to Fr. Botalla, S.J., as
follows : —

" As regards the Council of Ephesus, there are few
points on which learned men are less agreed than its
precise numbers. The names given at the opening of
the first Session (June 22, 431) in which Nestorius was
condemned and St. Cyril approved, amounted to 159 ;
standing aloof from those and protesting against this
precipitation in not waiting for the Antiochenes, were
sixty-eight. . . . Five days afterwards the Antiochenes
with the Patriarch John at their head, about twenty-
seven in number, arrived, and then and there anathema-
tized St. Cyril and all his adherentsj declaring null and
void all they had done. This condemnation is signed
by forty-three. The forty-three consists, besides the
Antiochenes, of some who had signed the deposition of
Nestorius and some of the sixty-eight protestors. The
larger part of the sixty-eight, we may presume, went to
swell St. Cyril's party, for we find 198 signatures to
the deposition of Nestorius. Subsequently to this, in
various ofiicial documents the majority refers to itself as
* about 200,' ' over 200 '\ but we have no signatures
beyond the 198. On the other hand, we possess a docu-
ment of the minority of July 17, containing fifty-thre^

Postscript. 375

signatures. Afterwards the proportions of the schism
were still more serious . . . John of Antioch's twenty-
seven were delegates and representatives of the whole
Antiochene Patriarchate, except Cyprus. Thus, on
leaving Ephesus, John was able to hold a Council at
Antioch, and condemn Cyril with far larger numbers
than before. . . . They cannot be well set at less than
100. . . . [And elsewhere,] large portions of the Epis-
copate had no knowledge, or an utterly confused one, of
what had been going on at Ephesus. St. Isidore, one
of Cyril^s own clergy, expostulates with him for his
tyranny; and the works of Eacundus and Liberatus
show how deeply seated was the opposition of the
African Church to the doctrine of Cyril."

§9.

Supra, pp. 320, &c. It has been objected to the ex-
planation I have given from Fessler and others of the
nature and range of the Pope's infallibility as now a
dogma of the Church, that it was a lame and impotent
conclusion of the Council, if so much effort was em-
ployed, as is involved in the convocation and sitting of
an Ecumenical Council, in order to do so little. True,
if it were called to do what it did and no more; but
that such was its aim is a mere assumption. In the
first place it can hardly be doubted that there were those
in the Council who were desirous of a stronger defini-
tion ; and the definition actually made, as being njode-
rate, is so far the victory of those many bishops who
considered any definition on the subject inopportune.
And it was no slight fruit of their proceedings in the

376 Postscript.

Council, if a definition was to be, to have effected a
moderate definition. But the true answer to the objec-
tion is that which is given by Bishop Ullathorne. The
question of the Pope's infallibility was not one of the
objects professed in convening the Council ; and the
Council is not yet ended.

He says in his " Expostulation Unravelled," " The
Expostulation goes on to suggest that the Council was
convened mainly with a view of defining the infallibility,
and that the definition itself was brought about, chiefly
for political objects, through the action of the Pontiff
and a dominant party. A falser notion could not be
entertained. I have the official catalogue before me of
the Schemata prepared by the theologians for discussion
in the Council. In them the infallibility is not even
mentioned ; for the greater part of them regard eccle-
siastical discipline." P. 48, he adds, " Calamitous
events suspended the Council."

Supr., p. 326, note. I have referred to Bishop
Fessler's statement that only the last sentences of Boni-
face's Unam Sanctam are infallible. To this Mr. Glad-
stone replies, p. 45, that the word " Porro," introducing
the final words to which the anathema is affixed, extends
that anathema to the body of the Bull, which precedes
the *' Porro." But he does not seem to have observed
that there are two distinct heresies condemned in the
Bull, and that the ** Porro" is the connecting link
between these two condemnations, that is, between the
penultima and final sentences. The Pope first says,
"Nisi duo, sicut Manichaeus, fingat esse prineipia.

Postscript. T^jj

quod falsum et hcBreticum judicamus . . . porro, subesse
Romano Pontifici, omni humanse creaturse declaramus,
definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate
salutis." That the Latin is deficient in classical terse-
ness and perspicuity we may freely grant.

Supra, p. 327, I say, " We call ' infallibility ' in the
case of the Apostles, inspiration; in the case of the
church, assistentia."

On this Mr. Gladstone says, " On such a statement I
have two remarks to make ; first, we have this assurance
an the strength only of his own private judgment, p,
102." How can he say so when, p. 328, 1 quote Father
Perrone, saying, " Never have Catholics taught that the
gift of infallibility is given by God to the Church after
the manner of inspiration ! "

Mr. Gladstone proceeds, " Secondly, that, if bidden
by the self-assertion of the Pope, he will be required by
his principles to retract it, and to assert, if occasion
should arise, the contrary/' I can only say to so hypo-
thetical an argument what is laid down by Fessler and
the Swiss bishops, that the Pope cannot, by virtue of his
infallibility, reverse what has always been held ; and
that the " inspiration^' of the church, in the sense in
which the Apostles were inspired, is contrary to our
received teaching. If Protestants are to speculate about
our future, they should be impartial enough to recollect,
that if, on the one hand, we believe that a Pope can
add to our articles of faith, so, on the other, we hold
also that a heretical Pope, ipso facto, ceases to be Pope
by reason of his heresy, as I have said {siipr., p. 359).

c c

378 Postscript.

Mr. Gladstone thus ends : " Thirdly, that he lives
under a system of development, through which some-
body's private opinion of to-day may become matter of
faith for all the to-morrows of the future." I think he
should give some proof of this ; let us have one instance
in which " somebody's private opinion " has become
dk. fide. Instead of this, he goes on to assert (interroga-
tively) that Popes, e.g. Clement XI. and Gregory II. ,
and the present Pope, have claimed the inspiration of
the Apostles, and that Germans, Italians, French, have
ascribed such a gift to him ; — of course he means theo-
logians, not mere courtiers, or sycophants, for the Pope
cannot help having such, till human nature is changed.
If Mr. Gladstone is merely haranguing as an Orator, I
do not for an instant quarrel with him or attempt to
encounter him ; but if he is a controversialist, we have
a right, to look for arguments, not mere assertions.

THE END.

BERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

I

Fj^M 1 9 1988

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY