IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 28 S IK U M 20 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 = ^ — s ^ 6" ► V] <^ /} /y '^W w V w Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (7)6) 873-4503 ■ m CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVi/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibllographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul^e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D D D D D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d jutres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a itS possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I — I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe^ Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materis Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I — ~K Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~y( Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une peluie. etc., ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item Is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce documenr est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 1 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may bo filmed at different reduction ratios. Those i:oo large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —•' signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 r 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ir^ '^n Getting on in the JVorld, BY PROF. WM. MATHEWS, LL.D. I Vol., Crown ivo. It is sound, morally and mentally. It gives no one-sided view of life ; it does not pander to the lower nature ; but it is high toned, correctly toned, throughout. . . . There is an earnest- ness and even eloquence in this volume which makes the author appear to speak to us from the living page. It reads like a speech. There is an electrical fire about every sentence. — Episco- pal Register, Philadelphia. BELFORD BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, TORONTO. "1 Memoir of Norman Macleod, D.D, By his Brother, the REV. DONALD MACLEOD, B.A. 1 Vol. Demy Bva., with Portrait. We once more commend to our readers a work which is a fitting m monument, erected with the true self-forgetfulness of a loving brother and a faithful biographer, and which will leave the abid- ing impression that in Norman Macleod all who knew him mourn a devoted, gallant, and delightful friend, and his Church and country lost a magnificent champion of the good, the noble, and the true. — Times, London. BELFORD BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, TORONTO. f ' ^■'^' *\ ^^d 4<* ROMAN CATHOLICISM. LOYOLA COLLEGE MONTREAL r^^PBwnwp'w^ >• immmmm y ROMAN CATHOLICISM, OLD AND NEW, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE INFALLIBILITY DOCTRINE, BY JOHN SCHULTE, D.D., Ph.D., Rector qf Port BurtotU, Ont, Canada. LOYOLA COLLEGfi MONTREAL ^* ' TORONTO: BELFORD BROTHERS, Publishers. 1876. Bv ioi IS S3 Entered according to the Act of Parliament of Canada in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-siXf by Belfokd Bbotheus, in the Ojfice of the Minister of Agriculture. PREFACE. WHEN fifteen years ago I left the Church of Rome, it was expected that I should publish to the world my reasons for taking that important step. However just these expectations may have appeared to some, I was compelled to disappoint them, considering that con- troversy is not the field for a new convert, because it is apt to drive him to the opposite extreme, and to lead him to form in haste judgments which req^uire the most mature consideration. * Besides, after the mental crisis through which I had passed and which lasted for some years, I felt that my mind needed rest, and that the anxieties of a religious controversy would rather disturb me in making progress in the cause of the truth. I still think that, instead of being beneficial to myself and others, it would have been detrimental in more than one respect. My Roman Catholic friends must not think that it was fear of possible defeat that kept me from entering the arena of theological strife. When I took the final step of leaving the Roman communion I was fully con- vinced that I was doing what was right — following the 8 Preface. dictates of my conscience ; I believed also that T was able to defend what 1 had dune. But in truth the criais was not yet over ; I was still battling with myself in more than one sense, and did not feel disposed to fight with those whom I esteemed as my former friends. I had passed only through the negative part of the crisis, throwing overboard what I considered erroneous in the Eoman system, and even casting aside the very foundation of the whole structure, I mean the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church. I had made the final plunge out of Itome, without knowing where to land, and I found myself in the atmosphere of Protes- tantism which from my youth up I had been taught to hate, and whose divisions I scorned and abominated aa signs of a self-willed and anti-Christian spirit. Surely, then, I was not in a fit state of mind to enter the field of controversy. There were, besides, other powerful reasons which kept me in retirement. I had experienced the greatest kind- ness, not only from Eoman Catholics individually, but from the Church itself. I remembered the happy years I had spent "i the city of Eome. Propaganda College was to me a quiet retreat from the turmoils and cares of the world, and I gratefully thought of the pains which my kind-hearted superiors and professors had taken with my education. I had a high regard for Pius IX., not only for his amiable and Christian qualities, but also for his personal kindness to me. I found in the Bishop and clergy of the diocese where I laboured, as priest and professor, sincere and attached friends. I knew that the t i ■s». Preface. 9 step I had taken had erected, in their eyes, a painful barrier between us, and I was afraid that the heat of controversy would not only widen the breach, but degenerate into the bitterness and rancour of bigotry almost inseparable from religious polemics. With these feelings it is not to be wondered at that I shrank from the task of rushing into print and of needlessly arousing the ire of my former co-religionists. And even though I had firmly rejected Romanism as such, the love «• the truth often comptjlled me, both in private and public, to stand up as tlie champion of Roman 'Catholics . id to def'^nd them against the unfair attacks and prejudices oi' over-zealous Protestants. For, it can- not be denied that, although intelligent Protestants under- stand the fundamental errors of Rome, yet there are many things in that Church which are misunderstood by the general Protestant public. My experience as layman, priest, and Divinity pro- fessor convinced me that all God has revealed to man- kind is accepted by the Church of Rome ; but m.y eye»- were also opened to the fact that, in course of time, revealed truths had become incrusted and obscured by manifold errors. In a word, I had to distinguish and separate the purely liomav from the purely Gatholic^ rejecting the former and adhering to the latter. And, in looking around me among the different Churches, I found that the Church of England professed to have followed the same process. Thi.-* was the reason which, at that time, determined me to join her com- munion. I have laboured now, for the last thirteen years, [" I ^ PM|IH»»I 10 Preface. ^i \ as a clergyman of that Church, and have never had occasion to regret the step I have taken. I united my- self with her also, because I thought to find there a greater field of employment for my past experience, which might enable me, in my sphere, to stem the Rome- ward current within her pale. But I find that this current is more apparent than real ; it is rather a love for " Catholicism " than a tendency towards "Romanism" However, much that is contained in these pages may indirectly serve to correct some views and doctrines savouring of what I consider a mistaken Catholicism. I am glad now that I kept silence during these many years. Having lived the life both of a consistent Roman Catholic and of a sincere Protestant, my experience on both sides, whilst it enables me to speak with mature judgment, entitles me also to be heard patiently by both parties. What induces me to write at the present juncture is that I cannot resist the controversial current of our day. The atmosphere of the civilized world grows heavy with the momentous conflict. The movement is an important one, and pregnant with great results. The question, " What is truth ?" is re-echoed on all sides. All who are able to do so, are bound to look it squarely in the face. The very foundations of socisd and religious order are at stake. The minimizing defence of liberal Roman Catholics is here of no avail. Minimism is a vain refuge, and it cannot save Romanism in the great religious crisis upon which we appear to be entering. Preface. 11 I have endeavoured to treat the whole question in its entirety and to present it to the public in as brief a compass as possible. Although since the Vatican Council Koman Catholicism has been changed into popery pure and simple, yet I had to treat of Church-infallibility in all its extent, not only because it is the root of papal in- fallibility, but also because it is held by the liberal Catholics of all countries, the Old Catholics of Germany, and, in a modified form, though unconsciously, even by some Protestants. In this sense the reader will under- stand the title of this book. In writing the work I have laboured under many difficulties. Not only does the pastoral charge of an extensive parish occupy nearly all my time, distracting the mind from literary labours ; but living in a secluded part of the country I have been deprived of all access to good libraries for consultation. However, the few works I have made use of are thoroughly reliable as to accuracy. Besides other historical works, I have consulted "JlfosAeim's Church Historyy" which is admitted to be just and fair ; I am indebted to that excellent work, " The Pope and the Council, by Janus," for many data in regard to papal infallibility, and Lave found Pr. Barrow's " Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy" to be a repertory of tru;jtworthy authorities. I have endeavoured to acknowledge, in the proper places, the assistance derived from the different authors of whose works I have availed myself. Although I am aware of the many imperfections of this little book, yet I trust that it may prove useful both 12 Preface. tc Protestants and Roman Catholics, for whilst I refute errors, I endeavour also to establish the solid foundation of the truth. J. SCHULTE. Port Burwell, August, 1875. CONTENTS. Part I. THE THEORY OF INFALLIBILITY IN REQARD TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. LECTURE I.— Introduction. The strange phenomenon which the Church of Rome presents to thoughtful Protestants. Reasons which induce intelligent men to go over to Rome. Literature of the Roman controversy ; its faults ; how it should be carried on. Renewal of the struggle with Rome in our days. The question stated. In what does Romanism not consist Y In what does it consist ! The doctrine of Church-infal- libility the essence of Romanism. Its influence on the whole system Connection between Church-infallibility and papal infal- libility Page 35 LECTURE II. THE LIVING VOICE OF THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. Attachment of the Roman Catholic to his Church. Definition of the Church. Inward ^nd outward element. Preponderance of the external element in the Church of Rome. The Church of Christ infallible in the inward element. In the Roman system infallibility resides in the outward element, that is, in the living voice of the Church. What part of the Church is believed by them to be in- fallible, and how f Infallibility not an inspiration but an assistance 14 Contents. of the Holy Ghost. Division of the Roman Catholic treatises on in* fallibility. Church infallibility does not meet the object for which it is proposed ; not self-evident ; requires to be demonstrated. Human demonstration cannot imbue the mind with an infallible faith. The Roman system essentially tainted with rationalism. The Bible our infallible element. The way by which we establish its divine authority is altogether different from that of Roman Catholics. First argument in favor of Church-infallibility. Did the Church exist prior to the Bible? Fagt 45 LECTURE III. CONSIDERATION OP THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OP INFALLIBILITY. Minimizing system of reducing infallibility to a central point. The bishops^not the successors of the Apostles ; nor the representatives of the Church ; therefore cannot claim infallibility. Oirculu* vUiosus in proving the infallibility of the Church by the Bible, and the inspiration of the Bible by the infallible teaching of the Church. They cannot overcome this difficulty by considering the Bible merely as a book of human authority. Such argumentation leads into a labyrinth of doubt and uncertainty. Argument from the promises of Christ. The Holy Ghost operated differently with the Apostles and with the post- Apostolic Church. How was He with the Apostles ? How with the post- Apostolic Church ? Diflference between certainty and infallibility. Certainty is all we want. Roman Catholics aim too high by endeavoring to give the human mind an infallible knowledge. Providential significance of the Bible as the only in- fallible element of the Church. Office of the Church of Christ in relation to the Bible. The bishops of the first ages did not claim in- fallibility. Rise and progress of this claim. The history of the episcopate excludes the notion of infallibility. Statement of the OTgumcnt drawn from the office of the Church as witness-bearer Page 65 Contents. 15 LECTURE IV. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS. WITNESS-BEARER. — TRADITION. Statement of the argument. In what does the witness-bearing of the Ckttrch consist ? She needs no infallibility for its faithful discharge. Roman Catholics, in requiring this gift, involve themselves in a maze of difficulties. They are co upelled to admit Oral Tradition and endow it with infallibility, also the uncertainty of oral tradition has been felt from the very b ^ginning of man's history ; hence a surer way was invented of handing down history to future generations. Writing a Providential gift of God to perpetuate His revealed truths. Roman Catholics concede that oral tradition has been written down. Roman Catholic test of truth as applied to written tradition : Quod semper^ qttod uhique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Practical im- possibility of this rule ; its difficulties must overwhelm the sincere enquirer after truth. Nor can they solve the difficulty by saying that the Church performs the office of enquiry for every one. Circulus vitioms in proving the infallibility of the Church by tradi- tion, and the infallibility of tradition by the Church. The doctrine of Apostolical succession cannot extricate them from this difficulty. The very nature of tradition compels us to believe that God has not made use of it as a rule of faith. Christ inveighed against tradition. Analogy between the Jewish system of tradition and that of the Church of Rome. Analogy between the rule of faith in the 0. T. and in the N. T Page 67 LECTURE V. TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE. — REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH's OFFICE AS GUARDIAN AND KEEPER OF THE BIBLE. The commission Christ gave His Apostles to preach the Gospel does not prove the system of oral tradition. In what sease the oral teaching of the Apostles would bo a rule of faith. Preaching must be baaed on soiuu depository ; we could not prove the ortiiodoxy of 16 Contents, preaching by appealing to oral tradition ; but it is easily ascertained by comparing it with the Bible. Scripture proofs which seem to favour tradition reviewed. Arguments from the alleged insufficiency of Scripture considered. Catholic character of the Bible. Who has given us the Bible ? The Prophets and Apostles the founders of the Church. Can we know, without the testimony of the Church, that it is inspired ? Internal evidence of the inspiration of the Bible. External arguments. The Church as an historic society bears true witness of the Canon and of the inspiration of the Bible Pagt 79 LECTURE VI. EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN PROM THE church's office as interpreter of THE BIBLE. Statement of the Boman Catholic argument. The Church can perform the office of interpreter of the Bible without the gift of infallibility. The difficulty of the Bible greatly exaggerated by the advocates of infallibility. The Church's interpretation full of difficulties. No infallible interpreter in the Old Dispensation ; d, fortiori none in the New Testament ; Christians have greater advantages for the under- standing of the Word than the Jews. No need of an infallible inter- preter ; the Bible was written for men of sound common sense who are expected to use their God -given reason. The simplicity of style and language manifests the design of God. The very fact that God has given us the Bible shows that it is an intelligible book. The Bible promotes enlightenment ; the system of Church-infallibility covers nations with the veil of darkness. The Bible was sufficiently understood, in the first ages, without an infallible interpreter ; why not afterwards ? The difficulties of the Bible do not demt^nd an in- fallible interpreter. Different classes of the truths of the Bible and their respective difficulties. Whosoever is not satisfied with the Bible must likewise be discontented with the doctrine of Church - infallibility. Men attached to a system and fond of systemcUizing find it difficult to interpret the Bible. Origin of denominationalidm. How to gather truth from the Bible. The Bible not a dead letter, but the Umng Word of God. What makes it intelligible to man ? Page 90 Contents. 17 LECTURE VII. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CUURCH's OFFICE AS JUDOE OF CONTROVERSIES. Statement of the Roman Catholic argumimt. The office of judging infallibly in doctrinal disputes is neither directly nor indirectly mentioned in the Bible ; quite the contrary can be proved. Individ- ual conviction of the mind necessary for finally settling controversies of faith. The Church, as the kingdom of the truth, settles contro- versies by the Bible, the only standard of revealed truth. Roman Catholics exaggerate doctrinal difficulties. Three classes of contro- versial differences: 1, in regard to disciplinary points, where divergencies are allowable, perhaps desirable. 2, In regard to doc- trinal point&, that may be held either one way or the other, without injury to faith and charity. Truth is many-sided. Liberty of con- science ; its nature and iise in God's economy of revealed truths. 3, Differences inimical to purity of faith ; no infallible tribunal required to settle them. They are trials of faith. The Bible and God's Spirit guide the lover of the truth. Champions of the truth both in the Jewish and Christian Dispensations. Their providential office. Difficulties of the Roman hypothesis. How are controversies of faith settled (^ yttre / How defactol Page 102 LECTURE VIII. INFALLIBILITY NOT NECESSARY FOR THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Roman Catholic argument. Nature of true unity. Centralization not unity ; too complicated and inconvenient ; too despotic ; contains the germs of dissolution. The government of the Church not monarchical. Genesis of Roman Catholic unity. What is true organic unity ? What does Scripture teach in regard to the Church's unity ? Unity must be eminently catholic. Relation bej^ween the Church of mankind and the Christian Church. The Bible the source and centre of all Christian unity. Roman Catholic objection. What kind of unity was there in the first ages of Christianity ? Present 2 18 Coiifcuts. divisions of Protestants. Liberty in unity ; complcttly ilubtroyed by Romanism ; difficulties in the way of restoring it. Have we unity, in Protestantism ? Symptoms of unity. Protestant 'denomi- naiiuns ; how may tliey be unified ? Sting of denomiuationalism. Paijc 114 Part II. THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE INFALLIBILITY- DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, LECTURE I. THE DOCTRINE OP CHURCII-INFALLIBILITY HAS NOT SETTLED CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. Introduction to the second ^»art of this course. Good Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians have the same Hiith and spirit all the world over ; caution to our bigotry. The Roman hierarchy unable to settle controversies of faith. Their starting point is wrong ; they doubt the sincerity and insult the character of the accused party before he is heard. The judge of controversy, being one of the con- tending parties, cannot be impartial. The character#of the judges not calculated to inspire confidence like that of our judge, the Bible. The procedure of the trial wrong ; they exclude discussion ; demand blind and unreserved submission ; refuse the benefit of defence. Despotism of these infallible lords ; fills the Church of Rome with hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. Diflference between secular and spiritual tribunals. Internal conviction required. The nature of the decrees and definitions of this tribunal is such that they cannot settle controversy ; obscure language ; giving rise to new controversies ; requiring another interpreter. DiflSculty of access to the infallible tribunal. The living voice a chimera. Written documents of councils and popes really their only rule of faith ; these are their Bible; its peculiarities ; a rival and enemy of the true Bible. The means of enforcing their decrees tend to perpetuate controversies. Excommunication ; its nature and effects Page 129 Contents. 19 T SETTLED LECTURE II. THE COERCIVE POWER OF THE ROMAN CHURCH MILITATES AGAINST HER CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY. The Church of Rome has essentially a persecuting spirit. She not only claims to hold control over all spiritual matters, but over soul and body also. Vain efforts to throw the abuses of the coercivt power on the secular power. Connection between Church and State. The Church herself claims to possess tempoi'al coercive power. How does she prove it ? The Church a terror to all her members. The system of infallibility leads to exclusiveness, bigotry, and cruelty. The coercive power impedes the settlement of controversies. The excommunicated person is handed over to the secular arm ; which is compelled to execute the Church's decrees of temporal punishment. The Church accountable for the cruelties of the State in punishing heretics. The coercive power unable to settle controversies inforo intemo. The Church of Rome full of hidden heretics and unbe- lievers. The spy-system essential to Rome. The Inquisition an offshoot of the coercive power. Its terrible nature. Character of the Inquisitorial judges. Victims of the Inquisition. Its procedure most unjust, heartless, and crueL Picture of the Inquisition. It still exists. It is a condemnation of the infallibility-system. The Church asserts the power of condemning heretics to death. The claim to coercive power glaringly contradicts Rome's doctrine on the conscience. The Church of Rome a despotic kingdom of this world. Suspicion of heresy ; how easily entertained and to what it leads. Rome's coercive power in abeyance in mixed communities ; would fully exercise it if she had the opportunity. Spiritual des- potism cannot be divested of cruelty Page 141 LECTURE III. INFALLIBILITY NOT THE PRINCIPLE OP UNITY IN THE CHURCH OP ROME. ome's maxim : Without infallibility no unity. The mere authority of the teaching body can preserve unity only among an ignorant people. Rome and education, both popular and higher. In what light her educational efforts ought to be viewed. Her struggles for 20 Contents. obtaining the sole control of all education. The pope's edicts. Separate schools ; their nature. Why this great ado of the hierarchy ftbout education ? An enlightened people demands a unity based on the truth, not on the principle of hierarchical infallibility. Higher education ; how managed ; a certain kind of metaphysics dovetailing with their theology. " Catholics on principle " not united with the Church by the power of ecclesiastical infallibility. The doctrine of infallibility does not prevent disunion ; but has been the cause of disunion within the Church. It makes the Church stationary and unyielding. Society progressive. Rome cannot bo at the head of social movements. Her obscurantism ; ignores the signs of the times. Rome and modern civilization. The hierarchy a selfish caste ; having no sympathy with modem social aspirations. In endeavouring to pull back the car of social progress, they constrain peoples and nations to separate themselves from the Church. The system of infallibility is so cumbersome that disruption cannot be prevented in time. Difficulties before the Vatican Council. The Vatican decrees rather increase the danger of disunion. The system of infallibility produces torpor and inactivity, and therefore is a source of disunion. Reason of a unity within the Church of Rome. Actual divisions within that Church ; compared with the divisions of Protestant Christendom Page 155 LECTURE IV. PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE OP THE INFALLIBILITY- DOCTRINE ON THE OFFICE OF THE CHURCH AS WITNESS-BEARER. This doctrine not only distorts and obscures revealed truths, but super- adds the traditions of men. Difficulties of this system. The hier- archy cannot prove their Apostolical succession. Petitio prindpii. They are compelled to reduce their oral tradition to urritten docu- ments. Flagrant contradictions of their system. Roman Catholic doctrine in regard to new definitions. Assistance not inspiration. Bishops must study the entire range of tradition. Their qualifications. Their practice contradicts their theory. The aid which theologians afford the bishops ; to what does it amount ? Another contra<^ iction. Qualification of theologians. Process by which the Church draws the treasure of divine revelation from tradition. Very few of her Contents. 21 priests are capable even of attempting the task. They cannot be impartial in their studi&i. Always on the defensive. A superhuman task. They meet with difficulties on all sides in rightly understand- ing the documents of tradition. Are the fathers competent witnesses of the catholicity of a doctrine ? !... Page 173 LECTURE V. THE DOCTRINE OP DEVELOPMENT A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OP THE INFALLIBILITY-THEORY. Origin of this doctrine. Its nature ; explicit and implicit belief. Dr. Newman on development. Refutation of this doctrine. Petitio principii. Contradiction of their rule of Catholicity ; additions and amplifications. The source of multiplying dogmas ad infinitum. How new dogmas are fabricated. Importance of the seholce theolo- gorum ; they are the working bees. Two strange phenomena. Popular belief ditferent from that of the scholce. Sudden surprises of the laity. The Church of Rome is too slippery for an honest Pro- testant controversialist. Changeableness of the Roman Catholic belief. What kind of doctrines are principally developed. True development. Deference between subjective and objective develop- ment. The Abb^ Michaud on this theory Page 1 86 LECTURE VI. SACERDOTALISM : ITS CONNECTION WITH THE INFALLIBILITY- SYSTEM. Position of sacerdotalism in regard to Christianity. Its nature. Mediatorship between God and man. A sacrificing priesthood. The mass. Refutation. Ignorance respecting the nature of sacri- fice. Sacramentarianism. Roman Catholic sacraments. The mass the centre of all the sacraments. Minor religious observances. Ritualism the satellite of sacerdotalisii^ Its character and origin. Its pernicious influence on the people. Its vanity and unreality. Historical outline of the gradual development of sacerdotalism and ritualism. A word in season addressed to ritualists in Protestant Churches Page 197 22 Contents. Part III. THE PAPACY AND INFALLIBILITY. LECTURE I. THE PRIMACY OP PETER. The papacy the outgrowth of sacerdotalism, and the result of devel- opment. The system of clerical aristocracy or high^churchism tends to popery. Claims of the papacy. What are its title deeds ? St. Peter's supposed primacy. Argument from Matt. xvL, 18. The metaphor rock differently interpreted by the fathers. Neither the other Apostles, nor Peter, nor Christ understood it in the Roman sense. If Peter be meant by rock, it cannot mean gover vrent. Peter received here no power proper to him alone, and as superior to the other Apostles. Obvious and true interpretation of the metaphor rock. Argument from the metaphor keys. Its true interpretation. Special pleading of Roman Catholics. Argument from John xxL, 15-17. Its true interpretation. No trace of Peter's primacy of jurisdiction in the New Testament ; nowhere distinctly mentioned ; no distinct name given to it ; Christ nowhere distinctly explained its nature, or laid down rules for its guidance. No sign of Peter's supreme authority in his two epistles. In all controversies no appeal to Peter's judgment Po^e 213 LECTURE II. THE pope's supremacy CONSIDERED. Gratuitous supposition that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to St. Peter's primacy. Whatever prerogatives Peter received were per- sonal; aud all embraced in his Apostolical office; therefore incom- municable to successors. In what sense bishops may be said to be the successors of the Apostles. The powers of the Apostles extra- ordinary and unlimited. St. Peter's office not that of an ordinary bishop, he having pastoral charge over the universal Church as his diocese. The laws of succession should be clearly and distinctly laid down. Deep silence reigns in Scripture concerning this important lU, Contents, 23 puiiit. Third supposition. Peter was not the ordinary local bishop of Rome. Was he ever .it Rome ? The office of an Apostle and that of an ordinary local bishop incompatible. Peter's Apostolical labours preclude the supposition that he ever was local pastor of Rome. It would also have been a lowering of the Apostolical dig- nity. If Peter had been ordinary bishop of Rome, he would have violated several good ecclesiastical rules. How to explain those ancient writers who say that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Fourth supposition. Would succession to Peter's supposed Roman bishopric imply also succession to his primacy? Roman Catholic rule of succession arbitrary ; unknown to Roman civil society ; to the teaching of the fathers. Scripture is silent about it. Roman Catho- lic reasoning contradictory. They assert that it was Peter's will that the bishop of Rome should succeed him in the primacy. How do they prove this ? It would have been unfair towards the surviv- ing Apostles ; unjust towards the whole Church at Rome, because depriving her of the right of electing her ordinary supreme pastor. The history of the succession of the Roman bishops a standing scan- dal in Christendom. The papacy defectible. History and tradition silent about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome Page 226 LECTURP] III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY. THE ROMAN BISHOPRIC IN THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. The government of tlie Church in the first century. Development of the episcopacy. Clerical aristocracy. Gradual suppression of the rights of the clergy and people by the bishops. Influence of Con- stantine's conversion on the government of the Church. Church and state. The primatial jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as yet unknown. Ambition of the bishops and their lordly pride. Cir- cumstances favoured the prelate of Rome. The importance of his episcopal city. His influence with the emperors. Nature of the growth of spiritual power. The canons of Sardica. The imprudence of the emperors and the precipitate action of bishops enlarged his power. The state of the Church during the first eight centuries assisted his ambition. Prelatical quarrels. Contentions of the It 24 Contents. patriarchs. Influence of the monks. The contest for supremacy finally reduced to a struggle between two rivals, the bishops of Rome and of Constantinople. Circumstances favourable to Rome in t?^is rivalry. The Roman clergy and the bishops of the West. Splendour of the papal court. Political convulsions, disposition of the invading barbarians and their druidism, all favouring the aggrandizement of Rome. The schism between East and West the consequence of papal ambition Pagi 239 LECTURE IV. DEVELOPMENT OP THE PAPACY AFTER THE GREAT SCHISM. The West the only field for papal ambition. Opposition to papal encroachments. Extraordinary liberality of the barbarian nations. Bishops become temporal princes. The temporal power of the pope. Pepin and Pope Zachary. Charlemagne. Restoration of the Roman empire. Influence of the popes in conferring the imperial dignity. The exaggerated views of the invading nations regarding the effects of excommunication assisted in the enlargement of papal authority. The papacy profits by the disturbed state of the empire. It becomes a political institution. It gathers strength in the gross ignorance and superstition which covered Europe. Growth of its influence in civil affairs. Its encroachments on the rights of the bishops and councils of the Church. Rome justifies itfj pretensions by forgeries. Early forgeries. Ambition of Nicholas I. Opposition to the pseudo Isidorian decretals. They changed the constitution of the Church. The Hlldebrandine era. Leo IX. The new school. The universal theoretic priestdern popes. Heresies of the ancient bishops of Rome. The apostasy -of Liberius. Zosimus. Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters' contro- versy. Review of the case of Honorius. No special exegesis can. purge his letters to Sergius from the stain of heresy . They were written ex eathedrd. Honorius condemned by the Church as a heretic. Efforts of the infallibilists to .reconcile the case of Honorius with the Vatican dogma Page 297 LECTURE VIII. THE VATICAN DECREE IN THE LIGHT OP SCRIPTURE. Scripture the last source of arguments to which Roman Catholics appeal. The Old Testament is against them. Dr. Newman's state- ment. They contradict their cardinal rule of interpretation, as con- tained in the creed of Pius V. Review of the arguments drawn from Matt, xvi., 18. ; John xxi., 15. ; Luke xxii., 32. Dr. Schaff's remarks ou thtf spiritual Peter und carnal Simon Page 311 28 Contents. LECTURE IX. THEORY AND FACT. In the process of reasoning by which Roman Catholics endeavour to establish the infallibility-hyphotheiiis, the conclusion is assumed to be more certain than the premises on which it rests. .Contratliction between the infallibility-doctrine and its practical influence on the belief of the Church. The recent controversy. Mr. Gladstone and Dr. Newman. What induced Dr. Newman to accept the Vatican decrees ? What became of the Gallicans ? New theological schools, the minimizers and maximizers. No uniformity of belief. Where is the certain voice of the living teacher to be found ? The scholce no longer represent the papacy in its doctrines. The pope being all in all, can :io longer speak by any agent. The rule of faith now is : Quod hodie in Vaticano a Domino nostro Papa declaratum est. The entire Christian religion, in the last resort, reposes in the breast of the pope. Reply of the maximizers ; it would be useless to debate with them. Our controversy is with the minimizing theologians. Dr. Newman's remarks about the virtue of faith — suggesting ** the drift of all he has to say about the Vatican definition." Reply. Why faith is a different virtue in the Roman system. They cannot give a logical genesis of the act of faith. Why they shrink from a fearless enquiry. History contradicts Dr. Newman's assertion that '* the Church has ever shown the utmost care to contract the range of truths, and tlie sense of propositions of which she demands abso- lute reception." Rome constantly developes new dogmas. Reasons which may induce the pope to speak in future more frequently ex catJiedrd, than before the Vatican council. Dr. Newman's plea for **a wise and gentle minimi»m" of no avail. Minimism a faint exer- cise of mental liberty, not in favour at Rome. The hopes of Dr. Newman in the labours of the scholce theologorum unfounded. The science of theology incompatible with pnpal infallibility. ...P^f)r<; .317 Contents. 29 LECTURE X. THE VATICAN DECREE CHANGES THE RELATION OF THE PAPACY TO THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. The Vatican decree transfers the gift of infallibility from .the Church to the pope ; it ceases to be the same power. All the former safe- guards in regard to definitions of faith are taken away. The pope in a different position in regard to princes and states. La Ohiesa sono io. The pope's dogmatic definitions and decrees will greatly depend on his personal character. Pius IX. The pope's immediate surroundings influence his dogmatic utterances ; the malaria in the atmosphere of the Vatican. The Church will be completely Italian- ized. Twofold loyalty of Roman Catholics. Loyalty to the pope must prevail. The Vatican definition has changed the civil status of Roman Catholics. Dr. Newman's minimizing on this point con- tradicts the Roman system. The pope's interference in the admin- istration of civil governments. Conflict between papal decrees and civil laws. Contest between the papacy and the German empire. The struggle in Italy. Nature of the rights for which the pope con- tends in all countries. His voice mimt have an influence on the loyalty of ** the faithful." Change produced by the Vatican decrees in the standing of the episcopate. Eeasons why the people con- tinue to remain in spiritual slavery Page 330 LECTURE XL REVIEW OP THE RESTRICTIONS OP PAPAL INPALLIBILITY. Dr. Newman, in comparing the ex cathedrd teaching with an oecume- nical council contradicts his former assertion that " the pope has that same infallibility which the Church has. " If the pope's infalli- bility be admitted at all, it must be unconditional and unlimited ; in the last analysis, it becomes a purely personal attribute. The expression doctor privatum, when used of a poi)e, is like talking of wooden iron. When does the pope speak ex cathedrd ? Review of the four conditions adduced by Dr. Newman. The first condition is too limiting ; it contradicts the papal system. Is the pope the uni- 30 Contents. versal teacher only when he addreases the whole Church ? The second condition comprises more than they are willing to admit. The third condition is useless, as the pope himself has to draw the line between religious and secular matters. The fourth condition throws no new light on the subject. No choice left between infal- libility pure and simple and repudiating it altogether. Tage 342 ROMAN CATHOLICISM^ PART I. THE THEORY OF INFALLIBILITY IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. I I i t LECTUEE I. INTRODUCTION. THERE is an institution in the religious world which great- ly puzzles and perplexes the enlightened Protestant. This institution boasts a respectable antiquity, and, in some re- spects, a grand history which has often dazzled the scholar in many a brilliant episode. It possesses a vital power that, going beyond the comprehension of a merely superficial ob- server, displays its mastei'ly ability by knowing how to make proselytes, and how to keep them within its bosom. Since its formal inauguration as a system, it has always been the most pretentious, as well as the most exclusive, ecclesiastical institution, embracing within its fold the greater part of Christendom, even amongst nations bitterly hostile to each other. Some of the best men and the noblest benefactors of mankind have been its humble adherents, and its members cling to it even to the verge of fanaticism. It is like a well disci- plined and ably officered army presenting the appearance of an invincible phalanx. For every disposition of mind it makes room, and provides satisfaction for every taste. Its highly symbolic ritual has charms for the cultured as well as for the ignorant. The greatest masters of the liberal arts have been its willing servants. They have erected temples un- surpassed in architectural beauty and grandeur ; they have adorned them with impressive sculpture and painting, and enlivened them with sublime song and music. In a word, nrr i I 1 i i I ij 36 Roman Catholicism, this institution seems to have the wonderful gift of making its members contented and steadfast. And yet the enlightened Protestant knows that this very institution is brimful of error and superstition ; that it per- verts the most important truths of Christianity; that in many cases it makes the Word of God of none effect by ita traditions, and for the Word of God substitutes the word of man ; that its ritual symbolizes the greatest errors, so that its central worship is, if not formal, at least material idola- try ; and that its government is a spiritual despotism en- slaving its members. You are aware that I mean the Church of Rome. The re- flecting Protestant is astonished at the phenomena which this Church presents to him. To his impartial judgment the many good points that she possesses are evident ; but the many evils also with which she is weighted stare him in the face in all their glaring deformity. He cannot understand why enlightened members of Rome should not perceive these defects, should not see what he sees and insist upon a thorough reformation of their Church, rejecting the error and retain- in the truth. He cannot understand how enlightened Roman Catholics can possibly believe that in the mass, by the consecrating words of the priest, bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and offered again by an earthly priest as a sacrifice for the living and dead ; how sensible and serious men can be attracted and deluded by so sensuous a worship, symbolizing, as it does, the grossest error. He «.Jiunot comprehend how free, enlightened men can believe in the extraordinary powers of the priesthood, and submit themselves humbly to a hierarchy claiming absolute spiri- tual sway. These and many other things in the Church of Rome the intelligent Protestant cannot understand. ! ft V, Introduction. 37 But what puzzles him still more is that talented men, men of standing in other denominations and in society, should leave their own Church and enter the Roman Communion. I have not time here fully to explain this puzzling pheno- menon. Each pervert to Rome has his own story to tell. Most of 'these men are dissatisfied with their Church and with Protestantism generally, and hope to find in Rome that which Rome lays claim to, namely, the old Catholicism which is based on the foundation of the Apostles. There is also a certain amount of rationalism in Roman theo- logy. What else is the scholastic theology but rationalism with a pious tendency? Now, the learned men who have gone over to Rome are for the most part imbued with 'lin.t philosophic and mystic rationalism by the aid of which Ro > e defends her errors. Such men are prone to recognize n the greatest Roman errors deep philosophical and theolo- gical truths. There can be no doubt also, that Rome has an imposing exterior ; truth and error are mixed together ; and this compound is embellished with all the refinement and beauty of poetry and the arts, and presented under a gorgeous ritual based upon a fallacious symbolism. No wonder, then, that men of a certain cast of mind are dazzled by the false light and caught in the net. The literature of the Roman controversy is very extensive, for it would fill whole libraries ; but I think the good it has done, is by no means commensurate with its extent. More favourable results might have been expected, and in a number of cases it has done positive harm! As a rule, books of controversy written and published by Protestants do not reach Roman Catholics, since they are forbidden to possess or read them. Some have been written for political and party ^purposes, and consequently a|k'e calculated rather to excite 38 Roman Catholicism. ' anger than to gain attentive consideration. Some have misinterpreted doctrines, and are regarded as calumnies and misrepresentations. Others again have been written in a bigoted spirit, and are met by them with a countervailing bigotry. Some are too learned for the popular mind, and others too shallow to deserve the attention of an intelligent Roman Catholic reader. So far as my own experience goes, I think that Roman Catholics are under the settled impres- sion that, in our controversies with them, we do not treat them in a kind and Christian spirit, but rather approach them as enemies and in the spirit of bitterness. Hence even the .well-meaning and truth-loving members of that Church are on their guard against us and our publications ; they look, upon us with suspicion when we meet them in the arena of theological disputation, and well they may. Do not our best Protestant controversialists — men whom we regard as pat- terns in every Christian walk — seem to become inflated with bigotry and seized with an insane frenzy, so soon as they enter upon the field of controversy with Roman Catholics ? Is it not the settled custom to apply to the pope and the Roman Church the most opprobrious epithets % Do they " speak the truth in love ?" In treating with Roman Catholics, we mus,L act justly, fairly and kindly. We should never lose sight of the fact that Rome has never denied Christ and that her fundamental doctrine of salvation is Christ and faith in Him ; that she possesses the Bible and reveres it as th ■ Word of God. Moreover we cannot deny that Rome as a Church is zealous in good works. In our controversy with Rome, therefore, we should approach her with the deference due to a Christian Church. True, we believe that she teaches many err?neous doctrines ; but that should not, by any means, hinder us Introduction. 39 from acting towards her with courteous consideration. Have not other Churches, too, gone astray ] Yet we look upon them as Christian bodies and treat them with brotherly kind- ness. Why sj^ould we make an exception as regards the Church of Rome ] Let us then " speak the truth in love." By this method we may the more easily convince our erring brethren and extend the kingdom of Christ and His truth. " Speaking the truth in love" shall bo my motto in this course of lectures, especially as I know, from my own experience, that our Roman Catholic brethren are sensitive as to the manner, not less than the matter, of the controversy. In all countries Roman assumptions appear to have . received a new importance in our days. All Europe is ablaze with it. In Italy, a fierce struggle has been going on now for some years between the papacy rnd the new order of things. In Germany the very existence of the new empire seems to be staked on its final victory over ultramontanism. • France, Spain and Austria have their religious excitements and controversies with Rome, and England has not escaped. The innovations of ritualism have kindled again the fire of her old religious struggles ; and on the American continent, the atmosphere is lurid from a kindred cause. The Roman difficulty appears nev«T to be settled ; every now and then something new arises to stir it up afresh. So long as Rome has life and strength, the battles of the Reformation will have to be fought over and over again. If experience has taught us wisdom, we shall contest hem in a difierent spirit. Before entering upori a .ontrovercy we must take a sure standpoint, survey the field, and determine \/ith precision the matter in dispute ; otherwise there will inevitably be confusion and misunderstanding. If, then, we wish to refute what is commonly called Romanism, we must first clearly and 40 Roman Catholicism, distinctly state in what Komanism consists, for mistakes have been made by controversialists in answering this question. Komanism does not consist in those truths which it pro- fessed in common w^ith other Christians, and which are the spiritual food of its members. The Romanist oft«n points to these truths as his religion, when bis Church is assailed; but that is not what we attack and call Romanism. Nor does it consist in those errors which it holds in com- mon with other Churches, such as the real and objective presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the mass, the seven sacraments, and sacramental grace ex opere operato, auricubr confession and priestly absolu- tion, f !iigh symbolical liturgy in an unknown ton^e, celibacy of the clergy, prayers to the Virgin Mary and tie Baints, pil- grimages and prayers for the dead. All tiiese ;iTors, besides others, are as tenaciously and steadfastly held by the Eastern Churches, comprising many millions of adherents ; and some of these false doctrines and superstitious practices are pro- fessed, in a modified form, by Protestant Churches. They are, therefore, not distinctively Roman. You may as well call the mass, confession, priestly absolution, and other doctrines, Russian, or Greek, or Armenian, or Syrian, &c., as Roman. Most of those errors existed in the Church before Romanism had being; and they had crept in, not purposive! v, but through an excess of piety and reverence for holy t}^ingr7 j»nd ordinances, or through the characteristic tendency of East.rn nations towards the symbdlic or outward eLments of i-eligioi,. When, therefore, we accuse our Ritualists, Sacramentarians, or others, of Romanism or Romeward tendencies, we utter a false accusation ; for these errors are neither exclusively and distinctively Romish, nor do they of themselves lead to Rome. They must be dealt with by themselves, and on leir own Introduction. 41 merits, and not on the ground that they have any essential and distinctive connection witff Romanism. This connection is altogether accidental. True, some of these Ritualists and men of similar tastes and tendencies, have gone over to Rome; but if ritualism alone induced them to take that step, their eyes must have been opened in astonishment when they found themselves actually within the portals of Rome, and discovered in what Romanism really consists. There they had to unlearn not only much of their former ritualism, but were compelled to learn what, before joining themselves to Rome, they so stoutly repudiated, namely, yielding obedi- ence to constituted ride and authority, and that not intelli- gently, but blindly. No ; ritualism is not essentially Rom- anism. True, Rome has a ritual which is the work of ages; but that does not constitute her essential and distinctive character. Other Churches have similar or even more gorgeous ones, in comparison with which the Roman ritual appears very sober and jejune. What, then, is Romanism, since these errors do not of themselves constitute its special character? I answer: that is Romanism which no other Church but Rome holds, \v^hich pervades her whole constitution and nature, and by which she can be known and distinguished a.l over the world as the Church of Rome. And what is this? The doctrine, that the Church of Christ is infallihle ; that the Church of Borne is the Church of Christ; and therefore that she alone is infallible. This, stated in syllogistic form, is Romanism. Simple as the dogma appears, it expresses Rome's distin- guishing characteristic. It pervades and permeates her whole nature, and is the mainspring of her entire action. It imparts a peculiar tinge to all her errors, even those which she holds in common with other Churches ; because she stereotypes S8!SS! 42 Roman Catholicism, them and seals them with permanency. It is the source of new errors which are developed from time to time. It ren- ders all doctrinal reform within her borders simply impossible; for, by reforming, she would deny her infallibility, and stul- tify herself. It gives the hierarchy that absolute sway over the consciences of her members which destroys all individu- ality, and nips in. the bud all independence of inquiry. It causes her to consider herself the only Church of Christ, out of whose pale there is no salvation, and to regard all who differ from her as heretics and schismatics, against whom she fulminates her excommunications and anathemas. This otrine of infallibility imbues her with the spirit of intoler- ■ ce, persecution, and cruelty, and destroys in her heart that tender love which the good shepherd should feel towards errant sheep. It subordinates the Book of God to her voice ; nay, she maintains that we should not have the Bible but for her and through her, nor understand it rightly but by means of her interpretation; for she claims an exist- ence anterior to the Bible, and independent of it, and that she could exist even without it. In a word, this doctrine of infallibility gives life to her whole being, and colour to all her decrees, doctrines, and practices, so that even those truths or errors, doctrines rnd practices, which she holds in common with other Churches assume a different aspect when they are presented to her members as dogmas of faith. The infalli- bility of the Church is the final evidence of all, the supreme judge of controversies, the last sure resting-place for every doubting mind ; hence so long as a member maintains this doctrine, he must perforce submit understanding and will to the decisions of the Church, stifling his doubts, however strong they may be. The Church must be right because it is infallible, and he wrong because fallible and erring. He Introduction. 43 cannot conscientiously leave his Church until he is fully satisfied that her claim to infallibility is without foundation. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the falsehood of some of her doctrines, and is unwilling to submit his under- standing to her, and at the same time is desirous to remain within her bosom, in order to agitate from within for reform, is truly to be pitied. Such an agitation would be visited with severe penalties, even with excommunication ; for reform involves the denial of her claim to infallibility. Rome is always the same : she retains what she once has got in pos- session, but she ir.ay unravel and develop more, for infallibility does not exclude the idea of development. Has she not fully developed and in our days solemnly pro- nounced, among other things, the infallibility of the pope 1 This dogma was decreed by the Bishops in the Vatican Council, and must, therefore, be believed by all Koman Catholics. ^ might be thought that this would convulse the entire Church and change her polity. By no means : the dogma of the infallibility of the pope is a legitimate outcome from the dogma of Church-infallibility ; it has been practically/ acted upon by tha Roman curia for a number of centuries, and the Church has acquiesced, as a matter of course, in this action of the papal see. Papal infallibility and Church in- fallibility are intimately interwoven ; on admitting the latter, the former must be conceded. Before the Vatican definition, 'all Roman Catholics were agreed that the head of the Church and the body together are infallible ; but the question was discussed for a long period whether this infallibility resides primarily and prin- cipally in the head or in the body. This question distinguished their divines into two schools, bitterly opposed to each other — the one maintaining that the gift of infallibility resides 44 Roman Catholicism. primarily in th6 pope, who communicates it to the Church ; the other teaching that it is esentially possessed by the Church, and that the pope, as head of the Church, participates in it by agreeing with her. At length, this warmly debated ques- tion came to a crisis, and we have seen that in the Vatican council (1870) the papal party gained the day. If the Church is infallible, it is but reasonable that this prerogative should be vested in its head. Theoretically, this dogma does not change the complexion cf Romanism ; for the pope, in issuing infallible decrees, does not claim to stand isolated and in his individual capacity. He is supposed to speak as the head, united with the body, to think and feel with the body, and after having ascertained its coTiseiisvs, to speak finally as the mouthpiece of the body ex cathedra — in his official capacity. Pope and Church are still believed to par- ticipate mutually and unitedly in the gift of infallibility, as before the Vatican decree. % Such is the way in which Roman Catholics look upon papal infallibility. With them the Vatican decree effected noth- ing more than a removal of a cause of bitter division between two leading schools of theology, and a healing of old sores that embittered them each against the other. We shall see, in this course of lectures, whether they are right in their views on papal infallibility. From what I have said it is evident that the very essence of Romanism consists in the belief in Church infallibility, and that by refuting this doctrine we demolish the very bul- wark of the Church of Rome. To consider this subject in its principal bearings is the object of the following lectures. In order to render them as useful as possible, I shall endeavour, whilst I refute errors, to establish in their place, the tnte and solid foundation of our faith. LECTUEE II. THE LIVING VOICE OF THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. THE all-pervading element of Roman Catholicism is the " doctrine of Church-infallibility. It is this dogma which, in the eye of the Roman Catholic, invests liis Church with Divine authority, and endears her to his heart. Whilst with a vast number of Protestants the word Church has no fixed and precise meaning, and with others the idea of a Church has almost disappeared so that no traces of organic Church-life are perceptible; to the member of the Church of Rome it possesses a real and all-impoi*tant significance , to his mind it pi ^sents a very clear and well-defined idea, and to his spiritual life it is a living organism. He is a Church- man, in the strictest sense of the word. Nor must we think that he has no weighty arguments for these determined views and for the strong attachment he bears to his Church. Indeed, so powerful and convincing does he consider the proofs in favour of Church infallibility that, whilst at times doubting the truth of other tenets of his Church, he finds no reason to doubt her infallibility; hence the great difficulty in convincing him of his errors. A Protestant would find it a difficult task to understand the mind of a learned and well-meaning Roman Catholic, to feel with him, and lead him out of his narrow system into some- thing nobler and better. To clear ihe way for this task, let us first make some elementary remarks and definitions. 4< Roman Catholicism. First, let us come to a clear understanding of the -word Church. We believe that it is a society "built on the foun- dation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone," having a continuous existence from apos- tolic times to our own, and possessing an organic vitality, by virtue of which its members profess the same faith, partake of the same sacraments, are united by communion of charity, animated by the same hope, and governed in the manner in- dicated by Christ and His Apostles. Now, although Roman Catholics may not object to the substance of this definition, still they vastly differ from us when they explain it in detail . Thus the form of government pointed out in the New Testament is according to their theory a visible spiritual monarchy, with the pope at its head; union in charity means union with, and subjection to the bishop of Home ; instead of two, they admit seven sacra- ments and give them a value and efficacy we cannot concede ; their views of apostolic succession differ considerably from our doctrine of a continuous and uninterrupted existence from the apostles to our days. These differences may be in some degree understood when we reflect that Roman Catholics give a preponderating in- fluence to the outward or visible element of the Church. We, like them, admit two elements in the constitution of the Church, namely, the invisible or inward, and the visible or outward part. None will deny that every living society has these two constituents. The invisible element of the Church is the Word of God — not the letter but the spirit— the grace of God, the Holy Ghost pervading the whole body of the Church, breathing where He listeth, enlightening the mind, changing the heart, strengthening and comforting the whole man. The visible or outward element comprises all The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 47 that can be perceived by our senses, such as the members of the Church, preaching, rites, ceremonies, &c. There exists, no doubt, a mutual and reciprocal influence between these two elements which tends to propagate and perpetuate the Church. Wliilst we exclude neither of them, we must be careful to give to each its proper place. It is evident that the inner element ought to have the preponder- ance over the external one, the Spirit over the senses, the Word of God over the word of man. It appears not to be thus in the Roman Catholic system, where the external and visible element manifestly prevails. The adherent of Rome considers Christianity chiefly as something outward. This is manifest in all his religious practices. The worship through the senses prevails over the iiiiellectual and spiritual worship. His religion is sacramental ; outward signs and rites are with him the eflfec- tual means and instruments to which God's grace is promised and without which it is impossible to obtain it. Evidently, this natural tendency of man for the outward and tangible has, perhaps unconsciously, been the reason why the living voice of the Church has been invested with infallibility. We agree with the Roman Catholic that the Church is in- fallible, but we difier from him as to the seat of that infalli- bility. We maintain that it resides in the inner element of the Church, namely, in the Word of God contained in the Bible and deposited within the Church. We believe that the Bible is the infallible element of the Church, and that on this account only, and on no other, she is said to be in- fallible, '■Hhe 'pillar and ground of the truth J^ We contend that a member of the Church can, as far as is necessary for his salvation, obtain the truth, with sufficient certainty, by applying to the Bible the infallible element of the Church. 48 Roman Catholicistn. The Roman Catholic, on the contrary, affirms that the gift of infallibility resides primarily in the outward element, namely, the living voice of the Church, so that if any one wishes to know tha truth, he must apply to the Church. But he maintains that the truth she proclaims is not new^ but contained in a two-fold depository — the Bible and tradition, which are entrusted to her keeping and guardianship. He believes that both the Bible and tradition are a dead and unintelligible letter if we separate them from the living voice of the Church. He maintains that it is onlj^ through the Church that we possess them and are enabled to understand them ; nay, some of their divines go so far as to assert that the Church could live and flourish without the Bible. In this connection, we must bear in mind that by the term Church they do not understand the whole body of its members, but only the teachiiit/ portion ; and of these we must again exclude the priesthood and inferior clergy as not participating in the gift of infallibility. Only the bishops, with the pope at their head, as strictly successors of the Apos- tles, are held to be endued with the power of issuing infallible decrees and definitions binding upon all the members, and they, therefore, constitute the infallible Church. Here, again, we remark that they are believed to enjoy this pre- rogative, not individually/, but collectively. It must be ascer- tained whether the whole episcopate speaks, or only a portion of it ; and this infallible teaching body of the Church may litter infallible dogmas, either assembled in a general * council, or dispersed throughout the world. Again, in order to avoid all misconception in the discus- sion of this controversy, we must see what limits they set to this infallibility. They say, it is not an inspiration ; they allow that the Bible alone is inspired ; they look upon it as The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 49 an assistance of the Holy Spirit promised and given by Christ to lead the Apostles and their successors into all truth. They allow that this assistance does not exclude, but rather pre- supposes, all the appliances of human enquiry and study. Before the episcopate establishes a doctrine as a dogma of faith, it is lequired to look deeply into ti». deposit of faith, consult Scripture and tradition, and if, after long and mature enquiry into these sources, it finds that the dogma has been held semper, ubique et ah ovmibus — always, everywhere and by all — it is justified in declaring that it is a Catholic doctrine, and must be held and believed by all membera of the Church, under pain of excommunication. This enquiry they believe so to be assisted by the Holy Ghost, that the result of it is infallible truth. Roman Catholic theologians usually divide their treatise on Church-infallibility into two parts. The first part is general ; in its course, they endeavour to prove a priori, i. e, without considering their own Church, that the Church of Christ is endowed with the gift of infallibility. The second division is particular, and applies the principle established in the first part to their own Church, thus proving that, of all Churches calling themselves Christians, the Church of Rome alone can lay claim to infallibility, and is therefore the only Church of Christ deserving the confidence of man. We shall follow this division, and prove, first, that the Church of Christ is not infallible, in the Roman Catholic sense ; and secondly, that the Church of Rome, instead of being infallible, has greatly deviated from the path of truth, and that because of this v^^ y doctrine of Church-infallibility. At the very outset of oui discussion, we ask our Roman Catholic brethren whether the doctrine of Church-infallibiiity meets the object for which they so ardently contend, namely, 50 Roman Caiholicisfn. ■ the attainment of an infallible faith based altogether on divine authority. Surely, they will agree with us that it is not self-evident ; they will certainly not pretend that the mark of infallibility is so clearly stamped on the episcopate as to elicit at once the faith of man, however ready he may be to grasp at any evidence that promises to lead him to the attainment of truth. This doctrine, then, requires to be demonstrated by such proofs and p^-^iments as will convince the mind beyond the possibility c jubt. But these argu- ments are only the work of the human mind, which is liable to error and mistake, and, whilst they may convince some, will be rejected by others. Roman Catholics profess to be- lieve in the revealed truths of God, on the infallible authority of the Church ; and they believe in the latter because tbey are convinced of it by the arguments of fallible human reason. Who does not see that such a method of procedure cannot imbue the mind with infallible divine faith 1 Whilst they profess a belief in the infallible Church, they really believe in the correctness of the iiments by which they establish that infallibility, and nc j more. It appears to me that the rule of faith should suppose nothing prior on which it depends for its certainty ; and if that something prior is human reason, what else can I call it but rationalism 1 And however strongly Koman Catholics may repudiate this imputation, however vehemently they may clapnour that their Church is the bulwark of faith against rationalism ; still if we consider the basis of their rule of faith and the vast amount of philosophy that enters into the defence of their distinctive dogmas, we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that the whole Koman system is tainted with rationalism. But they retort against us that we, too, must suppose a The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 51 ler on it itifl lat the icopate be may to the 3 to be )nvince ;e argu- is liable 3 some, is to be- iithority use tbey human rocedure Whilst ly really ich they [uppose a certain amount of reasoning before wi» can admit the Bible as the infallible element of the Church. We answer that our position is entirely different from thoirs. We base the authority of the Bible on no human arguments, as they estab- lish the doctrine of infallibility ; but we take it on its own merits. Without any argumentation, we find that the Bible is the great book, the only book of an historical and jrrovi- dential importance, admirable in its origin and relation to all mankind. It excites, therefore, our attention, and stimulates in us an almost irresistible interest. We find, without any logical process, that it is and always has been the book of the Church, and that whatever truth and life there is in the Church has been drawn from its pages. We open it, read it attentively and with a prayerful dispo- sition, and we fird that all the praises we have heard of this wonderful book are fully justified. As we read on, the truth contained in it strikes our mind, touches our con- science, impi esses deeply our whole being. I cannot enter here into details, but this much T unhesitatingly say, that the book has in itself the internal evidence of truth, and bears witness of its divine origin. There may be obscure passages, and surely there are, but who can all at once under- stand the wonderful works of God % The more we read it with a fitting disposition of mind and heart, the more we understand of it ; and that which we understand we cannot help but acknowledge to be divine truth ; by virtue of this we are compelled to believe that those parts which we do not as yet understand are also Divine. We need no external proofs, however profound and learned, to establish the authority of this book. We simply say. Come and see ; here is a book that bears unmistakable evidence on its face of being the truth of God ; and if you read it guided by 62 Roman Catholicism, the Spii it of God, you will see as we see, and be fully satis- fied. Thus our faith is not rationalism in disguise, but is based on Sbfact — a fact of which God Himself is the author — a divine fact; hence we confidently lay claim to a faith bright with evidence. It is, therefore, obvious that the manner in which wo estab- lish our rule of faith is altogether different from that in which Ftoman Catholics establish theirs. With us, he who wishes tc; overthrow the Church of Christ, must first over- throw the Bible; but with the Roman Catholic, the de- molition of the arguments by which infallibility is estab- lished is suflicient to overturn and destroy the whole edific « of the Church. The Roman Catholic will reply that he fails to see how the arguments by which he establishes the infallibili^ of the Church can taint his system with rationalism. He may allow that such would be the case if they were drawn from pure reason and independent of faces; but he claims that the arguments ir favour of infallibility derive their force from the very nature of the Christian veiities. To us this does not appear to alter the case ; for a rule of faith must be a self-evident fact, and in no way dependent on human rea- soning for its credibility. However we shall see what value his arguments possess. The first argument by which Roman Catholics seek to de- molish our position on the Bible as the only infallible rule of faith, f.nd imagine they establish the infallibility of the Cnurch, is the existence of the Church prior to the Bible. They maintain that the Church was fully established and existed for a considerable time before the Bible was com- pleted. If then there was from the first an iniuUible element in the Church, vhe Bible could not be that element, since i The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 53 no other infallible rule then existed than the living voice of ihe Church ; and if the Church was infallible in pre-biblical times, why not afterwards 1 We answer that this prior existence of the Church before the Bible is only apparent. In reality, the Bible existed be- fore the Church. All will agree that the Scriptures of the Old Testament existed before the Church ; nay, Christ and His Apostles built their divine mission on them by con- Rcant appeals to them. Moreover none will deny that the Gospel is contained in the Old Testament, and that the con- stitution of the Church is clearly foreshadowed therein. Thb Christian Church, therefore, depended greatly as to her rule of faith on the Old Testament Scriptures, eK^pecially as the first Christians were mostly converts from Judaism who needed constant reference to their sacred writings as a rule of faith. Further, as the Church of Christ was to be " built on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone," she cannot be said to have fully ex- isted before their death. The building of the Church on this foundation and the writing of the New Testament Scriptures commenced a,nd proceeded concurrently until both were completed by the same workmen, so that at their death the Church stood forth with a complete consti^ution, and a rule of faith given by God's Spirit to lead men into all truth, " even to the end of the world." We are justified, therefore, in concluding that the Bible existed prior to the Church. But chould this process of reasoning not fully satisfy our Roman Catholic brethren, let them reflect that the state of the Church during the lifetime of the Apostles differed materially from her condition in post- Apostolical times ; for the Apostles were individually inspired, oi they would not have beeii qualified for their office as founders of the Churoh. 54 Roman Catholicism. They -were inspired, or the promises of Christ to them would have failed of accom jjlishment ; they were inspired, or they could not have given so many miraculous proofs of the special presence of the Holy Ghost; nor would they, in their writings, have either directly or indirectly so repeatedly laid claim to inspiration. We shall not enter here into the nature of this inspiration ; we simply maintain that the in- spired founders of the Church, by virtue of their oflSice, were a rule of faith; but when they departed this life, their writings were looked upon as the apostolical foundation on which the Church wa*^ '>uilt. And what better substitute could we have for the living voice of the Apostles than their inspired writings % But here Roman Catholics step forward, and endeavour to prove thu: the infallibility of the Apostles did not die with them, but is shared by their successors, not indeed indi- vidually and personally, but in their official and collective capacity. Let us consider this argument which contains many interesting points in our next lecture. LECTUKE III. CONSIDERATION OF THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF INFALLIBILITY. ROMAN Catholics maintain that the gift of infallibility which the Apostles possessed did not become extinct in the Church after their death, but was continued in their suo- cessors, the bishops, inasmuch as they constitute the teaching body. We might ask here, if the bishops, by virtue of their Apos- tolic succession, are infallible, why do they possess tLis pre- rogative, not individually, but only as a body ? What justifies them in making this distinction ] Are not the priests also, according to their theory, successors of the Apostles 1 Why then are they not infallible ? Do not both laity and clergy together constitute the Church % Why confine the infallible authority of the Church to a mere fraction*? Why this arbitrary system of minimizing which is so characteristic of the Church of Rome, not only here but also in other mat- ters 1 We have no time now to enter upon these questions; let Roman Catholics answer them if they can. We content ourselves with demolishing the foundation of this minimizing system of infallibility. We believe that the Apostles, as such, had no successors. As Apostles they were the founders and organizers of the Church, and who does not see that, as a matter of coui-se, such an office expired at theii* death ] True, they appointed r=^^ 56 Roman Catholicism. y bishops, priests, and deacons, but these were wedded, as it were, only to heal Churches, and their oflSice and authority were far different from those of the Apostles ; nor do we anywhere read that they ever laid claim to Apostolical pre- rogatives. If, then, the Apostles, as such, had no successors, and if they enjoyed the gift of infallibility only as Apostles, what foundation has the episcopate for claiming infallibility as full successors of the Apostles ? Let them not say that the gift of inftillibilitjfc resides in the whole Church, but that the bishops alone practically exercise it, because, by virtue of their office, they are the representa- tives of the Church. Where in the Bible do they find this theory 1 It is in the nature of representation that represen- tatives should be chosen by the parties whom they represent. "Who appoints the bishops'? Their dioceses'? No; the people have no part whatever in the election. They are altogether the creatures of the pope, who, in appointing them, has no regard whatever to the voice of the people ; they are bishops by favour of the Apostolic See. How then can they be said to be representatives of the people, and as such enjoy the gift of infallibility? But granting, for argument's sake, that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles ; we cannot see by what reasoning Roman Catholics can establish the infallibility of the episco- pate. They claim to prove it from the Scriptures; but they teach also that we cannot know the existence of Scripture as such, nor believe in its divine inspiration until we are taught and assured of it by the Church. They prove the infallibility of the Church by the Bible, and the canon and inspiration of the Bible by the infallible teaching of the Church. Is not this proving the same by the same, or what logicians call a circulua vitio^9^ Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility, 57 They answer, No; for when we prove the infallibility of the Church by the Bible we consider the latter merely as a book of the highest human authority, a book of the greatest credibility; and after having proved by its testimony the infallibility of the Church, we prove by the teaching of the Church that this book is more than human — that it is the inspired Word of God. Thus we do not prove the same \iy the same, for we consider the Bible under two aspects, first as merely hiHnan, and then as a divine book. Behold, what a formidable apparatus of human ratiocina- tion this doctrine of infallibility requires ! First, by all the rules of criticism, and by a long series of human argumenta- tion they must prove that every single book in the canon of the Scriptures is genuine, authentic, and true ; and after hav- ing done so, they have advanced only one step ; they have proved only that the Bible is a book of human authority. The next step is to prove, by a similar apparatus of learning, that this book teaches the infallibility of the Church. After having gone through all this course of reasoning, have they absolute certainty as to the trut'u of all their premises, the correctness and concatenation of their inferences ? And who does not see that only men of talent and learning are able to undertake this formidable labour, and successfully to complete it? What are the rest of their members to do ? Sino- mfallibility is not self-evident, where will they find reasons " for the hope that is in them T Must they believe the Church infallible because some of their learned divines tell them that, after a long course of theological labour, they can prove it from a book of the highest human authority 1 Does it not thus appear that faith in the infallibility of the Church, both of the learned and the ignorant, reste only on human authority \ And does uot this reciprocal proving, first "l^ 58 Roman Catholicism. from the Bible as a human book that the Church is infallible, and then by the voice of the Church that this same human book is inspired, seem too much like paying a debt of gratitude to this book, by conferring upon it the title of in- spired, because it has done service to the Church ] Such a process is calculated to destroy all faith both in the Bible and the Church. If the Bible is inspired, that inspiration must be its all- pervading element ; it must be the stamp impressed upon it by its Divine Author, so that every soul thirsting after truth may readily perceive it and be satisfied. If an extraneous authority, and that, too, an authority having not a self-evi- dent and palpable, but only a demonstrable claim to infalli- bility, gives the Bible its certificate of inspiration, there is every reason for looking upon it with suspicion. Hence the Church of Rome, by thus dealing with the rule of faith, appears to me to lead us into a labyrinth of doubt and un- certainty. Let us suppose, now, the Eoman Catholic has proved the authenticity, genuineness and truth of the Bible as a human composition, how does he prove from it that the episcopate, as the successors of the Apostles, are endowed with infalli- bility] He endeavours to prove it, first, from all those texts con- taining the promises of Christ to the Apostles and the Church, securing their infallibility and consequent authority. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt, xxviii, 20.) "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- vail against it." (Matt, xvi, 18.) "Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be en- Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility, 59 dued with power from on higL" (Luke xxiv, 47-49.) "When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." (John xvi, 13.) From these and similar promises, it is contended that Christ promised to be with His Church to the end of the world ; he promised her the Holy Ghost to be with her and lead her into all truth ; that the Holy Spirit descended visibly upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and that he was with them in their first council at Jerusalem, and guided them to infallible decrees. We answer that, although these and similar texts prove that the Apostles were especially assisted by the Holy Ghost, as founders of the Church, none of them promises in- fallibility either to the whole body of the Church, or to the episcopate alone. We gi-ant that the Holy Ghost was to be with the Church, as well as with the Apostles, until the end of the world ; but we maintain that we must also admit a difierence in the manner in which he assists either. Surely, no one v/ill pretend that He was to be manifested in the same form and measure to the Apostles and to the Church, after their death. How are we to settle this point, since Scripture appears to be silent about it ! We think, the nature of the Apostolic office arid mission and that of the Church after their death gives us a clear and definite answer to the question. He was with the Apostles in their official capacity as witnesses in order to give an infallible testimony of what Christ had taught and done for us. We think it a significant fact that there were only twelve apostles and that they were specially chosen by Christ, in order that none might arrogate to him- self the same privileges which they, as the chosen twelve, possessed. St. Paul was a particular vessel of election ; he was a witness of the revelation he had especially re- 60 Roman Catholicism, ceived; but we find that none whom the Apostles or- dained cKimed or enjoyed the same privileges. To the apostles the truth was delivered by Christ and the Holy Spirit ; they were the original receivers ; they planted the faith by teaching what was necessary to be believed ; and they established the Church. And like the inspired prophets' of old. they were moved not only to teach by word of mouth , but also to deposit the saving truth in written records, for the sure guidance and salvation of future generations. The Holy Ghost was with them both as witnesses and as writersy in order to establish the truths of Christianity in the world. Certainly we all agree that the Church was to be built on an infallible foundation, and that therefore the apostles as such were alone endowed with the gift of infallibility. But we see also clearly that, when the Church of Christ was once founded by the apostles, and when the needful amount of revealed truth was once infallibly recorded in a book, no infallible authority was necessary for the teaching body of the Church, since its functions differed widely from those of the apostles. The certainty that its dogmatic system is contained in, and conformable with the Bible is sufficient for the guidance of men ; and this certainty may safely be attained by comparing both together. Moreover we believe that the Holy Ghost assists the sincere enquirer in securing this certainty. All will concur with us that there is a great difference be- tween certainty and infallibility. He that is infallible cannot err ; he who is certain can err, but does not err; he has evi- dence that he does not err on such or such a point, and therefore he is certain. Now we have iii the Bible the in- fallible deposit of truth, for it is the unerring Word of God ; but we have certainty in our mind when we acquire the truth I < Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 61 from the Bible.. "We may err, but we have reason to believe that we do not err. The Apostles required infallibility in writing the Bible, but we do not need that gift in reading and preaching the truths therein contained ; certainty is all that we want. We are enabled to acquire this certainty so far as it is necessary for our welfare ; what more can wo desire ? True, we ought to be constantly on our guard, foF, as human beings, our intellect is limited and we are liabk to error; but God's Spirit assists us in our earnest enquiries, and when we are certain of having attained to the truth from the infallible Word, let us be content and give thanks to the Spirit who vouchsafed to enlighten us. If Roman Catholics had, as reasonable men, been satisfied with this certainty, and not aimed too high by endeavouring to give the human mind an infallible knowledge of the truth, they would never have dreamed of endowing the living voice of the Church with in- fallibility, thereby involving themselves in the intricacies of a system that oppresses them like an incubus and places all reforms within the Church beyond the reach of possibility. If we gave to the writings of the Apostles no providential significance as the deposityy of divine truth for all ages ; if we looked upon them as mere occasional appendages which the Church could do weil without ; if we considered them dependent as regards belief in their inspiration, and also their true interpretation, oii the authority of the post-apostolic Church ; we might, probably, feel perplexed and allow that Roman Catholics appear to be right in claiming continuous infallibility for the living voice of the Church. But these suppositions have not a shadow of truth in their favour. Do not the sacred writers themselves tell us thst they write not with any transient object, but for the high purpose that we may obtain the truth, believe in the truth and be saved by 62 Roman Catholicism* ! it ? Does St. John consider the Scriptures as mere temporary adjuncts, or as passing phenomena in the life of the Church, when he says, " These things were written, that ye might be- lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name." (John xx, 31.) Or does St. Paul think little of the Bible when he writes, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right- eousness, that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (ii Tim. iii. 16-17.) While one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule of faith. It is an historical fact that the teachings of the Apostles, as recorded in Holy Scripture, were considered not only during their life-time, but immediately after their death, as the only depository of divine revelation. If it were otherwise, why should they have been read in the Christian assemblies as an essential part of their religious services, even during the life- time of the Apostles ? Why that eagerness to collect them imm. lately into one book ] " C.onsidering the poverty of the early Christians, the persecutions to which they were subject, the imperfect means of multiplying copies of Scrip- ture at their disposal, the comparative infrequency of inter- communication in those days, the Apostolic writings were disseminated with a rapidity and acknowledged with a uni- versality of consent truly wonderful." (Hodge's Outlines of Theol., p. 98). And does not this plainly show that they were more than mere accidental appendages of the Church, and rather held a providential place in God's spiritual government? If we read the writings of the early fathers of the Church, especi- Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 63 ally those who lived in the Apostolic age, we find that they looked upon the Scriptures of the New Testament as the in- spired Word of God, and quoted copiously from their pages. However carefully we may examine these patristic writings, we cannot find any organized body of Churchmen, in those early times, claiming the gift of infallibility. On the con- trary, all controversies of faith were settled by appealing to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Apostles as contained in their writings. Although owing to the different schools, of philosophy, from which converts were made to Christianity religious controversies, in those early times, were more num- erous and subtle than in our own days; yet the simple appeal to Scripture was considered sufficient to settle them. In the interpretation of Scripture, sound common sense, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, was employed; and as this is universal, and eccentricity the exception, appeal was some- times made to the catholic or universal belief of Christians, not because this universal consent was considered the in- fallible depository of faith, but as an external and additional argument against the heretics of the time. This appeal however was not intended to prove the doctrines in question, but only to confiim the proofs taken from Scripture. What we have here briefly stated, in these paragraphs, as undoubted facts, may be easily verified by any impartial enquirer who will take the trouble of reading the works of the early Chris- tian writers, or of consulting the productions of our learned divines, where ample quotations from the Fathers are given in proof of these statements. From what we have said it may be safely concluded that Christ and the Holy Ghost were present in a different manner with the Apostles to that they were or are with the post- Apos- tolic Church. With the Apostles they were present in their 04 Roman Catholicism, teachings and writings in order to infallibly establish the Church on a sure foundation and to give us the deposit of faith for all ages. This required infallibility. With the post-Apos- tolic Church the Spirit is present in order to preserve and guard the Bible, and preach the doctrines therein con- tained. This does not require infallibility, the former being the continual acknowledgment of an historical fact estab- lished by the Apostles and the latter a viva-voce repetition and explanation of doctrines contained in the sacred records. The oflice of the Church, since the death of the apostles, has been to use all her endeavors to have the Scriptures preserved, propagated, preached, read both at public worship and in private, meditated upon and practised. Thus the Word of God is the infallible, the only infallible element of the Church, and the Holy Ghost pervading the Church certainly establishes His kingdom in the hearts of believers. A certain degree of authority, far different from infalli- bility, was claimed by the episcopate of the first ages of Christianity. They took their arguments, in refuting here- tics and schismatics, from the written Word of God, not from theii' own authority — their own ipse dixit. , It was only when the episcopate obtained high political influence that it lost the primitive Apostolic spirit, becoming haughty and des- potic, and arrogating to itself the attribute of infallibility, an attribute which only the greatest spiritual despotism has ventured to assert. This despotism of a pretended infalli- bility commenced with the dawn of the Church's political influence, under the empe or onsi..i>,ine; extended itself gradually over a wider f; jurisdiction; was at its height in the middle ages, wh it possesscL. the full power of crushing in the bud any att .npt to resist its usurped authority; became at last an intolerable scourge of mankind, Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 65 until God took pity on Christendom and by the Reforraation gtruck the first heavy blow at its unwarrantable assumptions. Since then it has lost a great deal of its external rigour and splendour; and yet in spirit it exists the same as before. We think that the history of this spiritual absolutism claim- ing infallibility bears sufficient evidence that Christ did^ot wish his Church to be deemed infallible, in the sense of Roman Catholicism. Could Christ be with His Church, could He send the Holy Spirit for the purpose of creating such a spiritual despotism as the pages of history reveal to us? Impossible. But Roman Catholics insist that the promises of Christ to the Apostles must have a different meaning from that which we give them, because the Church as a living society insti- tuted by Christ is a witness of Christ and His doctriiie, by her constant profession and teaching, so that, as the Apostles were the immediate witnesses, each generation of the Church is also a witness of the teaching of the one immediately pre- ceding it. They argue that such is the nature of the witness- bearing of a living society, that, while one generation is in full vigour, the preceding one still lives (though gradually departing out of existence) to correct any erroneous teaching of its actual successor ; whilst- the next generation is in its youth and may be carefully taught by its predecessor. Thus three generations always exist partially together, and may aid and correct each other in their testimony. This is the only way in which the Church, as a living society, bears un- interrupted testimony to the Apostolical teaching. Who does not see that both the writings and the oral teachings of the Apostles come within the scope of her witness-bearing 1 You cannot know what the Apostles taught, nor can you even believe in the Bible as the Word of God except on the 6«3 Roman Catholicism. testimony of the Church. This uninterrupted testimony of the Church, iu liei capacity as witness, may in a coirs prehen- sive sense, be called tradition. The Bible itself is a part of this tradition-system; it has been handed down, together with the other portions of the teachings of Christ, by the Church as a living witness of God's revealed truths. If then, they conclude, the promises of Christ are i-o have their ac- complishment, if there must consequently be an infallible element within the Church, we cannot but admit that the Chui'ch mupt be itself infallible. Let us examine this argument in our next Lecture. Si* LECTURE IV. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS WITNESS-BEARER — TRADI- TION. w E concluded our last lecture with the argument of the Roman Catholics that the Church must be infallible on account of her office as witness. They endeavour to strengthen theii' position by arguing in the following manner : No doubt, we agree with you that the principal mission of the apostles was to be " witnesses of all things which Christ did" (Acts x., 39), and that " they were witnesses chosen before God" (Acts x., 41) ; but we dissent from you in regard to the perpetuity of this office of witness- bearing. Wf maintain that all those offices and gifts of which Christ, in conferring them, expressly declared that they should continue " unto the end of the world '' and reach " all nations," did not die out with the apostles, but became the heritage of the Church. Now, that this witness-bearing of the apostles is one of these offices can be easily proved from different texts of Scripture ; for Christ says, " And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a loitmss unto all nations" (Matt, xxiv., 14) ; and again, " Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of of the earth" (Acts i., 8); and in another place, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations ; and lo I am with yo\i 68 Roman Catholicism. alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii., 19-£u, ) Now if we reflect that the office of- witness is given in connec- tion with the promise of the Spirit's assistance, we must con- clude that the Church, too, in her witness-bearing capacity enjoys the same divine aid, and is consequently infallible. We answer that, whilst we agree with the Roman Catholics that the Church is a witness, we dissent from them as to the manner in which she performs this function. Of course, as a living society she cannot but bear witness of the life and doc- trine of her Founder ; at the same time we contend that this witness-beaj'ing consists iii preserving and keeping the Book written by the inspired prophets and apostles on whom she is built, and in preaching the doctrines therein contained. For this purpose she need not be endowed with an infallible mouth ; certainty is all that is required, and this she may obtain by using an adequate amount of application and care. Nor do we consider this witness-bearing of the Church absolutely necessary to assure us that thb Bible is inspired, for as a rule of faith the Book must be altogether independent of any- thing anterior ] we must take it on its ovm merits, or we cannot possibly have a rule of faith at all. Whilst we highly respect the testimony of the Church, Roman Catholics, here as elsewhere, go beyond the limits of due deference, by endowing that testi'nony with infa llibility. We tell them that, instead of mal'ing matters of faith clearer and easier, by this adventitious aid, they necessarily involve themselves in a maze of perplexity ; for the testimony of a continuous and ever-living society differs essentially from that of an individual ; and therefore we must pay attention to the past as well as to the present. Roman Catholics teach that, in regard to the present, the living voice of the episcopate is the infallible witness of '%% The Church's Office as IVitness-bearer. 69 Christ's doctrine, and that, with reference to the past, oral tra- dition occupies the place of the same infallible teatimony of the Church ; for what else is oral tradition but the teaching of different generations of the Church so closely and unin- terruptedly linked together in theii* life and belief that, by word of mouth, one generation or traditional line hands down the teaching of Christ and his Apostles to the next one, and so on, to our own day ? Even the Bible is but the written portion of this tradition-system. Thus, by the very nature of their system, they are com- pelled to defend the infallibility of tradition, as a part of the infallibility-doctrine of their Church ; and this they do with characteristic zeal. But who fails to perceive that this must involve their whole system in a labyrinth of difficulties ? However ingeniously and subtly Roman Catholic divines may philosophize about the ce^^tainty of oral tradition, we maintain that their arguments are singularly inconclusive. There are very few cases in which oral tradition communi- cates the knowledge of facts and truths even with a slight degree of probability. We give little credence to those parts of the history of nations which are handed down to us by this channel of communication, and for the most part regard them as legendary tales and romantic visions. We find it difficult to acquire any accurate knowledge of a fact that happens in our own day and generation ; how utterly impossible, then, must it be for us to search through a long series of traditional lines and trace, with certainty, to their beginning facts that happened many centuries ago 1 If the tradition be purely oral, we are absolutely without any guide to direct our researches. How can we possibly prove that certain facts occurred in bygone ages, without recourse to written documents ? Surely it is not enough to say that the ff ■"WNm ' 70 Roman Catholicism. present generation believes them, having received them by oral tradition. Moreover the difficulty increases, when tiie objects of this oral communication are not merely simple events, but a whole system of religious doctrine transcending man's mental capacities and warring against his natural inclinations, and a whole body of liturgical ordinances and disciplinary observ- ances, — the very things which would be most likely to be corrupted in the process of oral tranr^mission from generation to generation. This uncertainty of oral tiadition has been felt from the very dawn of man's history. It is but natural to suppose that it would be the earliest method of transmitting from father to son the events of the past, and in those early ages when the human race was not large and men lived several hundred years, this channel may have been adequate and trustworthy for a considerable tnne. But experience soon taught them that they must have a surer way of handing down history to future generations. For this purpose, they invented hieroglyphics, commemorative observances and, finally, writing. We consider it a conclusive pioof against oral tradition that with the invention of writing commences tho authentic and reliable history of man. It is in the very nacure of things that mere communications by word of mouth are soon forgotten or distorted, but that which is written remains — Utera scripta manet. We believe that writing is a providential gift of God bestowed on man to perpetuate safely His revealed truths to the end of the world ; nay, it is a preliminary act in the divine dispensations. Like revelation itself, writing is an element in God's plan of educating mankind ; whilst oral tradition, instead of having an elevating tendency, keeps man where he is, and instead of imbuing his mind with ce "tainty, would leave him a The Churcfis Office as Witness-bearer. 71 prey to legendary tales and sujMjrstitious beliefs and ob- servances. ^ But our Reman Catholic brethren answer that the tradi- tion of Christ s Church is not merely oral, since it has also been written down. It is oral in its nature, but it has also been committed to writing as an external means of confirming us in our adherence to the infallible voice of the C/hurch. They tell us that it is embalmed in creeds and liturgies, in the decrees and canons of general and particular councils, in the writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church. If you ask them whether all these writings are the tradi- tion of the Church, they answer: No; but only those por- tions which boar witness to what was believed as Catholic doctrine in those days. And if you ask them again, how you may find out what is testimony and what individual opinion in these writings, they will give you the following rule: Quod semper, ubique et ah omnibus creditum est — wliat has been believed always, everywhere, and by all, is Catholic doctrine. In other words : Read all these writings, and that in which they all agree is the semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum — the common faith of the Church in all times and places. Let us pausu here. That, then, is oral tradition. Why, it is not oral tradition after all. Roman Catholics have to come to our way of thinking that the Word of God is given to us in written records. We were told bv them that the Scriptures were obscure, insufficient, and so difficult of com- prehension that they could never be an independent rule of faith for man, and we were promised an easier way of ascer- taining divine truth. But what have we here] A rule that, on account of its vastness, must oVerwhelm any sincere en- quirer after truth. In cider to give an account of the hope that is in him, and to fully satisfy his mind that a doctrine 11 'a : t 72 Roman Catholicism, is catholic and contained within the depository of faith, called tradition, he must wade through a whole library of fathers and doctors of the Church, acts oT councils, liturgies, &c., and that not in a desultory manner, but in a critical spirit, comparing work with work, until he finds the doctrines upon which all are agreed. And if we consider the great number of truths revealed by God, and if in regard to each of these this pre ^ess must be repeated, we may well ask in astonish- ment, would it be possible for man, if such were the rule of faith, ever to acquire an intelligent conviction of the dogmas proposed for his belief? Would it be possible for any human being to undertake this huge task and complete it successfully] To this difficulty they reply that the Church performs this task for every one of her members. How so % What is this Church but the bishops 1 Are they not individually fallible human beings ? And must not this task be undertaken by them individually before they can give a decision collectively f They meet the difficulty by endowing the episcopate as a body with infallibility. But do they not also teach that this gift of infallibility is not an inspiration, but only an assistance of God's Spirit, and presupposes faithful enquiry into the whole field of tradition, so as to discover what has always, everywhere, and by all, been believed] And can they expect that, if this enquiry be neglected or carelessly con- ducted, the Spirit's assistance will be given them in their col- lective decree 1 Has it come to this that the members of the Church must resign themselves altogether into the hands of the bishops who may after all be incapable or careless enquirers after truth] And now since the Vatican council they maintain that the pope alone can infallibly pronounce what doctrines are or ^re not to be found in this depository of tradition. But if, The Church's Office as Witness-bearer. 73 according to their system, papal infallibility is not an inspira- tion, but an assistance in enquiry, the pope is bound to per- form the almost superhuman work of examining critically the whole vast body of tradition, before he is justified in giving an infallible decree, ex cathedra. Can he perform this work for himself, amidst the many cares of his government, or do others do it for him 1 If so, how is he certain that his theologians have performed it properly ? And is he justified in giving a decree without this certainty ? Here Roman Catholics have to solve another difl&culty. Do they not prove the infallibility of their Church from tradi- tion ] But we have already seen that they prove the infalli- bility of tradition by the infallibility of the Church, and is this not reasoning in a circle — a fault unpardonable in logi- cians ] They cannot say here, as they said in regard to the Scripture proof in favor of infallibility, that they consider tradition under a twofold aspect, and thus avoid contradic- tion ; for they teach that oral tradition and the living voice of the Church are one and the same thing ; to prove, there- fore, the one by the other would be proving the same thing by the same. Nor can they escape the difficulty by saying that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, have received the deposi- tum of faith from the great Head of the Church to be trans- mitted by them from generation to generation; and that, holding this authoritative commission, they have no need of disinterring the records of past ages to prove their infalli- bility. But, then, to prove their commission, they must prove their uninterrupted Apostolical succession, and for the proof of this succession they go to tradition. Can they, at the same time, be allowed to give theii' own evidence as to the authority of that tradition 1 This would be describing a circle, — a gross sophism, 74 Roman Catholicism. I Now, why should God make use of such an uncertain method of diffusing and preserving His precious revelation ? Why should He use an instrument so much exposed to attack from enemies of the truth? Why should He ordain, in His all-wise providence, that some of His revealed truths should be written down, and for this end inspire the writers, and that another part should not be written at all but left to the chances of oral tradition 1 Why should we admit this want of uniformity in the most momentous affair of life ? We see no reason for it ; nay, we have reasons for the contrary sup- position. We find that Christ more than once inveighed against the Pharisees on account of their traditions (Matt, xv., 3-6; Mark vii., 9-13). He tells them that by their traditions they place burdens on men's shoulders which God did not wish them to place there. He rebukes them for adhering more to their traditions than to the Word of God. He reproaches them for obscuring the Scriptures by their tradi- tions. He never refers to tradition except to condemn it. Is not this a proof that no part of God's vq\ lation was handed down by tradition? Christ tells us what evil consequences had resulted from the regard which was paid by the Jews to •tradition ; and St. Peter speaks of their vain conversation as received by tradition, showing thereby that tradition handed them down nothing from God. Besides, has not tradition been the veil which has hindered them from understanding their own Scriptures, and recognizing in Christ the promised Messiah ? But if God did not employ tradition under the Old Law why should we suppose that, without telling us of the alteration, He employs it in the New Dispensation? And if tradition has been productive of so many evils to Jews, why. should we believe that it is of superior authority The Church's Office as Witness-bearer. 75 now, and that it will not be productive of similar evils to Chris- tians ? And let us ask, whether among the warnings of the New Testament none are to be found against the traditions of men? Is there not this solemn warning, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men" (Col. ii., 8)] Christ himself, in His disputations with the Jews, never appealed to their tradi- tions, but invariably to the Scriptures, giving us thereby to understand that, as in the Old Testament divine revelation was deposited in a book, so it should likewise be under the New Dispensation. He never appealed to the authority of the Sanhedrim, the supreme council of the Jewish priest- hood, but to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith. If we compare the Jewish system of tradition which our Saviour so strongly condemned with that of the Church of Rome, we find that they are strictly analogous. I cannot do better than give a resutn''. of this analogy extracted from the learned and erudite work of Dr. Peck, — ^^ Appeal from Tra- dition to Scrijdure and Common Se7ise:" — " Both Jews and Roman Catholics trace their traditions to God, the former through Moses, the latter through the Apostles. Both regard them as a supplement to and com- mentary upon the written Law, transmitted through a regu- lar succession of divinely appointed ministers. In both systems, the traditions which had accumulated to an indefi- nite extent came finally to be written down by the doctors. I Among the Jews, Babbi Judah, called Hakkadosh, collected [what were considered the genuine traditions into one book Icalled the Mishna, which forthwith obtained great authority. [The oral traditions of the Christian Church, first reduced to writing we are told by the the Roman Catholics, are the [Creeds, the liturgies, the decrees of councils, the Apostoli- 76 Roman Catholicism. I 3 i il ! cal canons, and Apostolical constitutions. But in both systems these oral traditions were con&idered inadequate. Hence the Jews both in Judea and Babylonia made com- ments on the Mishna, and thus originated the two Talmuds, that is, the Babylonish Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, and these comments are called the Gemara. The writings of Vincentius Lirinensis in the fifth century, Peter Lombard of the twelfth, and Thomas Aquinas of the thirteenth supply the place of the Jewish Gemara. Again, both Jews and Christians have elevated their traditions above, and at the expense of the Written Word, and palmed the grossest puerilities and blasphemies upon the infinitely wise and holy God, on the authority of tradition. The result of this traditionary system, both among Jews and Roman Catho- lics, has been to restrict the reading of the Scriptures, nay, almost to proscribe them." We are fully convinced that the Roman Catholic system of tradition has the same character and the same defects as that of the Jews. Now, if Christ condemned the latter in the strongest terms, why should we not follow His example and reject the former 1 Let us follow the system of the true Jews approved by Christ Himself. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that the Old Testament is the type of the Christian Dispensation ; that the New Law is foreshadowed in the Old Law. Now, under the Old Covenant the Written Word of God was the rule of faith ; it must therefore be the same in the New Dispensation. Under the Old Testament the San- hedrim or Supreme Council of the priesthood was not in- vested with infallible authority ; under the New Xestament, therefore, the episcopate is not endowed with infallibility in teaching. Under the Old Law the revealed truths were first The Church's Office as Witness-bearer, 77 made known and given to the people by word of mouth through the prophets ; under the New Law the same was done by the mouth of Christ and His Apostles. Under the Old Law the "Word of God was afterwards written down by the prophets in order to serve after their death as a rule of faith to the Jews ; the same was done under the New Law by the Apostles, in order that the Christians might have an infallible rule of faith. In the Old Dispensation not all the prophets wrote ; in the New Dispensation not all the Apostles were moved by the Spirit to write. In the Old Testament not all that was revealed to the prophets was written down ; in the New Testament all that Christ taught and did is not written down. In the Old Dispensation, that which was written down was considered a sulficient rule of faith ; in the New Dispensation, what was written down by the Apostles, together with the books in the Jewish Canon of Scripture, was considered a sufficient rule of faith by the first Christians and by all those who since have followed in their steps. Under the Old Law, the sacred writings show no trace of human art, are written in the most simple style, and adapted to the capacities of all ; the same is the case under the ;New Law, where the writings bear the same impress of a providential agency. Under the Old Dispensation the ex- Ipounders of Scriptures were not considered infallible ; there- fore, the claim to infallibility ought not to be made by the [episcopate under the Christian Dispensation. But Roman Catholics maintain that the unbroken succes- sion of prophets in the Old Law supplied the place of infal- ibility ; there being no such succession in the New jaw, the teaching body of the Church requires to be endowed rith infallibility. We deny the continual succession of prophets ; let Koman ^ 78 Roman Catholicism. Catholics establish it if they can. Besides, God sent His prophets not to give infallibility to antecedent prophe- cies, but to prepare the people by degrees for the coming of the Messiah. When He had come, no new prophets were required. His way had been prepared by the prophets, end- ing with John the Baptist. The fulness of time had arrived, and revelation was completed by the Son of God. His work and His words became historical facts which were recorded in a book by the inspired Apostles, and on them and the prophets the Church was built. The Holy Ghost supplied henceforth the place of the succession of prophets. All that was requii'ed to the end of the world was that His doctrine be accepted and established in the hearts of men. The in- fallible Word of God, which has an innate efficacy, and the grace of the Holy Ghost were amply sufficient for this end. "X^: LECTURE V. TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE— REVIEW OF THE ARGU- MENTS DRA JFN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS GUARDIAN AND KEEPER OF THE BIBLE. ROMAN Catholics, in order to defend their system of tradition as a rule of faith, maintain that it is clearly it forth in the Scriptures of the New Testament. They con- md that it is contained in the very commission which Christ jave to His Apostles ; for He commanded them to preachy not jto lorite ; from which they conclude that iireachingy not [ting was to be the means by which His doctrine was to propagated and preserved ; and if so, tradition or oral )mmunication was to be the principal depository of faith, id wi'iting only an appendage. We answer that the oral teachings of the Apostles were rule of faith to those who heard them, nor do we deny that there were sufficient evidence of the transmission of the rords or the sense of their oral discourses through the lannel of tradition, such words or the sense thereof would a rule of faith to us ; for our faith must be based on the jaching of the Apostles in whatever way that preaching yj reach us. But we maintain that we have no evidence it it comes to us through the medium of tradition ; nay, have shown the contrary. We believe that the Bible is only safe source from which we can draw the teaching the Apostles. 80 Roman Catholicism, i ll ^ 1 ;! True, preaching is the ordinary means of diffusing the Gospel; but is it not clear that the matter of preaching must be taken from, and based upon, some depository 1 The Apostles preached as witnesses :.^nd heavenly-appointed messengers, with the extraordinary mission of planting the Church. Their preaching, therefore, was based upon the immediate revelation of God. But the preaching of the post- Apostolic Church is founded upon that of the Apostles. Now, how could it be founded upon it, unless it be contain^'ci in some depository given by the Apostles themselves 1 And if this depository be the preaching of the Church from gen- eration to generation, or in other v/ords, oral tradition, how can we prove the orthodoxy of our present preaching, except by appealing to the preacJiing of ^e preceding genera- tions, which, besides being morally impossible, would also be begging the question — proving the tradition by tradition. The correctness of the preaching of those who take the Bible as the only standard of faith can easily be ascertained by any one who reads the sacred book ; whilst the truth of the preaching of those who gather their doctrine from the vast, uncertain and obscure tield of tradition cannot be satisfactorily proved, even by the learned divine. The evangelical minister cannot impose upon the people, while the traditionist, who knows that his hearers must take for granted wh .h le preaches, may easily impose upon their credulity. Roman Catholic divinea contend that there are several texts in which the Apostles expressly teach that there are doctrines they did not write down, but which, as a sacred deposit, have been handed down in the Church by oral tradi- tion. They adduce ii Tim. i., 13 : " Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me." The Rhemish translators of the New Testament say in their note : " The The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 81 Liffusing the if preaching sitory^ The ly-appointed planting the ed upon the jhing of the the Apostles. , be contain^'d jelves ] And rch from gen- raditiou, how it preaching, jeding genera- would also be by tradition, take the Bible tained by any truth of the om the vast, satisfactorily elical minister ditionist, who ted wh if. le •e are several hat there are [h, as a sacred by oral tradi- tt the form of :he Rhemish note: "The re Apostles did set down a platform of faith, doctrine, and phrpeij of catholic speech and preaching, and that not so muoh by writing, as we here see, as by word of mouth : to which he referreth Timothy over and above in his epistle to him. And how precisely Christian doctors ought to keep the form of words anciently appropriated to the mysteries and matters of our religion." We answer that this text proves merely that St. Paul had given his >>^loved son Timothy a ^^ delineatimi of sound words " — viroTv'iiaJCiiv vyiaivo'vTcov Xo'ycov — which evi- dently is a summary of the Gospel-system ; and he exhorts him to hold it fast. "What has that to do with oral tradition as a system ] Of course, the discourses of the Apostles were to those who heard them a rule of faith. We say with Ireujjeus (Lib. III., cap. 4) : "The Apostles ' preached the Gospel, and after, by the will of God, delivered it to us in writing, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith." But they insist further that St. Paul proceeds to say in the following verse, " That good thing (literally, that good deposit) which was committed unto thee keep, by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us." Now, this deposit must be something different from Scripture, probably a creed. We answer, that it has to be seen wj^at this good de- posit — Tify xaXrf y itapaxara^rf xt}y — means; supposing it to denote the Christian doctrine, the text only enjoins Timothy to keep it safe, and is entirely silent as to its being inde- pendent of, and distinct from, the doctrines that are recorded m Scripture. But as St. Paul, in the preceding verse, has I spoken of the ^^delineation of 80U7ul words" it is probable [that he is speaking here of something else, probably of his office or gifts. The word itapcxKaraBrf'xt; here has evidently [the same meaning as in verse 12, where a similar phrase 6 MMM MBH 82 Roman CatJiolicism. occurs — T-ij V ncif)(x^rj'xj]\' jitov qivXa'^oci — and where it probably means tli(^ gifts lie liad received. Tliey adduce, moreover, the following passages in support of theii^ doctrine : " And keep the ordinances (traditions) as I delivered them unto you" (i Cor. xi. 2) and "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taugiit whcither by word or by our epistle" (ii Thess. ii. 15). From these texts they conclude thr.l the Word of God is twofold, written and unwritten, and that the Apostle teaches that both are to be held in (Hjual veneration ; that the unwritten word, called tradition, is distinct from Scrip- ture and handed down to us by word of mouth. We answer that the Greek word TtafjaSoOt?, translated tradition, is of more extensive signification than the word tradition, in the Roman Catholic sense. It means any pre- cept, instruction or ordinance that it i uvered either in writing or by word of mouth. The Apostle, therefore, means the doctrines or ordinances which he had taught the Thessa- lonians both orally and in his epistle. Of course, both com- liiunications were to be believed with equal veneration by those ivho received them from the Apostles. But the words do not imply that, in succeeding ages, whatever is reported by the Church as* the unwritten word of God should be believed as revealed truth. We say with Cranmer : ** I grant 1 that Paul taught many things by word of mouth, which he wrote not in his epistles to the Thessalonians. But how shall they prove that the spnie things be neither written by him in any other of his epistles, or in any other place of the whole Bible 1 For what argument is ;':is1 It is not written in this place or to those persons ; cr^o, it is not written in th<^ the Scripture at all. For the shortness of one epistle, or ol" one sermon, cannot suiiiciently contain all things nec^jsary The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 83 for our salvation ; and therefore bo there many books of tho Scripture, that what is so omitted, or not spoken of in one place, or else darkly spoken of, might be plainly written in another plvice. And for this cause 8t. Paul writeth to the Oolossians, saying, " When this letter is read with you, cause it also to be read to the Laodiceans. And read you also the epistle written from Laodicea," (Cranmer, Confutation of Univritten Verities, cli. x.) Roman Catholics contend that the whole of God's revela- tion is not contained in the written Word of God ; there must, therefore, be an unwritten word — oral tradition — dis- tinct from Scripture, to supi)ly the deftcieiicies of tho Bible. They endeavour to prove by different texts that the whole revelation is not recorded therein. We answer: True, not all that Christ did and taught is written down, but we strongly maintain that what is recorded is sufficient for us ; and this the Bible plainly teaches. Let me adduce a few texts. St. Paul says, (ii Tim. iii., 15-17): "From a child thou hast I known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Chi'ist Jesus. [All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Iriglitousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." What words could more ulearly prove the sufficiency of the Scriptures than these ? i'rora a child Timothy had known the Scriptures? ; there- fore, they are ada})ted even to children. They are able to lake us wise unto salvation; therefore, they are not mere '^oi'ds without meaning. All Scripture is given by inspira- ion ; tlierefore, not a dead letter ; for the Holy Spirit Sfre-ithcs in it. Thoy are profitable for all the great pur- /'.A mtmmm i II I I; i ■k ■)!"■ '' it 84 Roman Catholicism, poses of our holy religion — " profitable for doctrine, for re- proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." And does not all this mean that they are sufiicient for our salva- tion and well-being here and hereafter % (i»^ Again, we read (Rom. xv.,4): "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Thus the Scriptures give us learning, and that learn- ing imparts to us the comfort of hope. Could they effect this, if they were insufficient ? They are sufficient, indeed, for finding Christ. " Search the Scriptures ; they are they which testify of Me." (John v., 39.) "Where else do we learn Christ but in the Scriptures] Let Roman Catholics point out what tradition teaclies about Him 1 The worthlessness of tradition in regard to Christ should alone be a sufficient reason to make us look upon it with suspicion. St. John says : " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disiples which are not written in this book ; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Now, if one Gospel was sufficient for this great end, how much more the whole Bible ? And if the Old Testament Scriptures are extolled by Christ Himself and His Apostles, as being sufficient to lead us to Him, how much more abundant will be our profit if we add to them the writings of the New Testament ! We have sufficient reason to distinguish two parts in the revelation of God, namely, things of a general or catholic import, and things of a local and individual bearing. The former are those truths which are necessary to the salvation and essential well-being of all mankind ; they give to reve- The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 85 lation the claim to catholicity. They 'lave been written down. The latter comprise those things which God did in regard to particular persons and nations. They have not all been recorded in the Bible ; for as soon as those nations and individuals ceased to exist, such matters lost their impor- tance. Only some instances which serve us as examples for imitation, or as warnings, have been written down. In the Old Testament many dispensations have been recorded which are only of individual, local or national importance ; for the Old Law was more or less confined to the Jews, as the chosen people of God; whilst the New Testament bears decidedly a catholic character. But the advocates of Church infallibility ask, " Who has given us the Bible but the Church ] Who tells us that it is inspired] Who determines its canon but the <^,'hurch ] Who preserves it intact but the Church % You cannot, therefore, believe the Scriptures as such, unless you believe first the in- fallibility of the Church. Let us examine these questions. Who has given uh the Word of God % Not the Church, in' the Roman Catholic sense of the word. The prophets and Apostles, the founders I of the Church, gave it. In the samf manner as tbo prophets of old gave their inspired writings to the Jewish nation, the chosen people of God, so the Apostles, tho witnesses and messengers of Christ, who, in many ways, proved that they had received the Holy Ghost, gave tlie Christian people their Iwi-itings containing a record of tho wonderful words and deeds of the Son of God. With i\w same coH.iinty of faith upon which the Jews believed the OKI Testament to be in- JBpired, we may believe the New Testament to be inspired ; nay, with more certainty, imismuch as the Old Testament is I verified by and realized in the NewT «tament, the latter being il I ■iii 86 Roman Catholicism. the fulfilment of the former. This verification and fulfilment contribute greatly to strengthen our faith. The Jews had the Old Testament without an externally infallible Church ; we, therefore, with more reason and certainty, possessing the New Testament, may dispense with the infallible voice of the Church. The decree of the episcopate would only be an external proof of the inspiration of the Bible. We have many both internal and external proofs of the same inspiration, without having recourse to the infallible authority of the Church. Read the book in a proper spirit and I have no doubt you will agree with me. As the works of creation bear within themselves an objective evidence, that is a reflex of the Creative mind, enabling us, who are created in the image and likeness of God's mind, to perceive theii' truth ; so also the Bible of God has an internal light and evidence, which, coming in contact with the unclouded and unbiassed mind of man, convinces him that here is truth that can come from no other source but the Infinite Intellect of God. The more you study this book in all its relations, the clearer will its truth shine upon your mind. It is a book which needs no external proofs to assure us of its divine origin ; because it stands upon its own merits. If it were not so, it could not be the rule of faith. But if you still demand external arguments, there is no necessity for resorting to the infallible authority of the Church. To prove by external arguments, that is, by argu- ments outside of the book, the inspiration of a sacred writer, it is sufficient to prove the inspiration of the preacher, and that his writings agree with his preaching. Granted that the written word agrees with the spoken word, to prove the in- spiration of the latter is proving the inspiration of the for- The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 87 mer. Now, it is an historical fact that the prophets of old proved before the whole Jewish nation that they were messen- gers of God, and that they spoke the words which God put into their mouth, for they produced evidence of their divine mission in miracles and prophecy. It is an historical fact that what they spoke has been verified both in the history of the Jewish and other nations, and especially in the New Dis- pensation itself. They were therefore inspired in the words they uttered. But the divine messengers, believing the re- velation they received from God to be of vast importance, not only preached it, but also affirmed that they were moved and influenced by the Spirit of God to write it down for the en- liglitenraent and salvation of all future generations. It is an historical fact that their writings agreed with their words, for the same persons who heard them speak heard also their writings read and had, therefore, the amplest opportunity of comparing the written with the spoken word. They testi- fied by their acts that they found both in agreement. Hence it is that with the same veneration which prompted them to hear and heed the spoken word, they read or heard read the written word ; and as they considered the first to be God's revelation, so likewise were they constrained to receive and accept the other. The same may be said of the New Testament. The Apos- tles proved therafjelves to be divine messengers not only be- fore one nation, but before many peoples and nations. As [the word which they preached was divinely inspired, so was j likewise the word which they wrote ; because all Christen- [dom bore testimony that their spoken and written words were in perfect unison. Hence the great reverence with which the Christians treated the sacred writings of the Apostles j I hence also the diligence and devotion with which they 88 Roman Catholicism. perused tliem in their public and private assemblies. All this proves that they considered them as their rule of faith and practice. The tone of the New Testament writers evidently shows that they considered their writings to be the comple- tion of the Old Testament ; they looked upon themselves, therefore, as in the same category or position as the Old Testament writers — the prophets; that is, they believed themselves to be similarly inspired. They held their mission to be that of inspired writers, and God proved to the whole world that they were His witnesses and messengers. That the Scriptures are inspired has, therefore, been admitted as an historical fact ; it required no particular decree of the Church to establish them in the minds and affections of Christians. We have the Scriptures then, as such, from the founders of the Church, not from the Church, in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, or from a hierarchy claiming in- fallibility. Their inspiration, therefore, besides being proved by internal evidence, is also an historical fact supported by the greatest authoritative weight of testimony. In order to determine the canon or catalogue of the Scriptures, we need have no recourse to an infallible decree of the Church, but enquire again into history; for the ques- tion on the canon and the inspiration of the Scriptures are, in a manner, identical. With regard then to all the books of the New Testament, wri jten by the Apostles, we conclude that they were written by inspiration ; for the Apostles were inspired. Their office as founders of the Church demanded this gift ; and the pro- mises of Christ, as well as the many miraculous evidences of the special presence of the Holy Ghost proved that they possessed it ; hence they repeatedly laid claim to it in their writings. But if the inspiration of the New Testament be The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 89 All this faith and \ evidently 16 comple- hemselves, ^s the Old y believed leir mission ► the whole ers. That idmitted as scree of the affections of )h, from the the Roman claiming in- leing proved iipported by rue of the tlible decree )rthe ques- ^-^• iptures are, Testament, rere written Their office j,nd the pro- ^^vidences of that they Jit in their lestara ent be admitted, we must admit that of the Old Testament. Of Old Testament Scripture St. Peter testifies that " it came not in old time by the will of man, but that holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," (ii Peter i., 21). Of Old Testament Scripture generally, St. Paul writes, " that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita- ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness." Nay, Christ Himself gives the sanction of His authority to Old Testament Scripture, and its three great divisions, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, for he quoted from them all as authoritative. He de- clared that ^11 things must be fulfilled which were written concerning Him in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms ; and He exhorted the Jews to search I those Scriptures in which they believed that they had eter- I nal life, for these were they which testified of Him. The whole body of Christians preserves the Scriptures, and [God is with His Church in the preservation of His Word. In [this, partly, consists Christ's presence with His Church, and [that is, if we may so call it, the external infallibility of the [CRurch. Wherever the Scriptures are received, believed, md carried out, there is the Church of Christ "built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Himself )eing the chief corner-stone." And they are the foundation )ecause they have given us the Bible. m i ■I 'Sii l\ 1 LECTUEE VI. EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS INTERPRETER OF THE BIBLE. IN our review of the proofs in favor of the infallibility of the Church we have arrived at those which are taken from the relation between the Bible and the Church, and we considered in our last lecture the argument of Roman Catho- lics, that the Church requires the gift of infallibility as guar- dian and keeper of the Bible. We reviewed their doctrine that the Church has given us the Bible, determined its canon, and preserved it intact from corruption and mutilation. They think they have another strong proof for their infallibility- doctrine, resulting from the same relation between the Bil^e and the Church. They contend that the Church, as the legitimate interpreter of the Bible, requires to be endowed with infallibility; for how could we have unreserved confi- dence in her interpretations if she were not in possession of that gift? As to the necessity for such an interpreter, they deduce it from the obscurity of the Bible, and this obscurity they think must be admitted by all candid readers of the book. Who, they ask, has not met with passages that he could not understand 1 Who has not met with texts that are unintelligible in themselves, and which no parallel pas- sages are found to explain 1 Are there not some parts which The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 91 appear to contradict others'? Are there not unfulfilled pro- phesies difficult of interpretation? Who can undei-stand the allegories, figures, and parables with which it abounds] Are ihere not mysteries of such depth that they require an inter- preter to convey them, in some intelligible manner, to men's minds? They maintain that this interpreter can be none other than the living voice of the Church, which is commis- sioned by Christ to administer to the wants of believers, teaching the people, and feeding the lambs and sheep with pure doctrine. This argument may, at first sight, appear plausible ; it has induced some to enter the fold of the Church of Rome, and entrust themselves and their intelligence to her guidance and authority. True, the Church of Christ is commissioned to teach and feed the flock with the Word of God. But we maintain that she can perform that office without the gift of infiillibility. Certainty is all she requires, and this she can secure by a proper measure of application and care. Indeed, the difficulties of the Bible are greatly exaggerated ;by the advocates of Church infallibility. We think that the 'greater part of these obscurities and apparent contradictions are relative, not absolute ; they have their seat rather in man than in the Bible itself. He who reads little finds more [difficulties than he who reads much; he who does not read pith attention meets with greater confusion than he who peads attentively ; he who does not read in a prayerful spirit Inds contradictions and even absurdities where everything s plain and evident to him who is devout; the unlearned Hid unstable find hard passages which are quite clear to the )ber-minded and steady reader. The fact is, men do not 3ad the Bible, or they do not read it with the proper dispo- ition ; hence they find it obscure. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I '"IIIIIM IIIIM 'f '^'" 1 2.2 1.8 1.25 1.4 lA 1 M 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation V « m^' ■O^ % 4' <^ \\ *,* 6^ "^^«'> "•i" 73 WEST MAIN STREET «VEBSTER,N.Y. )4580 (7)6) 872-4503 4is y MP.- Roman Catholicism. Koman Catholics exaggerate the difficulties of the Bible in order to establish the authority of the Church. But, suppose that we could not understand the Bible without authoritative interpretation by the Church, would this interpretation be intelligible to all? Would it present no difficulties, or would it not become difficult in course of time % We think that the interpretations of the Church are almost certain to be more obscure than the Bible itself. But let us consider more atten- tively this bulwark of infallibility, based on the pretended obscurity of the Bible. Boman Catholics agree with us that the Bible is a rule of faith. The question is : Is this rule of faith sufficiently clear of itself, or does it require explanation by a body of men who claim to be endowed, from on high, with the divine attribute of infallibility 1 Are we compelled to have recourse to the Church in order to understand, with sufficient clearness, how to be reconciled with God and save our souls ? It was no' so with the Old Testament, in which is fore- shadowed the Christian Dispensation. There was no infal- lible Church to interpret the sacred books; for it is well known that the supreme council of the Jewish priesthood was not deemed infallible; yet men acquired a sufficiently clear knowledge of the sense of the Word of Grod, and by its light were enabled to walk with God. Can we suppose the New Testament to be less clear and perfect? Would God, in His Word, reveal His truth more dimly to Christians than to Jews 1 No; every reader of the Bible must be convinced that the Old Testament contains a larger number of obscure passage:) than the New; for the books of the former are, to a large extent, prophetical; whilst the writings of the latter are mostly historical, and contain doctrines founded on history The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 93 and on fulfilled prophecy. And who does not know that it is more difficult to interpret prophecy than to understand his- tory] Why then should we Christians need an infallible interpreter, when the Jews were able to do without onel But we possess still greater advantages, not bestowed upon the Jews, by which we are enabled to acquire a sufficiently clear knowledge of revealed truths, without the interpreta- tion of the Church. Roman Catholics will agree with us that under the Old Law the Holy Ghost had not been as yet given, and His peculiar influence had not then commenced to pervade the Church, working in a special manner with the honest searcher after truth. The Jews, therefore, were thrown on the resources of their natural light in interpreting the Bible. How much more able, then, should Christians be to understand God's Word, since they have the promise of the Spirit's assistance] Roman Catholics, instead of belittling God's written Word, and deterring men from opening the sacred volume, on account of its reputed obscurity, should be thankful for the privileges Christians enjoy as compared with Jews, and instead of bolstering up their system of hierarchi- cal infallibility to the disparagement of the Bible, they should implore the aid of the Divine Spirit, who is ever willing and ready to give them a clear understanding of the revealed truths of God so far as may be necessary for their salvation and well-being. Indeed, what need is there of an infallible interpreter 1 We are bound to admit that the sacred writers did not address themselves to men of eccentric and distorted intellect who would find or invent difficulties anywhere, or to men of a vain philosophy, against whom St. Paul warns Christians, but to men of sound common sense who will use their judg- ment in a normal way. We must suppose that God, in pro- '■m 94 Roman Catholicisfn. viding a revelation, did not intend to absolve man altogether from the duty of enquiiing into truth, thus become a blind recipient of doctrines proposed fcr his belief by a body of men claiming infallibility. We clearly see that men of common sense — and they are generally in the majority — will, by the aid of God's Spirit, find it no impossible task to find in the Bible as much saving truth as is necessary for them. The sacred penmen wrote for these and for these alone. So long as sober common sense exists in the Church, the Bible will be understood without recourse being had to the interpretaoions of a hierarch}''. Both the learned and unlearned possess this gift of God ; the Bible, therefore, suits the capacity of all classes of men. As true philosophy is nothing more than the development and science of common sense, even the most profound philos- opher will find in the i>ible full satisfaction and repose for his intellect. The most simple men, devoid of profound human learning, such as the sacred writers were, address themselves, in the simplest style and the plainest terms, to simple-minded people. Who does not see that God acted thus that all might understand His revelation with su^icient clearness? There is a wise design in all the works of God. We believe this simplicity of style and language has its meaning, and that God, in making use of it, gave us to under- stand that men of common sense might clearly discern the truths He purposed to reveal for the enlightenment and welfare of mankind. Nay, this very simplicity of language is in itself a gracious and encouraging invitation, on God's part, to hungry and thirsting souls — and they only will profit by it — to come and read and reason together with Him and thus acquire possession of the truth, without the inter- ference of any body of men, however high their ecclesiastical authority may be. The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 95 (gether ome a a body men of ority — task to sary for )r these Church, w had to of God ; J of men. elopment id philos- [•epose for profound address terms, to od acted su^cient ts of God. :e has its to under- discern [ment and language on God's only will ith Him ;he inter- Lesiastical We ask any impartial man, not blinded by the spirit of party, why did God inspire His messengers and move them to write the Bible? Was it that it should be understood by man or that it should be a sealed book? It would certainly be inconsistent with the wisdom of God to bestow a book upon man for his guidance, and at the same time to conceal its meaning. We cannot separate the book from its sense. If the book was given for man's instruction the sense must be clear to those who seek to be instructed by it. From the very fact, then, that God has givon us the Bible, we conclude that it is intelligible to the sincere enquirer after truth. In fact, God could adopt no method more simple and more truly enlightening in order to teach and perpetuate His revelation than to embody it in an intelligible book. And does not history prove that, wherever the Bible is read and studied with befitting earnestntss, there true Christianity prevails, pitre and intelligent; and that, wherever the system of Church-infallibility holds sway, to its full extent, there is no enlightened and reasonable Christianity, but only error and super&tltion — not the reality of truth, but the dream of delusion. But we should expect quite the contrary if what Roman Catholics say about the obscurity of the Bible be true. Alas ! we fear that the claim to infallibility is merely a subterfuge to defend doctrines that are not to be found in Scripture, or are contrary to Scripture ; and that the ob- scurity is not in the Bible itself, but in the men who assert the infallibility of the Church. In fact, this pretended power of infallible interpretation, instead of dealing away difficul- ties, tends to propagate errt>rs and serves only as an easy pillow for careless members of the Church. No ; Christ's people do not need such an interpreter. The Bible was understood by its first readers, without the inter- 96 Roman Catholicism. pretation of an infallible priesthoor', why should it not be understood by the devout students who have lived in succeed- ing ages? Are they less richly endowed with common sense? Are they less dear to God's heart? Or, has the understand- ing of the Scriptures become more difficult? We cannot allo^ any of these suppositions. True, our habits and cus- toms, the character of our times and countries, the idioms of our languages and other circumstances differ from those of the sacred writers and of their earliest readers, and this may at first sight, present some difficulties in the way of clearly understanding the Bible. But these difficulties are not in- surmountable and require no infallible interpreter; they can all be overcome by proper care and study. We do not deny that there are difficulties in the interpre- tation of Scripture; there are passages which have not as yet been fully understood and explained; but we have no need of admitting, on that account, the claims of the Church as an infallible interpreter; for she has proved no wiser than the rest of mankind in the work of elucidation. The truths of the Bible may be divided into two great classes — simple historical narratives of fact, and doctrine. No one will deny that the former can be easily understood by every attentive reader; we do not mean the nature of the facts, but their historical statement. Strictly speaking, we do not understand the internal nature of any fact, evei* in the natural order. Wo do not comprehend how a plant grows, but we know nevertheless that it does grow. In like manner, we do not understand how a miracle is wrought, but we know that it is wrought. To know the existence of facts is sufficient for our guidance, both in the natural and super- natural order. With regard to the doctrines contained in the Bible, they n ot be Bceed- aensel Btand- jannot id cus- oms of lose of lis may clearly not in- hey can nterpre- g not as have no Church ser than T/te Church s Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 97 may be subdivided into two classes — practical ones or moral precepts, and dogmatical ones or doctrines of faith. The former may also be readily understood by men of sound prac- tical common sense ; for it is not difficult to understand things of practical import, and the precepts of the Bible are couched in simple and intelligible words. As for the theoretical parts which contain dogmas of faith, those doctrines that are necessary for our salvation, and form the basis of our Christian life, on which, as it were, the whole of Christianity liinges, or in other words, the essentials and fundamentals are also easily understood by every sincere en- quirer. They are expressed in the clearest terms, occur al- most on every page of Holy Writ, are stated in a variety of ways, presented in different views and aspects, and illus- trated in parables taken from the ordinary occurrences of life. Being the cardinal points of revelation, and as such of the highest importance and interest to every man, the serious enquirer is anxious to know about them, and every one, even the most illiterate, has common sense enough to under- stand them. But there are also doctrines in the Bible which are not fully understood, and the time has not even yet arrived when the understanding of them seems to be required. It is not necessary that God's revelation should be fully comprehended in its entirety, all at once, and by every believer. As in the book of nature there are phenomena not fully understood, and which therefore stimulate and excite a laudable spirit of ex- amination and research, so also in the Bible there are passages the meaning of which will be made known at some future time ; although that is not necessary in our day for the sal- vation of the present generation. It will be necessary at some future time ; because there is nothing useless in God's works, 98 Roman Catholicism. especially in His supernatural revelation. When the proper time arrives, God in His all- wise providence will give the key to the true understanding of ^hat remains obscure. Has that Church which claims infallibility in interpretation given an infallible explanation of all parts of Sacred Scripture ] No ; she does not even consider it necessary at present, and certainly could not do it j or if she could, as she pretends, why does she put her candle under a bushel, and keep her talent for expounding Scripture infallibly thus long wrapped up in a napkin ? Why does she not issue infallible commen- taries or expositions of the entire Bible ? She cannot do it and is afraid of committing herself. The pretended gift of infallibility is only a cloak to conceal the nakedness of doc- trines not contained in Scripture — a subterfuge of obstinacy in error ; it is, in fact, a weapon employed against the Bible. He who is not satisfied with the Bible will also be dis- contented, if he be of a serious and reflecting cast of mind, with the doctrine of Church-infallibility. Every sound mind, under the guidance of God's Spirit, may be satisfied with the Bible and fiiid therein those things which are necessary for his salvation, food and satisfaction for his mind, rest, peace and consolation for his heart, moral strength for his actions. It is only the men of system, — they who wish to see the whole body of revealed doctrine systematically and scientifi- cally arranged according to human method that find it diffi- cult to understand God's Word ; because they find it a hard, nay, impossible task to arrange the doctrines scattered by God over the different leaves of His written Book under the banner of their preconceived system. They have some favouiite tenet, some peculiar point of view, some pet scheme, to which they wish to make everything yield, to which they endeavour to reduce all revealed truth, and by the light of The Church's OfRr^ r»c r ^ ""^'"s rnterpreter of the Bible. 99 which t\xQy internvAf « *ie narrow li^it, of H" L^"' ^''^ .'™f« of tie BiWelnto ^ They are lite those 21^"^ ^ '^'^ ^^in of „,^ human knowledge wittrtSr T ° ""■• *° »'^"« "^i" A. the disputes in pm4:;~»^ tematmng, so also i„ relLL T/T *"' '^^'"^ ^^ ^0 book of snpe^atural ZZ.t^" "^^ "^ '^""■« and the contents of which we Tn ^™ *^'' S™"'' boots «"« depth of Which wer IvlTirJr^-^-''. a^d B-tnotwithstandingtheselimr/^ "'''""' ^ ^''^^ We God's guidance J.^:tC^Z\r'r'^''^'-^^ ■n-ch as is sufficient for our t.t ^ , '^ ''""'^ ""^ "ature as from the Word of Z LSt ""^ ?' '"'^''-- '' «" Wal life ,,d felicity te.?M'' T*"" ^» <»- tendencytosystematbingiut J.tjf""'-! beware of any our nnnds and hearts o^ liC^X^'^'^f'^^''-^^^^^ Punty. The wise philoLher lit \ "" "" ''^ '■»'°«»» and nature whoever he can find laem t '^ '™" *^« "-i of fine himself within the narrowT'-. '.' "°' ""^'o™ to co„. Ws that every ohjectTl " r""^' '^"^ ^" different points of view, and ZtZl "°"^'*«<1 from fom the basis of a bea«tif„r it 'f ,!T '^^ "' '' "ay with the impartial religious en;ulerB% '' """« "««« from every leaf of Holy Writ • !!' ^ ' °' «**''«'« truth beautiful avenues open to hTs mL r'" "^"^S, new and tarns a series of bright and c^nToW tr7h °T "' "''"'" -"" raise them into an exclusive system i? ' '"* ''^ ""^ ^ot many of the different religious dermii."' "^. *" •^«««* «at " -— -«. -'■«- rr in of God-Hi, holy Wor^lZ '"""""'• '^' g'*"**'' ^ork But although such be the caTt ""^'"^'"^ "• to use all our endeavours te T "^^ortheless bound 'he Bible. None sh.I^d stLdir' "^ "™ '"'^'P'^tation of Individual efforts, und r ttri ?'" '"'""*"" '^o* -ill certainly be ble.'ed buTi"" ""« ^"'^ SpW*. ^odi.- given His V.::J'toren-[hiS' ""' '^ ""-P'^**' patient men. and be has promi ed to tf 7' '°'"'""« »'' af«stance of His Spirit. Is Tw' *'"" ''""«^* ^^'k^r the eludes the fiction of Church illl-r""* *'"'* "^l ^i^ ex- tation ? '-'^•wl'-mfalhbxlaty in Biblical inteipre LECTUEE VII. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. AS we have already seen, Roman Catholics contend that the gift of infallibility is a necessity arising from the dif- ferent oflSces of the Church. We have reviewed, in the preced- ing lectures, the arguments drawn from her offices of witness, teacher, and shepherd. It now remains for us to consider the proofs derived from her office as judge in controversies oj faith. Both from the nature of the Church as a society and from Scripture they conclude that the Church holds the office of judge. As a society she must possess a tribunal capable of settling disputes among her members, and as regards Scrip- ture proofs they contend that the power of binding and loosing conferred on the Apostles and their successors in- cludes authority to decide in controversies of faith. And as her judgm.ent in matters of faith and morals is final here on earth, and demands therefore the implicit confidence of all her members, she must necessarily be endowed with infalli- bility ; otherwise men's minds would remain unsettled; faith would lose its hold; and the gates of hell would prevail against the Church. We answer that no such office of judging infallibly in all doctrinal disputes is explicitly set forth in Scripture, and we do not see how the power of binding and loosing include it, The Church s Office in Controversies. 103 There is in it nothing more than the necessary authority which the Church received from Christ to govern herself and to settle all matters of discipline. Beyond this, we fail to see anything tangible. Christ Himself, who knew both what was in man, as also the powers He conferred on His Church, simply warned His disciples against false prophets coming in sheep's clothing, but who inwardly were ravening wolves. And St. Paul says, " There must be heresies among you, that they which are approved niav be made manifest among you." (i. Cor., xi. 19.) And tlu; other Apostles speak in a similar strain. In all these wammgs they nowhere point to an infallible tribunal by wh^ Ji these heresies may be reb'^ked and crushed. But they rathr)' appeal to the judgment of the individual. Christ saith^ " Why of your- delves judge ye not what is right]" (Luke xii., 57.) St. Paul says, " He that is spiritual judgeth all things." (i. Cor. ii., 15.) " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith." (il. Cor. xiii., 5.) " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." (i. Thes. v., 21.) " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God." (i. John iv., 11.) Indeed, no religious controversy can be said to be settled until the respective parties are individually convinced in their own minds. The Church might issue her decrees ; but they would have no effect unless this individual conviction were first brought about. It seems clear, then, that individual dis- cernment of the" truth is the only means by which the mind can be persuaded, and controversies of faith finally settled. The Church is the kingdom of Christ — the kingdom of the truth, and every one " that is of the truth heareth His voice," and belongs to that kingdom. (John xviii., 37.) Where the truth is, there is the Church. Now we cannot find any other depository of the truth within the Church but the Bible. In 104 Roman Catholicism. all controversies of faith, therefore, all that the Church can do is to direct the parties concerned to this standard, and those that '■^ are of ike truth" and have their minds open to conviction will perceive it, and for them the controversy is settled ; and as to those who fail or refuse to be convinced, we have to lament and regret with St. Paul, " that there must be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest." The advocates of Church-infallibility, in order to uphold their views and maintain their standpoint, exaggerate these doctrinal difficulties and controversies of faith. By so doing they hope to set forth more forcibly the necessity of an infal- lible judge, and compel men distracted by doubts and diffi- culties to come within the precincts of the tribunal they have constituted. Let us briefly consider the nature of these controvei'sies in order to estimate their value and the power of their real and supposed mischief. We may divide them into three classes. In the first place, there have always been differences of opinion in regard to disciplinary points. We must infer that Christ and His Apostles left the discipline of the Church more or less to the free organization of the Christian people, since nowhere in the New Testament do we find a code of dis- ciplinary rules such as was contained in the Old Law. Cer- tain general principles are laid down, but their application is left to the free agency of Christian communities. If we appeal to history we find that even in apostolic times such differences were permitted among the various nationalities. The Oriental liturgies which were certainly composed at an early period, prove the truth of this fact. Liberty as to disciplinary arrangements is one of the Christian privi- leges of which the Apostles speak when they rejoice that / The Church s Office in Controversies. 105 they are delivered from the bondage of the Old Law. And we think that differences in discipline are in a manner necessary in order that members, according to their different disposi- tions, may find a place in the Church in which they may feel themselves spiritually free to display fully their activity *id energy. Roman Catholics will admit that the settlement of controversies as regards discipline does not require an infallible judge. It is only requisite to follow the principle laid down by St. Paul, " to do everything decently and in order." We regret, indeed, that disciplinary differences should have been allowed to destroy friendly intercourse and Christian intercommunion between reformed Churches. As they are for the most part agreed on points of faith, why should controversies about discipline divide them 1 Why allow Christian liberty to destroy the bond of union % Could not both exist together 1 But these which are our misfor- tunes, should not delude Roman Catholics into thinking that they are right. They also have their controversies about discipline, and find it difficult, sometimes impracticable, to settle them. Those among them who know their Church thoroughly will confess that the pope finds it an exceedingly trying task, owing to mere disciplinary differences, to retti^ the different Eastern Churches that have re-united them- selves to the See of Rome ; and we know of instances where a complete disruption has taken place. Those who are behind the, scenes are aware of the constant temporizing forced upon the Roman curia in order to allay disputes on disciplinary points. The second class of controversies in the Christian Churches regards doctrinal points that may be held either one way or the other, without injury to faith and charity. ii 106 Roman Catholicism. i There is often more than one interpretation admissible of one and the same text or doctrine ; and whatever interpre- tation may be adopted, it will tend to one and the same end. As long as the facts of revelation are admitted, men may differ in the manner of explaining them. These differences arise mostly from the different points of view from which God's revealed truths are considered. Truth is not one-sided, but may be considered in different ways. It sheds its light not only in one dii*ection, but all around ; from whatever side you view it, it remains always instrincally and essentially the same, but assumes different aspects in its manifestation to us. As the crystal exposed to the rays of the sun remains in itself the same, yet presents to our view different colours as we look at it in different aspects, so God's revealed truths may be viewed, by different persons, from different ^ points ; and although their judgments differ, we cannot say that any of them are wrong. We think that probably all are right, and that if their views were united and reconciled, we should be in possession of the entire truth. Every one will admit that controversies of this nature do not require an in- fallible judge to determine them. Our rule here should be scrupulously to avoid condemning any one too rashly who m^y differ from us in his views of revealed truth. To be permitted to regard doctrines from different stand- points is what we call liberty of conscience. It is not, as Koman Catholics object against us, a license to believe whatsoever you wish, but the right use of our» reasoning powers in viewing the same text, doctrine, or fact from every point of view. We believe that God, by His revelation, did not intend to destroy our natural powers, or to fetter their use, but to elevate them to a higher and nobler standard. He must have granted us, therefore, liberty of The Church s Office in Controversies. 107 of conscience. It would be a great mistake to suppose that by using this liberty, in a right way, revealed truths will be dis- torted or destroyed ; on the contrary, they are, by the use of this gift, more firmly established in the heai-ts of men, not only in one, but in manifold aspects. Although, in its general and main features, the nature of the human intel- lect-is the same in all men, still we must admit individual difierenccs ; and God, in His government of mankind, em- ploys these individual characteristics when He descends with His truth into the human mind. As regards the perception of revealed truths, we should consider man not merely in the abstract, but as he really is, a thinking and inquisitive being, searching after the truth in his own way. We believe that God, as a rule, manifests His truth only to the sincere enquirer ; , and this enquiry includes calm discussion or controveray. Tkis stirs the stagnant pools, purifies the spiritual at- mosphere, and keeps the soul of man in a healthful condition. There is, indeed, a third class of controversies involving such doubts as attack and tend to destroy the precious gift and deposit of faith. How are they to be settled % We answer, in the first place, that such controversies are trials of our faith. God, in His inscrutable providence, permits them, in order to try His people. But how are they to be made aware of the danger? How may they determine who is right and who is wrong ] Who has the right and authority to determine these controversies, and how may they be effectually settled % We reply that the danger will be pei oeived and the enemy be detected and unmasked by those who " are of the truth " and possess God's Spirit. Those, on the contrary, who care not for the truth and do not possess His blessed Spirit, will surely be ensnared and fall. Outwardly, the enemy will sometimes appear to have conq^uered, so much so that even 108 Roman Catholicism, the elect will be sorely tried and tempted. Christ Himself has foretold this and warned us of the danger. History teaches that, when the trial is great, God has raised up champions of Heaven to fan the dormant embers of faith, to light the torch of truth, and to kindle the fire of divine love in the hearts of men. When the people of Israel were in danger of falling into idolatry, God sent inspired pro- phets to keep them steadfast in the worship of the true God, and in the hope of a coming Redeemer. They were inspired, for they had to arouse the belief in a future fact. The champions of Christianity have no need of this gift, as they have to speak of the jt?as^, and recall the minds of men to a be- lief in great historical facts which stand foi*th for the inspection of all, iix their full significance and value — the facts recorded in the Bible, which is acknowledged by all Christendom to be the inspired Volume of God. So long as the world stands, that divine book will be an eflfective rule of faith; and whenever enemies arise against God's truth, they may and will be refuted by that authoritative volume. Should they attack the Bible itself, they will never prevail, for " heaven and earth shall pass away, but God's Word shall not pass away." All that the champions of Christianity whom God raises up in times of trial require to do is to turn the minds of Christians from the the delusive teachings of the enemy to the bright facts of God's revelation contained in the Bible, and the facts themselves, by their innate light, will bring conviction and peace to men that " are of the truth " and have their minds open to conviction. When vain philosophers endeavour to disturb the world by their false principles and teachings in natural and social science, who is to be the judge of controversy between them and mankind ? None other than sound common sense, under The Church's Office in Controversies. 109 the direction of an all-wise Providence. In the same manner, when bad and deluded men, instigated by Satan, teach false and heretical doctrines, all disputes in matters of faith are settled by the sound religious common sense of Chris- tians, the faith implanted in their hearts, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost attracting the well-disposed and inducing them to lean on the Bible and behold therein the true teach- ings of God. If controversies arise about the meaning of the Bible, they may also ari^e, as they have often done before, concerning the definitions and decrees of the Church. In fact fewer contro- versies have occurred about the sense of the Bible than in re- gard to the definitions of the Roman Church. It is her policy, so as not to commit herself, to couch them in the most general terms. Hence, in order to understand them and settle the disputes springing out of them, another infal- lible judge of controversies would have to be appointed, and 80 on usque ad infinitum. Koman Catholics reply that such would be the case if these definitions were only a dead letter like the Bible. They tell us that they are explained by the living voice of the Church, and can therefore be easily understood by all. We ask, how does this living voice of the Church, that is, of the united episcopate, reach the individual members? Is it not by the voice of pastors who themselves, in their indi- vidual capacity, are fallible ? From the mouths of fallible men, therefore, they must obtain the infallible interpretation of the decrees of the Church. We, on the contrary, maintain that by sound common sense, with the assistance of God's Spirit, we obtain the true meaning of the Bible so far as is necessary for our salvation. And the Bible was given us as a guide to Heaven, and for that purpose alone. Our posi- 110 Roman Catholicism. tion is simple and the only one that is tenable, whilst that of Roman Catholics is full of insurmountable diflSculties. They admit that the pastors by whom the people are instructed are individually fallible, but they contend that they are infallible when their explanation agrees with that of the united episcopate. We do not see how that can make them infallible. The most that can be said is that they teach the truth when that which the episcopal body teaches is true. But there is a great difference between being infallible and teaching the truth. The former term is more comprehensive than the latter, and demands that the pastors, besides teaching the truth, should be so utterly incapable of error, that, when they speak, the hearers, witliout enquiring into the proofs of the doctrines set forth by them, must believe what they teach to be true, because they teach it. Moreover, how can they discover whether the pastor teaches the doctrines of the Church, unless they compare his teach- ings with the definitions and decrees of the Church, or with the living voice of the dispersed episcopate — ^the ecclesia dia- persa 1 In the former case, they would fall into what they call the great Protestant error, of making the dead letter the judge of controversies ; and in the latter case, they would have to enquire what the bishops all over the world teach concerning the point in controversy, which, besides being practically impossible, could not produce in their minds an in controvertible faith. After all, then, the living voice of the Church, in matters of controversy, is but an empty sound — vox et prceterea nihil, " The Scripture is the rule, the only rule for Christians whereby to judge controversies. Every man is to judge for himself with the judgment of discretion, and to choose either The Church's Office in Controversies. Ill his religion first, and then his Church, as we say; or, as Roman Catholics say, his Church first and then his religion. But by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose ; and the rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he be not as yet a Christian, but a natural man, is reason ; if he be already a Christian, Scripture ; which we say is the rule to judge controversies by, which may arise among Christians who admit Scripture to be the Word of God. But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men, that we deny ; and that we believe Eoman Catholics can never prove. The Bible has the properties of a rule; it is fit to direct any one that will make the best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained : and that is as much as we need desire. For, as if I were to go on a jour- ney and had a guide who could not err, I needed not to know my way ; so, on the other side, if I know my way, or have a plain rule to know it by, I shall need no guide. The Scripture in things necessary is plain and perfect ; and men are obliged, under pain of damnation, to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived fancies. Such a inile, therefore, to sincere and serious men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies that are necessary to be ended. For others that are not so, they will end when the world ends, and that is time enough." (Chillingworth.) When we speak of Scripture as the judge of controversies, we must not separate from it the assistance of the Holy Ghost. The Bible is His work from beginning to end. He inspired and dictated it for the express purpose that men might come to the knowledge of the truth. Do not think that His en- lightening work was at an end after He had dictated the last sentence of the BiVle, for He must yet secure the end and pur- pose for which He gave us the inspired book. We believe, \ 112 Roman Catholicism, therefore, that He gives men the desire and will to enquire and seek after truth in its pages ; that He assists the sincere en- quirer with His enlightening grace; and finally leads him into all truth. Although, sometimes, the religious horizon may appear darkened by the clouds of fierce controversy, the Holy Ghost, in His own good time, will dispel them all, and eternal truth will again shine out in all its brightness. By divine right, then, heresies are condemned in God's Word. The infallible tribunal composed of a company of men could not more efiectually settle controversies of faith ; but, on the contrary, would afford an opening for establish- ing, in place of Christ's kingdom, a kingdom of this world. It would offer a pretext for settling disputes not by mere de- finitions only, but by inquisitions and bloody persecutions, as the history of the Roman Catholic and other corrupt Christian bodies clearly shows. The claimants to infalli- bility were not content with anathemas, but clamoured for the extirpation of the heretics; and it is a remarkable fact that no Church ever claimed infallibility until she had obtained political power and influence to persecute and destroy the heretic. We are certain that God's Word and His Spirit are de jv^e the judge of controversies. We are equally certain that de facto heresies will always exist, for Christ Himself foretold it. There exists no tribunal which can de facto — effectually — settle controversies of faith, that is, silence heretics and sweep heresies from the face of the earth. The Church of Rome has tried it ; but she has never succeeded. The complete and final destruction of error must be left to God alone. Those who " are of the truth," will hear Christ's voice and belong to His kingdom of truth ; those who are not of the luire •een- linto may Holy «mal Tfu Church's Office in Controversies. 113 truth will persist in their error. There will be tares among the wheat, and Christ alone can effectually separate the one from the other and present to His Father a glorious Church, without wrinkle or spot. 8 God's ay of faith ) iblish- svorld. jre de- itions, orrupt infalli- •ed for ^ct that (tained >y the lare de that de )retold 3tually ;s and irch of iplete alone. Ice and lof the LECTURE VIII. INFALLIBILITY NOT NECESSARY FOR THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. THE rule of faith ought to be the focus on which all the light of the Church concentrates, the source from which all her perfections emanate, the principle that gives vitality to all her offices, and the bond of union that unites her mem- bers in faith and charity. We shall consider to-day the latter of these properties. Roman Catholics points with the finger of scorn at the disunited and distracted state of Protestantism. Behold, they exultingly exclaim, to what interminable divisions the Bible, interpreted by the light of private judgment alone, has led ! They glory in the aspect of compact unity which their Church presents to the world ; and although they may have their doubts and misgivings on many points, yet they see nothing outside her pale which, in their sense, can be called unity, and therefore make up their minds to live and die Roman Catholics. They are, moreover, confirmed in their adherence, when they see weary and dissatisfied mem- bers of Protestant Churches seeking refuge from distraction in Roman Catholic unity. Now, as this unity is brought about by the doctrine of Church-infallibility, they conclude that she must be endowed with this gift from on high. "We, too, teach that the Church of Christ must possess unity, and that this unity is not a mere union or voluntary Infallibility and Church- Unity. 115 association which may be entered into or abandoned at one's will and pleasure, but, like the unity of the human body, results from the very organization of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. It is the organic unity of a society, which'does not depend on the will of man, but is established by Christ Himself and compacted together by the Holy Spirit. It is not anything added from without, but it is the result of the inner life of the Church itself. Unity manifests itself in association ; but association is not always the sign of organic unity. We differ, therefore, from the Roman Catholics in regard to the nature of this unity of the Church. In the Koman system it consists in centralization : in the strict subjection of the laity to the clergy, of the priests to the bishops and of all to the pope. History informs us that this centralization was perfected by degrees, until at last all unity, together with the gift of infallibility, became centered in the pope. Now, such a centralization, however specious it may appear, at first sight, is too complicated and inconvenient, when we consider that it has to keep together a society dispersed over the whole world. To throw the whole burden of spiritual unification on the shoulders of a company of men, or of one man, and he, too, an old man whose energy is gone and whose mental discernment and penetration must naturally be supposed to be on the wane, seems to be tempting God and compelling Him to perform a perpetual miracle, and we do not find that the pope has the promise of such a miracle, nor, indeed, does he show any sign thereof. History teaches that centralization in vast secular empires inevitably tends to become the germ of weakness and decay, and we do not see any reason that would justify us in making an exception in favoiir of ecclesiastical governments. 116 Roman Catholicism. Hence, may not the coping stone of pajial infallibility, that was placed on the Roman edifice in the Vatican council, be too heavy for its strength and prove the beginning of its final downfall % May not Rome, by aiming at too much, lose all ] Formerly Roman Catholics might with some pride have gloried in the unity of their Church, as the giand rule of catholicity : quod semper y uhiquc et ab omnibus gave it, to a certain degi'ee, a reasonable and spiritual nature ; but have they cause to do so still ? Are there not reasons for looking into the future with gloomy foreboding 1 The Roman Catholic mind seems to be so thoroughly imbued with the mediaeval idea that the Church is a mon- archy, that it can enteiiiain no other conception of unity than that of a monarchical one. Now, that the Church is capable of such a union is not the question, nor do we assert that it is altogether against the genius of Christianity that Christians should unite under one ecclesiastical government where and when such a union would be expedient and productive of good. We do not even dispute that the Church, under the Roman empire, did approximate closely to such a imity. But we contend that a unity of that kind would be merely of ecclesiastical appoiiUment. We cannot allow that it is necessary or was ever intended by the Divine Master. We believe that all things necessary to the constitution of the Church are undoubtedly mentioned in Scripture. Now, the sacred writers, when they speak of the unity of the Church, never state that it should be preserved by a general govern- ment endowed with infallibility. We find, on the contrary, that the Apostles in founding Churches disregarded such a rule of unity. If they had established such a central power, they would have mentioned the person or persons who were invested with so important an authority, laid down rules for L! I I I: Infallibility and Church- Unity. 117 its right guidance and safeguards against its possible abuse. They would have exhoi-ted their converts to appeal to it whenever necessary. Schisms and heresies would have been removed by it. They themselves would have taught by theii' own example how to treat and reverence such a supremo authoiity. But what do we find ? Each Church separately ordering its own affairs in its own way and without reference to others. Any one reading the writings of St. Paul to par- ticular Churches must be convinced that each Church was endowed with perfect liberty to manage its own affairs, settle its /n disputes and govern its own members. We find, indeed, that they had intercommunion one with another; relieved each other in their poverty and distress, assisted each other in settling controversies and removing heresies, but nowhere do we find a general government in existence such as Roman Catholics assert to be essential to the i aity of the Church. In fact, how could it have been in accordance with the nature and genius of Christianity which, as our Saviour affirms, is a kingdom not of this world? An ecclesiastical prince, with a general government, would soon degenerate into a temporal prince surrounded by all the worldly pomp of sovereignty, using all kinds of worldly means and doubt- ful political intrigues to support his dignity. And has not all this come to pass with the Church of Rome? Has she not been the gr jat political Church of the world ever since she put forth her claim to infallibility ? What other Church has been so constantly embroiled in political intrigues? What other Church meddles so much in politics, in order to control and subordinate the State ? Such being the nature of this centre of unity, must we not conclude that the unity result- ing therefrom is merely a political unity? I i\ 118 Roman Catholicism, We believe not only that Christ never intended to have the members of His Church bound together in the kind of unity Roman Catholics advocate, but we feel certain that it must always be injurious to the Church, as history amply proves. Indeed, to what advantage could such a connection of Churches, cemented by centralization, tend in promot- ing the great design of Christianity, which is to bring man to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, to save their souls, to sanctify them, to implant in their hearts the love of God and of their fellow men — in a word, to make them good Christians 1 All these ends may be obtained without combining men into such a union. Whatever Roman Catholics may say to the contrary, it is evident that the unity which they predicate of the Church of Christ comes from without, not from within; it results in the blind obedience of the members to the authority of men claiming infallibility, and from a rigorous administra- tion of discipline. The unity which we want must be organic, that is, 'proceeding from the inner life of the Church and manifesting itself in compassing those ends for which Christianity was established. We want nothing more or less than that unity which is plainly set forth in Scripture. The subject is highly interesting; but as time compels me to be brief, I can merely touch upon the principal points. I refer you for a fuller consideration of the subject to Dr. Barrow's excellent "Discourse on the Unity of the Church." What then does Scripture teach in this regard ? In the first place, that the Church is one by consent of faith in the truths which God has revealed. The Church is the kingdom of the truth, and those that " are of the truth" will be one in faith. They may have different explanations of facts, but in regard to the facts themselves they will have one and the Infallibility and Church-Unity. 119 same faith. We are next taught by Scripture that all Christians are united by the bonds of mutual charity and good will. "Hereby," says Christ, "shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another." We find, again, that all Christians have one and the same spiritual relationshij), they are the sons of God and brethren of Christ. That is the unity of Christian brotherhood. They are mem- bers of Chiist — subjects of that spii-itual kingdom whereof Christ is the Head. We are further informed that Christians are linked together in peaceable concord, communicating in works of piety and devotion, defending and promoting the common interests of their profession; that they are united by the same sacraments ; that by baptism they profess their faith in a common salvation and are admitted into one and the same Church ; and that in the Lord's Supper they ap- proach the same sacrod table as brethren professing their faith in Christ as the common food of their souls, the Bread of Life that came down from heaven. They are exhorted to assist one another in the common defence of the truth when assailed, in the propagation of the Gospel and the enlarge- ment of the Church, We are further taught that Christians should pray and converse together for edification and advice ; and as the clergy- are the leaders of *he people, we find them foremost- in all these offices of union and mutual intercourse between the difierent members and branches of the Church. The essential rules of discipline laid down in the Bible are few and simple, and it is very easy for Christians to be united in them. Such are the principal features of the unity which Scrip- ture sets forth as an essential characteristic of the Church of Christ. How different from the Roman system ! Is it not evident that the mity of the Church, which has t 'I 120 Roman Catholicism. to comprise all nations and kincLeds of the earth, men of the most diverse temperament and dispositions, habits and cus- toms, must not be hampered by too many conditions % It must be eminently catholic, that is, as universal as the idea of man and adaptable to every human individual. As man- kind is one, notwithstanding the great variety of the human species ; so also the Church of Christ must be erne, for she is intended to embrace all the species. And as the unity of mankind is natural and independent of man, in like manner the unity of the Church proceeds from the same supreme Author, and is independent of any maxims of unification man may devise. The God and Father of mankind is also the God and Father of the Church. In reality, then, the Church and mankind are not two distinct societies. The truths God has revealed and the works He has wrought are intended for the benefit of all mankind ; and whosoever perceives and em- braces them by faith, belongs consciously to the Church. The truth is the chief object of God's loving concern for man- kind, not this or that particular religious association. Tiie truth alone has the power of uniting men together in a society that does not depend on their will or pleasure ; hence those that " are of the truth hear Christ's voice ;" they are those " that should be saved and are added to the Church." In reality, then, as the truth is intended for the whole race of Adam, all mankind should be God's Church ; but as all men do not perceive the truth, or are unwilling to embrace it, only the holders and adherents of it are said to form the Church of Christ, rjs Hence we may easily perceive that the Church is not an impeHum in imperio — a kingdom within a kingdom, a society within the great human society — but a part of the kingdom, a part of the Church of mankind, but that part, indeed, which possesses the ti-uth intended for all, InfaUmiity and Chunk-Unity. independent and separlte H„f,«°"'' "'"^'"^ ^"^ "o' ^^ an on), constitute i:^ltiTtZTT^'^'^'""-''^^ ^^■- We are citizens iL^orh ^ ""^ '"^ *° *« '>'«'« such as we are an,! ^""•„''"* ^« «^sh that you f-e interests of the n ,"""" ^^^ ^^ -« -« ^ the members of Chr s'l C,! "? ^ ^''' '" ""^^ '""nner, the human famil/ .y,'' !"" ""^ -r to the rest o; Ciurchofmankind; you 1 ?!■'""' ^'""8 *° *« great Md we desire you o ,1 ^ '""' ""'' '^t, but we do -- »any trufhs .-e el^.^ ^^^ "^^ ^* ^'"^ ' ^ ^°- you do not perceive them W. f ^'""' ''"'' »" benefit ; God has done many thtl if "' ^°'' "°"" ' ^' ^ that »»*-eit. WewisvZu'ur'""??"- •'^■''''^' rondo "-ori, we desire tha^y„rwoid °" ^f^"*''" ''^'^^'>- « «« mankind would be the S Tf'ol"*," "^ ""^ *«" Tie truth, then rpv„o. ,""""' °f Cfod mdeed. 'J-* bond o; uni^^rS 0^ V """■^'' •^-- Ch™t. is -here deposited bL in J e tlf ' ""<* ^ '^^ t™th is 'no- tins sacred volume is the sonf ' ."^^ ""'* """"'"de that ""'ty. "We know tha tl e r . ""'" "' ''' O'-'^*-" think themselves such *'!! ^"'"^ "' ^hnroh-infallibility P-poses, that noting ca:w:nT 'T'"™""*^ "^^ «" gooj .that no unity or eo„stCi:.',tj°r T'"" ^^^ "o ''' jnevitably Christendom nu,st M T " ""^intained, but less they support it. bI le '■"" ""'' '=™'"»^'<>n, un- His ascension gave us Ha T '''■*"'" *"' Christ upon P-Poses, by th'eir lll^^^: ^:^ f fhese exce/ent wntmgs for ever." (ChiUingwort;. ,"''^ "'' ""'' ''^ 'heir tve see no other means nf „ '• , Roman Catholics sneer'Jb J usWk ! "" ^""^- ^"^ g y Old us look at our divisions and 122 Roman Catholicism. tell them what unity the Bible has given us. Nay, some of our Protestant 'brethren feel discouraged, and in their per- plexity know not whither to turn. Methinks, that neither Roman Catholics nor alarmed Pro- testants understand the true nature of unity. They imagine that some Church of OTie denomination or om communion must be always, to the peremptory exclusion of all other communions, the whole Church of Christ. They do not re- flect that unity does not exclude variety, but includes it,' in beautiful harmony. As variety in unity constitutes the beauty of nature, so in the Church of Christ, there is a beau- tiful variety in a harmonious unity. Let them look at the first ages of Christianity, before Rome held sway over the greater part of the Church. "What unity do we find in those times % Surelv not that which we behold in the Roman Catholic Church, for there was no general government uniting them all. But in one and the same Church of Christ we find different associations called Churches, not indeed subject one to another, yet cherishing the same Bible, professing the same faith, united in love and charity, using the same ordinances, assisting each other in settling controversies, composing schisms and removing here- sies by mutual counsel in conferences and synods ; for they had intercommunion with each other in all things pertaining to the Christian religion. Still they differed in many things ; they had not the same form of worship, and the only rule they appear to have held in common was "to do everything decently and in order." There was not the same discipline in all Churches ; they were greatly governed by circumstan- ces in those changeful times of the decay and fall of the Roman empire ard invasion by northern barbarians. Yet who will affirm that there was no unity in those primitive Infallibility and Church-Unity. 123 times of Christianity, albeit one widely differing from the Roman ideal % Now let us come to the existing divisions of Protestantism. Have we really so much reason to be alarmed and dissatis- fied as some of our discouraged ones would make us believe. We must bear in mind that the Church of Rome had com- pletely destroyed the primitive liberty in unity ; Our re- formers had not only to restore this liberty, but in many cases to recall even the very idea of it, so completely had it been obliterated by the habit of blind obedience to papal government. Ought we not to be thankful that this blessed liberty in unity has been restored to us, after many painful struggles'? It could hardly be expected that this liberty would be rightly understood and appreciated all at once ; for such mighty reformations require several generations before they come to full maturity. The old leaven of popery continued to work in the Protestant masses, for a considerable time. Modern Church-history informs us that, while with many this liberty degenerated into licence, the iron heel of re- pression was put on it by others. Thus, instead of one papacy, we had virtually several Protestant popedoms ; and while in other cases men were allowed to wander from sect to sect, they were often denied reasonable liberty within the pale of one and the same sect. In short, not having the sagacity of experience possessed by the Church of Rome, many blundered worse than that Church had ever done, ex- cept in its early tentative centuries. But let us forget the past and look at our present state. We have the blessing of religious liberty, but have we unity ] Much more than many of us will allow. With the exception of a small fraction, whom we do not consider as belonging to us, all our Churches are evangelical^ believing 124 Roman Catholicism. lil! in Christ the Son of God. The Bible is our common rule of faith. We all contribute of our means to have it printed and circulated — we all stand together on the common platform of the Bible Society. All our denominations have the same faith ; we may lawfully differ in the exposition of revealed truth, but we all believe in the same way of sal- vation. Here again the Tract Society is a common platform on which we meet together. We are united in Christian works of charity and benevolence. We admit each other to the same sacraments, and preach the same Gospel. And to what do our differences amount ? To slight variations of view on Church-government and the manner of conducting public worship. But we are not guilty of these differences; we have net made them — we have inherited them, and as we are influenced by education and circumstances, we have ac- cepted them. We are justified in thinking that we are really more at one than would externally appear. What does that Protestsmt Alliance mean, whose annual meetings are held with Christian joy and enthusiasm; we think it is the manifestation of an organic Christian unity brought about by the Spirit of God. True, every association is not organic, but organic unity, arising from within, manifests itself in association ; and may not the Protestant Alliance be the result of such inner unity % May it not proclaim to the world that we are united ; I do not mean that the dif- ferent denominations as such, that is as organized bodies, are a-l; one with each other, for these are still, unfortunately, bigoted and exclusive, but that a vast number of Christians within these bodies, and in spite of them, are united in fi^ith ind charity, and desire to manifest this their inner union by an outward alliance. And is not this Alliance a remarkable proof of the strong aspiration of Christians tor an outward i Infallibility and Church-Unity, 125 unity untrammeled by the jarring influences of a bigoted and narrow-minded denominationalism ] We think the laity of our evangelical Churches are more united in the ever one and the same Church of Christ than the clergy ; we are sorry to admit that the latter hold more or less ^oof from mutual intercourse and Christian intercommunion. Is there no way of burying old prejudices and theological feuds, without com- promising principle % The Spirit of God seems to be moving within the Church, expanding the views of men and enlarg- ing their hearts. Yet we do not desire a greater and closer unity than there was in the primitive Churches ; it would, perhaps, not be desirable to dispense altogether with the different denominations. Such a measure would probably be injurious to Christian liberty and energy and might imper- ceptibly lead us to a new kind of popery — the natural out- growth of centralization in ecclesiastical matters. But what we want is to take the sting out of denominationalism. Away with that denominational env}'- which is the mother of uncharitableness ! Remove that wall of exclusiveness which is akin to popery ! Let there be liberty in the great Church of Christ. Let no new sects be formed for every immaterial difference in doctrine or liturgy. Let that spiritual and ecclesiastical pride be removed which has been the source of all the schisms and heresies within the Church ; and, being united in faith and rooted in charity, let us abound in good works and promote the cause of the Church of Christ, within which there may be separate denominations analogous to the various associations and Churches of primitive Chris- tianity. Yes, let us look upon them as analogous to those, taking into consideration the different circumstances of times and countries. I i 126 Roman Catholicism. We think that Roman Catholics have not much reason for sneering at us on accour^ of our differences, especially when we consider the inherent liberty of Protestantism and the outspoken character of its members. The divisions that we have openly acknowledged, Roman Catholics harbour con- cealed within their Church, as we shall see in a subsequent lecture. for hen the b we con- [uent Part II. THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE INFALLI- BILITY-DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, LECTURE I. THE DOCTRINE OF CHURCH-INFALLIBILITY HAS NOT SETTLED CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. IN the preceding lectures, we have briefly reviewed the arguments which Roman Catholic divines generally ad- vance to prove their Church's claim to infallibility, and found that they are not conclusive. We have seen, too, in what sense the Church of Christ is infallible. Our researches have led us to the conclusion that the "Word of God, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, is the infallible element in the Church. We believe that both in the Church of Rome and in the other Christian bodies those that are saved, are saved through this enlightening influence and no other. What- ever Roman Catholic zealots may say to the contrary, we are thoroughly convinced, that the doctrine of hierarchical or papal infallibility and the other distinctive Roman dogmas occupy very little the minds of the Christians within their communion ; these distinctive tenets are, as it were, in the background of their souls and do not enter into their spir- itual life. Besides, there are great truths underlying the errors of Rome, and the Spirit of God leads the sincere men among them to minimize the distinctive erroneous doctrines and thus to cling to these truths, separating the chaff from the wheat. Nay, the greater the errors, the greater the truths that underlie them. Now, sincere men, in their pro- cess of minimizing, lose sight of the errors, fasten their at- 9 w I 130 Roman Catholicism. tention solely on the truths and liclieve in them as the ob- jects of their faith. Thus we are justified in believing that good Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians have the same faith and are animated by the same spiiit all the world over. The Spirit of God leads both, although in diflferent ways, to the knowledge of the same tmth. This reflection should serve as a caution to our bigotry. The result of our preceding enquiries is, that dejure the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not infallible. We could have compassed the same object by proving that the Church of Rome has actually erred, distorting some doctrines and adding others to the deposit of faith, in a word, that she is de facto fallible; for the institution that is not infallible de facto cannot be said to enjoy this gift dejure. The errors of the Church of Rome have been so often and so thoroughly discussed and refuted, that we consider it needless for us to enter extensively upon this field of controversy. "We shall rest content in the remaining lectures of this course, with in- dicating some features that may assist us in understanding the nature and spirit of the Roman system. And, in the first place, we maintain that Roman Catholics do not realize and attain the end for which they contend, that the gift of infallibility has been bestowed upon the Church. "We shall show, in 'his lecture, that the Roman hierarchy, with the pope a^ its head, although claiming in- fallibility for that purpose, is unable to settle controversies f faith. At the outset, in settling such controversies, they start ivith the supposition that he who raises them must be governed by evil passions and instigated by Satan to difier from the teaching of the Church; for, since they believe her infallible and her doctrine the truth, they conclude that doubt as to Infallibility and Controversies of Faith. 131 the truth of her teaching can arise from wicked motives alone. But above all, they suspect his sincerity ; for they assume that he cannot but know the truth of the Church, and that he knowingly and obstinately resists it. They believe that their Church bears so luminously the marks of being the authorized expounder of truth, to wit, her unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity, that whatever reasons may justify an outsider in not embracing her doctrines, a member who is surrounded by all her light cannot have no plea justify- ing him in controverting her teaching. They cannot plead for him ''invincible ignorance" or the love of truth, and therefore their system compels them to doubt his sincerity, from the very outset. What an impression must the theory of his being a turbulent spirit and an obstinate heretic, en- tertained a jyi'iori by that infallible tribunal, pi'oduce on the enquirer after truth who is conscious of his honesty ! Instead of inspiring him with a spirit of reconciliation and submission, it tends to alienate his affections from the hierarchy, for he feels that his moral character is impugned. He is anxious to have light in his difficulties, but the very manifestation of his doubts is looked upon with suspicion. He is conscious that there is no good understanding between him and that part of his Church which claims infallibility. Does such an impression conduce to a satisfactory settlement of the con- troversy] But will it be settled if it be aliowe d to go before the judge % It is an acknowledged maxim that, in determining any matter in dispute, the judge shall not be one of the liti- gant parties ; but the contrary is the rule in Roman Catholic controversy. "When the enquirer doubts the teaching of the hierarchy and defends the opposite doctrine, who is the judge between themi The Bible? No. Tradition? No; but .•r.-r ;=riTrffiin w ■n 132 Roman Catholicism, tlie hierai'chs themselves. And what judgment will they give ] Undoubtedly, they will confirm their own teaching, however erroneous it may be. Is it not plain that con- troversies of faith cannot be settled in this manner ? They are rather perpetuated by perpetuating the teaching which gave them life and being. Now, is the character of these judges such as to inspire confidence ? The court consists either of the whole episco- pate, or, since the Vatican council, of the pope alone, with his curia. Does this court bear unmistakably the marks of infallibility] By no means. Commencing with the head and passing a superficial glance over the episcopal body, it bears the unmistakable marks of partiality. They are a body of men like other men, full of human frailties, blinded by the glitter and pride of their dignity, and by human passions, quick to anger, slow to forgive. They try to overpower the accused enquirer by the external show of ecclesiastical splendour and despotism. There is no worse despotism than that of spii-itual lords. They themselves hold the doctrine in controversy; therefore the Church holds it; therefore all the members must believe it. Whosoever does not believe as they do is a heretic, and must be dealt with accordingly. Can the enquirer be convinced by such a body of spiritual lords 1 Is this to be our kind and loving Mother- Church 1 How difierent from theirs is our judge of controversies. We find no difliculty in believing calmly, in our own mind, that a Book whose pages we read with all sincerity in our closet is the infallible Word of God ; but we find it impossi- ble to believe that such a body of spi: itual lords is infallible. In the Bible we see the marks of infallibility ; in the episco- pal body or the pope we fail to detect them. When we read the i We to listen, for the Xttr"""' ""•* '^ *« "'-"W "«! of eontroCersy, L: tr r '°'"''' *» ^•-'' " Wb... ;ouH be provoked b^LLT'tT *'"' "''' ^-l^^™ despotism. ^ """^ 'P'"*'!"! pride and priestly And how doAH f 7. ^ proceed against l.^VC^t'' r ^'V"''^' "^ « **"-'. dincussion, and demand unrese " 7 'k f '' ' '"""' «"'"''« Objection. They ask of h m r^ t'^'"t' "'"' '""'-'-'» publication, and dost thou Told « f "" l^' ""*"'• "^ «"« IftheanswerbeintheaffinnaSe f T «'-h a doctrine ) and if that be refused condl *•' ^^ ''""'""' ''^oantation; B-'^ore giving a deoS tt T""^'"*^'^ ^""o- "axim: ^«-*- 1&.« ^^J ;";'«r,/''-'d follow the J«dge does not follow m^Z , ■^'' ^°""'° t'*">olio one of the interested parties h^",? ' > "'''""'S'' ^'"^^""^ to the accused. The real 't rV'"'' ^'"^''* "^ 'J«'-™e tl'e pa^ty holds such anT „'eh 7/ '"'" ''^' "»' ^''^'her true or erroneous ; and it shotld "' '"* "''«*''- '* ^ viction of the „L,: J .f^f^, " ^-^'^^ '^at real con- falsehood of a controverted 1.7- '"''"" *''« *"'"> or discussion whatever, an^to detlT' "'"'°'" -""^ P-"»™ submission, savours Uo!^ L '7"^ .""'"^•^'''*' '■'d absolute not satisfy the mind ; ^^ZT 7""*'^"' ""^ ™- 'here is no «al settlement of no„V " ""' P«-™aded, requires to be rational for 1 '""'T'^y- «•"='» a settlemen I-e led and silenced "£" 2".";:" ™' """" '''«"'»«>-- to treated with the d'w!! 7 7"'^' ^''^ ''^^»'' *" be -ember, therefore, 2" L wlthT. ''"'"■^' '^^'"«»- ^^ » 'he Church, i„ JtteZfZll ""'' °'" *^ "'■»''"I« "f forehand that he wHl be ll ' "7"'"^ "^ '"'^ »-« be condemned by them if he does 134 Roman Catholicism. not submit to their decree; or if he 'jhooses not to incur the wrath of a powerful hierarchy, he is compelled to hold hia doctrine in secret. Yes, this fear of incurring condemnf.tion from the spiritual lords tends to fill the Church ci' Rome with hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. In controversies about spiritual matters, or the internal concerns of the soul, the rules of adjudication should not be borrowed from the procedure of secular tribunals ; for these judge only of external thinj^., and settle disputes by exami- nation of facts and application of laws, without intending to produce internal conviction in any of the litigants ; it may be produced, but it is not essential to the settlement of the dispute. It is far otherwise in spiritual things. Here the controversy cannot be considered as settled if the mind has not been convinced. Now, such a convincing settlement can be better produced by God than by man ; and we believe that He effects it by His Word. The silent page of God's Word would speak more powerfully and efficaciously than the thunders of a privileged hierarchy. This will appear still more evident if we consider the nature of their decrees and definitions. One might expect that they would use such clear and precise language as to exclude every misunderstanding. But it is a well-known fact that the terms employed are obscure, and Unintelligible save to a privileged class. In fact, they have a terminology of their own, understood only by theii* theologians. In fram- ing their definitions and decrees every endeavour is put forth to avoid committing themselves. Human prudonce lurks in every word and phrase. Now, definitions begotten in human prudence, and couched in cautious terms will also be read and appreciated with human pinidence, and accepted w:th a minimizing caution ; for tlie Spirit of God doee uot; speak Infallibility and Controversies of Faith. 135 through them. How can it be expected that they should produce the conviction of divine faith? They may beget ilhision for a time, but not. conviction. Hence we find that the decrees of this infallible eccleaiasticism always excite new and fiercer controversies — some interpreting them in this, others in that sense. Councils have had to be multiplied, decree after decree issued, and still the controversy has re- mained substantiallv as it was before. Of what use is eccL- siastical infallibility if its decrees and definitions do not settle controverted questions, if its terms are intelligible only to those who are advanced in theology, if even they stand in need of another interpreter"? I must use my human reason and all the rules of criticism in order to un- derstand them. If my interpretation of the Bible does not give m3 divine revelation, as they teach, but only my own thoughts, how can my interpretation of papal or episcopal decrees give me anything more than my own private views of them \ How can I possibly by them obtain divine truth % It Is evident, therefore, that the Roman Catholic infallibility du3S rot meet the end for which it is asserted. They reply that the decrees and definitions are the utter- ances of the living Church, and that the living Church will expiiiii. iLam by the living voice, if they require it. We anr^wer, written definitions and decrees are, in the Roman Catholic sense, another Scripture which requires interpretation. Now how may I come within the hearing of ohe living voice of the Church in order to obtain an authentic and infallible explanation ? Surely, the individual priest or oi.ih }p to whom I have recourse is not the Church, but a ■' iiibio n>an, like myself, and may labour under the same, nay, worse difiiculties than my own. Shall I write to the pope] Will he consider my application worthy of a reply] iR I III Mil I I 136 Roman Catholicism. And if he writes to me, will his letter be an answer ex cathedra^ in order to assure me of its infallibility ? Or, will it be only a private letter? How may I know ii to be ex cathedra t And after all, if ex cathedra^ it would be only a letter, a written document, another Bible, and how shall I interpret it ] Shall I go to Rome, to obtain infallible instruc- tion out of the infallible pope's own mouth? Will he admit me to an audienc> ' ^^' so,- will he speak to me ex cathedrd or only as a private v.tor'l We are told that ex cathedrd utterances ought not to be too common, and should be given only in extraordinary emergencies. How, then, shall I be able to hear the living voice of the Church, in order to remove my doubts ? When Roman Catholics inveigh against the dead letter of the Bible, they are logically compelled to inveigh also against the dead letter of the d||prees of their popes and councils. They should consequently give us easy access to the pope speaking ex cathedrd or to a permxment general council. The latter would be a chimera. We know from history with what great difficulties the assembling of general councils has always been beset. They have required almost always the assistance of secular governments; and besides, such a permanent council would permanently deprive the flocks of their pastors ; it would, therefore, involve moral and physical impossibilities. Whom, therefore, does the living voice of the living Church reach 1 Only those who were present in the general councils hitherto held. Oh, happy few ! You alone have enjoyed the blessing of receiv- ing the rule of faith that Christ interided for all his people ; of receiving it, not entire, but in some points only — those that were then defined ! What a complicated machinery is this Roman Catholic tribunal for settling controverRies of faith ! And after all, how inaccessible ! how utterly useless Infallibility and Controversies of Faith, 137 for the purpose it is intended to compass ! What an imposi- tion upon the deluded members ! After all, they are compelled to give up their boasted living voice of the Church, and to come back to written documentSf the definitions and decrees of their councils and popes. Do they thus not virtually acknowledge that these are their Bible ? To a Bible, then, as a rule of faith, th'^^y must return, although it be a Bible made by themael'^es — a Bible the canon of which is uncertain and constantly on the increase as in the process of ages definitions and decrees are multiplied — a Bible the contents of which are not within the covers of one volume, but scattered throughout the ponderous folios of acts of councils and papal constitutions — a Bible which, instead of instructing and composing the mind, bewilderc it ; instead of ^ving peace to the heart, disturbs it ; instead of teaching the eternal truths of salvation, establishes and glori- fies, nay, deifies, the pope and the hierarchy of the Church of Kome — a Bible that banishes the true Bible of God and places itself in its stead. Such is the Roman Catholic Bible which they are compelled to admit, and do actually admit — a Bible which is the most insidious rival of the true Bible ; for, as it has no visible, existence in one volume, it is difficult to refer to it by chapter and verse, and therefore is less assail 2,ble ; but, nevertheless, it is itself a powerful assailant under the shelter of what is called the living voice of the Church. From what has been said we conclude that the decrees of the Church are not of a nature to produce conviction, and to settle controversies of faith. Let us now see if the means they employ to enforce submission Ho these decrees are calcu- lated to effect this end. The first weapon they use against those who refuse sub- mission is excommuniGatiaii. It ia said to be a spiritual warn 138 Roman Catholicism, Bword, but it has terrible temporal consequences. They are not content with anathematizing the doctrine of the enquirer, but they condemn the person himself. As excommunication affects primarily and principally the soul, they should not only possess the power of condemning the soul, but also have a knowledge of the state of the conscience of the person against whom the excommunication is fulminated ; for it would be unjust to inflict so terrible a j)unishment on one whose con- science is clear. Now, God alone has the power to save and to condemn ; He alone is the awful judge of consciences ; He alone is the searcher of hearts and can know the state of the conscience. Excommunication, in their sense, not only means exclusion from i\w Clurch, both externally and internally, but implies also a curse. An excommunicated person is con- sidered as iying under the anathema of their Church and of God ; for they believe that God blesses and curses by the mouth of the Church, that is, of the pope and his hierarchy. Nay, they go so far as to excommunicate and curse even the dead, and we could cite several instances of this revenge- ful proceeding. Most people are aware that "Wickliffe was cursed long after his death, that his bones were exhumed and burnt, and the ashes thereof scattered to the four winds of heaven. If their wrath extends even to the dead, what must it be when it is kindled against the living ? Where is the tenderness of Mother Church 1 Excommunication can have no effect on the soul, for it does not proceed from an authority that has the power and search- ing eye of God Almighty and Omniscient. But it has, never- theless, some external and temporal effects greatly to be dreaded. It excludes him who is struck by it from partici- pation in the sacraments and all the other rites and ordinances of the Church. Now, if they really believe that their Church Infallibility and Controversies of Faith. 139 is the true one, they do not follow the examjile of the Good Shepherd. They determinedly exclude the excommunicated from the hope of ever returning to their Church by not merely depriving him of the means of grace, but by not even allow- ing him to enter their places of worship. If he dared to enter, he would be driven out by force, and so long as he remained, the officiating priest could not proceed in the celebration of the mass. Thus he is deprived altogether of the means of becoming convinced of his errors, and of being brought to adopt other views. Nay, more ; the " children" of this ten- der Mother Church are forbidden all intercourse whatsoever of a social or religious nature with the excommunicated. Even the common offices of charity which God has enjoined on all men are prohibited in his beh. If. Excommunication has, therefore, a dreadful outward effect on the excommuni- cated person. By it he becomes an outcast from the society of Roman Catholics. If he be happy enough to form new associations, or to join other bodies of Christians whose viewa coincide with his own, he need not care. In that case, he will not feel so much the loss of the society and good will of his former friends. But he need not look for such compen- sation in an exclusively Roman Catholic country. Whoever has the Church for his foe, in a country where she is power- ful and influential, must prepare himself for much suffering or else expatriate himself and seek peace elsewhere. Alas ! that the love of the Church should lead men to such unchari- table proceedings ! But no ! it cannot be the love of that fair Church of Christ which is the kingdom of truth ; on the contrary, it is the bigotry of sect, and the self-love of the priestly caste within that sect ! Would to God Roman Catholics trusted more in the power of the truth, and less in the weapons of carnal warfare ! 140 Roman Catholicism. But can excommunication settle controversies of faith 1 By no means. Coercion was never intended by Christ to convince men's minds of the truth, and without this convic- tion there can be no real settlement of controversies. The dread of excommunication, with all its temporal consequences hanging over one's head, tends to fill the Church of Rome with hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. We shall consider, in our next lecture, the other coercive weapons of the Church of Rome. ii ! I-ECTUEE II. TBE COEHOIVE POWER n^ -r »nd wh,oh she «sea with a Sw ^"^ ^''"oV^ c)ai:n -^ed as persecuting, i„ „rderTl *?"" '"'° o-^y be character, one shudder to read Z t ""P**" ^«™«o»- It mZl Wiess cruelties t Sich 2^ f ^'^^ -0^4"^; S:4=r---~\TderTt-f^^^^^^ Y^et so it is Th« « -j P-ssed h, a pe.:c„rr^,f ::;''« <^^-«'' °^ «"- is iardly know where to begTn. "^ . " . ""'"''•'"" *''* -« «">- conclusion can we come to ^ f' '^'°" ™' '-tat -0 arrive, than that the cZrc W R "' °*^^ •«^«'* oan Wood of heretics? The ^0^ 1 "".' " "^^^'^ ^or *« een tiat he,.s^ is a crime T^ nu . ^ *''« «''«^* ha^ ^-th; that the Church is th^ f^T t' ""'' *«"-«««<« ^[, ''«!: 'cachings. She not orr^"""""*^ "P«" all who ■« all sp,ritual matte., but ov^S"'.'! '""""« -"'-l Roman Catholics who are »^ T '' ^^ ''^■ '«'<»7oftheirChu.hdonott,^\Cr::r' ^^''^ ''«' y ^aat at times an undue 142 Roman Catholicism. and harsh use has been made of the coercive power ; but they attribute this abuse not to the Church, but to the secular instruments employed to carry out her decrees. They main- tain that the Ch urch never approved of these excesses of harshness and cruelty. They contend, also, that they were caused rather by the political reasons which secular govern- ments had in view in extirpating heretics, than by any cruel disposition on the part of the Church. The fact is, the Church claims and has confirmed this claim, by recent papal bulls and encyclicals referred to in the notorious syllahus arid accepted by the Koman Catholic world, that she has temporal coercive power, and that the State is bound to assist her in executing the decrees of this power. And as she claims also to have control over the State, all the excesses and abuses of the coercive power at which she winks must be laid at her door. They are radically and fearfully wrong. How can they prove the claim to coercion ? From Scripture % No. Christ says, " My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered unto the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence." But they defend it by arguments drawn from the nature of society. The Church, they say, is a perfect society or kingdom, and as such must be endowed with legislative, judicial and coercive powers. What would be the use of her laws, if she had no power of enforcing them ? She is a visible society, and therefore has not only authority over the souls, but power also over the bodies of men. It is sad to reflect that any ecclesiastical body should put forth such astounding claims and thus become a terror to all members of the Church. I feel rather inclined to be lenient Roman Coercion and Infallibility. 143 Lar in- j of rere ern- rael this to in iholic it the >f this over power nthey Christ ngdom that I is my aments say, is dowed ,t would iforcing ot only lodies of )uU put l-or to all lenient a* than severe on the Church of Rome, but cantlour compels mc to see her in her true light. I have no space to enter into details, but what I assert, both in this and my other lectures, I can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The system of infallibility logically leads Rome to be not only the most bigoted, but also the most cruel of Churches. And all this bigotry and cruelty assumes, in her communion, the appear- ance of godly zeal. We know that Roman Catholics disavow the cruelties which taint the history of their Church, and emphatically maintain that her present attitude is altogether different. But do they disclaim also the gift of infallibility, the coercive power, and the supreme control over the State, from which all the obnoxious and repulsive traits of their Church flow as the stream from its source 1 They claim that the coercive power is essential to infalli- bility in order to settle controversies of faith. We maintain, on the contrary, that such a power is rather prejudicial to that end. When any member is accused of heresy, the Church sum- mons him before her tribunal ; asks him if such or such doctrines are his ; commands him to recant and submit him- self, without any discussion and without hearing the proofs of what is considered the truth ; and if he refuses, he is excommunicated and sentenced to undergo due v ^:ahment. But the Church herself does not pretend to execute the penal sentence. For this purpose he is handed over to the secular power, called the secular arm of the Church, which is com- pelled to obey her behests and assist her in the extirpation of heretics, under pain of excommunication, interdict, or deposition. In countries where the Church of Rome is pre- dominant, there exists an intimate connection between I I 144 Roman Catholicism. Church and State, by virtue of which the State is the executive power of the Church. In such countries the State generally looks upon heresy as high treason, and treats the heretic accordingly. Such is the policy of the Church, h enables her to shirk responsibility for such cnielties as the State may employ. But she is nevertheless accountable for them Are not the officers of the State her children too ? If they are such willing tools as to become the executive power of the Church, can they not also be restrained by her command 1 Has she no excommunications to fulminate against them for their executive cruelties ? Alas, it is the Church herself that dic- tates the punishment, directs its execution, inspires the officers with cruelty and inflames them with hatre^ and bigotry. And as they act at her instigation and ur her influence, she is responsible for all that they do. Cnurch and State frequently corrupt each other, in the Church of Rome, by promoting mutually their own selfish interests. Now, can a judge of controversies that uses such coercive means settle them in foro intemo ? Can it be possible that the State as the executive power of the Church should effect what the Church herself cannot effect » Christ Himself excluded such means eflfectually when He declared that His kingdom was not of this world, but within us. Yes, " within U8 ; " it is obvious then that controversies must be settled by internal conviction. Any other way of adjusting them would be contrary to the will of the Great Head of the Church. To determme them by the State, as the secular arm of the Church's coercive power, makes her ipse facto a "king- dom of this world." It is not a sign of infallibility but of weakness, not of divine institution, but of human policy and design ; not of reliance on God but on the power of man. Roman Coercion and Infallibility. Uo , the State :s the k as the re not •e such Jhurch, las she or their hat die- res the re ' and c her (jnurch hurch of (rests. coercive iible that lid effect Himself lired that IS. Yes, must be I adjusting ead of the Jcular arm a "king- [ity hut of policy and \x of man. Such means, instead of purging the Church of heresy, fill her with hidden heretics and unbelievers. And is not this actually the case ] Can you find any body of Christians in which there is so great a number of infidels as in the lioman Catholic Church % They abound most in countries where coercive measures are most frequently resorted to. But why did secular princes and governments lend their aid to this coercive power J Why did they become the executive power of the Church ] Partly because they thought by this means to consolidate their own authority, but prin- cipally because they were compelled to obey the commands of the Church on pain of being exccimunicated and deposed, or of seeing their countries placed under the ban of the Church, should they dare to disobey. Rome, on account of her supreme authority and infallibility, claims the power of not only excommunicating but also of deposing princes and of punishing whole countries by depriving them of the means of grace. History afibrds us many instances of the exercise of this power of deposing princes and of absolving their sub- jects from the oath of allegiance ; and Rome has re-asserted, in the recent syllabus, nearly all those obnoxious powers which the popes exercised in the middle ages over princes and governments. They are in abeyance at present, but would be employed if opportunity afforded and prudence -f-i'ttiitted ix. To what extremes will not the claim to infallibility lead ? An upright judge never avoids the light of day, but rather courts publicity. But such is not the case with the pope and his prelates. They have a spy-system and a secret tribunal — the Inquisition. For the existence of such a tribunal they require not only the approbation, but also the active co- operation of the secular power. Thanks to humanity and 10 146 Roman Catholicism. the weakened condition of the temporal influence of the Papal See, this institution cannot now indulge in its cruel and heartless activity. But at the time when the Church of Rome had spiritual and temporal sway in the courts of Europe, it existed universally wherever she predominated. There was not a city, village, hamlet, or household to which this formidable secret tribunal had not excess by its spies or secret emissaries, and it would again exeH its pestilential power, should the papacy ever regain its former influence. The inquisition is acknowledged to be a practical part of the Roman infallibility-system, and would give signs of its former life, should it appear piiident and feasible. It is admitted by all Eoman Catholics that their system is doc- trinally exclusive and intolerant ; nay, they glory in this exclusiven^as. Now, as there is no religious doctrine which has not its practical import, the Church of Rome, whenever and wherever she has the power, must on account of this doctrinal exclusiveness become also practically a persecuting Chul'ch. As a matter of course, practical intolerance cannot exist without ii secret tribunal whose object it is to enquire into the faith of the members and judge those who are sus- pected of heresy. Now let me ask what kind of men were and would again be the judges of such a tribunal, sJiould the Church of Rome over obtain sufficient power to coerce in the old way ? Surely, the office is a most odious one. Its exercise demands the extinction of all kindly and charitable feelings, and actual delight in extreme cruelty ; since its objects are to iind out and exterminate heresy, to overcome obstinacy by fearful tortures, to subdue heretics by bodily suflferings ; if necessaiy^ to liang, quarter or burn them, and render their names infamous to future generations of Churchmen. In a Roman Coercion and Infallibility. 147 word, as the institution is the offspring of bigotry and intol- erance, its judges must be the most bigoted and intolerant persons that can be found. Men with humane and Christian feelings would be u-.fit to fill so odious an office. Judges without guile and devoid of Jesuitical cunning could not find out the secret heresy of the soul. Liberal-minded men wo-ild scarcely prevail upon heretics to recant. Upright and high-spirited men would consider it beneath them to send forth an army of spies, to employ knaves to act as torturers and to conduct the whole judicial process in secrecy and darkness. Kind-hearted men could not bring themselves to witness the heart-rending tortures of the unfortunate victims. History gives us the character of these inquisitors, and it is by no means flattering. And who are the criminals to be judged and condemned by this awful tribunal ? Sincere enquirers after truth — men who, rather than recant, suffer willingly, even joyfully, the keenest tortures and the most cruel death as martyrs of the truth ; innocent men and women who have been falselv accused by their enemies ; persons who are obnoxious to the inquisitors themselves, or to some influential worldly Church- man. Whosoever even suspects a person guilty of heresy is bound to accuse him, otherwise he is in danger of being him- self prosecuted as an abettor of heresy. This dreadful insti- tution is a firebrand thrown into the midst of a kingdom — through every grade of society. The husband is bound to accuse his wife, and the wife her husband ; the children must inform against their parents, and these against their children; brothers, sisters, and friends are bound to accuse each other before this tribunal. All sacred ties and connec- tions must be disregarded ai?d torn asunder at the bidding of the Holy Office. i '> m 178 Roman Catholicism. thorough study of the question. Now, liow can they, accord" ing to their own theory, expect the assistance of the Holy Ghost, if they do not work ? Does assistance not, it may be added, involve the supposition of work] In all general councils, the time is too limited for a searching investigation and discussion of questions. Whence it follows that the decrees of general councils and the unanimous belief of the ecclesia disjjersa can only teach us what the episcopal body for the time being holds and be- lieves ; but they render us, by no means, certain that their decrees and decisions are consistent with the depositumoH-dith. Practically, then, tliey take for granted that the present living traditional link holds exactly the doctrines which every one of the preceding links held up to the time of the Apostles. Theoretically, they hold that a thorough examin- ation is required of the written documents containing the Church's doctrines ; that only then may they expect the as- sistance of the Holy Ghost ; and that, after a mature study of these documents, with the help of God's Spirit, they are able to render the members of the Church infallibly certain that such and such a doctrine is contained in Scripture or in the totum of the representative ecclesiastical writers — the fathers and doctors of the Church. Is there not a palpable contra- diction here between theory and practice 1 They reply tlirit each bishop has his trustworthy and learned divines who study, in his stead, the difficult points of controverted questions and give him tlieir well-matured decision ; that each council, too, employs the most eminent theologians that are to be found in the Church, who are well versed in sacred Scripture and in the whole range of written tradition ; and that these make a thorough study of the points in dispute and enlighten the bishops. i\n ':ll Pernicioiisness of hifallibility'Doctrine. 179 Here we have another contradiction of their system in its practical working. To the labours of the bishops, not to the study of their theologians, was promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost. It depends on the decision of the bishops whether it shall be received as a dogma that such and such a doctrine is contained in the ilepositum of faith. If the bishops, after the labours and conclusions of their theologians, declare that it is taught in Scripture and tradition, they appear to give this decision, because they believe in the results of the study of their divines. And if they do not wish to have a blind belief in the labours of their fallible inferiors, they must make a careful revision and examination of them. How can they do this without the knowledge, for themselves and by themselves, of the contents of sacred Scripture and the whole range of tradition so far, at least, as regards the par- ticular points in question? Thus, while they think and maintain that their decisions in regard to controverted points are based on and contained in the deposit of faith, they are, in reality, based on the studies of fallible men, not even be- longing to the teaching body — of men who have no vote in the Church. And let me ask, who are these theologians whom the bishops employ as their assistant:* and guides 1 Tliey may be learned and well-meaning men, yet they are determined not to discuss the doctrines which the episcopal boily at pre- sent holds, but to take them as true and to defend them at any cost. This is the basis of their ti-u«t worthiness, and of the reliance the bishops place in them ; they are men who view things in an \indisguised party spirit and are viterly destitute of imparti-ility. As it is impossible for them to study the doctrine in question througli the whole range<5** sacred Scripture and tradition, they one-sidedly tieai'ch for those I 180 Roman Catholicism. iH. passages and texts which seem to favour their thesis. Party spirit will twist and turn anything to its advan- tage, and it is astonishing how far it can venture in this direction. What is the process by which the Church draws the pre- cious treasure of divine revelation from tradition — the mine of antiquity — and imparts it to her hungry children, even without their seeking it 1 Do all her priests read and under- stand all the holy fathers, the decrees of councils, LECTURE V. THE DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT A NECESSARY CON- SEQUENCE OF THE INFALLIBILITY-THEORY, WE saw in our last lecture that the Church of Rome is not the infallible witness of the revealed truths of Christ, beca\ise of the impossibility of applying her famous rule — quod semper ^ ubique, et ah omnibus creditum est, to her decrees and definitions. This application would involve the vast labour of seeking and finding the dogmas she defines and issues, in the history and traditions of the Church, from the days of the Apostles, through all succeeding generations. A o they themselves see the difiiculty of the task, they have practically given it up ; and, for the most part, do not even attempt it. They have thrown off the burden of prov- ing their distinctive tenets by arguments drawn from the depositum of faith which they pretend to guard, as too heavy for their shoulders, and content themselves with leaning altogether on the infallible authority of their Church. But in order to show the reasonableness of their belief in the present teaching of their Church they have betaken themselves to the doctrine of development or dogmatic evolu- tion. They compare the Word of God to a seed. As the seed contains within itself the tree with its branches, flov. ers, and fruit, so also God's Word, originally simple, hid- den, and mysterious, comprises within itself the manifold Development a Consequefice of Infallibility. 187 Y CON- Rome is truths of r famous j«, to her irolve the le defines rch, from lerations. ,hey have ,, do not of prov- from the ,00 heavy leaning 3h. belief in betaken die evolu- Asthe flo\. ers, iple, hid- manifold teaching of the infallible Church throughout all ages. Besides the explicit belief and teaching of the Church in each tradi- tional link, they admit that there are also a whole body of implicit doctrines which require to be developed by the Spirit of God guiding the Church and leading her into all truth. In a word, they teach that the faith, primitively implicit, must become explicit ; that it must not be supposed that the truth is incapable of progression, or that the teaching of the Church must remain stationary and stereotyped. They imagine that this doctrine of development wonderfully assists them in defending the doctrines defined by their Church, in every age. Everything in nature and society, in the sciences and arts, proclaims the doctrine of development ; why should the Church, in her faith and practice, be exempt from this universal law of evolution ? They pity us poor Protestants as obscurantists and retrograding malcontents because we go back to the Old Bible and refuse to make any • progress in our dogmatic teaching. They tell us that the Reformation not only stopped the car of progress, but drove it back to the primitive times of Christianity. By this doctrine of development they hope to eliminate the difficul- ties of their dogmatic teaching and to cover deficiencies in their arguments. No doubt, it pleases and attracts their membera and retains many within the bosom of the Church. The learned Dr. Newman has written a very profound and philosophical book on the doctrine of development, in its manifold relations. It is much esteemed by Roman divines and forms part of their standard theological literature. I read it, many years ago, and regret that 1 have not a copy at hand for present quotation. 1 must content myself with the remarks on development he makes in his " Reply to Mr. Gladstone* 8 Expostulation" He says (p. 70) : 188 Roman Catholicism, " 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 so 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 use of History in which the Catholic believes ; and he uses other informants also. Scrip- ture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense, or q>po'vi]fj.a and a subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin is a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or * renunciation 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 ratio- cination. Our logical powers, too, being a gift from God, may claim to have their information respected ; and Protest- ants sometimes accuse our theologians, for instance, the mediaeval school men, of having used them in divine matters a little too freely. But 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 infor- Development a Consequence of Infallibility. 189 mant or the other, in ail 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 or by history, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high eccle- siastical magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." " What has been said also applies to those other truths, with which ratiocination has more to do than history, which are sometimes developments of Christian doctrine — truths which are not upon the surface of the Apostolic depositum, that is, the legacy of Revelation, — but which from time to time are brought into form by theologians, and sometimes have been proposed to the 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 over- come every objection except a contradiction in thought) there is nothing greatly to try the reason in such difficulties 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 Apos- tles said, but have not recorded in writing, or would neces- sarily have said under our circumstances, or if they had been asked, or in view of certain uprisings of error, and in that sense 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 main- tain, a law of the Church's teaching from the earliest times, and in nothing is her title of 'semper eadem' more remark- ably illustrated than in the correspondence of her ancient y 190 Roman Catholicism, and modern exhibition of it. As to the ecclesiastical acts of 1854 and 1870, I think, with Mr. Gladstone, that the prin- ciple 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 faith- ful; but I deny that at either time the testimony of history was repudiated or perverted. The utmost that can be fairly said by an opponent against the theological decisions of those years is, that antecedently to the event it might appear that there were no suflficient 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 anticipation was proved to be a mistake by the fact of the definition being made." I have quoted this long passage both because it shows to us how far the Church's itifallihle magisterium extends and demands the assent of the faithful, as also because it gives us some insight into the Roman doctrine of dogmatic evolu- tion. Plausible as this doctrine may appear at first sight, we confess that there seems no reason that should induce us to embrace it. In the first -^XiiCQii pre-swpposea the infallibilityof the Church otherwise how could men be required, under pain of damna- tion, to give their assent to these developed dogmas if the Church that evolves and decrees them as articles of faith be not endowed with infallibility ] On the other hand again, we are told that the doctrine of ecclesiastical, especially papal, infallibility is a rasult of this dogmatic development. Is there not here a palpable contradiction 1 As the doctrine of infallibility does not possess primd facie evidence, how, in the name of truth, can men ever acquire a convincing cer- Development a Consequence of Infallibility. 191 cts of prin- , have Ly and J faith- listory 5 fairly f those \x that I either ;r — but f in the >tholic mistake hows to nds and it gives evolu- st sight, nee ns to tainty tliat the Church and the pope are infallible \ Wo have seen that the ordinary deposltuiUj namely, Scripture and tradition, do not prove it, and now we are informed that development, the supplement of this depositum, does not prove, but postulate it. Again, this system of development contradicts their rule of faith. They teach that the Churph can decree and define nothing but what is contained in Scripture and tradition. Consequently no additions can be made, nor may any previous dogma be amplified ; the definitions and decrees must not exceed the depositum of Scripture and tradition. But what do we see 1 The doctrine of development is invoked in justi- fication of those very dogmas which we look upon as additions, amplifications, and excesses. Is implicit faith synonymous with additional or amplijied faith ? Hence also this development system is a contradiction of their famous rule of catholicity, quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum est. For, what is not expressed in Scrip- ture or tradition, what is not known, nor even dreamt of, cannot be believed. Belief supposes knowledge. Let them not say that it was implicitly known, consequently implicitly/ believed. The rule speaks of a belief that is manifested, and only as such can it become a criterion of faith. How can the implicit faith of past ages be a rule for any one by which he may be enabled to find out the Catholic faith ? Besides, how can additions and amplifications come within the category of this rule ] Discarding thus the ancient Catholic rule of faith, this theory of development has become the source of multiplying dogmas ad infinitum. We find that for the last few centuries they have based nearly all the dogmatic definitions they allowed themselves to make upon this transition from the 192 Roman Catholicism. implicit to the explicit faith. They have dispensed with en- quiry into the documents of antiquity in order to justify their innovations. The opinions of some old theologians which enter into the frame-work of their ideas are eagerly seized upon and considered as germs of the implicit faith. These they nurse and work out until they are dovetailed into their whole system, and exert their influence on the religious life of the Church. And when the development has reached this point, it is approved by the pope and the bishops, and pro- claimed to the world as a new dogma of explicit faith. "We must bear in mind that the progress of development does not go on throughout the whole body of the Church, but only in the priesthood; the laity have no part in it; and even among the priests only the scholce theologorum are the working bees. They exert an immense influence on the whole doctrinal system ; in a certain sense they are the soul of the teaching body. They wield the weapons of defense, make researches into the opinions of the fathers and doctors of the Church, formulate and systematize the whole body of Roman doctrine. They have a domain of their own into which only the initiated may advance and progress; their nomenclature, phraseology and language cannot be understood by any but themselves. Hence a twofold phenomenon presents itself in the Roman Catholic Church wliich greatly astonishes outsiders. The first is, that the belief and practice of the masses often differ considerably from the views of their divines and school men. No wonder; there is a gulf between them. Hence the attacks of Protestants on popular Romanism are looked upon by Roman Catholic theologians and the champions of their faith as so many calumnies against their Church, so many wicked manifestations of Protestant ignorance and bigotry. Development a Consequence of Infallibility. 193 ith en- fy their which ^ seized These to their ious life hed thi3 and pro- ti. jlopment irch, but it; and I are the e on the 3 the soul defense, A doctors body of |own into !ss; their tderstood On this account the Protestant labours under great disad- vantages when he enters into the field against this Church. If he attacks the Romanism which presents itself to him, and which he daily perceives living in the masses, they tell him that he fights a phantom of his own creation, and de- grades himself by slandering their Church. If he criticises and refutes their doctrines as contained in the creeds, defi- nitions, and decrees of councils and popes, they cry out that he does not understand them, that he does not know even the first rudiments of the phraseology, language, and method of the acholce theologorum, which alone contain the key to their right understanding. And if he attacks the teaching the scholcB, they will inform, him that he shoots beyond the mark, that the teaching of the scholce is not exactly the Church's magisteriuin, that if he wants to attack the Church, he must go to creeds and councils. In fact, the Church of Rome is too slippery for an honest Protestant. The second phenomenon is, that the Roman Catholic laity live in blissful ignorance of what is going on in the scholce, and of what new dogmas are in process of development and definition by the pope and the bishops. They may awake some fine morning with a new dogma saddled on their patient consciences, which they are commanded to believe under pain of excommunication and damnation. How often during his life-time may the honest layman be required to abandon cherished opinions for new dogmatic definitions added to his former creed. Twice in our times, within the short period of sixteen years, has he been obliged to ^exercise his faith by receiving new dogmas, first, that of the immaculate concep- tion,, and shortly after, that of papal infallibility. As the working of this system of development is exclusive- ly in the hands of the priests, it is but natural to expect that 13 194 Roman Catholicism. i sucli doctrines arc principally developed which fa'/our their caste. It was by this method of procedure that the doctrine of a sacrificing priesthood, with its liiany kindred dogmas, was develoi)ed ; in a similar manner the papacy had its rise and took firm root in Western Christendom. From wluit we have said it must not be inferred that we are altogether o[)posed to development ; nay, we admit it, but inafardifferent sense from thatof the Roman system. I cannot explain better my meaning than in the words of the learned Abbe Michaud, the great champion of old Catholicism, in an article in the Hartford Churchman (vol. xxxi.. No. 16) : — "It is evident that this pretended transition from the implicit to the explicit faith is nothing else but the complete confusion of theology and of the faith, to the detriment of the latter especially. This Romish theory is false and it resembles in no respect the notion of progress in the faith, such as St. Vincent of Lerins explained it according to the doctrine received in the East and West, before the great separation of the ninth century. It is to this ancient and really catholic notion of the true development that we must return. In our work entitled : * How the Roman Church is no longer the Catholic Church,^ we have explained at length, and (we believe) as clearly as possible, what Vincent of Lerins* idea was. The Church, at that epoch, did not yet know the famous theory of the transition from the implicit to the explicit. It admitted no progress in the objective faith by a material addition to the revealed verities ; it only admitted the progress in the subjective faith, by progress in the subjective knowledge of the dogmas. Assuredly, this progress in the subjective knowledge of the dogmas placed them in a greater light, and in this regard there wa^ also progress in the objective faith. But, evidently, this progress Development a Consequence of Infallibility. 195 their ctiine )gmaa, se and hat we i it, but cannot learned 1, in an 16):- •om the lomplete it of the and it he faith, Lg to the he great ient and we must ^harch is ,t length, ncent of net yet implicit >tive faith it only progress jdly, this las placed wad also progress in the objective faith was neither a material alteration nor a numerical amplification of the truths revealed by Jesus Christ and preserved in the Universal Church ; this progress consisted only in this, that the understanding became more enlightened, and thus comprehended better the breadth and depth of these truths. It had nothing to do with adding one or several propositions to the written catalogue of the truths of the faith ; it was concerned only with shedding a fuller and stronger light in the souls of \ he faithful, a light leaving the truths of the faith absolutely 'he same, neither changing nor increasing at all, but rendering them more visible by an augmentation of individual light. It had nothing to do with seeing the revealed truths more numerous than in the past ; the question was merely to see them better enlightened and more radiant." "Understood in this sense, we admit dogmatic development, a^ our fathers of the first centuries did. This development, which diflfera essentially from the Romish theory, is not at all dangerous, because it is founded upon religious and philoso- phical truth. "While leaving to each one the fullest liberty in the territory of theology, it prevents arbitrariness in the faith, which always remains what it is, as a deposit which one can neither diminish nor augment, but which one can always irradiate by means of the sun of science, so as con- tinually to see better what it contains." " Therefore, just as the false dogmatic development is based upon the confusion of the faith and theology, so the true dogmatic development is based upon their distinction and upon the impossibility of transforming the latter into the former. With the first, bad theology becomes likewise bad faith, and we see it only too much in the Roman Church, where the true faith is as rare as true theology. With the ; 1 i 196 Roman Catholicism. ^A-A tm second, bad theology is only bad theology ; it can hold the true faith in external obscurity, but it cannot destroy or corrupt it intrinsically. The essences of things are always preserved on both sides, in this sense. The true faith always remains the true faith, even when it is badly explained theologically." We agree with Abb6 Michaud's views, in general ; we observe only that we have no need of the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, in order to find out the Catholic faith. We can find no other rule of true catholicity than the Bible alone. To this standard let us apply the tlioory of subjective develop- ment, so beautifully explained by the learned Old Catholic Abb6. LECTURE VI. SACERDOTALISM : ITS CONNECTION WITH THE IN- FALLIBILIT V-S YSTEM. THERE is a doctrine pervading the Church of Romo 'vhich is the source of the system of Church -infallibility nd papal authority ; a doctrine enslaving the laity and destroying their rights ; a doctrine poisoning the cii rrent of aL spiritual life ; a doctrine le??di,,g to superstition, and even to idolatry : in a word, a doctrine disturbing the purity )f the gospel and undermining the simple structure of Christianity. This doctrine is not peculiar to the Church of Rome ; it existed before the great schism between the East and West, in the ninth century ; all the Eastern Churches are corrupted by it, and alas ! we find even Protestant ministers professing to teach the pure gospel of Christ tainted with it. But although others, besides Rome, hold this baneful doctrine, in the Roman Church alone has it obtained its full development and finally culminated in hierarchical and even papal infallibility. I mean sacerdotalism or priestism — the doctrine that the Christian ministry is a real priesthood. "What does this imply ] In the first place, the idea of mediatorship between God and man underlies all the ofiices of the priesthood. The priest not only teaches with authority from on high, but also acts for and on behalf of the people, in order to obtain for them God's mercy and favour. The Roman Catholic priest is believed to stand between the people and God. And if :i \ ! [ It 198 Roman Cctholicism. we tell them that there is but " one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," they agi-ee that Christ is the only true and invisible mediator, but they add that the Church, as a visible body, requires visible mediators, and that her priests fill this office inasmuch as they personify Christ — agunt personam Christi — act in His stead and as His visible vice-gerents. And if we demand proof of these asser- tions, they have nothing to give us save obscure tradition and the teaching of their infallible Church. If we ask them, again, in what sense their priests are mediators, they inform us that their principal mediatorial function is to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, that is, of the Body and Blood of Christ, both for the living and the dead. If we express our astonishment at such a doctrine, by observ- ing that we find in Scripture that Christ offered Himself only once, and that " by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified ;" that this sacrifice cannot be repeated and that Christ Himself was the High Priest, — they evade and obscure the plain teaching of Scripture by subtle answers and distinctions that are above the understanding of the people, and are therefore not calculated to remove erro- neous impressions from the mind. They answer : True, Christ offered Himself only once, but that was m a bloody manner ; He is offered on our altars as an unbloody sacrifice — sacrijidum incruentum — His sacrifice is not repeated. He does not often suffer nor often die on the altars, but He continues there to offer to His eternal Father the sufforings and death He once underwent on the cross. His very presence on our altars is a continual sacrifice here on earth, as His sitting on the right hand of God is a con- tinual sacrifice in Heaven. Nor is there really any other priest but Christ Himself, for the earthly minister is priest Connection of Sacerdotalism ivith Infallibility. 100 jen God Christ is that the ors, and Devsonify id as His ese asser- ition and riests are Lediatorial [the Body dead. If by observ- d Himself jrfected for s cannot be iest,— they by subtle |standing of smove erro- in so far only as he repi'esenta Christ and acts in His peraon and name as His visible vice-gerent on earth. It would seem that Roman Catholics do not understand the real nature of a sacrifice. Scripture teaches that it con- sists not so much in offering anything material to God, but in obedience, which results in self-denial and self-surrender and in divesting ourselves of anything that is dear to us, even life itself, for God's sake and for His honour. Hence we are taught that Christ's sacrifice consisted in His obedi- ence, the highest act of which was His complete self- surrender, which resulted in giving His life and shedding His blood for His brethren, the fallen sons of Adam. And because His obedience culminated in the shedding of His blood, it obtained for us remission of sins ; for '• without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix., 22.) Hence the Roman Catholic distinction between the bloody and unbloody manner in which Christ is offered, not only betrays their too material conception of His sacrifice, but ignores also the scriptural teaching that without shedding of blood there can be no propitiatory sacrifice. Nor can they extricate themselves froui this difficulty l»y saying that their mass has reference to the shedding of blood on the cross. How so 1 By being a memorial of the death of Christ"? But a memorial is a memorial, and merely as such does not possess the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice. They assert that it has reference to Calvary because it is the same victim that is pi^esent on the altars and continues to offer Himself. We deny that the same victim is present, but shall not enter here into a discussion on the real presence. To admit such a doctrine would be interpreting Scripture literally with a vengeance ; it would be a palpable trans- gression of the rules of exegesis and a contradiction of the 200 Roman Catholicism. i> ! fundamental principles of our reason. It is remarkable that while mediaeval and modern councils decree the doctrine of the real presence, and the sacrifice of the mass, we do not find these two most objectionable doctrines in the canon of the mass, which is of ancient origin. This canon may be called the mass itself, and is daily used by thousands of priests, and may be conscientiously used as a communion service by Protestants who believe neither in the real pre- sence nor in the sacrifice of the mass. Where do Roman Catholics find that Christ continues to offer Himself on the altars 1 Nowhere in Scripture. How could He continue His sacrifice on the cross ? Was it not an act ] And is not an act that is accomplished a thing of the past ? The results of the sacrifice continue, but the sacri- fice itself was finished once and for ever. Besides, was it not a most painful act ? And do not pain and suffering, or at least, self-denial in some shape or other constitute the very nature of every sacrifice? However, therefore, Roman Catholics may abstract the idea of blood from the sacrifice of the mass, can it possibly remain a sacrifice, if they dissociate from it the notion of suffering also ] Does Christ still suffer and undergo the self-denial and self- surrender of sacrifice ? If not, how can He be a sacrifice 1 The mere presence of the glorified Christ could never make the mass », real and actual sacrifice. How, again, can they maintain that Christ alone is the real and only priest of the mass, if they teach that their min- isters, too, are its real and true priests ? Are there two priests in this sacrifice, Christ and the earthly priest ] And if the earthly priests are many in number, must not there be many unbloody sacrifices,, too, of one nnd the same Christ, in many places, at one and the same time 1 Where do they Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility. 201 J that ine of lO not aon of ay be [ids of lunion al pre- nuea to How 8 it not ihing of le sacri- aot pain or other ;owever, of blood emain a ,ng also ] and self- iacrifice 1 er make le is the leir min- lere two 1 And there be :;hri8t, in learn in Scripture that their priest acta in the person of Christ and as His visible vice-gerent? How can Christ be the priest, when the Church assigns all the active agency in the offering of this sacrifice to the officiating priest, for the missal asserts that the intention of the priest is indispensably necessary to the consummation of this sacrifice of the mass, and thus makes Christ a mere jt?as«tve instrument of salvation, the efficacy of which depends on the caprice, whim, or inten- tion of a fallible priest 1 As there is no other sacrifice but that of Christ under the Christian dispensation, the sacred writers of tlie New Testa- ment have taken especial care never to apply even once the name of h'epev? or sacrificing priest to the apostles or minis- ters of Christ. We have in Eph. iv., 11, an enumeration of the various offices of the Christian ministry, but the name 'I'epevi is not given to any order of men, nor the offering of sacrifice mentioned as any part of the duty of a Christian minister. In the third place, the office of the priesthood, in the Roman system, is essentially connected with their theory of the sacraments. "No priest, no sacrament," seems to be their general mle. And as the Church of Rome is sacramentarian, par excellence, this connection with the sacraments gives the priesthood an immense power and influence over the laity. She teaches that a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us and ordained by Christ as a means whereby we leceive the same and as fl pledge to assure us thereof ; that this outward sign has effi- cacy in itself, and if rightly administered produces grace — ex opere operate. The entire religious life of Roman Catholics is interwoven with the sacraments. They are met by them whithersoever 202 Roman Catholicism. they turn. Sacraments accompany them from the cradle to the grave. They have seven of them. 8oon after they are born, the water of baptism cleanses them from original sin, and regenerates them. When they arrive at the years of discretion, and lose their baptismal innocence by actual sin, and whenever in after-life they transgress God's command- ments, they are forgiven by auricular confession and priestly absolution. When they set out on the journey of life, they are taught to receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands in the sacrament of confirmation. They are exhorted to receive frequently the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the altar; and they believe that the priest by the words of consecration calls Christ down from Heaven and changes bread and wine into His body and blood. They not only receive it as a sacrament, but also worship it as their God and Saviour ; they keep it in the tabernacle of their altar for perpetual adoration, offer to it the homage of incense, have lights burning before it day and night, carry it about in procession, and enclosing it in a costly repository, impart it with their benediction to the people. When they are sick, the priest administers to them the sacrament of extreme unction, whereby they believe they obtain forgiveness of their sins, and help and patience in their bodily sickness. They receive also a sacrament when they enter the state of matrimony, or are ordained to the ministry of their Church. * Besides these seven sacraments, they have an endless variety of other sacred things. There is, indeed, no part of the Church's life, in its amazing variety, which is not blessed and consecrated by the priesthood in some external rite or ceremony. In fact, they believe that, as since Adam's fall every created object lies under the curse of God, the priest Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility. 203 ileto 5y are J sin, ars of a,l sin, Linand- jriestly e, they tion of They lood of sve that it down )ody and but also t in the .ffer to it e it day ig it in a to the to them believe patience jacrament dained to has the power of removing this curse by exorcisms, and of imparting to it a blessing for the good of men. These rites and ceremonies, exorcisms and blessings, consecrations and dedications, processions and pilgrimages, holy places and shrines, relics and miraculous images, religious observances of every description, scapulars, holy cords, rosaries, le, and L under ^rowing e do not through It is an into the Christian latitwas retained imstances Church, iS appear- Leginnings [em. the first I, knew no :he Chris- [rdotal and lUsm with that they The state of the Church soon favoured this taste. We find that the Churches were at first independent of each other, but circumstances soon required that they should associate for mutual counsel and assistance. These associa- tions were at first of limited extent, comprising at the most one province; but the principle of association having been once introduced, it soon extended its sphere and influence. Churches met in synods, and these sent their delegates to general assemblies. This system of association created new offices, and gave a wider jurisdiction and a larger field of ambition to the Christian ministry. And this we believe was one of the reasons why the clergy of the second century grew less watchful against the inroads of that sacerdotalism for which the Jewish and Gentile con verts had an innate taste. The first seeds of sacerdotalism were sown by the Jewish converts ; for, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dis- persion of the Jews, it became their settled opinion, in which the rest of the members soon shared, that the Christian Church had to step into the place of the Jewish Church and hold exactly the same position among the nations of the world. Hence the difierent offices of the Christian ministry were considered equivalent to those of the Jewish temple : the bishop holding the place of the Jewish high pi'iest, the presbyter or elder that of the priest, and the deacon that of the Levite. Thus the door was opened to sacerdotalism ; henceforth it grew rapidly ; a distance between clergy and people was created which gradually widened, and a hierarchy was planted in the Christian Church. After these first steps others followed as a matter of course, and others again were taken through the ambition of an aspiring clergy. Not content with merely claiming the titles i : i 1 I 208 Roman Catholicism. of the Jewish priesthood, they demanded also its rights and privileges, such as tithes, first-fruits, distinctive and splendid garments, and other evidences of external grandeur. And as a priesthood cannot exist without a sacrifice, they sur- rounded the Eucharist with all sacrificial rites and cere- monies and thus corrupted the, simple doctrine of the Lord's Supper into a real sacrifice, commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross. A multitude of ceremonies began to be introduced in the second century, not so much for the purpose of giving importance to the priesthood as to attract both Jews and Gentiles towards the Christian Church, and to refute the calumnies of those Gentiles who regarded the Christians as atheists, because of the simplicity of their worship. The love of symbolism and the symbolic manner of tes ching pre- valent among the eastern nations was also a fruitful source of rites and ceremonies. As Christianity progressed, rites and customs in use among the Gentiles, were gradually blended with the Chris- tian worship, and of the penitential discipline much was bor- rowed from the heathen mysteries, so that Christian ordin- ances themselves became known by the name of mysteries. If such was the increase of sacerdotalism whilst paganism held sway in the vast Roman empire, we cannot be surprised at its undisputed dominion when Constantine embraced Chris- tianity and gave to it his influence. He and his successors made over the Roman pontificate with its sacerdotalism to the Christian Church. Henceforth sacerdotalism had its own way ; the lay element was lost ; the priesthood became the Church ; the pomp of public worship gave it importance ; and its ambition knew no bounds. The arrogance of the bishop of Kome was finally the cause of the schism between the Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility, 209 and sndid And 8ur- cere- Lord's orifice ced in giving yvs and ite the iianb as ,. The ing pre- il source East and the West. The bishop of the seven hills was ac» knowledged by western Christendom as its high priest, wear- ing the Urim and Thumraim of supremo priestly authority and jurisdiction. New elements were added to sacerdota- lism by this high priest and his faithful allies, the monks. Darkness began to reign in the Church, and the history of Europe became the history of sacerdotalism. Study the history of Christian sacerdotalism from its be- ginnings down to our own day, and you cannot help being pained at its unreality and untruth, disgusted with its pre- tensions, horrified at its excesses, and saddened by the con- templation of its baneful consequences. It presents to us the picture of a spiritual despotism, blighting everything beneath its sway. It has impeded, nay almost destroyed, the fair Christianity of Christ. Alas ! my heart is overwhelmed with sadness, when I re- flect that among my Protestant brethren there are men who in their heart of hearts love sacerdotalism, would rejoice to see it re-established among us and employ their best talents and energies in promoting its growth.. It has been planted within our borders ; but it is, as yet, a feeble and sickly plant. How carefully these men nurse it ! They watch over it ; desire to have it left alone ; guard it against rough handling ; protect it from every blast of con- troversy. And what, in the name of all that is good and Christian, do these dear brethren purpose ] Do they wish to re-establish popery ] By no means. They are conversant with Church history, and know that sacerdotalism is not ex- clusively Roman, that it prevails in all the eastern churches, and existed in the Church before Romanism was dreamt of. They glory in being Catholics, and are determiner! to hold everything that is Catholic, and they believe in a Christian 14 I 210 Roman Catholicism. Is i ! sacerdotalism because they think it \8 Catholic. Such is the mildest construction I can put on their sacerdotal aspirations. In all charity, I hope none of them is animated by sacerdotal vanity and ambition; for to such my remarks will prove useless. Does it never strike them that jiothing can be truly catholic unless it is contahied in the Bible, or can clearly be proved thereby and was held in apostolical times ; otherwise the principle, quod aemper, ubique et ah omnibus creditum eat would be inapplicable. Now sacerdotalism is not con- tained in the apostolical writings, and its seeds were only sown towards the latter part of the second cencury. It is, therefore, evidently uncatholic. And although it be not ex- clusively Roman being professed by the greater part of Chris- tendom, let them remember that it produced the papacy and Romanism together with the monstrous doctrine of infalli- bility and its associate errors. And if they say tiiat it existed in the Church ever since she had a history, and that it is therefore part and parcel of the historic Church, we answer that we also believe in a historic Church, and a historic Christianity, but we know also that in the historic Church there are historic errors — errors that have played a conspicuous part in the Church's history.^ Are they to be believed as truths because they are historical 'J Is their being historical a proof of their being catholic also ] Is sacerdotalism to be embraced because it has a long and conspicuous history ] God forbid. Let us rather go back to first principles; for 'they are always catholic. Let us walk in the old paths where we are taught that we have an altar, but that altar is Christ ; that we have a sacrifice, but that sacrifice is Christ ; that we have a high priest, but that high priest is Christ. Any other altar, sacrifice, or priest can bo only fiction and unreality. the LOUS, iotal eless. ihoUc roved se the t con- •e only It is, not ex- ,f Cliris- ,acy aiid infaUi- vrev since parcel of eve in. » ^e know errors — ■ Church's 3 they ar® leir being >ecause it •they are [ere we are irist; that , J that vre A.ny other Inreality. i Part III. THE PAPACY AXD INFALLIBILITY. 11 m 'M m LECTURE I. THE PRIMACY OF PETER. THE papacy is the outgrowth of sacerdotalism, and the result of that Roman development which consists in addition and amplification. If you recognize a priesthood, you must have a high priest also. Hence the bishop of Rome, favoured by circumstances, put the coping-stone on the sacerdotal edifice, by laying claim to the highest priestly dignity, and assuming the title of pontifex rnaximus — a familiar dignity in the imperial city and one so highly hon- oured that the emperors invested themselves with it and per- formed its offices, in pagan times. When they embraced Christianity, it was conferred on the bishop of the metropolis of the world, who knev/ but too well how to use it for the development of his high-priestism and the aggrandizement of his power. Not only priestiim, but also the system of clerical aristoc- racy, or, as it is usually called, liigh-churchism, seems logically to tend to popery, either avowedly or in efiect. Tn making this remark we have no particular Church in view ; but we mean the high-churchisra manifesting itself in every denomi- nation. It appears to us evident — and experience confirms our opinion — that men of high clerical pretensions fool naturally prone to aim higher and higl^er, until at last tbey concentrate the supreme spiritual pv>wor in one ecc'e- siastical dignitary. High churchism is aiJtag.rj'atic to the 214 Roman Catholicism. 1 •. m i 1 , .il ■^ ■ ? li '-i's ^"H rights and privileges of the laity ; how then can men enam- oured with it avoid sympathizing with popery which is high- churchism, par excellence^ — the culminating point of sacerdo- talism 1 Both sacerdotalists and extreme High Churchmen cannot but admire the ecclesiastical system of Rome as coin- ciding with their own particular views and aims ; they only hate its abuses and excesses. If Rome gave up her claim to infallibility and submitted to salutary reforms, they would find no difficulty in joining her. Even as it is, with all her glaring errors, many have not hesitated to enter the Roman communion. Let any one pause and reflect before he regards with favour the system of the papacy. The pretensions of the pope are exorbitant. He claims to have supreme ecclesiastical juris- diction over the whole Church, exercising immediate episco- pal authority in all the dioceses. This authority embraces the power to convoke general synods at his pleasure, to pre- side over them, and to confirm or veto their decrees and defini- tions ; to decide controversies of faith and to define doctrines authoritatively, even without consulting the Church ; to enact and establish ecclesiastical laws and canons or to abro- gate them at pleasure ; to fulminate excommunications and inflict other ecclesiastical censures, and to relax them by indulgences and pardons ; to void promises, vows, oaths, and legal obligations by dispensation ; to be the fountain of all pastoral jurisdiction and dignity; to erect, transfer, and abol- ish episcopal sees ; to appoint, confirm, suspend, or remove bishops ; to exempt colleges, monasteries, or whomsoever he wishes from episcopal jurisdiction and oversight ; to confer dignities and benefices by his sole authority ; to judge all persons in all spiritual causes, finally and irrevocably ; to receive appeals from all ecclesiastical courts, and t6 reverse I 1 H The Primacy of Peter, 215 am- igh- srdo- men coin- only claim )\rould ,11 lier ioiaan favour ope are ftl juris- ) epiflco- mbraces , to pre- d defini- Loctrines irch ; to to abro- Aons and jthem by latbs, and an of all and abol- r remove ^soever be to confer judge all ►cably ; to tb reverse their decisions ; to exact oaths of fealty and obedience from the clergy ; to have supreme supervision over the civil laws of every country, and to forbid the faithful to observe such of them as appear, in his opinion, to conflict with the rights of the Church ; to demand absolute obedience to his will from all members of the Church ; to depose kings and magistrates and absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance. In short, he claims absolute and unlimited authority to regu- late everything in the Church, both generally and individ- ually ; he is the source of all law and authority \ and finally, he is the sole judge of the limits of his jurisdiction. He is the absolute monarch of the whole Church, accountable to none but God, — exempt from judgment and liable to no reproof. He is the Church. He is believed to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. He is called the Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, Our Lord the Pope, Most Holy Father, dec, dec. Such an authority has no precedent in human history. Never on earth before has mortal and smful man put forth universal claims like these to supreme cpntrol over the con- sciences of his fellow-men. We are, therefore, justified in requiring him to show the title-deeds of this overwhelming authority ; for they ought certainly to be clear and indis- putable. They tell us that the pope exercises supreme jurisdiction because he is Bishop of Rome, and as such, successor of St. Peter who received this authority from Christ and bequeathed it to his successors. The supreme authority of the pope, therefore, presup- poses : — 1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church, !■:■ 216 Roman Catholicism. 2. That this primacy was not personal, but communicable to his successors. 3. That St. Peter was bishop of Rome. 4. That, dying whilst bishop of Rome, he left to his suc- cessors in that see for all time to come the supremacy which he had received from the Lord. Let us briefly consider these suppositions and see if, as papal title-deeds, they are clear and irrefragable. If one or the other be found unproven.. the whole system of the papacy falls to the ground. I take this opportunity of recommending to your careful study Dr. Barrow's excellent " Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy." I believe it to be so com- plete and thorough that it must convince any impartial reader of the utter untenability of papal claims. In the first place, then, can it be proved from Scripture that our Lord conferred on St. Peter a supreme power of jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church 1 As such an authority would be of the highest importance, it should bo conferred in the clearest terms and distinctly recognized both by Peter and the other Apostles. The principal argument which is adduced to warrant and prove the primacy of St. Peter, is drawn from the words addressed by Christ to him, when he, first of all, confessed him to be che Son of the living God: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven ; and whatso- ever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven." (Matt, xvi., 18.) Christ employs here the metaphor of a rock which may be, and has been, differently interprett 1 by the most eminent The Primacy of Peter. 217 able suc- rliich if, as iem of ity of jellent coin- reader ripture 3wer of \\ As ance, it stinctly ant and 3 words jnfessed er, and grates of to thee er thou whatso- [eaven." may be, eminent fathers and biblical scholars — some being of opinion that this rock is Peter, others, that it is Christ, others again, that it is the confession of faith which Peter made. We find none of the ancients strictly interpreting it of the primacy of St. Peter, as understood by the Church of Rome. Why, then, should anyone be obliged, even according to the Roman Catholic rule of interpretation — which requires them to in- terpret Scripture in conforruity with the universal consent of the fathers — why should anyone be compelled, I say, to in- terpret these words in the papal sense, when so many learnea and pious men have interpreted them in a different sense 1 With what reason can they pretend that meaning to be clear, which fathers and doctors did not perceive or even suspect ? Can it be supposed that our Lord would have conferred the title-deeds of such a stupendous inheritance on St. Peter in metaphors which are naturally ambiguous and admit of diverse interpretations'? Would not such a proceeding, instead of building up the Church on stable foundations, be like throwing the apple of discord into her precincts for all future generations 1 Are not those who compel men thus to interpret these words guilty of dividing the Church 1 Certainly, the other Apostles and disciples did not under- stand them in the Roman sense. How is it that St. Mark, the intimate friend of St. Peter, drops them altogether out of his narrative when relating the same conversation 1 Be- cause the object of that dialogue was to establish the divinity of Christ, not the supremacy of Peter. Would the Apostles, shortly after, have contended among themselves (Mark ix., 33-37 ; X., 35-45) for the chief place, if they had understood these words as conferring supreme authority on St. Peter 1 Would the sons of Zebedee also, a few days after, have beeft 218 Roman Catholicism. so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the chief place in His kingdom if they knew that Christ had promised it already to Peter 1 Would Poter himself have disputed with the other Apostles about the first position in the Church, if he had understood that Christ, by these words, had promised to make him her head 1 Would Christ Himself not have explained the metaphor, as he did on other occasions, when He found them disputing among themselves ? Would He not have told them plainly, in order to obviate any future misunderstanding, that Peter was to be His vice-gerent 1 But instead of this. He exhorts them to humility, plainly giving them to understand that He would have no supreme lord and viceroy in His Church. Metaphors, in general, may be interpreted in different senses, and each interpretation may be correct at the same time, but under different aspects. So here, whether Christ, or Peter, or his confession of faith be meant by the rock, a beautiful meaning is the result, in each case. But we have to do here principally with Peter. If Peter be meant by the rock, the words bei7ig a rock can- not mean government, for governing the Church supposes it already built and established. The Church must first exist before she can be governed. Indeed, what similitude is there between a rock and government 1 At least, there are much fairer explanations of the metaphor than this. Peter may be called a* rock because on his faith, his witness-bearing, '. I iching, holy life, and miraculous actions the Church was * i5)t,. Hs it was also on the other Apostles, according to the vrords of St. Paul, who declares that the Church is " built on tho foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Him- self bemg the chief corner-stone." (Ephes. ii., 20.) If Roman Catholics would interpret Scripture by Scrip- Tfu Primacy of Peter. 219 His Ivto jther had 3d to liave when d He future erent \ plainly ipreme ififerent e same Christ, rock, a e have <( List Him- by Scrip- ture and exclude all special pleading in favour of a supreme jurisdiction conferred on St. Peter, they would clearly per- ceive that he received no power which was peculiar to him alone, and superior to that bestowed upon the other Apostles. If he was a rock, so were they, for on them, also, the Church was built. If he received the keys, so did they ; for they also had the power of binding and loosing. If he had the oflSice of feeding the lambs and sheep, so was it made their duty to feed the flock. Nor can they gain any special advantage, for the Petrine primacy, by saying that Christ addressed these words to Peter alone. The conversation was a dialogue between Peter and Christ ; Peter alone made the confession that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God ; it was, therefore, necessary and proper that to him Christ should address Him- self, But as Peter is usually the spokesman of the twelve Apostles, so here we must suppose that he made his glorious confession in the name of all, and that Christ's promise was intended for all. We must not take this promise out of its connection with Peter's confession. He had been called a rock before, when he was summoned to the Apostleship ; nay, the use of the name was equivalent to an Apostolic commission, for upon the Apostles, as upon rocks, the Church was to be built. He is not called, either in this text, or formerly, the rock, but a rock, one of the rocks — the other Apostles being his fellows. Christ, now, gives the reason why he had received this name, or, in other words, why he had been called to the Apostle- ship : it was because he confessed his faith in the grand and fundamental truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. We may thus paraphrase Christ's words : " Yea, thou art truly a rock, and upon such a rock, upon men of such 220 Roman Catholicism. faith, I will build my Church. It "'as on account of thy faith that I called thee a rock and made ».aee part of its founda- tion, i. e., an Apostle of my Church j for so long as it is built upon such a creed, the gates of hell cannot prevail against it." The whole tenor of the dialogue is about the confession of faith in the divinity of Christ ; the rest is merely inci- dental and gives the reason for Peter's call to the Apostle- ship. That this faith is the great object Christ had in view may not only be inferred from the concluding words of the discourse where He *•' charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ," but also from the fact that St. Mark, the companion and friend of St. Peter, omits altogether the subordinate reference to his being a rock. And as the other Apostles had the same faith, they were also rocks, that is, foundations on which Christ built His Church. Nor can any conclusion in favour of Peter's primacy be draw^j^ from the other metaphor used in this text : "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." In order to understand the figure, we must bear in mind that oriental keys were dissimilar to ours ; their use re- quired binding and loosing. Hence the following words : " whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven," signified the general use of the keys. We see here a gradation in the discourse of Christ. In the first part, the Church is to be built on such a rock ; in the second, it is supposed to have been built, and the keys of it are promised to Peter. Now, whatever the keys may mean, whether the faculty of opening the Church by preach- ing or admitting into it by baptism, or excluding from it by ecclesiastical censures, or any other power, they were given thy nda- built ainst sssion ■ inci- )Ostle- view of the should om the Peter, jeing a h, they st built The Primacy of Peter. 221 by Christ to all the Apostle and in the very same words in Matt, xviii., 18. Peter, therefore, in receiving the keys, re- ceived no power peculiarly his own, or superior to that of the other apostles. If he, therefore, by the keys, received supreme spiritual power, so did they. Some Roman Catholics, in their special anxiety to establish Peter's primacy, insist that the words addressed to him are more general than those addressed to the other Apostles, and that therefore his power embraces theirs. To Peter he says quodcunque ("o'eaV) ligaveris, to the others qucecunque^' o6a 'eaV) ligaveritis — the quodcunque is more general than the qucecunque. Moreover, they say, the power of the keys was given to the other Apostles unitedly, — in gloho — they had to be divided, therefore, and to each one the proper sphere of his labours and powers assigned ; and by whom should this be done but by Peter 1 We answer, that the philological rule that the singular is more general than the plural is new to us. When Christ conferred the power of the keys on all the Apostles together, he, as a matter of course, used the plural — *o'6a 'faV — but this ^'o6a 'ear contains "o VaV as many times as there were persons addressed. To us it seems that we ought to reverse the alleged philological rule. Secondly, there was no need of any one who should authoritatively assign to each of the other Apostles a particular sphere for the exercise of their power of the keys. They were Apostles, and as such not con- fined to any local Church or Churches ; they could preach and labour wherever they liked, provided, as St. Paul says, (Rom. XV., 20), " they did not preach the Gospel where Christ was named, lest they should build upon another man's foun- dation." Surely, it cannot be maintained that St. Peter could exercise the power of the keys in respect to ^ho i! I* I iii 222 Roman Catholicism. Apostles ; for how could he open the kingdom of Heaven unto those who had long before been admitted into it by our Lord himself? And if he could not possibly exercise this power in the case of the Apostles, over whom could he use it ] From the fact that Christ addressed these words first to Peter, they argue that he received a superior power. But this, again, is special pleading. Probably, our Lord said first to him, " Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men 3" might it not hence be inferred, by parity of reasoning, that he had a peculiar and personal commission to catch men ] Again, the endeavour is made to prove the supremacy of St. Peter over the other Apostles frofli the words addressed to him by Christ, after His resurrection, at the sea of Tibe- rias, " Feed my lambs ; feed my sheep." We believe that these words, far from exalting Peter, were calculated to humble, to teaoh humility, and to renew in him the salutary feeling of a loving repentance. You will perceive the force of this observation, if you reflect that only a few days had elapsed since he had thrice shamefully denied his Lord. On that mournful occasion he had shown that he was not a rock on which the Church could be built. He would almost appear to have forfeited all claim to Apostleship. True, he had repented and obtained forgiveness of his sin ; but miglit he not, again, trust too much in his presumptuous nature, and relapse 1 On that account our Lord seems to have intended to make his call peculiarly impressive to him, so that he miglit never forget it in after-life, it was, there- fore, on that very sea of Tiberias, probably at the very spot where he had first been called and received the title of rock, that our Lord appeared to him, after His resurrection, when he was engaged in his original avocation. Many things had happened since his first call at that very place. The Primacy of Peter. 223 anto Lord owev I rst to But d firs^ men i" g, tliat 1 meii^ nacy of dressed 3f Tibe- g peter, to renew You will that only ly denied that lie ^^e would jostleship. f his sin ; lumptnous seems to Ive to hiiflj ^as, there- ^ very spot ^he title of isurrection, Ion. Hany very pla^^' He had denied his Lord ; the rest of the Apostles had not. It behoved hiin therefore not merely to repent as he had already done, but to give assurances of his love. Hence, Christ asked him thrice " Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these T as if to remind him of his threefold denial. He does not call him Peter or rock, but simply Simon, son of Jonas, the name he bore previous to his first call to the Apostleship. And after having been assured thrice of his love, he gives him the commission to feed His flock, ^nd makes him again a rock, i. e., a foundation of His Church. Thus, instead of being a fresh exaltation to a primacy over the other Apostles, this scene by the lake of Tiberias was in- tended to make his Apostolical call for ever impressive to him. We cannot see how the words of this text can pos- sibly be made the basis of an argument for the primacy. They are indefinite ; we cannot therefore, deduce from them a definite conclusion. " Feed thou my sheep," does not mean, "Feed thou alone, either personally or by agents, all my sheep." Yet, this meaning they must have, if they are construed so as to indicate Peter's appointment as the supreme shephrva. Did the Apostles need to be fed by Peter 1 Were they not immediately taught and guided by God Himself? It is evident that these words create no new authority superior to, and distinct from, the Apostleship. Peter here received no new power, different from that which he together with the other Apostles, had received a little before, when our Lord gave them their Apostolical commission, breathing on them and saying : "As my Father hath sent Me, even so send I you." This solemn authority included the feeding of the flock and all other powers. ■ Nor could St. Peter's charge be more extensive than that . 224 Roman Catholicism. of the other Apostles ; they all had a general and unlimited care of the xoholc flock, according to their capacity and oppor- tunities. None of them was confined to a local bishopric ; the very nature of their Apostleship excluded limits. These are the principal texts which Roman Catholics adduce for the primacy of St. Peter. But their special plead- ing appears to be inexhaiistible. It is astonishing to observe how they twist and turn everything referring to Peter into an argument for his supreme authority. In every incident of his life, in every action performed by him, they fancy they discern some manifestation of his pre-eminence. It betokens the weakness of their case ; but we shall not lose time in following them in their inconclusive argumentation. We find, indeed, no trace of a primacy in the whole New Testament. If such an office had been instituted, it would have been distinctly mentioned, and a distinct name would have been given it. All the other sacred offices are distinctly enumerated by the inspired writers ; but profound silence reigns in the sacred pages in regard to this sovereign office. If we look for the highest position in the Church, we find everywhere the Apostleship indicated, and nothing higher. The New Testament knows of no ecclesiastical king, no vice-gerent of Christ, no high priest, no visible head over all. On the contrary, Christ repeatru)/ protests against every kind of ecclesiastical lordship, and that in the strongest terms. If such an important sovereignty had been instituted, would not Christ have clearly explained its nature, and laid down distinct rules for its guidance, so as to guard against all abuse 1 Would He not have inculcated obedience to this spiritual Lord? Would not the Apostles have exhorte4 their converts to have recourse to him 'i But not a word is I TJie Primacy of Peter. 225 por- tbe olics serve : into jident fancy e. It ot lose itation. le Kew t would } would stinctly silence n office, we fiud higher. al ki^g' ead ovev against strongest a word is spoken on this important point, in the whole range of the Apostolical writings. Again, if St. Peter had been appointed sovereign lord of the Church, should we not find signs of his supreme authority in the two epistles he has written ] We should, at least, discover a trace of it either in the matter or style of his letters. But there is not the slightest indication of anv such authority. " The elders," saith he, " which are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ," tfec, &c. How different this from the style of the letters and bulls of the popes of Rome, his pretended successors ! Certainly St. Peter's letters do not savour of popeiy. In the Apostolical history, we find nowhere that Peter exercised primatal powers in the Qhurch. In the councils mentioned in the first, sixth, and fifteenth chapters of the Acts, we do not find Peter acting as primate or prince. He is, indeed, prompt to speak, but in no case does the decision appear to rest with him. He never assumed any extra- ordinary authority. He appears to have had no thought of supremacy, but laboured hard and assiduously like the other Apostles. We nowhere find that he assigned to them their field of labour, confirmed their acts, or appointed bishops and elders in their field. In all the controversies which then agitated the infant Churches, we never hear of any appeal made to Peter's judgment, or any allegation of it as decisive; and no argument built on his authority. The other Apostles acknowledged no dependence upon him ; on the contrary St. Paul " with- stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Assuredly, the whole New Testament, from the beginning to the end, knows nothing of a " Vicar of Christ." 15 ii LECTURE II. THE POPE'S SUPREMACY CONSIDERED. ROMAN Catholics, in order to establish that the pope is the supreme monarch of the Church, must connect him with St. Peter, by proving that he is his successor in the primacy. The question is, had Peter successors in whatever offices and prerogatives the Lord conferred upon him ] It is marvellous that Roman controversialists take the affirmative answer to this important question for granted. They offer not a scintilla of proof. We maintain that whatever authority he received from Christ was incapable of transfer ; that it was rnQYoly pei sonal and therefore incommunicable to any successors. Roman canon law says : — Privilegium personate personam sequitur, et cum persona extingwilur — a personal privilege doth follow the person, and is extinguished with the person. "Whatever powers the Lord conferred on St. Peter were grounded on personal merits or graces, or upon personal gifts and endow- ments ; they were chanacterized by personal adjuncts and fully exercised in his personal acts. It is therefore unreason- able to extend them beyond his person. The Apostolical office itself, as such, w«^ personal and temporary, and therefore could not be communicated or be- queathed. For it was requisite that an Apostle should be immediately designated and commissioned by God ; that he Tlie Papers Supremacy Considered. ^Tl 3 pope is aect bim )r in the rer offices il It is .ffirmative Ihey offer ived from Roman ,tli follow iWliatever (unded on ^nd endow- Ijuncts and unreason- irsonal and lated or be- should be J that he should be a witness of the resuri. action and ascension of Christ. He was a founder of the Church ; his commission was universal and indefinite, embracing all nations. In a word, the Apostleship consisted of many privileges and powers which could not be transferred to others, nor did the Apostles ever affect to transfer them. Now, we have proved, in the preceding lecture, that the powers which St. Peter received from Christ were not distinct from the Apostolical office ; they ceased, therefore, with his death. But let us even suppose that Christ conferred on him a primacy of jurisdiction over the otlier Apostles, this also must have died with them ; for when there were no longer Apostles in the Church there could be no prince or head of the Apostles. But Roman Catholics say that tlie bishops are the succes- sors of the Apostles. We answer that they were called so by the father ; improperly, and in a broad sense, inasmuch as the episcopal office was contained in that of the Apostleship. But, strictly speaking, they are not successors of the Apos- tles ; for the episcopal office was created by them, and its functions were exercised concuirently during the lives of the Apostles, and in subordination to them. Bellarmine him. ^If, the champion of the papacy, tells us: " There caii be no p... - per succession but in respect of one preceding ; but Apostles and bishops were together in the Church." Bishops may be said to derive their authority from the Apostles, not by real succession, but by ordination and appointment. Can magis- trates be said to be successors of the king becaMFie they exercise some of his powers, and are appointee^ by him 1 If the fathers, therefore, called the bisl>opa successors of the Apostles, they meant that they had received Iheir ordi- nation from some one, either immediately or mediately, whom n 228 Roman Catholicism. some Apostle had ordained bishop. No father ever dreamt that a bishop succeeded to the Apostolical ofl5.ce as such. Roman Catholics agree with us that the powers of the Apostles were extraordinary and unlimited, and that, in this respect, they have no successors; but they maintain that St. Peter's oflSce was that of an ordinary bishop having pastoral charge over the universal Church which they call his diocese, and that as each bishop has successors in his see, so also has St. Peter in his ordinary episcopacy over the whole Church. We answer that this is altogether a factitious argument — a gratuitous assumption. We find no such distinction either in Scripture or ancient tradition ; we are taught there that his charge was as extraordinary as that of the other Apos- tles, and every conceivable pastoral authority over the whole Church was ascribed to them all by the ancients. We everywhere find that the laws of succession to the chief magistracy in any realm are considered of the highest importance, and are clearly and distinctly laid down in order to avoid troublesome misunderstandings and dangerous dis- putes. And are we to suppose that, if Christ had appointed an absolute monarch over His Church, He would not also have given well-defined rules whereby his succession might be determined without shadow of doubt or fear of contradic- tion ? But the fathers of the first centuries know nothing about it, and deep silence prevails in the New Testament touching so important a point. All that Poman Catholics assert in regard to this succession is baseless and fanciful. We now come to the third step in the papal theory, namely the supposition that Peter was the regular and ordi- nary bishop of Rome, that is, chief local pastor of that Church. There are several valid reasons for believing tbtf contrary. The Pope's Supremacy Considered. 229 •eamt 1. )f the li traia lat St. Eistoval iiocese, Iso baB Church, ment — ft either 3re that ir Apos- lie whole n to the 5 highest in order srous dis- ippointed not also Lon might contradic- ;v^ nothing 'estament Catholics .nciful. \ theory, and ordi- >r of that lieving tbti Some learned scholars maintain that St. Peter never was at Rome. Their arguments, indeed, are very strong, and we do not see liow Roman Catholics can overcome them. But the question here principally relates to T^oman bishopric. In the first place, we maintain that the office of an Apostle and that of an ordinary and regular local bishop are incom- patible. Peter, as an Apostle, was commissioned to preach the Gospel to every creature, to travel from place to place, t:; establish Churches, and to appoint bishops and elders ; nnd especially had he the general charge of converting and visiting the Jews dispersed over the whole world (Gal. ii., 8). And we may well believe that he was faithful to his Apos- tolical duties. With the spirit of a true soldier of the Cross, full of zeal, he carried the glad tidings of salvation to many places, and wheresoever he went the fruits of his Apostleship must have been manifest in the number of zealous Christians and flourishing Churches. We find him now at Antioch, then at Babylon, then at Corinth, anon in Palestine; sometimes, probably, at each of those places to which he directs his Catholic t pisiles, " the strangers of the dispersion in Pontus, Galati't, Capy-adocia, Asia, and Bithynia." There were mil- lions oi t»e V dispersed over the provinces of Asia Minor, whom 1 e was .specially commissioned to add to the Church. He musv, have laboured zealously among them. These pro- vinces contained over five hundred towns of considerable size ; yet, we gather from his epistles, and from other writers, that he was well acquainted with them, that he preached the Gospe' everywhere amongst them, founded Churches and ordaii^'^^ ; \ 8l^\vS and elders. In fact, the most flourishing ChurcLeo were those of the provinces in which Peter laboured* as an Apostle. Now, how can vvt reconcile such an Apostolate, and the .•u I'l: 230 Roman Catholicism. zeal Peter displayed in performing its duties, with an ordi- nary local bishopric 1 How could he be local pastor of Kome without neglecting his Apostolical duties? How could he give special attention to the Roman Church when his Apos- tleship urged him to spread the Gospel everywhere? How could he combine both offices in himself, since one would have been sufficient to occnpy all his care and attention ? "Would it not have been a L v ^ring of the Apostolical office to become local bishop of Roji Would such a course not be the same as if a bishop became, a deacon r Would his act- ing as an ordinary bishop not have been much, as if a king, besides his royal duties, filled the office of mayor of a city ? Besides, why did he need to be a local bishop, when he, like the other Apostles, exercised episcopal supervision wherever he went? In fact, we find both him and the other Apostles superintending episcopally the local Churches when upon their Apostolic journey ings. If Peter had been Bishop of Rome, in the ordinary sense of the word, he would have violated several wholesome ecclesiastical rules which were in full force from the beginning — or, at least, the reasons for which were always considered valid — and would thus have given a bad example to the whole Church. One of these rules was that the local bishop should always reside in his district. Peter would constantly have violated it had he been thi3 local bishop of Rome. Another rule which held good from the beginning was, that a bishop should not desert one Church and transfer himself to another. Peter would have broken it when he transferred his see from Antioch — where they say he was for seven years bishop — to Rome. Another ancient rule was, that no Church should have two The Papers Supremacy Considered. 231 )rii- d Ke Hovr jvereign, [Hell the louls are »le to so 1st. Peter m to the corrupt metropo- priptures, le claims dogmas, Several md obser- )ng them. ortAiodox teaching is said to hinge, should be a conspicuous article in the ancient creeds, and should not be omitted in the ancient catechisms or expositions of Christian belief. But we do not find it there. If the bishop of Rome were the head of the Church, the history of the papacy would be the history of the Church ; and therefore it is strange that Eusebius in his Church History ignores altogether the supremacy of the pope. Nor do any of the fathers, in speaking of the different Churches, or in explaining the nature of the government and discipline of the Church, ever mention such a headship or seem to be aware of the claims of the Roman bishop. The Apostolical Canons and The Const if. utions of Clement^ two very ancient works, which describe the government of the Church, its various offices, discipline, and customs, the ranks, duties and privileges of all ecclesiastical persons, do not utter a single word about the pope and his prerogatives. But if he had been the universal monarch of the Church, it is singular that they should not even mention him or his office. From these works we distinctly gather that the Church is not an ecclesiastical monarchy. If the pope had been acknowledged the univei-sal teacher and pastor of the Church, the fathers, in their disputes against the heretics, would in the first place, have sought and urged his decree, as the conclusive argument, and as the most effi- cacious method of convincing or silencing them. But they appeal to Scripture, tradition, and reason, and seem not to be aware of such a universal teacher. Nay, they often resisted the teachings of the popes, and that, in later times, would have been considered downright heresy. Moreover, even the bishops of Rome, themselves, for several centuries, did not dream of the high claims which their successoi*s in the ages following advanced ; they were M 238 Roman Catholicism. not aware that they were the heads of the Church. In their elaborate works against heretics, they content themselves with urging testimonies of Scripture and arguments groun- ded thereon, never asserting their own definitive authority against them. We may be certain that the divines of the Koman curia have made the most diligent search, in all the documents of Christian antiquity, for arguments and proofs in order to establish the supremacy of the pope, the central point of their system. But the impartial enquirer will find that they are not conclusive. It is painful to see how earnest men wrest words, and, from the pre-occupation of their minds, appear determined to make out their point by far-fetched applica- tions and by strained inferences. It is astonishing, if the pope were the sovereign monarch of the Church, as they would have him to be, that in so many ponderous volumes of ancient fathers, living through so many ages after Christ, those vast treasuries of learning and piety, in which all the truths of Christianity are dis- cussed, and all the most important duties inculcated, this all- important article of faith, this momentous point of practice, this Christian duty of obedience to the pope as head of the Church should not be expressed in clear and peremptory terms. When did this doctrine originate? How did it growt How is it that it has got such a firm hold on the minds of men 1 Let us consider these points in our next lecture. their elves roun- lority curia nts of der to F their ey are , wrest appear pplica- Lonarch it in so hrough arning ire dis- Jiis all- ractice, of the mptory growl linds of Ire. LECTURE III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY— THE ROMAIC BISHOP- RIO IN THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. THE papacy is the growth of ages. It commenced with the introduction of sacerdotalism into the Church and the coping stone was laid by Pius IX., in thr Vatican Council. The student of history, following it step by step, erceives it growing before his eyes, but fails to notice any ine element in it. Clerical ambition had first to be in- troduced into the Church, before the bishop of Rome could dream of a primacy. We find that the government of the Church in the first century was very simple. Congregations were small ; they assembled in private houses. Presbyters or elders, and deacons or ministers appear at first to have been the only officers. Soon bishops or superintending elders were ap- pointed by the Apostles. The nature of orderly Church- government required that as the congi-egatiou increased some one elder should puperintend the management of its afiairs. The episcopal oversight did not long remain confined to one congregation. The bishop preached the Gospel in the neigh- bourhood, and formed new communities to which he ap- pointed presbyters ; and it was proper and reasonable that he should also superintend these Churches. But the epis- copal office of those times difiered greatly from the episcopal sway and lordship which were afterwards claimed. , 1^ , ; ; _/^- Hi 240 Roman Catholicism. i\' I '.r.-- "We fixid that the priiuiti^'^e Churc?ies were entirely inde- pendent of each otlier, each one managing its own affairs in perfect liberty. But the government of the Chuich under- went a change towards the latter part of the second century, when Churches associated for mutual counsel and assistance and met together in Synods, to which each community sent its delegates. At first, each of these associations extended to one province only ; but soon these provincial synods gave rise to larger assemblies. It was the system of association which first increased the pov/er of the bisliops ; for they alone were considered the natm-al and rightful delegates and representtitives of their Churches. It created new offices of honour and jurisdiction which soon became objects of am-^ bition. A metropolitan was placed over each province, and a patriarch over associations of several provinces. At the same time, the bishops commenced to look upon themselves as successors of the Apostles, and those Churches which were immediately founded by the Apostles enjoyed greater honour, and were called Apostolical Churches. The Churches lost their primitive independence, for tliey ^ere now governed by canons framed in these synods and general assemblies. At the same time, sacerdotalism and its satellite ritualism made their appearance and m course of time were firmly eatabliahed in the Church, giving to the clergy an immense authority over the laity ; vdiilst the bishops came to be regarded as the high priests of their respective charges. Thus we find that the government of the Church, in the third century had become an -i/ristocratic oligarchy. It was contend*^d that the universal authority of the Apostles had descended to <.he ivhole body of bishops. No single bishop was as y.et believed to be the inheritor of all the Apostolical Development of the Papacy. 241 powers, for all bishops alike were said to share in them, and they could not be exercised except hy the whole united episcopate. The bishops of tlie Apostolical Churches appear to have enjoyed greater honour; and the patriarchs of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were placed in the first rank. The bishop of Rome soon oogan to enjoy a pro-ominence of order and association, but not of jurisdiction. No bishop ruled as yet over another ; they wore perfectly independent in the man- agement of their own dioceses. In the Apostolical Canons, The Constitutio^is, The Recoijnitions, Clementine and other documents which were forged about this time, we find no traces of a papal supremacy. But the first incentives to thia claim had been given and the first foundations of an ecclesiastical monarchy laid. The rights of the people and clergy had been destroyed by the bishops. The next step towards introducing an ecclesiastical sovereignty was to reduce the authority and independence of the bishops. A spiritual oligarchy having enslaved the people, the inevitable consequence must follow that an ecclesiastical despot will be found to subdue the ej)iscopal oligarchy. At the end of the third ce itury we find that Ihe bishops have made the bisho}) of Rouie the first patriarch in the Church. Out of this patriarchate the papacy was gradually but perse- veringly developed. The conversion of Constantino had a great influence on the sovemment of the Church. The Christian Church became the Church of the Roman empire. Clvarch and State were 30on united. We read in Eusebius that the emperor divided the administration of the Church into an external and inter- nal inspection ; and although he left the latter to the bishops, he assumed the former to himself. He exercised supreme con- 16 242 Roman Catholicism. trol over the whole ecclesiastical body in so far as he deemed it conducive to the public good. He accommodated the divi- sions of the Church into ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses to the divisions and subdiviiions of the empire. Leaving to the bishops the government of their particular churcV i, he aided theuiin determining controversies. To this end he called together the first general council at Nicaea, and his successors adopted the same ecclesiastical polity. From this it is evident that, although uhe bishop of Rome ■was allowed to be the first patriarch, his primatial jurisdic- tion was even yet unknown. Wiiat would have been the need of general councils, ii he had been the infallible head of the Church as Roman Catholics suppose him to be ? Would the emperors have taken so active and prominent a part in the general o\ ersight of the Church 1 Would not the pope have protested against undue secular interference 1 Yet, notwithstanding that the supposed claims of the Roman bishop were steadily, and without protest, ignored, the Roman see was moving onw^ard, gradually and imperceptibly, towards supreme authority over the entire Church. It has ever been the policy of the bishops of Rome to hold fast and retain tenaciously what they have once got into possession, and to make it the stepping-stone to a further development of their power. We see nothing singular in this if we reflect that, ever since the third century, the bishops were the lords of the Church, and ambition was one of theii besetting sins, in fact the curse of the Church. Each bishop considered it his sacred duty to preserve intact the privileges of his see, and, if possible, to enlarge them. The history of the Church pre- sents to us a continual struggle of these priestly lords for the nggrundizemont of their power. Episcopal arubition and lordly pride, indeed, have always been the bane of Christ's Development of the Papacy. 243 iemed ! divi- oceses ing to -\, he end lie md Ms • I Rome urisdic- leen tlie head of Would I part in the pope 1% Yet, . Roman e Roman ^ towards jver been nd retain n, and to »t of their fleet that, e lords of ig sins, in jred it his J bee, and, turch pre- cis for the (ition and ,f Christ's Church. It seems, therefore, quite natural to us that the bishop of Home should follow the example of his episcopal brethren and pursue the same course in maintaining and extending his rights. The papacy is the legitimate offspring of episcopal pride and corruption. Circumstances favoured the prelate of Rome. It will be conceded by all that the lustre and prestige of a bishopric greatly depend upon the secular importance of the city over which he presides. Now, Rome was the imperial metropolis of the world ; tliither men resorted from all parts of the vast empire, either for the various purposes of civil government or for other suflficient reasons. The bishop of that city pre- sided over the most wealthy and influential Church ; he had the means of assisting those who applied to him for aid. Since the Church had become united witli the State, he must hav T wielded considerable influence with the higher powers. He had the advantafje of beins: known throughout the whole empire, and the splendour in which he lived excited general wonder and admiration. It is quice natural that, as bishop of tlie first city, and enjoying advantages above the rest of his brethren, he should have been considered first bishop in the Church, and held in high esteem and veneration among his brethren. And it may be supposed that, as a matter of coui'se, he enjoyed a certain pre-eminence of order and honour ; that his opinion was sought by contending parties ; and that in the assemblies he attended, the presidency devolved upon him, without dis- pute. That all these honours were showered upon him, at ' first, solely because he was bishop of the first city of the empire, is indisputable from the fact that as Coiistautinople afterwards became the imperial metropolis, the bishop of that city claimed equal honours with the bishop of Rome — because it was New Rome, ivml ! 244 Roman Catholicism. It is in the nature of power to grow and extend itself, laying hold of everything within its grasp, watching opportu- nities for its aggrandizement, and improving them to the best advantage, overcoming opponents and gaining new friends and adherents. Hence the growth of the papacy is a repetition of the old story, how mighty empires arise and grow out of small beginnings. Rome being the first city, an. Apostolical see founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, its bishop claiming to be the successor of St. Peter, — these were the beginnings of the papacy, from which the race for supremacy began. In this struggle for sovei'eignty, Rome had the advantage over secular powers because she claimed spiritual authority over the consciences of men. Spiritual power is of a growing nature ; it insinuates itself into the heart ; its arms are the most subtle, yet the most potent, and they cannot be captured or destroyed by any eartlily opposition. They are always ready furnished and make a powerful impression, since the Church can promise God's blessing and eternal happiness to those who obey its commands, and threaten the disobedient with divine vengeance and eternal misery. ^ The next important step which the bishop of Rome took in his contest for the sovereignty of the Church may be traced in some canons of the council of Sardica (in 347) which introduced appeals to him, in certain cases. These canons are very doubtful in point of autbciitlcitv and, even if genuine, by no means recognise the supremacy or establish it, and at any rate were applicable only to the West. But they did the popes great service and proved potent engines by which to enlarge their power and enslave the Western Church. They were emboldened by them to receive all kinds of appeals and to reverse the judgmrata of provincial coun- cils. Development of the Papacy. 245 itself, )ortu- to the new ;y is a_ ;e and it city, I Paul, —these race for v^antage ithority growing are the japtured 1 always dnce the iness to obedient toe took may be |(in 347) These . Ind, even establish t. But It engines Western all kinds 5ial coun- We find also that the imprudence of the emperoi's and the precipitate action of bishops afforded fatal opportunities for eT hancing the power of the bishops of Rome. Although they were merely citizens like the other subjects of the empire, and instead of making ecclesiastical laws, were obliged to obey those made by the femperor or by councils convened under his orders, yet the emperors sometimes referred impor- tant causes to their judgment. Nay, Valentinian went so far as to enact a law (in 372), " empowering the bishop of Rome to examine and judge other bishops, that religious dis- putes might not be decided by profane or secular judges." The bishops would have spurned the idea of deriving their authority from the bishop of Rome or of holding their com- missions by favour of the Roman see, because they con- sidered themselves inde[)endent of it, both as regards the origin of their authority and the manner of exercising it. Yet we find that, as many of them were cringing flatterers of the powerful and influential Roman prelate, they unconsci- ously forged fetters for the enti'"^ episcopate. Thus the bishops assem))led in council at Rome (in 378) highly ap- proved of the above mentioned law of Valentinian and humbly petitioned the emperor Gratian to give it full force. These and similar laws, and not divine authority, formed some of the material out of which the papacy was bviilt by slow yet sure instalments. In order to understand the growth and development of the papal power we must also take into consideration the state of the Church during the first eight centuries. The whole em- pire was agitated by the most vital questions, both religious and political. The very existence of Christianity was at stake. Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monothel- ism, &c., &c., with their numerous ramifications, were rend- I '1 246 Roman Catholicism. yn^ and convulsing Christendom. The bishops of the chief city were compelled to side either with the one party or the other. And it was but natural that the party with whom they sided, being successful, should look up to them as leaders and chieftains in their cause. Now, it so happened that, in those doctrinal questions which form the basis of Christianity, the Roman pontiffs took the side of the ortho- dox or Catholic party, which fought for the cause of truth and obtained the final victory. This espousal of the truth, and tlie successful issue of its contest with heresy, gave the bishops of Rome great influence in the Church. The fore- most champions of the truth, such as Athanasius and Cyril- his, and other good bishops and eminent men who were violently persecuted by the heretical factions, sought and found shelter under the protection of the powerful bishop of Rome. As a matter of course, he was extolled by the pre- vailing party, and obtained both reputation and power. It was for this reason that the Sardican synod framed those canons of appeal which became one of the main engines by which he raised himself so high. As we have stated above, the bishops commenced as early as the third century, if not earlier, to encroach upon the rights and privileges of the clergy and laity. Their turn of enslavement came on next, gradually, but surely. The his- tory of the third and subsequent centuries presents to us a dis- gusting spectacle of prelatical ambition, dissension, and war- fare. The whole empire was agitated by the ambitious schemes of the bishops. They endeavoured to extend their respective spheres of jurisdiction and encroached upon one another's rights. Pretexts were not wanting in palliation of their ambitious designs. Some thought the political impor- tance of their episcopal city a sufficient reason for asserting Development of the Papacy. 247 chief or the whom lem as jpened asis of ortho- l truth 3 truth, ave the [le fore- d Cyril- 10 were crlit and )ishop of the pre- wer. It ed those igines by as early upon the X turn of The his- o us a dis- and war- ptmbitious ,end their upon one palliation cal impor- asserting ecclesiastical superiority; others alleged its Apostolical origin, pretended or real, as an incontrovertible ground of pre- eminence ; others claimed episcopal jurisdiction over those re- gions which had been converted to Christianity through their instrumentality. These ambitious intrigues revolutionized the constitution of the Church, and i->atriarchal government was the issue. Thus another step was made towards an eccle- siastical monarchy. The patriarchate will finally be merged into the papacy, but the episcopate must first be weakened and humbled under the patriarchate, before it can be en- slaved by one spiritual despot. At first, only the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexan- dria were endowed with patriarchal dignity and jurisdiction. To these very soon the bishop of Constantinople was added, on account of the political importance of his see. . The bishop of Jerusalem agitated next for patriarchal honours, on account of his see being the mother Church of Christendom, and these were confirmed to him by the Council of Cliaicedon. Henceforth the quarrels of these five patriarchs become conspicuous in the Church. In proportion as they allowed the bishops under their jurisdiction to trample on the rights of the people, they themselves curtailed the privileges of their brethren of the episcopal order and lorded it over them. Instead of promoting peace, they fomented dissensions in order to enjoy the exquisite pleasure of exerting the patriarchal power, which they constantly enlarged. In order to subdue the bishops, these lordly patriarchs became the special patrons of the monks, those lazy and turbulent pests with which the Church, especially in the East, was then swarming, and by munificent donations and concessions en- gaged their services to oppose the authority of the bishops. They were the ecclesiastical army of the few spiritual despots iT (■ 248 Roman Catholicism. who then ruled the Church. It appears to us that the monks have certainly been the principal instruments, in the hands of ambitious rulers, first in establishing and then in consolidating the papacy. At no time, even down to our own, could the papacy have continued to exist without them. If the patriarchs oppressed their inferiors, they also tried to extinguish each other. The bishop of Constantinople con- tested the supremacy with the bishop of Rome, and used every form of intrigue to crush the other Eastern patriarchs. The latter, although struggling with all their might against that ambitious prelate, succumbed to his suj)erior power and had to submit to his rule. But the Roman pontift' was too potent for the patriarch of Constantinople. We have thus advanced another step in our exposition of papal development. Spiritual despotism is firmly rooted in the Church, and the contest for ecclesiastical supremacy is reduced to two rivals, the bishops of Rome and of Constan- tinople. The dissensions in the east contributed to enhance the power of the Roman bishop ; for the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, in their contests with the Byzantine prelate, alternately fled to Rome for succour and protection, and the inferior order of bishops applied also to the Roman see when their rights were encroached upon by the bishops of Alexan- dria and Antioch. Even the patriarchs of Constantinople, who, in their prosperity, rivalled the bishop of Rome, applied to him for aid when they v/ere opj^ressed by the emperor, or when they had to contend with a rival competitor for their bishopric. If thus the Eastern bishops fled to Rome in their distress, there was a similar concourse thither from the West, where the pope exercised patriarchal jurisdiction without dispute. Development of the Papacy. 249 it the in the hen in to our ; them. ,o tried )le con- Ld used liarchs. against (,ver and was too sition of •ooted in emacy is Constan- mce the Antioch prelate, I, and the I see when Alexan- mtinople, J, applied iperor, or for their |e in their :he West, without This proceeding on the part of oppressed bishops does not prove the universal supremacy of tlie bishop of Rome, but it greatly increased his influence. For what will men not dq when in straits ] They must flee som jwhere for redress, and if they believed that the patriarch of Rome could aid them, why should they not have recourse to him % It was but natural that those who thus applied to Rome, should extol the authority of tlmt see, not merely to display their gratitude, but also to advance their own cause ; for the greater its authority, the more weight the decision of its bishop would have in their case. Moreover, the Roman clergy, tlie bishops of Italy, and others in the West who basked in the sunshine of the bishop of Rome, enjoyed his favours and participated in his privi- leges would, of course, exert themselves to the utmost to enlarge his authority and induce him to believe that he was in fact and of right the ruler of the universal Church. It was their policy to urge him to higher assumptions, and assist him by all means to acquire power and maintain it. Even if there had been a Roman bishop of no ambition, his power would have grown of itself. He only needed to be passive therein, and his partisans would work for him, be- cause they had as deep an interest in its firm establishment and solid advancement as himself But we have no instances of this want of ambfcion in the bishops of Rome. They were gradually, but by no means reluctantly, led into the belief that they were the spiritual sovereigns of the Church. Little by little their })Ower in- creased. It was considered a sound maxim by the bishops, not only to retain what they possessed, but also to increase it. Why, then, should the bishop of Rome have sci-uples in en- larging his power 1 Men had recourse to him, and, in order to 250 Roman Catholicism. mn I ill obtain his countenance and influence in their behalf, used ex- pressions magnifying his authority ; was it not natural that he should view this language in the light most favourable to himself? Suppliants, in their addresses to him, often employed words which in themselves do not mean a real sup- remacy, but were nevertheless interpreted as implying it. Thus successor of Peter, Apostolic see, prima sedes are merely terms of honour ; the word -of bishop applied to St. Peter does not mean a bishop in the proper sense ; the word head signi- fies any kind of eminence ; prince, any priority ; to preside, any kind of superiority ; successor, any derivation of power ; authority, any kind of influence upon the opinions and actions of men. The atmosphere in which the Roman bishops moved had the effect of inspiring them with the ■ idea of power. They lived in great splendour, the men with whom they came in daily contact cither crouched silently be- fore them or treated them to the most fulsome adulation. Men are naturally prone to exalt pov.er, and the possessor of it greedily accepts flatteiing words as true, and construes them in their most attractive sense. Hence it is not surpri- sing that the bishops of Rome, in course of time, should be- come im])ued with the belief that their authority extended beyond the limits of their patriarchate. There are many reasons why the Roman pontiffs outran the patriarchs of Constantinople in the race for supremacy. The mighty political convulsions which commenced in the fourth century, contributed greatly to this end. The impe- rial power was on the wane, and its abandonment of Rome and removal to Constantinople, instead of diminishing the authority of the Roman bishop, greatly increased it ; nay, left it almost free of control. From this time forth, besides the spiritual, he commence. I, also, to assume a tempori'l Development of the Papacy. 251 ased ex- val that ^' our able n, often real sup- lying it. •e merely •eter does Odd sigi^i- ) jyreside, of power ; lions and e Roman with the ! men with silently be- adulation. possessor of construes not surpri- should be- py extended Stiffs outran I supremacy, iced in the The impe- it of Rome tnishing the led it ; nay, lorth, besides a teuipori^l sway ; for not only did the order of the city depend greatly on his authority, but sometimes he was obliged to meet the invading conquerors of the North and treat with them for its very life and existence. "Where kings and emperors would have failed, the Roman 'j^oni'fi'x maximus succeeded. The incursions of the barbarians contributed greatly to the advancement of his power. For when those rude and unsophisticated sons of the North perceived how the peo- ple were led by the bishops and how they depended upon the pope, they were moved by the desire to reconcile this potent high priest by treating him with the deepest rever- ence and conferring upon him all the honours and benefits they could bestow. It may seem paradoxical, yet it is true, that these northern nations, so free and unbridled, contributed more than any other single cause to the growth and consolidation of the papacy. As pagans they were absolutely enslaved by their priests, the druids, whose authority they consulted in all affairs, civil or military. They had a chief druid or high priest who exer- cised boundless power and whom they honoured with the most abject veneration. Now when they, almost en masse, embraced Christianity, they brought all this slavish submis- sion into the Church and lavished it upon the Christian priesthood : they regarded the bishops as they had erewhile regarded the druids and the pope as the archdiuid, and con- ferred upon him an authority greater than he had enjoyed as pontifex maximus. However, the papal edifice was by no means complete even yet. What Rome had gained in the West, it lost in the East. The contest between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople continued without respite until the final rupture in the ninth century. The Roman bishops sometimes gained advai ^ages 252 Roman Catholicism, U;' C-: 11 III M. I- over their Eastern patriarchal opponent ; but they were only temporary. It was a contest not only about the limits of their respective patriarchal jurisdictions, but also touching supreme dominion over the whole Church. Both were de- termined and obstinate ; one or other must ultimately yield, or the contest would finally end in a schism between Western and Eastern Christendom. Pope Gregory the Great in vain opposed the assumption of the title of Oecumenical Bishop by tL"; oold prelate of Constantinople (A.D. 588). Pope Boniface III. prevailed uj)on the Emperor Phocas, notorious for his crimes and tyranny, to take from the bishop of Constantino] )le the title of (Ecumenical Bishop and confer it upon the Roman bishoi). This is the first in- stance in which we find the papal supremacy openly and officially recognized, but it was never acknowledged in the East. Other causes afterwards added fuel to the bitter ani- mosity. Favourable opportunities several times presented themselves for healing the old wounds and uniting the two Churches ; but the insatiable ambition and unreasonable de- mands of the Roman pontifi" destroyed all possibility of an amicable adjustment, and a final and complete disruption was the result. Thus the grasping ambition of the bishop of Rome was the cause of the division of Christendom into two great sec- tions bitterly opposed to each other. He never held swo in the East and never exercised supreme authority ove] intellectual Greeks ; it was amongst the Western barbar. is only that he managed to develop the monstrous claims ol the papacy. Let us continue the consideration of this development in our next lecture, ere only imits of touching were do- sly yield, between rrorv the title of ,antinople ! Emperor bake from jal Bishop le first in- penly and Iged in the bitter ani- presented g the two sonable de- ,ility of an disruption Rome was great sec- heid swi» ty ovei barbari.-is Ls claims ot [lopment in LECTURE IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY AFTER THE ORE AT SUJIISM. LET us continue, in tliis lecture, our review of the de- velopment of the papacy. We have followed it up to the schism between the East and West. The West, hence- forth, is the only field in which the bishops of Rome may put forth their ambitious claims. But even here this develop- ment required centuries. They directed every effort, religious and political, to estab- lish and enlarge the authority and pre-eminence they had ob- tained from Phocas, the most odious tyrant that ever disgraced the annals of history. But we find that their ambitious views were strongly opposed, not only by the emperor'^ and kings, but also by the various nations of the West. Their election and confirmation depended on the will of the civil powera. They had to obey the temporal rulers and act as dutiful sub- jects, like other citizens. We learn from Be^Ie that the ancient Britons and Scots knew nothing of the papacy and could not be induced to submit to the decrees of the ar- ro 'nt Roman pontiffs. Spain and Gaul retained, for a long time, their ecclesiastical independence, and often sturdily op- posed the encroachments of the papal see. Even in Italy his power w . limited ; and there were multitudes of private persons who opposed the lordly ambition of the bishopsi of Rome. Yet, such opposition w^as by no means considered as savourin ' of heresy or schism. 254 Roman Catholicism. TlinTly trans- L-ence \vith iped upon iiaken from and silver, r the clergy tnonasteries les, and for- )0\ver began y gladly re- Iproof? from torial dona- f)vigin In the li in dethron- crown for Ithe powerful nbards and m dukedom. )mbards and }!• Pepin had West by the Ir upon Char- lemagne, and crowned him solemnly at Rome, added im- mensely to the dignity and dovelojuiient of the papal au- thority. From that time forward the popes claimed the right to confirm and crown the emperors. Nothing, how- ever, contributed more to the enlargement of the papacy than the investiture of the pope and the bishops with temporal sovereignty : for the pope had now the means of enforcing his spiritual claims. He was greatly fa\oured in the enlargement of his des- potic authority by the exaggerated views \\ liich began to be entertained in the eighth century of the terriblo potency of ex- communication. In former ages excommunication entailed, it is true, many disagreeable results, yet the excommunicated person was not deprived of his privileges as a itizen, or of the common rights of humanity. The Northern Nations brought with tliem into the Church their high and mons- trous views in regard to ecclesiastical excommunication. They attributed to it the same terrible cflccts which they had believed that the excommunication of their pagan priests brought upon the jiccursed. Hence persons who were exclud- ed from the communion of the Church by the pope or bishops forfeited o.i that account, not only all their civil rights as citizens, but also the common [)rivik'g('s of humanity. Ex- communication had the awful elfect of dissolving all con- nexions ; it meant outlawry from all society, comi)lete degradation of the man. King or prince, under this fearful sentence, not only lost his crown, but became an object of aversion to all his subjects. No wonder that the popes, with such a weapon in their hands, could go onward in their march for absolute and unlimited supremacy, and linally claim to be supreme lords of the universe. Again and Jigain did the papacy profit and grow stronger h , «fF= 'I ;? 1 1:1 'I 256 Roman Catholicism. by the disturbed state of the empire. It might -have been a blessing to the world and, in many cases, have prevented war and bloodshed ; but in order to obtain its sinister ends it often plunged nations into long wars, social confusion, and misery. It leavned its first lessons of temporal aggrandize- ment in the fall of the old Boman empire ; success embold- ened it and, through a long series of centuries, it became the universal marplc' — the promoter of commotions ard blood- shed amongst the European nations. Its sole aim was to be- come a powerful and universal kingdom of this world. It obtained its end ; but how much misery and injustice has it to ansti^er foi* ! From the time that it acquired the first beginnings of temporal sovereignty, we have to look upon it as a political institution and to explain almost every step in its career on political grounds. Its Iiistory exhibits the worst features of intrigue, and the most unblushing knavery, displayed chiefly in the forgery of documents to sustain its enormous pre- tensions. The popes could never have succeeded but for the gross ignorance and superstition which for many centuries covered the European nations like a thick cloud ; for spiritual des- potism can only be exercised over an ignorant and super- stitious people. Another important step was made by the pope in the direction of temporal influence, when he assumed to himself the right of noniinahion to the imperial throne. The fierce and bloody war tliat broke out between the posterity of Oharleniagne, after the death of lie wis II., first furnished him with an opportunity of exercising this pretended right. He obtained new concessions and large sums of money, by appointing successively, Charles the Bold, Carloman, and *"n ave been )revented Lster ends ision, and ^grandize- ;s embold- ,ecaine the ar d blood- was to be- worM- It Lstice has it ginnings of s a political ts career on t features of laved chiefly ormous pre- 'or the gross u-ies covered ipiritual des- and super- pope in the ed to himself The fierce posterity of vst furnished jtended right. 3f money, by larloman, and Review of the Development of the Papacy. 257 Charles the Fat. After the death of these Emperorc;, the empire was rent in pieces ; the greatest confusion reigned everywhere, and the highest bidder was generally raised to the Imperial throne by the greedy pontiffs. The popes, in this confused state of things, made mighty strides in their course towards universal dominion. Their in- fluence, in civil affairs, rose in a short time to an extravagant height, by the favour of kings and princes, on whose behalf they had employed the authority superstition had given them over the minds of the people. From the same causes, their dominion in religious matters made equal pro- gress. From the time of Lewis the Meek, the ancient rules of ecclesiastical government were gradually changed in the West. The princes lost that influence in Church-matters which they had exercised since Charlemagne, the bishops their independence, and the general and provincial councils their authority. By every means in his power, the pope endeavoured to persuade all that he was the supreme legis- lator and universal bishop of the Church ; that all bishops derived their powers from him ; that all councils, both general and provincial, had no authority but from him, and could do nothing without his permission and consent. Of course all these pretensions were advanced at favour- able opportunities, when the minds of the people had been sufficiently prepared and seemed ripe for their reception. But it was not to be expected that so thorough a change m the government of the Church could be made without a certain amount of opposition. The bishops of Rome wero^ aware that their word and authority alone were not sufficient to introduce the new order of things. They knew that they must produce ancient documents by which they might 17 . i) ■.m': ^IMi 258 Roman Catholicism. justify their course. And ap there were no such documents in existence, they forged them. Forgery was not a new art to the Roman pontiffs. They had forged documents before the ninth century, and had been successful. Rome had been habituated to it by a long series of systematic fabrications extending back to the sixth century. To glorify the Roman see, spurious Acts of Roman Martyrs began to be compiled, at the beginning of the sixth century, and were produced from time to time, afterwards, .for some centuries. For a similar purpose the story of the Conversion and Baptism of Gonstantine was invented, to make Pope Sylvester appear to have been a worker of miracles. About 514 the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa, The Legend of Pope Marcellinus, and the Constitution of Sylvester were forged to prove that no one could judge the Roman see. The Gesta Liherii and the Gesta of Sextus III. were fabri- cated in defence of these popes. The works of St. Cyprian were interpolated to suit the pretensions of the Roman bishop. The Liber Pontifcalis was another forgery, com- menced in the sixth century, pnd continued afterwards. It was devised to prove the " Acts of the Roman Martyrs," to confirm the existing legends about popes and emperors, and to exhibit the popes as legislators for the whole Church. After the middle of the eighth century the famous Donation of Constantine was concocted at Rome, in order to induce Pepin to concede temporal sovereignty to the bishop of Rome. Other fabrications appeared soon afterwards, for the purpose of persuading Charlemagne and his successors to confirm and enlarge the temporal power. We may say, therefore, that Rome was the hot-bed of for- gery and continued so for several centuries. When the pc "/ta of the ninth century desired to give credit to their new eccit-A- Review of tlie Development of the Papacy. 259 locumerts ffs. They , and had ; by a long 3 the sixth of Roman f the sixth afterwards, itory of the ivented, to , worker of 'nuessa, The of Sylvester Roman see. were fabri- St. Cyprian the Roman )rgery, com- (rwards. It Martyrs," to iperors, and Lole Church, lus Donation er to induce le bishop of erwards, for successors to 9t-bed of fi r- len the pCAa new eccit-A- astical code, they were not at any loss for documents. They forged them ; nay, they were ready at hand ; and had already been forged for them. A writer in the west of Gaul — about 845 — desirous of protecting the bishops against the metropolitans and secular princes, fabricated a large number of pretended decrees of popes, acts of councils, and other documents. He prefixed to them the venerated name of Isidore, bishop of Seville, in order to make it appear that this great man had collected them. He completely failed of his purpose ; for the collection, instead of freeing the bishops, completely enslaved them. These spurious decretals became a powerful instrument jn the hands of Nicholas I. (858-867) in pushing the limits of the Roman supremacy to the point of absolute monarchy. This bold and aspiring pontift' met the doubts of the Frankish bishops, who opposed them, with the assurance that these documents and all others ever issued by his predecessors were preserved with honour in the Roman archives. And in a synod held at Rome (863) he anathematized all who should refuse to receive the teaching or ordinances of a pope. Hence these pseudo-Isidorian decretals became the found- ation of the papal claims to supreme dominion. Never, in all history, has a forgery been so successful. For three centuries now, this huge fraud has been exposed, not only by Protestant, but also by Roman Catholic scholars ; yet the principles it introduced have taken such deep root in the Church, that the exposure of the fraud has produced no tangible effect in shaking the papal system. After the seeds of the new ecclesiastical code had thus been sowji by Nicholas I. a blight seems to have fallen upon the papacy for the next two hundred years. With scarcely an exception, the popes of this period were so many monsters, 260 Roman Catholicism. not men, pretending to be heads of the Church and con- secrated to the service of religion. They were guilty of the most flagitious crimes, as Roman Catholics themselves admit. The Roman see became the prey and plaything of rival factions of nobles and even of dissolute women. For a long time, the Tuscan counts made the pontificate hereditary in their family. Again and again profligate boys occupied and disgraced the Roman see, until, at length, when three popes were contending for the papal chair, the Emperor Henry III. put an end to the scandal by elevating a German bishop to the papacy. With Leo IX. commenced the Hildebrandine era of the papacy. Two centuries had elapsed since Nicholas I., on the basis of the pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, had introduced a new ecclesiastical code. In the state of corruption and ignorance which followed, the seed had taken firm root in the Church. Everyone now accepted the false decretals as authentic and true ; yet the Church lay prostrate. The evil must be remedied ; and a still greater concentration of power in the Roman pontiflf, by the establishment of an absolute spiritual monarchy was looked upon as the only -remedy. A power- ful party was formed in the Church, of which Hildebrand was the leader, which laboured with all its might to weld together all the Christian states into a theocratic priest-kingdom, with the pope at its head. It was the aim of this party not only to render the pope the absolute and supreme monarch in all spiritual matters, as bishop of bishops, but also to make him the king of kings and to emancipate the Church altogether from the control of princes and people. It was held that he possessed the power of creating and deposing kings, and of giving away whole kingdoms to whomsoever he pleased. Hildebrand was the adviser of Leo IX., and his immediate Review of the Development of the Papacy. 261 ,iid con- jT of the 3 admit, of rival r a long reditary )ccupied jn three Emperor German sra of the I., on the ed a new Ignorance 3 Church, lentic and must be irer in the spiritual A power- and was together lorn, with not only rch in all make him Itogether d that he TS, and of 3 pleased, mmediate successors. At his instigation, Nicholas II. gave Calabria and Sicily to Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia, on condition that, as a faithful vassal, he should acknowledge an inviolable allegiance and fealty to the Roman see. There was no earthly reason justifying this act, except that the pope had the whole universe for his domain. He. also, advised the same pontiff to give the election of the pope altogether into the hands of the cardinals and to deprive the emperor and the people of any voice in the matter. Hildebrand succeeded Alexander II., and assumed the title of Gregory VII. I shall say nothing, in this brief outline, of his character ; for it is well known to every reader of history. " None of his predecessors is like unto him. If they had ambitious ends in view, they never rose to the highest pinnacle in their pretensions, nor did tliey set them forth with sufficient clearness and distinctness ; their aims were high, but hazy and confused. But Gregory VII. knew what he was about. He alone of all the popes may be said to have had the clear and determinate purpose of introducing a new constitution for the Church and by new means. Nicholas I. alone approaches him in this, but none of the later popes, all of whom have only followed him as their leader and carried out the plans which he laid down." " Gregory saw from the first that synods regularly held by the popes, and new cod^s of Church law, were the means for introducing the new system. Synods had been held, at his suggestion, by Leo IX. and his successors, and he himself carried on the work in those assembled after 1073. But only popes and their legates were henceforth to hold synods ; in every other form the institution was to disappear. Gregory collected about him by degrees the right men for elaborating his system of Church-law. Ansel m of Lucca, nephew of r 8f? -F ■ I i 262 Romaft Catholicism. Alexander II., compiled a most important and comprehensive work, at his command, between 1080 and 1086. Anselm may be called the founder of the new Gregorian system of Church-law, first, by extracting and putting into convenient working shape everything in the Isidorian forgeries service- able to the papal absolutism ; next, by altering the law of the Church, through a tissue of fresh inventions and inter- polations, in accordance with the requirements of his party and from the stand-point of Gregory. Then came Deusdedit, whom Gregory made a cardinal, with fresh inventions. At the same time Bonizo compiled his work, the main object of which was to exalt the papal prerogative. The forty pro- positions or titles of this part of his work correspond entirely to Gregory's Dictatus and the materials supplied by Anselm and Deusdedit. The last great work of the Gregorians (before Gratian) was the Polycarpus of Cardinal Gregory of Pavia (before 1118), which almost always adheres to Anselm in its falsifications." (The Pope and the Council, hy Janus, page 82.) " Clearly and cautiously as the Gregorian party went to work, they lived in a world of dreams and illusions about the past and about remote countries. They could not escape the imperative necessity of demonstrating their new system to have been the constant practice of the Church, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish where involuntary delusion merged into conscious deceit. Whatever present exigencies required was selected from the mythical stores at their command hastily and recklessly ; then fresh inventions were added, and soon every claim of Rome could be shown to have a legitimate foundation in existing records and decrees." (Ibid., page 84-) " It is so far true to say, that witliout the pseudo-Isidore ilJ Reviezv of the Development of the Papacy. 263 there would have been no Gregory VIT. , that tlie Isidorian forgeries were the broad foundation upon which the Grego- rians built. But the first object of Isidore was to secure the impunity of bishops, whereas the Roman party — which for along time had a majority of the bishops against it — wanted to introduce a state of things in which the popes or their legates could summarily depose bishops, intimidate them, and reduce them to complete subjection to the papal behest!?. The newly invented doctrines about the deposing power con- tributed to this end. In a word, a new history and a new civil and canon law were required, and both had to be obtained by improving on the Isidorian principles with new forgeries. The corruption of history was to some extent provided for in Germany by the monk Bernold, and in Italy by the zealous Gregorian Bonizo, bishop of Piacenza, who tried, among other things, to get rid of the coronation of Charles the Great. The other assistants had to invent or adapt historical facts for party purposes, for their new codes of Church-law innovated largely upon ancient Church- precedent. Gregory himself had his own little stock of fabricated or distorted facts to support, pretensions and under- takings which seemed to his contemporaries strange and unauthorized." " At the same time Gregory thought it most important, with all his legislative activity, lofty claims, and high-handed measures, not to seem too much of an innovator and despot ; he constantly affirmed that he only wished to restore the ancient laws of the Church and to abolish recent abuses. When he drew out the whole system of papal omnipotence in twenty -seven theses in his JDlctatus, those theses were partly repetitions or corollaries of the Isidorian decretals , but, on the other hand, he and his friends and allies sought 264 Roman Catholicism. i 48 to give them the appearance of tradition and antiquity by new fictions," (Ibid., page 84-86). We might continue quoting from this erudite work and show how, by the aid of well-fabricated forgeries, Gregory and his co-workers imposed their new constitution upon the Church. Nor was he remiss in enforcing his claims, with all bold- ness and against all opposition. Whenever it appeared possible, he endeavoured to engage in the bonds of allegiance to the Roman see the kings and princes of Christendom. Here he met with strong opposition, but nevertheless proved Buccesfctful in a number of cases. It was the policy of this haughty and imperious pontift' to resort constantly to extreme measures in enforcing his decrees against abuses. Thus, to eradicate the vice of concu- binage from among the clergy, he enforced complete celibacy, punishing not only the guilty but also the innocent, by com- pelling them to send away their lawful wives, without delay. By thus destroying all family-ties of the clergy, he thought to render them more devoted to the Church ; but it cannot be questioned that enforced celibacy has been a fruitful cause of immorality in the Church of Rome. Moreover, in order to repress the vice of simony connected with the investiture of bishops and abbots who held temporal domains, he adopted the extreme measure of depriving the emperor, kings and princes of all voice and control in nomi- nating to vacant bishoprics and benefices. And when the emperor Henry IV. resisted the most odious provisions of the papal decree, Gregory deposed him, absolving his sub- jects from the oath of allegiance, and treating him in the most shameful manner. At the pope's instigation, another emparor was elected and confirmed by him. Thus the whole empire Review of the Development of the Papacy. 265 iquity by work and , Gregory . upon the h all bold- appeared ' allegiance ristendom. less proved s pontiff to forcing his 36 of concu- 5te celibacy, nt, by com- hout delay. thought to cannot be itful cause ly connected jld temporal priving the :ol in nomi- |d when the Irovisions of |ng his sub- in the most [her emparor Thole empire was plunged into the horrors of a civil war, which lasted for many years. In a word, the whole activity of this unscrupu- lous but powerful pope was employed not only in tyranniz- ing over all orders of the Church, but also in aiming deadly blows at the thrones of emperors, kings, and princes. His pontificate was a continual scene of tumult and bloodshed, all occasioned by his ambitious arrogance. From Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII. (1073-1294) the papacy was at the zenith of its power and glory. It is the golden period of papal supremacy over Church and State. They acted as lords of the universe, establishing kingdoms and giving them away at i)leasure, deposing empBrors and kings and absolving subjects from the oath of allegiance ; and stirring up the most deadly wars wherever their authority was contradicted. They endeavoured, by all means at their command, to make the whole world a theo- cratic priest-kingdom ; and we may truly affirm that the Roman pontiffs were at the bottom of nearly all the wars which deluged Europe with blood, during this period of papal absolutism. A desperate struggle was going on between the empire and the priesthood, the popes advancing their mon- strous pretensions with characteristic power and cunning ; the emperors and princes, on the other hand, using their utmost efforts to disconcert their measures and to curb their power. The effect of these unhappy dissensions was felt throughout all the European nations. Who, we ask, is answerable for the cruel civil wars that were caused by the deposition of emperors and kings, and the absolving of sub- jects from the oath of allegiance, but the haughty bishops of Rome 1 What else caused the long and bitter contests be- tween the Guelphs and Ghibellines, but the determined reso- lution of tlie popes to establish and maintain their lordly 266 Roman Catholicism; \ ;i i'M ' s !i- ; •\\\ RHccindaiicy ] And who, in countrieH beyond the limits of the Roman empire, were the chief instigators of political conspiraci(;s, who fomented civil strife and contention, but the Roman pontiffs who were everywhere present, through the agency of crafty and unscrupulous emissaries and legates 1 Let the impartial student of history answer. Roman Catholics justify the deposing power of the pope and his constant interference in the secular government of kingdoms, on the pretext that it formed part of the interna- tional law of those times ; that it was a right accorded to him by the European nations : in a word, that the pope was looked upon as a sort of international king and as the uni- versal arbitrator between contending parties. We answer that this justification contradicts the plainest facts of history. No ; the secular governments, far from according to the popes this power, strenuously resisted it ; hence those wars and tumults. On the other hand, the popes claimed it as a sacred right inherent in their office as heads of the Church. They cherished it as a token and evidence of the plentitude of their power. The ^v.lis — and they are numerous — in which they assert and exercise this pretended power, do not utter the language of a mere arbitrator, whose authority depends on the consent of the contending parties. Consent of the contending parties, indeed ! Why, it was the pope himself who in most cases occasioned disputes, by his encroaching and ambitious pretensions, and then used the lash on the party that contradicted him. It was the pope who claimed as his possessions and fiefs all the kingdoms of the world, by virtue of his supreme headship over the Church. It was the pope who, under the pretext of his in- herent power, created i.jw kingdoms, and appointed kings and princes over them It was the pope who asserted that none Review of the Development of the Papacy. 267 limits of political tion, but through I legates 1 the pope rnment of e intevna- ccorded to ! pope was iS the uni- he plainest J, far from •esisipcl it ; , the popes ce as heads kd evidence ,d they are Is pretended ator, whose iing parties, it was the |utes, by his m used the as the pope kingdoms of ip over the Ixt of his in- iuted kings ,ed that none could rule without liis consent, approval, and supervision. There is no semblance of any international law, during the period of the papal ascendancy, nominating the pope an arbi- trator between the nations. Tnie, they often did good by their timely and opportune interference in secular matters, in those distracted times ; but we cannot shut our eyes to the immense mischief they inflicted on the superstitious and long-suffering peoples of Europe. Most certainly they laid claim to this immense power solely in virtue of their otfice. But to return to our narrative. Let us touch upon the principal features of the development of the papacy, during the period of its highest splendour. After the death of Gregory VII., the same restless element continued to disturb both Church and state. The policy, which he had inaugurated, of ir troducing a new con- stitution into the Church, and of rendering the papacy supreme in all matters, both ecclesiastical and temporal, was steadily and unflinchingly pursued by his successors. The contest about investitures went on with unabated bitterness. Urban II. was not behind Gregory in arrogance and pride ; he even surpassed him in bold and aiulacious measures. In the famous council of Clermont, where he kindled a new war against the Mohammedan possessors of the Holy Land, he published a law forbidding the bishops and the rest of the clergy to take the oath of allegiance to their respective sovereigns. Paschal H. was another instance of insatiable and in- flexible papal ambition. He not only renewed the extreme measures of his predecessors against investitures and the ex- communications against Henry IV. ; but it is believed that he instigated an unnatural son of this unhappy and pope- persecuted emperor to rebel against his father and to ascend 268 Roman Catholicism. the imperial throne under the name of Henry V. It is, at least, unquestionably certain that Paschal II. dissolved the oath of allegiance which Henry had taken to hia father, and adopted the cause of this unnatural rebel. During the spivce of fifty-five years, after the death of Gregory VII., the papal chair was occupied by monks who governed like monks. Not only were they of obscure birth and of unbounded avarice and ambition, but us heads of the Church, they displayed that unbending temper and obstinacy, which are essential ingredients in the character of a monk. It was not until Guy, archbishop of Vienna, duke of Bur- gundy, and a near relative of the emperor, a man of an ingenuous andm. • ..animous character and liberal education, was raised to the papal throne, under the name of Calixtus II. (in 1120), that the question concerning investitures was finally settled. A little moderation was all that was re- quired for this purpose. If his predecessors had possessed even a modicum of that quality, torrents of blood and thou- sands of valuable lives would have been saved. The contest between the emperors and popes was renewed under Hadrian IV. (in 1155), a native of England, whose former name was Nicholas Breakspear ; it increased in vehemence under Alexander III., who loaded the emperor Frederick Barbarossa with anathemas and execrations, de- posed him in the year 1167, and exhorted his subjects to shake ofi" the yoke. Alexander's success in his contest with the proud emperor raised the papacy to an enofmous height. This pope, like some of his predecessors, exercised the pre- tended right of erecting new kingdoms, by conferring the title of king upon Alfonso I., duke of Portugul. But the papacy reached the highest pitch of power under Innocent III., who became pope in the year 1198. Circum- Review of tJie Devdoprr ^nt of the Papacy. 269 . It is, at solved the father, and 16 death of monks who )scure birth leads of the d obstinacy, of a monk, ike of Bar- man of an J education, of Calixtus stitures was hat was re- id possessed »d and thou- ^as renewed rland, whose Increased in ^he emperor jrations, de- subjects to contest with LOUS height. |sed the pre- iiferring the )Ower under 18. Circum- stances enabled him to enlarge His own immediate temporal dominion, the states of the Church. He claimed to be the supreme lord over all kingdoms ; and whenever a favourable opportunity presented itself, he asserted this outrageous claim. He gave a King to the Armenians; and, in 1204, erected Bohemia into a kingdom, and bestowed 'the royal dignity upon Primislaus. He appointed the iKike of Bulgaria and Wallachia king over that srritory, and crowned Peter II. king of Arragon. But above all, he endeavoured to exercise lordship over the emperor and other powerful kings of Europe. And when these princes resisted his ambitious and overbearing interference, he hurled sentences of excom- munication and depositions against them, which took terrible effect in desolation and bloodshed. No monarch felt more severely the galling despotism of this haughty pontiff than John, surnamed Sans Terre, king of England. Thus the papacy went on in its glory, accpiiring constantly new power and consolidating what it had acquired, up to the time of Boniface VIII. in 1294. This arrogant pontiff car- ried the pretensions of llie papacy to a height somewhat akin to frenzy. His bulk are an everlasting monument of the abuse of spiritual p wer, of monstrous pretension and undis- guised absolutism. But Philip the Fair, king of France, knew how to subdue the pretentious pope ; and after his death the papal residence was transferred to A vignon, where it remained for seventy years. Let us pause here for a moment and enquire into the causes which, after Gregory VII., mainly contributed to in- crease and consolidate the absolutism of the popes. The revival of the Roman law in the twelfth century af- ford jd an excuse to the Roman pontiffs and their adherents for having the canon law placed on Jho same honourable 270 Roman Catholicism. footing. With this view, Gratian, a Benedictine monk of Bologna, about 1130. composed an epitome of canon law for the use of schools. Gratian made this collection from the Isidorian forgeries, and from the writings of those who as- cisted Hildebrand in introducing the new Church constitu- tion. It goes by the name of Decretum Graiiani. And as it had for its object the establishment and justification of papal absolutism, it was patronized by the popes, although it abounded in the grossest errors. Almost immediately after its apjiearance, it became the standard work on canon law and its authority was appealed to as final. No book has contributed more towards advancing the absolute power of the popes than this consolidation of forgeries. Several other books of papal decrees were afterwards appended by difierent popes, so as to make the collection of the corpus juHs canonici complete. Canon-law became the favourite study of the clergy ; and all who sought to obtain ecclesiastical preferment in the Roman curia, were required to be proficients in this science. All the so-called learning, thus disseminated, worked in the interest of the papal system ; for every part of the canon-law made for Rome and gave renewed power to the pope. The crusades, which were carried on during this period of papal splendour, brought with them a new source of influence to the Roman pontiffs. The whole of Europe felt an earnest interest in these holy wars. The popes were their anima- ting soul ; they appointed the leaders, awarded privileges to tho crusaders, and adjusted the system of penances and in- dulgences. They were the superiors of those powerful mili- tary orders which originated daring the period of the crusades and spread their lanrifications throughout Europe. All this gave additional weight to the authority of the popes. ReviciV of the Development of the Papacy. 271 ion law •rom the who as- constitu- And as ication of though it tely after canon law 3 book has e power of jveral other by difterent tudy of the ,1 preferment ,ents in this Usseminated, Ir every part ' red power to Moreover, the two great univerf>ities of the world, Paris and Bologna, which were in the hands of the monks, the faithful allies of the popes, were under complete papal con- trol and performed their part in advancing the power of the spiritual monarchy. Then again the new religious orders of mendicant friars contributed more effectually perhaps than any other agency to undermine the old Church-system and to introduce the new order of things, in which they were to rule together with the pope. The most absolute and over- bearing popes were monks themselves, and had nothing in common with the bishops and parish-priests. After the removal of the papal residence to Avignon, the authority of the popes commenced to decline. Then followed t !< lung schism of forty years, which still further lowered it in the estimation of Christendom. The councils of Con- stance and Basle healed the schism, by declaring the general council, i.e. the Church, superior to the popes. The newly elected pope, Martin V., and his successor, Eugenius IV., approved these decrees, and thus condemned in advance the recent Vatican council. But why did not the nations throw off the yoke of tha papacy since they had so bitterly experienced the curse it had brought on all Christendom % Alas ! they were not yet ripe for that important step ; they were still too much trr.m- meled by ecclesiastical traditionalism : in a word, they knew no other Church-system than the })apacy. They knew that it had deeply fallen, and that it was the fruitful source of dis- cord and corruption in the Church, but they fancied that it could be reformed. Reformed ! They were deceived ; the papacy is irreform- able, for a pestilential and intoxicating air seems to surround the papal throne. So soon as they had set it on its legs 272 Roman Catholicism. M ' I again, so soon as it was able to stand, it kicked against the reforming decrees and tendencies of these councils and re- pudiated their authority. A papal reaction took place almost immediately, which resisted every attempt at reform. The papacy relapsed into its former corruption. Christendom was compelled to see the papal throne occupied by an Alex- ander VI., who scandalized the Church by the most notorious crimes and degrading vices, and was infinitely worse than any pope who flourished during the pornocracy of the eleventh century. The papal yoke became more galling than ever. Hence we are not astonished that, when the humble and resolute monk of Wittenberg raised his eloquent voice boldly against the papacy, millions were ready to join him in the noble crusade. The reformation inflicted a severe, but not deadly, blow on the papacy. Its absolutism was crippled ; but it entered on a new path of pretension. Henceforth the claim to infallibility was set foi th as the panacea for curing all its ills, as a means of regaining the ground it had lost and of inspiring the members of the Church with renewed confidence. Let us consider this claim in our next lecture. Men and brethren, does not the history of the develop- ment of the papacy clearly show that the Christian Church as an outward and visible institution is not endowed with the gift of infallibility 1 History teaches that tlie papacy is a huge imposition — a glaring lie. The Church-sanctioned this monster lie and became identified with it. How can any one maintain, after this, that she is infallible ] The very exist- ence of the papacy within the Church, nay, at the very head of the Church is the strongest refutation of the doctrine of Church infallibility. inst the \ and re- ok place t reform, •istendom an Alex- notorious i than any , eleventh Ein ever imble and oice boldly him in the L-e, but not ,s crippled ; iceforth the I for curing it had lost |th renewed xt lecture, [le develop- ian Church led with the papacy is a Ictioned this can any one very exist- te very head doctrine of LECTURE V. Development of the doctrine of papal infallibility. IN our last two lectures, we considered the principal features in the development of papal absolutism, and saw how from small beginnings it grew to be an all-absorbing power* But mere absolutism does not close the history of papal development. Secular power may rest when it has reached the apex of despotism, and rely on its might. But spiritual absolutism has no raison d'etre and no reasonable and firm hold on the conscience, unless it lays claim to the gift of infallibility. Inerrancy must needs be the foundation of an absolute spiritual monarchy. The popes knew and felt this exigency. Hence we observe that, from the very beginning, and whilst they were aiming at universal and supreme dominion, they put forth also their claim to infallibility, timidly and obscurely at first, but with gradually increasing firmness afterwards. Circumstances favoured their efforts to obtain absolute power, but the Church's acknowledgment and endorsement of their personal infallibility remained unconceded ; indeed, the Church resisted this claim. She had discovered, by bitter experience, that papal absolutism wjis the source of all her ills. Whonce arose that seandalcMis condition of the [)apacy, commonly called the Roman poruocracy, and the consequent 18 ■^1 'fl «», , ! ■- % 274 Roman Catholicism. prostration of the Church which commenced with the preten- sions of Nicholas I. and lasted for more than two centuries, but from the intoxication of absolute power % "Whence those civil broils, and those torrents of blood, under such popes as Gregory VII., Paschal II., Alexander III., Innocent III., Boniface VIII., and others, but from the abuse of papal absolutism % Whence the many schisms, especially the long one lasting forty years, but from the excessive thirst of the popes for despotic power ? What do the Councils of Constance and Basle mean, but a rising of the Church above the prevailing absolutism of the papacy, and a stern resolve to apply the remedy to abuses % Where would the popedom now be, into what fearful abyss would it have sunk, had not the Church come to its rescue, in the Council of Con- stance, by proving herself superior to it and claiming her pristine rights % But alas ! the Church was too feeble ; and papal absolutism had taken too deep root. She only clipped the wings of the papacy ; they soon grew again, and its pretensions became as vigorous and lofty as ever whilst the Church appeared to sink more and more into hopeless cor- ruption. But no ! God is with her. She suffered and lay prostrate but she will rise again. Whence those mighty risings of the sixteenth century % Whence the grand upheaval of the Reformation % It is the Church which is in the agonies of new birth. She is wrestling to be free from the intolerable yoke of papal despotism. She comes out from the popedom and leaves it far behind in the gloom of the past. She can- not convert it to the truth, nor is she able to destroy it ; for it is too wealthy and too mighty in temporal resources ; in short, it is a kingdom of this world. All that she can do is* to proU^t against its absolutism and Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 275 B preten- euturies, ace those popes as ent Ili'» of papal dally the e thirst of Councils of LO Church ,nd a stern would the have sunk, ncilofCon- laiming her feeble ; and 3nly clipped tin, and its r whilst the Lopeless cor- lay prostrate lisings of the laval of the le agonies of le intolerable Ithe popedom ]t. She can- jstroy it ; fo^ -esources ; iu ^solutism and corruption. But her protest is powerless and the papacy remains. Too many have a worldly interest wrapped up in its continued existence. It persecutes, and wages cruel wars against the Reformation ; it calls to its aid the bloody inquisition, and where the reformed Churches cannot be reached by open hostility, it sends out its secret emissaries to intrigue or sow the seeds of discord amongst them. Secret emissaries ! yes, Rome has always had its secret emissaries. From the very beginning of popedom, the monks have been its faithful allies and secret tools. They always acknowledged in the pope their absolute master and liberal patron. From him and through him they enjoyed honour, wealth, immunities, and privileges. If it had not been for the monks, there would be no papal absolutism. If the old orders proved unequtil to new emergencies, new ones were called into existence. Thus, at the time of the Reformation, the order of the Jesuits took its rise to assist the papacy against its enemies, and to defend its threatened cause. No order of monks was ever so well adapted to secure the final triumph of hierarchical monarchy as the Society of Jesus. They received within their body none but those who could be made really useful — they discarded altogether the proverbr.al laziness of the monks. Only men of more than ordinary talent and genius were accepted within their ranks. Their policy was prudence, but that prudence soon degenerated' into craftiness and cunning. Their guiding and supreme purpose was to advance the interests of the Roman Church both within and with- out her pale. They went forth as zealous missionaries to the Indies and the new World ; and we find them in Protestant countries, in all disguises, like cunning serpents, struggling to undo the work of the Reformation. We cannot deny that 5f II !j 276 Roman Catholicism. Jesuitism has been tlie greatest foe of Protestantism and are forced to acknowledge that on many occasions it has proved only too successful in its assaults. But within the pale of the Roman Church itself the Jesuits have been a mighty power. The question of papal infallibi- lity has been, par excellence, their question ; they espoused it with all their indomitable energy and brought it to a success- ful issue, after toiling long to iwepare the Church's mind for its dogmatic definition. It would have been wholly incon- sistent with the principles of their order to acquiesce in any half-and-half views on the question of papal infallibility. The Jesuit is bound to yield a hlind obedience to his superiors ; he undergoes a severe novitiate in which he is trained to this perfect submission of his will. He sees the highest perfection of piety in submitting his understanding to that of another ; the highest sacrifice, according to his views, and the sacrifice most acceptable to God, consists in surrendering intellect and will in blind subjection to another. The Jesuit order is modelled after the Roman hierarchy ; what the pope is in the Church, that the general is in the order. And as the highest perfection of the Jesuit consists in yielding his intellect and will blindly to the commands of his general, so he holds that every good member of the Church should likewise believe blindly whatever the pope teaches, and unreservedly obey what he commands. The very nature oi the Jesuit order necessarily requires extreme absolutism in the Church ; and every Jesuit must unavoidably be an ardent advocate of papal infallibility. In his eyes, every restriction of the pope's authority is an abomi- nation ; every opposition to his teaching, Luciferian pride. According to him, every Christian is bound to submit his understanding and will to the pope ; and the bishops Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. Til 11 and arc IS proved he Jesuits I infallibi- spoused it I a success- 's mind for oily incon- jsce in any ifallibility. I superiors ; i trained to the highest ig to that of views, and rrendering The Jesuit [at the pope r. And aa ielding his general, so |rch should laches, and lly requires Fesuit must [bility. In an abomi- L'ian pride. I to submit Ihe bishops especially ought to be foremost in this submission as patterns to their flocks. The Jesuit makes this sacrifice twice, first to the pope, then to his general. Cardinal Pallavicini, one of their order, reduced the doc- trine of the Jesuits, on this point, to a clear and definite formula when he taught, " that the collective Church is a body inanimate when alone and without the pope, but informed by the pope with a soul." (Storla del Con. di. Fr. I. 103). " To this soul, therefore, i. e., to the pope, belongs dominion over the whole Christian world ; he is its monarch and lord, and his authority is the foundation, the uniting bond, and moving intelligenco of all ecclesiastical govern- ment." (Ibid., I. 107). The Infallibist doctrine could not be expressed more definitely than by saying that the whole Christian world has but one thinking, moving, and volitional soul, and that soul the pope. The Jesuits, therefore, became the out-and-out champions of the infallibility theory. Prior to the existence of the Jesuit order, the doctrine of papal infallibility was hazy, vague, and nebulous ; the Jesuit theologians brought it into clear and definite shape and formulated it ; and in their treatises on dogmatic theology it occupied a conspicuous place. It cannot be denied that the men who stood forth as its champions were eminent for their talents and learning ; but it is not the less true that they were crafty and unscru- pulous. Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Jesuit divine, after philosophizing at length on the nature of the pope's authority and its relation to the Church, has no better argu- ments for papal infallibility than those drawn from the pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and kindred fabrications, to which we referred in our last lecture. He made a copious use of these spurious documents. It is difficult to believe in the • i) Mr. 1 278 Roman Catholicism. entire good faith and sincerity of Bellarmine, because a man of his ability and scholarship could hardly have been so blindly credulous. However that may be, Bellarmine's arguments are based on forgeries, fabrications, and interpola- tions of the fathers, A rigorous censorship was established in Rome by which every work that pointed out or admitted that these testimonies were spurious, was condemned and suppressed. The inquisition and the index lihrorum pro- hihitorum were believed in E-ome to be sufficiently powerful to suppress criticism and Church history, or, at least, to con- ceal from the mass of the clergy the fact that these documents were spurious. In order to imbue the clergy with a high veneration for the papal see, and to instil into their minds the belief in infalli- bility, a number of ancient popes, with proper offices and lessons were introduced into the breviary ; and all these pious readings were extracted from the papal fabrications and legends. And as if this were not enough, Cardinal Baronius, the Jesuit Church-historian, who received authority from the pope to re-edit the Roman martyrology, manipulated this work in a truly Jesuitical manner, correcting those portions that might engender suspicions dangerous to papal absolut- ism and infallibility, and adding from spurious documents anything that might tend to the glorification of the papacy. In fact, this work, the " Annals of the Church,'' compiled by this talented and laborious Jesuit, forms a vast repertory of spurious passages and fictions. Other famous Jesuits, such as Maldonatus, Suarez, &c., &c., adopted the same tactics of defence, and made copious use of the pseudo-Isidorian decre- tals and other fictitious documents to prove their thesis of papal infallibility. Indeed, they seem to have observed Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility, 279 ^vith slavish fidelity the maxim that " tht end justijics the means." It may thus be easily explained how within a very short period after the spread of the Jesuit order the hypothesis of papal infallibility had made such rapid progress. Their advocacy of infallibility was infectious; they were active and energetic ; and were regarded as the champions of Roman Catholicism, raised by a special providence to defend and uphold the Church against her enemies. They esta- blished colleges in all Roman Catholic countries, from a shrewd and far-seeing determination to attract the youth to their schools and to train them in their particular views on papal infallibility. Their text-books on dogmatic theology were of a superior character, and soon found their way into many clerical colleges and seminaries. No wonder, then, that the doctrine of infallibility s[)read very rapidly. But there was one obstacle in the way of this infjillibility- doctrine, which it was not easy to overcome. Every enquirer and reader of history discovered some papal decisions of a verv doubtful and indefensible character ; others contradicted older doctrines laid down by popes or generally received in the Church. How were these contradictions to be recon- ciled] It became necessary to fix upon some distinctivo marks by which a really infallible decision of the po})e might be recognized. The Jesuits were not at a loss. They intro- duced the famous distinction of papal decisions promulgated ex cathedra. Such decisions alone were to be considered infallible. We shall touch upon the difficulties with which this distinction is beset in another lecture. But had the Jesuits all the field to themselves, without opposition, I do not say from Protestants, but from Roman Catholics % No ; thinking Roman Catholics could not for- get the corruptions of papal absolutism and the calamities IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) V] ^ /}. '<^A ^a #1 ^/\ '/ m '/A 1.0 iii IIM 112.5 I.I m 1.25 Photogi-aphic Sciences Corporation 22 20 1.8 1.4 ill 1.6 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY 14580 (716) 872-4503 v\ *% 280 Roman Catholicism. with which it had afflicted the Church. The successors and descendants of those who had remedied the ills of the Church in the councils of Constance and Basle could not forget that these councils had clearly decreed the superiority of a general council over the pope, and that these decrees had been ac- knowledged and confirmed by the popes themselves. All nations, except the Italian and Spanish, which were ruled by the Jesuits and intimidated by the Inquisition, opposed the infallibility of the popes. These opponents of papal iner- rancy were called Gallicans, because the French divines took the lead in this opposition and formulated its distinctive principles. On the other hand, they called the Infallibilista Ultramontanes. Ever since the rise of the Jesuit order, a fierce theological war had gone on between the Galilean and Ultramontane schools. The Gallicans defended episcopal, and the Ultra- montanes papal infallibility. Both were wrong. The error of both wa^ generically the same ; the disagreement was only specific. Both believed in the fiction of ecclesiastical infalli- bility ; they differed merely in regard to the seat of that in- fallibility. According to the Gallicans, the bishops were in- fallible ; in the Ultramontane view, the head of the Church enjoyed that gift ; he is the active part and communicates his infallibility to the bishops who are Hlq passive recipients. The Jesuit hypothesis had many advantages over the Galilean theory. First, the advantage of logic. The Galli- cans taught the infallibility of the episcopal body and the superiority of an (Ecumenical council over the pope. The Ultramontanes would reply that if the collective body is in- fallible, the head which represents that body and forms its visible and permanent centre, must also be infallible. If the Gallicans maintained that the unitv of the Church could be Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 281 Bssors and tie Church brget that ■ a general I been ac- Ives. All re ruled by )pposed the papal iner- livines took distinctive [nfallibilists B theological Itraniontane [ the XJltra- The error mt was only itical infalli- ,t of that in- lops were in- the Church (inniunicates >e recipients. IS over the The Galli- »dy and the pope. The body is in- Ld forms its ^ble. If the ch could be preserved and controversies of faith determined only by a general council, the XJltramontanes would urge the inex- pediency and insufficiency of such a means, as being only periodic and intermittent, and therefore they contended that only an easily accessible, ever watchful, and infallible centre could compass these ends. The Ultramontane doctrine had the pope himself on its side, which served considerably to increase the number of its adherents. Writers in favour of papal infallibility were sure to be rewarded with preferments of value and distinc- tion, whilst Gallicans would be left out in the cold and looked upon with suspicion. It was usual to raise the most distinguished advocates of infallibility to the papal throne. The popes, wherever possible, filled vacant bishoprics with loyal Infallibilists. More persistently than ever, in encycli- cals and bulls, they assumed the lann dned by other -jn in the first of God is the [that the Holy ,h. That the lere enquirer !clesiasticism, [bility, cannot tan Catholics |r all the only has revealed ation. Yet, of faith and ay as to con- form with our mental constitution. He is the Author both of the Bible and of the human mind. It is not His will that we should hlindhj submit to the definitions and decrees of any mortal man. He has given us a rational mind to think and to judge, and a free will to accept or to refuse. The Jesuit doctrine of blind faith and obedience which, in our days, has beon the real foundation of the Vatican decree is at variance with our spiritual nature and with the will and w^ord of Grod. Christian faith is an intelli- gent assent. God wish ' us "to prove all things- r..nd to hold fast that which is good " (i Thess. v., 21),*' to try the spirits whether they are orod '' Ct John iv., 1), and to refuse obedience even to an angfl from heaven if he preach a differ- ent gospel (Gal. i., 8). The iiersean Jews are recommended for searching the Scriptuv-^s daily whether those things were so (Acts xvii., 11). But the Vatican infallibility-defini- tion destroys the industrious application and intelligent assent of our intellect and will in matters of faith. It destroys our responsibility. Moreover, these philosophizing arguments of Ihe infalli- bilists can have no weight with the serious and thoughtful Roman Catholic. He requires documents from tradition or history and from Scripture — the unwritten and written Word of God. For it has always been held by the Church that neither the pope nor the bishops can create dogmas, but that they are only the trustees and witnesses of the deposit of faith. According to their rule of faith, they must prove that this infallibility dogma has been believed semper, ubique, et ah omnibus — always, everywhere, and by all. Now, it can be conclusively proved that it lacks every one of these three marks of catholicity. Eminent Roman Catholic divines, of the Gallican school, before the Vatican i I i 292 Roman Catholicism. council, incontrovertibly refuted the modern papal claim, to our complete satisfaction. We open the pages of ancient Church history and read them attentively, but nowhere do we find this doctrine ; nay, the more attentively and profoundly we prosecute our historical studies, the less we shall see of papal infallibility. We do not find it where undoubtedly it should be found. If this cardinal doctrine had always been believed, and occupied the prominent place it holds at present, it should be found in the ancient creeds. They were many, both general and local, and held an important place in the economy of the Church \ but we seek in vain therein for the doctrine of papal infalli- bility. All the catechumens should have been carefully in- structed in regard to this corner-stone of the Christian faith, and firmly grounded and built up in it ; but we do not find the slightest mention of it in the ancient catechetical instruc- tions written for their iise. If the pope had been believed to be infallible, what need, one may ask, would there have been of oecumenical councils for the settlement of controversies of faith 1 Yet, in the undivided Church we have eight of them ; and what coun- cils! Instead of the pope convoking them, they were con- voked by the Greek emperors ; instead of presiding therein, the popes were not even present ; and as to the confirmation of the pope being necessary for the validity of their acts, no one dreamt of such a thing. It would have been an unheard of thing that the Roman bishop should, within the council, issue the decrees in his own name, sacro approbante concilio. No ; the councils acted altogether in their own name, and issued their decrees in the fulness of their own authorit^^ They even judged the letters of the popes and approved or condemned them according to their merits or demerits. They Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition. 293 not only assumed the fallibility of the bishop of Home, but the sixth cecumenical council (680) anathematized Honorius, pope of Rome, for officially teaching and abetting the Mono- thelite heresy, which anathema was signed not only by all the bishops, but even by the three legates of the pope, and was repeated in the seventh and eighth councils. These councils were held in the East, and therefore pre- sent to us immediately and directly the teaching of the Greek Church. In no authentic document of that Church do we find the faintest trace of the doctrine of papal infalli- bility. The total absence of such documents in the most important branch of the Christian Church, during the first eight centuries, speaks volumes against modern papal pre. tensions. "SioT are the infallibilists more successful in their patristic researches, for the fathers knew nothing of this doctrine. At the very outset we must exclude all the Greek fathers, who in no sense whatever can be said to favour it. The Latin fathers, who are few and of later date, acknowledge in the bishop of Rome a patriarchal authority over the Western Churches, but no infallibility in teaching. The African Church, the daughter of the missionary zeal of Rome, should surely have beheld in its bishop the infalli- ble head of the Church. It was a flourishing Church and very zealous in the observance of discipline and for fidelHy to right government. Its bishops were remarkable for their learning. The names of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine will for ever live in the memory of the Christian Church. Yet, this Church, like all the others, had a method of settling controversies of faith, altogether different from that of the modem papacy. They appealed to the catholic consent as ascertained by local and general councils. I i 294 Roman Catholicism. I ■■ I f True ; St. Cyprian, in his zeal for a visible and tangible unity, endeavoured in much that he wrote, to give the Koman see a conspicuous place among the Churches ; but he had no glimpse whatever of papal infallibility. The system of unity which he advocates is that of episcopal solidarity and equality ; and he stoutly opposed Pope Stephen's view of the validity of heretical baptism. The Ultramontanes imagine that they find in the writings of the great St. Augustine proofs of the infallibility of the pope. They are greatly mistaken. He has written more about the government of the Church than all the other fathers put together, yet there is not a single chapter in his voluminous works in which he speaks of the supremacy, much less of the infallibility of the pope ; nay, we go further, and assert there is not even a single sentence that caij be construed in favour of this doctrine. But what does his famous dictum mean : Roma locuta est, causa finita est 'i Does it not mean that the pope is infallible 1 By no means. In the second volume of the works of St. Au- gustine, Nos. 175 and 176, we find two letters of the councils of Carthage and Mileve addressed to Innocent I., bishop of Rome, in which he is requested by the fathers of those councils to condemn the Pelagians. There is nothing in these letters which tends to show that they believed in the bishop of Rome as the infallible head of the Church. Indeed they would not have written to him at all if a particular circum- stance had not impelled them to it. This circumstance we learn from the next letter No. 177, which Augustine and four other bishops, together with the fathers of the council, wrote to Pope Innocent. They had heard that, in the city of Rome, where Pelagius had lived for a considerable time, there were some who favoured his cause. They were afraid Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition. 295 tangible give the 1 ; but be e system arity and ew of the ) writings Lty of the ;ten more the other )ter in his ipremacy, ro further, hat cau be t does his dnita est ? 8ofSt.Au- ae councils I., bishop s of those ing in these the bishop ndeed they lar circum- nstance we ine and four iincil, wrote the city of rable time, were afraid that Innocent, led astray by the friends of Pelagius or mis- underetanding his doctrine, would receive him into commun- ion with his Church. After having received a favourable answer from Innocent, Augustine mentioned it incidentally in a sermon, No. 131, saying: "Already the transactions of two councils concerning this matter have been sent to the Apostolic see and an answer has been received. The con- troversy is ended ; would that the error, too, were at an end " — causa Jinita est, utinam aliquando error Jiniatur. Thus the words Roma locuta est, causa Jinita est, belong to those strik- ing general maxims or clinchers which were never uttered by those into whose mouths they are put. There is all the difference in the world, whether St. Augustine states, in sweeping terms, that by a judgment from Rome every dog- matic controversy is ended, or merely mentions incidentally in a sermon an occasional coirespondence between the Afri- can bishops and Rome, and then declares that in this par- ticular case the controversy may be considered as brought to an end. After the African bishops had condemned Pelagius in two councils, and after the transmarine Churches repre- sented by the patriarch of Rome had given their assent to this judgment of the Africans, the Pelagian cause might be considered as ended, at least in the West. The error was so obvious that no further proceedings against it were deemed necessary. Yet, St. Augustine was mistaken. It was not until after its condemnation by the general council of Ephestts that the Pelagian controversy was finally settled. If all the works of St. Augustine, with the excej)tion of the above-mentioned three lettei's and the sermon No 131, had been lost, we might be induced to allow that he admits in the Roman pontiff a primacy in teaching. But such a primacy is far different from infallibility ; although the 296 Roman Catholicism. popes and their adherents have endeavoured to deduce the latter prerogative from the former. A head-teacher in re- ligious matters may be useful for the speedy condemnation of errors, especially if he be in a central position where he is enabled to know the catholic consensus of the Church and where a plenary council can be called to correct any mistake into which he may fall. But St. Augustine does not admit each a primacy in teaching, much less the gift of infallibility. The fact is, passages excluding the primacy of the pope occur in his works in large masses, while texts which may seem to favour it are few and occur only incidentally. Most assuredly the fathers knew of no such claimant to in- fallibility ; otherwise there would have been a speedy end to their disputes with heretics ; they would have applied to this oracle at Rome for an authoritative decree. It would have been the mot d^ordre ; nothing would have been easier than to silence heretics by informing them that the pope taught differently. If papal infallibility had been the articulv^ stantis vel cadentis ecclesice we should read much of it in the fathers. If there had always been a divine oracle in the Vatican, the writings of the fathers would wear a different colour, and the Jiistory of the Church would have taken an altogether different direction. ) deduce the jacher in re- demnation of I where he is J Church and i any mistake oes not admit )f infallibility. J of the pope s which may jntally. claimant to in- speedy end to have applied bative decree, ig would have ng them that >ility had been e should read ways been a fathers would Church would LECTURE VII. THE VATICAN DECREE iX THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. ANCIENT Church history is not only silent about the infallibility of the pope, but it affords, on the contrary, abundant proofs that the pretended oracle on the seven hills was more than once a lying oracle. I have space merely to enumerate some of the papal errors and contradictions. The decrees, letters, and writings of the popes contradict repeatedly the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature and administration of the sacraments. Thus Innocent I., and his successors, at least until Pope Gelasius I., taught that the sacrament of communion was necessary for the salvation of infknts (Gelas. I. ep. ix). This doctrine was anathematized by the council of Trent. Nicholas I., in his letter to the Bulgarians, taught that baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite sufficient. Celestine III. loosened the marriage tie by declaring it dissolved if either party became heretical, Stephen II. allowed marriage with a slave girl to be dissolved. Nicholas II. taught the Capemaite doctrine in regard to the sacrament of the- Eucharist. Eugenius TV. in his letter to the Armenians, taught several erroneous doctrines touching the validity of the sacraments. It is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that ordina- tion is a sacrament impressing on the soul an indelible cha/r- acteTf which can neither be removed nor renewed. Hence 298 koman CatJioHcisin. the maxim : " Once a priest, forever a priest." Re-ordina- tion, therefore, has always been opposed in the Church as an heretical .practice pregnant with calamitous consequences. But the popes, from the eighth century to the end of the middle ages, showed by their decrees and acts that they be- lieved that the un worthiness, heresy, or simony of the ordain- ing bishop rendered the ordination null and void. The con- stant ex-ordinations, re-ordinations or super-ordinations, as they were called, threw the Church into a state of great con- fusion. If the popes had been infallible, they would not have acted as they did. The student of history is acquainted with the pernicious errors into which the popes fell in regard to the relation between the papal authority and the secular power. Ever since the Hildebrandine era they have endeavoured to make the whole world a priest-kingdom. They taught that the pope has supreme authority not only in spiritual but also in temporal things ; that two swords are given him by Christ, the spiritual and the secular, the former to be wielded by the pope himself, the latter to be borne by the secular princes on behalf of the Church and at the will and pleasure of the pope ; that the pope has the power of deposing heretical and disobedient kings and absolving their subjects from the oath of allegiance ; that all secular power is derived from the pope, who may erect kingdoms and apj)oint kings. Roman Catholics cannot say that the popes exercised such enormous power by international law ; for they claimed it as pertain- ing to them by divine right. And herein lies the heresy of which they are guilty. Pope Gregory VII., who may be considered the great apostle of this pestilential doctrine, teaches it constantly in his epistles and in the Roman coun- cils claim it as an inherent right of the pontifical power, The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 299 Re-ordina- Church as an consequences, be end of the that they be- of the ordain- oid. Thecon- rdinations, as be of great con- vould not have the pernicious to the relation ' power. Ever voured to make taught that the tual but also in him by Christ, wielded by the lular princes on pleasure of the ig heretical and ,s from the oath trived from the kings. Roman such enormous ■d it as pertain- the heresy of .^ who may be ntial doctrine, e Roman coun- .ntifical power, and as being contained in the commission which Peter received from Christ of binding and loosing. The contem- porary opponents of this doctrine called it the rwvel heresy of HUdebrand. His successors, explaining the import of the divine com- mission, maintained that the right to direct, command, and judge in all temporal things had been conferred on them by the Son of God Himself ratione peccati, that is, in order to prevent and repress the commission of sin ; that Christ had given to Peter two swords, and that the secular sword or power ought to be subject to the spiritual one. They claimed this divine right, not as private persons, but in their public official capacity and by virtue of their apostolical authority, under pain of excommunication and eternal damnation. Thus Innocent III. affirmed, "the pontifical authority so much to exceed the royal power, as the sun doth the moon," and applies to the former the words of the Prophet (Jerem. i. 10) : " See, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and pull down, to destroy and to throw down, &c." (Innocent III., in Decret. Gregor. Tit. 33, cap. b). And history shows with what a high hand he exercised this power which he taught that he had received from on high, and not by the law and consent of nations. Pope Innocent IV. taught the same doctrine, when in the council of Lyons he excommunicated the emperor Frederick II., in the wordr : " We having about the foregoing and many other his wicked deeds had before a careful delibera- tion with our brethren and the holy council, seeing that we, although unworthy, do hold the place of Jesus Christ on ecrth, and that it was said unto us in the person of St. Peter the Apostle, * Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth' — 300 Roman Catholicism. do show, denounce, and accordingly by sentence deprive the said prince ; absolving all who are held bound by oath of allegiance from such oath forever ; by Apostolical authority firmly prohibiting, that no man henceforth do obey or regard him as emperor or king ; and decreeing, that whosoever shall hereafter yield advice, or aid, or do honour to him as emperor or king, shall immediately be under the ban of excommunication." (P. Inn. IV., in Con. Lugd.) He, therefore, believed that he held the deposing power and the supreme control over temporal things, by divine right. Boniface VIII. stretched this doctrine to the utmost; limits when, in his famous bull Unam Sanctam addressed to the Universal Church, he said : " We declare,' say, define, pro- nounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff"." This sub- jection, according to his view, extends to all matters ; for he there speaks of a double sword, and asserts to himself jurisdiction over all temporal authorities. For "One sword," saith he, " must be under another, and the temporal authori- ty must be subject to the spiritual power ; whence, if the earthly power doth go astray, it must be judged by the spiritual power." And these aphorisms he attempts to prove by texts from Scripture wonderfully expounded for that purpose. Here we have, undoubtedly, even in the system of the minimizers, an ex-cathedrd bull. Its object, therefore, must be a dogmatic definition, to be believed by the Church for all time to come. They cannot deny that it is intended to mark out the relation between the papal authority and the civil power, and involves the complete subjection of the latter to the former, so that the pope jure divino has authority over all kings and princes, and may depose them and absolve The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 301 ce deprive the ad by oath of lical authority obey or regard hat whosoever nour to him as ier the ban of Lugd.) He, power and the vM right, le utmost limits addressed to the 3ay, define, pro- r every human iiflf." This sub- ill matters ; for jerts to himself 3r "One sword," smporal authori- whence, if the 1 judged by the itempts to prove »unded for that system of the therefore, must |e Church for all itended to mark Ity and the civil of the latter to authority over Bm and absolve subjects from their allegiance. Therefore this doctrine is to be believed as a truth revealed from God. It is this dogma, principally, which excites the enmity and arouses the ire of modern society against the papacy. Hence Roman Catholic theologians, in order to escape, by any means, the difficulties arising out of the relation between modern public opinion and this doctrine, endeavour to explain away the dogmatic import of this famous bull of Boniface VIII. But they evidently do violence to the manifest con- nection of facts which induced the pope to issue it, and to 'jhe unmistakable import of its words. That it is a dogmatic bull was firmly believed and clearly taught by all former theologians. Suarez says : " The proposition that the pope possesses the power of deposing heretical and obstinate kings, or kings who, in their realm, are injurious in things apper- taining to the well-being of the soul, is to be held and be- lieved as a dogma of faith. For it is contained in the words of Christ addressed to Peter in a particular manner : What- soever thou shalt bind, &c., and Feed my sheep, 3 where the old Is of the deposit •der to purchase ^us, the valiant ^ribed an Arian [he infallibility- that the popes about grace and ,, Pope Zosimus sstius which his lynods had con- TAe Vatican Decree ifi the Light of History. 305 For several centuries the I^ast was agitated by fierce con- troveries about the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Arianism was scarcely subdued, when Nestorianism arose, and this heresy was followed by Eutychianism and other important controversies. These religious agitations greatly disturbed the peace of the Greek empire. The emperors, in their eflforts to restore peace, resorted to a policy of com- promise. Thus the emperor Justinian I. was advised that the Eutychians or Monophy sites would return to the Church, if Theodorus of Mopsuestia and his writings, the tractates of Theodoretus against the anathematismi of Cyrillus, and the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian were condemned. These three subjects of condemnation were called the Ihree Chap- ters. But although these writings contained the Nestorian heresy, many bishops were of opinion that the Three Chap- ters could not be condemned without injury to the authority of the council of Chalcedon which, in coi. lemning the errors of Nestorius, refrained from inflicting any censure upon the persons of Theodorus, Theodoretus, and Ibas. Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops subscribed the edict of the emperor condemning the Three Chapters, on condition that the bishop of Rome should likewise subscribe it. But Pope Vigilius hedged in this controversy. He thrice contradicted himself. First, he pronounced the Three Chapters orthodox (in 546) ; a year afterwards he condemned them ; then again he returned to his first teaching and vacillated in a manner pitiably unworthy of an infallible teacher, during the fifth general council, which anatliematized the fickle pope. He finally submitted to the decree of the council. But the Western bishops arose in indignation against him as a traitor to the faith of the council of Chalce- don and separated from his communion and a long schism ii\ 20 306 Roman Catholicism, the West was the consequence. From this it appears that the Church did not believe the pope to be endowed with the prerogative of infallibility. How deeply rooted the con- viction of the pope's fallibility was, may be seen, among other documents of that time, from the letter of St. Columba, of Ireland, who wrote to Pope Boniface III. : " Vigila, pater, vigila. quia forte non bene vigilavit Vigilius, quem caput scandaU illi clamant. Dolendum est et flendum, si in sede Apostolica fides Catholicanon tenecur."* Not long afterwards another pope fell into heresy in a similar case of compromise. Heraclius, the Greek emperor, after having gained brilliant victories over the Persians and snatched from them Egypt and Syria, was anxious that the Monophy sites should be united with the Church. They were very numerous in the conquered provinces ; in Egypt alone they numbered over fifteen millions. Some of their bishops asserted that they and their adherents were willing to profess that there were two natures in Christ, provided the Catholics admitted that there was only one operation and one will in Him. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, thought that a union under some such compact might be eflfected, and Heraclius agreed. In the year 633, the Mono- physites of Alexandria, called Theodosians after their former bishop, united with the Catholics, on condition that they might be allowed to profess only one human-divine (3eai'- SpixTf'v) operation in Christ. Cyrus, patriarch of Alexan- dria, showed the articles of union to Sophronius, a pious and learned monk, who highly disapproved of them, and as he could not obtain their abolition at Alexandria, he betook himself to Sergius. This prelate, fearing lest a public agita- * Watch, father, watch, for Vigilius (watcher), whom they call tho head of this scandal, did not watch very well. It is to be regretted and lamented if the Catholic faith is net kept in the Apostolic toe. smam The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 307 i appears that owed with the oted the con- 3 seen, among jf St. Columba, " Vigila, pater, IS, quern caput dum, si in sede Qto heresy in a Greek emperor, he Persians and mxious that the Church. They inces ; in Egypt Some of their nts were willing Christ, provided ine operation and I Constantinople, mpact might be 633, the Mono- iter their former Idition that they lan-divine (3eav- jarch of Alexan- ius, a pious and ihem, and as he idria, he betook ;t a public agita- rhom they call the liitobe regretted le Apostolic soe. tion of this question might throw serious impediments in the way of his and the emperor's scheme of union, wrote to Cyrus counselling silence, as well on one as on two operations in Christ. While thus the Theodosians, according to the terms of union, were allowed to believe only in one operation, the Catholics were restrained from teaching two operations or rejecting the doctrine of one only operation. Shortly after- wards Sophronius was elected patriarch of Jerusalem. Sergius wrote to pope Honorius I., in order to obtain his approbation of what he had already done in the matter. He d«^aerves credit for not concealing anything in this letter from the Roman pontiflf, and for explainmg accurately the whole bearing of the question. Honorius, in his letters to Sergius and the other two patriarchs, not only approves of the policy of silence, but clearly teaches the Monothelite error ; nay, if we compare his letters with those of Sergius, we find that he surpasses that prelate in the explicitness of his erroneous teaching. These letters are a standing monu- ment of the fallibility of the pope ; and no fanciful exegesis can purge him of the stain of heresy. To maintain that Honorius wrote these heretical letters only as a private person would be a strange ignoring of his- tory. For Sergius by no means concealed from the pontiff the importance of the whole matter. A great scheme had been planned which aimed to bring back the great patriar- chate of Alexandria to the unity of faith, the communion with the Church. Numerous Theodosians had already entered this union, and both Sergius and the Emperor anti- cipated that the rest of the Monophysites would follow their example. The question now was whether the concessions made to tb =im were consonant with the Catholic faith. The patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria held that the ma 308 Roman Catholicism. compromise was orthodox, but the patriarch of Jerusalem was of a different opinion. A schism was thus imminent in the East. All the circumstances of the question were such as to induce Honorius to proceed with the greatest caution but with the whole weight of his exalted position. He could not be ignorant of the fact that Sergius sought his assent in order to employ it against Sophronius and his party, and that he would use his letter as the authoritative decision of the Roman see, not as the private opinion of Honorius. The pope, being aware of all this, wrote his famous letter with the greatest care and afte?' the gravest consideration, calling to his aid in its composition the services of the learned abbot, John Simpo. Thus it would be utterly absurd to look upon it as a mere private opinion of a certain Honorius who happened to be bishop of Rome. What therefore shall we think of Pope Honorius ? Was he a heretic 1 The sixth cecumenical council, held at Con- stantinople in 778, declared him so to be and anathematized him and his letter not only once, but repeatedly, and that in the strongest terms. The Roman see submitted to this condemnation. Pope Leo II. in his letter written in confir- mation of the council severely censures the writings of Honorius. The seventh oecumenical council (in 787) and the eighth (in 869), repeated the sentence of excommunica- tion against him. The popes not only confirmed the sentence of these three councils, but for three hundred years after- wards, in a solemn oath at their accession to the papal throne, accepted the decrees of the sixth council and pro- nounced " an eternal anathema " on the authors and abet- tors of the Monothelite heresy, among whom Honorius was expressly included. Even in the Roman breviary the memory of this condemnation was preserved until the six- erusalem vraa tninent in the ere such as to st caution but L. He could 1 his assent in lis party, and native decision L of Honorius. LOus letter with eration, calling of the learned erlv absurd to rtain Honorius onorius ] Was , held at Con- anathematized lly , and that in .mitted to this ritten in confir- he writings of jil (in 787) and excommunica- ed the sentence ■ed years after- n to the papal (uncil and pro- )hors and abet- Honorius was |n breviary the until the six- The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 309 teenth century, for we read in the lection for the feast of St. Leo II., the 26th day of June : " In which synod were con- demned Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, Pyrrhus, (fee, who asserted and predicted one will and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ." Thus we have a fact as dear as noon-day that the whole Church, together with the pope, considered the occupants of the Roman see not only liable to fall into heresy, but that one of them was actually a heretic. The heresy of Honor- ius is as evident a fact as any in Church-history, although the Jesuits have made desperate efforts to demolish it. Baron- ius pronounces the acts of the counci] a downright forgery of the Greeks ; Bellarmine declares the letters of HonoriT^.s forgeries; neither of them proffer a scintilla of evidence for his assertion. Having been compelled to give up this shift they have endeavoured since the middle of the last cen- tury, to explain the letters of Honorius in an orthodox sense. But the fact remains that Pope Honorius was a heretic. Forgeries indeed ! The infallibilists are the men who make use of forgeries to establish their doctrine. We have spoken of these forgeries in one of the preceding lectures. The same spurious documents which were fabricated to establish papal absolutism were afterwards used to advance his claim to infallibility. The principles laid down in these forgeries formed the foundation of the mediaeval papacy, became the basis of all the canon-law of the Church, entered into her very life, and completely changed her constitution. These spurious documents, having once gained a firm footing in the Church, were believed for centuries to be genuine, and it re- quired a resolute criticism to expose their spurious origin. On these documents the doctrine of infallibility is based. One of the often recurring sayings of the pseudo-Isidoriau 310 Roman Catholicism. decretals is : '' The S^man CHurch remains to the end free from the stain of heresy." With these materials in hand the Jesuits (as the authors of the learned and reliable work, " The Pope and the Council " conclusively prove) built up and developed their system of papal infallibility. .*■'' LECTUEE VIII. THE VATICAN DEGREE IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE. SCRIPTURE is the last source of arguments to which Roman Catholics appeal. As we saw in the first part of this course of lectures, tradition is indispensctble, Scripture is merely desirable in proving any of their dogmas. But can they find arguments from Scripture to justify the Vati- can decree 1 The Old Testament is against them. The Jews had no in< fallible tribunal to which they appealed in any controver- sies and religious difficulties. The Scriptures were their rule of faith. Their high priest was not believed to possess the gift of infallibility. Was Caiaphas infallible when he de- clared our Lord guilty of blasphemy, because he professed to be the Son of God 1 But can they prove their dogma from the writings of the New Testament 1 Dr. Newman says that " the long history of the contest for or against the pope's infallibility has been but a growing insight into the meaning of i-Le^e three texts," namely, Matt, xvi., 16-19; John xxi., 15-17; Luke xxii., 32. He means that these three texts have been devel- oped, and that the dogma of papal infallibility is the result of this development. But if so, the dogma must be contained in them as the conclusion is contained in the premisses, for no other kind of development is admissible. We con- m 312 Roman Catholicism. sidered these texts in one of the preceding lectures and found that they cannot be interpreted as conferring imme- diate and episcopal jurisdiction on St. Peter over the Apos- tles and the whole Church ; but let us make some further re- marks. The Roman Catholic rule of interpretation is restricted by the follovang article in the creed of Pius V., " Neither will I ever take and interpret them (the Scriptures) otherwise, than according to ihe unanimous consent of the fathers." They are bound therefore not to deviate from the unanimous consent of the fathers. But the infallibilists glaringly and un- scrupulously transgress this cardinal rule of their Church. We challenge them to produce even one of the fathers inter- preting these texts in the sense of papal infallibility. "We know that this unanimous, consent of the fathers is a fiction, except as regards the fundamental truths of Christianity. Is the orthodox interpretation of the Bible confined to the patristic centuries ? Has biblical exegesis been at a stand- still since Gregory the Great, the last -of the fathers % It is difficult to understand how the infallibilists extract their dogma from these texts. In regard to Matt, xvi., 18, they argue that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church," because she is built on Peter and his successors as on a rock ; if therefore the bishops of Rome, the succes- sors of St. Peter should fall into heresy, Satan would pre- vail against the Church. We answer, firs^. that between tho conclusion and pre- misses of this argument there are many intermediate links which require proof, and we demonstrated, in a preceding lecture, that they cannot be proved. A thoughtful insight into this text will convince any unprejudiced thinker that ^he whoU object of this dialogue is faith in the diviiu Sonship The Vatican Decree in the Light of Scripture. 313 ,tan would pre- of Christ, and He evidently intends to say that such a faith is a rock — the foundation on which His Church is built, and further that so long as this foundation on which the whole superstructure rests remains firm and intact, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And this faith is not in- fused into the Church by Peter and his successors ; for it is the gift of God- Christ Himself, in the above text, says : " Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In regard to John xxi., 15, they maintain that the words, " Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," signify feeding the whole flock with sound doctrine. Now, how could Peter and his successors do so, if in their official capacity they were liable to error % "We answer and have proved that the conversation be- tween Christ and Peter, at the sea of Tiberias, was rather a humiliation than an exaltation of the latter. It was a renewal of his call to the Apostleship, which the Lord wished to make particularly impressive to him after his shameful denial. Besides, the same office of feeding the whole flock was given to all the other Apostles. What else means the commission, " Go, teach all nations " ? They believe they have a strong proof of their dogma in Luke xxii., 32, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." They say that Christ prayed that the faith of Peter and his successors fail not. Christ's prayer would have no efficacy, if the Roman pontiffs, the successors of Peter, could fall into dogmatic errors. How could they be said to strengthen their brethren in the faith if they themselves could fall from the faitli vDtio heresy 1 314 Roman Catholicism. We answer that this text, also, is rather a humiliation than an exaltation of Peter. Christ, in the immediately follow- ing verses, foretells him that he will deny Him thrice. He J orts him as it were, not to despair after his fall, like Judas, but to rise again, since He has prayed for him that his faith fail not. He shall not cease to be an Apostle, on ac- count of his fall, but strengthen and comfort his brethren in the sore trials that await them. Nothing is said here of teaching, but only of supporting and strengthening the faith they already possessed, in order to keep them from falling and denying their Saviour. Thus the text is explained by the fathers ; and Boman Catholics should interpret it accord- ing to their unanimous consent. Faith here, evidently, doea not mean, as the infallibilists would have it, orthodoxy or assent to dogmas, but, as nearly always in the New Testa- ment, trust in and attachment to, Christ. If the Boman Catholic interpretation were true, it would prove too much ; it would suppose that the popes have fallen and been con- verted, like Peter. We know the former to be a fact, but we cannot vouch for the latter. We are of a different opinion from Dr. Newman in regard to " the growing insight into these three texts through cen- turies," as confirming the dogma of infallibility. We are compelled to confess that the whole history of the papacy has given us a growing insight into the manner in which these sacred texts have been abused to establish an untenable, nay, a blasphemous, claim which cannot fail to issue ultimately in the ruin and downfall of the papacy. We conclude this Lecture by some striking remarks of Dr. Schaff (Hist, of the Vat. Council, p. 30) : " The constant appeal of the Boman Church to Peter suggests a significant parallel. There is a spiritual Peter The Vatican Decree in the Light of Scripture. 315 remarks of Dr. and a carnal Simon, who are separated, indeed, by regenera- tion, yet after all, not so completely that the old nature does not occasionally re-appear in the new man." " It was the spiritual Peter who forsook all to follow Christ ; who first confessed him as the Son of God, and hence was called rock ; who after his terrible fall wept bitterly ; was re-instated and entrusted with the care of Christ's sheep ; who, on the birthday of the Church, preached the first mis- sionary sermon, and gathered in the three thousand converts; who in the Apostles' council protested against the narrow bigotry of the Judaizers, and stood up with Paul for the principle of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ ; who, in his epistles, warns all ministers against hierarchical pride, and exhibits a wonderful meekness, gentleness, and humility of spirit, showing that divine grace had overruled and sanctified to him even his fall ; and who followed at last his master to the cross of martyrdom." "It was the carnal Simon who presumed to divert his Lord from the path of suffering, and drew on him the rebuke * Get thee behind me, Satan ; thou art a stumbling-block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men ;' the Simon who, in mistaken zeal, used the sword and cut off' the ear of Malchus ; who proudly boasted of his unswerving fidelity to his Master, and yet a few hours afterwards denied Him thrice before a servant woman ; who even after the Pentecostal illumination was overcome by his natural weakness, and from policy or fear of the Judaizing party was untrue to his better convictions, so as to draw on him the public rebuke of the younger Apostle of the Gentiles. The Komish legend of Bomine quo vadia makes him relapse into his inconstancy even a day before his martyrdom, and memorializes it in a chapel outside of Rome." 316 Roman Catholicism. " The deader may judge whether the history of the popes reflects more the character of the spiritual Peter, or the carnal Simon. If the Apostolic Church prophetically anti- cipates and foreshadows the whole course of Christian his- tory, the temporary collision of Peter, the Apostle of the cir- cumcision, and Paul, the Apostle of the uncircumcision, at Antioch, is a significant type of the antagonism between Komanism and Protestantism, between the Church of the binding law and the Church of ths free Gospel." jry of the popes i\ Peter, or the ophetically anti- of Christian his- postle of the cir- ticircumcision, at igonism between e Church of the jpel." LECTUEE IX. THEORY AND FACT. WE have hitherto considered the whole question of in- fallibility, both episcopal and papal, examining the arguments on which its adherents rely, noticing its develop- ment, and reviewing its practical bearing upon Eoman dogmas and discipline. And the conclusion we arrive at is, that we cannot help discovering a remarkable discrepancy between hypothesis and fact. This discrepancy makes its appearance, at the very outset, in the arguments by which they endeavour to establish the infallibility dogma. They are not content with moral cer- tainty in acquiring God's revealed truths, but they want absolute certainty or infallibility. And how can they prove this infallibility, but by making it rest upon a belief in Christianity itself which is necessarily of the nature of moral historical evidence 1 It is astonishing that the Roman Church with its cloud of learned theologians, profound philo- sophers, and shrewd thinkers, does not see that the con- clusions of faith cannot be logically stronger than the amount of historical evidance on which the claims of Christianity itself are based? How can men accept a theory which is equivalent to the assumption that the inferences in a process of reasoning can be more certain than the premisses on which they rest 1 Let them try as they may, they cannot find pre* !l ! 318 Roman Catltolicism. misses which logically contain the infallibility-doctrine. The fact is, that in God's dealings with man, the acquisition of truth by means of long and patient struggle has been the universal law of human thought from the time when men first began to reason. There is a strange contrast between the infallibility doc- trine and its practical influence on the belief of the Church. Rome, by hypothesis, should be the most pure, when in fact, she is the most corrupt Church in Christendom, beyond the hope of reform, and corruptible ad infinitum, Koman Catholics themselves have felt that episcopal infal- libility by no means met the ends for which it was proposed. Will the dogma of papal inerrancy have better success 1 Will it be the panacea for all the ills of the Church, settling all controversies of faith, and removing every doubt ? We foresee that the difliculties of Rome, instead of decreasing, will be multiplied, not only within her own bosom, but also in her relations with the non-Catholic world. This point has been prominently brought forward in the recent controversy about the infallibility-question. A brief review, therefore, of this interesting debate in which the leading thinkers on both sides have been earnestly engaged may give us some insight into the real value and consequen- ces of the papal infallibility-dogma. The t'vo prominent figures in this controversy are Mr, Glaclat one and Dr. Newman. Protestant Churchmen rejoiced when they first heard that Mr. Gladstone had appeared as an antagonist of the papacy and the champion of Protestantism. Many were, no doubt, prejudiced against him by the vague reports that from time to time came to their ears of his ex- treme high-churchism and his Romeward tendencies. Per- haps his public policy in favour of the Irish Roman Catho- Theory and Fact. 319 -doctrine. The e acquisition of le has been the iime when men Infallibility doc- : of the Church. :e, when in fact, lorn, beyond the t episcopal infal- it was proposed, better success 1 Church, settling sry doubt? We ad of decreasing, L bosom, but also 1. t forward in the estion. A brief ,te in which the larnestly engaged le and consequen- lics gave currency to these rumours. They were pleased, therefore, when his pamphlets made their appearance. And they had reason to be pleased, for he proved his thesis to the satisfaction of all fair-minded thinkers. His " Vaticanism " is a ci*ushing reply to all who have entered the lists against him. For Dr. Newman I have no feeling but that of sincere sympathy. I was a divinity student of Propaganda College, Rome, when he, shortly after having renounced Protestant- ism, entered that institution and remained there for nearly two years, in order to become thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Romanism and to prepare for his re-ordinatioii to the Romish priesthood. I attended the same lectures ar A was also present at his re-ordination. I had the pleasure *" visiting him occasionally in his retreat in company with other students. "Well do I remember his thoughtful coun- tenance, his kindly smile and unostentatious humility. He eminently possessed what Roman Catholics call the pietas fidei. How different are men's minds and ways ! While he and his associates joined tlie Church of Rome hoping to find peace there, others with equal sincerity left that Church, looking upon it as the work of man, and finding peace in evangelical religion. How many things of ecclesiastical im- portance have occurred since then ! How has the Church of Rome changed even in that brief period ! Dr. Newman was not an Ultramontane ; how then can he and others find peace in Rome after the Vatican definition 1 He, like many other honest souls, never expected the decree. But when it was passed he accepted it, because he was able to reason his private judgment into receiving it and to mini- mize it, that is, to whittle it down to an invisibly fine point, which cannot stand the test of practical application. Dr. 320 Roman Catholicism. Newman is a minimizer and advocates the principle of mini- mizing " as necessary for a wise and cautious theology." When papal infallibility was still an open question, Roman Catholics were divided into two large schools, the Galilean and Ultramontane. The Vatican council silenced for ever the Gallican school. But what became of the liberal-minded men who were imbued with its principles 1 Did they leave the Church ] Only the brave band of Old Catholics had the courage to break off with Rome ; the rest remained where they were. But have they become out-and- out Ultramontanes ? No ; they have found out a new path ; they reduce papal infallibility to its minimum. On this ac- count they are called minimizers, while those who advocate the importance of this gift and its practical bearings on all the departments of the Church's life go by the name of maximizers. In a word, the Vatican detinition has still left ample room for open questions, and the camp of theologians is again divided into two great schools. The one includes all the liberal-minded Churchmen, and the other is composed of the Ultramontanes pure and simple. And mark well that the very form and nature rf the Vati- can definition — now the corner-stone of the whole Roman Catholic creed — the difficulty of finding out real ex-cathedrd decrees, and their slippery condition, have caused this new di\lsion within the Church. Here, then, we have a com- plete disproof of that boasted uniformity in believing, in the Church of Rome, which has attracted to her so many people impatient of the divine discipline of enquiry and responsi- bility. Where, amidst the disputes of the scholce theologorum, can the sincere and honest member of the Church find the certain voice of the living teacher, on which Rome pi^dicates her __1__-^ Theory and Fact. 321 inciple of mini- theology." open question, ye schools, the [council silenced became of the its principles'? ;^e band of Old Rome ; the rest become out-and- out a new path ; n. On this ac- e who advocate bearings on all )y the name of iion has still left of theologians is one includes all is composed of pure cf the Yati- whole Roman I real ex-cathedrd lused this new te have a com- ')elieving, in the I so many people and responsi- ieologorum, can 1 find the certain pi^dicates her boast of pre-eminence over all Churches and her taunts against Protestantism. Is not the procedure of these eminent acholce a proof that they have no stronger certainty to oflfer than we 1 Rome's claim to infallibility is all a pre- tence. It invohes greater labour to find out, by the mini- mizing tests, when the pope means to bo infallible, than to find out, by Scripture and history, whether his utterances are true or false. And when you have taken the trouble to discover the former, you must still go through the difficult process of enquiring into the latter. After all, it would ap- pear that a confiding world is to be still left in the dark as to the province and limit of that infallibility. The doctors to whom we would look for a quasi authoritative explanation are by no means at one. Some give us the minimum, others the maadmum of papal authority. But what does it -matter ! Roman Catholic divines of whatever echool have no longer any claim to represent the papacy in its doctrines. Theology has altogether lost its for- mer position. Strange contradiction ! The scholce have to find out first the very existence and then the meaning of a papal decree, and, after all, what are their arduous labours and subtle distinctions worth in determining such a certainty of faith as the Roman Church claims and requires 1 Nothing, al'Bolutely nothing. " The qu. ^tion is simply now what the popo says. He can no longer s^ jak by any agent whom it may hereafter be convenient to disavow ; this difficulty is one inseparable from the late dogma. It is no longer quod ubiqite, quod semper, quod ab omnibus which defines the Roman faith, but quod hodie in Vaticano, a Domino Nostra Papa is declared authoriiociye. No disclaimers on the part of any Romish doctor, however eminent, can have any force except as his iadi^idual understanding of the papal posi- 21 322 Boman Catholicism. tion. It may be interesting to know what Dr. Newman, as a x'epresentative of English Komaniam of a certain scliool, would like to think, but as a stateinent of the position of the Koman curia, nothing is gained from one or from a hundred similar tieatises. Thy.t is the inherent fault of a monarchical despotism. In being reduced to a single will and head, it necessarily loses the efficient aid of all who are not ready to become the blind instruments of that centialized power. Manning and Newman are both out of the game. They can neither shape the policy nor bind the conscience of the Vati- can " — (Hartford Ohurchrnan.) The fact is, as Mr. Gladstone forciL'y proves, "the entire Christian religion, since the Vatican dec7'< .tv T^iey rejoice in being the blind and docile servants of tiic pope. , . V ,;, Theory and Fact 323 But the minimizing theologians are of different opinion. They hibour with all their might to retain some shred of their spiritual liberty. They are willing to believe the pope ; but onlji- when he speaks the truth as contained in the deposit of faith. They are ready to obey him, but not blindly, and only when they can see that his commands are not contrary to the moral or divine law, or to the dictates of their own conscience. Hence they are at hand with their limitations and conditions by which they endeavour to restrain the absolutism of papal infallibility. Vain en- deavour ! It would be utterly useless to break a lance with the maxi- mizers. They are in fa /our with the pope and are in power. They embrace the dogma to its fullest extent, and, filled with fanatical pride, are deaf to fair argumentation. We enter, therefore, the field with the minimizing theolo- gians, and if we prove that their ground is untenable, we are entitled to conclude a fortiori that the position of the maxi- mizers is also indefensible. Of course, we do not intend to review their arguments in favour of papal infallibility ; we have done this in the preceding lectures ; ^\ere we shall con- sider only those limitations and conditions, by which they endeavour to prove that the Vatican decree has not changed the constitution of their Church, and that they ha\e not lost their mental liberty by submission to it. Dr. Newman says, " I begin with a remark which sug- gests the drift of all I ha^'^e to say about it (the Vatican definition). 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 324 Roman Catholicism. 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 recep- tion." Yes, faith is a difficult virtue in the Roman system, and the difficulty is a fundamental one. It lies in the impossi- bility of giving a logical explanation of their act of faith. Every intelligent and conscientious Roman Catholic feels it. His God-given reasoning powers urge him to find out a logical genesis of his faith, and in attempting to do so, he is \:\ a m aze of perplexities. On the one hand, he is commanded believfc all the tenets of his Church, with an absolute cer- tainty — without any fear of doubt whatever. He must believe that every single dogma defined by the Church and proposed for his belief is contained in Scripture and tradi- tion, although he does not see it therein. On the other hand, his rational instinct is uneasy and dissatisfied; he would willingly enquire into the logical grounds of his belief, but he is afraid of yielding to the suggestions of doubt which are forbidden to him under pain of eternal damnation. Yes, he might lose his faith, and how then could he be saved 1 This terror prevents him from pursuing the truth and nothing but the truth, let the consequences be what they may. He throws himself on the bosom of a Church which informs him that he can and must believe in her with an absolute cer- tainty, because she is infallible. He becomes her vassal, and imagines that he has found rest ; and if there his logical instincts could be silenced, he would slumber on quietly to the end of his days. Many, no doubt, have succeeded in con- tracting their views and mental aspirations within the hori- zon of the Church — content to be always in spiritual swad- dling-clothes and intellectual leading-strings. But it is Theory and Fact. 325 unnatural thus to subdue the inquisitive nature of a think- ing and rational being. He feels uneasy on the couch of Church-infallibility. He knows that there is something wanting to complete the logical genesis of his faith ; that there must be something above and beyond the authority of the Church to invest his faith with absolute certainty and to dispel every apprehension of doubt. On what is this authority logically based 1 On what else does he base it, on what else can he base it but on the historical evidence of Christianity itself 1 This evidence, however, gives him only a moral or historical certainty. "Where, then, is the logical -foundation of absolute certainty for his act of faith 1 It is this discrepancy between the premisses and conclusion in the eflfort to explain the logical origin of absolute certainty in the act of faith, which renders the Roman Catholic believer restless and dissatisfied and causes him to shrink from any searching enquiry. There is a something in the conclu- sion for which the premisses do not account. No wonder then that Dr. Newman should feel the diffi- culty of an act of faith. Has he obtained more certainty in the Church of Rome than he possessed before he joined it ? Logically, it is impossible that he could. It is on account of this difficulty, he thinks, that the Church " has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of proposi- tions, of which she demands this absolute reception." History does not confirm this assertion. On the contrary, we find that Rome from age to age has continually developed and added new dogmas of faith to the already existing ones. Compare the creed of Pius IV. with the ancient confessions of faith, and you will be convinced of this truth. She has always been prolific in dogmatic development. How often ': 826 Roman Catholicism. has tho circle of open questions been contracted by now dogmatic definitions ! Instead of contracting, the Church of Rome enlarged tho circle of articles of faith, even when it was not tiecessari/ to do so. What necessity was' there for the dogma of the immaculate conception 1 What urgent need demanded the definition of papal infallibility, since the Cliurch had done well without it for eighteen hundred years 1 Does this show a desire, on the part of tho Church, " to contract tho range" of articles of faith 1 And since the popes were the principal cause of multi- plying dogmatic definitions and decrees before 1870, what guarantee have we that, in the future, they will take into consideration the " difficulty" of the virtue of faith, and speak less frequently ex cathedrd 1 None whatever. Formerly generations, even centuries passed away, in which the pon- tiffs issued no dogmatic bull or encyclical. But can you imagine that, in the time to come, there will be a single pope who will not more than once, during his pontificate, speak ex cathedrd, if for no other purpose, than to enjoy the sweet exercise of his authority, and to remind the world that he is endowed with the gift of infallibility 1 Moreover, as in the very nature of things there will constantly arise new doubts and difficulties within the Church, will it not be necessary for this permanent living oracle to be uninterruptedly engaged in solving and subduing them by his authoritative voice 1 Besides, can we suppose that there will be no popes who, " intoxicated with their solitary greatness," will not be vain enough to render their pontificate memorable by some great dogmatic event % Tho remark, therefore, of Dr. Newman, that the Church has always shown the strongest desire to contract the range of the de fide propositions is not only without foundation in Theory and Fact. 327 history, but is also illusory as a basis of hope that the papacy will pursue a cautious policy hereafter. Yet, he grounds his justification of the minimizing process of the theologians upon this " difficulty of the act of faith," and on the con- sequent frugality in definition on the part of the Church. He says ; " She only speaks when it is necessary to speak ; but hardly has she declared magisterially some general prin- ciple, when she sets her theologians to work to explain her meaning in the concrete, by strict interpretation of its word- ing, by the illustration of its circumstances, and by the re- cognition of exceptions, in order to make it as tolerable as possible, and as little as possible a temptation to self-willed, independent, or wrongly-educated minds." And both here and at the end of this section of his pamphlet he pleads veiy hard for " a wise and gentle minimism." We cannot ht,^p loving the gentle and charitable dis- position of Dr. Newman, or feeling deeply for him ; for his is the spirit of Christianity, not of Rome. The house has been set on fire by the pope and his advisers, but is it pro- bable that men like Dr. Newman will be able to extinguish the flames by their " wise and gentle minimism ]" And even if they succeeded now, is it not certain that future popes would again and again apply the incendiary torch to the edifice of the Church in many an ill-considered bull ] Is not this minimism a faint exercise of mental liberty 1 Rome looks with suspicion on any symptoms of such liberty, since they may be the beginnings of rebellion. Minimism is not in favour with the popes, for it has always been their aiiii to have their authority maximized. The maximising, not the minimizing, theologians are successful in their career, so far as honour and preferment in the Church are concerned. Dr. Newman seems to hope for much from the labours 328 Roman Catholicism, of the acholce theologorum, as if they could lighten the burden of faith with whicli the popes afflict the Church or save the little spark of mental liberty which their absolut- ism threatens to extinguish altogether. Vain hope ! The opinions of these scholce, from the very nature of the papal system, have no authoritative value ; for all authority resides henceforth in the pope alone. Opinions which prevail to-day may be denounced to-morrow at the Jiat of the Vatican. Convictions that may be the result of the laborious and pro- found studies of a life-time, may be anathematised with a suddenness that surpasses expectation, and men may be compelled, on pain of excommunication, to subscribe to doc- tiines which they formerly were permitted strenuously to oppose. However valuable, therefore, the opinions of the tcholce may have been in former times, they are valueless now that the Vatican decree has become the comer-stone of the Church. Besides, if the gift of infallibility has been bestowed upon the popes to enlighten the world in an acces- sible and absolutely certain way, why should there be any necessity of interposing the scholce between the people and the papal utterances % "Will the plain common sense of men be benefited by the " scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, or subtlety of the scholce theologorum ?" The theologians are unintelligible, save to the initiated, for they have a method, a style, and a phraseology of their own. None but theolo- gians are able to understand theologians. Does not all this tend to keep the people in darkness and ignorance 1 Indeed, we believe that, in the future, there will be a dearth of really profound theologians in the Church of Rome. Since the Vatican definition theology has ceased to be a science. " Papal infallibility becomes not only a soft cushion on which the wearied or perplexed mind, as well of the Theory and Fact, 329 Id lighten the the Church or 1 their absolut- lin hope ! The ire of the papal athority resides which prevail ! of the Vatican, jorious and pro- imatised with a 1 men may be ubscribe to doc- l strenuously to opinions of the By are valueless e comer-stone of ibility has been orld in an acces- ild there be any the people and lon sense of men 30, acuteness, or theologians are have a method, Tone but theolo- >oes not all this orance 1 there will be a Ihurch of Rome, ceased to be a [y a soft cushion as well of the layman as of the theologian, may repose softly, and abandon itself to undisturbed slumber, but it supplies to the intel- lectual world in religious matters what our steam convey- ances and electrical wires supply to the material world in the saving of time and labour." (The Pope and the Council, p. XXV.) Undoubtedly, this dogma must cripple all intel- lectual movement and scientific Activity among Roman Catholic theologians. LECTURE X. THE VATICAN DECREE CHANGES THE RELATION OF THE PAPACY TO THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. AFTER the preliminary remarks which we reviewed in our last lecture, Dr. Newman proceeds to minimize the Vatican definition. If we mistake not, his aim is to show that it is not such a formidable thing as others suppose it to be ; that it neither introduces a new constitution, nor contracts the scope of legitimate enquiry, nor deprives Roman Catholic churchmen of their mental liberty. It is 9iaintained that nothing is changed in the constitu- tion of the Church; for the definition declares that "the pope has the same infallihility which the Church has" We answer that much is changed by this very assertion of the bull Pastor jEternus. First, infallibility is claimed as before, but it is differently lodged, being transferred from the Church to the pope. Prior to 1870, neither the episcopate alone, nor the pope alone, was considered infallible, but both together. Now the pope's definitions in themselves, without the consent of the Church, are irreformable and must be received with an absolute and unwavering faith. The old Catholic rule of faith, enunciated by Vincentius Lirinensis, has virtually been abandoned, and papal dictation put in its place. The Church is a body, and the pope is now to be believed to be the moving soul of that body. Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 331 RELATION OF 'HE STATE. we reviewed in ds to minimize ;, his aim is to 1 others suppose onstitution, nor ieprives Roman in the constitu- ares that " nch may, let us say for argument's sake, be safely committed to the whole Church, and the exercise of which is guarded by the inevitable conditions of action in a collective body, becomes an utterly different thing when in the custody of a single person. Is it the same thing in civil authority whether the supreme power is held to reside in a nation or in an absolute monarch ? Is there no change when it is declared that henceforth all power shall reside in an autocrat ] All the former bulwarks provided in the definitions of the Church are swept away. The energy of conscience, the power of immutable Scripture, the guiding light of past history, the elimination of individual interests and errors, the correction of one set of views by another — all are gone. It is absurd to say that an individual prelate can or will con- centrate these indispensable factors in himself. Will any one venture to maintain that the head of the Church, since the Vatican council, stands on the same foot- ing in regard to princes and states ? He has taken the place of the Church in regard to them. However inconvenient and troublesome the Church's power may have been at times, still it was not impossible to adjust difierences by compromise and to manage national Churches in a national spirit. In future it will become more and more difiicult to do so. Every Church, and consequent, j r very government, is directly and immediately subject to the interference of a foreign spiritual potentate who claims infallibility. How can governments make treaties with him, since they do not stand on a footing of equality with him ? How can a government negotiate with a sovereign who claims infallibility and demands abso- lute obedience 1 332 Reman Catholicism. The assertion of the pope's infallibility, therefore, by the Vatican decrees, does make a serious change in the relations of Church and State. It places the pope in a diflferent aspect towards the world. It places him in an altered attitude to all councils whatsoever, whether national or general. It effects this just as completely as the ri I the Roman emperors changed the power of the Roman senate. It is so regarded by the world in general ; it must be felt to be so by tho pontijffs themselves. The phrase, then, of the Vatican decree, that " the pope has that same infallibility which the Church has," has intro- duced an entirely new constitution. It means that the 'pope is the Church — la Chiesa sono io. And as Roman Ca tholics themselves do not pretend to maintain that the elevation of the pope to his exalted dignity changes his human nature, it is e^ ' ^ent that his dogmatic de- finitions and decrees will greatly >nd on his personal cha- racter. Does not the history of the papacy prove this fact beyond the shadow of a doubt 1 We cannot help perceiving that the personal character of each pope is stamped upon the letters and bulls which he issued. If we had no other means for acquiring a knowledge of his character, these productions would be a sufficient key to disclocjo it to our view. Any student ofhistorymay easily form an estimate of the charac- ters of Hildebrand, Alexander III., Innocent III., Boniface VIII., and others from the official documents they issued. Their previous training and prejudices appear between the lines. If, for instance, they were monks, we may easily dis- cover by the study of their writings to what order of monks they belonged, and by what monkish superstitions they were swayed. But we need not go to past history in order to verify our Relation of Papacy to Church avd State. 333 remark. The long pontificate of Pins IX. amply proves how liis personal chai'acter influences all his speeches, letters, encyclicals, and bulls. Pius is anxious to maintain his temporal dominion ; hence the many documents bearing on this subject. He is permeated with an extraordinary de- votion to the Virgin Mary ; from her he exjMJcts succour in his troubles ; hence his dogmatic decree of the Immaculate Conception. He is superstitious to a high degree ; hence the winking madonnas, the multiplication of sacred shrines, the numerous pilgi-images, the miraculous relics and images, and the indulgences which he grants for idle and superstitious observances. He thinks a great deal of the piety of the middle ages, for he characterizes them as the Ages of Faith ; his thoughts live and dwell in those ages and he longs to have the powers restored which the popes then enjoyed ; hence the syllabus with its corresponding encyclicals and bulls, which brought to light again the " rusty armour of the middle ages." He is an extreme Ultramontanfe, and per- sonally believes in papal infallibility ; hence the Vatican Decrees in which he imposed his rigid faith upon the whole world. The personal character of the popes, henceforth to form an important element in sliaping the creed of the Church of Rome, will be influenced to a considerable extent by the imme- diate surroundings of the papal chair. The pope, in issuing dogmatic decrees, will be guided by his counsellors. Are these to be trusted ? Their choice depends on his personal predilections, and they may be retained or dismissed accord- ing to his capricious whims. "Well-meaning Roman Catho- lics, confess that there is a vast amount of intellectual and moral malaria in the atmosphere of the Vatican. And can we suppose that this noxious vapour will not insinuate it- self into the judgment of the pope ? i ii ail 334 Roman Catholicism, Yot sinco Church infallibility has been merged into papal infallibility, ovcrything in faith and morals must emanate from this centre. Henceforth the whole Church will be- come Italianized, Attachments to national usage will be in bad odour at Home ; Saxon oincority, uprightne^ss, and inde- pendence will be looked upon with suspicion ; Oriental rites and discij)lino will bo interfered with as savouring of the in- dependence of schismatic times gone by. Conformity to Italian observances will bo introduced wherev er practicable ; Italian casuistry will become the moral standard of the whole Church ; and deceit and untruthfulness will l)e en- grafted on the character of other nations. As Daniel O'Conneli bequeathed his heart to Rome and his body to his native hind ; so the heart of every staunch Roman Catholic belongs to a foreign potentate, whilst he may give the life-service of his worthless body to the country which he calls his own. I cannot see how genuine Christian patriotism can dwell in the ]»reast of one whose heart boats supremely for Rome. The sincere Roman Catholic must ad- mit a twofold loyalty — loyalty to Rome, loyalty to his own country — and to which of these two will he be likely to give the preference, whenever they come into conflict 1 Surely, loyalty to the }>ope he is obliged to believe in as supreme, must and will prevail ] for the pope is his Church and the ("ihurch stands in the stead of Christ. Whoever will not hear the Church, i.e. the jjope, let him be as a heathen man and a publican. He must obey God, i.e. the pope, rather than man. Such, then, is the spirit of modern Roman Catholicism. The substitution of papal infallibility for Church infallibilty — what else is the Vatican definition ? — has indeed changed considerablv the civil status of Roman Catholic citizens. Do Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 335 fgod into papal must emanato Jhurch will bo- isago will bo in bncss, and inde- ; Oriental rites uring of the in- Conformity to V er practicable ; itandard of the OSS will 1)0 en- t to Ttomo and )f every staunch ;e, whilst ho may r to the country ;cnuino Christian [hose heart beats latholic must ad- alty to his own [be likely to give Inflict % Surely, in ay supreme, !hiu'ch and the hoover will not ■^ a heathen man le pope, rather lan Catholicism. [urch infallibilty indeed changed llic citizens. Do they deny that the pope \a a foreign spiritual monarch % Do they deny that they are in conscience bound to obey him unreservedly, and to believe, with an absolute certainty, Iuk dooroes in faith and morals 1 Who can authoritatively define the domain of his power and prerogatives but the pope him- self % Do not all the questions of faith and morals include the whole of life, all the relations of man to God and to society? Does not the pope's supreme authority include an universal guardianship over the legislature, the laws, and government of every country 1 No staunch and intelligent FfcOiaan Catholic will venture to limit these questions, or to give them a negative answer. The minimizing of Dr. New- man and others will not avail here, for it is not practical. It is too subtle and ethereaj for the Roman Catholic public, and it is in disfavor with Rome. When the pope spijaks ho means to be obeyed, and that under pain of the sevci-est cen- sures. The paragraph on the authority of the conscience in Dr. Newman's pamphlet is sublime music to Protestant ears, although it sounds strange to term the conscience the true Vicar of Christ. The pope will scarcely approve of such lan- guage. He will tell Dr. Newman that there is such a thing as an erroneous conscience which requires to be corrected ; that the conscience must bo informed by the truth ; that he, the pope, is the infallible source of all moral and religious truth in the Church, and that therefore the conscience must be modeled after papal definitions and decisions. Dr. New- man's reasoning is only applicable to solitary cases here and there. The general Roman Catholic public forms practical judgments for the guidance of its consc'encp from the plain and obvious wording of papal encyclicals. Most uf the members kuDw nothing of the "acufceness of the schoUx theoh^forwm" for it is beyond their mental reach. This _i 336 Roman Catholicism. "p.;; uiinimizing process in matters whore papal decrees conflict witii the laws and orders of the State appears to me, on the part of some, like the despairing cry of a patriotic heart ; and, en the part of others, like the cunning act of throwing fine dust into the adversary's eyes, as a method of defence. But it is of no avail iv either case. The pope, although he may approve of the latter proceeding, where policy and prudence demand it, will severel} ^nsure and condemn the conscien- tious wail of patriotism in angaish. There is no need of going back to past history ; do we not daily witness the pope's interference in the administration of civil governments, and the constant conflict between papal decrees and civil laws? What else is the bull In Ccena Dominiy the Syllabus, with its corresponding authoritative documents, and other equally notorious bulls and encyclicals, but so many missiles from the Vatican hurled into the legiti- mate domain of the State 1 The contest between the papacy and the empire is ragind fierceljr in Germany, and why? Is it because the Statd tramples under foot the laws of God and the rights of man I No ', but because it disregards the arbitrary enactments of thi pope ; because it demands freedom of action in its own prcl per sphere, untrammelled by the int^^iference of any foreigl potentate ; because it wishes to remove all occasion of dil loyalty in any class whatever of its subjects ; because I desires to ^^ive fair play and mete oiit equal justice to eve J citizen ; because it demands the same liberty which, stran J to say, the pope has granted to other governments. In poil of fact the German empire conceder to its Roman CathoB subjects liberties and privileges wh'ch are denied them I other cour tries. Whence, then, that fierce struggle? ifl secret of the whole contest is that the TJJtraniontaiies Qf Gil Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 337 Lecrees conflict i to me, on the )tic heart; and, f throwing fin® )f defence. But Ithough he may cy and prudence ,ian the conscien- Lstory; do we not administration ot ct between papal be bull In Ccena ding authoritative Us and encyclicals, rled into the legiti- me empire is raging because the State the rights of man ^ p-y enactments of the tion in its own pro- '•ence of any foreign 5 all occasion of dis- ubjects; because it Lai justice to every Lrty which, strange )vernments. In point its Roman Catholic . are denied them in fierce struggle 1 Thel ritramontanes Qf O^r-I many look back to the flesh-pots of the Middle Ages, and cannot brook the idea of a Protestant Kaiser at the head of the German empire. They are unable to dissociate in their mind the idea of Emperov of the Holy Roman Empire from the imperial dignity of Germany. lu that empire the pope ruled supreme ; but new the hated heretic is invested with the imperial purple. Hhic illce lachrymm. Let us pass over to other countries. Scarcely one remains undisturbed by papal intei'ference. The pope fulminates excommunications without number against the Italians ; first, because they exercised their right of choosing their own form of government, and yielded to their patriotic aspirations on behalf of national unity and freedom from clerical mis- government and vassalage ; and afterwards, principally be- cause they disbanded that formidable army of the pope and inciters of rebellion, I mean the numerous religious orders, those pest-houses of laziness and nurseries of superstition, confiscated their immense wealth, and converted it to national purposes. Now, why were the Vatican thunders more for- midable when launched against Italy than in similar cases 1 When, for instance, the French drove Louis Philippe from his throne and established a republic, the pope blessed them and accepted the aid of their armies. When Louis Kapoleon founded his throne on the ruins of the republic, the pope was his friend and called him the Eldest Son of the Church. Whence, then, his wrath when the Italians founded their kingdom 1 Because the papal states were absorbed. And had the inhabitants of these states no rights like other nations? Could they not changje their government when lihey thought that a cliange would better their condition 1 The pope says No; and why? Tieeauso, forsoath, they are the p'roperty of the Church, the patrimony of St. Peter. We 22 pM J ■ u. 338 Roman Catholicism, do not blame the pope for endeavouring to keep his kingdom; but let him do so by lawful temporal means. He has no right to use spiritual and ecclesiastical weapons to secure earthly sovereignty ; remembering that his kingdom is not of this world. His subjects stand to him in the same relation- ship as other peoples towards their sovereigns, and in no other. And as he does not venture to employ against others the severest weapons in the hands of the Church for changing their political and civil relations, why should he use them against his own subjects, when they prefer contributing their share to the unification of Italy and the welfare of their common country % Why does he deem it his duty to employ his ecclesiastical censures only in favour of himself, and not also in behalf of other dethroned sovereigns % The fact is, the temporalities of the Church constitute one of the principal objects of care and solicitude to the pope and his hierarchy. This circumstance must be born in mind in order to understand fully the interference of the infallible papacy in secular governments. None will deny that the Church of Rome pos'sesses, to an astonishing degree, the faculty of amassing property and wealth, and the more she amasses the more she craves. It is on the score of the temporalities of the Church more than on any other, that the State and the papacy will clash. There is a mixed domain. The pope and his bishops claim independent, exclusive, and absolute control over all, without interference on the part of the laity, while the State, in the interest of the whole country, refuses to permit the accumulation of Church property beyond a certain limit, nor permit ltd use f >r any purposes other than those which either directly or indirectly tend to the advancement of the people. Therefore the State demands an account of the manner in which the temporalities are employed, so as to Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 339 secure their legitimate use. Hence the thunders of the Vatican are let loose against those unfortunate governments which dare to interfere with the temporalities of the Church. We know of no other government that would haive shown greater moderation in dealing with the pope than the Italian. The "Statute of Gitarantees" in which provision is made for the free action, security, and independence of the pope, .dis- plays lavish generosity. Moreover, the government, desirous of establishing " a free Church in a free State," gave up all the ecclesiastical rights which it formerly possessed, reserving to itself only a certain amount of control over the temporali- ties of the Church. Yet the pope is implacable, he has nothing^ but censures against the government, its abettors and adherents. I shall not speak further of the constant interference of the pope in the government a^ \ laws of other countries. Everywhere you find him complaining of the violation of his rights. And what rights are they ] Are they inherent in Christianity'? By no means. They are rights established by himself, emanating from priestly ambition and pride, such 1 1 complete exemption of the priesthood from the jurisaiction of the tribunals of the land, exemption from taxation, the exclusion of the laity from the administration of Church-temporalities, exclusive control in all matters per- taining to education, &c., &c. These quasi rights vary con- siderably in diflferent countries. Thus in purely Roman Catholic countries the pope claims the right of persecuting the Protestants, while in Protestant countries he clamours for religious liberty. As he has been in the past, so he will be in the future, in constant embroglio with every govern- ment in the world where he has a considerable number of faithful adherents. 340 Roman Catholicistn, And can it possibly be supposed that the pope's voice will have no influence upon their loyalty and general conduct % Since the Vatican council, the pope's voice is the Church's voice. There is consequently no alternative for Roman Catholic sujects but to obey their infallible chief. It would be preposterous to maintain that the Vatican decree eflfects no change in the status of Roman Catholics. But this transfer of infallibility from the Church to the pope, or the complete identification of Church and papacy, produces its greatest change in the standing of the episcopate. Formerly, the gift of infallibility was believed to reside in the episcopal body, but now the " ex cathedra definitions of the Roman pontifi" are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." Formerly, the bishops were believed to have a jurisdiction of their own in their diocese, but now the pope "enjoys ordinary and immediate power both over each and all Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful." Each bishop, therefore, is a mere creature of the pope, depending altogether on his will ; the pope may interfere in the administration of his see whenever he pleases and as he pleases ; nothing can protect the bishop from the ill-will of the Roman curia, or the intrigues of the pope's favourites. His influence and vote in the councils of the Church amount to zero. His manhood and freedom have departed forever ; he is nothing but a serf of the great pope of Rome. It is only necessary to flatter the slave and give him power over his fellow-slaves, and he will be a hard master indeed. Despotism in the head begets despotism in the officers. We pity the poor people who, without knowing it and without even as yet feeling it, have thus changed the Church for the pope. Without doubt this despotic system has great Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 341 ritality, and will probably continue to trouble the world for generations and ages to come. And why 1 Because these slaves are willing slaves. They are well cared for, and fed with a certain kind of spiritual food that satisfies then: ; and therefore they become attached to their masters. Their spiritual life is devoid of uneasiness and trouble. They be- lieve the food they receive to be good ; they do not care whence it comes, whether from the Bible, or tradition, or the Church, or the pope. We do not deny that Rome has a system of doctrine still fruitful (with all its drawbacks) in instruction, consolation, and, inward renewal. And as long as the priests are faithful in feeding the people with this doctrine, Rome will continue to be a power in the world. But there is every probability that, in the succession of popes, this deposit of doctrines will grow more and more cor- rupt, so that finally it will be difficult to detect in it the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. And we do not see how, since the Vatican council, the head of the Church could be reformed, if it should again become as corrupt as in thfe middle ages, especially during the long schism of anti-popes. Would a council like that of Constance be able to remedy the evil ? No ; such a council would be altogether contrary to the Vatican system. The Church has no power to rescue the papacy from the perdition brought about by its own corrup- tion. LECTUEE XI. REVIEIV OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF PAPAL INFALLI- BILITY. LET us briefly review some other remarks of Dr. New- man. Comparing the infallibility of the Church and the pope, he says* : "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 what 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 lie is to be understood to be exercising his teaching office, and that form is called ex cathedra" We remark, first, that in the Roman system the infalli- bility of the Church is not confined to a council ; not only the ecclesia congregata in concilia, but also the ecclesia dispersa is infallible ; and if one can find out the uni- versal consefit of the latter in regard to any doctrine, he is bound, according to Roman Catholic teaching, to hold it as defide. If, therefore, the pope's infallibility be the same as that of the Church, and if the ex cathedra utterances cor- respond to the decrees of the council, he should not only be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but all his other utter- ances and manifestations touching the faith, made in his public capacity, should be believed as de fide, otherwise the Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility. 343 [L INFALLI- of Dr. New- ) Church and ihe Church is tiop, but their rch must take in fact she is > manner, the or posture, if aching office, m the infalli- cil ; not only the ecclesia out the uni- doctrine, he tg, to hold it ' be the same terances cor- net only be Is other utter- made in his >therwise the identity of his infallibility with that of the Church is not complete. This identity moans that, as the faith of the Church, whether dispersed or assembled in council, should bo the faith of its individual members, so the pope's faith, whether uttered ex cathedrd, or ascertained in any other manner, should henceforth be the faith of the Roman Catholics. Indeed, if the pope's infallibility be admitted at all as a rule of faith, it must be unconditional and unlimited by any subtle terms within which theologians may desire to confine it ; in a word, it must be personal, like the attributes of the Deity, otherwise it will be utterly worthless for the purpose for which it is said to have been given. Wliether they wish it or not, they cannot avoid making it a purely personal attribute. Their doctrine of investing only the ex cathedrd definitions with infallibility does not mend the case ; for it is left to himself to say whai he speaks ex c%thedrd, and thus it becomes a perpetual personal power lodged in the man himself. Moreover, it requires to be unlimited in regard to the matters it defines and decrees, if they say that it is confined to religious matters, they must also invest the pope with power to draw the line between secular and religious ques tions, and does not such a power make the domain of in fallibility practically without limit ? Roman Catholic theo- logians waste their ingenuity and lose their time in mini- mizing the Vatican dogma, and inventing limitations in order to conceal or eflface its obnoxious features. "We wonder that they do not see that their labour is in vain. 1\\ spite of their " wise and gentle minimism," the pope must and will claim and exercise a personal infallibility, untrammeled by any conditions which they may endeavour to impose. 344 Roman Catholicism. ^ « *» i:'j! " The distinction between a jnclgment pronounced ex cathedra, and a merely occasional or casual utterance is, indeed, a perfectly reasonable one, not only in the case of the pope, but of any bishop or professor. In other words, every one whose office it is to teach can, and will at times, speak off-hand and loosely on dogmatic and ethical questions, whereas, in his capacity of a public and official teacher, he pronounces deliberately, and with serious regard to the con- sequences of his teaching. No reasonable man will pretend that the remarks made by a pope in conversation are defini- tions of faith. But beyond this the distinction has no mean- ing. When a pope speaks publicly on a point of doctrine, either of his own accord, or in answer to questions addressed to him, he has spoken ex cathedra, for he was questioned as pope, and successor of other jjopes, and the mere fact that he has made his declaration publicly and in writing makes it an ex cathedrd judgment. This holds good equally of every bishop. The moment any accidental or arbitrary condition is fixed, on which the ex cathedrd natuie of a papal decision iL jO depend, we enter the sphere of the private crotchets of theologians, sucli as are wont to be devised, simply to meet the difficulties of the system. Of such notions, one is as good as another ; they come and go, and are afterwards noted down. It is just as if one chose to say afterwards o^ a physician who had been consulted, and had given his opinion on a disease, that he had formed his diagnosis or prescribed his remedies as a private person, and not as a physician. As soon, therefore, as limitations are introduced, and the dogmatic judgments of the popes are divided into two classes, the ex cathedrd and the personal ones, it is obvious that the sole ground for this arbitrary distinction lies in the fact that there aie sure to be some inconvenient deronoiincecl ex 1 utterance is, in the case of I other words, . will at times, lical questions, :ial teacher, he ard to the con- n will pretend tion are defini- n has no mean- nt of doctrine, bions addressed i questioned as 3re fact that he ng makes it an ually of every rary condition papal decision te crotchets of limply to meet jns, one is as ire afterwards afterwards of lad given his diagnosis or land not as a |re introduced, divided into [al ones, it is listinction lies ivenient degi- Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility. 345 sions of popes which it is desirable to exempt from the privi- leges of infallibility generally asserted in other cases. Thus, for instance, Orsi maintains that Honorius composed the dogmatic letter he issued in reply to the Eastern i)atriarchs, and which was afterwards condemned as heretical by the sixth oecumenical council, only as a * piivate teacher,' but the expression doctor 2^ivatus, when used of a i)ope, is like talking of wooden iron." {The Pope and the Council, page 328.) Koman Catholics arc not better off now than they were before the Vatican council. How will thoy distinguish between those definitions which are ex cathedra, and those which are not 1 Dr. Newman, continuing his comparison between papal infallibility, and the infallibility of the Church, says : " What is to be that moral cathedra, or teach- ing chair, in which the pope sits, when he is to be recognized as in the exercise of his infallible teaching 1 The new dv.fi- nition answers this question. He speaks ex cathedra, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the universal teacher ; secondly, in the na'.ne, and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith and morals ; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision." And then he proceeds to whittle down these conditions to the finest point, so that at last nothing tangible is left of the whole prerogative. First, then, in order to exercise his infallibility, the pope must speak " as the universal teacher." But when does he speak in that capacity ] Dr. Newman answers : " when he speaks to the whole world ; . . . . accordingly orders which issue from him for the observance of particular countries, or political or religious classes, have no claim to be the utter- ances of his infallibility." Where, then, was papal infallibility 346 Rotran Catholicism. i$,' before the fourteenth centuiy ? " No single decree of a pope addressed to the whole Church is known for the first thousand yeai*a of Christian history, and even after the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the popes usually decided at councils on doctrinal questions. Boniface VIII. *s bull Unam iSanctam, in 1303, is the fii-st addressed to the whole Church." {The Pope and the Council, page 331.) Was the gift of papal in- fallibility lying dormant for tliirteen centuries t Were there no controversies to be settled, no heresies to be condemned, during that long period? The popes must have either neglected their duty, or not have been aware that they possessed the prerogative of inerrancy, or ignorant of the condition that they must address the whole Church in order to exercise the gift. Surely, the infallibilists will not maintain that the folios of papal writings before Boniface VIII. do not contain a grain of infallible teaching because they were not being addressed to the universal Church. This condition, therefore, of the ex cathedra decisions is not a test in regard to the past. The fact is, they found a vast number of papal writings and utterances highly obnoxious to, and subversive of, their infallibility system. They had to get rid of these at any cost. Hence their invention of the exrcathedrd distinction and the still further limitation of the ex-catliedrd definitions by other conditions. But in theii' zoal to accommodate their* new system to the past tea' ^in of tlie popes they overshot the mark, and instead t ig conditi ns that would eliminate only the obnoxious achin", they inconsiderately threw overboard the whole in duU , Perhaps they will give us a new edition of limiting conditions by whic' they may be enabled to save as much of the past as will suit their purposes. They must certainly modify this first condition consider- Review of Resirietions of Papal Infallibility. 347 ably in order to bring it into unison with the rest of their system. If you compare the two Vatican decrees of tlio third and foui*th cliaptors, you will find that the samo " supreme power in things which belong to faith ami morals " which in the third chapter is defined to be " ordinary and immediate both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful^^ is declared in the fourth chapter to be endowed with infallibility. \Vc are, therefore, of opinion that Dr. Newman is mistaken when he states that, accord- ing to the Vatican definition, the pope must address the whole Church in order to exercise the gift of infallibility. He is the universal teacher, not only when he issues his bulls and encyclicals to the whole Church, but also when he addresses, in his public capacity, each Church, each pastor, each faithful Catholic. The tenor of both chapters combined has evidently this meaning. Indeed, if he has any relation at all to particular Churches, individual pastors and faithful, it is that of universal pastor and teacher. It is only on account of this office that they apply to him, obey and believe him. Whenever, therefore, he addresses particular countries* Churches, or individuals, he discharges the office of pastor and doctor v>f all Christians — omnium Ghristianomm pastoris et doctoris munere fmigcTis. It would be unreasonable to dis- tinguish between his public acts, considering some of them ex cathedra and binding and others as quite open to debate and dispute. To have a mere universal teacher endowed with infallibility would be absurd. If there be any need of an infallible teacher, he is needed in concreto, that is, for individual cases and wants, j»jard if such be the case, they must admit all the public papal documents, of whatever age, even the strange teaching of the raedirRval popes, claiming the double sword, both secular and spiritual, over the whole Christian world, the power of deposing princes and of absolving sul)jects from the oath of allegiance,