V D I {for- the foundirtf of u. ColUgt hi ihis^ Colony" »Y^LH«¥MI¥EI&Sflinfo • ILUBlK^IKy • DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY GIFT OF WILLISTON WALKER CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE PART II CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE A MANUAL OF THEOLOGY PART II REV. ALFRED G. MORTIMER, D.D. Rector of St. Mark's, Philadelphia Author of" Helps to Meditation," " The Seven Last Words of Our Most Holy Redeemer," "Jesus and the, Resurrection,'' etc., etc. NEW YORK LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. LONDON AND BOMBAY 1898 Copyright, 1898, by ALFRED G. MORTIMER All Rights Reserved XTbe "Knickerbocker lpress, iwew Jtforft PREFACE. IN the Preface to the first volume of this work it was stated that while that part was complete in itself, yet, should it meet with favour, it would be fol lowed by a second, which would make the work a fairly complete manual of theology. The demand for three editions in little more than a year has emboldened me to hope that the book has been found useful, and has encouraged me to fulfil my purpose of completing it. In the preparation of this volume, while the scheme proposed in the first part has been adhered to, with some differences of title or distribution, the projected chapter on ' ' The Mystery of Evil ' ' has been aban doned, and one on " The Study of Theology " added. The character of many of the subjects treated, the fact that in regard to some of them no opinion can claim Catholic consent, and that most of them are more or less involved in controversy, have required a much fuller discussion than seemed necessary in treating the subjects included in Part I. ; and since in controversy it is especially important that authorities be given, many references will be found, which is also an un avoidable departure from the course previously pursued. This has increased considerably the size of the volume, making it half as large again as the former part. It will be observed that no less than seven chapters VI PREFACE. have been devoted to Catholic Eschatology. This may seem a disproportionate space to give to a subject about which so little is defide, and so much only theological opinion. But it may be pleaded that the great interest which all must feel in regard to the subject of the life beyond the grave (that life to which, whether for weal or woe, we are surely tending) justifies a somewhat full treatment of the mysterious questions connected with it ; and further, that this interest has led of late to the production of many books on that subject, written for the most part from an unorthodox standpoint, and bristling with novel theories in regard to probation after death, conditional immortality, universalism, etc., in conflict alike with Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Church. I may add that I had been requested by several priests, whose position in the Church gives them exceptional opportunities of knowing the needs of the day, to pay special attention to questions of Eschatology, and that these seven chapters are largely due to this request. The standard of doctrine followed in this work, as implied in its title, is the teaching of the Catholic Church. On those subjects upon which East and West are not in agreement, both views have generally been given, with a brief statement of the arguments for fol lowing the one which seemed to me preferable. And I would repeat here that I have endeavoured to avoid opinions which, though perhaps tenable, are compara tively modern and lack Catholic consent. In confining myself to this rule I have been unable to give to some subjects the adequate treatment I should have wished, and which I hope they may re ceive before long both from Latin theologians and from those of our own Church. Among these the chief are PREFACE. Vll Trichotomy, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the Priest hood. With regard to the first, while the simpler division of man's nature into two parts, body and soul, is un doubtedly true, and since the time of S. Augustine has been accepted, largely on his authority, as the safer view, yet I cannot doubt that Holy Scripture also teaches a trichotomy, and this indeed seems to have been the opinion of many weighty writers before S. Augustine. The subdivision of the immaterial part into soul and spirit is, however, full of difficulty, and dichotomy has prevailed as the easier, if not the only scriptural division. The relation of- these two by no means incompatible views still awaits satisfactory settlement. In the treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice I cannot but feel that the views of Latin theologians in regard to its nature are most inadequate ; while in other directions, as Dr. Moberly has pointed out,* their treat ment is very disproportionate. That this is attracting the attention of some of their own theologians seems to be indicated by recent works on the subject. Among these may be noticed a study of the conception of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Latin Church by M. Vacant, f Professor in the Seminary at Nancy. In it he traces the history of the views put forth by theologians in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice from the time of S. Justin Martyr to the present day, and shows that while there has never been any dispute as to the fact that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice in which the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are offered by the priest, * In his recent valuable work, Ministerial Priesthood. \ Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans VEglise latine. (Delhomme et Briguet, Paris.) viii PREFACE. for quick and dead, in union with the sacrifice of Cal vary, and as a perpetual memorial of it, yet theologi cal opinion has been constantly changing with respect to the nature and essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the most incongruous views sometimes holding sway ; and he admits that even now the question cannot be considered as settled. A fuller and more recent work from the pen of M. Lepin,* of the Diocese of Lyons, deals with the question more exhaustively, while in Germany views of a similar character have been put forth by Dr. Thalhofer.t We need, too, a more thorough treatment of the Sacra ment of Holy Order. The many opinions which have been held by Latin theologians in regard to both the Form and Matter of Holy Order show us how greatly the subject needs to be studied more constructively ; and this can be satisfactorily accomplished only by clearing away the dibris of exploded mechanical theo ries and starting afresh to investigate all that is in cluded under the idea of priesthood. We shall then be better able to determine under what conditions it is validly bestowed. As this work is so largely indebted to the writings of the Scholastic theologians, a few words may be in place with regard to the defects of Scholasticism. They are chiefly two. First, that the authorities cited are often untrustworthy, which arises from the fre quency with which they are quoted at second hand. Errors have thus been propagated, and the opinions based upon them are therefore valueless. The other weakness is that the same opinions are repeated by * L'ldee du Sacrifice dans la Religion chretienne. | Handbuch der katholischen Liturgie, 2 vols. (Freiburg in Breisgau.) PREFACE. one writer after another without investigation as to their accuracy, so that the premises from which con clusions are drawn are often faulty. Both these defects are, however, the result of an un critical age, and a scarcity of books, which in many cases made a verification of authorities impracticable. Errors of this character have, however, long since been exposed, and there is little danger that a fairly well-read theologian would now be led astray by them. But after due allowance is made for all defects, there remains in the works of the great Scholastics a rich mine of theological treasure. The thoroughness with which arguments are thrashed out, even the most trivial objections being seriously considered, is a useful lesson in an age when men prefer to get their opinions ready-made from brilliant but superficial magazine articles rather than undergo the drudgery of those slower methods which alone can impart solid learning. I am aware that it has been the fashion to ridicule the study of the Scholastics, but I venture to think that the fashion has been both set and followed by those who have only the most superficial acquaintance with the writings they criticise. Another valuable lesson is the scholastic treatment of theology as a whole. The Scholastics do not take isolated doctrines and develop them to the contradiction of other parts of the Faith ; while there are few dangers against which we ourselves need to be more on our guard at the present time than the disproportionate study of a few articles of the Faith, to the neglect of a grasp of the Faith as a whole. As in the Preface to Part I., I would deprecate any claim to originality in this work, which in many places is little more than a translation or paraphrase of Latin, PREFACE. Greek, or French theological treatises. Indeed an in spection of the list of authors consulted will show that from Peter Lombard down there are but few Latin theologians of note whose works have not contributed something. Of English books I would especially acknowledge my obligations to seven. In Chapter II. I own my indebtedness to the able treatise on Matrimony by the Rev. Oscar Watkins. While unable to accept his main contention, I have availed myself of much suggestive matter, especially in his quotations from Zhishman with regard to the position of Matrimony in the Greek Church. In Chapter VII. I have drawn largely from the valuable works on the Incarnation by the Rev. H. C. Powell and the Rev. Dr. Gifford. In the latter part of Chapter VIII. I have quoted much from the Rev. Dr. Green's The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. In Chapter X. I am greatly indebted to the careful analysis of the Cardinal Virtues prefixed to the Rev. Orby Shipley's work on that subject. In parts of Chapter XII., to an Essay on Pain by the Rev. J. R. Illingworth. And in Chapter XVI. to Dr. Percival's The Invocation of Saints,* the only work in English, so far as I know, on this much controverted subject. On page lxv will be found a complete list of all other works which have been consulted. I would also express hearty appreciation of the kind assistance rendered by several friends. My thanks are due to the Rev. H. R. Percival, D.D., for reading the manuscript and for many suggestions ; to the Rev. T. * Longmans. PREFACE. A. Lacey, M.A., for his valuable criticism of Chapter IV., on Roman Objections to Anglican Orders ; to the Rev. Leighton Hoskins and the Rev. Shirley C. Hugh- son for correcting the proof sheets, and to Mr. W. H. McClellan for compiling the Index. In treating of so many subjects where extreme accuracy is required, it is quite probable that through inadvertence errors have been overlooked. I can only say, as before, that I shall be very grateful to have any such pointed out, and that all I have written is submitted unreservedly to the judgment of the Church. Alfred G. Mortimer. S. Mark's Clergy House, Philadelphia, Michaelmas, 1898. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. HOLY MATRIMONY. PAGH -Introductory: S. Augustine's opinion of the difficulties of the subject. — Hopeless antagonism between East and West . . .1 I. The Three States of Matrimony . 2 1. Its institution . .... 2 2. In the fallen state the institution perverted 2 3. In the Christian dispensation restored 3 The essential difference in these states, the presence or absence of grace .... • ¦ 3 II. The Purpose of Matrimony : Definition . . 3 III. Two Aspects of Matrimony .... 4 1. As an act . . .... 4 2. As a state ....... 4 IV. Matrimony as a Sacrament : "When instituted . . 4 1. Its Essence. — The consent for true Matrimony must be : i. True, not feigned ; ii. deliber ate ; iii. mutual ; iv. present ; v. expressed ; vi. simultaneous ; vii. free from error ; viii. free from fear . ... 6 2. The Minister. — Two views . 7 3. Matter and Form ... . . 8 4. Subjects ... 8 V. The Effects of Matrimony . . . . 8 1. Of the contract 8 2. Of the Sacrament ...... 8 Xiv CONTENTS. PAGE VI. The Ends of Matrimony . 9 I. Offspring . . 9 2. A remedy for sin . 9 3. Mutual society VII. The Benefits, or Goods, of Matrimony 1. Offspring 2. Mutual fidelity 3. The Sacrament VIII. The Properties of Matrimony 1. Unity 2. Indissolubility . . . 10 IX. The Impediments of Matrimony . 10 1. The two divisions: i. "Impedimenta diri- mentia;"ii. " impedimenta impedientia " . 11 2. Classification of "impedimenta" into " diri- mentia,'' and "impedientia " ... 12 3. Subdivision of " dirimentia " into: i. " De jure naturali ; " ii. •' de jure Divino ; " iii. " de jure ecclesiastico." — This not a logi cal division, since classes overlap ... 13 4. Difficult to limit right of dispensation exactly . 13 5. Five clearly " de jure naturali ; " Error, Force, andAbduction invalidate consent ; Impotence and Age cause physical incapacity. — Con sanguinity and Affinity partly " de jure Divino," partly " ecclesiastico " ... 13 Existing Marriage contrary to the property of unity. — Lack of Baptism invalidates the Sacrament ... 14 X. Divorce : Of two kinds .... 1. Divorce " a vinculo " ... 2. Divorce " a toro et mensa " No divorce " a vinculo " in the Sacrament of Matri mony. — This is " de jure Divino;" S. Matt. xix. 9 refers only to divorce " a toro et mensa." — Divorce permitted " in matrimonio tantum rato : " . 1. For religious profession . j, 2. By dispensation . . Nullification of Marriage.— Separation "a toro et mensa." — Rehabilitation. — Radical rectification. — 1414 15 CONTENTS. XV Non-sacramental Matrimony. — " Privilegium Paul- inum ;" I Cor. vii. 12-16 ...... 17 Gratian's view of the " interpellate." — Divorce among the unbaptized . . 19 XI. Mixed Marriages : between a baptized person and one unbaptized ... .... 19 XII. Different Classes of Matrimony . 20 1. Valid and Lawful Matrimony . . 20 2. Ratified Matrimony . . . 20 3. Consummated Matrimony . . 21 4. Morganatic Marriage 21 5. Matrimony of Conscience .... 21 6. Invalid Matrimony . . . .21 7. Unlawful Matrimony 21 Other questions belong to Moral Theology . . 21 CHAPTER II. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO THE SACRA MENT OF MATRIMONY. Introductory : On the difficulties in regard to the Sacrament of Matrimony 22 I. On the Fundamental Difference between the Churches of the East and West . . . 22 1. Erastianism in the Eastern Church. — Its causes : i. The influx of the world ; ii. the influence of the court ; iii. the authority of the Civil Law. 22 2. The Western Church free from these influ ences, and so more severe. — A warning to the Church in the present day .... 23 3. Thirteen causes of divorce in the Eastern Church .... ... 24 II. On the Institution of the Sacrament of Matri mony • The Sacrament, when instituted ? ... 24 1. In Eden. i. Authorities: Henry VIII., Ro chester, Pighius, De Castro, Klingius, De Soto, Catharinus ; ii. view staled ; iii. proofs. 25 2. A modern adaptation of this view. — Objection . 26 3. At Cana 27 XVI CONTENTS. 4. In S. Matt. xix. 6 . . . -27 5. In the Great Forty Days 27 III. The History of the Different Views in Regard to the Sacrament of Matrimony : Sevenfold divi sion of the Sacraments in the 12th century ... 27 1 . Objection to including Matrimony. — Peter Lom bard ; S. Thomas ; Durandus a. S. Porciano ; Gotfredus ; Hostiensis ; S. Bernard . 28 2. Argument of Durandus : i. Its difference from other Sacraments : (1) No outward sign ; (2) no sacramental grace, ii. Difficulty of dowry. iii. The Church cannot alter the conditions of a Sacrament, but she has changed them in re gard to Matrimony, iv. The case of valid Matrimony becoming sacramental . . 29 3. Vasquez on the sacramental character. — Estius on the grace conferred ..... 30 IV. On the Dispute in Regard to the Minister of Matrimony : A practical question .... 31 1. The view of theologians generally . . 31 2. The view of Melchior Canus ; supported by Estius, Sylvius, Juenin, Tournely, etc. . . 31 3. Perrone's account of the controversy: i. Canus and his followers argued : (1) By appealing to the Fathers and the Fourth Council of Carthage ; (2) that the Council of Trent implies this ; (3) from the analogy of the other Sacraments . 32 ii. Bellarmine and others replied by reference : (1) To Eugenius IV.; (==) to the Council of Trent; (3) to the effect of the Sacrament itself ; (4) and to the want of authority for this view ; (5) the question of second marriage ; (6) the Fourth Council of Carthage ; (7) the fewness of the adherents of this view . . 34 iii. William of Paris . . 4. Prayer Book statement V. On Mixed Marriages : A practical question in the mis sion field and in America ; a difficult question for the Clergy 3434 35 CONTENTS. xvii I. The witness of Holy Scripture : i Cor. vii. 39, — Tertullian considers this prohibitory ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; vii. 1 ; 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14 35 2. The witness of history : SS. Susanna and Juliana ; S. Cecilia ; Euphrosyne ; S. Cyprian ; Tertullian ; S. Hippolytus on S. Callistus. — Disparity of sexes in the early Church . 38 Council of Eliberis. — Laxity introduced after conversion of Constantine. — The difficulty in regard to catechumens. — S. Monica and Patricius ; Council of Aries ; S. Ambrose ; S. Jerome ; S. Augustine ; Council of Hippo. 40 3. After the 6th century discipline enforced ; but dispensations have been given ... 40 4. Conclusion : Mixed marriages are non-sacra mental and unlawful, but not invalid . . 40 VI. On Indissolubility and Divorce : Importance of the question. — If the "vinculum " is indissoluble, divorce is impossible. — Sentiment and expediency of no weight. — Before Christianity Matrimony was dissoluble. — Our LORD acknowledges this and accounts for it. — Baptism in the subjects makes Matrimony sacramental . . 41 1. The teaching of Holy Scripture : i. S. Matt. v. 31, 32 ; ii. S. Mark x. 2-12 ; iii. S. Luke xvi. 18 ; iv. Rom. vii. 1-3 ; v. 1 Cor. vii. 10, n ; vi. 1 Cor. vii. 39. — Result of these passages . 43 2. S. Matt. xix. 7-9. — Can this contradict all other Scripture ? — The text very corrupt ; and therefore very uncertain. — If the Textus Re- ceptus be accepted, four views : i. that it does not refer to Christrian Matrimony (Keble) ; ii. that it refers only to pre-nuptial sin (Dol- linger); iii. that it refers only to divorce " a toro et mensa ; " iv. that it refers to remar riage. — Tertullian's reply to this . . 4° 3. The theory that adultery dissolves the "vincu lum : " i. Involves adultery on the part of the innocent partner ; ii. if discovery of guilt CONTENTS. dissolve the " vinculum," then "being found out," and not adultery, is the sin ; iii. the impossibility of the " vinculum" binding the guilty but not the innocent partner, shown by reason, and by our LORD'S express words. — This text only permits the man to remarry, if it does that. — Summary of evidence from Holy Scripture ....... 48 4. The teaching of the Church. — For three cen turies no recognition of remarriage. — Her nias ; Justin Martyr ; Athenagoras ; The- ophilus of Antioch ; S. Clement of Alexandria ; Tertullian, (Pusey's note on Tertullian) ; Ori gen ; S. Cyprian ; S. Augustine on S. Cyprian ; Council of Eliberis or Elvira. — The whole testimony of the primitive Church against any remarriage ....... 50 Council of Aries ; Lactantius ; S. Basil ; S. Epiphanius ; S. Asterius ; S. Timothy of Alexandria ; S. John Chrysostom ; Theodoret. In the West : SS. Ambrose, Chromatius, Jerome, Augustine, Innocent I., and Hilary all alike condemn remarriage. — Ambrosiaster the only exception ..... 55 VII. Is " Matrimonium Ratum " Dissoluble ? . . . 56 1. The ordinary view. — The case of the Blessed Virgin Mary and S. Joseph. — Indissolubility an essential property of the Sacrament ; yet " Matrimonium Ratum" is not indissoluble . 56 2. The difficulty here. — The only two possible solu tions : i. Some therefore make the " copula '' essential ; ii. the other solution considered. 57 3. It depends on the legality of Papal dispensa tions : i. Many great theologians deny their validity ; ii. Sanchez gives the two views and the arguments for each ; iii. of the four on the Papal side, all are fallacies ; iv. the history of such dispensations: Alexander III., a.d. 1180; Innocent III., A.D. 1210 ; Martin V., CONTENTS. xix a.d. 1431 ; Paul III., a.d. 1549; Paul IV., a.d. 1559 58 4. Conclusion : i. The power disputed until the 17th century ; ii. its earliest exercise near the end of the 12th century 60 VIII. On the Church's Claim to Constitute and Dis pense "Impediments : " The grounds on which dis pensations stand ........ 61 I. History of dispensations. — Earliest dispensation in case of affinity, Martin V., A.D. 1427 ; Eu- genius IV. refused to dispense ; Alexander VI. dispensed ; and Julius II. ; the Council of Trent ; Estius. — Cajetan's dilemma. — The general opinion of Latin theologians, but ex ceptions of note ...... 61 2. The English Church has never dispensed . 63 3. The controversy of the 17th century. — De Dominis, " de Republica Ecclesiastica ; " Launoius, " Regia in Matrimonium Potes- tas;'' Synod of Pistoia, A.D. 1786; Leopold, Duke of Tuscany ...... 64 IX. On the Impediments of Consanguinity and Affin ity : Two causes of impediments of consanguinity . 65 1. The fact of Divine prohibition. — " De jure Di vino " in the Old Testament ; incest the special sin of the Canaanites ; Lev. xviii. . 65 i. Three lists : (1) Lev. xviii. ; (2) Lev. xx. ; (3) Deut. xxvii. — GOD'S toleration of certain laxity on account of man's moral hardness. — Divorce and polygamy. — Incest not tolerated. • — Levitical prohibitions "a fortiori" binding on Christians. — Incest abhorrent in the sight of GOD 66 Comparison of lists. — Principle clear, though examples defective. — Two cases redundant ; specified because of the examples of Abraham and Jacob. — Prohibitions number fourteen or fifteen. — The relationship through husband and wife is analogous. — Lev. xvii. cannot be exhaustive . .... 67 CONTENTS. The principle of affinity. — Prohibited degrees in the American Church. — The guilt of incest in proportion to degree ..... 69 Principle of limitation of degrees. — Consan guinity only bars where one party is descended from the mother or father of the other. — Affin ity does not bar the relations of the husband from marriage with those of the wife . . 69 ii. The case of the deceased wife's sister. 71 (1) Witness of the Old Testament. — Various views of Lev. xviii. 18: That "sister" means any woman ; that it forbids simul taneous marriage of two sisters. — The prohibi tion does not rest on this verse. — Analogy of levirate marriage. — Principle of affinity found to apply. — Argument from expediency a mere assumption. — It violates family unity, and is therefore most inexpedient .... 71 (2) Witness of the New Testament : Herod's case ; Tertullian thinks Philip was dead ; 1 Cor. v. 1-5 . . -73 (3) Witness of the Church.— Tertullian ; the Apostolic Canons ; Council of Eliberis ; first Council of Neo-Csesarea ; S. Basil ; Diodorus of Tarsus ; S. Timothy of Alexandria ; S. Am brose ; S. Augustine. — Conclusion : Neither Scripture nor Church ever allows such marriage. 73 iii. Method of computing degrees of kinship : (0 In the Eastern Church ; (2) in the Western Church ... -, iv. Spiritual kinship ¦ • • . 75 2. The sanctity of family life and the good of society require the prohibitions.— Marriage of deceased wife's sister illustrates this . . 76 CHAPTER III. HOLY ORDERS. Introductory: The Church a kingdom, and needs officers for its administration.— Our LORD provided for this need CONTENTS. XXI in the Sacrament of Orders. — The dignity of this Sac rament ......... 78 Orders and Matrimony differ from the other Sacraments in two ways : I. They are limited to certain individuals . . 79 2. They are necessary for the perpetuation and perfection of the Church .... 79 This Sacrament provides both a hierarchy and a means of its perpetuation. — Definition of the Sacrament of Orders ... 79 I. Its Sacramental nature examined : . 79 1. Its institution by CHRIST. — The two essential powers of the priesthood — i. to offer sacrifice, and ii. to absolve sin — separately conferred : i. The first, on Maundy Thursday ; ii. the sec ond on Easter Day 79 2. The outward sign ordained by CHRIST medi ately, through the Apostles, i. S. Paul in two places speaks of this sign or Matter, and also of the grace conferred by it : 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6. ii. The objection that xapiS/ioc, not #a'pzSj is used, and that therefore "gratia gratis data," and not " gratia gratum faciens " is implied, iii. Two replies : (1) x0^Pl^lxa *s sometimes used of sanctifying grace : Rom. v. 15. — (2) S. Paul is referring both to the grace and to the priestly character, which is better expressed by x°T/ SovXov. — The modern Kenotic view finds no support from this passage ...... 195 2. Kenotism and the teaching of the Church. — Absence of a uniform theory among Kenotists. — Thomasius' attempt to distinguish between GOD'S relative and essential attributes ; the attributes of GOD not assigned by arbitrary speculation, but necessary in thought ; the term as applied to GOD. — The human intel lect as an instrument for the apprehension of truth ; the Church's approval gives its conclu sions the highest authority .... 196 i. Kenotism and the Church's extraordinary teaching. (1) Kenotism destroys the attribute of Immutability, and thus conflicts with the Creed of Nicsea ; the answer of Kenotists to this charge. —Surrender of Immutability in volves that of other attributes ; the conse quences of the surrender of Immutability destroy our conception of GOD. — Kenotists object to what they call " a priori " views of GOD. — Ebrard and Gess teach Apollinarian- ism. (2) The Council of Constantinople con demned the Apollinarians.— This view found in two stages of development. (3) The Coun cil of Ephesus and the Kenotist view of our LORD'S miracles.— The Ninth Anathema of S. Cyril in regard to those who say that CHRIST "received from the HOLY SPIRIT the ability to work miracles." — The explana tion the Kenotists give. (4) The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the relation of the two Natures in the Incarnation. — The acceptance of this definition inconsistent with Kenotism . 202 ii. Kenotism and the Church's ordinary teach- XXXIV CONTENTS. ing. — No Father or theologian since S. Augus tine's time countenances Kenotism. — An ex amination of four Fathers before S. Augustine claimed as favourable to Kenotism ; Gore ad mits, however, that they do not teach a " limit ation of knowledge," but their reference to the self-emptying without this gives no support to Kenotism. — (i) The passage quoted from S. Irenseus considered ; (2) the teaching of Ori gen on this subject ; (3) the teaching of S. Cyril of Alexandria. — Not the slightest support for Kenotism in any of these Fathers ; (4) S. Hilary of Poitiers uses "form" for the manifested glory, not for the Essence of the Godhead. — Three passages inconsistent with Kenotism. — S. Hilary on our LORD'S mira cles ; on His being in Heaven whilst on earth ; and on His Omniscience .... 208 The only ancient writer who teaches Kenotism is the heretic Beron about the 6th century. — His theory that the Incarnation introduced limits into GOD Himself.— The Chalcedonian decree is the answer to this. — The earliest at tempt to misrepresent Phil. ii. 5-8 was that of Marcion in the interests of Docetism . . 210 The modern view of the Kenosis may be traced to Luther, who, however, confined it to our LORD'S Humanity; Melancthon thought this savoured of Docetism.— The source of this theory entirely schismatic or heretical ; diffi culty of this.— Zinzendorf the father of the Kenotism of to-day.— The Lutherans : Thoma sius, Gess.— The Reformed: Ebrard, Godet.— Dorner's view of Kenotism.— The Danish Bishop Martensen 21I Summary of argument against Kenotism.— If this theory be true, has not the Church been in error, at least since the first CEcumenical Council ? Is this consistent with our LORD'S CONTENTS. XXXV promise that the gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church, and that the HOLY GHOST should lead the Church into all truth? . . .... 211 CHAPTER VIII. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Introductory: Definition. — The relation between Holy Script ure and Tradition. — Analogy between Holy Scripture and the Incarnate Word ; two elements, Human and Divine, in each ...... . 213 I. The Canon of Holy Scripture 214 Meaning of word " canon ; " its application in theology. — Distinction between canonicity and inspiration. — Classifications of the books of the Bible. — Into Old and New Testament. — Into protocanonical and deutero- canonical. — Hebrew Canon contained only the proto canonical. — The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament ; of the New Testament. — The authority of the deuterocanonical books. — The term " apocryphal" misleading, and not authoritatively used in the Anglican Church. — Jewish division of the Old Testament into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. — The Law. — The Prophets, earlier and later. — The Hagiographa. — Two fold division of the New Testament. — A fourfold division of the whole Bible into : Legal, Historical, Sapiential, and Prophetical books. — A threefold divi sion. — Difference between Palestinian and Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. — Canon finally determined before the close of the 4th century. — Council of Hippo, 393. — Divisions of the text. — The Ammonian sections. — Andrew of Caasarea's division. — Cardinal Hugo a S. Charo first divides the Bible into chapters ; Robert Stephanus, 1548, into verses ..... 220 II. The inspiration of Holy Scripture .... 220 Origin of the term. — Definition of inspiration. — It is a grace 'gratis data." — The Old Testament prophets XXXVI CONTENTS. claim to be inspired. — The earliest use of the term " in spiration," 180. — Difference between inspiration and revelation. — Inspiration does not preclude the ordinary labours of an author. — Inspiration differs from assist ance. — The Church has never defined the method of in spiration.— Some inadequate views. — Two factors in inspiration : the natural powers of the writer, and the Divine impulse. — Holy Scripture not only contains, but is the Word of GOD. — GOD the efficient Cause, man the instrumental cause. — Three steps in inspiration . 224 1. The movement of the will to write . . 224 2. Illumination of the intellect .... 224 3. Divine assistance ...... 225 The individuality of the writers preserved. — Some in adequate views examined : Divine assistance only ; ap probation of the Church ; mechanical theory ; reaction from this ; dynamical theory. — The twofold agency in Holy Scripture accounts for its phenomena. — The anal ogy between the Bible and the Incarnate Word. — Holy Scripture both a revelation and a veiling of Divine truth .228 Some corollaries : A book need not be in all its parts the work of its reputed author ; existing documents may have been used, but the inspired mind must have passed judgment on them. —It is not necessary that the titles of books or their reputed authorship be correct ; this canon not invented to meet difficulties of to-day ; found in S. Gregory and in Melchior Canus.— There is no authori tative system of chronology.— Errors may have crept into MSS. ; difficulty about numbers often due to this. — Received interpretation often erroneous ; Dr. Whew- ell on the influence of current philosophy on interpre tation.— Illustration from Fort Sumter.— No Scripture is of any private interpretation.— Facts of science re corded as they appeared to the writer . . . 231 III.— The interpretation and use of Holy Scripture. 231 The various senses of Holy Scripture.— First division twofold: literal, and spiritual.— The literal sense is twofold : proper, and metaphorical.— The spiritual sense CONTENTS. XXXV11 has three subdivisions : tropological, allegorical, and anagogical. — The mystical interpretation has the author ity of CHRIST. — The accommodative sense . . 234 Two sets of canons of scriptural interpretation, the Bible being human and Divine. — On the human side : . . 234 1. The exact meaning of the text to be sought . 234 2. The context to be observed .... 234 3. Parallel passages to be considered . . . 235 4. The opinions of commentators to be weighed . 235 On the Divine side : The Church's interpretation to be followed ; this may be sought in Liturgies, Fathers, and theologians . . . 235 IV. Another theory of Holy Scripture, advanced by " Higher Criticism," under the guidance of unaided human reason .... ... 236 1. The methods by which the Church and the critics respectively reach conclusions. — The Church's method. — The method of higher criticism. — The Church's method may reach absolute truth in the premises ; the critics' cannot. — The infallibility of the Church here assumed, but elsewhere discussed . . .237 2. Apart from the authority of the Church, three lines of evidence for Holy Scripture : i. Archae ology ; ii. internal literary evidence ; iii. inter nal moral evidence. — The testimony of archae ology shows the narrative of the Pentateuch to be true to the life and customs of its assumed date. — The testimony of moral sense is alto gether contrary to higher criticism . . . 238 3. Higher criticism described. — Its origin and history. — Strauss, 1835 ; Baur, 1844. — The three premises of higher criticism. — The at tack first on the New Testament ; since 1878 shifted to the Old Testament, but on the same lines 241 4. The late date of books argued from absence of literary activity in Moses' time. — Alleged com ponent parts of the Pentateuch : i. Priestly XXXviii CONTENTS. code ; ii. the Narrative ; iii. the Deuterono- mist ; iv. subdivisions of each ; v. Redactors required ; but no agreement as to how many sources. — Driver requires six, Cornill fifteen . 242 5. Dates assigned are P, 450 ; D, 640 ; J-E, 800.— Recent archaeological discoveries, at Tel-el- Amarna, and in Babylon, trace literature back to Sargon, 3800 B.C. — Higher criticism there fore 2500 years out. — Examination of date assigned to J-E. ; Babylonian affinities of J, Egyptian affinities of E, but little intercourse with either country between 1290 and 586. — On this ground Moses the most probable au thor. — Recent discovery at Sippara of a J-E tablet of the 14th century destructive to the literary analysis of higher criticism . . 244 V. Examination of method by which the different SECTIONS ARE DETERMINED 245 The method plausible, but a vicious circle. — The cri teria derived from diversity of diction, and an arbitrary assumption of independent authors. — Illustration from Macaulay 's works. — How the frequent conflicts between the criteria are met. — Higher criticism an attempt to solve an indeterminate equation of two unknown quan tities ; the whole theory purely hypothetical. — Difficul ties increase in the Pentateuch and culminate in Joshua. — Two causes why people accept higher criticism. — The theory works only for a few chapters of Genesis. — An example of its inconsistency in the account of the Flood. — Dr. Harper's admission on this point. — A summary : The method being vicious, the conclusions are not trustworthy ; the history of higher criticism shows that the ground has been frequently shifted . . . 249 VI. Illustrations of the viciousness of the method of higher criticism : 250 I. From the criticism of the Catilinarian Orations of Cicero ....... 250 2. Application of the method to certain parables . 252 Conclusion : Importance of internal evidence recognized. — CONTENTS. XXXIX PAGE The quarrel not with the results, but with the methods of higher criticism. — Recognition of discoveries made by critics, but such not contrary to the Church's teach ing. — The conclusions of higher criticism which contra dict the Church's teaching have been answered in detail by many writers . ...... 259 CHAPTER IX. JUSTIFICATION. Introductory: The importance of right views of justification. 260 I. The Protestant doctrine. — The Lutheran view.— By justification Luther meant not renewal of man's nature, but imputation of CHRIST'S righteousness. — The Cal- vinistic view. — Difference between the Church's view and these. — Under the Protestant system . . 261 1. Man is not made, but imputed, righteous . 261 2. The Sacraments are unimportant . . . 262 3. Good works are unnecessary .... 262 Three extracts from Luther's works. — Luther's doctrine compared with S. Paul's. — The effects of this doctrine in our day 262 II. The meaning of Siuaiovv .... 263 I. To declare righteous. — GOD'S declaration effects what it declares. — The Lutheran view contradicts this. — Newman's Lectures on Justification ... ... 264 2. Justification used also for sanctification . . 264 III. Definition of justification 264 1. Four points : i. The negative element, remis sion of sins ; ii. the positive, sanctification ; iii. the means, free acceptance ; iv. the effect, righteousness 265 2. Causes of justification, five : i. The final cause ; ii. the efficient cause ; iii. the meritorious cause ; iv. the instrumental cause ; v. the formal cause . . . . " . • • 265 xl CONTENTS. 3. The dispositions required for justification. — Art. XI. and the Homilies. — Relation of faith and the Sacraments as instruments. — What kind of faith is required ? . . . . 266 4. In what does justification consist? i. In the remission of sins ; ii. in the bestowal of habitual grace 267 5. The effects of justification : i. It renders us pleasing to GOD, and makes us His friends. — Characteristics of this friendship, ii. It makes us GOD'S children by adoption. — Meaning of "adoption." iii. It makes us partakers of the Divine Nature, iv. We be come the dwelling-place of GOD. — This in dwelling in us is common to the Three Persons of the HOLY TRINITY, but attributed especially to the HOLY GHOST . 269 IV. Definition of habitual grace . 270 I. It is a " quality " . 270 2. It is "supernatural" . 271 3. It " inheres in the soul " . . 271 4. " Permanently "...... 271 5. It " makes us partakers of the Divine Nature." — Some illustrations of this. — This participa tion is more than " moral," and is, in a sense, " physical." — And yet this is only by analogy. 272 V. The properties of justification .... 273 I. Its uncertainty. — Its signs : i. The testimony of conscience ; ii. love of GOD; iii. contempt for the world. — Some have had special revela tions of their justification.— The first property is denied by Lutherans and Calvinists . . 274 2. The inequality of justification. — Scriptural proof of this. — This second property also is de nied by the Lutherans . ... 275 3. Defectibility. — Testimony of Scripture. — This property denied by Lutherans and Calvinists. —Habitual grace and mortal sin mutually exclusive 277 CONTENTS. xii PAGE Conclusion : Habitual grace, and the virtues and gifts which it infuses, constitute the spiritual or "new" life. — S. Leo's exhortation 277 CHAPTER X. THE ENDOWMENTS OF MAN— THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. Introductory : S. Paul's description of the effects of justifi cation ...... . . 278 I. The endowments of man 278 The change made by justification implies certain en dowments of the spiritual man. — • These are called "virtues" and "gifts." — Virtue a habit. — Examina tion of the term "habit." — Distinction between habit and disposition. — Habits are essential, or operative. — Three classes of habits : natural, acquired, infused. — Infused habits are not " powers " of the soul, but quali ties. — Definition of "virtue." — Virtues also are nat ural, acquired, and infused. — Man may be considered in the natural, or the supernatural order. — In both he has certain endowments. — While the same virtues exist in both orders, they are different in their " end." — In fused virtues imply natural virtues raised to the super natural order. — Virtues are divided into intellectual and moral, from the power they perfect ; theological and moral, from their object. — Theological virtues have GOD as their object ; moral virtues have the perfection of the act itself as their end ..... 280 II. The four cardinal virtues . ... 281 I. The cardinal virtues generally considered . 281 Meaning of the term "cardinal." — The car dinal virtues are the foundation of the active life of the Christian. — They must all be pre sent in each human act which aims at perfec tion. — These virtues were well known in Greek philosophy, and are mentioned in Scrip ture : Wisd. viii. 7; (Prov. viii. 14). — The moral virtues philosophically examined : A xiii CONTENTS. virtue may reside in the intellect as Prudence ; in the will as Justice ; in the concupiscible appetite as Temperance ; in the irascible ap petite as Fortitude. — These virtues existed in a high degree among the heathen. — The dif ference between them in the natural and supernatural order is found in their " motive" and " end." — Three gifts to sanctify daily life : Reason, Free Will, Grace. — The car dinal virtues enable us : to do all our duty ; to bear our cross ; to act rightly. — These virtues may be exercised actively, passively, and in a combination of these two manners. — A perfect act of virtue has three factors : the motive, rule, and test. — The four conditions of per fection in an act of virtue are that it be done : consciously, deliberately, unselfishly, and upon principle. — There are four elements in a moral choice : the wish, the deliberation, the decision, the will. — An act of virtue, to be perfect, must pass through four stages: viz., the cardinal virtues. — Plato's illustration of the four virtues. — Another illustration . . 284 The cardinal virtues considered . . . 284 i. Fortitude. — Fortitude regulates the irasci ble appetite. — It is the mean between cow ardice and rashness, between fear and desire. — Fortitude compared with Temperance. — Fortitude may be exercised towards our neigh bour, self, and GOD -actively, passively, and in a combination of these two. — The golden mean is to avoid excess or defect.— The mean for Fortitude, its excess, and defect . 286 11. Temperance.— This virtue governs the fleshly appetite, inducing moderation in the lawful use of GOD'S gifts.— Temperance im plies the neglect of a lesser good to gain a greater.— Here a contrast to Fortitude, which endures a lesser evil to avoid a greater.— For- CONTENTS. xiii titude like the spur, Temperance the curb. — Temperance claims supremacy over all man's appetites. — By it we acquire detachment from creatures. — Temperance has many forms. — Temperance has three modes of exercise : physically, intellectually, in combination.- — Its mean, excess, and defect .... 287 iii. Prudence. — This virtue governs the intel lect. — Illustration of the way in which all four virtues must be present in a perfect act of vir tue. — Prudence is both an intellectual and a moral virtue. — As a virtue it must look to a worthy end. — Prudence needs the support of the other moral virtues. — Prudence has four elements : wisdom, judiciousness, vigilance, and perseverance. — Its golden mean, its ex cess, and defect. — Prudence sometimes seems, but never is, akin to cowardice ; like Forti tude, it includes perseverance . . . 290 iv. Justice. — This virtue governs the will. — The functions of Justice are threefold, accord ing to its object : towards GOD, towards our neighbour, and towards self. — Justice may be exercised : positively, negatively, and intel lectually. — Methods in which Justice may be exercised : towards GOD ; towards our neigh bour ; towards ourselves. — The golden mean, its excess, and defect in Justice — towards GOD, our neighbour, and ourselves . . 292 CHAPTER XI. THE ENDOWMENTS OF MAN— THE THEO LOGICAL VIRTUES. Introductory : The endowments of the soul which accom pany sanctifying grace. — The Theological Virtues . 294 I. Some preliminary considerations. . . . 294 The likeness and difference which may be traced in natural and supernatural virtues ; illustrated by the xliv CONTENTS. process of grafting. — The difference between natural and supernatural virtues is chiefly in their motive and end ; illustrated by the process of magnetizing iron . 296 II. The relation between natural and supernatural virtues . 296 1. Faith, in the natural man ; in the supernatural man. — Difference of motive and end in natural and supernatural faith ..... 297 2. Hope, in the natural man ; in the supernatural man ..... . 297 3. Love, as a natural virtue ; as a supernatural virtue ........ 297 The endowments of Faith, Hope, and Love enable man to live as the child of GOD. — The theological vir tues in man illustrated from a plant .... 299 III. The theological virtues considered in themselves. 299 1. Faith. — Faith has for its subject the reason, which it perfects. — Faith bestows on the reason : i. strength, ii. and light. — Illustra tion of a man born blind, iii. " Obscurity," a property of Faith. — The theological virtues given to us potentially, and therefore need to be exercised. — " Meditation" is the exercise of Faith. — Some think they cannot meditate . 302 2. Hope. It has its seat in the will. — Hope rests on GOD'S Omnipotence ; its fruit is joy. i. Hope is intermediate between Faith and Love ; ii. and between presumption and de spair ; iii. it is the special virtue of the Interme diate State. — Hope the stimulus of all spiritual effort. — To its neglect may be traced most of our sins. — An examination of the three kinds of sins : i. of the fallen angels ; ii. of Adam ; iii. of fallen man. — Hope is exercised espe cially by prayer, which is the operation in us of the HOLY SPIRIT.— Prayer is the funda mental function of the spiritual man . 305 3. Charity.— Faith and Hope can co-exist with mortal sin ; Charity cannot. — The relation of CONTENTS. xiv Charity to sanctifying grace, and to the HOLY SPIRIT. — Why Charity is called a theological virtue. — Natural and supernatural Charity. — What Thomas a Kempis says of Charity ; what S. Paul says of it. — Charity enables us to pos sess GOD. — The effect of Charity in regard to our neighbour. — Charity needs to be exer cised : by self-sacrifice ; but especially in worship. — This exercise seen in the offering of the Holy Eucharist, in which the law of sacrifice is fulfilled . . . . .310 IV. In addition to the virtues, justification bestows the Gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT, which produce the " fruits " and the " beatitudes." — Christians should recognize the richness of their endowments and use them ... ...... 310 V. The doctrine of merit. — Merit described. — Protestant denial of merit the logical result of Luther's view of justification. — Merit depends solely upon GOD'S mer ciful promise. — No injustice, had GOD promised no reward . . ...... 312 Our LORD tells us how GOD might have dealt with us, but distinctly promises that He will not do so. — Many passages of Scripture teach this doctrine : 2 S. Tim. iv. 7, 8 ; Heb. vi. 10 ; Rom. ii. 6, 7 ; S. Matt. v. 12 . . 314 The conditions of merit. — Only works done in grace are meritorious. — This excludes works of the law, and those done through natural virtue. — The teaching of Articles XII. and XIII.— " Meritum de condigno." — " Meritum de congruo. " — Things we cannot merit: justification and final perseverance .... 316 CHAPTER XII. THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. Introductory : The universality of suffering ; unlike sin it extends even to the brute creation . . . 317 Upon right views of suffering depends our explanation xlvi CONTENTS. of other mysteries. — Without pretending to solve this mystery, its purpose may be learned from its effects. — Pessimists use the existence of suffering as an argument against a benevolent Creator. — This requires suffering to be purposeless and therefore useless ; when it is shown to be a beneficent factor in man's development, pessimism is overthrown . . . . .318 I. Human life is developed in three spheres : the physical, moral, and spiritual. — In each, suffering is a necessary agent of progress ..... 318 1. Suffering in physical life. — Pleasure and pain the two guides of life, acting as a spur and as a curb. — Pain a safeguard in the pursuit of pleasure, and forewarns man against disease. — In epidemics suffering leads to preservation, and improvement of the race . . . .319 2. Suffering in moral life. — Pain not only warns man from paths of sin, but is a great factor in his restoration after a fall. — It is preventive, remedial, strengthening, and educative . . 320 3. Suffering in the spiritual life adds to its other functions by becoming sacramental, sacrificial, and meritorious, and is the agency by which GOD trains man for eternal happiness . . 321 II. The subject treated more generally . . . 321 1. The origin of suffering not revealed ; but related generally to sin. — Pain as a factor in the devel opment of character in the presence of sin . 321 2. Sin is transgression of law ; pain is the penalty of this disobedience, but also the antidote . 322 3. Suffering is evidential : i. As punitive, an evi dence of GOD'S Justice and Holiness, and of His hatred of sin ; ii. as revealing to us GOD'S Compassion, and by our LORD'S ex ample teaching us sympathy ; iii. as revealing GOD to be man's only refuge. — Its twofold effect is seen on Calvary in the tivo robbers. iv. Suffering as a witness to truth. — The power of martyrdom .... 323 CONTENTS. xlvii 4. Not only is deserved suffering efficacious, but undeserved has still greater power. — We see this in the attraction of the Passion, which still lives on 324 5. The vicarious suffering of CHRIST the climax of the suffering by which man has progressed. — Pleasure and joy leave no legacy to the race ; its riches spring from suffering. — Man's whole life demands vicarious suffering. — Vicarious suffering points to the solidarity of the race. — The teaching of Heb. ii. 10. — All suffering, rightly borne, is gathered up and sanctified in the Cross. — Pain as a gift to be accounted for. — The danger of wasting it. — Rightly used, pain becomes the gold of Heaven . . . 326 III. Suffering in relation to eternity . . . 327 S. Paul's teaching : 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18. — Present suffer ing the raw material of future glory. — S. Paul's " mo ment." — S. Paul's "light affliction." — The condition on which the glorious result depends. — The danger of self-pity. — The importance of seeing things in their true relation to each other. — The danger of exaggerat ing suffering, of letting it make us dizzy from fear . 329 CHAPTER XIII. DEATH. Introductory : Eschatology belongs largely to speculative theology. — Its discussion valuable for exposing error. — Inferences from revelation, and theological opinions not to be rashly rejected. — The limits of theological speculation to be here observed ..... 331 I. Death • 33* 1. Different senses in which the term is used. — Physical death defined ... -331 2. Is death natural to man ? . . . . ¦ 332 3. The origin of death in the world. — Death is the penalty of sin ; not, however, arbitrary, but remedial . ... • 333 xlviii CONTENTS. 4. It is the antidote of sin, and, like Goliath's sword, destroys him who wielded it. — Death is the close of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit. — An illustration from the cita del of a town. — Death brings no blessing to the unrepentant ; but to those who die in CHRIST it is indeed a blessing . . 335 II. The properties of death : . . 336 1. Its certainty ... . 336 2. Its uncertainty . . . . 336 3. It happens but once . . . 336 4. It is an unknown experience to each . 336 III. The accompaniments of death : . . . . 337 1. Adverse conditions of bodily and mental weak ness 337 2. The presence and activity of evil spirits . . 338 3. To help us : the Angel, GOD'S special grace, prayers of the Church, and of friends, Sacra ments of the Church . . . 338 4. Great possibilities at the hour of death : for sin ners, of repentance ; for some, apparently righteous, of a bad death . . . 338 5. Death an opportunity for GOD to help His child 338 6. Danger of our condition being concealed from us. — The responsibility of telling the dying of their state. — Danger of being drugged at the time of death. — Such dangers should be pro vided against . . . 330 IV. These considerations enforce the need of pre paration for death. — Elements of preparation : . 340 1. A knowledge of GOD and of His revelation . 340 2. Conquest of the besetting sin . . . . 340 3. Habits of prayer ...... 340 4. Sacraments received with right dispositions . 340 5. What is to be desired for a good death . . 340 V. What takes place at the moment after death? . 341 We see our LORD and are judged by Him. — The Par ticular Judgment differs from that of the Last Day. CONTENTS. xlix The evidence of the Particular Judgment rests on the necessities of thought, and on revelation. — The fact is " de fide." — Different opinions as to the details. — Com monly held that it takes place at the moment of death, and in the place where one dies. — After this Judgment, the soul passes into Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory . 342 CHAPTER XIV. • THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. Introductory : On the state of the soul after death . . 343 I. Where are the dead, and what is their condition? — To this three answers are possible : . . . . 343 1 . They sleep in unconscious slumber : An early heresy ; revived in the Middle Ages among the Armenians, and at the Reformation by the Anabaptists ; held by Luther, and by the Irvingites. — It has always been condemned by the Church, and is contrary to Holy Scripture. 344 2. All souls at death go immediately to Heaven or Hell. — This too conflicts with both Holy Scripture, and reason ; unless death itself has wonderful cleansing power .... 345 3. Souls not yet perfect at death enter an inter mediate state of purification . this is the view of the great majority of Christians . . 346 II. What is the relation of the Intermediate State TO TIME AND SPACE ? . . ... 346 III. Three views of the Intermediate State : 348 1. The view of the Greek Church: i. The doc trine of the Telonies or Particular Judgment. — Three principal points of the Greek view. ii. Extracts from the Orthodox Confession. iii. Summary of the Greek view. iv. The Greek view compared with the Western the ory of Purgatory. — The differences are two : (1) As to the cause of the suffering ; (2) as to the manner of the relief . . . 352 CONTENTS. Moral difficulties of the Greek view. — The doctrine of Purgatory flows necessarily from right views of justification. — Rejected by Lu ther because in conflict with his theory of im puted justice. — The Easterns reject it rather in theory than in practice .... 354 The view of those who deny that the souls of the Saints are in Heaven : . . . . 354 i. Not a modern error ; Pope John XXII. its most celebrated adherent. — History of the controversy . . . . . . .356 ii. Three objections to the Catholic view. — (1) The first objection, that the soul without the body cannot enter Heaven, is a mere as sumption, conflicting with the teaching of the Church, and with Holy Scripture : Rev. iv. 4 ; Rev. v. 9 (objections to these texts consid ered) ; Rev. vi. 9-11. — (2) Answer to the second objection, that the Catholic view ren ders the Judgment at the Last Day purpose less. — (3) Answer to the third objection, drawn from the words of our LORD to the Penitent Thief.— S. Paul's use of the word "Paradise" ..... iii. The Catholic view accords with Holy Scripture.— Our LORD locally in Heaven only.— The theory of the ubiquity of His Hu manity a Lutheran heresy. — Further Scrip ture proof : 2 Cor. v. 8 ; Phil. i. 23 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; Rev. v. 13 . iv. The teaching of the Fathers.— Only four writers of antiquity seem to question it. Authorities for the Catholic view.— S. Gregory the Great discusses the subject in his Dia logues .... v. The inconsistency of the adherents of the " Paradise " theory in using certain hymns.— A cause of the adoption of this view by some of the Tractarians . . 360 361 362 3&3 CONTENTS. vi. Summary of authorities for and against this view. — It is " de fide " that the Saints are in Heaven ....... 364 3. The faithful departed are divided into two classes : the Blessed Saints in Heaven ; and the holy souls in Purgatory. — Objection to this term. — Said to be inconsistent with Art. XXII.— History of the Article, and of the Tri- dentine definition, now the only authoritative teaching of the Roman Church on the subject. — No protest against the present Roman doc trine, and some doctrine of Purgatory is de manded by the language of the Article. — What was the "Romish" doctrine against which Art. XXII. is directed? — Bishop Forbes describes it. — The wise reserve of Trent on this subject. — Its denunciation of the same " Romish " doctrine . ... 367 IV. The doctrine of Purgatory considered . . . 368 1. Its relation to the doctrine of justification. — The method of justification. — Sin has two effects, guilt and penalty. — By infusion of grace, the guilt is removed and the eternal punishment remitted. — The payment of this "debt" called "satisfaction." — The debt must be paid, either in this life or in Purga tory. — All that is absolutely needful for salva tion is an act of contrition, but this involves certain results ...... 3&9 2. What is Purgatory ? — Distinguish between what is essential, and what is speculative in this doctrine 370 3. Three effects of Purgatory : in regard to venial sin ; evil habits ; temporal penalty . . 370 4. Three properties of the holy souls : They are confirmed in grace ; are conformed to GOD'S Will ; cannot merit ..... 370 5. Two views of the sufferings of Purgatory : i. The mediaeval view ; ii. that of S. Catha- Hi CONTENTS. rine of Genoa and S. Francis de Sales. — S. Catharine of Genoa's opinion . . 371 6. Nature of the sufferings of Purgatory. — i. " Poena damni." ii. " Pcena sensus ' only an opinion, iii. Duration of Purgatory . 372 7. Consolations of Purgatory . . . 372 V. Conclusion 373 I. Antiquity of a. belief in Purgatory : — i. Testi mony of the Catacombs, ii. and early Litur gies 373 2. It removes two great stumbling-blocks in regard to GOD'S Providence : i. The salvation of two men, one of whom has led a godly life, the other has only turned to GOD at the last ; ii. the unequal distribution of suffering in this life. — The teaching of the Church alone meets these difficulties . .... 374 CHAPTER XV. PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. Introductory : Prayers for the dead follow from a belief in Purgatory, and in the Communion of Saints . . 376 The term " Saints."— The HOLY GHOST, the life- blood of the mystical Body of CHRIST, effects the unity of all the members. — This illustrated by the parts of a tree, the sap circulating through every part ; so, in the Body of CHRIST, all the members are joined to gether by the operation of the HOLY GHOST. — This unity involves a fellowship of interest and prayer. — Quite inconceivable that it can temporarily cease in the case of the holy dead . . . 377 I. Evidence for the practice of prayer for the dead . 378 1. The instincts of natural piety .... 378 2. The witness of almost all religions . . . 378 3. Its place among the Jews.— Belief in a future life among the Jews : testimony of Job ; the case of Enoch ; teaching of Eccles. iii. 21 and xii. 7 ; the case of Samuel. — Prayer for the CONTENTS. liii dead in the case of Judas Maccabseus, 2 Mace. xii. 43-45 ... ... 379 4. The New Testament. — The argument from silence applied to Holy Scripture. — Example of S. Paul. — Ancient interpretations of S. Matt. v. 26 and xii. 32 380 5. Testimony of the Catacombs .... 380 6. Of ancient liturgies ...... 381 7. Of the Fathers : S. Augustine, Sermon 172 . 381 8. The authoritative teaching of the East (Ortho dox Confession) . . . . . .381 9. Of the Latin Church (Council of Trent) . 381 10. Discouraged at the English Reformation, on account of gross views of Purgatory, but never condemned ; found in the first English Prayer Book in the Canon of the Mass (part of which now in the American Prayer Book, Burial of the Dead, Additional Prayers), and in the present book. — A Homily against it, but the Homilies not necessarily the teaching of the Church. — The judgment in its favour in 1838. — The growth of the practice among us . . 383 II. The practice itself 383 1. The condition of the faithful departed, i. They are confirmed in grace ; ii. conformed entirely to the Will of GOD ; iii. they can no longer merit, and must therefore depend for help on the Church Militant, and Triumphant. — We should strive to pay the debt of sin in this life. — In what ways can our prayers help them ? — Do the holy souls know of our prayers, and do they pray for us ? . . . ¦ 385 2. Their consolations : i. Their knowledge that they are saved ; ii. their possession of joy and peace ; iii. angelic ministrations ; iv. the prayers of the Church. — An objection noticed. — Are our prayers, if unavailing for the soul, therefore useless?— Our LORD'S words to the Seventy, S. Luke x. 5, 6 . . . .387 liv CONTENTS. 3. How can we help the holy souls ? i. By prayer ; ii. by almsgiving ; iii. by fasting ; iv. by offer ing the Holy Sacrifice for them . . . 387 4. What is meant by " good works." — Every good work has three effects : i. Merit, which is in alienable ; ii. impetration, which can be of fered for others ; iii. satisfaction, which also can be offered for others .... 388 5. We can help the holy souls : i. By prayer (some examples) ; ii. by almsgiving (examples) ; iii. by fasting, which includes all acts of penance ; iv. by offering the Holy Sacrifice (both East and West dwell on this) .... 389 6. What motives should impel us to care for the holy souls ? i. Charity (S. Augustine, S. Je rome, S. Francis de Sales applying the Cor poral Works of Mercy to the holy souls) ; ii. the thought that we may need the same charity ; iii. its helpfulness in reminding us of our own death ; iv. and in teaching us to make our satisfaction here .... 392 CHAPTER XVI. THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 393 Introductory : The difference between a doctrine and a prac tice of the Church .... , . A doctrine, to be " de fide," must have formed part of the Pentecostal deposit. — The Church cannot put forth new dogmas, nor retract those defined. — The opposite is the case with the practices of the Church. — The re jection of a practice very different from that of a doc trine of the Church. — Article XXXIV., of the Traditions of the Church. — Inference drawn from these facts. — Some examples. — Important that the doctrine on which a practice rests should be unassailable .... 305 I. The practice of invocation of Saints follows from a belief in the Communion of Saints. — This article CONTENTS. lv inserted in the Creed to meet the heresy of Vigilantius, who denied the intercession of the Saints ; its history ; Dr. Harnack's opinion. — The invocation follows from a belief in the intercession of the Saints . . . 396 II. The intercession of the Saints. — Testimony of Holy Scripture : Old Testament ; New Testament. — Testi mony of the Fathers ....... 399 III. Invocation of Saints. — Two methods, direct and in direct ; few object to the latter ..... 400 1. Objections to direct invocation answered. i. That the Saints do not know our prayers, contrary to Holy Scripture and theological opinion. — We have no certain knowledge of the manner in which the Saints know our prayers ; certainly not by natural hearing. — Various theories : That the Saints see us "in the WORD," or in the mirror of the HOLY TRINITY, or by some particular manifesta tion from GOD. ii. That, having perfect Charity, the Saints do not need to be asked to pray for us. iii. That the time spent in invo cation would be better spent in prayer to GOD, from which it detracts. — This is true of all intercession, and yet the Scripture en joins it both by precept and example ; besides, the prayers of the Saints may be more effectual than ours. iv. That invocation makes the Saints mediators, and so detracts from our LORD'S mediatorship . . . . 4°3 The Church's teaching in regard to the vener ation of the Saints. — Distinction between "Latria" and " Dulia," one not of degree, but of kind ; illustrated by the use of the word " worship " . .... 405 v. That many abuses have arisen from the cultus of the Saints. — Extract from sermon of the Archbishop of York . . . 4°6 2. Evidences for the practice of direct invocation. — Authorities and examples : The Catacombs ; lvi CONTENTS. S. Gregory Nyssen ; S. Gregory Nazianzen ; S. Chrysostom ; S. Jerome. — Testimony of the Eastern Church (Orthodox Confession). — Testimony of the Latin Church (Council of Trent). — The Anglican Communion entirely alone in its neglect of invocation . . . 408 IV. The cause of its removal from our Prayer Book, its abuse. — Popularity of S. Thomas of Canterbury. — Dangerous teaching in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary. — " But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it." — To some souls invocation is especially helpful ....... 409 CHAPTER XVII. THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. Introductory : The Judgment an article of the Creed, and a special revelation of the New Testament. — Lacordaire's assertion that the sense of responsibility implies a judg ment. —The judgment, like death, a most certain and a most uncertain event . . . . . . .411 I. Differences of the two judgments. — If there be a particular judgment, what is the object of the general ? 412 I. Difference of the purpose in the two judgments : i. The first, to decide the destiny of the soul ; ii. the second, to manifest three great facts : (') The Justice and Love of GOD in His providential ruling of the world, (2) the Majesty of our Blessed LORD, (3) the glory of His elect _ 4^3 2. Differences in the nature of the two judgments : i. In the former, the soul is judged ; in the latter, body and soul ; ii. at the former, no other man present ; at the latter, every one ; iii. the matter both of sin and of good works incomplete until the Last Day, (effects of S. Stephen's prayer, of Boccaccio's Decameron) ; iv. the chief constituents of this judgment are truth and completeness ..... 414 CONTENTS. lvii PAGE II. The time of the judgment 415 III. The circumstances of the judgment. — A question concerning thosewho are living when CHRIST appears. 416 IV. The subjects of the judgment : all men and the fallen angels ... . . . 416 V. The matter of the judgment : 417 1. Deeds . ... 417 2. Words . 417 3. Thoughts 417 Are the sins of the Saints known at the judgment ? — Pulleyne's view ; Peter Lombard's ; the more common view . . . . . . . . . .417 VI. The manner of the judgment ; the imagery of Holy Scripture true, but not to be taken literally . . 417 1. The judgment probably not by words, but by illumination ....... 417 2. The separation between the good and evil . 418 3. The sentence, and its execution . . . 418 Conclusion: The vision of Heaven described by S. John . 418 CHAPTER XVIII. HELL. Introductory : The awfulness of the subject . . . 419 Tendency of the age to pass over or tamper with this doctrine. — The responsibility of explaining away what is clearly revealed by our LORD. — Nearly all we know of Hell comes from the lips of CHRIST, Who teaches this doctrine again and again. — Our LORD knew ex actly in what sense the Church would understand these words ...... ... 420 I. Proof of the existence of Hell . . 421 I. The Old Testament : Isa. xxxiii. 14 ; Ixvi. 24 ; Dan. xii. 2. — Two passages in the deutero canonical books : Ecclus. vii. 16, 17 ; Judith xvi. 17 ; both applying Isa. Ixvi. 24. — The views of the Talmudists .... 422 2. In the New Testament Hell is unmistakably lviii CONTENTS. revealed ; it has a special name, Gehenna ; and a long series of passages refers to it . 422 3. The testimony of the Church : in the Athanasian Creed, which is authoritative in the Latin and English Communions ; in the Orthodox Con fession of the Eastern Church . . . 423 II. The nature of the punishments of Hell . . 423 1. All agree in regard to the "poena damni;" what this involves ...... 423 2. The common opinion that there is a "poena sensus." — No consensus in regard to the fire, whether material or metaphorical . . . 424 3. The companionship in Hell .... 424 4. The worm of remorse ..... 424 5. The duration of punishment the same for all, but of unequal severity. — Accidental mitiga tions ; diminution of punishment ; theory of successive mitigations. — Prayers in old Missals for the lost 425 III. The eternal duration of Hell. — The testimony of Holy Scripture : . . . . . . . , 425 1. The Old Testament ; the deuterocanonical books ........ 426 2. The New Testament. — Three classes of texts : i. Those that use the word aioovioS : 2 Thess. i. 9 ; S. Matt. xxv. 41, 46 ; xviii. 8. ii. Those that speak of the punishment as having no end : S. Mark ix. 43-48 (five times) ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v. 21 ; S. Matt. iii. 12; S. Luke iii. 17. iii. Those that speak of an unchange able state : (Eccl. xi. 3); S. Mark iii. 29 ; S. Matt. xii. 32 ; S. Luke xvi. 26 427 The first class of texts. — The use of aicovioi in the New Testament. — The parallelism of everlasting punishment with everlasting life in S. Matt. xxv. 46. — The second class of texts. — The force of a6/3e6roS considered. — The third class of texts. — An "unchangeable state " explained ...... 428 CONTENTS. lix 3. Two passages adduced in favour of Universal- ism : Acts iii. 19-21 ; the exegesis of the pas sage. — 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; the context considered. 429 4. The testimony of the Fathers : S. Polycarp ; S. Justin Martyr ; consensus of Fathers, except Origen, Gregory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, and a few others. — Origen's views. — He, de nying the restoration of Satan, generally teaches the orthodox view, and distinctly dis claims any certainty in regard to Universalism ; condemned by an CEcumenical Council. — Summary of authority against Universalism . 431 5. A warning against unwarranted representations of the doctrine. — Extent of what the Church teaches 432 6. Extenuating considerations ; the heathen and unbaptized may attain to natural beatitude . 433 7. The moral question involved. — Newman on our moral sense and everlasting punishment. — We must argue from what we do know to what we do not know. — No reason to suppose that a moral nature can be arbitrarily changed. — Eternal punishment may be only the necessary consequence of sin and free will. — The choice man's, not GOD'S. — Vindictive punishment and our moral sense. — The power of this doc trine as a deterrent from sin . . . . 435 IV. The principal modern substitutes for this doc trine ... .... 436 1. Universalism ; its difficulties . . 43& 2. Probation after death ; its immoral influence on sinners ...... • 437 3. Conditional immortality, or annihilation ; un supported by revelation, and contrary to what we know of the indestructibility of both matter and force 438 V. Conclusion: ... .438 1. Misbelief and disbelief in everlasting punish ment compared with the first temptation of Ix CONTENTS. Eve. — The method, first to doubt the fact of the revelation, then to deny its truth. — To deceive man as to the consequences of sin is always Satan's method ..... 439 2. The revelation of Hell is from the lips of CHRIST ; it was part of His kindness. — For many of the Saints fear was the first motive of repentance. — S. Augustine on the relation of fear to love ....... 440 CHAPTER XIX. HEAVEN. Introductory : None can now comprehend the glories of Heaven, but revelation tells us much about them. — Heaven will be the working out of our life here. — Heaven is a place, as well as a state. — Definition of Beatitude. — The glory of Heaven is twofold : . . 441 I. The glory of the soul. — This glory consists in its union with GOD by an act of the intellect and of the will ......... 442 1. Definition of the Beatific Vision.— It is dis tinct, intuitive, but not comprehensive. — In the Vision we see GOD'S Essence ; not, of course, with bodily eyes, but by an elevation of the powers of the soul, through the bestowal of a special gift. i. This quality is called the " light of glory." — It bestows three gifts : (") It elevates the intellect, (2) expands it, (3) directs and assists it. ii. The Saints differ in capacity for the Vision.— This difference de pends chiefly on faithful use of GOD'S gifts here. iii. Two objects are seen in the Vision : (¦) GOD Himself, (2) and the creatures in Him. — This second knowledge is threefold : (i.) of the mysteries of the faith, (ii.) the laws of nature, (iii.) individual interests . . 445 2. By an act of the will the Blessed love GOD per- CONTENTS. lxi fectly. i. The will is attracted to the highest Good, the intellect recognizing GOD as this ; ii. the will is enabled to love GOD perfectly ; iii. the effect of this beatific love is twofold : (i) Ecstasy, (2) and perfect union with GOD. iv. A controversy as to the essence of Beati tude : (1) The Scotist view ; (2) that of the Thomists ; (3) a Jesuit theory combining these. — Summary of this part of the subject . . 447 II. The glory of the body 448 I . All men shall rise at the Last Day with their own bodies, i. The resurrection-body will be perfect and entire, ii. but no longer dependent upon the functions of animal life ; iii. and will be of perfect development .... 448 2. The four properties of the glorified body, 1 Cor. xv. 42-44 : i. Impassibility, — its cause accord ing to S. Thomas ; ii. subtlety, — its cause ; iii. agility, — its cause ; iv. clarity, — its cause . 449 III. Other elements of joy in Heaven : ... 450 1. The negative joys ...... 450 2. The individuality of the joys in Heaven ; — this implied in the imagery of S. John . . . 451 3. The special glory of each Saint largely the result of the struggles of earth . .451 4. Heaven is eternal. — Eternity defined . . 452 CHAPTER XX. THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. Introductory : Excellent work done by English scholars in Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, in editing MSS., and in other departments of theology ; but Dogmatic The ology neglected ........ 453 I. The lack of knowledge of systematic theology among Anglicans. — The average priest has a good education, but theology as a science omitted. — The result of this. — The necessity of facing it 454 lxii CONTENTS. i. The root of the evil is the spirit of protestantism, which is the right of private judgment. — From this root three fruits have sprung . . . 455 i. Lack of method in theological study . . 455 (1) The books mostly used . . . .455 (i.) Pearson on the Creed . . . 456 (ii.) The Articles ; their value. — Their defects as a manual of theology. — The purpose for which they were intended. — The conditions to be met in the 16th century ; those to be dealt with to-day. — Our present need definite dogmatic teaching, to counteract false teach ing, and to satisfy seekers after truth. — A very large part of the teaching of the Articles is negative. — An illustration from medical sci ence. — Such teaching belongs rightly to the history of the science. — The Articles form an unscientific basis for theological study. — An examination of Bishop Browne's treatise. 459 (iii.) Martensen's " Dogmatics " . . . 460 (2) The practical result of studying such books. — The lack of method leads to unbalanced views of truth, as well as to actual heresy . 461 (3) Some object to logic in theology, from fear of unpopular doctrines ; others, because j it is fatal to their special views. — Definition of logic. — Logic applied to heresy. — The " re- ductio ad absurdum " fatal to heresy. — Heresy generally starts from false premises. — Logic has its limits ....... 462 ii. Lack of theological works in English . 462 iii. Inability of the Clergy to read Latin easily 464 2. The remedies for our lack of theological know ledge, i. A practical knowledge of Latin ; ii. mastery of a good outline of theology. — The divisions of the ' ' Summa " of S. Thomas. 465 II. Latin theological treatises . . General works : Schouppe, Hurter, Tanquerey, Franze- lin, Perrone. — Gousset (in French). — S. Thomas. 466 CONTENTS. lxiii Ferraris. — Special works on the Sacraments : De Augustinis, Billot, Gasparri. — On other subjects : Ma- zella, Denzinger, " Manuale Ecclesiasticorum." — The three great theologians after S. Thomas : De Lugo, Vasquez, Suarez. — Other able writers : Bellarmine, Estius, Petavius, Tournely, Billuart. — Roman works untrustworthy on two subjects, Papal claims and cul- tus of the Blessed Virgin Mary ; but Roman dogma far more conservative than practice. — Examples : S. Thomas, Billuart 4°9 Conclusion : A table of ecclesiastical writers added. — No de sire to discourage the study of English divines . . 469 A Table of the Principal Theologians and Writers of the Church 47° I. Eastern and Western Writers. First to eighth century ......... 47° II. Latin Theologians since the Division of East and West. Ninth to fifteenth century . . . 471 III. Western Theologians in Communion with the See of Rome. Sixteenth to nineteenth century . . 472 LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK. A. — General Treatises Used more or less throughout the Book. Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, New York, 1892. Bellarmine, De Controversiis , Prague, 1721, 4 vols. Benedict XIV., Opera Omnia, Prato, 1839, 8 vols. Billuart, Summa, Paris, 1861, 10 vols. Blunt, Theological Dictionary, London, 1870. S. Bonaventura, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1864, 15 vols. Harold Browne, Articles, London, i860. Melchior Canus, De Locis Theol, Venice, 1776. Churton, Missionary's Foundation of Doctrine, London, 1890. Cornelius a Lapide, Comment., Paris, 1865, 10 vols. De Lugo, Disputationes , Paris, 1868, 8 vols. Denzinger, Enchiridion, Wiirzburg, 1895. Dorner, Person of Christ, Edinburgh, 1884, 6 vols. " System of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1888, 4 vols. Estius, Sent. Commentaria, Douai, 1616, 4 vols. Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, Rome, 1766, 5 vols. Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1896. Forbes, Articles, London, 1878. " The Creed, London, 1866. Franzelin, Opera, Rome, 1887, 8 vols. Gaume, Catechism of Perseverance, New York, 1888, 4 vols. Guibert, Corpus fur. Can., Lyons, 1737, 3 vols. Hardwick, Articles of Religion, London, 1851. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, New York, 1895, 3 vols. Hurter, Theol. Dogm. Comp., Innsbruck, 1893, 3 vols. Macarius, Th/ologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, Paris, 1859, 2 vols. lxv Ixvi LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Manuale Ecclesiasticorum , Rome, 1845. Owen, Dogmatic Theology, London, 1887. Palmer, Orthodox Communion, London, 1853. Pearson, The Creed, Cambridge, 1859. Pelliccia, Polity of the Church, London, 1883. Percival, Digest of Theology, London, 1893. Perrone, Prczlecliones, Louvain, 1838, 8 vols. Sancta Clara, Articles, London, 1865. Schmalzgriiber, fus Eccles. Univ., Rome, 1844, 12 vols. Schouppe, Elementa Theol. Dogm., Paris, 2 vols. Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1891, 26 vols. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, New York, 1877, 4 vols. Strong, Manual of Theology, London, 1892. Suarez, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1856, 30 vols. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologies, Tournai, 1897, 3 vols. S. Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1SS2, 34 vols. Vasquez, Opera Omnia, Lyons, 1631, 9 vols. Viva, Cursus Theologicus, Prague, 1716. B. — Works on Particular Subjects. Alford, Greek Testament, Boston, 1878, 4 vols. S. Ambrose, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1853, 4 vols. Angers, Conferences Eccl. de, Paris, 1728, 21 vols. S. Anselm, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1721. Anle-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, 1873, 24 vols. S. Augustine, Opera Omnia, Rotterdam, 1535, 10 vols. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Morale, Prato, 1892, 7 vols. Baronius, Annates Eccles., Bar-le-Duc, 1874, 34 vols. S. Basil, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1834, 5 vols. Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice, London, 1895. S. Bernard, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1890, 2 vols. Billot, De Ecclesitz Sacramentis, Rome, 1896, 2 vols. Bingham's Antiquities, London, 1878, 2 vols. Blackmore, Harmony of Anglican and Eastern Doctrine, Aberdeen 1846. Blackmore, Doctrine of the Russian Church, London, 1845. Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book, London, 1876. Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, London, 1874. " The Reformation, London, 1868. LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. lxvii Body, Permanent Value of Genesis, New York, 1 894. Bona, Opera Omnia, Antwerp, 1723. Boscawen, The Bible and the Monuments, London, 1895. Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, New York, 1892. Campion and Beamont, Interleaved Prayer Book, London, 1880. Catalanus, Opera Omnia, Rome, 13 vols. S. Catharine of Genoa, Purgatory, London. Catholic Papers, Philadelphia, 1894. S. Chrysostom, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1839, 26 vols. Church Club Lectures, New York, 7 vols. Churton, Early English Church, London, 1878. Concil. Trident. Canones et Decreta, Miinster, 1847. " " Catechism, London, 1852. Conder, Tell-el-Amarna Tablets, London, 1893. Cursus Scriptures Sacra, Rome, 21 vols. S. Cyprian, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1726. Dahle, Life After Death, Edinburgh, 1896. Dawson, Modern Science in Bible Lands, London, 1892. De Augnstinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Rome, 1889. Denny, Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction, London, 1893. Denny and Lacey, De Hierarchia, London. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, New York, 1891. Ellicott, Christus Comprobator, London, 1892. Estcourt, Anglican Ordinations, London, 1873. Gasparri, De Ordinalione, Paris, 1893, 2 vols. De Matrimonio, Paris, 1892, 2 vols. Gifford, The Incarnation, New York, 1897. Godet, Comm. on S. John's Gospel, New York, 1886, 2 vols. Gore, The Church and the Ministry , London, 1889. " Dissertations, New York, 1895. " The Incarnation, New York, 1891. " Roman Catholic Claims, London, 1892. Goulburn, Everlasting Punishment, London, 1881. Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, New York, 1895. S. Gregory the Great, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1862, 5 vols. Haddan, Apostolical Succession, London, 1869. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Eccl. Documents, Oxford, 1869, 3 vols. Hefele, History of the Councils, Edinburgh, 1871, 5 vols. lxviii LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Hervey, Books of Chronicles and Higher Criticism, London, 1892. Hettinger, Religion Natural and Revealed, London, 1895, 2 vols. Hugo a S. Charo, Opera Omnia, Venice, 1600, 7 vols. Hutton, Anglican Ministry, London, 1879. Ingram, England and Rome , London, 1892. S. Jerome, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1693, 5 vols. S. John Damascene, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1864, 3 vols. Jukes, The Restitution of All Things, London, 1875. Kedney, Christian Doctrine, New York, 1889. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS., London, 1895. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Paris, 1672, 18 vols. Lacey, Supplementum , Rome, 1896 (?). Landon, Manual of Councils, London, 1846. Launoius, Regia in Matrim. Potest., Paris, 1674. Lee, Christian Doctrine of Prayer for the Departed, London, 1875. " Validity of Anglican Orders, London, 1869. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, London, 1890, 5 vols. Lowndes, Vindication of Anglican Orders, New York, 1897. Luckock, History of Marriage, London, 1894. " The Intermediate State, New York, 1890. Luther, Opera Omnia, Jena, 1556-1558, 4 vols. Lux Mundi, New York, 1890. Lyndwood, Provinciate, Oxford, 1679. Martini, De Antiquis, Antwerp, 1736, 4 vols. Mason, Conditions of our Lord's Life on Earth, London, 1896. Meyer, Comm. on the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1883, IO vols. Moehler, Symbolism, London, 1843. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, London, 1898. Morinus, De Ordinationibus , Antwerp, 1695. Alexander Natalis, Historia Eccles., Bingen, 1790, 18 vols. Neale, History of the Eastern Church, London, 1847, 4 vols. " Tetralogia Liturgica, London, 1849. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, New York, 1895. " Grammar of Assent, New York, 1895. " Lectures on Justification, London, 1838. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1887, 24 vols. Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, London, 1898. Oxenham, What is the Truth as to Everlasting Punishment ? New York, 1881. Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trident., Antwerp, 1673. LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. lxix Percival, The Invocation of Saints , London, 1896. Petavius, Theol. Dogmat., Antwerp, 1700, 6 vols. Les Petits Bollandistes , Paris, 20 vols. Powell, The Principle of the Incarnation, London, 1896. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, London, 1893. Pusey, Everlasting Punishment, Oxford, 1880. Rickaby, General Metaphysics, New York. " Moral Philosophy, New York. Rituale Romanum, Ratisbon, 1872. Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel, New York, 1892. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, London, 1871, 5 vols. Row, Future Retribution, New York, 1887. Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, New York, 1897. ' ' Higher Criticism and the Monuments, London, 1894. " Patriarchal Palestine, London, 1895. Scavini, Theologia Moralis, Paris, 4 vols. Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, New York, 1894, 4 vols. Schaguna, Compendium des Kanonrechts. Scheeben, Glories of Divine Grace, New York, 1898. Schouppe, Purgatory, London, 1893. Smith and Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, London, 1876, 2 vols. Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, Boston, 1877, 4 vols. Suicer, Thesaurus, Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols. Suidas, Lexicon, Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols. Surius, Vita Sanctorum, Turin, 1875, 12 vols. Swainson, Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, London, 1875. Swayne, Our Lord's Knowledge, London, 1891. Watkins, Holy Matrimony, New York, 1895. Watson, The Book Genesis, London, 1892. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, Edinburgh, 1885. Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889. Gospel of S. John, New York. Wilkins, Concilia, London, 1737, 4 vols. Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, Rome, 1776, 3 vol». CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. PART 11. CHAPTER I. HOLY MATRIMONY. OF the Fathers of the Church no one probably had introductory. a greater knowledge of the subject, or has discussed Holy Matrimony in all its various aspects more fully, than S. Augustine ; and he sums up the result of his researches in the following passage : "Although I have thus thoroughly treated and s. Augustine's sifted these matters, so far as my ability allows me, I °?ini°nof thre ' . J ' difficulties of nevertheless realize that the subject of marriages is the subject. most obscure and complicated ; nor do I venture to assert that either in this or in any other work I have _ yet unravelled all its entanglements, nor that if pressed I could even now do so." * Since the year 419, when these words were written, the subject has been discussed by theologians again and again, and anyone who has carefully followed its history will be inclined to reiterate the words of S. Augustine with even greater emphasis, and acknowl edge it to be so obscure and complicated that no fair- * De Conjugiis Adulterinis, lib. I., c. xxv. VOL. 11. — I 1 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Hopeless an tagonism be tween Kast and West. I. The Three States 01 Matrimony. i. Its Institu tion. 2. In the fallen state the institution perverted. minded theologian can venture to regard any theory as affording a complete solution of all difficulties. At the outset we may observe that the Fastern Church is so hopelessly in antagonism with the West on the very fundamentals of Holy Matrimony, that in a work like the present its views have to be left entirely out of consideration.* Matrimony may be considered under three distinct aspects, or as existing in three different states : (i) as " instituted of God in the time of man's innocency " ; (2) as it existed from the Fall until the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost ; and (3) as it is found amongst Christians, from the establishment of the Church to the present day. Those who are not Christians may be considered as still in the second class. In regard to the first division, we have the authority of our Lord Himself for believing that marriage was of Divine institution : " And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He Which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined to gether, let not man put asunder" (S. Matt. xix. 4-6 ; cf. also S. Mark x. 6-9). And we have the same authority for putting into a different class marriage after the Fall, since, when questioned as to the Mosaic permission of divorce, our Lord replied, " Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so " ; thus distinguishing the * For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 22. HOLY MATRIMONY. state of marriage under the Mosaic dispensation from marriage as instituted of God " at the beginning." And thirdly, we have the authority both of our 3- m the Lord and of His Apostle S. Paul for considering that christian c ° dispensation marriage under the Christian dispensation was to be restored. very different from what it had been during the pre vious period, when, on account of the hardness of men's hearts, God suffered divorce to exist (S. Matt. xix. 8 ; cf. Rom. vii. 1-4, 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11). When we examine carefully these three states of The essential matrimony and endeavour to discover in what lay their difference m J J these states, essential difference, we find without doubt that it was the presence in the presence or absence of grace; for Adam, be- orabsenceof fore the Fall, by a special gift of God was endowed with sanctifying grace, and man, since the gift of the Holy Ghost through the merits of Christ, has had sanctifying grace restored to him. Thus we may ob serve that our three divisions really fall into two, and that matrimony may be considered either in the natural order in fallen man ; or else as possessing the dignity of a Sacrament both in unfallen man (as in Adam's case), and also in redeemed and sanctified humanity (as in the case of the marriage of Christians). Whether marriage in the unfallen state was sacramental has, how ever, been disputed among theologians.* As Holy Order was instituted for the spiritual pre- n. ThePur- servation and continuance of the Church, so Holy P°se?'Matrimony. Matrimony was ordained for its physical perpetuation. For the Sacrament of Matrimony sanctifies the propa gation of the human race, so that from a righteous stock a better and more holy race may be born, and that a Christian people may be multiplied for the worship and service of the true God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. *For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 24. 4 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Definition. Matrimony may be most briefly defined as that union of a man and a woman which binds them to an indis soluble partnership during life. Matrimony is always sacred, since it was instituted by God ; but it is a Sacrament of the New Law only when there is added to it that grace which since the Fall has been bestowed upon baptized persons. in. Two Matrimony in the order of nature may evidently be Mrtrimon' regarded either as an act (in fieri) or as a state (in facto esse); that is, we may consider the contract by which the marriage is effected, or the effects of that contract in the life of those who are married. i. as an Act. In the first sense (in fieri) matrimony may be defined as the legitimate contract by which a man and woman, who are capable of doing so, mutually give each to the other power over his or her body for the purpose of pro creation of offspring, and bind themselves to an un divided partnership of life. 2. as a state. In the second sense (in facto esse) we have the per manent state resulting from this contract, which is generally spoken of as the vinculum, or bond, or estate of matrimony. iv. Matrimony The Fathers of the Church often speak of that matrimony which existed from the beginning of the world as in a loose sense a Sacrament, since it was a sign of a sacred thing ; for not only in the state of innocence, but even after the Fall, matrimony typified the future union of Christ with His Church. Our Lord, however, desired that matrimony amongst Christians should express this union more clearly, so that the love of the man for the woman might set forth His love for the Church, and the love of the woman for the man (together with her reverence and obedience) might express the love of the Church with its reverent as aSacrament. HOL Y MA TRIMONY. obedience towards Himself. And since, without super natural grace, this would be impossible, Christ added this grace to the matrimony of Christians. That is to say, He adds to the matrimonial contract itself the power of producing grace ex opere operato, and by this grace He perfects the natural love and confirms the indissoluble union of those who are married in the Lord. And so He elevates matrimony (in fieri) amongst Christians to the dignity of a Sacrament in the strict sense of the word.* From this it follows that all valid matrimony amongst Christians is sacra mental, since between the contract and the Sacrament, in the baptized, there is no real distinction. Our Lord, in elevating the matrimony of the baptized to the dignity of a true Sacrament, does not change the nature of the contract, but its order. He re moves it from the mere order of nature by adding to it the power of producing grace. The matrimony of the baptized is therefore a supernatural contract, whilst the matrimony of the unbaptized is only a natural con tract, but even then sacred and religious. Thus our Lord did not change the conditions of the contract itself, but raised it, just as it was, to the dignity of a Sacrament. There is no agreement among theologians in regard when insti- to the occasion on which the Sacrament of Matrimony tuted- was instituted. The majority consider as such the nup tials at Cana of Galilee, when Christ blessed them with His presence and first miracle. This is the opinion of SS. Cyril, Fpiphanius and Augustine. Others say that Christ instituted it when He abrogated the law of divorce, and restored the original indissolubility of Matrimony (S. Matt, xix.); others again think it was * For a fuller treatment of this point see Chap. II., p. 27. CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i. Its Essence. The Consent required for true Matri mony must be i. True, not feigned. ii. Deliberate. iii. Mutual. instituted during the great Forty Days after the Resur rection ; and there is also a school which holds that its institution as a Sacrament is to be referred to the original institution in Eden. Holy Matrimony involves five things : (i) mutual consent externally expressed, or the contract ; (2) the mutual tradition of the body of each to the other ; (3) the vinculum, or bond, between husband and wife ; (4) the mutual rights of each over the other, resulting from this bond ; (5) the exercise of this right, or the use of matrimony. The important question here comes in, which of these is the essence of matrimony considered as a permanent state. Two answers have been given : the one, by practically all theologians, that the essence of matri mony as an act (in fieri) is mutual consent externally expressed, or the contract, and its essence as a state is the habit of life which results from this, or the bond ; the other, by some Anglican theologians, that the es sence of matrimony is its use, or the copula. This, however, is expressly rejected by almost all theologians of the Western Church. The efficient cause of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the mutual consent of those contracting it. As this is the essence of matrimony (in fieri) the consent must fulfil the following conditions : It must be true, not feigned ; for the contract by its na ture requires this ; and regard must be had not only to the words, but to the intention. A mock marriage, there fore, is null, because the consent is not true, but feigned. It must be deliberate ; that is, with full knowledge and consideration of what is being done. It must be mutual ; that is, given and accepted by both parties. HOLY MATRIMONY. It must be in regard to the present; since by a iv. Present. promise in regard to the future, espousals are made, but not matrimony. It must be sufficiently expressed, by words or by ex- v. Expressed. ternal signs. It must be morally simultaneous ; that is, having a vi. simuitane- moral simultaneity of consent of each of the contracting ous" parties. It must be free from error in regard to the person, vii. Free from Otherwise, the matrimony is null by the law of na- Error- ture ; e. g., Jacob's marriage with Leah was null from error in regard to the person. And, by ecclesiastical law, it must be free from error in regard to the con dition ; e. g., marriage with a slave would be null if the servile condition be concealed. It must be free from fear. Consent extorted under viii. Free" rom fear or under compulsion is not free consent. Feari In regard to the ' ' Minister ' ' there have been two 2. The Minis- views : the one, which in the West took its origin from tef~ Two views. Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century,* that a Priest was the Minister of the Sacrament ; the other, which was the unanimous opinion of all theologians before him, and which is the universal opinion at the present day in the West, that the Ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony are the parties themselves who contract matrimony ; that is to say, they marry one another, the Priest only ' ' solemnizing the marriage, ' ' witnessing it as representing the Church, and bestowing upon it the Church's benediction. Hence it follows that the matrimony of baptized persons is always sacramental, whether solemnized by a Priest, or contracted before a civil magistrate, or in any other way. Those who held that a Priest was the Minister of the * For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 31. 8 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PR A CTICE. 3. Matter and Form. 4. Subjects. V. The Effects of Matrimony. 1. Of the Contract. 2. Of the Sacrament. Sacrament, considered the contracting parties to be the remote matter, the external actions and words by which they signified the contract to be the proximate matter, and the words of the Priest to be the form. But the common opinion, which teaches that the contracting parties themselves are the Ministers, would require that the matter and form should be the consent of each of the contracting parties, expressed by words or signs, although each under a different aspect ; the matter being consent so far as it signifies the mutual tradition of their bodies to one another ; the form, so far as it signifies the mutual acceptance of the same. The Subjects of Matrimony as a Sacrament are two baptized persons. Two unbaptized persons can con tract valid matrimony, though not sacramental. But, according to the laws of the Church, there can be no matrimony possible between a person who is baptized and one who is not baptized, since it is certainly not sacramental Matrimony, nor is it natural Matrimony, and it is forbidden by the Church.* The effects of Holy Matrimony may be regarded from two points of view, the effects of the contract, and the effects of the grace conferred by the Sacrament. The effects of the contract are generally held to be five : (1) an indissoluble bond ; (2) power over each other's body, in order to the conjugal act ; (3) the obligation of mutual fidelity ; (4) the obligation of bringing up children in the fear and admonition of the Lord ; (5) the obligation of cohabitation and co-operation. If, however, we regard Matrimony from its sacra mental side, the effects are : (1) increase of sanctifying grace ; (2) actual graces, bestowed on opportune occa sions, for the purpose of strengthening conjugal love *For a fuller treatment of this point see Chap. II., p. 35. HOLY MATRIMONY. and of restraining indulgence, for enabling one another mutually to support the burdens of that state and to preserve inviolable fidelity to one another, for the right education of the offspring of the marriage, and for the right government of the family; (3) an increase of virtues, both theological and moral, especially charity, piety, fidelity and patience. The ends of Matrimony are three : (1) The principal vi. The Ends or primary end is the procreation of children to be of Matrimony. , '¦ Offspring. brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. (2) For a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, 2. a remedy that such persons as have not the gift of continency forsm- might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's Body. (3) For the mutual society, help 3. Mutual and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, S0Clety- both in prosperity and adversity. Of these the first is the principal end ; the other two being only secondary. The benefits, or goods, of Matrimony are generally vn. The Bene- considered as three : offspring, fidelity, and the Sacra- fits' or Goods' * &' . ¦" of Matrimony. ment itself. (1) By offspring is to be understood not t. offspring. only the procreation of children, but also their educa tion and religious training. (2) By fidelity is meant that 2. Mutual mutual fidelity which each owes to the other in matri- fidellty- mony. And (3) by the Sacrament is meant that in- 3. The sacra dissolubility which belongs only to sacramental, or ment- Christian, marriage. The properties of Matrimony are two, unity and in- vni. The dissolubility. Properties of J Matrimony. The unity of Matrimony demands the union of one 1. unity. man with one woman, as originally instituted by God, and forbids all polygamy, either by way of polyandry or polygyny. Under the Jewish dispensation polygamy and divorce were suffered by God on account of the IO CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 2. Indissolu bility. IX. The Im pediments ot Matrimony, hardness of men's hearts, but in the beginning matri mony as originally instituted was between one man and one woman, Adam and Eve ; and Christian Matrimony is a return to the conditions of God's original institu tion. The indissolubility of Matrimony is its perpetual bond, which nothing but death can break. This indis solubility is sometimes distinguished as twofold : (i) perfect indissolubility, as regards the bond, which nothing but death can sever, and (2) imperfect indis solubility, as regards cohabitation, which can be sus pended temporarily or altogether, but without any loosing of the marriage bond. So that, while husband and wife may live apart, neither can ever marry during the life of the other.* Most Roman theologians of the present day teach that matrimony which is ratum, sed non consum- matum is not indissoluble, but may be dissolved in two ways : (1) by entering religion and taking the solemn vows, and (2) by Papal dispensation for suffi cient cause. This opinion, however, does not seem to go back much earlier than the twelfth century, and is doubtful. The earliest instance of the recognition of the right to dissolve matrimonium ratum by religious profession is found in a decree of Alexander III. in n8o.f Matrimony which has been consummated is in the baptized absolutely indissoluble. In every sufficient definition of Matrimony there is expressed the qualification that the parties must be capable of contracting matrimony ; hence it becomes necessary to inquire who are thus capable of matri- *For evidence of this opinion see Chap. II., p. 41. t For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 56. HOLY MATRIMONY. II mony, and this brings us to the consideration of what are known as the impediments to matrimony, all persons being capable of matrimony who are not hindered by some one or more of the impediments. In this sense ' ' impediment ' ' has been defined as a moral obstacle, or efficient inability, which prevents those who are subject to it from contracting matrimony. The impediments of matrimony clearly fall into two i. The two divisions : (i) those which destroy entirely the capacity dIVISlonB- to marry, rendering the marriage in such a case invalid ; and (2) those which do not invalidate a marriage, but make it unlawful. Impediments of the latter class are dispensable by the authority of the Church, since the power which imposes a law can dispense it. Those of the former class, however, are not dispensable, so far as they are jure divino ; although theologians of the Roman Church claim for the Pope and those to whom he has committed jurisdiction, the power of dispensing some even of these, and of late years that power has been frequently exercised, often to the great scandal of the Church. But this, like so many Papal claims, is of comparatively modern date, since the first instance of a dispensation from the impediments of matrimony was in 1427, when Pope Martin V. granted a dispensa tion in a case of affinity.* Theologians accordingly divide the impediments into impedimenta dirimentia, i. e., impediments which de stroy the capacity for marriage and so render it invalid (although by no means all of them are jure divino), and impedimenta impedientia, which do not render the marriage invalid, but unlawful, except where a dispen sation has been obtained. There is no consensus among Roman theologians as *For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 61. 12 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i. ''Impedi menta Diri mentia." ii. " Impedi menta Impedi entia." 2. Classifica tion of "Im pedimenta " into " Diri mentia " and ' ' Impedien tia." to the exact number or nature of the impediments. The impedimenta dirimentia are generally said to be fourteen or fifteen, and are contained in the following lines : " Error, conditio, votum, cognatio, crimen, Cultus disparitas, vis, ordo, ligamen, honestas, .Sjtas, affinis, si clandestinus, et impos, Si mulier sit rapta, loco nee reddita tuto, Hsec facienda vetant connubia, tracta retractant." The impedimenta impedientia are variously given as four, five, and six. The four are expressed in the following lines : " Fcelesiae vetitum, tempus, sponsalia, votum, Impediunt fieri, permittunt juncta teneri." Some writers omit from the dirimentia ' ' astas ' ' and add to the impedientia " catechismus et crimen." S. Thomas, however, reduces the impedimenta impedi entia to two only, namely, ecclesiastical prohibition and ferial seasons, because the other four are really already provided for by the impedimenta dirimentia, since ' ' sponsalia ' ' comes under the head of ' ' ligamen, ' ' "votum simplex" under "votum solemne," "cate chismus" under "cognatio," and "crimen" under " crimen." If we examine the table of impedimenta with a view to making some classification of them, we have, of course, the ordinary division into impedimenta dirimentia and impedimenta impedientia, the latter class being purely of ecclesiastical authority, and therefore always dispen sable. When we examine the former division it is not so easy to make any clear subdivision, since these impediments HOLY MATRIMONY. 1 3 are evidently traceable to three sources, though two 3. subdivision of them somewhat overlap. There are, first of all, °f"Di?men- r , ' tia"into those that are de jure naturali, which are, of course, j "Dejure under no circumstances dispensable, and which prob- Naturali." ably never have been dispensed, since they are ab horrent to the moral being of God as revealed in man's moral sense and, explicitly, in revelation : " None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness : I am the Lord " (Lev. xviii. 6). A second class are those which are partly jure «• " De Jure divino and partly jure ecclesiastico, that is, imposed ... ,, by the Church on account of God's revelation in Ecclesiastico." Leviticus. This is not because they are contained in the Thisnotaiogi- Mosaic Law, but because they are a revelation of the since da^es will of God in a matter which applies equally to all overlap. men, and in regard to which there are no grounds for supposing that God's will referred only to the Jewish Dispensation, but rather an a priori reason to believe that it is even more binding on the Christian Church. Some of these have been dispensed, probably rightly, 4- Difficult to but it is difficult to draw the line as to exactly where aiSpeilsation power to dispense ceases, and it has doubtless often exactly. been unlawfully exercised. If we now turn to the impedimenta dirimentia we "dejure Nat- shall find that error, force and abduction, inasmuch as nraii" : Error, they invalidate free consent, which is of the essence of duction invau_ matrimony, and impotence and age (by which, of course, date consent. is meant permanent impotence and impuberty), in so ^°^e an far as they cause physical incapacity, are all de jure physical divino ; while consanguinity and affinity are de jure J^^'^jt divino as revealed by God in Holy Scripture, and de and Affinity jure ecclesiastico as specified in the Church's tables of p^iy "dejure ' r Divino, " partly prohibited degrees. " Ecclesias tico." 14 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Existing Mar riage contrary to the property of unity. Lack of Bap tism invali dates the Sacrament. X. Divorce of two kinds : I. Divorce "a vinculo." 2. Divorce " a toro et mensa." No divorce ' ' s vinculo" in the Sacrament of Matrimony. This is"de Jure Divino." Existing marriage (" ligamen") is contrary to the unity of Christian marriage, which unity is one of the properties of the Sacrament of Matrimony ; and lack of Baptism (" cultus disparitas "), of course, renders the Sacrament of Matrimony impossible. The remain ing impedimeyita dirimentia are either jure ecclesiastico or jure civili; namely, condition (slavery), crime, clandestinity, Holy Orders, Religion, and mixed mar riages (" cultus disparitas "), i. e., between those who are baptized, but are not Catholics. The treatment of these impedimenta, however, be longs rather to the department of moral theology. We shall therefore pass them over in this place, leaving consanguinity and affinity, lack of Baptism, and mixed marriages for treatment in the next chapter.* Divorce is the separation of husband and wife, and is of two kinds : (i) a complete divorce, in which the vinculum is dissolved, and (2) a partial divorce, in which a separation a toro et mensa is decreed. Strictly speaking, the first only is understood by the term " divorce," while the second kind is generally called a " separation." As regards the Sacrament of Matrimony, that is, the matrimony of baptized persons, where it has been consummated and so completed, there can under no circumstances whatever be a full divorce, that is, a dissolution of the vinculum.^ This is certain, and rests upon Divine authority, whether we take the original institution of marriage by God in the time of man's innocency, or our Lord's reinstitution of it as a Sacrament of the Gospel. For our Lord said : " Have ye not read, that He Which *See pp. 65 and 35. t For a fuller treatment of this point see Chap. II., p. 41. HOLY MATRIMONY. 1 5 made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (S. Matt. xix. 4-6). The solitary passage in which our Lord is thought s. Matt. xix. 9 by some to have countenanced divorce in the case of r^fers °^y to adultery (S. Matt. xix. 9), properly understood, refers et mensa." only to separation a toro et mensa, and gives no authority for dissolution of the vinculum or for re marriage of either party, whether innocent or guilty of adultery.* In the case of matrimony which is ratum tantum, Divorce per- sed non consummatum the Church has recognized mltted"in divorce a vinculo in two cases. The first is, when tantum rato ¦¦ : either party desires to enter religion by taking solemn •¦¦ Forreiigious vows, in which case the other party is free to marry. pro'x' lOD But it is a question whether in matrimonium ratum there is perfect matrimony. Secondly, some theo- 2. By dispensa- logians of the Roman Church have claimed for the tion- Pope power to dispense in certain other cases when the matrimony is only ratum. These dispensations, however, as we have already shown, are of compara tively late date,f and are not admitted by Billuart and others. In other cases where diriment impediments are dis- Nullification covered, the marriage is pronounced null ab initio. of Marriage. This, however, is not a dissolution of the bond, because in such cases no bond ever existed, since the parties were not capable of matrimony. * For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 41. f For a fuller treatment of this question see Chap. II., p. 56. i6 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Separation " a toro et mensa." Rehabilitation. Radical Rectification. Non-sacramental Matrimony. In cases of adultery and for other causes a decree of separation a toro et mensa may be pronounced. In the case of those who were married with impedi ments which are only de jure ecclesiastico, the mar riage may be rehabilitated by ecclesiastical authority. To rehabilitate a marriage is really to contract it de novo, and whatever things would have been necessary for lawful marriage in the first instance are necessary in the case of rehabilitation ; that is to say, if there be any impediment it must be removed. If it cannot be removed, the marriage of course cannot be rehabili tated. The parties should be in a state of grace at the time of rehabilitation, for it is then that true sacra mental matrimony is considered to be contracted, the grace of which can only be appropriated by those who are free from the obex of mortal sin. In the Roman Church there is a rehabilitation which is called a ' ' radical rectification ' ' (sanatio in radice), inasmuch as the Church is said in dispensing to rectify the marriage in its root. There has been some dis cussion as to exactly what this means, some theologians holding that the marriage thus becomes valid from the beginning (ex tunc), that is from the moment of its first celebration. Others hold that it becomes valid only from the time of its dispensation. Benedict XIV. rules that by this (sanfltione in radice) a marriage which has been invalidly or illegally contracted is not made as though it had not been so contracted, but its inter mediate effects are removed by dispensation, so that the offspring of such a marriage are legitimatized ab initio. In the case of the marriage of the unbaptized there is, of course, no Sacrament ; and such marriage, while it is perfectly valid, is not indissoluble, inasmuch as in dissolubility does not enter into the conditions of the HOLY MATRIMONY. I J contract. Thus we find that although in the original institution of marriage it was indissoluble, yet that even amongst His chosen people God for the hardness of their hearts suffered them to use divorce, as also polygamy ; and what was permissively allowed in the case of the Jews, was, of course, in the case of the heathen. The marriage, therefore, of the unbaptized certainly does not possess the property of indissolubility, and probably does not necessarily possess that of unity, since, as we have seen, both divorce and polygamy were permitted. Under this head we must briefly consider the Privi- » priviiegium legium Paulinum. It is not uncommon in the history pauiinum." of the Church in all ages to find cases where two un baptized persons have contracted valid matrimony (but not sacramental), and one of them has been converted and by Baptism has entered the Church. S. Paul rules i cor. vii. 12-16 in such a case as follows : " If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the un believing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ? " (1 Cor. vii. 12-16). From this ruling the Church has always held that if the unbelieving partner be willing to continue the marriage relation without interference with the obligations which Baptism in- CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. volves (sine contumelia Creatoris), the Christian partner is not to separate. If, however, the unbelieving part ner interferes with the obligations of a Christian life, then the Christian is to separate, and may marry again, if it be so desired. This Priviiegium Paulinum follows consistently from the fact that the marriage originally was dissoluble, and the entrance into a new condition through Baptism was a good reason for its dissolution. Since, however, such a marriage was originally valid and sacred, though not indissoluble, the Priviiegium Paulinum permits it to continue, provided the obligations of Christianity are not interfered with. It should be carefully ob served, however, that the ' ' privilege ' ' is for the bap tized person to continue a union previously contracted in good faith, and not in the permission given in certain cases to dissolve the previous union. Indeed, the Church has held that the Christian member is bound to continue the union if the unbaptized partner desires it, and does not interfere with religious obligations. In order to give the newly baptized the right to dis solve the union, there must either be interference (injuria sen contumelia Creatoris) or release on the part of the unbaptized. It is of importance to grasp this in dealing with similar cases in the present day. Where two unbaptized persons have contracted valid matrimony and one is baptized, such an one has no right to separate from the other unless with his or her consent, or on the ground of interference with Christian Gratian's view obligations. In fact, Gratian and other canonists made of the (.^g dissolubility or indissolubility of marriage depend latio." upon the expressed will of the unbelieving party, so that before a baptized convert could separate there must either be the interference or the permission ex- HOLY MATRIMONY. 1 9 plicitly given by the unbeliever. This appeal to the unbelieving party to give consent to the separation came to be called an interpellate, and after the six teenth century it came into great prominence. When the kingdoms of the old world began to colonize the new countries, large numbers of natives were converted to Christianity, and this question became a very im portant one ; and it was strictly held that Baptism did not justify the convert in leaving the unbaptized part ner unless with his or her free consent. Further, we may observe that after Baptism the union became in some sense Christian matrimony to the Christian, since it was indissoluble from his or her side, though not from the side of the unbeliever ; and while probably there was no sacramental grace conferred, since there was no Sacrament, doubtless a special gift of grace was bestowed upon the believing party to enable him or her to fulfil the duties of that state. Divorce amongst the unbaptized is a matter in which Divorce among the Church has no rights and need have no interest, the un" . , . . ,. . . , baptized. inasmuch as she has no jurisdiction excepting over the baptized. Such divorce may well be left to the civil law ; and however undesirable it may be that persons so divorced should marry again, it is not necessarily a bar to their reception of the Sacraments of the Church, since their original marriage was dissoluble. Marriage between a baptized person and one unbap- xi. Mixed tized, in the first place, can never be sacramental matri- marriages— be- ,. tween a bap- mony, since it cannot confer the grace of union where tized person one of the parties is incapable of grace. The Western and one Church declines to recognize it even as valid matri mony, some holding that it is expressly forbidden by S. Paul in two places. (1) In one of these passages he says : ' ' The wife is bound by the law as long as her 20 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. XII. Different Classes ot Matrimony. z. Valid and lawful Matri mony. 2. Ratified Matrimony. husband liveth ; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the Lord " (i Cor. vii. 39). Here, writing to Christians, S. Paul seems distinctly to limit the marriage of a widow to a Christian ; she can marry only " in the Lord." (2) In the other place he enjoins : " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers," etc. (2 Cor. vi. 14 to vii. 1). Exceptions have been made in the early Church in the case of the marriage of a Christian with a catechu men, and dispensations have been and are frequently given for such marriages, although such dispensations cannot, of course, make the matrimony sacramental.* It may be well, before finishing this chapter, to ex plain certain technical terms which are used in con nection with Holy Matrimony. Where the marriage bond really exists, matrimony is called valid or true, lawful, ratified, consummated, of conscience, or morganatic. If the bond does not exist at all, it is called invalid, null, presumptive. Where the marriage ceremony has been performed by the Church we have public matrimony ; without it, clandestine, or civil, matrimony. Where matrimony is invalid it is sometimes said to be irritum (non ratum). To explain these more fully, we may say that matri mony is valid or true matrimony, if there exists no impedimentum dirimens. If there be also no impedi- mentum impediens it is both valid and lawful ; other wise, it is valid but not lawful. Marriage is said to have been ratified (ratum) when it has been contracted by baptized persons, so that matrimonium ratum of the baptized is generally valid and lawful. The term ratum is sometimes applied to it when it is valid but not lawful matrimony. When * For a fuller treatment of this point see Chap. II., p. 35. HOLY MATRIMONY. 21 matrimony is said to be ratum tantum, this implies that it has never been consummated. Matrimony is said to have been consummated when 3- consum- the carnal copula has taken place. mated Matri" ¦* r mony. Morganatic marriage is so called when a nobleman, 4. Morganatic especially after having children by a noble wife who Mamaee- has died, marries another of lower condition, all the laws and solemnities of the Church, however, having been observed, but with this understanding, that the wife and her children by this marriage shall not acquire any right in the husband's estates, excepting so far as is necessary for their sufficient support ; so that in this case the wife and her children are not fully admitted into the man's family, they do not assume his nobility and titles of family dignity, nor do the children suc ceed to the whole inheritance of their father. As this condition simply refers to the civil aspect of matri mony, such a marriage is a valid and lawful marriage in the sight of the Church. Matrimony is said to be of co?iscience when it is secret 5. Matrimony in the sense that it has never been proclaimed to the °fconscience. world, although it has been contracted before a Priest and two witnesses. There is, therefore, no doubt as to its validity and lawfulness. Since, however, it is for the good of society that matrimony should be public, matrimony of conscience is only permitted by a special faculty and where there are most urgent causes for it, which causes belong to the department of moral theology. On the other hand, invalid matrimony is where 6. invalid there is some impediment de jure divino vel ecclesiastico. MatnmoDy- Unlawful matrimony is where the matrimony is 7- unlawful .. _ . - . . Matrimony.— valid, but not according to the laws of the Church. other ques_ Many other questions in regard to Holy Matrimony tions belong pertain to the department of moral theology. Theo°ogy- CHAPTER II. Introductory : On the diffi culties in re gard to the Sacrament of Matrimony. i. Erastianism in the Eastern Church. -Its causes ; DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY. IN our treatment of Matrimony in the foregoing chapter several difficulties were passed over with a simple statement of the conclusions arrived at in regard to them by the majority of theologians. This was done because a fuller discussion of these difficulties would have somewhat obscured and thrown out of pro portion the general plan of the book. Many of these questions, however, are of so great importance that it seems necessary to give the grounds on which the conclusions which have been adopted are based, and also a sketch of the controversies which at different times have arisen. In this chapter, therefore, we shall take up these points one by one and briefly indicate the various views which have been held by theologians. I. ON THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST AND WEST. The great divergence of the East and West in regard to the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony, which begins with the conversion of Constantine and continues until the present day, may be traced with little doubt to that spirit of Erastianism which is generally found where the Church makes compromises with the world. The foundation of Constantinople by Constantine soon after DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 23 his conversion and the removal of the court and seat of empire to that city were undoubtedly the saving of the Western Church, but they led to disastrous results in the low tone of marriage law in the Churches of the East. Three things followed the setting up of the imperial authority at Constantinople by the nominally Christian emperor. First, the influx of the world into the Church, those i. The influx who were baptized probably accepting the teachings oftneWorld' and restraints of Christianity with considerable reserva tion, and so lowering the whole tone of the Christian community. Secondly, the presence at Constantinople ii. The influ of the Court, with its worldliness, frivolity and loose <=nc* ofthe ' ' J Court. morals. And thirdly, the authority of Roman law, iii. The au- under which all alike were living, both Christians and thorityofthe pagans — law, which in no case recognized the indis solubility of marriage, and, indeed, allowed divorce and remarriage almost at will. The spirit of the Churches of the East has always been, and is to this day, what we have come to call Erastianism ; that is, the Church has always been dominated by the State. On the other hand, the older capital, Rome, was largely free from these influences. 2. The western The Court having removed from there, the sterner Church free D ' from these in- morals and higher character of the Roman Christians nuences, and and their Bishops enabled them to hold to these teach ings in regard to marriage which had been the teachings of the whole Church up to the time of Constantine. In the history of the West we see a realization that the Kingdom of God could not be subordinate to the kingdom of the world, and a manifest determination to maintain spiritual independence at all hazards. Hence it is not difficult to trace the cause of the sad divergence between the East and West on the important subject so more severe. 24 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. A warning to the Church in the present day. 3. Thirteen causes of di vorce in East ern Church. The Sacra ment, when instituted? of marriage ; and this we may look on not merely as an interesting fact of past history, but as a most solemn warning for our own days, that unless we uphold the authority of the Church, Erastianism will gradually undermine both the doctrine and the morals of her children. Practically we may say that the Eastern Church has simply accepted secular legislation in all matters per taining to Holy Matrimony, for at the present day it allows divorce for thirteen different causes ; and, as there is no recognition of separation a toro et mensa, in every case it is supposed to be a divorce a vinculo : although in the case of the guilty party in a divorce for adultery, it forbids his or her remarriage with the co respondent, and this binds even after the death of the spouse. The grounds on which the Eastern Church to-day admits divorce are as follows : I. Divorce with penalty — (1) high treason, (2) designs by either of the parties on the life of the other, (3) adultery, (4) circumstances affording presumption of adultery, or equivalent to adultery, (5) the procuring of abortion, (6) differences of religion arising from the conversion to Christianity of one of the parties, (7) the reception by either party of his or her own children from the baptismal font. II. Divorce without penalty— (1) impotence, (2) absence without tidings received, (3) insanity, (4) leprosy, (5) the undertaking of monastic obligations, (6) episcopal consecration. (Zhishman, quoted by Watkins, p. 354.) II. ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY. Among Catholic theologians there are many, and they not of small repute, who think Matrimony to be indeed DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 25 a Sacrament, not because it was instituted by Christ in the New Law, but because it was instituted by God in the beginning of the world, when He joined our first parents in matrimony in Eden. x. In gden. So teaches Henry VIII., King of England, in the i. Authorities: Treatise on the Seven Sacraments which he wrote Hen,ry YIU" Rochester, against Luther, in the chapter concerning the Sacra- pighius, ment of Matrimony, and so also the Bishop of Rochester De Castro, in his defence of the King. Besides these Albertus Desoto,' Pighius, Alfonzo de Castro, Conrad Klingius, Peter catharinus. de Soto and Catharinus affirm that in the state of in nocence (if Adam had not sinned) Matrimony would have been a Sacrament conferring grace. But after sin, they say, it was not the same until God a. view stated by penance restored man to His favour, but that, man being thus restored, it was then instituted anew by God, when He said to the woman : " In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children ; ' ' this institution, however, gained its efficacy from the merits of the Passion of Christ, Who is said to have been slain from the beginning of the world, conferring grace by reason of the effect of His merits. And although Peter de Soto says in regard to S. Matt, xix., "What therefore God hath joined to gether, let not man put asunder," that Matrimony was then instituted as a Sacrament, nevertheless he also says the first institution was in the state of inno cence, and that in S. Matt. xix. Matrimony was brought back to its original purpose, and so was confirmed rather than instituted. This opinion of Catholic theologians is proved as m. proofs. follows : First, because when God blessed the matri mony of our first parents, and in it all other matrimony, He said, " Increase and multiply." 26 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. It follows that He must have conferred grace, and have promised it in other marriages, since the word of the Lord is always efficacious, and the efficacious ben ediction of God produces grace. And truly, as Pighius says, unless God by His benediction not only on Adam, but on others joined in matrimony, had conferred and is conferring grace, Matrimony could neither be said to have been instituted as a remedy against sin, nor the act of marriage to be without sin. Another proof is as follows : If from any place in Holy Scripture it is possible to gather that Matri mony is a Sacrament, it is certainly from Eph. v. 32 : " This is a great mystery," etc. But this place seems to teach that Matrimony was instituted as a Sacra ment not first in the Gospel, but by God in the begin ning of the world. And therefore from these words of S. Paul it follows that Matrimony from the beginning was and always has been a Sacrament instituted by God. So Leo I. in Epistle XC, ad Rusticum, c. 4, says the cohabitation of matrimony was thus constituted from the beginning, in order that in addition to the union of the sexes it might be in itself a Sacrament of Christ and of the Church.* 2. a modem Thus far we have given the opinions of the theolo- adaptation oi gjans 0f the middle ages. There are some in our own this view. . time who consider, with those quoted, that the Sacra ment of Matrimony was instituted in the time of man's innocency, but differ from them in holding that Matri mony ceased to be sacramental during the period be tween man's fall and his restoration in Christ. Their argument is briefly this : That since Adam in his un fallen state possessed sanctifying grace and infused *This subject is fully discussed in Vasquez, torn. VIII., de Matrimonio, disp. 2, c. 2, p. 300. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 2J gifts, he was in the state of a baptized person, and therefore his matrimony was sacramental. Against this last view, it may of course be said that objection. a baptized person is a member of Christ's Mystical Body, sanctifying grace and infused gifts being a result of this ; and S. Paul's argument against fornication is that ' ' the bodies of ' ' Christians ' ' are the members of Christ " and must not be made " the members of an harlot " (i Cor. vi. 15) ; and again, when speaking of being " unequally yoked together with unbelievers," he says : ' ' What agreement hath the temple of God with idols ? for ye are the temple of the living God ' ' (2 Cor. vi. 16). It is not therefore only the possession of sanctifying grace, but incorporation into Christ, which makes Matrimony sacramental. But the opinion that the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted in the time of man's innocency is well deserving of consideration. Some have thought that the Sacrament of Matrimony 3. At cana. was instituted at the Marriage of Cana. Others consider that it was instituted when our Lord 4. m s. Matt. declared its indissolubility in S. Matt. xix. 6. xlx 6- Yet others hold that it was one of those ' ' things per- 5. m the great taining to the Kingdom of God " (Acts i. 3), concern- Forty Days- ing which He gave instructions to His Apostles during the forty days after His Resurrection. III. THE HISTORY OF THE DIFFERENT VIEWS IN REGARD TO THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY. The sevenfold classification of the Sacraments as we sevenfold divi- now have it is not authoritatively earlier than the be- ^men^n The ginning of the twelfth century. By the Fathers of the 12th century. Church the term "Sacrament" was used in a loose sense, and applied to many other things besides those 28 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i. Objection to including Mat rimony. Peter Lom bard. S. Thomas. Durandus a S. Porciano. Gotfredus. Hostiensis. S. Bernard. which to-day we call Sacraments ; for example, S. Dionysius the Areopagite speaks of the religious life as a Sacrament. When the sevenfold division was sug gested there were numerous discussions, and objections were raised to including Matrimony among the Sacra ments. Peter Lombard (lib. IV., d. 2) seems first to have doubted whether it was a Sacrament, and S. Thomas (Summa, supp., qusest. 42, art. 3) only gives it as the more probable opinion that it confers grace, with which S. Bonaventura and Scotus agree. It is, however, in the writings of Durandus a S. Por ciano, who died 1333, that we have the fullest discussion of these views. Although he admits that to deny that Matrimony is a Sacrament is manifestly heresy, because it has been defined to be a Sacrament, nevertheless he affirms that " it is a Sacrament in an equivocal sense in regard to the other six, because it does not confer grace on those receiving it, and so is not a sign of grace sanctifying the recipients, as the definition of a Sacra ment of the Church requires; but [he says] it is a Sac rament in that it is a symbol of a certain sacred thing, that is of the union of Christ with the Church." This sentence Durandus tells us is held by many lawyers ; of whom he cites Gotfredus, in his Summa, in the chapter on the non-iteration of Sacraments ; he notes that Hostiensis also, in his Summa, Book I., affirms the same, and likewise S. Bernard, in the chap ter Cum in Ecclesia Corpore, on Simony. It seems also to be the opinion of Peter Lombard in IV., d. 2, where he says : " Certain of the Sacraments confer a remedy against sin, and assisting grace, such as Baptism ; but others only a remedy, such as Mar riage ; others support us by grace and virtue, as the DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 29 Eucharist and Orders." For since Matrimony, accord ing to his opinion, is only a remedy against sin, and indeed was used for this purpose before the Advent of Christ, when it did not bestow grace, there does not seem any reason to concede that it is even a Sacrament, as Durandus does. Durandus first proves Matrimony to be equivocally a 2. Argument Sacrament in regard to the other six by various con- of Durandus- siderations. First, because all the other Sacraments are signs, i. its differ- not by their own nature, but by Divine institution en=efrOIn J ' J other Sacra- and in a supernatural manner, as is evident ; but Mat- ments : rimony is a natural sign. From this it would seem W no out- ward sign. to follow that the term ' ' Sacrament ' ' is not applied to Matrimony in the same sense as to the other Sac raments, but in an equivocal sense ; for in the others external matter, by which they are perfected, is always used (as water in Baptism) ; but in Matrimony the acts of the contracting parties themselves are sufficient. He therefore considers that in Matrimony no grace is (2) no sacra- conferred ; since by Matrimony the ' ' first grace ' ' can- mental £""*• not be conferred, for it was not instituted for the re mission of sins ; nor the " second grace," because this would imply an increase of sanctifying grace. For if it conferred "second grace" it would follow that those who by the grace of God were living in the state of virginity, if they contracted matrimony, and so left the more perfect state of continence, would have their grace increased. But this, as he says, is not credible ; for indeed it would seem that their grace would be di minished rather than increased, since a change from a more perfect to a less perfect state would be a declen sion, not an advance. Secondly (and this is the reason of the canonists a. Difficulty of dowry. 30 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iii. The Church cannot alter the conditions of a Sacra ment, but she has changed them in regard to Matrimony. iv. The case of valid Matri mony becom ing sacra mental. 3. Vasquez on the sacramen tal character. Estius on the grace con ferred. whose opinion he follows), because in Matrimony an agreement is made by the contracting parties in regard to dowry, but this would not be in any sense lawful if it were a Sacrament conferring grace, for it would manifestly be the sin of simony. Thirdly, because the Church has not power to order or alter anything in regard to the Subjects, Matter and Form of Sacraments; but she has altered and ordered many things in regard to these in Matrimony, for she has rendered many persons incapable of Matrimony by constituting impediments ; therefore Matrimony is not a Sacrament. Fourthly, because infidels, not being baptized, are capable of no Sacrament of the Church which confers grace, except the Sacrament of Baptism ; but they are capable of matrimony, since amongst them there is true and legitimate matrimony ; therefore it is not a Sacra ment of the Church conferring grace. Nor can it be objected that the matrimony of infidels is not called ratum, for if they afterwards are baptized it becomes ratum and yet is not made a Sacrament, since nothing is then done in regard to the previous matrimony. To this may be added that if it be asserted that matrimony then becomes a Sacrament, it must follow that they not only then receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but also at the same time the Sacrament of Matrimony, which does not seem possible. These views of Durandus and others may be found fully discussed, and their arguments answered, in Vas quez, torn. VIII., de Matrimonio, disp. 2; c. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10; pp. 299-318. The question in regard to the grace conferred in Holy Matrimony is very fully treated, with all the objections and the replies to them, in Estius, Com. in Sent., torn. II., lib. IV., dist. 26; §§ 7, 8, 9; pp. 67-73. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 3 1 IV. ON THE DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE MINISTER OF MATRIMONY. In treating of the Matter, Form, and Minister of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, it will be well to discuss more fully an opinion which at one time prevailed on this subject — namely, that a Priest is the "Minister" of the Sacrament, so that there is no a practical Sacrament apart from marriage by a Priest. This iuestl0n- discussion is rendered necessary, not only because of the weighty names on both sides, but also because there are many persons in the present day (not theo logians, and without knowledge that the subject has ever been considered or decided), who practically hold this opinion; although it has been given up by all theologians, and formally condemned. This view, as we have shown, requires also an alteration in the theory of the Matter and Form. Until the sixteenth century theologians were unani- 1. The view of mous in teaching that the Ministers of the Sacrament t^°1^|ans of Matrimony were the contracting parties themselves, or that they really married themselves, the Priest being only the Church's witness, giving the Church's benediction, and so solemnizing the marriage. Among the famous theologians of the sixteenth cen- 2. The view of tury was Melchior Canus, a Spanish theologian who died at Toledo in 1560, having been a professor of theology at Alcala and Salamanca, Bishop of the Canaries and Provincial of the Dominicans. He, in his celebrated work De Locis Theologicis, lib. VIII., cap. v., started a new view in regard to the Matter, Form and Minister of Matrimony; namely, that the Minister, as in the case of other Sacraments, must be a Priest of the Church. This view was discussed in the Council of Trent, though not adopted by it, but, as is probable, formally MelchiorCanus, 32 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Supported by Estius,Sylvius, Juenin, Tournely, etc. 3. Perrone's account of the controversy — i. Canus and his followers argued : (1) By appeal ing to the Fathers and Fourth Council of Carthage. (2) That the Council of Trent implies this. (3) The analogy of the other Sacraments. ii. Bellarmine and others replied by reference : (1) To Eugen- ius IV, (2) To the Council of Trent, excluded by its definition ; and for a considerable period it held its place in the theological schools, num bering among its adherents theologians as celebrated as Estius, Sylvius, Juenin, Tournely, and others. The whole controversy is well summed up by Per rone.* Canus and his followers supported their opinion as follows: First, they appealed to the teaching of the Fathers, and especially to the Fourth Council of Carthage, which required that out of reverence for the nuptial benedic tion given by the Priest, the spouses should remain con tinent during the first night. From this they assumed that there must be something especially solemn in the benediction, which would not be the case unless it were the Form of the Sacrament. Secondly, they adduced the words prescribed by the Council of Trent for the celebration of Matrimony (Ego conjungo vos in matrimonium), which they com pared with the words of Baptism and Absolution (Ego te baptizo and Ego te absolvo). Thirdly, they urged the analogy of the other Sacra ments, which are only administered by the Priest, quoting S. Paul's words, " Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mys teries of God " (dispensers of the Sacraments). This view was opposed by Bellarmine and many others, who defended the more ancient theory thus: First, they referred to the authority of Eugenius IV., who in the Instructio pro Armenis says that the efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent, etc. Secondly, they relied on the declaration of the Coun cil of Trent itself, which had been claimed on the side of Canus, where, in regard to clandestine marriages, * Tract, de Matr., vol. VII., cap. I., sec. 35; pp. 217-228. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 33 which that Council makes invalid, they showed that as such marriages were allowed to be valid until thirty days after the publication of the decree, and are also considered rata et vera in those countries in which the decrees of the Council of Trent on marriage are not in force, that therefore the marriage was not ratum et verum merely because it was a natural and civil contract, but because it was a Sacrament, which nevertheless was perfected and completed by the free consent of the contracting parties only. Therefore not the Priest, but the contracting parties solely, are the Ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony. They answered the third argument by an appeal to (3) To the effect the effect itself of the Sacrament, which is indissolubil- ofthf .facra- ' ment itself, ity, and which arises from the Sacrament, and not from a natural or civil contract, which intrinsically is dis soluble ; and they showed that the words quoted, Ego conjungo vos, are a new form, and to be found in scarcely any of the old ritual books, since the Priest up to that time had been directed to say, Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. And they also showed that even the Council of Trent itself recognizes this by giving per mission to use other words than Ego conjungo vos, according to the received rite of each province. They also objected on the ground of the newness of the view of Canus, which till that time was found in few schools, if in any. They answered to the argument (4) And to the from the authority of the Fathers, that the Fathers ™\°fa" this certainly did not teach any such thing, since they from view. the earliest ages refused the benediction of the Priest to (5) The ques- second marriages, but they did not on that account marriage™"11 deny that such marriages have sacramental efficacy. Further — in regard to the direction of the Council of (« The Fourth Carthage that continence should be preserved for the ^hage* 34 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (7) The fewness of the adher ents of this view. iii. William of Paris. 4. Prayer Book statement. first night after the marriage — they showed that the reason was simply to follow the example of the pious Tobias. They showed by reference to Cardinal Palavicini's History of the Council of Trent, that the opinion of Canus had but few adherents in the Council; and they answered the argument drawn from the analogy of the other Sacraments, by pointing out what no one can doubt, that each Sacrament has some peculiarity of its own, in which it differs from the other Sacraments. The followers of Canus had claimed William, Bishop of Paris, as having anticipated their view, because in his Tract, de Baptismo, cap. I., he referred to the power of the priestly benediction in obtaining grace from God. But an examination of his work ' ' On the Seven Sacra ments ' ' shows clearly that he did not mean to teach that the priestly benediction pertained in any sense to the essence of Matrimony, since, in treating of clan destine marriages, he describes the three ways in which a marriage may be clandestine : first, when celebrated without witnesses ; secondly, when celebrated without the solemnity which the Church enjoins in marriages, i. e., the benediction, etc. ; thirdly, when without banns. He, however, distinctly says that clandestine matri mony of this kind is true matrimony, although unlaw ful. Hence it is evident that he does not consider the priestly benediction as in any sense necessary to the essence of the Sacrament of Matrimony. There can be no question about the opinion of the English Church, since in the Marriage Service the Priest is directed to say : " Forasmuch as M. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 35 other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands ; I pro nounce that they be Man and Wife together, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Here the consent of the parties is affirmed to have constituted the marriage, and the Priest only pro nounces that they are, what that consent has made them, Man and Wife. V. ON MIXED MARRIAGES. In view of the practical difficulty in the present day a practical in regard to Mixed Marriages (that is, the marriage of M^^ndd" a baptized person to one who is unbaptized), especially and in in missionary fields, and in countries like America, Amraa where Baptism has often been omitted, either through carelessness or from the person having been brought up by Quakers or Baptists, it may be useful very briefly to investigate the actual practice of the Church from the very earliest times. In the present day such marriages are absolutely for bidden both by the East and the West, and are con sidered to be null and void, and yet they are often contracted in entirely good faith by persons who are ignorant of this restriction, and the Clergy are brought face to face with the question whether such marriages a difficult are valid or not, and whether, therefore, the baptized th^ clergy* party can be admitted to the Holy Communion, or whether such marriages are indeed invalid, and the parties, therefore, living in sin. We naturally begin our investigation with the teach- ... The witness ing of Holy Scripture, in regard to which we may say 3^°^ that there is certainly no passage in the New Testament which in any way sanctions such a union, and that 36 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i Cor. vii. 39. Tertullian con siders this pro hibitory. 2 Cor. vi. 14- vii. 1. there are two passages which have been thought to forbid it. The first is in 1 Cor. vii. 39 : " The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth ; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the Lord." The phrase " in the Lord " seems to be equivalent to " with a Christian." S. Paul says that a widow is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. This passage thus amounts to an express prohibition of mixed marriages, and so Tertullian understands it in his comment on S. Paul's words : ' ' But of marrying in the Lord, when he says, ' only in the Lord, ' he is now not persuading, but expressly commanding " (Tertul lian, ad Uxorem, lib. II., c. 1). The second passage is in 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 : "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unright eousness ? and what communion hath light with dark ness ? and what concord hath Christ with Belial ? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols ? for ye are the temple of the living God ; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per fecting holiness in the fear of God." The question here arises, whether S. Paul is re- DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 37 ferring (1) to mixed marriages and other sexual con nections between Christians and heathens, or (2) whether he has in mind rather the ordinary inter course of life between Christians and non- Christians. There are many reasons for thinking that the former is the correct view, for the word srspoZvyovvres, trans lated "unequally yoked together," which is anaS \ey6fievov in the New Testament, is evidently de rived from the srspoQvyos oftheSeptuagint version of Lev. xix. 19, " Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind," which clearly refers to sexual union. Again, in 1 Cor. vi. 15, S. Paul, speaking of the duty icor. vi. 15. of purity in sexual relations, uses the argument that Christians are themselves the temple of God and mem bers of Christ, and therefore not to be "joined to an harlot." Turning to the alternative explanation, we find no argument in its favour, since it is inconsistent with S. Paul's teaching in other places ; for Christians were not required to abstain from all intercourse with the heathen ; on the contrary they were to do their duty in the world, which then was heathen. And further, we may observe that this text has been interpreted by the Church, both of the East and West, as referring to and forbidding mixed marriages. The passage 1 Cor. vii. 14 refers only to the case of 1 cor. va. 14. one who has been baptized after marriage ; it is fully discussed, pages 17, 18. We pass next to the testimony of history, and we *. The witness find that before the influx of the world into the Church of hist0Ty- at the conversion of Constantine, while there were some exceptions, the rule certainly was that a Christian could not intermarry with an unbaptized person. S. Susanna and S. Juliana both suffered martyrdom ss. Susanna and Juliana. 38 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. S. CeciUa. Euphrosyne. S. Cyprian. Tertullian. S. Hippolytus on S. Callistus. Disparity of sexes in the early Church. under Maximian, a.d. 286-310, being put to death on account of refusal to marry non-Christians. S. Cecilia was married by her parents, apparently against her will, to Valerian, a young Roman who was not a Christian, and she persuaded her husband to receive Baptism be fore marital intercourse, which, however, did not take place. Euphrosyne, the mother of S. Clement of Ancyra, was given in marriage against her will to a heathen husband. S. Cyprian (de Lapsis, c. vi.) ascribes the wrath of God in the Decian persecution to the prevalence of mixed marriages in Africa, and says : " To join with unbelievers in the bond of matrimony is to prostitute the members of Christ to the gentiles." Tertullian holds that believers entering into marriage with hea thens are guilty of fornication. S. Hippolytus tells us that Callistus, Bishop of Rome a.d. 218-223, permitted women of senatorial rank, if they were unmarried and in danger of incontinence, to marry slaves with the sanction of the Church. This is extremely interesting as apparently pointing to the fewness of Christian converts among men in the higher ranks of Roman society, although there seem to have been many women of this class of life who were Christians. On this account they had either to marry with unbelievers, which was, of course, not Christian marriage, or for the most part to remain unmarried. It was to meet this difficulty that Callistus allowed them to marry slaves, although this marriage was not recognized by the Roman law; and this witness against mixed marriages is very strong, Callistus preferring that a woman of high rank should marry a baptized slave, which would be true Christian matrimony, rather than contract a mixed marriage. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 39 The fifteenth canon of the Council of EHberis forbids council of the giving of Christian virgins in marriage to heathen Ellberis- even on the excuse of the disparity of the sexes amongst Christians. Here is direct evidence of the preponder ance of women in the Church, already indicated by the action of Callistus ; but notwithstanding this the Coun cil peremptorily forbids all such unions. The sixteenth canon prohibits the marriage of Christian girls to either heretics or Jews, on the ground that there can be no societas between a believer and an unbeliever. After the conversion of Constantine the Church had laxity intro- to meet with another very serious difficulty, which duced after , J J ' conversion of seems to have led to the partial relaxation of its rule in constantine. regard to mixed marriages. It was in the case of catechumens. We know that a large number of those The difficulty who nominally accepted Christianity when it became "iresardto J r J Catechumens. the religion of the Empire, delayed Baptism sometimes to the very end of their life, remaining in the condition of catechumens — under instruction, but not baptized. This was the case to a much greater degree with men than with women, the men calling themselves Christ ians, but remaining catechumens chiefly in order to escape the strictness of Christian life without entirely denying the Christian religion. The Church, especially in the East, seems in these cases to have relaxed her rules and permitted marriage between Christian women and catechumens though un baptized. We have an example of this in the case of S. Monica, the mother of S. Augustine, whose husband s. Monica and Patricius was unbaptized, though apparently a nominal Patncms- adherent of the Christian faith. The Council of Aries dealing with this question says : council of " Concerning baptized women who were united to gen- ArIes- tiles, it was determined that for some time they should 40 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PRA CTICE. S. Ambrose. S. Jerome. S. Augustine. Council of Hippo. 3. After the sixth century, stricter disci pline eniorced, but dispensa tions have been given. 4. Conclusion. They are non- sacramental,and unlawful, but not invalid. be excluded from Communion. ' ' Thus by the Council of Aries the marriage does not seem to have been treated as invalid, for the parties are not required to separate ; but as unlawful, so that the baptized partner is excom municated for a time, and having done penance is apparently then restored to Communion. S. Ambrose is very clear in his disapproval of mixed marriages, saying the fact that the person sought is a catechumen does not justify marriage with the un baptized. S. Jerome holds to the strict teaching of S. Cyprian, that baptized women who united them selves with gentiles ' ' despise the commandment of the Apostle, and prostitute the temple of Christ to idols." S. Augustine bears witness to the fact that there was no very strong feeling in Africa in his day against mixed marriages, although the Council of Hippo forbids them in the case of the sons of Bishops and Clergy. He himself speaks doubtfully of the subject when treating of it in general, though in a particular case which came before him he combated it with all his power (S. Aug., ep. 253, ad Benenatum ; id., ep. 255, ad Rusticum). As the discipline of the Church became stricter again after the sixth century, the rule prohibiting mixed marriages was more strictly enforced, both in the East and the West, but we still find a few soli tary exceptions. Such marriages have, however, been frequently allowed by dispensation, which is, of course, a surrender of the principle of their essential nullity. We may conclude that while such marriages — even with dispensation— cannot be sacramental, yet they are not invalid, although unlawful ; and the principle of the canon of the Council of Aries would guide one to the admission of the baptized party to Communion after penance. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 41 VI. ON INDISSOLUBILITY AND DIVORCE. The question of the indissolubility of Christian matri- importance of mony is not only immensely the most important of the the iuestl0n' many questions connected with this subject, but is probably the most difficult ; and it has, too, this feat ure — that it must be faced and answered. There are many questions in connection with the theology of Matrimony which are of great interest, and yet which may safely be left open questions without essentially affecting the married estate either in principle or practice ; such, for instance, as the nature of the grace conveyed, or even the question of the Minister, Matter and Form of the Sacrament. Holy Matrimony can go on with these questions still disputed. But when we come to the subject of indissolubility, we come to a matter which is not only important as regards any theory of marriage, but which is at the root of Christian family life and is the foundation of the Church's whole doctrine of marriage. There can be no question upon which it is more im portant to speak with absolute decision ; for if Christian marriage is indissoluble, then the remarriage of one party during the lifetime of the other, whatever may be the extenuating circumstances, is simply and clearly adultery. If, on the other hand, divorce from the mar riage bond is permitted under any circumstances what ever, then the indissoluble character of Christian marriage must be absolutely given up. It is important clearly to realize this fact : That if marriage is indis soluble, divorce a vinculo is impossible, and that no ifthe"vincu- amount of pleading the hardship of individual cases lum " 'IS *ndis" r ° r soluble, divorce can in the slightest degree alter this fact. is unpossibie. So many of th£ arguments that are made in favour of divorce — for example, that adultery breaks the vin- 42 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. culum, or that an exception may be made in favour of the innocent party, while the guilty one is still held sentiment and bound — are mere appeals to sentiment or expediency, noPweignty° anc^ are often so stated as to confuse the real issue, namely, whether indissolubility is of the essence of Christian Matrimony. For this reason, it may be well to give a risumi of the history of this question, together with the authority for the view that Christian Matrimony is indissoluble. Before christi- We may begin by repeating what has been stated in mony was"" the early Part of the chapter on Matrimony— that from dissoluble. the Fall to the establishment of the Christian Church, matrimony, whether amongst the Jews or the heathen nations around, most certainly was dissoluble ; and our i.ord that when our Lord's attention was called to this fact, thisTnd a?" He acknowledged it, and accounted for it by saying : counts for it. ' ' Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so " (S. Matt. xix. 8). Baptism in the By Baptism a person is made a member of Christ's MattrimonykeS Mystical Body and a temple of the Holy Ghost ; and sacramental, when two Christians enter into the marriage state, their condition is entirely different from that of two unbaptized persons. Instead of a fallen and unre deemed nature being united to another fallen and un redeemed nature, from which union no state of holiness could be expected to ensue, we have in Christian Matri mony the union of a man and woman in whose bodies the Holy Ghost dwells. Christian Matrimony therefore is a holy estate, on which the blessing of God rests, and for which special provision has been made, both in God's original in stitution of marriage and in the Church's sacramental system. From this it follows that the marriage of the DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 43 unbaptized, even now, is of the same character as was the marriage of those who lived before the Christian dispensation, and that it is therefore as dissoluble as was theirs. In examining, therefore , the history of the indis solubility of marriage, we shall confine ourselves solely to the marriage of the baptized, clearly recognizing that the marriage of the unbaptized is not indissoluble. The authority on which the whole doctrine of Christ- 1. The teaching ian marriage rests is, of course, in the first place, the °urg0ly Scnp" revelation of God in Holy Scripture. We must begin, therefore, by briefly examining the principal texts which bear upon the indissolubility of marriage. We have in the Gospels four recorded utterances of our Lord on this subject. First, in the Sermon on the Mount, we read : " It hath been said, Whosoever shall i. s. Matt. v. put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce- 3I' 32, ment : But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery : and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery ' ' (S. Matt. v. 31, 32). Here we learn that a man may put away his wife for rtopveia, but there is no hint that he can marry again, and we are distinctly told that any one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. So that we should gather from this passage that the marriage bond was absolutely indissoluble, and though an adulteress might be put away a toro et mensa, there is no ground here for thinking that the marriage bond can be dissolved. In S. Mark we read that the Pharisees came to our ii. s. Mark x, Lord and asked Him : " Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ? tempting Him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you ? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, 2-12. 44 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and to put her away. And JESUS answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be one flesh : so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house His disciples asked him again of the same matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery " (S. Mark x. 2-12). Here again we are taught that by the original in stitution of God, man and wife become one flesh, and that what God hath joined together, man is not to put asunder. This is our Lord's teaching to the Pharisees. To His own disciples in the house, when they asked Him again of the matter, He adds distinctly that if a man put away his wife and marry another, he commits adultery, and if the woman put away be married again, she commits adultery. There is here, therefore, no hint of any dissolution of the marriage bond ; on the contrary, we are told that even where a separation is lawful there can be no re marriage of either party ; in other words, that the bond is indissoluble. ia. s.tukexvi. The third passage is in S. Luke, and is as follows : l8' " Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" (S. Luke xvi. 18). Here, as in S. Mark, remarriage after divorce is called adultery, and we are DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 45 distinctly told that there is no exception, whether it be the marriage of the man or of the woman. Before considering the fourth passage in the Gospels we will examine S. Paul's teaching on the subject. And first, in the Epistle to the Romans : ' ' Know ye iv. Romans not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law, ) TU- 1_3- how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth ? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress : but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law ; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man ' ' (Rom. vii. 1-3). Here there is certainly no hint of any possibility of dissolution of marriage, for a woman who is married to another man while her husband lives is to be called an adulteress. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians we have two passages. First : ' ' And unto the married I command, v. 1 Cor. va. 10, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from "• her husband : but and if she depart, let her remain un married, or be reconciled to her husband : and let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11). Here we are most expressly told that in case a wife is separated from her husband she must remain unmar ried ; that is, the bond is indissoluble. Again, in the second passage : ' ' The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth ; but if her vi. 1 Cor. vii. husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to 39' whom she will" (1 Cor. vii. 39). This is simply a repetition of S. Paul's statement in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. 46 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Result of these passages. 2. S. Matt. xix. 7-9- Can this con tradict all other Scripture ? The text very corrupt, So far we should say that there is not only no hint of any possibility of dissolving the marriage bond, but that on the other hand it is expressly declared to be indissoluble. We will now take up the remaining passage — the locus classicus — in S. Matt. xix. 7-9 : " They say unto Him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ' ' We must first observe that if this passage teach that the bond is dissoluble, it contradicts every other passage on the subject in the New Testament. Now there is a canon of interpretation which tells us that no one passage of Holy Scripture may be so interpreted as to contradict the rest of Holy Scrip ture, which law is expressed in Article XX. of the Articles of Religion, as follows : " It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may [potest] it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." The text itself, at least as far as the 9th verse is con cerned (the only one which seems to differ from the other passages), is very corrupt. The words " and shall marry another," and the phrase "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery " are omitted by some of the best manuscripts and ver sions, and unknown to Origen and most of the Fathers ; while the word fAoixdrai (" commits adultery ") gives place to noin.1 avrr/v /Aoixevdijvai (" causeth her to DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 47 commit adultery ") in two of the best manuscripts, B and C, and in some of the versions and Fathers. Indeed the documentary evidence is so divided that it and therefore is not too much to say that there -can be no certainty as veryun<*rtain. to what the true text was, and so for purposes of doc trine it would be very undesirable to make use of the passage, even if it did not seem inconsistent with other passages. If, however, the text as it stands in the iftheTextus Textus Receptus be accepted, we still find that it is so RecePtus be 1-111 r 1 • . • accepted, four little clear that four distinct conclusions have been views: drawn from it. First, it has been thought that it does not refer to i. That it does Christian matrimony at all, since our Lord in this place not refer to . . TT. _ .. . . ,. Christian mat- Was not speaking to His own followers, but to the Jews, rimony. and answering a distinct question of the Pharisees as (Kebie). to a matter of rabbinical interpretation — ¦" Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? ' ' — and that, while admitting the Mosaic provision to which they drew His attention, He points out that it was only endured by God on account of the hardness of their hearts, and so by this implies that when that hardness was removed by the work of the Holy Spirit the con cession would no longer be permitted. This has some times been called Keble's view, and is found in his tractate " Against Repealing the Laws which Treat the Nuptial Bond as Indissoluble. ' ' The second is the view of Dbllinger, who holds that ii. That it re- the passage has no reference to adultery, or post-nuptial &rs only to pre sin, but that nopvsia is to be understood strictly of (Doiimger). fornication, or pre-nuptial unchastity. The third view understands our Lord to concede to ai. That it re- Christians the right of divorce for adultery, but with- fe.rs only to 0 divorce " a toro out the right of remarriage. et mensa." The fourth view is that this concession covers the 48 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iv. That it re fers to re marriage. Tertullian1 s re ply to this. 3. The theory that adultery dissolves the "vinculum " i. involves adultery on the part of the in nocentpartner. ii. If discovery of guilt dis solves the "vin- right of remarriage after such divorce. If this be so, it only applies to the case of the man, since we are ex pressly told that anyone who marries the woman who has been divorced commits adultery. Now, as Tertullian remarks, adultery is a crime in cident to the marriage state, and if it be possible in either party, it must be because the bond of marriage continues ; and if this bond continue, then both are bound. How is it possible that the man can be free to marry, while the woman is still fettered by the mar riage bond, so that he who marries her commits adul tery ? Yet this is distinctly affirmed. It is taught by some who favour the remarriage of the innocent party in a divorce for adultery, that adultery ipso facto dissolves the vinculum ; and one sometimes finds it stated that this is the teaching of the Greek Church. In the first place, we may reply that the Greek Church allows remarriage, and therefore the dissolu tion of the vinculum, not only for adultery but for eleven other causes. Then again, this view lands one in such difficulties, not to say absurdities, that it is inconceivable that it should be held by anyone who realizes all that it in volves. For, first, if adultery breaks the bond, and is committed by the husband without his wife's know ledge (as is very often the case), all further cohabitation between them becomes fornication, since they are no longer married, and the innocent wife is therefore living in fornication with her own husband, which would manifestly happen so often as to destroy the certainty of Christian marriage. Secondly, if it be replied that the vinadum is broken only when such act of adultery on the part of the hus- DIFFICULTIES- IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 49 band becomes known to the wife, then it follows that it culum," then is not the act of adultery which breaks the vinculum, "t^m? found but the being found out ; and while it is very true that adultery, is in the world's esteem " being found out " is almost the thesin- only sin which is universally recognized as sin, yet from a theological standpoint it is impossible to admit that being found out can dissolve the vinculum. Thirdly, those who hold this view generally con- ai. The impos- sider also that it permits the remarriage of the inno- ability of the x p ° "vinculum" cent party only ; that is to say, that the vinculum, binding the which is dissolved by adultery, still binds one party, gnutynutnot . »rv, . . ¦ tne uinocent but not the other. This is quite unthinkable, since the partner shown essence of a covenant is a bond which binds two parties. by reas°n, If the bond be broken, neither of the parties is bound. It is possible to prohibit the marriage of the guilty party as a penalty for the sin, but it is impossible to say that the marriage still binds one partner but not the other. But there is an insuperable difficulty to this view and by our that the prohibition to the guilty party of remarriage is ^o1115'3 , , - , . , , , . , express words. penal and not on account of the vinculum (which no longer exists). It is our Lord's distinct statement that he who marries her that is put away commits adultery. Any law may forbid a guilty party to re marry, but the breaking of this law, however sinful, cannot be adultery, and yet our Lord said that it is adultery — thus showing that it is hot forbidden as a penal enactment, but because the vinadum still exists and therefore still binds. It may be well to call the attention of those who from This text only this text draw the conclusion that the innocent party in Permits the x man to re- a divorce for adultery is free to marry again to the fact marry, if a that this verse, on which they base their argument, only does tbat- permits it (if it permits it at all) in the case of the man, and distinctly excludes it in the case of the woman. VOL. II. — 4 5o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Summary of evidence from Holy Scripture. 4. The teach ing of the Church. For three cen turies no recog nition of re marriage. On the whole, we may sum up this part of the in vestigation by saying that every text in the New Testament, except one, teaches the indissolubility of marriage implicitly, and that two passages (those in S. Mark and S. Luke) teach it explicitly; while the only doubtful text, S. Matt. xix. 9, is so corrupt that it is impossible to determine with certainty what the true reading is ; and that even if we take it as it stands in the Textus Receptus there are four possible views of it — the only one of them which seems to allow remarriage after divorce granting this to the man alone, and expressly forbidding it to the woman, so showing that on her side at least the bond continues ; and as a matter of logical necessity a bond cannot bind one party to a covenant without binding the other. We have considered the evidence of Holy Scripture in regard to the indissolubility of Christian marriage. We must now turn to the teaching of the Church on this subject. We should naturally expect to find in the Church in subapostolic times such views as were derived from the Apostles and their immediate successors. If the doubt ful passage in the nineteenth chapter of S. Matthewwere considered in Apostolic times to permit the remarriage of divorced persons (even though it were limited to the innocent party in a divorce for adultery), we should certainly expect to find some allusion to this under standing of it in the writings of the early Fathers, especially where they were treating of the subject of marriage. And yet during the period when the Church was uncontaminated by union with the world — that is, before the conversion of Constantine — there is no evi dence of any recognition whatever of the remarriage of divorced persons, or of any such interpretation of the DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 51 nineteenth chapter of S. Matthew as would countenance such remarriage. It will be well for us very briefly to run over the names of those writers of this period who touch upon the question of marriage. The first Christian writer who alludes to this subject Hermas. is Hermas, whom some have supposed to be the Hermas mentioned in Rom. xvi. 14. In his Pastor, Mand. iv., c. 1, he requires a husband to put away an adulterous wife until she has done penance, but he distinctly states that it is commanded to both husband and wife to abide single, both in order that in case of penitence they may be reconciled, and also because of the vinculum. And he adds : " The matters stand on the same footing on the man's side as on the woman's." The next writer is Justin Martyr. In his First Apol- Justin Martyr. ogy, a.d. 140, he says that our Lord had taught that " he that marrieth one put away by another man com mitteth adultery. ' ' There is no allusion to the remar riage of the man, but it is evident that on the woman's side the marriage bond is considered to hold, and there is no indication of any exception on the side of the hus band.* In his Second Apology he mentions an inter esting case in which a woman divorced her husband for grievous sin, but gives no hint of any remarriage, f Athenagoras, another apologist, who wrote about Athenagoras. a.d. 177, is the earliest advocate of rigorous views in regard to second marriages. He considered that any second union was but a reputable adultery. While these views have been rejected by the Church, it shows that in his day the possibility of the remarriage of a divorced husband was not recognized. *S. Justin, Apologia Prima, c. 15. t S.Justin, Apologia Secunda, c. 2. 52 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Theophilus of Antioch. S. Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian. Pusey'snoteon Tertullian. Theophilus of Antioch, between a.d. 171 and 183, in his Apology to Autolycus, lib. iii., c. 13, quotes from the Sermon on the Mount that ' ' whoso marrieth a woman put away by her husband committeth adultery ; and whoso putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." He makes no allusion to any possibility of remarriage. S. Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 190, the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, is more than a mere witness to the current opinions of his day. Referring to the nineteenth chapter of S. Matthew he says that Holy Scripture only permits the putting away of a wife on the ground of fornication, and ' ' considers it adultery to^contract another marriage during the lifetime of either of the separated parties. " * He deals with the case of the innocent husband, stating that he understands our Lord, as the Apostles did, to bar all remarriage.t A contemporary of S. Clement, Tertullian, the first, in point of date, of the great Latin writers, was con verted to Christianity A.d. 192. He became a Mon- tanist about seven years later. He treats of the question in several of his writings, and most distinctly asserts that no remarriage is possible for either of the separated parties in case of divorce, and assumes that such impos sibility of remarriage is recognized by all Christians alike. J * S. Clement, Stromata ii. 23. t S. Clement, Stromata iii. 6. % Pusey, in Note O to the Oxford translation of Tertullian, p. 431, understands that Tertullian indicates a permission to remarry in certain cases. In the Fourth Book against Marcion Tertullian says : " He hath forbidden divorce with a condition, if a man put away his wife to that end, that he may marry another. Thus, if it was under a condition that He forbade putting away, He did not entirely forbid; and what He did not DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 53 We may next notice a statement of Origen's when origen. commenting on S. Matt. xix. He speaks of certain laxity in that some Bishops have gone so far as to permit a person to marry a woman in the lifetime of her husband. He distinctly asserts that this was doing contrary to the Scripture, and contrary to what was enacted and written from the beginning.* It is possible that the remarriage to which he refers as contrary to the Scripture may have been that of the wives of non- Christian husbands. The last writer to be noticed in this period is S. s. Cyprian. Cyprian, who became Bishop of Carthage a.d. 248. He quotes as a rule of the Church S. Paul's com mandment that " the wife do not separate from her husband; but and if she depart, that she remain un married or be reconciled to her husband ; and that the wife do not send away her husband." f There is no reference to the remarriage of the husband, but S. s. Augustine Augustine considers that S. Cyprian's silence on this onSCyPrian' entirely forbid, He permitted in other cases, where the ground * of prohibition does not hold." The meaning here seems to be that He allowed separation, if without a view to dissolution of marriage. That this is the correct view is made clear by a pas sage in the Fifth Book against Marcion, which Pusey appears to have overlooked, where Tertullian says : " Christ, however, when He commands the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, has both permitted putting away, in that He has not altogether forbidden it, and has confirmed marriage [i. e., the bond] ; indeed, He has first forbidden it to be severed." This, taken in conjunction with Tertullian's other teaching on the subject, makes it abundantly clear that in the one passage spoken of by Pusey he does not mean to countenance re marriage under any condition (Adv. Marcionem, lib. v., c. 7). * Origen, Com. in S. Matt., tract, vii., vol. ii. ; p. 75. t Testimonia adv.Jud., lib. iii., c. 90. 54 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. matter implies that he had no cause to speak, because such a remarriage was unknown.* In the Apostolic Canons, whose date is uncertain, but which are for the most part earlier than the conver sion of Constantine, the 47th Canon says: " If any lay man, having put away his own wife, shall take another, or if anyone take a woman divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated. ' ' Here we see there is no exception or hint of exception, and all remarriage after divorce is with the penalty of excommunication. council of Eli- The date of the Council of Eliberis, or Elvira, is doubt- beris or Eivu-a. fui Hefele assigns it to 305 or 306, although some have thought it of later date. The 9th Canon of this Coun cil is as follows: "A woman baptized, who has forsaken an adulterous husband also baptized, and is marrying another, must be forbidden to marry him; and if she so marry, she must not receive the Communion until after the husband she has left be dead, unless extremity of sickness compel the indulgence." Here there is a clear recognition of the indissolubility of the vinculum, and a prohibition to marry during the lifetime of the adulterous husband. The whole tes- We may observe that in this period there is no in- timonyofthe stance of any writer referring to S. Matt. xix. 9 as church against authorizing remarriage after divorce, or even as a diffi- any re- cult passage requiring to be explained away. All alike marriage. , . . condemn such remarriage. To those who value the teaching of the primitive Church before the stream of tradition had been polluted by the influx of the pagan world at the conversion of Constantine this testimony must be absolutely con vincing ; since it is to the effect that no Apostle, or writer of the first three centuries, understood our * S. Aug., de Fide et Operibus, \ 35. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 55 Lord's words as justifying remarriage after divorce ; that the Apostle who ventured to say : ' ' We have the mind of Christ " (1 Cor. ii. 16), and who when speak ing on the subject of marriage said: "I think also that I have the Spirit of God " (1 Cor. vii. 40), explicitly forbids such remarriage (1 Cor. vii. 11); and all this is the stronger, if we remember that it was in direct opposition to the civil law of that day. If we pursue the subject after the conversion of Con- counca of stantine, we have, first, the Council of Aries, a.d. 314, Arles- which forbids the innocent husband to marry on account of the vinculum. Lactantius, a layman, who was the tutor of Con- Lactantius. stantine's son, is the first writer to express the view that the innocent husband who has put away his wife is free to marry another. He speaks of the marriage covenant being undone by faithlessness.* S. Basil says : " If the husband depart from his wife s. Basa. and betake himself to another, both he is an adulterer because he maketh her to commit adultery, and she who cohabits with him is an adulteress because she transferred another woman's husband to herself." f S. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, who died a.d. 404, s. Epiphanius- is the next after Lactantius who admits remarriage after divorce. S. Asterius, who lived about A.d. 400, speaks of mar- s. Asterius. riages as severed by nothing save death and adultery; possibly, therefore, he would admit remarriage. S. Timothy of Alexandria, a.d. 385, speaks of remar- s. Timothy oi j ., Alexandria. riage as adultery. S. John Chrysostom makes no reference whatever to s. John Chrysostom. * Lact., Epitome, c. Ixvi. t S. Basil, Canon IX. ; IV., p. 672. 56 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Theodoret. In the West SS. Ambrose, Chromatius, Jerome,Augustine, Innocent I. and Hilary all alike condemn re marriage.Ambrosiaster the only excep tion. S. Matt. xix. as bearing upon the question of re marriage, and apparently does not admit remarriage during the lifetime of the other partner. In the case of Theodoret it is difficult to see which side he took. Probably he agreed with S. Chrysostom in not admitting remarriage. In the West during this period we shall find a much more consistent rejection of remarriage. S. Ambrose, S. Chromatius, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Innocent I. and S. Hilary of Poitiers all alike condemn the re marriage of either party after divorce. The solitary exception is the so-called Ambrosiaster, who, together with Lactantius, thinks that the husband in a divorce for adultery may remarry. It does not seem necessary to continue this catena of authorities further. We may only say that from this time on the recognition of divorce and remarriage in the Eastern Church became more frequent, until it was allowed for almost every trifling reason, as it is to-day. In the West, however, it was absolutely forbidden in the Churches in Italy, though in the Churches beyond the Alps there was a long and difficult struggle with the license of secular laws and lax customs. From the twelfth century, however, the indissolubility of mar riage was recognized everywhere in the West. VII. IS ' ' MATRIMONIUM RATUM ' ' DISSOLUBLE ? Western theologians teach that the essence of Holy Matrimony is the consent of the parties and not the copula carnalis, or in other words, that the copula carnalis is not essential to Christian matrimony, and The case of the they generally cite in support of this view the marriage Marytnd S^ °f ^& BleSSed Y{X^ and S" J0SePh> since this, which Joseph. was an ideal marriage and in some respects a pattern i. The ordinary view. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 57 to the faithful, was matrimonium ratum only and never consummated. In the present day there are some who would deny that the marriage of the Blessed Virgin was Christian marriage at all, since it took place before she was bap tized and before the gift of the Holy Ghost. They would therefore say that her marriage was not a case in point. To this, however, may be replied that we are dis tinctly told that the Blessed Virgin was ' ' full of grace, ' ' and that the Holy Ghost came down upon her ; and S. Joseph's relation to our Lord, while not implying as great gifts, probably implies some gift of the Holy Ghost which might have been equal to Baptism. Fur ther, it would be extremely difficult for us to conceive of so holy a marriage being dissoluble, as of course it would have been if not sacramental matrimony. Again, theologians unanimously agree that one of the indissolubility properties of Holy Matrimony is indissolubility , and that an essentlal in this it is differentiated from non-sacramental mar- sacrament. riage ; and yet many teach that matrimo?iium ratum is Yet " Matri- _., . . . . . . . monium Christian marriage, but is under certain circumstances Ratum "is not dissoluble, namely, to enter religion or by Papal dis- indissoluble. pensation. We have here three propositions : (1) that consent, -*. Thediffi- and not the copula, is the essence of Christian marriage ; culty here' (2) that Christian marriage is indissoluble ; (3) that matrimonium ratum is Christian marriage, but not indissoluble. This last proposition is obviously impossible, if we accept as true the two which precede it, for if indissolu bility be a property which differentiates Christian mar riage from all other marriage, all Christian marriage must be indissoluble ; therefore matrimonium ratum 58 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The only two possible solu tions. i. Some there fore make the " Copula " essential. ii. The other solution con sidered. 3. It depends on the legality of Papal dis pensations. i. Many great theologiansdeny their validity. must either be indissoluble or not Christian marriage. Some writers, as for instance De Augustinis, speak of matrimonium ratum as imperfect matrimony, but still Christian matrimony ; but this does not really meet the difficulty that matrimony cannot be Christian mat rimony unless it be indissoluble. The three propositions as stated lead us inexorably to one of two conclusions : either that the copula is es sential to Christian matrimony, and not consent alone, or that matrimonium ratum is not dissoluble. From this it follows that either proposition 1 or 3 must be untrue. There are some who meet the difficulty by ad mitting that the first proposition is untrue, and that the copula, and not consent, is of the essence of Christ ian marriage. But may not the other position be well defended, at least by those who are not bound by the decisions of the Roman Church — that is, may not ma trimonium ratum be Christian marriage, and therefore indissoluble, and the two exceptions which have been quoted quite unjustifiable, namely, (1) that a person who has taken the vows of Holy Matrimony can set them aside in order to take the vows of Religion, and (2) that the Papal dispensations can practically annul matrimony and allow the remarriage of one or both of the parties ? The second exception is the only one we need to discuss, since in the West for the last seven hundred years married people have been allowed to enter Re ligion only on the authority of the Papal ruling. When we examine the question of dispensations in the case of matrimonium ratum, we find that such theologi ans as Bonaventura, Scotus, Palludus, Victoria, De Soto and others held that the Pope had no power to dispense. Sanchez, who treats the question in his great work DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 59 De Matrimonio, lib. II., disp. 14; p. 133, gives ten a. Sanchez reasons why the Pope has not power to dispense. He g?ves the two . -1 * * ¦*• views and the then gives four reasons on the other side, which he arguments for only says is the more probable — namely, that the Pope each- l, \-U- tj 4. ft, c 11 f.i, iii. Ofthefour has this power. But these four reasons are all of them on the Papal of little weight and entirely inconclusive, all but one side a11 are ftillcwcics of them involving the petitio principii. For example, the first reason is that in doubtful questions it is best to be on the side of your superiors, and that various Popes have already dispensed. This is certainly begging the question as to whether they have power to do so. Secondly, because the power of the Pope, so far as it is lawful, must be extended, especially in those cases which are useful to the Church ; for we must believe that Christ conferred full power on His vicar for those things that are necessary for the good of the Church ; but the power of dispensing in matrimonio rato was very necessary for the good of the Church, etc. Here we have two questions begged; first, the condition " so far as it is lawful," and secondly, whether it is for the good of the Church. Thirdly, the Pope, according to the most probable sentence, is able to dispense from the solemn vows of Religion, therefore he ought to be able in matrimonio rato. Here again the conclusion does not follow at all, solemn vows and the vows of Matrimony not standing necessarily on the same ground, the vows of Matrimony but not those of Religion having been proclaimed indis soluble by God Himself. The last reason of Sanchez is that matrimonium ratum is not altogether indissoluble ; which again is begging the question which is to be argued. If we pass now to the history of dispensations we find A.D. 1210. 6o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iv. The history that the first instance of a dispensation in matrimonio pensationT- ra-to, so far as we know, was one given by Alexander Alexander in., III., A.d. 1180, who, writing to the Archbishop of a.d. 1180. Salerno, gives permission for one party to enter the religious life, even though the other were unwilling, but the other to have the privilege of remarriage. innocent in., The next dispensation was given by Innocent III., a.d. 1 2 10, in a letter to the Archbishop of Lyons, in which he says that being unwilling to depart from the precedent of his predecessors, he gives a similar per mission. Although he speaks of ' ' predecessors, ' ' in the plural, so far as we know only one Pope had ever done this before ; but perhaps as Popes, like editors, always speak of themselves as ' ' we, ' ' the one predecessor nec essarily has to be put in the plural. On such authority, however, it is hardly fair for De Augustinis to quote Alexander III. and Innocent III. as saying that they have received this tradition from their predecessors.* S. Antoninus of Florence tells us that he had seen Martin v., a.d. similar dispensations which had been granted by Martin IT^Tpaui V" and Eugenius IV., and Navarrus speaks of such iv„ a.d. i55g. dispensations granted by Paul III. and Paul IV. ; since which time there have been many others. 4. conclusion. From all this we learn : first, that up to the seventeenth dispttedTnTii century many theologians denied the Pope's power to the 17th dispense, or taught it only as the more probable opinion, aennsTariiest that is to sa?' as an °Pen question ; secondly, that, the exercise near earliest instance being at the end of the twelfth century, ^tocenturr h entirely lacks Catholic antiquity. We may add that this is the opinion of Billuart, who teaches that the Popes have no power to dispense in matrimonio rato, although he holds that religious profession with solemn vows dispenses jure divi?io and not jure pontiUcio. * De Aug., de Re Sacramentaria, vol. II., p. 783. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 6l VIII. ON THE CHURCH'S CLAIM TO CONSTITUTE AND DISPENSE "IMPEDIMENTS." Dispensation, with certain limitations, stands upon The grounds good grounds, for a power which is able to make a law on whLI.ch dls" ° ° ' r # pensations is able to dispense from it. Hence, the claim of the stand. Church of Rome to dispense might be allowed if it were confined to those impediments to matrimony which are purely de jure ecclesiastico : such as dispensation from proclaiming the banns of marriage, and allowing it to be by license ; dispensation in regard to the time of marriage, etc. But unfortunately it has been stretched to those which are evidently de jure divino ; those, that is, within the degrees of consanguinity and affinity which are clearly condemned in Leviticus. No Pope apparently ventured to dispense in such i. History cases until the fifteenth century. The first case that °f disPensa- J tions. — is known was in 1427, when Martin V. granted a dis- Earliest dis pensation to the Count of Foix to marry his wife' s sister, Pensation in . ... , . , caseofAffin- or to continue a union with a woman whose sister he ity, Martin v., had formerly seduced, the affinity being the same in AD- w- either case. Eugenius IV., this Pope's immediate sue- Eugeniusiv. cessor, refused to sanction the marriage of the Dauphin, "fused to . ° * ' dispense. afterwards Louis XL, with his wife's sister, and re fused it as being ultra vires. The canonist Turre- cremata, who adjudged the case, records that "that affair was considered by the command of the lord Eugenius in the presence of us to whom the cause was committed, and it was adjudged that the Pope could not dispense." This excellent precedent was, however, soon aban- Alexander vi. doned. Alexander VI. (Borgia) granted a dispensation dispensed, to Emanuel, King of Portugal, to marry his wife's sis ter, and another to Ferdinand, King of Sicily, to marry his aunt by blood. The familiar instance of Henry 62 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and Julius II. The Council of Trent. Estius. Cajetan's dilemma. VIII. and Catharine of Arragon, for which a dispensa tion was granted by Julius II. in 1503, is the first known case of a dispensation to marry a brother's wife, and the third of dispensation in the same degree of affinity, counting as the two first the dispensations of marriage with the wife's sister already noticed. The Council of Trent is very guarded in its utterances on this subject, for it says : " If any say that only those degrees of consanguinity and affinity which are men tioned in Leviticus can hinder a contract of marriage, or dissolve one already contracted, and that the Church cannot dispense in some of these or lay down that a greater number shall hinder or nullify, let him be anathema" (Trent, Session XXIV., Canon 3). The Council thus carefully avoids specifying the dispens able degrees. Estius, who died in 16 13, says that he has only heard of one example of a dispensation to marry a wife's sister since the Council of Trent ; and anything like readiness to grant such dispensations is only to be found in the last two centuries. The marriage of uncle and niece, or of aunt and nephew, by blood, is in some respects more shocking than the closest marriage of affinity, yet in these cases, following the deplorable precedent of Alexander VI., dispensations have been frequently granted. Theologians of the Latin obedience accordingly find themselves in a grave dilemma, aptly expressed by Cardinal Cajetan : " The Pope is subject to the natural law, and does not stand above it, so that he can move or alter it ; and yet King Emanuel of Portugal has taken two sisters as his brides, one after another, of whom the second is still living ; the Queen of England had contracted marriage with the DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 63 brother of her present consort ; Ferdinand the Younger, King of Naples, married, with a dispensation from Pope Alexander VI., Junia, his father's sister, who still lives ; and yet it is evident that this is prohibited in the Law Divine. Thus are opposed on the one hand the Divine Law in precepts of this kind, on the other the authority of the Roman Pontiff. ' ' Cardinal Cajetan, holding that the Pope cannot well be wrong, concludes that the only marriages which are excluded by the law of nature are marriages with the father and the mother. On the whole, this appears to be the usual doctrine The general of the Latin Church at the present day. Many the- °^°tnh^. ologians of repute are not, however, prepared to go so logians, but ex- far, and Sanchez says that the marriage of brother and ceptions of sister cannot be sanctioned by Papal dispensation.* The English Church of the post- Reformation period, with many faults, may claim to have been true to the primitive traditions of Christian marriage. Unlike the 2. The English Church of the East, she has never admitted by one church has never dis- sufficient act the rightfulness of marriage after divorce ; pensed. and unlike her sisters of the West, she has been careful to maintain the Divine prohibition of marriage with too near kin. Since the Reformation the English Church has never dispensed in regard to the degrees of affinity, and as such dispensations in the Roman Church only date back to the fifteenth century, and were then questioned by Roman theologians, we may, on the whole, conclude that many of them were ultra vires and therefore unlawful. This would not, of course, apply to the dis pensation of those degrees which are evidently only of ecclesiastical imposition. * Lib. VIII., disp. VI., \ 10. 64 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 3. The Contro versy of the 17th century. De Dominis, " de Repub. Eccles." I.aunoius, "de Regia in Matr. Pot." In the seventeenth century there was a strongly Erastian movement in the Roman Church, which recog nized the civil power as having authority to constitute and remove impediments to matrimony, and, in fact, as having complete jurisdiction in matrimonial causes. This view, of course, involved a practical repudiation of the decrees of the Council of Trent, which explicitly asserted such powers to belong to the Church. The history of the movement was, briefly, as follows. In the year A.D. 1617 Marcus Antonius de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, in hisDe Republica Ecclesiastica, lib. V., c. xi., denied both that the Church had a right to constitute or to dispense impediments in regard to matrimony, and also that all matrimonial causes should be tried before ecclesiastical judges. He as serted, on the contrary, that it pertained to secular princes alone to make laws which might invalidate matrimony, and not to the Church, excepting in so far as princes might give their consent to the Church acting. In the same century Launoius, in his celebrated work De Regia in Matrimonium Potestate, adopted the sen tence of De Dominis and defended it, saying that the Tridentine Canons in regard to impediments in matrimony were disciplinary and not dogmatic, and that where they speak of the Church having power to constitute and to dispense impediments in matrimony, by the term " Church " secular princes were meant, by whose authority alone the Church could either con stitute or dispense such impediments. In the last century many lawyers, canonists and theologians, especially in Austria, France and Italy, adopted the perverse doctrine of the new school in re gard to the impediments of matrimony and the hearing of matrimonial causes, as defended by De Dominis and DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 65 his follower Launoius ; and, so far as they were able, re duced it to practice. The Synod of Pistoia, assembled in the year 1786 synod of under Scipio de Riccis, openly acknowledged this doc- Plgg°la' AD' trine, stating that the right of constituting impediments in matrimony originally belonged to the supreme civil power, and the right of dispensing them belonged to the same authority. Hence this same Synod asked Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, to remove from Leopold, Duke the number of impediments spiritual affinity and public of Tuscany- honesty, and to limit to the second degree consanguin ity and affinity arising out of any union whatever. Besides, it declared that espousals were altogether sub jected to the precepts of the civil law. IX. ON THE IMPEDIMENTS OP CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY. The prohibition of intermarriage between those who Two causes of are near of kin may be traced to two sources : first, IniPediments J ' of Consan- the physical degeneration which experience teaches guinity. such marriages produce; and second, the Divine Rev elation on the subject. In a theological treatise we have, of course, only to do with the second. We may notice, first, the fact; and secondly, that the fact is based on the sanctity of family life, and in some sense on the interests of society. First, the fact of Divine prohibition of marriage be- 1. The fact of tween those who are near of kin is found clearly ex- J.1""6 pro" J hibition. pressed in the Old Testament. Certainly from the "Dejure Flood we can trace the sin of incest as the cause of dis- D,i™0 " m the OldTestament. aster to the human race, reaching its climax in God's incest the judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan. For if we sPecial sin of J ° .... . theCanaamtes. ask the cause of the Divine vengeance upon the Canaanites, we are told not only that it was on account 66 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. of the wickedness of the people of the land, but that their wickedness was chiefly manifested in sins of im purity, and that chief among these was the sin of incest. Lev. xvia. In the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus we read that God charged Moses to say unto the children of Israel : "I am the Lord your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do : and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do : neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. . . . None of you shall ap proach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness : I am the Lord " (Lev. xviii. 2-6). Then follows an enumeration of the sins of incest which God forbids, ending with the warning : " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you : and the land is defiled : therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants" (Lev. xviii. 24, 25). "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people " (verse 29). This eighteenth chapter of Leviticus reveals to us the cause of God's vengeance upon the Canaanites, naming especially fifteen cases of incest (verses 24-30), the sin of sodomy (verse 22) and the sin of bestiality (verse 23). i. Three lists : There are in the Pentateuch three lists of prohibited WLevxx"' marriages- Tne first> that just quoted, in Leviticus (3) Deut. xxva. xviii. , enumerates fifteen relationships. The second is in Leviticus xx., and consists of eight relationships, with a penalty attached in each case for the breach of the law. The third is in Deuteronomy xxvii., where three relationships are mentioned, with the addition of a curse. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 6? We have already remarked that on account of the GOD'stoier- hardness of man's heart, in the period between the atio°°f«rtain r laxity on ac- Fall and the Christian Dispensation God suffered cer- count of man's tain breaches of the marriage law to pass without re- moral hard" buke, such as divorce and polygamy, but that our Divorce and Lord in speaking of Christian marriage teaches that Polygamy. the period of laxity has passed and that Christians are to be held to the strict fulfilment of God's purpose in the institution of Holy Matrimony. If this be so in regard to those things which God suffered on account of the hardness of men's hearts, a fortiori it is so in regard to those things which God did not suffer, but condemned and punished with His greatest vengeance, even in that time of ignorance, incest not Such are sins of incest. tolerated. To those therefore who would use the argument that Levitkai pro- the prohibitions in Leviticus are not binding on Christ- ^1it010in,! biand ians, because the Mosaic Law has been abrogated, we ing on may reply that in such matters as the sin of incest, christians. what was not permitted even to the heathen in sexual intercourse is a fortiori forbidden to Christians. And when we observe that the penalty attached to the breaches of these commandments was in the case of the nations which violated them no less than utter destruc tion — this sin being so heinous that the land was said incest abhor- to have "vomited out" such inhabitants— we cannot Jn^f*eOD doubt that the sin is intrinsically most abhorrent in the sight of God. We would here repeat what was said in the last chapter, that the prohibitions are binding on us because imposed by the Church as a revelation of God's will in a matter which applies equally to all men, and not because they are contained in the Mosaic Law. When we compare these three prohibitory tables we comparison of 68 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Principle clear, though examplesdefective.Two cases redundant, specified be cause of the examples of Abraham and Jacob. Prohibitions number four teen or fifteen. The relation ship through husband or wife is analogous. Lev. xviii. cannot be exhaustive. find that Lev. xx. and Deut. xxvii. only add to the list given in Lev. xviii. a prohibition in regard to an uncle's wife. We see, too, that while the principle on which the prohibitions are based is clear, the representative cases are defective, although they seem almost re dundant in two cases, namely, the marriage of a sister or half-sister, and the marriage of two sisters at the same time. These two latter instances are evidently intended to warn people against following the example of the two great patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, who (doubt less in a time of ignorance) sinned against this law — Abraham by the marriage with his half-sister Sarah, and Jacob by the simultaneous marriage with Rachel and Leah. Lest these should be quoted as authorities, the prohibition is laid down with redundant emphasis in regard to these two cases. An examination of the prohibitions shows that they are in all fourteen, without counting the possibly doubt ful case of the deceased wife's sister. Of these six are relationships of consanguinity and eight of affinity, so that there is a greater number of prohibitions of mar riage on the ground of affinity than on the ground of consanguinity. We also see another principle clearly enunciated, that relationship through the woman is precisely analogous to that through the man, so that there is an equal pro hibition of marriage with a son's daughter and with a daughter's daughter, with a father's sister and with a mother's sister, with a wife's son's daughter and with a wife's daughter's daughter. Luther, and some even in the present day, have in sisted that the list in Lev. xviii. was intended to be exhaustive, and that all relationships not expressly DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 6g forbidden in it must be understood to be sanctioned ; and on this ground plea is often made for the marriage with the deceased wife's sister. The absurdity of this will be at once evident by pointing out that if this be the case the Divine Law sanctions the marriage of a woman with her father, with her grandson and with her uncle. This therefore shows that the analogous relationships included in the English Table are not an arbitrary, but a necessary deduction. We may observe that the principle which governs The principle relationships by affinity is that a man and his wife are of affimty- one flesh, or kin, and that accordingly the wife's rela tions are forbidden to the husband and the husband's to the wife. The English Table has justly been said to be the most complete statement of the Divine Laws in re gard to consanguinity and affinity. The Eastern and Roman Churches have more prohibitions than this Table, but they are not asserted to be of Divine ob ligation. The Mosaic Code, on the other hand, has fewer prohibitions, but the principles there affirmed require that the prohibitions expressed shall be supple mented by the additional prohibitions of the Table. Therefore the English Table of Consanguinity and Af finity is simply an expression of the Divine Law on the subject — nothing added to it, nothing taken away. In a.d. 1808 the House of Bishops in America, re- prohibited plying to a message from the House of Clerical and A^^1°the Lay Deputies, in regard to the Table of Degrees of the church. Church of England, said that " they considered that Table as now obligatory on the Church, and as what will remain so, unless there should hereafter appear cause to alter it without departing from the Word of God, or endangering the peace and good order of this Church. ' ' 70 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The guilt of in cest in propor tion to degree. Principle of limitation of degrees. Consanguinityonly bars where one party is de scended from the mother or In 1874 the Committee on Canons, to whom was re ferred the resolution of the Bishop of Maryland con cerning a canon on marriage with relatives, reported the following canon : " No Minister of this Church shall marry persons related within the degrees of kin dred forbidden in the Table now obligatory in this Church." The Bishop of Maryland presented the following as an amendment : " No Minister of this Church shall marry persons related within the degrees of kindred forbidden in the Table now obligatory in this Church, as declared in the General Convention of 1808; nor shall persons hereafter so married be admitted to Confirmation or the Holy Sacraments, unless after due penitence, with the direction and consent of the Bishop ' ' (Journals of Conventions of 1808 and 1874). The guilt of the violation of the Mosaic laws seems to be in proportion to the nearness of relationship, so that the greater punishments are assigned to cases of incest in the first degree. A man, for instance, who offends with his father's wife or his son's wife is to be put to death, together with the partner of his offence ; a man who takes a wife and her mother is to be burnt with fire, both women sharing the punishment ; while, as we read the list, we find that in more remote degrees the punishment becomes less. Again, we may notice a principle of limitation ; that relationship does not bar marriage after a certain dis tance. From the Mosaic Code certain subsidiary prin ciples have been drawn by which to determine at what point prohibition ceases. They are as follows : Consanguinity does not bar unless one of the parties is descended from the father or from the mother of the other ; e. g., uncle and niece may not marry, for the niece is descended from the uncle's father. First DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. J\ cousins may marry, for neither is descended from the father of the father or from the mother of the other. other' Affinity does not bar the relations of the husband Affinity does from marriage with the relations of the wife ; e. g., a j^^fthe6" man may not marry any of his wife's relations who are husband from nearer in blood than he can of his own, nor may a mm^e wlth 1 i, , • • those of the woman marry any of her husband s relations nearer in wife. blood than she can of her own ; for the wife becomes a member of the husband's family, and the husband becomes a member of the wife's family. But it must be clearly noticed that there is no con fusion of the two families, so that a man and his son may marry a woman and her daughter, or two brothers may marry two sisters, or a man may marry the widow of his deceased brother-in-law. In England the only prohibition to which there is a. The case of serious opposition is that of the marriage of a man with ^ ^ sist*/ his deceased wife's sister. It is claimed that this is not really barred by Lev. xviii. 18, because it is very d) witness of doubtful whether that refers to such a case at all ; and the °ld Testa" ment. — further, that no one is more fit to take care of a man's children than their mother's sister. In regard to the first argument, it may be admitted various views that it is most difficult to say exactly what Lev. xviii. °8f I,ev- xviii- 1 8 means. Some Hebrew scholars have given many authorities Thafsis- for considering the word "sister" as covering any woman, and so understanding by the verse a prohibi tion of polygamy, or of marrying two wives at the same time. Against this it may be observed that polygamy certainly was not forbidden by the Mosaic Law, and that this verse was not so understood by the Jews. Others hold that it merely forbids the simultaneous ter" means any woman. 72 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. That it forbids simultaneousmarriage of two sisters. The prohibi tion does not rest on this verse. Analogy ot Levirale mar riage. Principle of affinity found to apply. Argumentfrom expedi ency a mere assumption. It violates fam ily unity, and is therefore most inexpedient, marriage with two sisters, as in the case of Jacob's marriage with Leah and Rachel; that while not for bidding polygamy in itself, it forbids the polygamous union only with two sisters at the same time. There are several other interpretations of this verse, but we may be content to say that the prohibition of the marriage of a deceased wife's sister does not rest upon this verse at all ; that it is clearly included under the principles of the Mosaic Code ; that to those who object that it is a connection of affinity and not of con sanguinity, it is sufficient to reply that more than half the cases specified by the Mosaic Code are cases of affinity and not of consanguinity. To those who plead the analogy of the levirate marriage, which under certain circumstances is com manded (that in the case of a man dying childless his brother is to " raise up seed unto him "), it may be re plied that like polygamy and divorce this was a special case suffered by God ; but that where a man did not die childless it was absolutely forbidden by Lev. xx. 21, with the penalty of childlessness attached. The principle underlying all the prohibitions of mar riage on the ground of affinity — namely, that a man and his wife are one flesh, and therefore one kin — applies with entire force to the case of the deceased wife's sister, whose relationship is thus as near as a man's own sister. There seems to be no possible argument in its favour, for the fact that a wife's sister is the best person to take care of her children, is a mere assumption, and by no means proved by experience ; and further, the principle of prohibition, in protecting the family hon our, requires that no one who can come into the family as a relation can be a possible future subject of marriage. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 73 If we turn now to the New Testament, we find in S. w witness of Matt. xiv. 3, 4 ; S. Mark vi. 17, 18 ; and S. Luke iii. 19 the New Testa- . , ment — a case of incestuous marriage — the marriage of Herod Herod's case. with his half-brother Philip's wife. S. John the Bap tist distinctly says, "It is not lawful for thee to have her." Some have thought that Philip was still alive, and therefore that it was the marriage of the woman with out divorce that was condemned ; but this could not have been so, since divorce was allowed among the Jews and could have been easily obtained ; while the whole stress in every place is on the fact, not that she was another man's wife, but that she was his brother's wife. Tertullian and many others think that Philip was Tertullian dead, and that it was simply the condemnation of an thmks *"nillP ' r J was dead. incestuous union, very much the same as that of the deceased wife's sister, in this case it being that of the de ceased half-brother's wife. In 1 Cor. v. 1-5 we are told iCor.v.1-5. of an incestuous Corinthian who had taken his father's wife, and who was by S. Paul solemnly excommuni cated. These are the only notices of the sin of incest in the New Testament. If we turn now to the teaching of the Church before (3) witness 01 the conversion of Constantine, we find Tertullian re- !?'\cl?"rcn-- ' Tertullian. ferring to the case of Herod's unlawful connection, and saying that S. John reproved Herod " because in oppo sition to the law he had married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her ; a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother being childless. ' ' Tertullian, while explaining the levirate law, has no doubt that the main reason of S. John's reproof was the relation of affinity. In the Apostolic Canons, which have been assigned The Apostolic Canons. 74 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Council of Eliberis. First CouncU of Neo-Csesarea. S Basil. Diodorus ol Tarsus. S. Timothy of Alexandria. S. Ambrose. S Augustine. Conclusion. to the end of the second, or to the third century, the nineteenth Canon bears on this matter, providing that no one could become a clerk (xXttpixos) who had married two sisters. As this included all those who were in minor orders, such as readers and singers, it shows that the marriage with two sisters in succession was a bar even to the lowest service in the Church. In the sixty-first Canon of the Council of Eliberis it was decreed that if a man married his deceased wife's sister, both parties being Christians, he was to be ex cluded from Communion for five years. The second Canon of the First Council of Neo- Caesarea enacted that a woman who married two brothers was to be excluded from Communion till death. If at the approach of death she expressed her resolution to break off the connection in the event of her recovery, she might be admitted to penance. From these cita tions it is evident that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was entirely forbidden in the early Church. After the conversion of Constantine we find S. Basil ruling that a man who has married his brother's wife is not to be received until he has left her. Diodorus of Tarsus expresses S. Basil's mind on the subject of mar riage with a deceased wife' s sister, and in No. 78 of the Canons of S. Basil seven years' penance is assigned to a man who has married two sisters. S. Timothy of Alexandria, who was elected Patriarch in 381, in an swer to a question condemned such a marriage. S. Ambrose, while not touching on this case, condemns the marriage of a man with his niece, and S. Augustine speaks of the doubtfulness of the marriage even of cousins, though he distinctly says that such is not un lawful. It is probably unnecessary to carry the subject further. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. 75 We have shown that neither in the Bible nor in the Neither scrip- early Church is there the slightest authority for the ^r^r marriage with a deceased wife's sister. allows such A few words may be useful in regard to the method marriase- of computing degrees. In the Eastern Church the computing °f Roman method of computation was followed, which degrees of was, to count from one of the parties up to a common ^inUieEast ancestor and then down to the other party. Thus, first em church. cousins were held to be related in the fourth degree. For example, from John to John's father is one degree, to John's grandfather is two degrees. But John's grandfather is also the grandfather of the other cousin, Mary. From the grandfather to Mary's mother is a degree, making the third, and from Mary's mother to herself is the fourth degree. In the same way uncle and niece are related in the third degree. William is the uncle of Jane. From William to his father is one degree ; but his father is the grandfather of Jane, and between Jane and her grandfather are two degrees, thus making three degrees between the uncle and niece. In the Western Church degrees are practically (2) m the generations, and in the twelfth century intermarriage w_estern in the West was prohibited for seven generations. Thus brother and sister were related in the first de gree, first cousins in the second degree, second cousins in the third degree, and so on ; so that the prohibition of marriage within seven degrees in the West was far more burdensome than the prohibition in the East. On the other hand, the prohibitions on the ground of affinity, other than affinity of the first degree, were abandoned after the Fourth Lateran Council, A.d. 1215, which also reduced the prohibited degrees of consan guinity from seven to four. Both East and West recognized a doctrine of spiritual iv. spiritual kinship. 76 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. relationship, which probably grew directly from the prohibitions of the Roman law in the case of relation ship by adoption. While unknown to Christian an tiquity, it is found in the Code of Justinian, where in an enactment mainly in regard to relationship by adoption the further provision is made : ' ' That person is on all wise to be prohibited from marriage, whom anyone, whether she be his ward or not, has under taken (as godparent) from Holy Baptism, since no other circumstance can so induce paternal affection and the just prohibition of nuptials as a bond of this kind, whereby their souls are united, with God as medi ator."* This principle was extended to collaterals, so that sponsors were considered in spiritual relationship to one another, to one another's natural relations, and to the natural relations of the godchild. The spiritual relationship must therefore involve the prohibition of marriage to so many degrees. Such spiritual affinity has never found place in the Canons of the English Church, and certainly forms no part of the Divine Law of marriage, nor of the enactments of the primitive Church. We have now abundantly proved our first contention in regard to the fact of a Divine revelation prohibiting the intermarriage of those who are near of kin. 2. The sanctity We shall pass very briefly over our second point, that and'goodof6 tnis fact is based on the sanctity of family life, and in society re- some sense on the interests of society. It is based on the prohibitions. sanctity of family life, which requires that no member of the family can be a possible future subject of marriage to any other member of the family. Without this pro hibition pure family life could scarcely exist, for the * Code of Justinian, V. 4, c. 26. DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO MATRIMONY. J "J intercourse of one with another in the family needs some such protection ; and if this did not extend to kinship by affinity, neither the husband's nor the wife's relations could be received into the family, but would have to observe the ordinary code of the mere inter course of friendship. Thus, to refer once more to the disputed question of Marriage of the deceased wife's sister, under the laws of the Church decteas*d wife'' sister ulus- prohibiting such marriage the wife's sister can live tratesthis. without reproach as a member of the family. If, however, she may possibly be the prospective second wife, she is thereby debarred from such close intimacy and relegated to the intercourse of social friendship only. In this sense we see that both the sanctity of family life and the interests of society re quire that the impediments of consanguinity should be extended to affinity. CHAPTER III. HOLY ORDERS. Introductory : The Church a Kingdom, and needs Offi cers for its ad ministration. Our LORD pro vided for this need in the Sacrament of Orders. The dignity oi this Sacra ment. Orders and Ma trimony dnTer from the other Sacraments in two way6 : OUR Lord during His life on earth constantly speaks of the Church, which He had come to found, as a Kingdom. Sometimes He calls it " the Kingdom of Heaven," more often " the Kingdom of God." And we are especially told that during the forty days between His Resurrection and Ascension He instructed the Apostles in regard to " the things per taining to the Kingdom of God " (Acts i. 3). A kingdom must have officers for its administration, who shall represent the king, and to whom the care and government of the kingdom may be left during the king's absence. We find that our Lord provided for this by the institution of the Sacrament of Orders; that He first chose out from amongst His followers twelve Apostles, whom He taught and trained during His earthly life, and that before His departure, with great solemnity He ordained them, that is, He bestowed on them certain powers, and gave them authority to govern His Church. The Sacrament of Orders is of the highest dignity, in the sense that it is the Sacrament upon which all the other Sacraments, except Baptism and Matrimony, depend for their validity, and these two for their legiti mate administration. Together with Holy Matrimony it differs from the other Sacraments in two ways. First, while the others are ol general application, 78 HOLY ORDERS. 79 these two are limited to individuals, to whom God has 1. They are given a special vocation. limited to cer- , tain indivi- Secondly, they are also alike necessary to the per- duals; 2. They petuation and perfection of the Church on earth and are necessary the completion of the Church in Heaven. The princi- p^uation and pal end of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the procrea- perfection of tion of children to be brought up "in the fear and the church- nurture of the Lord," and so to become living mem bers of His Mystical Body, the Church. By the Sacra ment of Holy Orders this is accomplished, for by it the other Sacraments are perpetuated, and become the means by which such children are " born again," spiritually nourished and fitted for Heaven. In the Sacrament of Holy Orders not only did our This sacra- Lord provide a hierarchy for the government of His ^^hV\d^ Church, but a means by which that hierarchy might be archy and a perpetuated. means of |ts Orders, or Ordination, may be defined as a sacred rite or Sacrament of the New Law, instituted by sacrament of Christ, by which spiritual power is conferred for orders. effecting and administering the Sacraments, and grace given rightly to perform other ecclesiastical functions. That it is a Sacrament has been disputed by some, 1. its sacra- but without sufficient reason, since it was evidently mental nature ' J examined. — instituted by Christ Himself, with outward signs, and 1. its institu- does confer grace. tion ^ CHRIST .Since the essential functions of the Priesthood are Thetwoessen- chiefly two— to offer the Holy Sacrifice in the celebra- ^ pTestnood tion of the Eucharist, and to absolve in the Sacrament — i. to offer sac- of Penance — it seems fitting that our Lord should have ™fic<;' and "¦ to 0 absolve sin — conferred these powers separately; hence, the institu- separately con- tion of the Sacrament of Orders is generally referred ferred: to two occasions. The power of consecrating the Body >¦ The first, on and Blood of Christ and offering the Eucharistic Sacri- ^ursday ; 8o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. ii. The second, on Easter Day. 2. The Outward Sign ordained by CHRIST mediately,through the Apostles. i. S. Paul in two places speaks of this sign or Matter and also of the grace con ferred by it : i Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6. ii. The objec tion that XapicT0xa, not X<£pi9, is used, and therefore " gratia gratis data," and not " gratia gratum fa- ciens" is implied. fice was given at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, when our Lord said to His Apostles, ' ' This do in re membrance of Me " (S. Luke xxii. 19) — the command conveying the power needed for its fulfilment. The authority to forgive sins was bestowed immediately after our Lord's triumph over sin and its penalty, death, when on the evening of Easter Day He said to His Apostles : " As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained " (S. John xx. 21-23). The outward sign, of which we shall speak more fully when we treat of the Matter and Form of the Sacra ment, was ordained by our Lord mediately, through His Apostles, for we find them ordaining by the impo sition of hands ; while the inward part, or grace of Orders (as well as the outward sign) is distinctly re ferred to by S. Paul when he writes to S. Timothy : ' ' Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by [did] prophecy, with [/uerd] the laying on of the hands of the presbytery " (1 S. Tim. iv. 14) ; and again : ' ' Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by [did] the putting on of my hands " (2 S. Tim. i. 6). It has been objected by some that in both these texts the word xdpiSfxa is used, and not Xr. -1 1 Florence and and this the Councils [of Florence and TrentJ teach. Trent. Secondly, there is no need to intend to do what the No need to in- Roman Church does, but what the true Church does, tend todo what ' ' the Roman whichever Church that may be, or what Christ insti- church does. tuted, or what Christians do ; for these all come to the same thing. You ask, What if anyone intends to do An intention what some particular Church does, and that a false w'(^lrd1^lt0in.is one (though he think it true), as, for instance, the validate the Church of Geneva, and intends not to do what the sacrament. 120 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. That the Coun cil of Trent requires an in tention in re gard to the " end" of the Sacrament is false. This charge of Tilmann and Chemnitz "an unmitigated lie," says Bel larmine, who proves it from the prac tice of the an cient Church in regard to those baptized by Pelagians, and in his day by Zwinglians and Calvinists. The same teaching in Tournely. Roman Church does ? I reply, Even this is sufficient ; for he who intends to do what the Church of Geneva does, intends to do what the Universal Church does, for he intends to do that which such a Church does as he thinks to be a member of the true Universal Church, although he is deceived in his knowledge of the true Church. But the error of the Minister about the true Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacra ment, only his defect of intention can do this. ' ' Bellarmine then goes on to say that heretics, such as Tilmann and Chemnitz, falsely say that the Council of Trent has decided that a Sacrament is not valid un less the Minister intends not only the act, but also the end of the Sacrament, " that is, unless he intends that [end] on account of which the Sacrament was instituted ; which is certainly very different from our opinion. But this is an unmitigated lie (merum mendacium) ; for the Council [of Trent] in the whole of Canon XI. does not speak of the ' end ' of the Sacrament, nor does the Council say that the Minister ought to intend to do that which the Church intends, but that which the Church does. What the Church does, however, signifies not the end, but the action. And, finally, this agrees with our practice ; for neither was the ancient Church in the habit of rebaptizing children who had been baptized by Pelagians, nor do we rebaptize those who have been baptized by Zwinglians and Calvinists, although we know that all these were baptized without the intention of the true end of Baptism, which is, to take away original sin." We have almost the same teaching in Tournely (torn. III., de Sacramentis in Genere, qusest. vi., art. i) : " Whatever a man's opinion may be about the Sacra ment, its effect and end, or about the Church itself ROMAN OBfECTIONS TO ANGLICAN ORDERS. 121 whether he rejects all these things or admits them, makes no difference to the substance of the Sacra ment. . . . He need not intend to produce the effect of the Sacrament, or to perform the rite of the Church as a Sacrament, or to do what the Catholic and Roman Church does. It is enough that he should in tend in some general way to do what the Church does, whatever his opinion about the Church, the Sacra ment, its effect and object, may be." If we apply to the Edwardine Ordinal these defini- These defini tions of Bellarmine and Tournely— namely, that the tio°s aPPlied J J ' to the Edward- Ordinal only requires the act to be done seriously and ine ordinal, in order to effect a Sacrament — there can be no doubt, first, that the act of ordination was done seriously ; and secondly, that it was done with the intention of effect ing a Sacrament, that is, of doing what the Church does, of ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; for in the Preface it distinctly states this to be the intent which satisfies of the Service, and, as the Pope says, the intention of them' the Minister is to be judged by the Service he uses. The Pope tells us that "the words ' Receive the Holy Ghost ' certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power. ' ' But, as we have already shown, the words which follow, — "Whose sins thou dost forgive," etc., — do, as a matter of fact, definitely express the Sacred Order of Priesthood ; since to express a power belonging exclu sively to Priesthood is to express Priesthood itself. It is doubtful whether the Pope means to imply that Doubtful it is also necessary that in the Form (or possibly in ™hether the •* •-. l j Pope requires some other prayer) there should be an expression of third the third intention, that of the end or effect of the intention, Sacrament, — i. e., its grace and power. But there is no doubt whatever that this is what the defenders and 122 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. but quite cert- vindicators of the Bull openly demand when they say ain that his tfiat the crucial question is whether the English Or- catorsdo. dinal requires the Bishop to convey the specific power of effecting transubstantiation. This has been admirably answered by the English Archbishops in their short reply to the letter put forth by the Roman Bishops in England. And we may also answer by reminding them that Bellarmine said this was what heretics accused the Roman Church of holding and the Council of Trent of defining, and that it was " an unmitigated lie." (The words are Bellarmine's, not ours.) Furthermore he proves his point from the practice in regard to Baptism. He says the ancient Church did not rebaptize those "who had been baptized by Pelagians, nor do we re- baptize those who have been baptized by Zwinglians and Calvinists ; " yet in both these cases it is perfectly clear that there was no intention to effect the end of • the Sacrament, which was the remission of original sin — because the Pelagians did not believe in original sin. And so Bellarmine, with Tournely, distinctly affirms that the intention required is the intention to effect a Sacrament, but not necessarily any belief in the end for which it was instituted. The Pope im- The Pope also implies that the intention to do what plies that the j-j^ Roman Church does is wanting. But again, intention to do . ° ° ' what the Ro- Bellarmine says explicitly, there is no need to intend to man church - ' ' As with this visible oil thy body outwardly is anointed : so our Heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant of His infinite goodness, that thy soul inwardly may be anointed with the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of all strength, comfort, relief, and gladness : and vouchsafe for His great mercy (if it be His blessed will) to restore unto thee thy bodily health, and strength, to serve Him ; and send thee release of all thy pains, troubles, and diseases, both in body and mind. And howsoever His goodness (by His Divine and unsearchable Providence) shall dispose of thee : we, His unworthy ministers and servants, humbly be seech the Eternal Majesty to do with thee according to the multitude of His innumerable mercies, and to pardon thee all thy sins and offences, committed by all thy bodily senses, passions, and carnal affections : Who also vouchsafe mercifully to grant unto thee ghostly strength, by His Holy Spirit, to withstand and over come all temptations and assaults of thine adversary, that in no wise he prevail against thee, but that thou mayest have perfect victory and triumph against the devil, sin, and death, through Christ our Lord : Who by His death hath overcome the prince of death, and with the Father and the Holy Ghost evermore liveth and reigneth God, world without end. Amen." A Priest alone is the Minister of Extreme Unction. v Minister, This we learn from S. James, and also from the uni- a Priest versal custom of the Church. 144 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Methods oi administration of this Sacrament. VI. Subject. VII. Effects : Like almost every doctrine of the Church, this has been assailed by heretics, who say that inasmuch as S. James uses the word npeafivTepovS, it simply means " elders " — those who are seniors in either age or position. The answer, however, is very simple : that this is the word which is generally used for ' ' Priest ' ' in the New Testament, and that it has been so used up to the present day in the Roman Ordinal ; that S. James does not merely say " presbyters," but " Pres byters of the Church, ' ' and this addition clearly de fines who are meant ; and further, as we have said, that the unvarying custom of the Church has been to consider a Priest the proper Minister of this Sac rament. In the Eastern Church Extreme Unction is adminis tered by seven Priests according to the Greek Eucholo- gion, or if seven Priests cannot be obtained, at least by three. A similar custom in the Latin Church is indi cated in the Sacramentary of S. Gregory and confirmed by many of the ancient ritual books. The Constitutions of Odo of Paris, in the twelfth century, speak of it; but it never was a universal practice in the West, and we may therefore say that one Priest is the sufficient Min ister of the Sacrament. The Subject of Extreme Unction is a baptized man or woman, not merely sick, but suffering from danger ous disease. Children who have not reached the age of reason, and those who are permanently insane, are incapable of receiving Extreme Unction ; and adults are incapable of receiving it, unless, as we have said, they are suffering from some dangerous sickness. S. James describes the effects of Extreme Unction in these words : " The prayer of faith shall save the sick, EXTREME UNCTION. 145 and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have com mitted sins, they shall be forgiven him." From this may be gathered that the first effect of 1. Primary the Sacrament is the increase of sanctifying grace, with Effects ; a right to actual graces which may avail to restore and strengthen the sick man; so that with firm hope he may bear more cheerfully the trials and pains of his sickness, and may be prepared to give back his soul to his Maker whenever it shall please God to require it of him, and may be enabled to overcome the tempta tions of the Evil One, which at such times are often very strong. The secondary effects of the Sacrament are to dispose 2. secondary the soul for its entrance into glory ; and therefore the Effects' forgiveness of sins, if there be any unabsolved, and a diminution or remission of their penalty. And finally, where it is for the good of the soul, Extreme Unction conveys healing of the body also. We must carefully distinguish between the first and second purposes of this Sacrament. Primarily it was not instituted for the remission of sin — either mortal or venial — nor even to take away the remains of sin, nor in order to confer bodily healing. All these are sec ondary effects of the Sacrament. The primary effect, as we have said, is the increase of sanctifying grace with actual grace to enable the person to bear the trials of his sickness patiently, and to resist temptations which may assault him, and further, to prepare his soul for death. In regard to the secondary effects of Extreme somedancui- Unction, it must be carefully noted that this is a ties considered. " Sacrament of the living," and not " of the dead," and therefore requires the subject to be in a state of grace, and is in no sense to be considered as taking the VOL. II. — IO 146 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. place of the Sacrament of Penance ; so that the remis sion of sin, whether mortal or venial, and of the remains of sin, is not absolute, but conditional. Ordinarily the Sacrament requires that the person should be in a state of grace, and therefore should have used the Sacrament of Penance ; and theologians hold that if a man, knowing himself to be in mortal sin, were to receive Extreme Unction, it would not be effi cacious for the remission of such sin. If, however, after Confession and Communion he were to fall into mortal sin without fully realizing that he was in this condition, or if his Confession or con trition were imperfect, although not wilfully so, or if from loss of consciousness he were unable to make his Confession — in such cases Unction would avail for the removal of sin, both mortal and venial. By ' ' the remains of sin ' ' we are to understand what is left after the other Sacraments have been used. But not only mortal and venial sin are remitted by the Sacrament of Unction, but also temporal penalties — the debts of sins already remitted so far as their guilt is concerned. This may be fairly inferred from the purpose of the Sacrament ; for it was instituted to pre pare man for entrance into Christ's glorious Kingdom in Heaven, and the remission of these penalties is there fore one of the ends of the Sacrament. And yet, here again, we cannot say that all penalty is absolutely remitted by it in the same sense as in Bap tism. Therefore, as Suarez puts it, this remission will be according to the disposition and devotion of the Subject, and will not always imply the entire remission of all penalty ; since, if it did so, it would ensure the immediate entrance of the soul into Paradise, and would leave only those who had died without Unction EXTREME UNCTION. 1 47 to be cleansed in Purgatory ; which is manifestly im probable. It is certain that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction viii. Necessity is not necessary to salvation, at least not ' ' necessitate and lteration. medii. ' ' Whether it is necessary ' ' necessitate prescepti ' ' (that is, by necessity of precept, either Divine or ec clesiastical) has been disputed amongst theologians. S. Thomas, Suarez, Estius, Sylvius, Viva, and many others think that it is not, although a man who is at the point of death, out of consideration for his own soul's welfare could not safely neglect a means of grace instituted for this very purpose — namely, to help him to resist the attacks of the Evil One at a time when his natural forces are weakened, and to prepare him for the awful moment of death. The Sacrament of Unction may be iterated, although not in the same illness, unless there be a partial re covery and a relapse, in which case the unction may be repeated. CHAPTER VI. THE RULE OF FAITH. Introductory : The relation between Holy Scripture and Tradition. The Church asserts her ability to prove her articles of faith from Holy Scripture. IN the sixth and seventh chapters of the first volume of this work the criteria and sources of the Church's doctrine were treated, and much that would ordi narily come under the rule of faith was there con sidered. In those chapters it was stated that, while truth has but one source, Revelation, it has two concurrent streams, — Holy Scripture and Tradition, the written and the unwritten Word of God — the Holy Ghost being alike the Author of both. Of these two streams Tradition is the older, for it ex isted before Holy Scripture was written, and, indeed, is referred to in Holy Scripture : ' ' Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle " (2 Thess. ii. 15). The Church appeals to the Holy Scriptures to prove her Tradition, and declares that all things necessary to salvation are contained in or may be proved from the Holy Scriptures. We must, however, carefully observe that this asser tion of the Church's ability to prove her articles of faith from Holy Scripture does not mean that she undertakes to prove them to the satisfaction of cavillers and detractors. It means that she has proved them to 148 THE RULE OF FAITH. 149 her own satisfaction, and imposes them upon her child ren with the assurance that she has done so. It is only another way of expressing the teaching of Article XX., where it is asserted that " The Church hath . . . authority in controversies of faith. ' ' That Holy Scripture and Tradition cannot conflict must be self-evident, when we remember that the Holy Ghost is the Author of both, and that He is " the Spirit of Truth, ' ' Who is to " guide us into all truth. ' ' It would therefore be inconceivable that He should teach one thing in the unwritten Word, or Tradition, and something contrary in the written Word, or Holy Scripture. The reader is, however, referred to the discussion of this subject in the first volume ; and under the topic of the Church's rule of faith we shall here proceed to examine more fully some matters which are there already partly treated, but especially to consider the nature and characteristics oi faith. Faith, regarded as a habit of the soul, has been de- preliminary fined as follows : " Faith is a supernatural and theo- considerations: ..I- i.ii- • Faith as a logical virtue which disposes the mind firmly to assent habit of the on Divine authority to all things which have been re- s?ul ; oefini- vealed by God." For the better understanding of this definition it will be well to examine its terms in detail. The word ' ' virtue ' ' signifies a good quality, in it- Explanation self permanent, and thus distinguished from an act of faith, which is in itself transitory. The epithet "supernatural" implies that which is "super- superadded to the natural, and in theology means natural>" that which is above the essence and requirements of any created nature. It is to be distinguished from " praeternatural," which signifies what is not neces- of terms: ' Virtue ; 150 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (il as to the object of faith, (2) as to the motive or groundoffaith, (3) as to the ori gin of faith in the soul. A "theologi cal" virtue. The "mind.' "Firm assent." " Divine authority." " Revelation," the material object of faith. sarily required by the nature, but does not transcend the order of that nature, merely perfecting the nature within its own limits, without raising it to a higher order. As applied to faith, the term ' ' supernatural ' ' may be regarded from three points of view. As the object, the supernatural is that which has been revealed, and embraces mysteries beyond the reach of unaided reason. As the motive, or ground, of faith, it is the authority of God Who reveals; and therefore for us a means of knowledge altogether unmerited and freely bestowed upon us. As the faculty in which faith has its origin, it is not the intellect alone, but the intellect strengthened by supernatural assistance. A ' ' theological ' ' virtue is that which has for its material object God, and for its formal object, or mo tive, one of God's attributes. Therefore the primary object of faith is God Himself, and the motive, the authority of God in revelation. "Which disposes the mind" — that is, the whole soul, both intellect and will ; for faith is indeed elicited by the intellect, but only under the influence of the will. " Firmly to assent." This implies the exclusion of all doubt. ' ' On Divine authority. ' ' This indicates the formal object, or motive, of faith, which is not the intrinsic evidence of things, nor the testimony of men, but the authority itself of God, which can neither deceive nor be deceived. " To all things which have been revealed by God." This declares the material object of faith, and em- between faith and opinion ; THE RULE OF FAITH. 151 braces all the truths, and those alone, which have been revealed by God, in the sense which we shall explain later. From these considerations it follows that faith differs Darerence (1) from opinion ; in that opinion lacks certainty, while the assent of faith is most certain. It differs (2) from a religious feeling, which relies between faith rather on imagination and emotion than on reasonable an ee mg ' grounds. It differs (3) from science, or knowledge, which is between faith acquired by reason alone, has for its sphere the natural *°. now" order, and rests upon natural evidence ; whilst faith is supernatural, in regard alike to its origin, object, and motive. It differs (4) from the Beatific Vision, in which we between faith see clearly and immediately those things which faith perceives only obscurely and mediately ; "for now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face ' ' (1 Cor. xiii. 12). Faith is of various kinds. In reference to its object, Different spe- faith is (1) simply " Divine," when that which is be- oiesoffaith: v A In reference to lieved has been revealed by God, but has not yet the object, been authoritatively defined by the Church. (2) It is faitnjs " Di- " Catholic," when what is believed has not only been " catholic;" revealed by God, but also defined by the Church. In reference to its subject, faith is divided into (1) in respect to Fides Formata, or living faith, " informed by," that is, the subject, joined with charity, or sanctifying grace; and (2) Fides ing|.. or Informis, or dead faith, existing in sinners who are "dead;" without charity or sanctifying grace. In respect to the manner va. which we believe, faith is in respect to (1) explicit, when we assent to a truth which is formally the manner, , . . , , r 1 1 1 • 1 faith is " ex- known in itself ; as, for example, when, knowing the PHCit," or doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we give our assent to it. "implicit." and the Bea tific Vision. 152 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Three main divisions of the subject. I. The object of faith. i. The " ma terial" object of faith. i. The material object of" Di vine " faith. d) Truth "formally ' revealed. (2) Truth " virtually ' revealed. It is (2) implicit, when we assent to an article con tained in another article of faith, which latter is ex plicitly believed. For example, anyone who explicitly believes in the authority of the Church, implicitly be lieves in all the truths which are taught by the Church. With this preliminary consideration of the definition and species of faith we are now in a position to pass to the three main divisions of our subject : first, the object of faith ; second, the act of faith ; third, the relation between faith and reason. The object of faith may be regarded from two stand points : as the object of material faith or Revelation, and as the object of formal faith, that is, the grounds on which our faith rests. The material object of faith, as we have seen, has two main divisions: the object of Divine faith, and the object of Catholic faith. The material object of Divine faith is all that is be lieved on the authority of God, Who reveals it; the general principle being that every truth (and that alone), which has been revealed by God, must be be lieved on the authority of God. Truth, however, may be revealed in two ways, form ally or virtually. Truth is formally revealed, when it has been de clared by God directly, immediately, and in its own proper notion ; as, for instance, when we read in S. John's Gospel, " The Word was made flesh," the In carnation of the Word is formally revealed. Truth is virtually revealed, when it is declared by God only mediately, and therefore is not directly re vealed, but is truly deduced from another proposition, which has been formally revealed, and in which it is contained, as it were, in principle ; as, for instance, THE RULE OF FAITH. 1 53 that our Lord has a human will, which truth is con tained in the above revelation, ' ' The Word was made flesh," since our Lord, being made Man, has all the properties of Humanity. Such a conclusion is called a virtual revelation, be cause, although not directly declared by God, it is con tained in another proposition, which latter has been declared by God, and from which it can be deduced. Truths which are formally revealed fall into two (1) of truths classes, those which are explicitly and those which are ^hich are * -^ formally implicitly revealed. revealed: Truths are explicitly revealed, when they are revealed (i) ¦¦ expiicit- by God in their proper terms. Thus the dogma of ly" or in their r r ° proper terms ; creation is contained explicitly m the words : ' In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Truths are implicitly revealed, when they are revealed (ii) "impiicit- by God, not in their own proper terms, but only in 1y"°rm J r c J equivalent equivalent terms ; as, for instance, ' ' The fool hath terms. said in his heart, There is no God, ' ' contains implicitly a revelation of the existence of God. Truths which are only virtually revealed are gener- C2) of truths ally called theological conclusions, because they are de- 7hiihare7d- duced by way of a conclusion from principles formally these called revealed, in which they are included. A theological "tneoiogicai 1 . ~ 1 . . . conclusions." conclusion, strictly defined, is a proposition certainly and evidently deduced from two premises, one of which Definition. is formally revealed, and the other naturally known, but not formally revealed. There is among theologians a controversy whether is a theological truths virtually revealed, or theological conclusions, ^^ are de fide, or not. There are three opinions on this of faith? matter. Melchior Canus and others hold that a theological tt) view conclusion is de tide before its definition by the Church. canUg° 154 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (ii) and of the Thomists ; (iii) of Suarez, De I.ugo, and others. Conclusion. C3) Private revelations. Many exam ples in the Bible, and in the lives of the Saints. Their reason for this opinion is that God knows the necessary connection between the revealed premise and the conclusion, and therefore cannot reveal one without revealing the other. The Thomists, with many theologians of every school, however, deny that a theological conclusion is defide, and answer Melchior Canus by saying that God is able to reveal the premise without the conclusion; for He may reveal the one, and leave the other for the investigation of human reason. Still another class, with Suarez and De Lugo, hold that theological conclusions are not indeed the object of faith before their definition by the Church, though of course they are after such definition. We may conclude, therefore, that we are not obliged to believe theological conclusions as defide before they are defined by the Church. Nevertheless, he who de nies such conclusions probably errs, and a proposition which is directly the opposite of a theological conclusion is deservedly called erroneous. Thus far we have been speaking of that public reve lation which tends to the edifying of the whole Church. Now we must say a few words in regard to those reve lations which are given to individuals, primarily for their own good, although sometimes indirectly they may be for the good of the whole Church ; and which are called private revelations. We find many examples of these in the Bible ; as when Noah built the ark in obedience to a private reve lation, and Abram left his own country to go into Canaan on the same authority. These private revelations are also frequently found in the lives of the Saints, and devout readers of these lives are often perplexed to know how they ought to THE RULE OF FAITH. 155 regard them. We are certainly not bound to receive Not "defide;" these revelations as matters of faith, since there is tlonT/the4 scarcely ever certainty in regard to their truth ; and church only even the approbation of the Church does not declare T.1'""863 rr that they are them to be truly Divine, but only assures us that not contrary there is nothing in them which conflicts with faith or to fal'h or ° morals. morals. The Church, therefore, allows them to be published, because they contain many things which are edifying. And they should moreover certainly not be lightly re- They should jected as untrue, since there is the possibility that not be rejected 1 1 • 1 1 t-n- ¦ as untrue. they may be indeed Divine. A person who has received a private revelation in re- The person gard to any subject may, and indeed ought to, believe it as who receives 0 j j j 1 01 such a reveia_ soon as he is certain in regard to the fact of the revelation, tion, if con- For example, a theologian, by his intellectual acute- vincedofthe ness, may feel certain in regard to some truth really Relieve a - contained in Divine revelation, although the Church has not yet explicitly promulgated it as an article of faith. In this case the theologian would be justified in but it may be believing it on the authority of God, Who has revealed doubted, or even denied it to him; although, because it lacks definition, others by others ' may not as yet believe it ; and indeed may even deny without it without the sin of heresy. eresy' In dividing the object of faith into Divine faith and ii. Thema- Catholic faith we must point out that the division is not ^h°(Jj^<;'of strictly logical, since Catholic faith is Divine faith, but faith. Divine faith which has been defined by the Church. This division J not strictly The distinction is moreover of modern date. logical. In order that a certain truth may be the object of For catholic Catholic faith two conditions only are required- — that it aaions^form- be formally revealed by God, and that it be declared ai revelation, and declara tion by t ordinary exercise of her teaching office. church. as so revealed by the Church, either in the solemn or „ . ,, J tion by the i56 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The Church unable to put forth any new article of faith. It is the office of the HOLY GHOST to un fold this truth as the growing needs of the Churchrequire. The Church exercises her office in two ¦ways : ' ' ex traordinary, " and " ordi nary." (i) The "ex traordinary " teaching office of the Church. In speaking of Catholic faith we must clearly bear in mind that the Church is unable to put forth by her definitions any new article of faith. The whole obj ective faith was committed to the Church, as a sacred deposit, given her once for all at Pentecost in the gift of the Holy Ghost, that Spirit of Truth, Who should lead the Church into all truth. To this faith " once delivered unto the Saints" (S. Jude, verse 3) there can be no addition ; so that a new article of faith is an impossibility. In this deposit all truth is implicitly contained. It is the office of the Holy Ghost, working in the Church, to unfold this truth as the growing needs of the Church require ; when, therefore, the Church defines a truth, she is simply, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, explicitly setting forth what had always been implicitly contained in the Pentecostal Gift. The Church exercises her teaching office in two ways : the one extraordinary, which she uses only on rare occasions and when compelled by serious neces sity ; the other ordinary, which she is constantly exer cising in her continuous teachings. The extraordinary exercise of her teaching office is seen in the definitions of her Oecumenical Councils, and in her decrees and professions of faith. Her ordinary method of promulgating truth is through the consen tient and continuous teaching of her pastors and the ordinary practice of the Church herself. It would be a grave error, however, to suppose that only those things need be believed which were proposed for belief in the solemn manner first described ; for on this hypothesis scarcely anything would have been be lieved in the first ages of the Church, since before the canons of CEcu menical Coun- THE RULE OF FAITH. 1 57 Council of Nicaea almost all doctrines lacked this ex traordinary definition. It may be observed, moreover, that all things con- co councils. tained in the decrees and canons of Oecumenical Coun- f1} th_ings con tained in de- cils are not equally matters of faith, but that only those crees and are defide which are directly and immediately defined. And further, it has been laid down that in the decrees cas not equally and definitions of a General Council regard must be matters of had to the purpose of the council. The words of the definition are to be interpreted strictly, and those mat ters which were used by way of illustration or proof do not fall under the head of what is de fide. When grave theologians differ among themselves in regard to the exact meaning of a definition, then neither party can claim its view to be defide. We have seen that the solemn, or extraordinary, teach ing of the Church is exercised by definitions and decrees of CEcumenical Councils, and professions of faith. The Seven There have been seven (Ecumenical Councils recog- councils: nized by the whole Church. They are: (1) Nicsea I., i". Nicsea 1., 325; (2) Constantinople I., 381; (3) Ephesus, 431; %5 C0nStantin- (4) Chaicedon, 451; (5) Constantinople II., 553; opiei., 381; (6) Constantinople III., 680-681 ; and (7) Nicsea II., 787. £; ;Ephesus- Since this date an CEcumenical Council has been 4°- chaicedon, rendered impossible by the divisions of Christendom. 4^1 ' , r J 5°. Constantm- An attempt was made at the Second Council of opieii.,553; Lyons, 1274, and at the Council of Florence, 1438-45, *°\f°nstantil1" to overcome this difficulty by inviting the Greeks to be 680-681 ; ' present at these councils ; but their decrees were after- 7°- Nic!Ea 11., wards rejected by the Greeks, and as no council is i^onsand oecumenical until its decrees have been received by the Florence not whole Church, these, which failed of this essential con- though Greeks dition, were therefore not oecumenical. were present. The Church has put forth three Creeds which are uni- ££ ™f three 158 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. versally accepted : namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. 1°. The The Apostles' Creed is so called because, so far as Apostles' concerns the doctrine which it contains, it was certainly Creed. J derived from the teaching of the Apostles. Some would even say that it was drawn up by the Apostles, each one contributing one article of the Creed, and that this was done before they separated upon the death of S. James. It is, however, much more probable that this Creed was simply the rule of faith put forth for catechumens before they were baptized, the substance of which was derived from the Apostles, but which little by little re ceived additions in order to guard against and refute heresies as they appeared. The principal articles of this Creed are found now in the epistles of S. Ignatius and the works of S. Irenseus and Tertullian, but only substantially ; and during the period from the Apostles' time to the end of the fifth century some words were added. Whatever be its history, its authority is undoubted, since the substance of it comes from the Apostles, and the additions have received the approval of the Church in all its parts. 2°. The Nicene The Nicene Creed is sometimes called ' ' the Creed of the Fathers, ' ' to distinguish it from the Apostles' Creed. It was formulated in the First Council of Nicaea, 325, added to by the First Council of Constantinople, 381, approved by the Council of Ephesus, 431, and com pleted in the ninth century by the addition of the words Filioque. The Creed was compiled as far as and including the phrase " I believe in the Holy Ghost " at the First Council of Nicsea. At the First Council of Constantinople it was com- Creed (so called). THE RULE OF FAITH. 1 59 pleted, with the exception of the words Filioque. These seem to have been added by a council at Toledo, but which council of that place is disputed, Baronius thinking that it was the Second Council of Toledo, held in 447, while others refer it to the Third or the Fourth, held respectively in 531 and 589. The last date has the best authority. It was not, however, until the ninth century that these words Filioque received the formal sanction even of the Roman Pontiff, and then not by a solemn decree, but only by permission being given to use the Creed in this form in the Mass. The Athanasian Creed is so called because for many 3°. TheAthan- centuries it was attributed to S. Athanasius. Few, asiaaCreed' however, in the present day think that he was its author. It was not set forth by authority or by any council until the seventh century ; although before that date the doctrines contained in it were often con troverted by the Arians. The formulas used in treat ing of the Mystery of the Incarnation can be traced to the Council of Chaicedon, which, however, was not held until seventy-eight years after the death of S. Athanasius. Its author and date remain uncertain, although it is very probable that it was put forth in the sixth century, under the assumed name of Athanasius, in order to gain greater authority for it. Whatever may have been its origin, it has been ap proved by the Church and set forth as a rule of faith, and it is accepted by every branch of the Church. It contains in clear and philosophical terms an exposition of the two great Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. As we have already observed, the Church teaches i6o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (2) The "ordi nary" teach ing office of the Church—exercised in various ways, but especially : (i) in her liturgies ; (ii) in the consent of Fathers, not only by solemn definitions and Creeds, but also daily in her ordinary teaching office. This is exercised in various ways, but especially: (i) by the expression of her dogmas in her Liturgical uses, (2) by the morally unanimous consent of Fathers and theologians, (3) by the common consent of the faithful, and (4) through the various historical documents which bear witness to the faith of the Church. Each of these ways we must briefly consider. Under the first head are placed the public Services used in the solemn celebration of the Mass and in the administration of the Sacraments, and the forms of prayer instituted for the different feasts and offices of the Church. In her Liturgies the Church clearly witnesses to her faith, so that they can often be used in proof of the doctrines of the Church ; and this gave rise to the aphorism of S. Celestin : Lex supplicandi statuit legem credendi. In the second class we should place ecclesiastical writers in their different ranks : first, the Fathers. There is some difference of opinion concerning the period which should be assigned to the Fathers; some limiting it to the period from subapostolic times down to the seventh or the eighth century, while others, and perhaps the majority, extend it to the twelfth century; so that S. Bernard is generally considered by these to be the last of the Fathers. Among the Fathers, speaking in a loose sense, several writers of the earlier ages are generally in cluded, some of whom were tainted by heresy or schism, such as Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactan tius, Eusebius, Theodoret, etc. While their authority is not that of the true Fathers, yet their writings are THE RULE OF FAITH. l6l often of the greatest value as bearing witness to what the Church taught or condemned in the times in which they lived. Amongst ecclesiastical writers, too, some few have Doctors, been decorated with the title of ' ' Doctor of the Church. ' ' Among these there are eight especially celebrated as the Greater Doctors of the Church. Four of these — S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Chrysostom — belong to the East ; and four others — S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory the Great— to the West. Among the Lesser Doctors of the Church are counted S. Hilary of Poitiers, S. Cyril of Alexandria, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. John Damascene, S. Isidore of Seville, S. Bernard, S. Thomas Aquinas, etc. When the consent of the Fathers is morally unani mous in regard to any matter of faith or morals, it is considered as a certain proof of its Divine tradition. When, however, the Fathers really differ, it may only show that the matter in regard to which they differ had never been explicitly defined. To the Fathers succeeded the Schoolmen, or scholas- and theoiogi- tic theologians, who took the immense mass of material which had been collected by the Fathers in their vari ous works, and applying to it the principles of philo sophical analysis and arrangement, produced the science of theology. Of these S. Anselm was perhaps the first, S. Thomas much the greatest. As in regard to the Fathers, so we may say of this class, that when theologians of all schools unanimously teach a certain thing to be not only true, but that it should be held as de fide, such consent approaches to certainty. When, however, they differ among them selves, it is clear that the truth cannot be defide. VOL. II.— II ans ; 1 62 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (iii) by the general sense of the faithful ; (iv) through historicaldocuments. (3) What is meant in the Roman Com munion by the authority of the Church. Two channels of authority peculiar to RomanChurch : The faith of the Church is manifested not only by the teaching of her pastors, but also by the general sense of the faithful, for the Holy Spirit pervades and illuminates the whole body of the Church, in order that the doctrine taught by pastors may be rightly understood and faithfully preserved by the flock. This is sometimes called the passive infallibility of the Church, or the infallibility in credendo, as distin guished from infallibility in docendo. This witness of the whole body of the Church to Catholic truth is valuable only in the greater matters of faith and morals, and cannot be safely applied to subtle distinctions of theology. Church History is also a means by which the Church exercises her ordinary teaching office, and it is most valuable as showing what the faith of the Church has been at different times, the progress of various doctrines, the causes of heresies, etc. That it may be of real value the documents used must be genuine, and the history itself free from serious error. In this department, therefore, critical principles must be used to sift statements and to distinguish be tween what is clearly true and what is doubtful. Before we leave this part of the subject it will be well briefly to discuss a source of theological truth which exists more in the realm of imagination than of fact. It is generally spoken of under the designation of ' ' authority, ' ' and is supposed to belong peculiarly to one branch of the Church, that is, the Latin Church, and to be a faculty by which infallible decisions can always be obtained upon all doubtful questions. The Roman Church possesses two channels of in struction which are essentially its own — the one, the rulings of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition THE RULE OF FAITH. 1 63 or Holy Office ; and the other, the decrees of the Ro- decrees of s.c.; man Pontiffs. Neither of these claims exemption from decrees of the . r Pontiffs; error, for the Pope is ex hypothesi infallible only when neither infai- he speaks ex cathedra, and in promulgating decrees this llble' is not held ordinarily to be the case. As Tanquerey says : ' ' The decrees of the Sacred Tanquerey's Congregation, even in matters of faith and morals, are ffa^™ent not infallible, either in themselves ... or from the ordinary approbation given to them by the Pope, who by a general approbation, or by permitting decrees of this kind to be issued, does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church, but only as the head of the Con gregation. Hence these decrees are not irreformable ' ' (Tanquerey, Syn. Theol. Fundament. , torn. I., p. 562). We have had examples of the truth of this in the instances of history of the Abyssinian matter quoted above (pp. error in both 96-192), and in the contradictory decrees of four Popes channels. in regard to the question of the Matter in Holy Orders (pp. 109-112). These decrees, therefore, are only opin ions of theologians, and vary in value as the constitu tion of the Sacred Congregation varies, and as the Pope of the day happens to be a theologian or not. They have a value, in that they generally represent the opinion of good theologians on minor points of doctrine and discipline, and their utility is chiefly manifested in checking rash theological speculation. This utility is, however, largely counterbalanced by the possibility of error in their decisions. Since 1870 the opinion that the Roman Church has a channel in the ex cathedra decrees of her supreme Pon tiffs has been received as de fide. Taking into con sideration the very large number of questions in dispute among theologians, and even among ordinary Christ ians, it might naturally have been supposed that in the 164 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. twenty-eight years which have elapsed since that date many, if not all, of these questions would have received an ex cathedra, and therefore infallible, decision, and that (at least for those who recognized Papal infalli bility) there would no longer be any important ques tions left undetermined. This, however, is not the case, since many Roman theologians tell us — and doubtless truly — that there never has been since that year a single ex cathedra decision given, and very probably never will be. We may be tempted to ask why, with so many im portant questions undecided, this great power has never been exercised. Past experience has shown that the decrees of Popes are often inaccurate, and an " infallible " decree which happened to be wrong would do so much harm to the Roman See, that this may possibly account for the hesitation in using a weapon so powerful but so entirely untried. We have seen, therefore, that apart from the powers of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, which have possibly never been exercised, the Roman Church really pos sesses no channel of authority not equally within the reach of all Churches ; and, further, that in the Roman Church there are quite as many undecided questions, and quite as much difference in theological teaching, as can be found elsewhere. Truth is not to be attained without difficulty and struggle ; and the theory of an infallible voice solving all questions of doubt, while it is very beautiful as a theory, cannot be put into operation in solving the difficulties of faith. If we desire to know whether any matter is defide, there is only one way in which we can decide the THE RULE OF FAITH. 165 question. It is the laborious process of examining the Church's teachings promulgated in the various ways which we have enumerated in this chapter. We pass now from the material to the formal object 2. The of faith, that is, to the grounds on which our faith "formal" . , ' ° , , , object, or rests. And, first, we must observe that the assent grounds, of which we give to truths revealed by God is not a mere faith blind motion of the mind, but is founded on truly reasonable grounds. The basis of faith, technically called formal faith, is that which causes us directly to assent to revealed truth, or, in other words, it is the reason which impels the mind to assent, the moral objective cause which in duces us to believe. This must be carefully distinguished from the habit Distinction of faith, which is the subjective cause of acts of faith between -* grounds of thereby immediately elicited ; so that the grounds of faith and of faith must be distinguished from the grounds of credi- credibility. bility, which latter only in a remote degree impel the intellect to believe. The ground,or basis, of all true faith, is the authority The ground of of God, which implies infallibility in knowledge and faiththeau- 1 • -« 1 thonty of truth in utterance. But among theologians it is dis- god. puted whether revelation is not itself a partial motive of faith, or whether it is only a condition sine qua non ; and further, whether the grounds of faith are to be be lieved through faith itself, or are to be received on account of their intrinsic evidence. As regards the first question, all theologians admit the fact of revelation to be at least a condition sine qua non of faith ; for, that we may believe, it is not suffi cient that God is Infallible, and True, but it is neces sary also that He should have revealed something as an object of faith. l66 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Dispute be- The dispute, however, is whether revelation together istsand scot- wit^ ^e authority of God is not a partial motive of faith. ists. Many Thomists, with Suarez, De Lugo, etc., teach that revelation is a partial motive of faith, so that an act of faith ought to be thus expressed : " I believe, because God is true and has revealed it. ' ' The Scotists, however, say that revelation alone is the condition sine qua non of faith, and therefore that an act of faith should be expressed thus : " I believe, because God, Who has revealed it, is true." For they hold that what does not move the intellect to assent to revealed truth is not a partial motive of faith ; but the fact of revelation per se does not move the intellect to assent, since the assertion alone that a certain truth has been revealed is not proof, as the assertion may be untrue. They therefore reply to the Thomists that the fact itself of revelation is not, indeed, sufficient per se, or the total ground of faith, but is taken together with the fact that God is true in order really to move the intel lect to faith ; for the affirmation of a truthful person certainly impels us to believe what he tells us. Hence it follows that the authority of God, Who reveals truth, is the motive of faith. But this authority can be recognized by the processes of reason as well as by revelation ; so that theologians dispute as to whether the authority of God, so far as it is the ground of faith, can be and ought to be believed through revelation alone, or to be recognized through reason as well. The Thomists teach that the authority of God, Who reveals, naturally known by intrinsic evidence, is suffi cient, at least for the first act of faith ; which opinion seems most probable. THE RULE OF FAITH. 1 67 A further question discussed among theologians, sug- is faith r> SovXov is antithetical to popcpr/ Geov, and that the word ' ' form ' ' must, therefore, have the same sense in both. This corresponds exactly with the exegesis we have been following. As S. Chrysostom points out, if the one (popcpr) SovXov) is true, the other (popqjr/ Geov) is true ; the form of a servant, man by nature — therefore the form of God, God by nature. It is often asserted that in taking the form of a serv ant, it was necessary to be divested of the form of God; in other words, that the two natures in their fulness *The actual translation tures, no. 4, p. 122, of Mr. Gore in his Bampton Lee- LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. I95 and perfection could not exist together in one person. This assumption, however, is entirely gratuitous, and, indeed, contrary to the force of vndpxoov. ' ' Being in the form of God," He " took the form of a servant," without in any sense surrendering the form of God, though He did lay aside during His life on earth the insignia of majesty (to eivai i'Ga ©eop). For our purpose it is not necessary to pursue the The modem exegesis of this passage further, although for a full Kenotic view understanding of the teaching of the Church on the port from this subject the whole context should be read to its con- passage. elusion. We, however, are concerned only with the misinterpretation of the part just discussed, on which the various Kenotic theories are founded, and probably enough has been said to point out just where the misinterpretation lies, and to demonstrate that there is no conflict between this passage and the Church's teaching. One of the principal difficulties we have to meet in *. Kenotism dealing with the Kenotic theory is that its exponents ?°d *^adl" do not agree in any one statement of it. Some reject church. what seem to be its logical conclusions, because they Absence of a conflict with the teachings of Holy Scripture and the theory among Church. Others carry it to its logical conclusion and Kenotists. boldly confessing this discrepancy, say that the teach ings of the Church are wrong. Others again strive to explain away the Church's definitions and to show that, while apparently contradictory, the Kenotic views in just the form in which they teach them were not before the Church, and were therefore not formally included in the condemnation of views very like them, and proceeding from the same principle. As we have shown, the first and principal tenet of this school is the introduction into the Godhead of a 196 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Thomasius' attempt to dis tinguish be tween GOD'S relative and essential attri butes. The attri butes of GOD not assigned by arbitrary speculation, but necessary in thought. The term as applied to GOD. The human in tellect as an instrument for the apprehen sion of truth. The Church's approval gives its conclusions the highest authority. metaphysical, if not a moral change — the laying aside of certain attributes of Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc., which, following Thomasius, it is pleased to call the ' ' relative attributes ' ' of God, and to distinguish from His "essential attributes." The second tenet (and that which gave rise to the theory) is the assumption of a real ignorance in our Lord, the result of His pretended self-emptying. As regards the attributes of God, we must carefully observe that they are not arbitrary, but necessary; which means that they have not been assigned to God by the speculations of theologians, but that human thought cannot conceive of God apart from these at tributes, if once it admits God to be self-existent and infinite. Accordingly the term ' ' attribute ' ' is used, not as implying something added to God, but as de scribing certain qualities which are revealed to us, although we must always remember that there is no distinction between the absolute attributes of God and His Essence. God does not merely possess Love, and Goodness, and Omnipotence ; He is Love, He is Good ness, He is Omnipotence. While the human intellect is not in itself infallible, yet it is the faculty given us by God Himself to enable us to know Him, and though it has limits, beyond which it cannot go, yet within those limits there is no reason whatever to distrust its conclusions. And not only is this true, but when such conclusions have received the approval of the Church in her teach ing office, they become the highest authority we possess, and to us infallible truth, since in that approval the Holy Spirit, working in the Church, has set His seal upon them and marked them with the stamp of absolute truth. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 197 When, therefore, we are asked to accommodate our views of God to the theories of this new school of Kenotists, the demand is that we surrender truth which bears for us the stamp of the highest possible authority ; and more, that we abandon as untrustworthy the only faculty we have for the discernment of truth. Then, in exchange for what we have relinquished, we are offered a theory concerning which its supporters cannot agree, and which seems to strike at the very root of the Christian religion. For there can be no question that i. Kenotism the Church, in all ages and in all its parts, has held Church's and taught, both in its oecumenical decisions and in extraordinary its ordinary teachings, that God is Perfect, Infinite, teaching Immutable, Omnipotent, etc. Among the attributes of God attacked by the Keno- (0 Kenotism tists is His Immutability. The last words of the Creed ^Steof as drawn up at the Council of Nicaea are : ' ' For them immutability, that say . . . that the Son of God is subject to lndfhusJT ,, v ,v -> flicts with the conversion or mutation [r) rpemov, 77 . . . «A.Aoz- creed of Nicaja. ootov tov Tiov tov Geov], the Catholic and Apos tolic Church saith, let them be anathema." The reply of the Kenotists to this is that the Arians The answer of (against whom this definition was set forth in the Creed) f*™*^f *° taught a moral change in the Son of God, and not, as the Kenotists, a metaphysical change ; and that there fore, by the rule to which attention was drawn in the last chapter (p. 157), their doctrine does not fall under this anathema. If, however, we turn from the definition of Nicsea, surrender of and consider the consequences of this surrender of instability -1 involves God's attribute of absolute Immutability, we shall ob- that of other serve that it at once destroys other attributes. God is Attributes. Immutable, that is, He cannot change, for if He could change, He must change from a more perfect to a less 198 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The conse quences of the surrender of Immutabilitydestroy our conception of GOD.Kenotists ob ject to what they call ' ' a priori ' ' views of GOD. perfect state, or vice versa* That is, change would imply some imperfection in God, and so would contra dict His attribute of absolute Perfection. Immutability, too, proceeds necessarily from Sim plicity and Unity, for a thing is said to be changed either in regard to time or form, and neither of these enters into the account of the Divine Essence, which is absolutely simple and one. If God, then, be not Im mutable, He is not Perfect ; but if He is not Perfect, He is not Infinite, for infinity, considered positively, postulates that every perfection is possessed by God absolutely and exhaustively. If He is not Perfect, it also follows that He is not Omnipotent, since imper fection necessarily implies some lack of power. The consequences, then, which flow from the denial of God's Immutability practically destroy that concep tion of the Being of God which the Church has always set forth, and evolve for us a God Who is impossible, because unthinkable. Kenotists tell us that we ought not to cling to a prio?-i views of God, where revelation requires them to be given up. We reply that we have reached our views of God by the exercise of that reason which God Him self implanted in us that we might know Him, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, which our Lord affirmed should guide the Church into all truth. Further, we are quite unable to see anything in rev elation which conflicts with these views. The dif ficulties which the Kenotic theory is supposed to solve have been recognized by the theologians of the Church and solved at least as satisfactorily by them as by the Kenotists, and that without giving up the Church's teaching in regard to the Person of Christ. *Cf. S. Thomas, Summa; I., q. ix., art. 1. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. I99 Of the four modern fathers of the Kenosis two — Eb- Ebrard and rard and Gess — teach that in our Lord the Incarnate ^es^,t.eacb Apollinanan- Logos took the place of a human soul.* ism. In the Second General Council, that of Constanti- (2) The council nople, the two principal heresies condemned were n—""^^1" those of the Apollinarians and the Macedonians. The demned the Apollinarians taught that while our Lord assumed Apollinarians. a human body of the Blessed Virgin, He did not as sume a human soul, the Divine Nature supplying the place of the soul. This view is found in two stages of This view development. In the earlier it was contended that ^a^ftwo nothing of the human soul was assumed by the Son of development. God ; in the latter, that with the body He assumed the sensitive soul, ipvxv, but not the rational soul, vovs, and that the Logos took the place only of the rational soul. There were other heretical views associated with Apollinaris and his followers, with which, however, we are not now concerned. This view was explicitly condemned by the Second General Council in its first canon. In the seventh it describes the mode of reception of these heretics on returning to the Church. Ebrard and Gess both agree that the Church in op position to Apollinaris quite properly affirmed that Christ has a true human soul, but they allege that the Church did not deny what they hold to be the truth, that the Logos Himself is that soul. They teach that He did not assume, but that He became a human soul, and that thereby the presence of another soul was rendered entirely superfluous, f It is not worth while to waste time in comments on this juggling with words. We may thankfully admit * Bruce, pp. 149, 153. tBruce» P- x49- 200 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. that among Anglican theologians there are probably few, if any, who follow Ebrard and Gess in this partic ular aspect of the Kenotic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is held by Ebrard and Gess as part of the Kenotic theory. The history of the Semi-Arians after the Council of Nicaea, and of the trouble which they gave the Church, should be a warning to those who, although they reject such radical contradiction of the Church's teaching, still strive to retain parts of a false view of our Lord's Person. (3) The coun- All the various divisions of the Kenotic school agree ciiofEphesus jn teaching that our Lord's miracles were not worked andtheKeno- , TT. , , , . , , __ tistviewofour by His own power, but by the operation of the Holy lord's Ghost, and did not differ in kind from those worked by Moses, Elisha, S. Peter, and S. Paul. It is pointed out that we have no record of miracles performed before the descent of the Holy Ghost upon our Lord at His Baptism, and the conclusion drawn is that His miracles were wrought, not by His Divine power as the Son of God, but by virtue of the unction poured upon Him as the Son of Man, the Messiah. The Ninth An- The Ninth Anathema of S. Cyril — which, with the athemaof s. eleven other anathemas, was adopted by the Qjcumeni- Cyril in regard .,,._, „ to those who cal Council of Ephesus and reaffirmed by that of Chal- saythat cedon and by other councils, is as follows : " If anv CHRIST "re- .. ^ \ ,, ' n y ceived from the man saltri that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glori- holy spirit fied by the Spirit, and used the power that came by workmirf ° Him as a power that was not His own, and received acies." from Him the ability to work miracles against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men, instead of saying that the Spirit through Whom He wrought the signs was His own Spirit, let him be anathema." Here, again, we have something perilously like a conflict with an Oecumenical Council, or rather with LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 201 two Oecumenical Councils. The explanation given by The expiana- the Kenotists is similar to that presented in the case of "°n the Keno" r tists give. the conflict with the Nicene Creed. They say that their doctrine is not exactly that of Nestorius, and there fore does not necessarily fall under the condemnation ; that when the anathema says, " used the power that came by Him as a power that was not His own ' ' (ohs aXXorpia dvvdpei), it does not apply to their teaching, since they consider that the Holy Ghost was not aXXorpia Svvapis, but was His own. This, however, does not cover the second part of the anathema, touching those who teach that our Lord received from the Holy Ghost the ability to work miracles. It is unnecessary to discuss the subject further. Each must reach his own conclusion as to how far this doc trine falls under the anathema of Ephesus. The Council of Chaicedon drew up a confession of (4) The coun- faith in regard to the Incarnation as follows : " We, oiiofchaice- ° don (451) de- then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent fined the reia- teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord tion of the two Jesus Christ ; the same, perfect in Godhead and also i„carnation. perfect in Manhood ; truly God, and truly Man, of a reasonable soul, and body ; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood ; in all things like unto us without sin, begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days for us and for our salvation born of Mary, the Vir gin Mother of God, according to the Manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two Natures inconfusedly, unchange ably, indivisibly, inseparably [aGvyxvroos, arpinroos, aSiaiperoos, dxoopiGroos], the distinction of Natures 202 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each Nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets from the begin ning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has delivered to us." In this Creed of the Fourth General Council we have probably the fullest definition of the relation between the Divine and Human Natures of our Lord that we ever shall have. As we shall see later on, when Beron taught that by the Incarnation ' ' a limitation and circumscription was introduced into God which had not previously existed, ' ' the unknown writer who answered him appealed to the Church's doctrine in regard to the distinction of the The accept- two Natures. And if we remember that our Lord is to definitio'nta be acknowledged in these two Natures ' ' inconfusedly, consistent with unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably " (aGvyxvroos, Kenotism. arpenroos, aSiaiperoos, dxoopiGroos), we shall be saved from Kenotic speculation. For ' ' the difficulty of conceiving how human modes of thought and what must be called (for want of a better term) Divine modes of thought could subsist and act together without con fusion of one with the other, no doubt offers a strong temptation to relax the principle of the aGvyxvroos in this one particular, but if the temptation is yielded to, it is not easy to see where a stand can be made. Neither Beron in ancient times nor Godet in our own have found any halting-place on the inclined plane on which they placed themselves when they aban doned the ground taken by the Church at Chaicedon. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 203 And though the more moderate English theory of the Kenosis at first sight seems less exposed to this danger, it is hard to see how in any sound j udgment it can really be so regarded, for it rejects the integrity of the aGvyxvroos as much as the Continental form does. It would, in all probability, never have seen the light if its advocates had been able to believe that the aGvyxvroos could apply as truly to the point of con tact of Omniscience and human consciousness as to any other point at which the two Natures touch one another. They could not conceive how this could be, and there fore they affirmed this hypothesis as a means of getting over the difficulty. But in so doing they clearly gave up the principle of the aGvyxvroos, and, the principle once given up, how and when are you to stop ? " * We may sum up our examination of the teaching of the first four General Councils which bears on Keno tism, by observing that a doctrine which is plainly con demned by one (Constantinople), and comes perilously near being anathematized by two others (Nicaea and Ephesus), and practically ignores the definition of the fourth (Chaicedon), may fairly be classed among spec ulations which are rash and dangerous. We come next to the consideration of the Kenotic a. Kenotism theory in its relation to the Church's ordinary teaching ^?dth^, office, as found in the Fathers and theologians, using dinary teacn- these terms as we defined them in the last chapter; the "**¦ Fathers extending to S. Bernard, and the theologians from S. Anselm to the present day. The most industrious examination shows — on the admission of the Kenotists themselves — that from the time of S. Augustine to the close of the patristic period there is not the slightest support to be found for this * Powell, p. 299. 204 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. No Father or theologiansince S. Augustine'stime counte nancesKenotism. An examina tion of four Fathers before S. Augustine claimed as favourable to Kenotism. Gore admits, however, that they do not teach a "lim itation of knowledge,"but their refer ence to the self-emptying without this gives no sup port to Keno tism. (i) The pas sage quoted from S. Irenzeusconsidered. view; and, on the other hand, that there is much which is entirely inconsistent with it. It is also admitted that from the time of S. Anselm to the present day no support for this theory can be found in the writings of any theologian of the Church, either East or West — its only supporters being heretics and schismatics, mostly of the Lutheran body. As no one (even with the greatest stretch of charity) would call these persons theologians of the Church, we have left for our consid eration only those Fathers who lived before the time of S. Augustine. From four of these the Kenotists claim some slight support. Among the Greek Fathers they cite S. Iren- aeus, Origen, and S. Cyril of Alexandria; and of the Western Fathers only one, S. Hilary of Poitiers. An examination, however, of the writings of these Fathers will show upon how slender a thread the claim hangs. Indeed, one of their most brilliant but most moderate disciples naively says : " S. Cyril and S. Hilary supply us with admirable formulas for the ' self-emptying,' though without applyi?ig it to the limitation of know ledge."* One can get " admirable formulas for the ' self- emptying ' ' ' from almost every writer and theologian of the Church, for that is not peculiar to the Kenotic theory; the self-emptying being only of the insignia majestatis, — not of Omniscience, not the limitation of knowledge. However, we will briefly examine the passages quoted; and, first, that from S. Irenseus. The passage to which Canon Gore refers is as follows: " For as He was Man that He might be tempted, so was He also the Word that He might be glorified, the Word remaining * Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 286. (The italics are ours.) LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 205 inactive in His temptation, and dishonour, and cruci fixion, and death, but going along with the Man, in His victory, and endurance, and works of goodness, and Resurrection, and Ascension. ' ' What we have here is a doctrine as unlike the Kenosis as possible. While S. Irenseus regarded "the Divinity and Humanity, the Word and the Man, as being alike present in every part of our Lord's life and work, yet he describes the Divinity as being inactive, ' taking no part ' in those things which be longed exclusively to the second Adam's part, at the same time rendering that help to ' the Man ' which man must always obtain from God if he is to be vic torious over evil ; whilst putting Itself forth in that which was Its own proper sphere, i. e. , in the works of goodness, or the miracles. . . . There is here no trace of an idea of the Divinity having been modified on account of Its conjunction with the Humanity, and the difficulties connected with the relation of Omni science as conjoined with human consciousness do not seem, at this time, at any rate, present to the mind of S. Irenaeus at all." * The next Father referred to by Canon Gore is Origen. (2) The teach- in the homily on Jeremiah x. 14, in which Canon Gore lns°f ongen ^ on this subject. thinks that Ongen speaks of the self-humiliation of the Son to a Divine folly, i. e., to a human mode of wis dom, Origen refers expressly to 1 Cor. i. 25. He quotes the very words, and this Divine folly is in reality the expression in that verse ro poopov rov Geov, "the foolishness of God." Origen seems to have intended to say much the same as S. Paul said to the Corinthians. He does not seem to be speaking of our Lord personally, but of the reve- * Powell, p. 284. 206 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. lation made in and by Him through the Cross. This was the xevoapa; this was Divine Wisdom emptied, that is to say, not showing itself as it really was. There is certainly nothing stated in any way distinctly in the passage about our Lord's humbling Himself to a human mode of wisdom. If ' ' the foolishness of God" in i Cor. i. 25 can be so understood, then Origen' s use of the expression may be justified in the same way; but this is obviously not S. Paul's meaning, and no interpreter so understands it. In the latter part of the homily, so far from contem plating our Lord as having come down i?i Himself irom being divinely wise to " a human mode of wisdom," Origen speaks expressly in his concluding words of the wisdom (Gocpia) and the might (igxvs) which were in Him, and to which men were to be lifted up. We may place side by side with this passage another, taken from Origen's commentary on S. John's Gospel : * " If it be asked whether our Saviour knows absolutely everything which the Father knows, or if, with the idea of glorifying the Father, it should be suggested that some things which the Father knows are not known by the Son, let such a querist remember that the Saviour is the Truth, and moreover, that He is the absolute and perfect Truth ; He cannot be ignorant of any truth. ' ' f (3) The teach- We pass to the passage quoted from S. Cyril of "f ai* S (&T-d Alexandria : 'Htpiei dr) ovv oiuovopixooS roTs rf/S avOpoonoTr/ros perpois iq? eavroo ro xpareiv. Canon Gore translates this, " Suffered the measures of our manhood to prevail over Him. ' ' But is this a correct translation of the last two words ? The Latin transla- * Origen injoann., Migne, P. G., 1473. f Powell, pp. 285, 286. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 2oy tion in Migne is Humancs itaque natures leges ozconomice etiam in SE valere voluit, and what S. Cyril really said was that our Lord suffered the measures of our man hood to prevail in Himself, that is, in His own case. This gives quite a different sense; namely, that our Lord permitted His manhood to fulfil its law un hindered and unaided by his Godhead, whensoever and in whatever particulars the purpose of the Incarna tion required this ; and S. Cyril expresses the same thought in other places. We will place by the side of this passage another from S. Cyril in which he treats of the question at issue in the Kenosis. He says that our Lord " thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but came down, in a manner, to that which was not in glory, in that he appeared as Man. Therefore also He said, ' The Father is greater than I,' although it was His right, as being always God — as He is regarded, and is, and is naturally begotten of Him — to be un changed under all circumstances and to rejoice in the glory of the Godhead. It was therefore imperative that He, Who for our sakes descended to the level of humanity, should be seen not to have slipped out of the splendour and excellence which were His essentially by nature, but — as possessing divinely in His exinani- tion the plenitude of the Godhead, and in His humilia tion its loftiness, and that which pertained to His human Nature as bestowed and received for the sake of mankind — should be worshipped by all. ' ' * While S. Cyril and S. Irenseus may and do " supply Not the slight- admirable formulas for the self-emptying," there is cer- ost support for r J a Kenotism in tainly not the slightest support of the limitations of our any of these Lord's knowledge, or of the theory which the Keno- three Fathers. *S. Cyril, Migne, P. G., LXXV., 1348 ; Powell, pp. 290-292. 208 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (4) S. Hilary of Poitiers uses "form" for the mani fested glory, not for the Essence of the Godhead. Three passages inconsistentwith Keno tism. S. Hilary on our LORD'S miracles : on Hisbeing in Heaven whilst on earth ; and on His Omniscience. tists teach. Indeed, again and again S. Cyril uses the canon i'peivev onep r/v, which surely no Kenotist would accept. S. Hilary of Poitiers is the solitary Latin Father whom the Kenotists claim as supporting their views. There are isolated passages in S. Hilary which might seem to lend some sanction to this claim. For in stance : Haurienda fuit natura ccelestis, ut exinaniens se ex Dei forma in formam servi hom'inisque decideret. But it has been conclusively shown that in S. Hilary the word forma does not mean the internal Essence of the Godhead, but its external semblance, or manifested glory ; and indeed S. Hilary frequently and in express terms states that our Lord laid aside nothing but this. We quote three passages : Demutationem Deus nesciens, nihil ex substantics bonis carof actus amisit (De Synodis, 48). Evacuatio formes non est abolitio natures : quia qui se evacuat, non caret sese ; et qui accipit, manet (De Trin., ix. 14). Non virtutis naturcsque damno, sed habitus demuta- tione (De Trin., ix. 38). In other places S. Hilary insists that our Lord's miracles were wrought by Him as God the Son, and not by a power communicated to Him as Man (De Trin., vii. 21; also ix. 20; ix. 45). He dwells upon His being in Heaven whilst He was on earth (De Trin., x. 54; x. 16), and on the subject of His Omniscience he is very emphatic and distinct, the whole drift of his ex amination of the question respecting the day and hour of the Judgment being to rebut the supposition of His ignorance (De Trin., ix. 58-75; also x. 37).* There are many other passages in S. Hilary which * Powell, pp. 293, 294. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 209 might be examined, but these are surely enough to show how little ground there is for supposing that he had any sympathy with the views of our Kenotists. There is one writer, however, who lived probably in The only the sixth or seventh century, to whom we do not find ancient writer J who teaches that Kenotists are anxious to refer, although he really Kenotism is seems to have held their views. Perhaps it was be- the heretic -ta r.* , , ¦ Beron about cause he was not a Father of the Church, but a heretic, the 6th cen- We mean, of course, Beron. Our knowledge of him, tury. or rather of his teaching, is gained from some eight fragments of a treatise Contra Beronem, which at one time passed under the name of S. Hippolytus. This authorship, however, has been abandoned, and it is now generally considered from internal evidence that Beron lived in the fifth, sixth, or seventh century. His theory is very fully propounded. We are, how ever, concerned only with that part which relates to the Kenotic view and which is thus described by Dorner * : "As Beron held that an individual man, JESUS of His theory that Nazareth, a limited personality (nepiypamos), was k^1^™3" thus brought into being, so also did he conceive the duced limits act of Incarnation to introduce limits into God Him- into GOD • tt- 1- 1 ¦ Himself. self ; that is, by His own act a limitation and circum scription was introduced into God which had not previously existed. In Christ, therefore, God was self-emptied, and had acquired an idia nepiypacpf). To this the writer of the treatise replied that our Lord The chaice- as God remained after the Incarnation as unlimited as ?D1"an deoree is the answer He was before. He was at the same time Infinite God to this. (dneipoS Geos) and circumscribed Man (nepiypanros avdpoonos)." The Chalcedonian definition by the term aGvyxvroos, while not telling us how human and Divine modes of thought could subsist and act together * The Person of Christ, div. I., vol. ii. 33, et seq. 2IO CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. without confusion of one with the other, asserts that they do so. Before we close this division of the subject we may The earliest call attention to the fact that apparently the earliest attempt to mis- attempt to misrepresent the meaning of S. Paul's words represent Phil. r r , , , ii. 5-8 was that in Phil. n. was that of Marcion, a.d. 150, although ofMarcionin t^s was directed, of course, against the reality of the interests of Docetism. Christ S Human Nature. Tertullian writing Adversus Marcionem* asserts that Marcion says of Christ that " subsisting in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself by taking upon Him the form of a servant, ' ' not the reality, ' ' and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, " and was found in fashion as a man," not in substance, " that is to say, flesh, just as if there were not also a substance to which fashion and likeness and form are attached." 3. The modem Luther was the originator of the modern Kenotic view, view of the although he confined the Kenosis to a period in our Kenosis may be traced to Lord's historical life when He took " the form of a Luther, who, servant, and was made in the likeness of men; " from fined it to our which we must conclude that between the times of His lord's Incarnation and this exinanition He had not been made in the likeness of men. The popcpr) dovXov which He assumed was not the essence, but merely the appearance Meiancthon and form of a servant. Melancthon was afraid that thought this Luther's view would lead to Docetism, and exclaimed, savoured of ..,,.. Docetism. Marcion is breaking into your house ! " So that we see that Lutheran Kenotism has also affinities with Docetism, Melancthon being the judge. Lastly, we must endeavour to trace the origin and de velopment of this doctrine, that we may see whether * Adv. Marcion., v. 20. LIMITS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION. 211 we can reasonably suppose it to have been developed The source of under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth. thits """"^ . ° entirely schis- Previous to the work Contra Beronem, of which we matic or have spoken, we find various aspects of Kenotism held heretlcai: dim- 1 fcr i • cultyofthis. more or less clearly by different heretics and condemned more or less fully by the first four General Councils. We find it in the writings of Beron very much in its modern form, evidently repudiated by the Church, and we scarcely come across the doctrine again until the Reformation, when we find quite a different form of it put forth by Luther, who, as we have observed, strictly confined his Kenosis to our Lord's Humanity. In the early years of this century it was suggested zinzendorf the by Zinzendorf in the form of devout sentimentalism, ^ther ofthe J ' Kenotism of which brought the Divine Christ down to the closest to-day. intimacy with men. It was scientifically developed, £h* though with various modifications, by a number of Thomasius; Lutheran divines, Thomasius and Gess, etc. ; and some Gess- - ,,.._., 1 ,-> i t-n 11 TheReformed: Reformed divines, Ebrard, Godet, etc. Dorner calls Ebrard; it a revival of Apollinarianism and Patripassionism ; Godet. but while it resembles both in some features, it differs of Kenotism. from them somewhat in assuming a truly humanized Logos dwelling in a human body. Martensen, a The Danish Danish Lutheran, should be added to the list, since he Martensen teaches a modified form of the Kenosis, holding that the Son of God leads a double life. Such is the origin of this theory. There is no ques- summary of tion whatever that from the time of S. Augustine until ^^" Keno- this century it was not only absolutely unknown to the tism. Church, but that the Church's teaching in regard to our Lord's knowledge was diametrically opposed to it. And when we say the Church's teaching, we mean both the doctrine of every theologian of the East as well as the West, and the Church's interpretation of Holy 212 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Scripture as found in the Fathers. We have shown that in its consequences it destroys the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and attacks the very Being of God as the Church has always received and taught the same. if this theory Is it conceivable that the Holy Ghost, Whose office betme.hasnot it is to guide the Church into all truth, has given to the Church ° . . been in error, schismatics and rationalists a new revelation which at least since contradicts in so many points the teaching of the menicai Church, and that the Church has, therefore, for at council? least fourteen hundred years been in error ? Is this ent with our " consistent with our Lord's promises that the gates of lord's prom- Hell should not prevail against the Church, and that gatefof Heu the Spirit of Truth should guide the Church into all should not pre- truth? And further, on this hypothesis that the vail against the church has erred for so many centuries and has needed Church, and J that the holy to be enlightened by schismatics who are outside her ghost should unity and reject her doctrine, may it not be asked by lead the , , , . ,,.._,... church into some whether there is left any real basis of Christianity, ail truth? any serious reason for believing that Christianity is the. full revelation of God in Christ Jesus ? CHAPTER VIII. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. HOLY Scripture is the written Word of God. It introductory: is a collection of books which have God for Defini«on. their Author, inasmuch as they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They were entrusted by God to the Church, and received by it as His Word. Holy Scripture and Tradition are the two principal The relation channels of the Church's doctrine. They are the writ- between Hoiy Scripture and ten and the unwritten Word of God, both alike having Tradition. the Holy Spirit as their Author. Tradition comes first in the order of time, but Holy Scripture is first in the order of dignity, for between the Incarnate Analogy be- Word of God and the written Word the closest an- tweenHoiyScripture and alogy may be traced. the incarnate As by the operation of the Holy Ghost upon the word ; substance of the Blessed Virgin ' ' the Word was made flesh," so the written Word of God was produced by the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, acting upon the wills and minds of chosen men. In the Incarnate Word two elements are found, the two elements, one Human and the other Divine— the Human serving Human and ° Divine, in as a veil for the Divine. So in the written Word of each. God may these two elements be recognized. It is per fectly human, inasmuch as it was written by man ; it is perfectly Divine, in that it was inspired by God. 213 214 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. I. The Canon of Holy Scrip ture. Meaning of word "Ca non ; " its application in theology. Distinctionbetween can- onicity and inspiration. In the Incarnate Word dwelt " all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. ii. 9). In the written Word may be found all the treasures of wisdom and truth. As Christ was " unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called . . . the Power of God, and the Wis dom of God " (1 Cor. i. 23, 24), so to the unbelieving Holy Scripture is a stumblingblock and full of diffi culties, while to those who read it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit it is indeed the Word of God, " able to make " them " wise unto salvation " (2 S. Tim. iii. 15). Since Holy Scripture is a collection of books, it is necessary to consider, in the first place, on what prin ciple this collection has been made ; in other words, what do we mean by ' ' the Canon of Holy Scripture ? ' ' The Greek word xavoov in its first meaning signifies a carpenter's rule, an instrument of measurement, and in this sense it is metaphorically applied, in theology, to that which, perfect in itself, becomes the rule of faith by which other things may be measured. Thus, the Scriptures are said to be canonical because, having first been tested by the Church's standard of doctrine, they have been found true, and then have themselves become a standard of truth. Hence the term Canon is now applied to the whole collection of books which form the written Word of God. From this it is evident that there is a very real distinc tion between Canonicity and Inspiration, since a book is said to be inspired which is written under the guid ance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore has God as its Author ; but it is said to be canonical, when it is not only thus inspired, but has been acknowledged as such by the Church and placed authoritatively in the Canon. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 21 5 For, speculatively at least, we could imagine that some books might be inspired which are not canoni cal, though all books which are canonical, must by this very fact be inspired. The two words are often used indiscriminately, but it is well to bear in mind that such use is inaccurate. And the distinction is not a needless one, for it is much easier to prove the external fact of the canonicity of a book (which attests its inspi ration) than its internal quality of inspiration. We see this practically in the different lines of argu ment used by the theologians of the Church and by Protestants. The former have only to show that a book has been authoritatively received as canonical by the Church. The latter have to prove the internal in spiration of each book separately, which is often a very difficult task. When we come to examine the books of Holy Scrip- classifications ture, we find that they may be arranged in several of the books of ,._' J J b the Bible. different classes. The first division, of course, is that into the Old into oid and and New Testaments, the former being God's revela- NewTest- tion to the chosen people, and the latter His revelation to the world at large. Again, they may be divided into protocanonical and into proto- deuterocanonical. The protocanonical books are those oanomcal and * deutero- concerning whose Divine origin and authority there canonical. has never been any doubt, and which from the first have been received by the whole Church as inspired, and therefore placed in the Canon. The deuterocanonical books are those concerning which in some parts of the Church there was at some time more or less doubt, but which after careful ex amination have been received by the whole Church. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament are 2l6 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Hebrew Canon contained only the proto canonical.The deutero canonical books of the Old Test. ; of the New Test. The authority of the deutero canonical books. The term "apocryphal' misleading, those which are found in the Hebrew Canon, as that Canon was finally accepted among the Jews. The deuterocanonical are those which do not occur in the ordinary Hebrew Canon, and those portions of Daniel and Esther which occur only in the Greek. The deuterocanonical books of the New Testament are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second and Third Epistles of S. John, the Second of S. Peter, S. James, S. Jude, and the Revelation. The acceptance given to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament has been very varied, some books having been much more commonly received than others, while all of them have been at times rejected by councils and doctors. The Third and Fourth of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses are generally re jected at the present time. The acceptance of the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament has been very different. While the Church's Canon was in process of formation doubts were expressed in regard to them, but after it had really become fixed they ranked with the other Canon ical Scriptures. The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are sometimes, and unfortunately, called " apocryphal." This term is misleading, since its application to the apocryphal books of the New Testament (such as the Gospel of the Infancy, and of S. Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.) implies that they are not genu ine — an inference which certainly cannot be extended to those of the Old Testament, since Article VI. says of them : ' ' The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of man ners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 2\f The Anglican Church has never authoritatively used and not au- the term apocryphal to designate these books. In ^d1^nt^ly the Article, as we see, they are called " the other Anglican books." In the Homilies they are spoken of as the church- Word of God, and not only are they appointed as les sons, under the title ' ' Holy Scripture, ' ' but also in the offertory sentences we find quotations from them classed, without any distinction, among passages of Holy Scripture. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament were Jewish division anciently divided by the Jews into three classes : the of oldTest-: J j j mt0 i^aw, Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa — a classifica- prophets, and tion which seems to be recognized by our Lord (S. Hagiographa. Luke xxiv. 44). The first part, the Law, contained only the books of The Law. Pentateuch. The second had two subdivisions. In the first were The prophets, placed the earlier prophets, under which head came the earllerand books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ; in the second, the later prophets, namely : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. The third class contained Psalms, Proverbs, Job, TheHagio- Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, sraPha- Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The most ancient division of the New Testament Twofold was into two parts, which were distinguished as the Dmslon of r ' . ° New Test. Evangelical Writings and the Apostolical. Another classification distributes the books of both a fourfold divi- Testaments into four classes : the Legal books, which sl°n,oft^ ° whole Bible in the Old Testament are the five books of Moses, and into : in the New Testament the four Gospels. Legal Books; The Historical books — in the Old Testament sixteen Historical ; in number, namely: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I. and II. Samuel, I. and II. Kings, I. and II. Chronicles, Ezra, 218 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Sapiential ; Prophetical. A threefold division. Difference be tween the Pal estinian and AlexandrianCanons of the Old Test. Canon finally determinedbefore the close of the 4th century. Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, I. and II. Macca bees ; in the New Testament only one, the Acts of the Apostles. The Sapiential books, whether didactic or doctrinal — in the Old Testament seven, namely : Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ; in the New Testament, all the Epistles of S. Paul, and the Catholic Epistles. The Prophetical books — in the Old Testament, six teen : Isaiah, Jeremiah (with Baruch and Lamenta tions), Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets ; in the New Testament, the Apocalypse only. The books might be more conveniently grouped under the three heads: Historical, Didactic, and Pro phetical. The Church from the first has received as canonical at least those books of the Old Testament which form the Canon of the Palestinian Jews. The Canon of the Alexandrian Jews apparently included the deutero canonical books, but it is to the ordinary Hebrew Canon that Josephus refers in his work Contra Apion., I. 8, when he numbers these books at twenty-two in all; and says that they are recognized by every Jew from his birth ; and that for them, if there were need, every Jew would willingly die. The Canon of the New Testament was gradually de termined during the first four centuries of the Church. There was probably never any doubt about the proto canonical books, and the doubts about the deutero canonical books little by little disappeared ; and we find that in a series of African councils, held towards the close of the fourth century, the Canon of the New Testament was exactly as we have it now ; while that of the Old Testament, in addition to our protocanonical THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 21Q books, included six of the deuterocanonical, namely: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two books of the Maccabees. Until lately it was supposed that the earliest explicit recognition of the Canon by conciliar action was to be found in a council at Carthage, held in 397, which is by some authorities reckoned as the Second, and by others as the Third Council of Carthage ; and that the list of books contained iu the 47th canon of this Council was again set forth in a council held in the same place in 419. More careful research, however, has shown that the council of 47th canon of the Third Council of Carthage was simply Hipp°' 393- a repetition of the 36th canon of the great Council held at Hippo in 393.* We may therefore probably con sider this as the first conciliar action in regard to the Canon of Holy Scripture. It is interesting to observe that S. Augustine was present at all three of these councils — at the first two as a Priest, at the last as a Bishop. We may remark, however, before passing from this subject, that the Canon has never been determined by any GBcumenical Council, and so rests on the ordinary authority of the Church. In the present day the Bible is divided into chapters Divisions of and verses, but this division is of comparatively modern the text date. The earliest division — that of the Gospels (in the third century) into the Ammonian Sections — was not TheAmmon- made for the purpose of quotation, but to demonstrate lan Sectlons- the harmony between them. It was not until the fifth or the sixth century that the Andrew of Gospels were divided into 218 titles, the Epistles into 245 chapters, and the Apocalypse into 24 sermons and 72 * Hefele, History of the Councils ; vol. II., pp. 394-402. Csesarea'sdivision. 220 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Cardinal Hugo a S. Charo first divides the Bible into chapters; Robert Stephanus, 1548, into verses. II. The In spiration of Holy Scrip ture. Origin of the term. Definition of inspiration. chapters. This division was made by Andrew of Caesarea. Cassiodorus tells us that a similar division into titles was made of some books of the Old Testa ment. The above divisions, however, were found very incon venient for purposes of reference, and in the thirteenth century Cardinal Hugo a S. Charo, a Dominican, first divided the Bible into chapters as we have it now. Cardinal Hugo only made the division into chapters, indicating the lesser sections of the chapter by marginal letters. Our present division into verses was made by Robert Stephanus in 1548. These later divisions into chapters and verses, while used in every part of the Church to-day, have never been authoritatively recognized ; and in some places are made with such poor judgment as greatly to ob scure the sense. The term inspiration probably comes to us from the Vulgate rendering of S. Paul's words nc\Ga ypacpr) deonvevGros (2 S. Tim. iii. 16) — Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata; and again, when S. Peter (2 S. Pet. i. 21) speaks of the prophets as vno Uvevparos 'Ayiov cpepopevoi, " moved by the Holy Ghost," the Vulgate has Spiritu Sanclo inspirati. GeonvevGros is a passive verbal, and may fairly be translated ' ' inspired (breathed into) by God ; ' ' and S. Paul's expression, "Every Scripture inspired by God," etc., certainly seems distinctly to imply that every separate portion of the Word of God is inspired, and forms an integral portion of the living and organic whole. Inspiration may be defined as a supernatural impulse by which God directed the authors of the canonical books to write down certain matters predetermined by THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 221 Him. Inspiration is a grace gratis data, and is be- it is a grace stowed upon the writer for the edification of others, "eratisdata-" and, like all graces, it is especially attributed to God the Holy Ghost. The Old Testament clearly claims to be inspired, for The oid Test. the prophets constantly represent their own words as ^^"^b being in reality the oracles of God, and our Lord and inspired. His Apostles confirm this claim. Christ, for ex ample, declares that David spoke in the Spirit (S. Matt. xxii. 43), while S. Peter (Acts i. 16) and S. Paul (Acts xxviii. 25) use similar language. Ecclesiastical writers, from the time when the New Testament Canon was first recognized by the Church, speak in the same way of the books contained in it. The Fathers express their belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures by calling them ' ' the Divine Scriptures, ' ' " the Divine oracles," " the Scripture of God," " the Scriptures of the Lord; " but the term inspiration itself is rarely met with in the early ages. Perhaps the first instance of it we can find is in the The earliest acts of the martyrs S. Speratus and his companions, "se of the term , , , "inspiration," commemorated July 17th. In the year 180, under the 180. Emperor Commodus, Saturnian, the proconsul, stirred up a violent persecution of Christians in Africa, and on the 16th of July three men, SS. Speratus, Nazalis, and Cythinus, and three women, SS. Donata, Secunda, and Vestina, were arrested and brought before the tribunal of the proconsul. S. Speratus was the spokesman. They were cross-examined that day and then con ducted back to prison. On the following day they were again brought before the proconsul, and in an swer to the question, ' ' What are the books which you read with adoration ? ' ' the saint replied that they were 222 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Difference be tween inspira tion and revelation. Inspiration does not pre clude the or dinary labours of an author. Inspirationdiffers from assistance. The Church has never de fined the method of in spiration ; the four Gospels, S. Paul's Epistles, and all the divinely inspired teaching (omnem divinitus inspiratam doc- trinam). We must here observe that inspiration differs entirely from revelation ; for by revelation God makes known to the soul truths which it did not know before, but without necessarily prompting the recipient to commit the revelation to writing. On the other hand inspira tion is the impulse which causes an inspired author to write, and directs him in his work, but it is not at all necessary that any new truths should be communicated to him by way of revelation. For example, there is no reason to suppose that the author of the Book of Esther received any revelation. Moreover, inspiration does not preclude the ordinary labours of an author in the collection of materials re lating to the subject of which God wills him (and therefore inspires him) to write. S. Luke implies that his Gospel is based on information given him by those who ' ' from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and min isters of the word " (S. Luke i. 2). Again, inspiration differs from the mere assistance of the Holy Ghost, this term conveying only the idea of negative help, while inspiration involves positive suggestion. Thus, CEcumenical Councils have the as sistance of the Holy Ghost in that He protects them from error in their decrees, while inspiration implies, over and above this protection, a special impidse of the Holy Ghost to write, and to write on particular subjects. While the Church in every age has most distinctly witnessed to her belief in the inspiration of Holy Scrip ture, she has never defined the method of such inspira tion; so that, within certain limits, the manner of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 223 inspiration is still an open question. This does not, however, imply that the many lax or insufficient theories which have been put forth in regard to in spiration come within these limits. For example, some have thought that inspiration someinade- merely required the assistance of the Holy Ghost so quate vlews- far as to prevent error. Others, with Lessius, have thought that for inspiration it was enough that a book written with ordinary care and diligence, but without Divine aid, should be declared free from error by sub sequent Divine approbation. Some, carrying this still further, have thought that certain writings have been placed in the class of inspired books by the subsequent approbation of the Church. Others have thought that inspiration did not extend to everything that is read in Scripture, but only to matters of greater importance, especially those which pertain to faith and morals. Again others have taught that inspiration, while it extended to all things written, has not always secured the sacred writers from error, especially in matters of history and science. None of these views, however, seems to supply an adequate theory of inspiration. In an inspired book there are evidently two factors; Two factors in the natural powers of the writer on the one side, and msPiration : . - the natural the impulse and direction of the Holy Ghost on the powers of the other. The Church has not laid down where the one writer; and iiii- 1 the Divine factor ceases and the other begins to operate, but any impulse. adequate theory of inspiration must allow for the work ing of both. Hence, it is evident that the books of Holy Scripture Holy scripture are inspired (and therefore Divine) not only on account not only con" - , ,.,, ... ,-,• tains, but is the of the matter which they contain, but by reason of their word of god. 224 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. GOD the efficient Cause, man the instrumentalcause. Three steps in inspiration : (i) The move ment of the will to write ; (2) illumina tion of the intellect ; Divine Author, so that they not only contain the Word of God, but they are truly the Word of God, in that God is indeed their Author — that is, their principal efficient Cause — while the human writer is their instru mental cause; not, indeed, in a merely mechanical sense, but as a free and intelligent agent. For, as we have seen in the case of S. Luke, inspira tion does not exclude such labour as is proper in writing a book. The Holy Ghost by supernatural power Himself impels the sacred authors to write ; and so assists them that they, rightly apprehending all those things (and those alone) which He commands, faithfully will to write them, and so aptly express in fallible truth. It is evident that, if this were not so, the Holy Ghost would not be the Author of all Holy Scripture. Three elements, therefore, seem to be required to complete the idea of inspiration. First, a motion of the will to write. But this motion is the impulsion of the Holy Ghost; so that, when a sacred author is apparently led to write by some external circumstances (as when S. Paul wrote to Philemon about the return of Onesimus), God wills him so to write, and by His Providence orders the circumstances to that end. The author, indeed, also willed to write, but it was the special impulsion of the Holy Ghost which prompted him. God, therefore, remains always the principal Cause of Holy Scripture, efficiently moving the writer, who is the free instrumental cause. Second, a certain illumination of the intellect, by which the writer clearly apprehends all those things, and those alone, which God desires should be written. We must, however, bear in mind that this does not THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 225 necessarily imply revelation ; for revelation, properly so called, is a supernatural manifestation of a certain truth of which the recipient was before ignorant, and sup poses in him only a passive reception of that truth. Inspiration, however, does not necessarily imply such a manifestation of truth previously unknown to the writer, but rather regards things already known. It is not necessary that an author should be con scious of inspiration, since a man may be unconscious of supernatural motions. Nevertheless, many theolo gians consider that the inspired writers did know that they were inspired; for this seems to agree better with the idea of a rational instrument. Third, Divine assistance, that the writer may neither (3) Divine omit anything that God wills to be written, nor add to asslstance- it what is foreign to God's purpose. Furthermore, this Divine assistance saves the writer from falling into any real error. Before we pass from this point, we must emphasize the fact that any adequate theory of inspiration must leave room for that human element which is so obvi ously present in every book of the Bible. No one can The individu read Holy Scripture intelligently without being struck alltyofthe * . writers pre- by the fact that the individuality of the various wri- served. ters is preserved, not only in style and diction, but also in thought and in manner of treatment of the subject. From what we have said it follows that Divine assist- some inade- ance alone is not adequate to account for inspiration, quate .vlews A n ' examined : since the word used by Holy Scripture, ueonvevGros, Divine assist- signifies an antecedent impulse to the writer, and not ance only • merely a negative assistance. Again, the approbation of a book after it has been approbation of written cannot confer inspiration upon it, for the Church the church : 226 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. mechanicaltheory ; reaction from this; dynamicaltheory. is unable to create inspiration ; she can only declare it in those books in which she recognizes its presence. The old theory of inspiration held by most Protest ants at the Reformation, and by some Catholic theolo gians also, is generally called ' ' the mechanical theory. ' ' It was that the authors of the various books had really no share in their composition beyond the mere mechan ical act of writing; that every word, syllable, and letter was directly dictated to them ; that they were, in fact, the mere passive instruments, the pens, not even the penmen, of the Holy Ghost. To this mechanical and exaggerated theory is largely due a reaction of the present day which would admit only an inspiration so general and vague that it can be as well attributed to poets and orators, and, in fact, to any writers. This later theory would say that the Bible was inspired in a greater degree than Shakespeare, but only with the same kind of inspiration. Fortunately, this view is chiefly confined to the school of higher critics, composed for the most part of German schis matics and rationalists. Another view of inspiration, more in accordance with the general teaching of the Fathers and with the phe nomena of Holy Scripture itself, is sometimes known as ' ' the dynamical theory. ' ' This leaves room for the individual peculiarities of style, diction, thought, and manner of treatment; and, while recognizing Divine energy in inspiration, does not exclude human co operation. As Archdeacon Lee* says: "The Holy Ghost employs man's faculties in conformity with their natural laws, at the same time animating, guiding, moulding them so as to accomplish the Divine purpose ; * On Inspiration, p. 144. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 227 just as in nature the principle of life, where annexed to certain portions of matter, exhibits its vital energy in accordance with conditions which that matter im poses, while it governs and directs at the same time the organism with which it is combined." Thus ' ' the human element becomes an integral part of the agency employed ; nay, more, the peculiar type of each writer's nature was even essential to the due reception of that particular phase of truth presented by his statements, and his characteristic form of expression was absolutely requisite for the adequate conveyance of his Divine message." It is by steadily keeping before us this fact of the two- The twofold fold agency in Holy Scripture that we are able to ac- as?encyinHoiy r \ ¦ 1 ,.,„,„. Scripture count for the various phenomena which Holy Scripture accounts for its manifests. Like the Incarnate Word, it is not partly Phenomena. human, partly Divine, but perfectly human in that it was written by a human instrument, and perfectly Divine in that it was inspired by God. We began this chapter by drawing attention to the close analogy which may be traced between the written Word and the Incarnate Word of God, and in this is to be found the key to many of the difficulties in regard to Holy Scripture. The Bible resembles, and yet differs from, other The analogy books, just as the Flesh of Christ resembles, and yet betweenthe J Bible and the differs from, the flesh of other men. If those who can incarnate see in Holy Scripture only the dead letter to be ex- WORD- amined and dissected — much as the anatomist in the interests of science dissects a human body — had been able (if one may suggest it with reverence) to dissect that dear Body which was taken down from the Cross, marked with the scourge and nails and spear — would they have found in It anything which seemed to them 228 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. more than human ? And yet, even as It lay there still and dead, there was hypostatically united to that Body the Person of the Word, the Son of God. So in Holy Scripture, those who approach the ex amination of the letter under the guidance of human science rather than of the Spirit of God, will find in it the marks of a perfect human work, and will prob ably get no further than the dead letter which they ex amine and criticise. Those, however, who approach it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will be led by the letter to recognize the Divine truth which it enshrines. Holy scripture Again, as our Lord's Human Body was in one sense both a reveia- the instrument by which He revealed His Divine Per- tion and a J veiling of son, so from another point of view it was the veil which Divine truth, concealed His Divinity. The same is the case with the letter of Holy Scripture. Its purpose is to reveal to those who have been prepared by the Holy Ghost the deep things of God, but to conceal them from those who approach its study in the mere power of natural gifts. some coroi- Some few corollaries may be added. First, that from laries: the recognition of the co-operation of two agencies in A book need , . . notbeinaints Holy Scripture, an inspired book need not be in all parts the work its parts the work of its reputed writer. Not only may author61"1 6C ne have used existing documents and authorities, but Existing docu- there was nothing to prevent him from incorporating haTe be'e'n7 portions of such existing material into his work. used; Cardinal Newman reminds us* that "it is not against the Faith to hold that a canonical book may be composed, not only from, but even of, pre-existing documents ; it being always borne in mind as a neces sary condition that an inspired mind has exercised a * The Nineteenth Century, February, 1884. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 229 supreme and an ultimate j udgment on the work, deter- but the in- mining what was to be selected and embodied in it in s?1Ted mmd 0 must have order to its truth in all matters of faith and morals per- passed taining to the edification of Christian doctrine and its i^ds™"1* on ** them. unadulterated truth. ' ' Hence, if it be true that Moses incorporated into the Pentateuch portions of earher documents, it does not in the least militate against the inspiration of the Penta teuch ; since those earlier documents — whatever they were — passed through the mind of one who was in spired : and the same may be true of any other book of the Bible. It is not at all necessary that a book should be homogeneous throughout ; all that is neces sary is that the whole material should have passed through the mind of the inspired writer. Again, it is not necessary to maintain that the titles itisnotneces- of the various books and their reputed authorship are **r/ that the n 1 1 i- 11 „, titles of books in all cases correct, or to be taken literally. These, as or their re- not being integral portions of the books, do not come puted auUior- ..,.,, r . ... ship be correct. withm the scope of inspiration. It is not necessary, for instance, to maintain that the Book of Job was the work of him whose name it bears; nor, if it could be proved that the Second Epistle of S. Peter was not written by S. Peter, would its inspiration and authority be any the less. That this is not a canon invented to meet the diffi- This canon not culties of the present day may be shown from the fact invented to r + meet difficul- that Melchior Canus says* : It does not matter to ties of to-day; the Catholic faith that a book was written by this or found in s- 1 1 1 1/-. r. ¦ 1 1 • Gregory and in that author, so long as the Spirit of God is believed to Melchior be the Author of it ; " which, he says, is the teaching canus. of S. Gregory in the Preface to his Commentary on Job. Again, Canus says : " It matters not with what * Loci Theol., lib. II., cap. xi., p. 34. 230 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. There is no authoritativesystem of chronology. Errors may have crept into MSS. Difficulty about numbers often due to this. Received inter pretation often erroneous.Dr.Whewell on the influence of current philosophy on interpretation. pen a king has written his letter, if it be true that he has written it." Again, we may bear in mind that we are not bound to an y particular system of chronology ; for none is laid down in the sacred books, and no system can have any more weight than it obtains from the authority of the com mentator who proposes it, or its own intrinsic merits. Again, the principle laid down by S. Augustine in his letter to S. Jerome is as valuable an answer to many objections in our own day as it was in his. Cer tain difficulties may be due to errors in the manuscript, for when we speak of there being no errors in Holy Scripture, this applies only to the original autographs of the sacred authors. We have no reason to suppose that God would work a perpetual miracle to preserve all scribes and copyists from mistakes. As a matter of fact, we know from the numerous variations in the manuscripts that He has not done so. Many of the difficulties connected with numbers in Holy Scripture are, no doubt, due to this cause ; they are errors of transcribers in copying earlier manuscripts, in which numbers are expressed by letters often so nearly alike as to be easily confounded. In other cases, if the text itself be not in error, it is our translation of it, or perhaps our interpretation, that is at fault* Dr. Whewell f says: "The meaning which any generation puts upon the phrases of Scrip ture depends, more than is at first sight supposed, upon the received philosophy at the time. Hence, while men imagine that they are contending for revelation, they are in fact contending for their own interpretation of revelation, unconsciously adapted to what they be- * See Inspiration and Other Essays, pp. 32-38. f Inductive Science, vol. I., p. 403. from Fort Sumter. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 23 1 lieve to be rationally probable. And the new interpre tation, which the new philosophy requires, and which appears to the older school to be a fatal violence done to the authority of religion, is accepted by their suc cessors without the dangerous results which were ap prehended. The advance of science is often most useful in its criticism of Holy Writ, in overthrowing these merely human philosophic opinions." It is said that in 1863, in the American Civil War, illustration when Fort Sumter was bombarded by Federal war-ships and the fortifications rapidly reduced to ruins, it seemed as though the fort must soon surrender. But the more the walls were battered down, the stronger the fortress became, and when the fortifications had been prac tically demolished by the bombardment, the fort was impregnable. So when the attacks of rationalists and others have completely battered down the bulwarks of human opinion and philosophy which well-meaning Christians have, with mistaken zeal, erected in defence of Holy Scripture, we may well believe that Holy Scripture itself will then be found to be impregnable. Again, we must remember that no Scripture "is of No scripture is any private interpretation," and until the Church— the °^y'%^*a only authorized infallible interpreter of the Word of God — has definitely and authoritatively declared a given interpretation to be the true one, it is useless to talk of science contradicting the Bible, although it may seem opposed to our own interpretation, or even to that hitherto generally accepted. Again, many facts of physical science are simply re- Pacts of corded as they appeared to the writer, and inspiration sciencere- J *- *¦ , corded as they would not, in such a case, convey a knowledge of scien- appeared to tific truth in regard to such matters. the writer. 232 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. in. The inter- Having treated of the Canon and inspiration of Holy usetof1Hoimd Scripture, we must now pass to a consideration of the scripture. various methods of interpretation, and the subsidiary helps which may be used in the study of Holy Scripture. Hermeneutics sets forth certain rules, which the art of exegesis then applies. Hermeneutics is like the key which unlocks the treasures of Scripture. By its help exegesis discovers these riches, and the theologian uses them to prove and illustrate the dogmas of the faith. The various We must first consider the various senses, or mean- scriSptureH°ly itlgs' which are to be looked for in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. By the sense of Holy Scripture we mean the truth which the Holy Ghost wills to teach either directly or indirectly in any particular passage. First division, The sense is generally twofold, literal and spiritual. erT/and spirit- ^e ^iera^ sense is that which the words immediately uai. express, and is sometimes called the historical sense. The spiritual sense is that not immediately suggested by the letter, but by the persons or things mentioned, which are so ordained by Divine Providence as to signify other persons or objects. Thus, Hagar and Sarah in the literal sense are the wives of Abraham, but in a spiritual sense they signify the two Testa ments, as S. Paul tells us (Gal. iv. 24). All the Scriptures refer directly or indirectly to Christ, and the Old Testament sets forth the figure or type or prophecy of those things which come to pass under the New Dispensation ; so that S. Paul says : " Now all these things happened unto them for en- samples : and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come " (1 Cor. x. 11). Many things, therefore, related literally of the patri archs, kings, and prophets, are to be understood typi cally or spiritually of Christ and His Church. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 233 The literal sense may be twofold : either that which is The literal proper, or that which is metaphorical. The proper ^ isJ^°~ sense is that immediately suggested by the words taken and meta- in their natural signification. The metaphorical sense Phorlcal- is that suggested by the words taken not strictly, but figuratively; and on this account it is also called the figurative sense. S. Thomas illustrates this by the following examples : ' ' When Scripture says, Jesus ascended, it is to be taken in the first or proper sense. But when it is said that He sits at the right hand of God, it is evidently to be understood metaphorically." The spiritual or typical sense divides itself into three The spiritual distinct branches. One of these treats of individual sense hasthree subdivisions : human action, and is technically called tropological (or tropological, the moral sense) ; the second applies the passage of aU«s°rical. and anagogi- Scripture to the Church on earth, and is spoken of as Cai. allegorical ; and the third refers the text to the life and conditions of glory in the world to come, and is called anagogical. These are summed up in the old Latin couplet : Litera scripta docet ; quid credas, allegoria ; Quid speres, anagoge; quid agas, tropologia. Or, as it is sometimes written : Litera gesta docet ; quid credas, allegoria ; Moralis, quid agas ; quo tendas, anagogia. The most common illustration of these various senses of Holy Scripture is found in the word ' ' Jerusalem ; ' ' which literally signifies the city in Palestine, allegori- cally the Church Militant, tropologically or morally the soul of a righteous man, and anagogically the Church Triumphant. 234 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The mystical interpretationhas the author ity of CHRIST. The accommo dative sense. Two sets of canons of Scriptural in terpretation, the Bible being human and Divine. On the human side : (i) The exact meaning of the text to be sought ; (2) the con text to be observed ; To some the mystical or spiritual interpretation of Holy Scripture seems far-fetched and unreal. But it must be borne in mind that our Lord and His Apostles continually used Holy Scripture in this way. Another sense in which Holy Scripture may be used is sometimes called accommodatively, when a phrase is used by way of illustration ; as when a sinner uses the words of Eve, " The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." We must next briefly consider some of the canons of the interpretation of Holy Scripture. Since Holy Scripture is at once both human and Divine, a double set of canons is required for its inter pretation. On its human side we must apply to it the historical and grammatical rules which would govern the interpretation of any other book. On its Divine side the Church supplies us with certain special rules. Under the first head, the student will use all helps of grammar, history, archaeology, palaeography, etc., to determine the text, and exactly what the author had in mind in writing the passage. That is, he must study text, context, parallel passages, and commentaries on the text. Then the text must be accurately examined, that the exact signification of the words may be clearly appre hended. This involves lexical study of the text in its original language, Greek or Hebrew, for the meaning of a word is often obscured, sometimes entirely lost, in the translation. Nor must we stop at the text itself. Frequently it will be necessary to consider oriental customs which throw light upon a particular use of the word. Then the context must be carefully observed, in order that we may grasp what the author has in mind ; THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 235 and under this head we have to consider the occasion on which the words are spoken, and the general argu ment of which they perhaps form a part. Parallel passages must be examined, and that in two (3) parallel ways. First, comparison of the author's use of a par- considered*156 ticular word in other places will often determine its exact force in that under consideration. Then, refer ence to a parallel passage will sometimes throw light on the subject generally, and so clear up what is ob scure in the one in question. When we have settled the text and context, and con- (4) the opin- sidered the parallel passages, so that we have a good ^^atorsto understanding of the author's meaning, then we may be weighed. with advantage use commentaries for the elucidation of the passage. So far, these rules would apply to the interpretation on the Divine of any book, since they are merely the application of slde : the laws of history, grammar, etc. Since, however, Holy Scripture is not only human, but Divine, it not only falls under the rules of ordinary criticism, but under the infallible teaching of the Church. Hence, we must endeavour to discover what interpre- The church's tation the Church has put upon the passage. This is tf^oiwed- especially the case if there be any controversy in regard this may be to it. The Church's interpretation of the passage is to sou&ntin r .... 1, Liturgies, be found sometimes in her use of it liturgically, but Fathers, and more often in the writings of the Fathers and theo- theologians. logians. When we find among these a moral unanimity of in terpretation in regard to any matter of faith or morals, whether it be explicitly or implicitly taught, then we are practically bound to accept that interpretation. Where there is no unanimity, we are free to seek other testimony, since, while the authority of the 236 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Fathers is great, it is not infallible. And further, we must remember that the literal or proper sense of the passage must always be considered first, although the spiritual sense must not be neglected. rv. Another Thus far we have considered the Church's theory of theory of Holy j-[0iy Scripture, its inspiration and authority. In the Scripture, ad- J , , r - , , , ..„. vanced by present day, however, we find another and very difrer- H c- ent account of Holy Scripture, which comes to us on the authority of a body of men known as " higher critics. ' ' They disregard the conclusions on this sub ject which the Church has reached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and starting from the opposite undertheguid- pole of investigation, under the guidance of unaided anceofun- human reason, reach results which in many respects aided human s- reason. seem to be diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church. While it would be quite impossible in this chapter to give an adequate account of Higher Criticism, or to treat its principles with any fulness, it may neverthe less be well to point out, as briefly as possible, some reasons why its conclusions carry but little weight. 1. Themethods In the first place, when we contrast the processes by by which the which the Church and the higher critics arrive at their Church and the a critics respect- respective positions, we observe that while the Church's iveiy reach method may lead to absolute truth, that of the critics conclusions. ., .^ The church's cannot possibly do so. For the Church's teaching hypo- method. thetically rests on the conclusions reached by a body not only specially trained to consider the subject, but under the promised guidance of the Spirit of Truth ; and these teachings, as we should have expected, are always one and the same. The method of The Higher Criticism, on the other hand, represents Hc' the opinions of a very much smaller number of in dependent investigators, who, trusting only to human THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 237 reason, and making no claim whatever to supernatural guidance, cannot be expected to reach any uniform con clusion ; nor, as a matter of fact, have they done so. In other words, if the Church be infallible, its teach- The church's ing in regard to Holy Scripture must be absolutely true. ™^odb°'mte But since the opinions of a number of individuals truth in the have not the slightest claim to infallibility, the proba- Premises ; the , ... , ,,1 1,1 1 ¦ critics' cannot. bility that they should reach absolute truth is extremely small ; and inasmuch as they do not agree in the results reached by their method, it is evident that those results are not absolute truth. Of course, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the The infaiiibii- consequent infallibility of the Church, which we have £?of?f assumed in our argument, demand independent proof, assumed, but This proof for Christians has already been given, rest- elsewhere dis- cussed, ing as it does upon our Lord's promises, and upon the experience of the witness of the Holy Spirit in the Church for nearly two thousand years. The tendency to error of individual judgment needs no proof; but, if it did, the diverse conclusions which higher critics have reached would abundantly furnish it. As we have said, we receive the Bible simply on the 2. Apart from authority of the Church, which assures us of its inspira- the autnonty J . . r of the Church, tion. If, however, we put this aside and consider what three lines other testimony there is to the authenticity and genu- of evidence ineness of Holy Scripture, we find three special lines scripture : of evidence bearing on the subject. They are, first, the evidence of archaeology, or the (1) Archteoi- testimony of contemporary history; second, internal °^} evidence of a literary character, which may be obtained literary evi- from the study of the text itself ; and third, internal dence : evidence of a moral character, or the appeal which moral Holy Scripture makes to our own spiritual nature. Of evidence. these three the first and the last are against the higher 238 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The testimony of archaeology shows the nar rative of the Pentateuch to be true to the life and cus toms of its assumed date. The testimony of moral sense is altogether contrary to H. C. critics, and it is with the second that Higher Criticism chiefly deals. Without insisting on all that has been claimed for archaeology (namely, that it proves such parts of the narrative as the story of Melchisedek, of Abram' s con quest of the four kings, etc.) we may assert without fear of contradiction that it shows the narrative of the Pentateuch to be true to the life and habits of the time in which it claims to have been written. That part, for instance, which can be verified by comparison with recent Egyptian discoveries, proves that the cus toms, names, and even peculiar words were exactly as described by the writer. That Higher Criticism finds no support from archae ology may be gathered from the following words of the preface to one of the most recent works on the subject : ' ' Over against the facts of archaeology stand the sub jective assumptions of a certain school, which now that they have ceased to be prominent in the higher lati tudes of scholarship are finding their way into the popular literature of the country. Between the results of Oriental Archaeology and those which are the logical end of the so-called ' Higher Criticism ' no reconcilia tion is possible, and the latter must therefore be cleared out of the way before the archaeologist can begin his work" (The Early History of the Hebrews, by Prof. Sayce, Preface, p. vi.). If we take the third line of evidence — the appeal which Holy Scripture makes to man's spiritual nature and experience — most unprejudiced minds will feel that the position of the higher critics is inconceivable. That a book which is such a mere patchwork, and written so much later than the events it pretends to recount, — a book in which romances flattering to Hebrew pride are THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 239 mingled with a few genuine facts, — should not only have exercised the influence it did upon the Jewish race, but, through Christianity, upon the world at large, makes too great a demand upon our credulity. "The 'Higher Criticism' is a system of critical 3-h.c. analysis by which the critic professes to be able to take escn e the Books of Scripture which have come down to us in a certain traditional form — known as the Canon of the Old Testament — and to break them up into their com ponent parts. In sifting and separating these parts he determines by the light of his own intelligence which of them have any historical truth at all in them, which have none ; he determines the age in which each was written, and the exact motives of each writer in the statements which he makes ; when there is any histori cal truth at the bottom of any statement, the critic pro duces such truth in the form in which it really happened three or four thousand years ago, and explains to you the motives of the writer in presenting it to the reader in the widely different form in which it has been re ceived as history through successive ages. These mo tives are sometimes comparatively innocent, as, e. g., when a false name, such as that of Moses, is assigned to certain useful laws to give weight and authority to them ; but sometimes they are purely corrupt, as when interested priests write spurious histories like the Books of Chronicles for the purpose of enhancing their own dignity and securing their own emoluments. ' ' * Higher Criticism is more than one hundred years old, its origin and and may be traced, perhaps, to Astruc, a French phy- history. sician of considerable learning, but of profligate life, who in 1753 put forth a treatise entitled " Conjectures Con- * Lord A. C. Hervey : The Books of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch and the "Higher Criticism," pp. 7, 8. 240 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Strauss, 1835 Baur, 1844. cerning the Original Memoranda Which It Appears Moses Used to Compose the Book of Genesis." This and other theories, however, were gathered into a system by Eichhorn in a work published in 1782. The name ' ' Higher Criticism ' ' was coined by him to describe the system, which may therefore be con sidered to have had its origin in a land which since the days of Luther has been the birthplace of almost every heresy that has disturbed Christendom. Little was done, however, until 1835, when Strauss's Life of fssus appeared, followed, in 1844, by Baur's Paulus, — these two works representing respectively the Mythical and the Tendency Schools. But Baur's po sition as regards the four epistles which he holds to be genuine overthrows Strauss's theory, since it does not give time for the myth of the Resurrection to de velop, and Baur's theory has in turn been displaced by later critics. His theory in regard to the late date of S. John's writings, 170, has been disproved by find ing quotations from them, until the date has gradually been moved backwards to the closing years of the first century. Since Baur's time a host of critics has appeared upon the field, agreeing in the main on three points : first, the elimination of the supernatural from the Bible ; second, the comparatively late dates of most of the books ; third, their composite character. These three The attack first weapons were first used in an attack upon the New Testament, and resulted, according to the critics, in leaving us only four authentic works — four epistles of S. Paul, namely, I. and II. Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. The other books were held to be mostly of a late date, some of them, like the Acts of the Apostles, having a teleological character ; while the Gospels were The three premises of H. C. on the New Test THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 241 found to be of an extremely composite character, some critics, like Dr. Abbott, undertaking to reduce them to their exact component parts. Since 1878, however, all this has been practically since 1878 given up; the conclusions which were so laboriously o^^'0^ reached and so industriously propagated having in most on the same cases been proved false by unanswerable arguments. Unes- Defeated in their attack on the New Testament, the higher critics have transferred their weapons and methods to the books of the Old Testament ; their two main contentions being the same which they unsuccess fully tried to use against the New Testament : namely, the late date of most of the books, and their composite character. The late date of the books was argued from the 4-Theiatedate assumed fact that at the time of Moses there was absol- l^J^"" utely no Uterary activity. For until quite lately the absence of exploration of Eastern lands failed to reveal any in- uterary activ- r lty in Moses' scription in the letters of the Phoenician alphabet going time. back even to the time of Solomon ; and as the Hebrews, like other nations of Syria, were known to have used a form of the Phoenician alphabet, to the critics the con clusion seemed certain that there could have been no literature as early as the time of Moses. So, with this assumption (to confine ourselves to the Alleged com- Pentateuch alone), the higher critics first divided the ^"p^18 Pentateuch into its component parts. tateuch : The first, P, the Priestly Code, which contains the ftf PrfesUy Levitical Law, they tell us is the work of the Exilic ° e ' period, and was put into action by Ezra and Nehemiah. The movable tabernacle, the wandering camp, and other archaic details, with a legislation strictly confined to the situation in the wilderness, were so skilfully con trived as to conceal the true date; and so all these VOL. II,— 16 242 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (2) the Narrative ; (31 theDeuter onomist ; (4) Subdivi sions of each. (5) Redactors required ; but no agree ment as to how many sources — Driver requires six ; Cornill fifteen. passed as real history until the higher critics arose to detect the imposture. The second, J-E, the narrative, comprising the his tory down to the occupation of Canaan, they tell us was composed in the time of the Assyrian monarchy with the help of history and some old documents. But J-E is capable of subdivision into E, the Elohist, and J, the Jahvist, E being the older of the two. The third, D, comprising Deuteronomy, or the bulk of it, the critics decided was composed in the reign of Josiah, when Hilkiah pretended to have found it in the Temple, some seven centuries after the death of Moses. If this were all, the system would be comparatively simple, but unfortunately it does not square with the facts. So E, J, J-E, P, and D have each of them to be subdivided, because the theory on which they were constructed will not work in some places. Therefore P is found to be very complex, and P', P2, P3 . . . P" are substituted, and D in the same way is broken up into D1, D2, etc. Even then the theory often will not answer, and so a large number of R's (" redactors") has to be kept on hand. But even here there is no agreement among the critics, working on the same system and with the same ma terials to examine. For Dr. Driver demands for the Hexateuch (excluding Deuteronomy) three primary sources (two of which he acknowledges it is often im possible to distinguish from each other), one supple mental source, and probably two redactors, only six in all. But Dr. Cornill, one of the most eminent con temporary critics in Germany, requires some fifteen hands at least to account for the same phenomena. And yet for this " exact science " we are to give up the Church's teaching about the Bible ! THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 243 The critics assign the following approximate dates to 5. Dates as- the different divisions : P, B.C. 450; D, 640 ; J-E, 800 ; ^odarep, all this resting on two grounds : first, the entire absence j_e, 800. of any literature as early as the time of Moses ; second, the internal evidence of the books themselves. Until a very few years ago the archaeological dis- Recent archa: coveries in the East were of small value in determining ol°sical dls- 0 coveries at these questions. But just when the higher critics had to their own satisfaction arrived at the above conclu sions, in the providence of God some discoveries throwing very great light on the subject were made — the most important at Tel-el- Amarna, where what we Tei-ei-Amama, might call the records of the Foreign Office of the time of Khu-n-Aten or Amenophis IV. , the tenth king of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty, were dug up. These records consisted partly of cuneiform inscriptions brought from Thebes, but chiefly of the official corre spondence with the kings of Babylonia and Assyria, Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, and of despatches from the Egyptian governors and vassal princes in Syria and Palestine ; furnishing us with a living and unex pected picture of Canaan about the year 1400 B.C. Other discoveries, made in Babylon, have enabled andinBaby- us to carry its history back to Sargon of Accad, about l°n' trace . . literature the year 3800 B.C., the founder of the first Semitic em- back to pire and of one of the most famous libraries of Chaldea. sargon, Thus the ground on which the higher critics base one H c therefore part of their decision, — that there was no literature in 2500 years out. the time of Moses, about 1290, — is cut from under their feet by the fact that 2500 years earlier than that date great literary activity existed, and that about the time of Moses there was a perfect Renaissance both of prose and poetry. These discoveries, of course, absolutely destroy the first premise of the argument, and a mis- 244 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Examination of date as signed to J-E. Babylonianaffinities of J ; Egyptian affin ities of E; but little inter course with either country between 1290 and 586. On this ground Moses the most probable author. Recent discov ery at Sippara of a J-E tablet of the 14th cen tury destruc tive to the lit erary analysis of H. C. take of 2500 years is likely to shake the faith of some in Higher Criticism as an exact science. To glance for a moment at the date assigned to J-E, we may observe that archaeology has shown strong Babylonian and Egyptian affinities in certain parts of the Pentateuch. For instance, the account of the Creation and the Flood, both as regards the names and the outline of the story, show marked traces of Baby lonian influence, while the story of the sojourn of Joseph and Moses in Egypt is found to be absolutely true to the language and habits of Egypt at that time. But the critics assign J-E, which contains these his tories, to the seventh or the eighth century B.C., — a most unfortunate date for them, because from 1290 to 586, a period of seven hundred years, there seems to have been very little intercourse with Babylon or Egypt. No one has suggested that J-E is as late as the Exilic period, and if it is as early as 1290, which is now thought to be the date of Moses, there seems to have been no one so likely to have had a knowledge of the details of Egyptian life as one who had lived there and was " learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; " which perhaps included acquaintance with some Baby lonian documents. A Mosaic authorship, therefore, would seem the most probable and natural under the circumstances; but this is sufficient to condemn it in the eyes of higher critics. One of the latest discoveries of archaeology throws considerable light upon J-E, the so-called "Story book ' ' of the Pentateuch, showing how very probable is its Mosaic authorship, and completely overthrowing the late date of the higher critics. " At the recent meeting of the Oriental Congress in Paris, Dr. Scheil stated that among the tablets recently THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 245 brought from Sippara to the museum at Constantinople is one which contains the same text of the story of the Flood as that which was discovered by George Smith. ' ' ' ' But whereas the text found by George Smith was written for the library of Nineveh in the seventh cen tury B.C., the newly-discovered text was inscribed in the reign of Ammi-zadok, the fourth successor of Khammu-rabi or Amraphel, in the Abrahamic age. And even then the text was already old. Here and there the word khibi, ' lacuna,' was inserted, indicating that the original from which it had been copied was already illegible in places." " Since this text agrees, not with the ' Elohist ' or the ' Yahvist ' separately, but with the supposed com bination of the two documents in the book of Genesis, it is difficult to see, as the discoverer remarked, how the ' literary analysis ' can be any longer maintained. At all events, the discovery shows the minute care and accuracy with which the literature of the past was copied and handed down. Edition after edition had been published of the story of the Deluge, and yet the text of the Abrahamic age and that of the seventh cen tury B.C. agree even to the spelling of words." It will be interesting to examine now the method by v. Examina- which the higher critics have so accurately and confi- tion of method 0 J . by which the dently assigned the text of the Pentateuch to its various different sec- authors P, D, and J-E. tions are deter- mined. Having decided that the books are the work of different writers, they begin by a careful comparison of two sections, supposed to be from different docu ments, such as the first two sections in Genesis. All differences of thought and language between them are carefully noted, and the comparison is then ex tended to contiguous sections, and so on gradually to 246 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. the rest of the Pentateuch, all being assigned to one or other document on the basis of the criteria already gathered. The method But this method, notwithstanding its seeming plaus- P'ciouscirci"ta ibuity. atl(i tne apparent scientific caution and accuracy with which it is applied, is essentially a fallacy — a vicious circle ; for the differences are first created and then argued from. The documents are first affirmed to correspond with certain assumed characteristic differ ences, and then their correspondence with these char acteristics is urged as a proof of their objective reality. All paragraphs, clauses, etc., in which certain criteria occur, are systematically assigned to one document, and those having another class of criteria are with like regularity assigned to another document; and when the process is complete all the criteria of one class are in one document, and those of the other class are in the other, simply because the critic has put them there. The documents agree with the hypothesis, because they have been constructed by the hypothesis. The criteria The criteria, in the first place, are derived from derived from diversity of diction, a standard well known to be most diversity of die- J tion, ' unreliable. That a certain word or phrase happens to occur in J and another word or phrase in E in the first chapters of Genesis is no reason why J should never in any other part use E's words, or E use J's words. and an arbi- But what is even worse, first the entire ritual law is trary assump- g}ven to P and the narrative and all poetical passages pendent to J-E ; and then the corresponding differences of die- authors, tion and style are pointed to as a proof of the accuracy of the division ! These differences of diction and style necessarily result from diversity of theme, the ritual law natur ally requiring very different diction from the poetical THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 247 passages or the narrative. We might as well, for illustration example, compare Lord Macaulay' s history, his essays, f0™^^"" and his poetry; and because the poetry was not in exactly the same style as the prose, insist that it was written by a different person. But even after the critics have made this arbitrary Howthefre- division, the alleged criteria frequently conflict with qnent conflicts each other and with the criteria derived from the criteria are Divine Names. met- Words or phrases supposed to be characteristic of one writer meet in the same section, or even in the same sentence, with those said to characterize the other; and critics have to resort to all sorts of subterfuges to escape the difficulty. Sometimes they admit that what has been considered characteristic of one document is found likewise in an other. This, of course, is equivalent to a confession that it is not a distinctive criterion at all. More often, however, they fall back upon the friendly and ever- ready " redactor," R. In fact, the critic is engaged in solving an indeter- h. c. an at- minate equation. The line of partition depends upon tempt to solve ^ r r t r an lndetermin- the criteria, and the criteria depend upon the line of ate equation of partition, and both of these are unknown quantities, two unknown quantities ; The work, therefore, is of necessity purely hypothetical the whole from first to last. The liability to error increases with theory Purely . . r 1 . . hypothetical. every step. A mistake m the assignment of the criteria will lead to a wrong partition, and this to further false criteria, and so on indefinitely. The complexity of the problem becomes more obvi ous the further the critic proceeds. At the outset his work is comparatively simple ; by the aid of such in genious devices as we have mentioned, the critic makes his way through Genesis with tolerable ease. But in 248 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PRA CTICE. Difficulties in crease in the Pentateuch and culminate in Joshua. Two causes why people accept H. C. The theory works only for a few chapters of Genesis. An example of its inconsist ency in the account of the Flood. the middle of the Pentateuch difficulties crowd upon him, as is shown by the wide divergence of the critics in meeting them ; and in the Book of Joshua the work becomes a veritable medley. Here we may perhaps point out two causes why many people accept the conclusions of Higher Criticism. First, because the theory, as applied to the beginning of Genesis, seems so simple. The start is made with the two Names of God, Jehovah and Elohim, and without any labour a mere novice is able to understand it. The other reason is that before the middle of the Pen tateuch is reached the theory has become so complex that very few master it. Because the beginning is so simple they suppose that the full theory can be ex plained; but when they come to the tangle, (say, of the Book of Joshua) they simply take it for granted that the masters of the system have penetrated the laby rinth and have come out all right, and they do not venture in themselves. The theory, as we have observed, seems quite simple in the beginning of Genesis ; but it is only of a very few chapters that this can be said, for soon we find P using J, and E doing the same, while J uses E. We fly to a higher critic for an explanation, and the answer is that this is the work of a bungling redactor, R. For where facts are at variance with the hypothesis (as they fre quently are) the facts, and not the hypothesis, are gen erally corrected by the higher critics. We have space here only for one simple instance. If we take the account of the Flood, in the seventh chapter of Genesis, Higher Criticism demands two sources, J and P blended together. In the ninth verse we read: There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 249 Noah. ' ' This belongs to J's account, and yet the name Elohim is used. How is this to be accounted for ? Kautzsch claims that it must have been originally Je hovah. Dillmann, however, insists that it was in serted by R. Why ? Only because the facts do not fit the hypothesis. In the sixteenth verse we read : "And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him : and the Lord shut him in." This verse belongs to the P section, but, alas ! it has Jehovah in it as well as Elohim. Of course another R is needed. The number of instances of this is simply enormous. In some places the verse is on this account rejected by the critics ; in the majority of cases R1, Ra, R! . . . R* are introduced to account for the difficulty. In deed, Dr. Harper, one of the higher critics, in his Dr. Harper's Hebraica says: "The language is but a poor guide, ^is*i™0° owing, probably, to R's interference. Not even the Names of the Deity are to be relied on implicitly, be ing mingled." And yet the Names of the Deity are the basis of the entire hypothesis. To sum up, we may observe : first, that an examina- a summary : tion of the method oi Higher Criticism shows that it is The method D being vicious inherently vicious, and therefore that its conclusions theconciu- are not trustworthy. Secondly, that an examination of sions are not • 1 trustworthy ; the conclusions derived from it leads to the same result. We find that its supporters disagree on many points ; and, as we look back upon the history of the system the history of during the past hundred years, we again and again Jn'?'J!hows see positions, once deemed impregnable, abandoned or ground has overthrown by succeeding schools. Indeed, as some beef .^requent" • 1 1 • 1 • • • 1 • ty shifted, of the more candid higher critics admit, there is every reason to suppose that its present conclusions will not last. 250 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. vi. niustra- We will conclude this chapter with some illustrations tions of the f t^ viciousness of the system: first, an account of viciousness of J the method of its application in secular literature ; and secondly, H- c- examples of the facility with which the same results of composite authorship may be obtained in narratives about the unity of which there is not the slightest doubt. 1. From the Under the first head we will take the history of the catiHnarianthe systematic attack made upon Cicero's Orations against orations of Catiline, of whose genuineness there is the strongest Cicero. proof The discussion " began with F. A. Wolf,* who cast doubt in a general way upon several of Cicero's Ora tions. Following Wolf came Eichstaedt, who reviewed Wolf 's book in 1802, and took the position that at least one of the Catilinarian Orations ought to be included in the condemnation bestowed upon the other Orations. Wolf quickly followed Eichstaedt and condemned the Third Oration, and in subsequent comments and re marks stated the question in such a way as to leave it uncertain which Oration he meant, or whether it was one of two Orations, and so, in 1826, Clude, thinking he was following out the opinion of Wolf, proved to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of some others, that it was the Second Oration which was spurious. But shortly afterwards (in 1827) Benecke, by producing the very words of Wolf from one of his letters, showed that Wolf meant the Third Oration. In the meantime the Fourth Oration had fallen under the displeasure of other critics, notably Zimmermann and Bloch, and so Ahrens, in 1832, passed sentence on the unfortunate oration, embracing the Third Oration at the same time in his condemnation. Finally came Orelli, in 1836, * The critic of Homer and the father of destructive literary criticism. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 25 1 and fearing, I suppose, that such inconsistencies of opinion would end in contempt and ridicule, decided that all three were spurious." ' ' In addition to other evidence from ancient writers which was easily answered, there stood opposed to this conclusion the authority of Cicero himself, who in the First Epistle of the Second Book of his Letters to Atticus makes abundant reference to his own consular orations, and enumerates one by one the four Orations against Catiline." ' ' And so no other course was left the critics except to come to the incredible conclusion that genuine Ora tions of Cicero, delivered on a most famous occasion, had so faded out of remembrance by the time of Augustus (for Ahrens admits that the Orations we possess are as old as this) that spurious orations could be put in their place and meet with acceptance, without any contemporary objection, in spite of the fact that one genuine oration out of the four still remained, and was put together with the three false ones. Orelli met the emergency heroically ( forti remedio), for he cut out the whole of this passage from the middle of Cicero's Letter to Atticus. Consequently no statement re mained regarding the various Catilinarian Orations published by Cicero himself. Thereupon Orelli ex cogitated a pleasant hypothesis (fabulam lepidam) to the effect that a forger first supplied the three Orations, and then, in order to insure their acceptance, inserted in the letter of Cicero a forged statement in regard to these same orations. But inasmuch as Cicero's Letters were then in circulation, we might ask, How was it that this forger inserted his forgery not only in his own copy of Cicero's Letters, but in the copies of all other readers whom he wished to deceive, and so managed it 2J2 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 2. Application of the method to certain parables. that no other copy of this Letter should remain extant written in any other manner ? But the same critical shrewdness helps the critics at this juncture. The forger is that very man who edited the volume of Let ters after Cicero's death, namely, Marcus Tullius Tiro, the freedman. What ! Tiro, the faithful freedman to whom Cicero entrusted his Letters, and who wrote the life of his dead patron accurately and affectionately, and upon whom no suspicion ever fell, was he a forger ? ' Yes, indeed,' they answered, ' and he did it with good intention.' Orelli says, ' He thought that he would honour his noble patron most if Cicero's illustrious per formance were made celebrated not merely by one but by four orations.' What a marvellous license of imagination and credulity of doubt ! So, then, Tiro did not think the matter would be famous by reason of his narrative of Cicero's life, but, although he had never uttered a word in a public assembly, or written even a short oration, he yet thought that the glory of his patron, the greatest orator of Rome, would be in creased by Tiro's forging orations under Cicero's name. Yet why not ? For the very critic, who is everywhere finding fault with the wretched inconsistencies of Tiro's writings, yet in former times had actually admired Cicero on account of these false orations." * As our second illustration we shall quote from Pro fessor Green's book the application of the higher criti cal method to the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan. ?Madvig, Opuscula Academica, pp. 671 sqq., quoted from Green. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 253 "THE PRODIGAL SON, Luke xv. 11-32. "11. A certain man had two sons : 12. and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of thy sub stance that falleth to me. . . . 13. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, . . . and there he wasted his substance with riot ous living. 14b. and he began to be in want. 16b. Arid no man gave unto him. 20. And he arose, and came to his father ; . . . and he ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 21. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight : I am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him ; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet : ... 24. for this my son was dead, and is alive again. . . . And they began to be merry. " (A certain man had two sons :) 12b. and he divided unto them his living. 13b. And (one of them) took his journey into a far country. ... 14. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that country. . . . 15. And he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country ; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16. And he would fain have been filled with the husks that the swine did eat. . . . 17. But when he came to him self he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with hunger ! 18. I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight : 19. I am no more worthy to be called thy son : make me as one of thy hired servants. . . . 20b. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion : ... 23. and (said) Bring the 254 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry. . . . 24b. he was lost, and is found. . . . 25b. (And the other son) heard music and dancing. 26. And he called to him one of the servants, and inquired what these things might be. 27. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come ; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. . . . 32b. and he was lost and is found." 25. Now his elder son was in the field ; and as he came and drew nigh to the house, . . . 28. he was angry, and would not go in : and his father came out, and entreated him. 29. But he answered and said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a com mandment of thine : and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends : 30. but when this thy son came, which hath de voured thy living with harlots, thoukilledst for him the fatted calf. 31. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that is mine is thine. 32. But it was meet to make merry and be glad : for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again." ' ' There are here two complete narratives, agreeing in some points, and disagreeing in others, and each has its special characteristics. The only deficiencies are enclosed in parentheses, and may be readily explained as omissions by the redactor in effecting the combina tion. A clause must be supplied at the beginning of B, a subject is wanting in ver. 13b, and ver. 25b, and the verb ' said ' is wanting in ver. 23. As these omissions occur exclusively in B, it may be inferred that the re dactor placed A at the basis, and incorporated B into it with only such slight changes as were necessary to adapt it to this purpose. ' ' ' ' A and B agree that there were two sons, one of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 255 whom received a portion of his father's property, and by his own fault was reduced to great destitution, in consequence of which he returned penitently to his father, and addressed him in language which is nearly identical in both accounts. The father received him with great tenderness and demonstrations of joy, which attracted the attention of the other son. The differ ences are quite as striking as the points of agreement. A distinguishes the sons as elder and younger ; B makes no mention of their relative ages. In A the younger obtained his portion by solicitation, and the father retained the remainder in his own possession ; in B the father divided his property between both of his sons of his own motion. In A the prodigal remained in his father's neighbourhood, and reduced himself to penury by riotous living ; in B he went to a distant country and spent all his property, but there is no in timation that he indulged in unseemly excesses. It would rather appear that he was injudicious, and to crown his misfortunes there occurred a severe famine. His fault seems to have consisted in having gone so far away from his father and from the holy land, and in engaging in the unclean occupation of tending swine. In A the destitution seems to have been chiefly want of clothing ; in B want of food. Hence in A the father directed the best robe and ring and shoes to be brought for him; in B the fatted calf was killed. In B the son came from a distant land, and the father saw him afar off ; in A he came from the neighbourhood, and the father ran at once and fell on his neck and kissed him. In B he had been engaged in a menial occupa tion, and so bethought himself of his father's hired servants, and asked to be made a servant himself ; in A he had been living luxuriously, and while confessing 256 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. his unworthiness makes no request to be put on the footing of a servant. In A the father speaks of his son having been dead because of his profligate life ; in B of his having been lost because of his absence in a dis tant land. In A, but not in B, the other son was dis pleased at the reception given to the prodigal. And here it would appear that R has slightly altered the text. The elder son must have said to his father in A, ' When this thy son came, which hath devoured thy substance with harlots, thou didst put on him the best robe. ' The redactor has here substituted the B word ' living ' * for ' substance, ' which is used by A ; and with the view of making a better contrast with ' kid ' he has introduced the B phrase, ' thou killedst for him the fatted calf.' " "THE GOOD SAMARITAN, Luke x. 29-37. A B "29. But he (the lawyer, ver. 25) desiring to justify him self, said unto JESUS, And who is my neighbour? 30. Jesus "30b. And (a certain man) f made answer and said, Acer- fell among robbers, which both tain man was going down from stripped him . . . and de- Jerusalem to Jericho ; . . . parted. . . . and they beat him, . . . leav- 32. And [in like manner] X ing him half dead. 31. And a Levite, [also] X when he by chance a certain priest was came to the place, [and saw going down that way: and him, passed by on the other when he saw him, he passed side.] X by on the other side. . . . 33b. and when he saw him, *No scholar will need to be informed that 'living,' ver. 13, has a different sense and represents a different word in the original from 'living,' ver. 12. t Omitted by R. ( ). X Inserted by R. [ ]. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 257 33. But a certain Samaritan, was moved with compassion. as he journeyed, came where . . . he was : . . . 34b. And he set him on his 34. and came to him, and own beast, and brought him bound up his wounds, pouring to an inn. ... 35. And on on them oil and wine, . . . the morrow he took out two and took care of him. pence, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of 36. Which of these [three],* him; and whatsoever thou thinkest thou, proved neigh- spendest more, I, when I come bour unto him ? ... 37. And back again, will repay thee. he said, He that showed mercy 37b. And JESUS said unto on him." him . . . that fell among the robbers, . . . Go, and do thou likewise." " Both these narratives are complete ; only a subject must be supplied in B, ver. 30b, the omission of which was rendered necessary by its being combined with A. ' Three ' is substituted for ' two ' in A, ver. 36, for a like reason. R has tampered with the text and ma terially altered the sense in ver. 32, from his desire to put the Levite on the same plane with the priest in ver. 31, the language of which he has borrowed ; the genu ine text of B will be restored by omitting the insertions by R, which are included in brackets. He has likewise transposed a brief clause of B, in ver. 37b, and added it at the end of ver. 36. These changes naturally re sulted from his making A the basis, and modifying what he has inserted from B into accordance with it. Hence the necessity of making it appear that it was not the Levite, but the Samaritan, who befriended the injured traveller, and that Jesus spoke not to the traveller, but to the lawyer. In all other respects the original texts of the two narratives remain unaltered." ' ' Both narratives agree that a man grievously abused * Inserted by R. [ ]. 258 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. by certain parties was treated with generous kindness by a stranger ; and that JESUS deduced a practical les son from it. But they differ materially in details." " A relates his story as a parable of Jesus in answer to a lawyer's question. B makes no mention of the lawyer or his question, but seems to be relating a real occurrence. ' ' " The spirit of the two is quite different. A is anti- Jewish, B pro-Jewish. In A the aggressors are Jews, people of Jerusalem or Jericho or both, and a priest pitilessly leaves the sufferer to his fate ; while it is a Samaritan, with whom the Jews were in perpetual feud, who takes pity on him. In B the aggressors are rob bers, outlaws whose nationality is not defined, and it is a Levite who shows mercy. ' ' " Both the maltreatment and the act of generosity are different. In A the sufferer is beaten and half killed, and needs to have his wounds bound up and liniments applied, which is done by his benefactor on the spot. In B he was stripped of all he had and left destitute, but no personal injury was inflicted ; accord ingly he was taken to an inn, and his wants there pro vided for at the expense of the Levite who befriended him." " The lesson inculcated is different. In A it is that the duty of loving one's neighbour is not limited to those of the same nation, nor annulled by national antipathies. In B it is that he who has been befriended himself should befriend others." * conclusion Surely Catholics cannot be charged with mere bigotry and prejudice because they prefer the Church's theory in regard to Holy Scripture to the conclusions reached by a method so inherently vicious that whether it be * Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 119-124. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 259 applied in secular or sacred literature, almost any re sults (excepting those that are certain) can be obtained. It is not that we do not fully recognize the importance importance ot of the study of the internal evidence of the text itself, intemal evl- dence recog-- and the need of employing in such study every help nized. which history, grammar, or archaeology can afford. This, however, is something very different from a sys tem which, instead of trying to find out what the text does say, tries to find support for an arbitrary theory of what the text ought to say. It should be carefully borne in mind that our quarrel Thequarreinot is not with the results of Higher Criticism (although with the results ii- 1 , , 1 .1 & but with the we believe those results to be almost entirely untrust- methods of worthy), but with its methods. If higher critics can H- c- really prove any of their discoveries to be true, we must, of course, accept what is proved to be true. We do not mean to deny that there are many matters Recognition of on which they have thrown great light by their in- discoveries 1 .1 f -i made by vestigations; but, as it happens, none of these in the critics, but least contradicts the Church's teaching. Those con- such not con clusions of higher critics which seem to do so have c^.c£,s been answered again and again in detail by orthodox teaching. writers, whose works should be studied by those who J^"" h""c have difficulties in regard to Higher Criticism. which contra- Among such works we may mention Baxter's Sanc- dict the Church's tuary and Sacrifice, a reply to Wellhausen's Prolego- teaching have mena; Green's The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, been answered ° J 'in detail by and The Unity of the Book of Genesis ; Lex Mosaica, many writers. edited by French ; The Permanent Value of Genesis, by Body ; Christus Comprobator, by Ellicott ; and The Books of Chronicles, by Lord A. C. Hervey. CHAPTER IX. JUSTIFICATION. Introductory : The import ance of right views of justin cation. I. The Pro testant doc trine. The Lutheran view. THE doctrine of justification was the main point of contention between the Protestants and the Church in the sixteenth century, so much so that Luther in his Table Talk says : " If this doc trine falls it is all over with us." The importance, moreover, of a clear grasp of the teaching of the Catholic Church on this subject will be realized when we consider that on the view which we take of justification depend three of the most important questions of the soul's life : first, the relation of man as a sinner to God as his Saviour ; second, the whole Sacramental system of the Church ; and third, the entire basis of Christian morals. It will be well at the outset to state the Protestant position, in order that we may understand the Catholic doctrine with greater clearness. By "justification" is meant the manner in which sinners are justified before God. Protestants and Catholics alike agree that this process begins with the mere grace of God, and so excludes all merit on the part of the sinner. But here they part company. Luther maintained that man " could contribute abso lutely nothing to his own conversion ; " that " faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal " are to be ascribed 260 view. JUS TIFICA TION. 26 1 "solely to the working of God and to the Holy Byjustifica- Spirit." * He compared man under the action of tionIfther £ meant not re- grace to the trunk of a tree, or a stone ; and further, by newai of man's justification he understood, not the renewal of man's nature> but „. . , , . imputation of moral nature by Divine grace, but the remission of sins christ-s and the imputation of the justice or righteousness of righteousness. Christ ; faith being the condition on which these benefits are given. The Calvinists differed from the Lutherans in that Thecaivinistic they held man to be active, as well as passive, under the influence of grace. f But as they held grace to be irresistible, they could not, of course, allow that man is free to accept or reject the invitation of God. Thus, while the Church, as we shall presently show, Difference be- regards justification as an act by which a man is really tweenthe 0 . Church's view made righteous, Protestants look upon it as one by and these. which he is only declared and reputed righteous, the merits of Christ being made over to his account by what we may term a legal fiction. By the Catholic doctrine, justification is effected by grace inherent in the soul ; with Protestants it is something external to the soul altogether, a sentence which is pronounced by the Divine Judge. From this it follows, first, that, according to Lutheran under the pro- theology, man is not made righteous, but simply re- ^Ma^fnot puted to be righteous, as we have said, by a sort of legal made, but im- fiction ; his sinfulness remaining, but being covered, as Putedi , . /• « righteous ; with a cloak, by the nghteousness of Christ. Secondly, that Sacraments, under this system, are (2) the sacra ments are 11 important ; comparatively unimportant ; being rather in the nature nieijts are u" of rewards than means of grace. And thirdly, that good works, or Christian morals, * Solid. Declar. de Lib. Arbitr., sec. 20. t Confess. Helvet., cap. ix. 262 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (3) and good works un necessary. Three extracts from Luther's works. Luther's doc trine compared with St. Paul's. The effects of this doctrine in our day. are entirely unnecessary, and, indeed, dangerous if the slightest reliance be put upon them as a means of pleasing God. Three quotations from Luther's works will be suf ficient to show clearly the relation of his system of "justification by faith only" to Christian morals. The first is as follows : ' ' Now thou seest how rich is the Christian, or the baptized man ; for though he will, he cannot lose his salvation, however great his sins may be, unless he refuse to believe. No sin can damn him, but unbelief alone. " * The second quotation is from the celebrated letter which Luther wrote in 1521 from the Wartburg to his friend Melancthon : — " Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide el gaude in Christo. . . . Sufficit quod agnovimus . . . agnum qui tollit peccata mundi: ab hoc non avellet nos peccatum , etiamsi millies millies uno die fornicemur aut occidamus." The third quotation is : " Si in fide fieri posset adulte- rium, peccatum non esset." f With such teaching, we can understand the state ment that Luther has done more to corrupt the morals of Christendom than all other heretics put together. We may compare his view of the Pauline doctrine of justification, expressed as above, with S. Paul's own statement : ' ' This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men" (S. Tit. iii. 8). While, of course, many Lutherans are, and have been, far better than their theology, yet it has been this doc- * De Captiv. Bab., torn. II., fol. 264. f Disput., torn, i., p. 523. JUSTIFICA TION. 263 trine which has led to the disregard of the Sacraments, to the neglect of penitence, and to the corruption of Christian morals. Before stating the Catholic view of justification, it 11. The mean- will be well to observe that in Holy Scripture the term infr of ilKaloir- is used in more than one sense. Aixaiovv in the New *• T° declare Testament does often mean, not to make, but to pro- "g eous' nounce, just, by legal sentence, and it is on this philological argument that the Protestants base their doctrine of justification, that God declares the sinner to be justified or just or righteous. Now, as the Psalmist says, " The voice of the Lord Gorvsdeciara- is mighty in operation : the voice of the Lord is a tion effects ,..,,._ . . „, _ . what it de- glonous voice (Ps. xxix. 4). That is, God s voice dares. effects what it says, for again we read : ' ' He spake the word, and they were made ; He commanded, and they were created" (Ps. cxlviii. 5). So that this imputa tion of righteousness to the sinner, or declaring him to be just, makes him just ; for when God declares a fact, He makes it a fact by declaring it. This, surely, is the characteristic teaching of all Script ure. In the beginning He said, ' ' Let there be light : and there was light." Word and deed went together in creation, and so in the new Creation of grace. He said, " Be thou clean," and the leprosy departed ; He commanded the evil spirits, and they fled away. God's word is in all cases the instrument of His deed. When He utters the command, " Let the soul be just," it be comes just ; by what means we shall see hereafter. The Lutheran school of theology teaches the strange The Lutheran paradox that God's calling us righteous, implies, not Tiewc°ntra- , , 11 ,.,,., diets this. only that we are not, but that we never shall be right eous ; that is to say, that a thing is not, because God says it is ; that the solemn averment of the Living 264 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and True God is inconsistent with the fact averred ; that the glory of God's pronouncing us righteous lies in His leaving us unrighteous ; and this in spite of His statement, "I will not justify the wicked " (Ex. xxiii. 7 ; cf. xxxiv. 7). Surely it would be impossible to invent a doctrine more dishonouring to God, and more inconsistent with His truth. While, then, there is a sense in which righteousness is imputed (or reckoned) to us, it is because it is also imparted to us. The merits of Christ are the merito rious cause of our righteousness, but they are really ours by impartation, not fictitiously ours by imputation only. Newman's As Newman* points out, the declaration of righteous- Lectures on ness < < prece(jes the gift which it declares ; it is the Justification. r ° ' Voice of the Lord,' calling righteous what is not righteous, when He calls it so," but what thereupon becomes righteous by the gift which He imparts. Justification, then, "is an announcement or fiat of Almighty God, breaking upon the gloom of our natural state as the creative word upon chaos ; . . . it declares the soul righteous, and in that declaration on the one hand conveys pardon for its past sins, and on the other makes it actually righteous. ' ' f 2. justification In a derived sense, but a most true one, the term sanctification justification is used for actual righteousness, since this is the result of being justified. For, since justifi cation consists in the renewal of the soul of man, that renewal is justification. Thus justification and sanctifi cation are substantially the same thing, though the same thing viewed from two different standpoints. in. Definition We may now give a brief definition of j ustification ofjustification. and procee<} to discuss it. Justification is not only the * Lectures on Justification, pp. 77-84. f lb., p. 90. JUSTIFICA TION. 265 remission of sins, but also sanctification or the renewal of the inner man by voluntary acceptance of grace and of the gifts which it imparts. So that a man from being unrighteous becomes righteous, from being at enmity with God becomes the friend of God, and ' ' an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." Here we notice four things. First, that the negative 1. Four points: element of justification is the remission of sins. Vhe °egatlve J element, re- Second, that the positive element is sanctification and mission of sins; inward renewal . a- the positive, „ . -..«.., 1 sanctification ; Third, that the means of justification is the voluntary m. the means, acceptance of it. free accept- And fourth, that its effect is to make a man righteous, iv. the effect the friend of God, and an inheritor of Heaven. righteousness. Hence we may say that there are five causes of 2. causes of justification :— justification, five • First, the final cause. This is threefold, viz., the i. the final glory of God, the glory of Christ, and the salvation cause ; of the justified. Second, the efficient cause, which is the Mercy of ii. the efficient God, Who freely cleanses and sanctifies us, sealing and cause; anointing us with the Holy Ghost, the pledge of our eternal inheritance. Third, the meritorious cause, which is the Passion of m. themerito- our Lord Jesus Christ, Who on the Cross redeemed rious cause ; us, making satisfaction for our sins to God the Father. Fourth, the instrumental cause, which is primarily iv. tnein- the Sacrament of Baptism, but does not exclude other strumental Sacraments as instruments of justification. Lastly, the formal cause, which is the righteousness v. the formal of God ; not the righteousness by which God is righteous, but that by which He makes us righteous, that which He imparts to us. cause. 266 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 3. The disposi tions required for justifica tion. Art. XI. and the Homilies. Relation of faith and the Sacraments as instruments. What kind of faith is re quired? 4. In what does justification consist? Infants, who are justified by Baptism, require no antecedent disposition, since they are capable of no rational act. But adults need to prepare themselves by acts of faith, fear, hope, and the beginnings of love and contrition. In Article XI. it is stated : "That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. ' ' In the Homily of the Passion we find it stated that faith is ' ' the only mean and instrument of salvation required of our parts." In that of Salvation, Part I, we read that faith " doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified ; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying." Here an important conclusion must be drawn, — that the instrumental power of faith cannot interfere with the instrumental power of Baptism ; because faith is the sole justifier, not in contrast to all means and agen cies whatever, but to all other graces. When this faith is called the sole instrument, it means the sole internal instrument, Baptism being the sole external instrument. The Sacraments are the immediate, faith the secondary, subordinate, or representative cause of justification ; or we may say that the Sacraments are its instrumental, and faith its sustaining cause. But what do we mean by faith ? Certainly not bar ren assent to the theological dogma that Christ died to save us. For, as we have just seen in the Homily of Salvation, faith " doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God." Justification consists, first, in the remission and blotting out of all sins, so far, at least, as their guilt JUSTIFICA TION. 267 and the eternal punishment due to them are concerned, 1 m theremis- although some temporal punishment often remains. Justification consists, secondly, not in the external u. inthebe- imputation of the merits of Christ, but in the inward ut°wala°ghabit" bestowal of the grace of Christ ; that is, in the infusion of sanctifying or habitual grace, which inheres intrinsic ally in the soul. This is clearly shown by S. Paul's words : " For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous " (Rom. v. 19). Here, we see, S. Paul parallels the sin of Adam, which we inherit, with the righteousness of Christ, which we possess. He says, ' ' By one man's disobedience many were made sinners," — not were accounted or imputed, but actually became sinners. Therefore, it is clear that by the obedience of One, Christ, the many shall not be imputed or accounted, but actually made righteous. And this righteousness is the renewal of our soul through the operation of the Holy Ghost, the imparting to us the merits of Christ. It is the beginning of that work of sancti fication which is to go on in us until, as S. Paul says, "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. iv. 13). Since justification consists not only in the remission 5. The effects 1 of sins, but in the infusion of sanctifying grace, we must °f Justification. ask, what are the effects of this sanctifying or justify ing grace ? First, it renders us pleasing to God, and makes us i. it renders us His friends. For our Lord said : ' ' Henceforth I call Pleasing to ^1 11 1 GOD, and you not servants ; for the servant knoweth not what makes us His his lord doeth : but I have called you friends ; for all friends. 268 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. things that I have heard of My FATHER I have made known unto you " (S. John xv. 15). characteristics Friendship is said to imply three things. First, a of this friend- lQve wkich is called the love of benevolence, and which makes us unselfishly desire our friend's good for his own sake, and not merely for ours. Second, a reciprocal love ; for to return love for love is of the essence of friendship. Third, a sort of community of ownership, or common use of goods, which establishes a certain equality or similitude between friends. For our Lord said of him who has love (and therefore sanctifying grace) : " If a man love Me, he will keep My words : and My FATHER will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him " (S. John xiv. 23). In this passage these three characteristics of friend ship are illustrated. There is, first, the love of benev olence, the love which constrains us to keep Christ's words because we love Him. Then there is the return of love for love, for we are told that the Father loves those who love Him . Finally, there is the communica tion of goods, for God cannot come and take up His abode in us without imparting to us His gifts. ii. it makes us Justifying grace makes us children of God by adop- god's tion, and therefore inheritors of Heaven. By the term adoption. 7 ' ' adoption ' ' we distinguish between ourselves and our Meaning of Lord, Who is the only-begotten Son of God by genera- a option. tjQn ^ye are accepteci jn Him, and therefore, as it were, adopted into the family of God. But in a Divine sense adoption is something far higher than its human meaning implies, since by adopting us God imparts to our soul a special quality, grace, by which we are made like Him. The act by which we are adopted is called ' ' spiritual birth " or " regenera- JUSTIFICA TION. 269 tion," because to a certain extent it produces the effects of true generation. This is the teaching of many passages of Holy Script ure. For example : ' ' Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God " (1 S. John iii. 1). " For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear ; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God : and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. viii. 15-17). Justifying grace makes us partakers of the Divine m. it makes us Nature. For in Holy Scripture we read: "Beloved, Partakersof J r ' the Divine now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet ap- Nature. pear what we shall be : but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him ; for we shall see Him as He is " (1 S. John iii. 2). Again: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises : that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 S. Pet. i. 4). And again: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for His seed remaineth iii him : and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (i S. John iii. 9). Here grace is spoken of as "the seed of God," or "seed of Divinity ; " and as a seed virtually contains a new plant like the first, so grace has in itself the virtue of making us GoD-like. By justification the righteous man is made the tern- iv. we become pie of the Holy Ghost and of the whole Trinity. the ^weiiing- „-, ., _ , ,,..,.._ place of GOD. While God is everywhere as regards His Presence, Operation and Essence, and therefore in some sense 270 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. This indwell ing in us is common to the three Persons of the HOLY TRINITY, but attributed es pecially to the HOLYGHOST. IV. Definition of habitual grace. 1. It is a "quality; " may be said to dwell in every creature, yet besides this common presence there is a special indwelling of God in the soul of the righteous, which consists in God's coming to the soul and remaining in it, as an intimate friend who is dearly beloved, so that the soul enjoys His presence and friendship. Thus the soul becomes truly the temple of the Holy Trinity, because it is truly a holy place in which the three Divine Per sons dwell. This indwelling is common to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, but nevertheless in a special mode it is referred to the Holy Ghost, because the work of sanctification, which is common to all three Persons, is attributed particularly to Him Whose special mis sion it is to sanctify the soul. For Christ said : " If a man love Me, . . . My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him" (S. John xiv. 23). And again we read: ' ' What ? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost Which is in you, Which ye have of God? " (1 Cor. vi. 19). And : " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Cor. iii. 17). Having described the nature and effects of sanctify ing, justifying or habitual grace, we are now in a position to consider its theological definition. Habitual or sanctifying grace is a supernatural quality, intrinsically and permanently inhering in the soul, by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature. First, it is a "quality," and therefore not a sub stance, nor an act, but a certain created and finite accident, which we call a habit and which perfects the JUS TIFICA TION. 2 7 1 soul directly in the order of its being, and indirectly in that of its operation. It is said in a loose sense to be created, that is, produced, but strictly speaking the term "creation " applies only to substances. Some theologians of old, with Peter Lombard, thought grace was nothing else than the Person of the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, but this cannot be admitted, since the presence of the Holy Ghost is indeed one of the prerogatives of grace, but is not its essence. Sanctifying grace is ' ' supernatural. ' ' By this we dis- 2. it is " super- tinguish it from natural qualities and prseternatural natura1;" gifts. It is also a quality divinely infused, since God alone can essentially communicate to us a supernatural quality. The words " intrinsically inhering in the soul" are 3. it "inheres necessary in the definition in order to exclude the Lu- inthesou1' " theran view of grace, that it is an external imputation of the righteousness of Christ. According to Catholic teaching it is a quality divinely infused, which truly equips the substance of our soul with spiritual endow ments and inheres in it. By the word "permanently," habitual grace is dis- 4. "perman- tinguished from actual grace, since actual grace is trans- ently ; " itory, while habitual grace is permanent from the fact of its being a habit, and in the sense that it remains in our soul until destroyed by mortal sin. In the words ' ' by which we are made partakers 5. it " makes of the Divine Nature," we have the true essence of uspartakfrsof the Divine grace, and therefore should most carefully consider Nature." them. As we have seen, grace is a quality, not a sub stance. The Divine Nature therefore is communicated to us, not substantially, as it is communicated to God the Word by true and proper generation, nor person- 272 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Some illustra tions of this. This partici pation is more than "moral," and is, in a sense, "phys ical;" ally, as in the Incarnation, but accidentally, in the sense that a Divine quality and likeness is impressed upon our soul. Some illustrations may help us to see this more clearly. As iron put into a furnace is so permeated by the fire that it becomes, not, indeed, substantially fire, but like fire, that is, fiery, so our soul is united to God by grace, and is penetrated by it, so that its substance does not, indeed, become substantially God, but God- like. Hence the Fathers compare a soul in a state of grace to wax impressed with the royal signet ; to crys tal through which the sun's rays pass, and which, like the sun itself, radiates light ; or to a mirror in which the Divine Essence is reflected. This participation of the Divine Nature is more than moral, it is in a sense physical ; for it would be moral only if our souls became like God merely by way of imitation of His perfections, but it is physical if a real perfection is communicated to us, rendering us like God. Now this is what grace does, for it is a real quality, elevating our nature to a superior order, com municating to us a new degree of intellectual life de scribed as a "new generation" or "new birth," and as " the seed of God." This therefore implies a physical participation in the Divine Nature. ' ' Grace communicates a new quality to the soul, by which it is transformed to the Image of God. This new quality is called the new higher nature of the soul. . . . As a tree of ordinary kind by the inoculation of a superior bud takes the nature of this bud and brings forth its blossom and fruit, so our soul is in the highest manner ennobled by the communica tion of God's grace, which is called in Holy Writ ' the JUSTIFICA TION. 273 seed of God,' and, filled with the power of God, it assumes the Divine Nature." * While this participation is not virtual, but formal, and yet this is we must remember it is only by analogy, because the °°*y by atml" identical hfe which is in God is not communicated to the righteous, but only a life which is similar and analogous. And again, it is not communicated, of course, in the same degree as it is in God, but in a finite degree, proportionate to the capacity of the creature. The properties of justification are three in num- v. Theprop- ber. First, its uncertainty, for no one can be certain g^tionf;iUSti in regard to his own justification with the certitude j itsuncer- of faith, unless by special revelation. This does not tainty. mean that a man may not have moral certitude that he is in a state of grace, and there are certain means by which we may be morally assured of this ; but moral certitude differs altogether from the certitude of faith. The signs that we are in a state of grace are chiefly its signs : three. First, the testimony of conscience, — that we are not i. the testi- conscious of having any mortal sin upon our soul. mony of con- _, . . <<•/-» • science ; Second, a sincere love of God, earnestness in prayer, u. love of and a firm resolve to avoid sin, together with zeal Gor>; for souls ; for all these imply charity, and therefore habitual grace. Third, contempt for the things of the world, and the m. contempt practice of mortification. for the world. While these signs may make us feel morally sure that we are indeed justified, they fall short of the certi tude of faith. Even S. Paul said of himself : " I know nothing by * Scheeben, Glories of Divine Grace, pp. 66, 67. 274 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Some have had special revela tions of then- justification. The first pro perty is denied by Lutherans and Calvinists. i. The ine quality of justification. Scriptural proof of this. [i. e., against] myself; yet am I not hereby justified " (i Cor. iv. 4). Some have had special revelations of their justifi cation. The Angel Gabriel was sent to the Blessed Virgin to reveal to her in the salutation that she was ' ' full of grace ; ' ' and in the cases of the paralytic and the woman who was a sinner, our Lord Himself said, " Thy sins are forgiven thee." This first property of justification is denied by Lutherans and Calvinists, who hold the doctrine of Assurance, and not only teach it as a theory, but practically profess to know themselves to be saved, often resting this opinion on very slender grounds. We are to hope for our salvation, and we are not to doubt that God wills to save us ; but there is much difference between hope and presumption. Hope will act as a stimulus, impelling us to " work out our salva tion with fear and trembling," while the Protestant doctrine of assurance often leads to the neglect of the means of salvation and to the most extreme forms of spiritual pride. The second property of justification is its inequality ; that is, habitual grace is not given to all, even of the righteous, in the same measure, and it is able to increase in those who are justified. This is evidently the teaching of Holy Scripture, for we read : ' ' Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (Eph. iv. 7). And again : " I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think ; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. . . . Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to JUSTIFICATION. 2J% us," etc. (Rom. xii. 3, 6). And again: "Unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one ; to every man according to his several ability " (S. Matt. xxv. 15). That grace may increase in those who are justified is also evident, for in the parable of the Pounds, in the nineteenth chapter of S. Luke, we find that the differ ent servants, each of whom had received one pound, gained in different proportions, one having increased his pound to ten, another to five, while the third had made no increase whatever. Besides, S. Peter exhorts us to " grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 S. Pet. iii. 18) ; and S. Paul exhorts us to "grow up into Him in all things, Which is the Head, even Christ " (Eph. iv. 15). This second property of justification is denied by the The second Lutherans, who say that all Christians have equal property is also grace, and deny that grace increases. This, of course, Lutherans. is a necessary conclusion from their doctrine of habit ual grace being the imputed righteousness of Christ. Indeed Luther goes so far as to say : ' ' All we Christ ians are of equal greatness with the Mother of God, and of equal holiness with her." * The last property of justification is that it may be lost, 3. DefectibiUty. and, in fact, is lost by any mortal sin. This, again, is the plain teaching of Holy Writ, for "When the Testimony of righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and scripture. committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned : in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die ' ' * Serm. de Nativ. B. M. V. 276 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. This property denied by Lu therans and Calvinists. (Ezek. xviii. 24) ; " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. x. 12); "If man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned " (S. John xv. 6). We have, too, the examples of David and Solomon, of S. Peter and others, who, after having certainly re ceived justification, lost it by sin. This property is also denied by the Lutherans and Calvinists, who teach what they call "indefectible grace." The texts of Scripture which we have quoted are a sufficient answer to this heresy. Amongst theologians there has long been a contro versy as to whether habitual or justifying grace, which we have been describing, is really distinct from the virtue of charity. The Scotists say that there is no real distinction be tween the two, because Scripture assigns the effects of grace to charity, and habits producing the same effect are not really distinguishable from one another. The Thomists, however, and the majority of theo logians of all schools hold that grace really differs from charity, because grace is an essential habit perfecting the essence itself of the soul, while charity is an opera tive habit perfecting one of the faculties of the soul, that is, the will. And Scripture carefully distinguishes grace from charity, as when we read : ' ' The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the commun ion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all" (2 Cor. xiii. 14). And again: "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Which is given unto us" (Rom. v. 5). In these texts, as we see, charity is clearly distinguished both from grace JUSTIFICA TION. 2?? and from the Holy Spirit, Who dwells in us through grace ; so that charity and grace are really to be dis tinguished from one another. We may also observe that habitual grace is so op- Habitual grace posed to mortal sin that it cannot subsist in a soul in and ¦ mortal sin r mutually ex- which this is present. This we have already shown elusive. in treating of the third property of habitual grace. Before we finish this chapter we may observe that conclusion. habitual grace, the infused virtues which accompany Habituaigrace, -- . ,-.... ..- and the virtues it, and the actual graces by which it is preserved and and gifts increased, constitute the new or spiritual life. which it in- Three things are required for life : the vital princi- tuteSth°spirit- ple, the operative faculties, and the vital actions. uaior "new" But we find these three in spiritual form in the gift llfe' of habitual grace. For, first, habitual grace is like a new vital principle raising us to a new plane of intellectual life which far exceeds our merely rational life, and is a communication from God Himself. Secondly, the infused virtues which accompany ha bitual grace are like new faculties by which the powers with which we are naturally endowed are perfected and elevated, so that they are able to elicit supernatural acts. And finally, the actual graces which are given to the righteous stimulate us and aid us to perform super natural and meritorious acts. S. Leo says : " Recognize, O Christian, thy dignity, s. Leo's exhor- and that thou art made partaker of the Divine Nature. ta^on. Do not return by degenerate conversation to thy former vileness. Remember of Whose Head and Whose Body thou art a member. Remember that thou art plucked out from the power of darkness and translated into the light and Kingdom of God." * * Serm. I. in Nativ. CHAPTER X. THE ENDOWMENTS OF MAN — THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. Introductory : S. Paul's de scription of the effects of justi fication. I. The endow ments of man. The change made by justi fication implies certain endow ments of the spiritual man. I These are called " vir tues " and "gifts." Virtue a habit. Examinationof the term, " habit." Distinction be tween habit F any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. v. 17). In these words S. Paul describes the effect of justification ; the justified man becomes a new creature. And what does this marvellous change imply ? Not only the negative removal of sin, but the positive be stowal of certain endowments of the life of grace. To this the Fathers apply the promise in Ezekiel : "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you ; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh" (xi. 19). This is the result of grace. For as sanctifying grace, which is the life of God, flows into the soul, certain endowments of the spiritual man accompany it. These are called in theological language infused virtues and gifts. We shall now proceed to treat of these endow ments of the justified soul. Since virtue is a habit, we must first explain this term. Habit has been defined as a quality which is permanently in a thing and is not easily liable to change, in virtue of which a man is better or worse. The distinction between a habit and a disposition is indicated in this definition, in that a habit does not 278 THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 279 easily change, while a disposition may be easily anddisposi- changed by an influence in the opposite direction. tion- Habits are sometimes divided into essential and Habits are es- operative habits ; the former class comprising those sentia1.' or ' . ' jt o operative. qualities which affect a thing as it is in itself, such as health, beauty, etc. But ordinarily the term habit is confined to the latter class ; that is, to those qualities which dispose the subject immediately to action, and are therefore called operative. Habits may be either good or bad by reason of their Three classes origin. They fall into three classes : habits which are ofhabits: natural, acquired, and infused. The first belong to us acquired, as human beings ; the second are acquired by repeated infused. acts ; and the third are supernaturally communicated to the soul by God. These infused habits are not powers, like the will infused habits and the understanding, for they presume the existence f,re not of these powers in the soul ; but they differ from other the soul, but habits in that they give ability to act, and not mere and . defect. tween insensibility and absence of self-control. We now come to the virtue of Prudence ; which has 288 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PR A CTICE. iii. Prudence. This virtue governs the intellect. Illustration of the way in which all four virtues must be present in a perfect act of virtue. Prudence is both an intel lectual and moral virtue. been defined as right reason applied to practice, or that habit of intellectual discernment which enables one to find the golden mean of moral virtue and to see the way to acquire it. In treating of Prudence we have a good opportunity to illustrate the statement that all four Cardinal Virtues must be present in each distinct human act which aims at perfection. It is clear that no moral virtue can come into an act without Prudence ; for it is the judgment of Prudence which must in each case decide that golden mean in relation to self and to others, at which every moral virtue aims. Thus, without Prudence, Forti tude passes into rashness, Justice into harshness, clem ency into weakness, religion into superstition, and so on. And if it be objected that a man, without Prudence to guide him, may hit upon the golden mean by some happy impulse and thus do an act of virtue, the reply is that he may thus do a good act, but not an act of virtue ; that is, not an act proceeding from a pre- existent habit in the doer. Such an act is like a good stroke made by chance, not by skill ; and, like such a stroke, it cannot be readily repeated at the doer's pleasure. Prudence in its essence is an intellectual virtue, be ing a habit resident in the understanding. But, as it deals with the subject-matter of the moral virtues, pointing out the measures of Temperance, the bounds of Fortitude, and the part of Justice, it ranks also among the moral virtues. It is that habit of intellectual dis cernment which must enlighten every moral virtue in its action, since no virtue can go blundering and stumbling in the dark. As an infused virtue it has special regard to worthy THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 289 ends of human endeavour. If unworthy ends are de- as a virtue it Uberately followed, however sagaciously they may be m"r^ll0°^0 a pursued, this is not Prudence. While, as we have shown, no moral virtue can come prudence into act without Prudence, it is also true that Prudence "^^of the will fail if it be not supported by the presence of the other other moral virtues. For instance, Prudence may be blinded in the virtues. presence of passion, unless Fortitude and Temperance be present to restrain passion. And in the same way Justice may be necessary in order to rectify inordinate action in dealing with others. Thus we see that the virtues cannot be separated. If we possess one, we possess all. The rudimentary forms of the virtues, of course, can exist separately ; they are a matter of temperament and inherited consti tution ; but one perfect habit of any one of the four Cardinal Virtues (that is, with grace attached to it), acquired by repeated acts and available at the call of reason, involves the presence of the other three habits also. Prudence is a composite and many-sided virtue, and prudence has its elements are four : wisdom, judiciousness, vigilance, fon* elements: ' J ° wisdom, and perseverance. In regard to the last we may re- judiciousness, mark that its essential ingredients are firmness, dili- vigilance, and - - perseverance. gence, and promptness, and of these promptness has been said to be the soul of perseverance. If we examine Prudence in its threefold manifestation its golden we find that its golden mean, regarded actively, is ju- ™sea°;essand diciousness ; regarded passively, vigilance ; and taken defect. in combination, perseverance. Its faults, if we consider it actively, are timidity, which is the excess of ju diciousness, and thoughtlessness, which is its defect. If we take it passively, they are scrupulosity, the excess of vigilance ; and negligence, its defect. Or, if we re- 290 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Prudencesometimesseems, but never is, akin to cowardice ; like Fortitude it includes perseverance. iv. Justice. This virtue governs the will. The functions of Justice are threefold,according to its object : towards GOD, towards our neighbour, and towards self; gard these two in combination, the faults are perti nacity, which is the excess of perseverance, and vacillation, which is its defect. Prudence sometimes seems akin to cowardice, but not if it be the Cardinal Virtue. For supernatural Pru dence forbids cowardice and obliges us to use persever- ingly the means to attain our end; which is God's glory, our own salvation, or our neighbour's good. And both Prudence and Fortitude have one element in common — that perseverance which forbids us to abandon a good work which we have begun. The last of the Cardinal Virtues is Justice. As Temperance and Fortitude restrain man's sensitive nature, and Prudence guides his intellect, so Justice is the Cardinal Virtue which governs man's will. It makes us give to every one his due, teaching us to re strain every thought, word, and deed which may tend to do harm to others, injury to ourselves, or dishonour to God. The functions of Justice are threefold, according to the objects of its exercise. Towards God it is exercised under the name of devotion, towards our neighbour un der that of equity, towards self under that of consistency. Of the first two we may say that they are co-ordinate virtues and mutually dependent ; for Justice towards God, as the Creator, involves of necessity in its de velopment Justice towards the created works of His hands. On the other hand, Justice towards man is incomplete without Justice towards God, and also thus attains its highest perfection. It is important to be just to our neighbour ; it is needful to be just to ourselves; it is essential to be just towards God. Justice towards God demands that we should love THE CARDINAL VIRTUES, 29 1 our neighbour as ourselves — not more, not less ; since we, as well as our neighbour, are creatures of God's Hand. The virtue of Justice may be exercised positively, in justice maybe acquitting ourselves of what we owe ; negatively, in "*[^^: abstaining from doing what we ought not to do ; men- negatively, and tally, or intellectually, in holding our judgment in intellectually. suspense, or keeping our mind unbiased by prejudice. To consider a little more fully the threefold object Methods in of Justice, we may observe, first, that Justice towards ^ybe^xer-6 God may be exercised by His creatures in many ways : cised : towards by conformity of the human will to the Divine ; by G0D ' the dedication of our persons to His service as Priests or Rehgious ; by payment in time, money, or service, of our dues to His worship, His power, and His Church ; in a word, by devotion to God. Justice towards God is based on a very definite faith, and applied in practice in a definite manner. The faith on which it depends is the absolute and infinite Justice of God, and the practice consequent on this faith is twofold, and may be exercised in deed and word. In deed we must boldly act up to our faith in God's absolute and infinite Justice, and in word we must not be ashamed to confess on certain occasions, when neces sity demands it, our faith in God's Justice — that it is invariable and certain, if sometimes inscrutable ; that in human terms it is retributive, even though we cannot always see that this is for man's moral good. A not uncommon opportunity at the present day of confessing our faith in God's Justice is an expression of our full belief in God's revelation in regard to ever lasting punishment, and, indeed, the punishment of all sin. 292 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. towards our neighbour ; towards ourselves. The golden mean, its excess, and defect in Justice towards GOD, our neighbour, Secondly, we must treat of Justice to our neighbour, or equity. Its principle is expressed in the formula, " As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (S. Luke vi. 31), and its exercise in volves giving our neighbour his due, whether such neighbour be our inferior, our equal, or our better. It teaches us to keep in check every thought and word, every desire and judgment, all bodily or mental action, which may inflict or tend to inflict injury, pain, dis tress, or harm upon others. The three forms of Justice towards our neighbour are: towards our subordinates affability, avoiding the fault, in excess, of familiarity, or in defect, of haughti ness ; towards our equals courtesy, avoiding the ex tremes of flattery and rudeness ; to our superiors obedience, refraining from the extremes of obsequious ness and disrespect. Thirdly, we must remember that Justice towards self, or consistency, is the golden mean between selfish ness and a love of our neighbour which exceeds the command to love him as ourselves. To be just to self is to be unselfish ; but it is also to remember that we are sent into the world for the single purpose of glorifying God and saving our own souls, and that these two are really inseparable. The law of the golden mean of Justice will be, first, towards God, a belief and practice founded upon God's absolute Justice as the mean between God's wrath apart from man's free will — which is the exaggeration of God's Justice, seen in Calvinism ; and His love apart from His Justice— which is its defect, seen in Universalism. The Catholic doctrine on this point saves us from these two extremes. Secondly, towards our neighbour, Justice is the THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 293 middle term between prejudice, which is the exaggera tion of our duty, and indifference, which is its defect. Thirdly, towards self, Justice is the mean between and ourselves. selfishness and a philanthropy which neglects self. The middle term, therefore is to glorify God by saving our own souls. CHAPTER XL the endowments of man — the theological virtues. Introductory : The endow ments of the soul which accompany sanctifyinggrace. TheTheologicalVirtues.I. Some preliminary considerations. The likeness and difference which may be traced in natural and supernatural virtues ; illustrated by the process of grafting. IN the last chapter we began to discuss those endow ments of the soul of man which are bestowed at the time of justification and which accompany jus tifying or sanctifying grace. After a brief treatment of the virtues in general we turned our attention to the moral or Cardinal Virtues, and examined them some what in detail. There are, therefore, left for our consideration in the present chapter the Theological Virtues : Faith, Hope, and Charity. But before we proceed to their treatment there are some few points to which attention must be called in order that we may clearly understand the re lation between the endowments of the natural and of the supernatural man. We find in the natural man habits, qualities, and virtues, — natural and acquired— possessing a kinship and likeness to the corresponding infused virtues which are the especial portion of the supernatural man. For a wild olive tree is like a cultivated olive tree except in the fruit which they respectively produce. The form of the tree, the shape of the leaf, and many other characteristics show the relationship between the two ; yet the wild tree produces no fruit, or at best only that which is very imperfect, while the cultivated tree brings forth ' ' fruit to perfection. " (St. Luke, viii. , 14. ) 294 THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 295 But fruitfulness may be imparted to the wild tree by engrafting upon its stock a scion from another tree of superior quality, and the tree will then produce the fruit, not of the stock, but of the graft. Now the re lation between the natural, or acquired, and the infused virtues is similar to this. We have already pointed this out in regard to the moral virtues, when we drew attention to their existence among the heathen. We then also showed that the difference between the The difference acquired and the infused moral virtues was chiefly in between the motive which stimulated them, and the end towards supernatural which they were directed ; these virtues among the virtues is heathen being confined to the sphere of mere natural motive and "r life, while in the Christian the motive and the end are end ; supernatural, and the sphere is enlarged and extended to the life of the world to come. Let us take another illustration of the relation mustratedby between the natural and the supernatural virtues, the process of Wrought iron is tempered by the fire and the ham- "on7"6'12"18 mer, and it can afterwards be magnetized by friction upon a magnet. The iron thue tempered is far stronger and harder than ordinary cast iron, but its nature is not changed. Magnetized iron has, however, a prop erty imparted to it of an altogether different nature. It loses its inertia and immovability, and acquires a new power of attraction, and is itself attracted in a mysterious manner by the poles of the earth ; so that iron thus magnetized is used in that most delicate in strument, the compass, for guiding a ship across the ocean. Natural and acquired virtues are like iron in its natural and in its tempered state respectively. As the frequent blows of the hammer temper the iron, so the 296 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. II. The rela tion between naturaland super natural virtues: 1. Faith, in the natural man ; in the super natural man. frequent performance of acts of virtue develops what we call the acquired habit of that virtue, and then by its aid a man may do what is naturally good. Sanctifying grace, however, magnetizes the virtue as by a mysterious touch of Divinity, and imparts to it a Divine power. The virtues that have thus been trans formed by grace are attracted in a manner and by ob jects hitherto unknown to them, and elevated into mysterious regions by invisible hands. God Himself is the Pole, the Centre, and the Source of our life — the Pole to which it tends, the Centre around which it revolves, and the Source from which it draws its force and nourishment. In a word, by grace we become partakers of the very life of God. The participation in the Divine Life which is produced in us by infused supernatural virtues principally consists in this, that it enables us to copy the activity of the Divine life, to unite our own activity with it, and so, in knowledge, love, and confidence, unite ourselves with God as He is One with Himself. Thus we see that the relation between the natural and the supernatural virtues is very real, although they themselves are so different. For instance, to take the Theological Virtues, there is a virtue of faith in the natural man. Without its exercise the ordinary affairs of human life could not go on. It has often been demonstrated that the conduct of man's ordinary life is influenced, not by proofs of mathematical certainty, but by such moral assurance as belongs to the natural virtue of faith. But while there is a striking likeness between this and the supernatural virtue of Faith, the differences between them are enormous ; for by Christian Faith we receive a supernatural and Divine knowledge. By uniting our THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 297 knowledge with the Divine Knowledge, and supported by it, we know God — with a knowledge similar to that by which He knows Himself, — and know all that He reveals, with the absolute certainty belonging to in fallible truth. Moreover, the motive of Faith is different. Instead Difference of of being human testimony, it is the authority of God ^naTura^ Himself. The end or object of Faith is also different, supernatural Instead of the opinions of men, it is the revelation of faith- God ; and the sphere of Faith, instead of being con fined to this present life, is enlarged to comprehend eternity. If we pass to the second of the Theological Virtues, 2. Hope, in the Hope, we find that this also exists in a most real sense naturalman ; in the natural man ; since the virtue of hope is the spring of all human action, and it is this virtue which has been the stimulus of successful effort in every de partment of human activity. But magnificent as have been the triumphs of natural in the super- hope, they sink into insignificance in the presence of natural man- the supernatural virtue, for in Christian Hope we rest immediately upon the infinite power of God as if it were our own, and thus acquire a sublime confidence, which enables us to overcome all difficulty. In the same way we find Love as a natural virtue 3. Love as a (and undoubtedly the most beautiful of all the natural natural virtue : virtues), and in it we recognize almost a spark of Divinity. In the love of the parent and child, of the husband and wife, in the love of one's country we have manifestations of the most sublime virtue which human nature possesses. And yet again, while it is like the supernatural virtue, as a super- the difference is clearly defined, for in Christian Charity nat<»ai virtue. the same love for God which He has for Himself is in- 298 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The endow ments of Faith, Hope, and Love enable man to live as the child of GOD. fused into us ; so that we are enabled to unite ourselves intimately with Him and to be absorbed in Him, as if we possessed His own Nature. Natural love spurs man on to acts of self-sacrifice and heroism, but, alas ! seldom satisfies. It changes, disappoints, wanes, grows cold ; for in the object of our love on earth we are almost always disappointed, and see our ideals shattered. Our bleeding hearts crave for what this world cannot give, — -the good, the beauti ful, the true, the changeless, the absolute. But this absolute Perfection is the object of Divine Love, God Himself, Who is all Goodness, all Beauty, all Truth, Who cannot change or disappoint, Who alone can satisfy all the cravings of our immortal nature by giving us Himself as our possession. With these three Divine virtues, then, God endows His children, that they may lead a life 'worthy of their exalted regeneration, and may — even on earth, in the land of their exile — unite themselves with Him as their Father, and the object of their happiness. By these virtues alone, therefore, are we enabled to prepare ourselves for that eternal life which one day we shall enjoy in the bosom of our Heavenly Father. For the life which the children of God lead, even now upon earth, must be the same kind of life that awaits them in Heaven. In Heaven they will know God in the same manner (though not in the same degree), as He knows Him self, and possess Him as He possesses and enjoys Him self. But, for such a knowledge, such a possession, such an enjoyment, it is indispensably necessary that the light of glory should transform the faculties of our soul, should elevate our virtues and make them and us GoD-like. THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 299 Thus we see the likeness and the difference which exist between the natural and the supernatural endow ments of man. Let us examine a plant. It has its roots, with which The theoiogi- it digs into the earth and thence seeks such properties cal VI.^uef ™ . 0 c r man illustrated of the soil as are necessary for its nourishment and sus- from a plant. tenance. It has its stem, which ceaselessly tends towards the light, the source of its warmth and vigour, and through which it is enabled to assimilate from the air what is necessary to its development. Does not this represent the soul in a state of grace ? Is it not like a wild olive tree, engrafted with the very Nature of Jesus Christ the true olive ? It has its roots in Faith, and these roots penetrate into the very depths of the Divinity, and draw thence the nour ishment of the Divine Life ; Hope is its stem, by which it raises itself to the Sun of Righteousness to find there light and warmth ; while Love is the power of attrac tion by which it apprehends God, and receives His own life, and immerses itself in Him. We have said enough to demonstrate the very real in. The theo- relationship traceable between the Theological Virtues lo&ical vi*ues> c m ° considered m and their corresponding natural virtues, and also the themselves. enormous difference existing between them. We shall now proceed to a somewhat fuller consider- 1. Faith. ation of the Theological Virtues themselves. And first, of Faith. Much that would naturally come under this head has been anticipated iu the treatment of Faith in the sixth chapter, but there are still some matters to be considered in regard to it. As we have seen, each virtue perfects principally Faith has far some one power or faculty of the soul, and Faith has j.^^ which for its subject our reason. Faith supernaturally en- it perfects. 3Q0 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Faith bestows on the reason (I) strength, (a) and light. lightens and strengthens reason, and enables it to unite our knowledge with that of God. By its aid we per ceive and know with infallible certainty mysteries con cealed from every created eye, and naturally open only to God, but revealed by God through Faith. As partakers of the Divine Nature through grace, we become by Faith partakers in a measure also of the Divine Knowledge. One day, S. Paul tells us, we shall know even as we are known ; and although in its ful ness this can only be realized when the light of grace has been perfected in us by the light of glory, yet even now, in our pilgrimage here, God reveals Himself to us more and more, as we exercise the supernatural virtue of Faith. When our Lord says, " No man can come to Me, except the Father Which hath sent Me draw him ' ' (S. John vi. 44), He is teaching us that it is by the gift of God alone — that is, through supernatural Faith — that we can transcend the limits of our nature and com prehend the revelation of God. The Theological Virtue of Faith bestows on us espe cially two things : strength and light. Man's natural gifts have indeed to be strengthened by grace, that they may exercise the virtue of Faith— that the intellect may wing its way far above the things ol earth, and rest in the very life of God. ' ' O that I had wings like a dove : for then would I flee away, and be at rest," said the Psalmist (Ps, lv. 6) ; and it is through the operation of the Dove — the Holy Ghost — that we receive the grace which enables our intellect to wing its way into God's presence, gaze upon those mysteries which Faith reveals, and rest in the very Knowledge of God. Divine Faith not only strengthens our intellect, but a man born blind. THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 301 enlightens it ; and this enlightenment enables us to understand and appreciate that which is revealed. A illustration of man born blind may hear a very accurate and perfect description of various objects seen by other people, and yet these objects will always remain strange and incom prehensible to him ; his ideas of them will not only be imperfect, but probably in many cases quite incorrect. So it is with the mysteries of revelation ; the natural reason may attain a considerable knowledge about them, and yet that knowledge will always be imperfect, and is liable to be very misleading. We do not forget that one of the properties of Faith '3) "ob is its obscurity ; as S. Paul says, " Now we see through ^property of a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. xiii. 12) ; and yet this ob- Faith. scurity is like the glow of the midday sun, compared with the darkness of mere natural reason. Obscurity of Faith is like the twilight which indicates the dawn of day and the approaching splendour of the sun. It is like the darkness of a starry night, which reveals greater mysteries to us, and gives greater scope to our vision, than even the brightest day ; for in the day time we can see a comparatively small portion of earth's surface, while night carries our vision into immeasur able distances, to constellations which the natural day hid from our view. Faith is obscure in comparison with the brightness of the day of eternal glory, but it is brilliant light com pared with the lamplight of reason and sense. We must, however, clearly bear in mind that the in- The theoiogi- fused virtue of Faith which accompanies justification, cal virtues given to us or habitual grace, is given to us potentially, and needs potentially, to be exercised in order that its magnificent possibili- and therefore need to be ties may be realized. exercised. Unfortunately, while every one understands this in 302 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. "Meditation" is the exercise of Faith. Some think they cannot meditate. 2. Hope. It has its seat in the will. Hope rests on GOD'SOmnipotence ; regard to the natural intellect, and prepares to put forth much toilsome effort in order to acquire knowledge, yet few consider that the virtue of Faith must be exercised in order that it may attain its full development. And still fewer, perhaps, have ever seriously asked in what manner Faith can be systematically trained so that its full powers may be unfolded and perfected. The answer is simple. Faith is exercised, trained, developed, and perfected by the practice of meditation. It is in meditation that the Holy Ghost teaches us " the deep things of God ; " bringing home to our soul, not the mere conclusions of the intellect, but those overwhelming convictions of God's revelation by which our whole life is ruled and perfected. There are many who think that they are not so con stituted intellectually as to be able to meditate. But no special character of intellect is suited to meditation, any more than any special character of intellect is suited to Faith ; and it is by meditation that our ca pacity for the knowledge of God is developed and our Faith increased. The second of the Theological Virtues is Hope; and Hope, like Charity, has its seat, not in the intellect, but in the will. The will has two different acts. By the one it takes pleasure in a good, so as to love it ; and by the other it pursues that good with earnest activity and firm confidence. In the same manner as Faith communicates to our reason a supernatural power of understanding, so the infused virtue of Hope bestows upon our will a Divine power and a supernatural confidence, that it may actively pursue and securely attain the highest and infinite Good. Hope rests upon God's Omnipotence as upon an immovable rock, and has for its object nothing THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 303 less than the possession of God Himself in eternity. Hope fills the soul with joyous consciousness of its its fruit is joy. power, and more than anything transports it with an enduring happiness. Hope is the intermediate virtue between Faith and m Hope is Love, not by arbitrary position, but by necessary ^^f^ sequence, since it is through Hope that Faith passes and Love; into Love ; for those eternal verities in which we be heve we first hope to attain, and Hope stimulates us to use every means for their acquirement, and thus, in longing for and reaching after them, we come to love them. Again, Hope is intermediate between the two great (2) between dangers of the soul, presumption and despair. It is our ^ds™s^™ safeguard in passing between these, the Scylla and Charybdis of the spiritual life. Most of those who suffer shipwreck will be able to trace their loss ultimately either to that presumption or spiritual pride, which made them think that they were justified when they were not — like the man who con fidently went in to the marriage feast without a wedding garment ; or to that despair or spiritual sloth, which made them consider ' ' the prize of the high calling of God " to be so far beyond their powers that, like the man who wrapped his talent in a napkin, they made no effort to gain it. And we may further observe that Hope is the special (3) it is the virtue of the Intermediate State. The holy souls in ^e inter" Purgatory are spoken of as " prisoners of Hope ' ' mediate state. (Zech. ix. 12); and as Faith is the special virtue of the Church Militant, and Charity that of the Church Tri umphant, so Hope is that of the Church Expectant. The part which the supernatural virtue of Hope plays in the ordinary life of the Christian is much more im- 3°4 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Hope the stimulus of all spiritual effort. To its neglect may be traced most of our sins. An examina tion of the three kinds of sins : (i) of the fallen angels ; (2) of Adam ; (3) of fallen man. portant and practical than most people realize ; for not only is Hope the stimulus of spiritual effort, and the pioneer of Love, but it is to the neglect of the virtue of Divine Hope that we may trace most of our sins. Indeed, this is so universally the case that we might almost venture to say that every sin is a sin against Hope ; for every sin is a giving up of future Beatitude for some mere present enjoyment. If we examine the three kinds of sins, the sin of the Angels, who had no evil tendency in their nature, and no external tempter ; the sin of Adam, who had no evil tendency in his nature, but had an external tempter ; and the sin of fallen man, with a tendency to evil within his nature, and a tireless tempter without, we shall find this illustrated in each case. If we take the sin of the fallen Angels, it seems probable that they were not content to wait and hope for the revelation of their King. They cast away God's promise for the future to gratify self in the pres ent ; they worshipped their own perfections, were con tent with natural gifts, found their joy in the present, and so lost that for which they were created, and which it was the law of their being to hope to attain, — lost God. Their sin was essentially against Hope. So, too, with the sin of Adam. Eden was beautiful, but it was not his home. He was probably to look for ward to a further revelation of God connected with his translation to another world ; he was to wait and hope. In the Tree of Knowledge he thought that he saw the possibility of possessing at once that mysterious know ledge which God was to reveal, and so he sinned against the law of Hope. The same is true of fallen man now. Instead of hoping for " the glory that shall be revealed " in an- THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 305 other world — instead of placing all our hopes beyond the grave — we yield to the temptation to fix our hearts on the possession of things in the present. In fine, almost every sin is against Hope, for it is a giving up future Beatitude for present enjoyment. Hope, like Faith, as an infused virtue, needs to be Hopei is exer- exercised, that its powers may be developed. Holy cisedesPecially Scripture tells us that we are to " abound in Hope, whfchuthe through the power of the Holy Ghost ' ' (Rom. xv. °Peration in us 13) ; and we may ask in what way Hope may best be spirit. systematically exercised. There can be no doubt as to the answer, — that prayer is the exercise of Hope. We are to abound in Hope through the power of the Holy Ghost, Who in prayer " helpeth our infirmities : for we know not what we should pray for as we ought : but the Spirit Itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which can not be uttered " (Rom. viii. 26). Prayer is the most fundamental function of the Prayer is the spiritual man. • It is the very atmosphere breathed by m°dt*™e"faJhe the soul, and it has been said that we might as well spiritual man. expect to find a living man who does not breathe, as a living Christian who does not pray. And prayer — whether it be verbal, or vocal, or mental ; whether it be in Church, or in our closet, or as we walk the streets of a busy city — is the operation of the Holy Ghost in our soul, and the exercise of the supernatural virtue of Hope. That we may develop this glorious virtue we must, as S. Paul says, " pray without ceasing." The last of the Theological Virtues is Charity. This 3. charity. is the last and the greatest, for S. Paul says : " Now abideth Faith, Hope, Charity, these three ; but the greatest of these is Charity " (1 Cor. xiii. 13). It is the greatest because it is the complement and perfection 306 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Faith and Hope can co exist with mortal sin ; Charity can not. The relation of Charity to sanctifyinggrace, and to the HOLY SPIRIT. Why Charity is called a theologicalvirtue. of the other two ; for by Charity we embrace that high est Good which we know by Faith, and by Charity we are united on earth already with that which is the ob ject of our Hope in Heaven. Faith and Hope can co-exist in us with mortal sin — that is, without uniting us in a living and perfect man ner with God ; but Charity is altogether lost when sanctifying grace is lost, and can only exist in the soul through which the life of God flows by grace. That Faith can remain in us without grace is evident from S. Paul's words : " Though I have all Faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Charity, I am nothing" (i Cor. xiii. 2). Charity, however, is inseparably connected with sanctifying grace ; so much so indeed that some theo logians, as Scotus and Bellarmine, have thought the two to be identical. But this, as we have seen, is not the case. S. Augustine says it is as great as the gift of the Holy Spirit, Who is given us in and by it. For as God unites Himself in a supernatural and indescribable manner with our soul by grace, so we unite ourselves, by supernatural Love, in a mysterious manner with God, and thus complete the wonderful circle, that golden ring which embraces God and the creature and makes both one. This circle is the image of that Divine Union which unites God the Father with His Only-Begotten Son, and the Son with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Charity is called a Theological Virtue not only be cause it has God for its object and end, and unites us with God, but because by it we so love God as He alone, in virtue of His Divine Nature, can love Him self. As grace is a participation of the Divine Nature, THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 307 so is the Charity which proceeds from grace a partici pation of the Divine Charity. Hence some theologians have supposed this Charity as a virtue to be identical with the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself. This, indeed, is not correct ; since, according to the words of S. Paul, " the Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost Which is given unto us ' ' (Rom. v. 5). Charity is a holy flame which the sacred fire of the Holy Ghost kindles in our soul, an image of that Divine Charity from which He Himself proceeds. Charity is altogether supernatural ; for though in the Natural and order of nature we can and must love God as our suPernaturai Chanty. Creator and Lord, Whose natural image man is, yet this natural love is as different from the Divine Love as the nature of the creature is from that of the Creator. The natural knowledge of God in the image of His creatures differs from the immediate vision of His Nature as an earthly fire differs from the light of the sun. Both are related to God, yet these relations are very different. As the love of a servant and of a child may have the same person for their object, yet the one loves him as a master, the other as a father ; so does the supernatural virtue of Charity differ from the mere natural virtue of love. Of this Charity Thomas a Kempis writes : ' ' Nothing what Thomas is sweeter than Love, nothing stronger, nothing higher, af "^,™£tySayS nothing wider, nothing more pleasant, nothing fuller or better in Heaven or earth. For Love proceeds from God, and cannot rest but in God, above all things created. Whosoever loves knows the cry of this voice ; a loud cry in the ears of God is the ardent affection of the soul which saith, O my God, my Love, Thou art all mine, and I am all Thine. ' ' 3o8 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. what S. Paul says of it. Charity enables us to possess GOD. The effect of Charity in regard to our neighbour. Charity needs tobe exercised; by self- sacrifice ; What this Love is S. Paul tries to show when he tells the Ephesians that he prays for them ' ' that ye, being rooted and grounded in Love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height ; and to know the Love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God " (Eph. iii. 17-19). Since this Charity alone can make us love God as He loves Himself, it alone makes us possess God in truth. For by it we possess Him not only in affection, but also in reality, in our heart ; by it we enjoy His Divine sweetness at its very fountain ; by it we embrace God as our Father, as He by grace embraces us as His child ren ; by it we approach Him ever nearer, we become ever more like unto Him, until we are entirely trans formed into His Image, and behold Him face to face. The effect of this Divine Charity is also seen in our Love of our neighbour, which it ennobles and elevates. For the Love of our neighbour is part of our Love of God ; we love him, not because he is intrinsically lovable, as God is, but because our neighbour, like ourself, is the object of God's Love, and we are mem bers together of the Body of Christ, and children alike of our Heavenly Father. If it is true that the infused virtues of Faith and Hope need to be exercised in order that they may attain to their full development, this is still more true of Love. For as a fire cannot burn without fuel, so Love cannot live without exercise ; and its exercise in this world will often involve acts of self-sacrifice, pain ful in themselves, but transformed into the holiest joy by the power of love. Indeed, self-sacrifice is the fuel on which love feeds. It is so of mere natural love, and far more is it true of Divine Charity. THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 309 ' We read the following account of Solomon's dedica tion of the great Temple which he had built for the service of Almighty God : ' ' Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from Heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices ; and the Glory of the Lord filled the house ' ' (2 Chron. vii. 1). The fire, which filled the material Temple of God, was the emblem of the Divine Charity which fills the soul of the righteous. It came down from Heaven to consume the sacrifices and the burnt offering, and the glory of the Lord accompanied it, and filled the courts of the house. That fire existed only to be fed by the sacrifices, and when in the reign of Manasseh it was allowed to go out, the life of the Jewish nation practically expired. So the Divine fire of Love, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, may be fed with the fuel of sacrifice, and is accompanied by the glory of God ; and thus the Saints, who were on fire with the Love of God, radiated, as it were, from their lives some rays of the glory of sanctity, the very glory of God. We have seen in regard to Faith and Hope that there but especially was a special way in which each must be exercised. in worshiP- Faith is exercised in meditation, and Hope in prayer. We may ask whether there is some special means by which we may exercise the virtue of Charity. The answer is, in the worship of Almighty God, and espe- This exercise dally in that supreme act of the Christian Religion, seen m the " by which God is most glorified, and man most the Hoiy blessed, ' '—in the offering of the Holy Eucharist. Eucharist, Then, in the sacramental presence of our Lord and God, we pour out the treasures of our Love, we make our acts of adoration, we offer to the Eternal Father law of sacrifice is fulfilled 3IO CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. the Sacrifice of Love, identical with that Sacrifice by which Love redeemed us on the Cross ; and with it we offer, as " a living sacrifice, ' ' "our selves, our souls and bodies." in which the We have said that Love feeds on sacrifice, and on no sacrifice can love feed more sumptuously than on that Sacrifice which day by day the Church pleads, as she offers upon her altars to the Eternal Father " the memorial [His dear] Son hath commanded [her] to make ; having in remembrance His blessed Passion and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension ; rendering unto [God] most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same." * iv. m addition In addition to the infusion of the moral and theo- ^ustmcation8' ^°S^ca-^ virtues, justification conveys to us the Seven bestows the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, with the Fruits of the Gifts of the Spirit, and the Beatitudes which they produce. spirit, These Gifts of the Holy Ghost, however, were treated which produce wjth some fulness in the first volume of this work in and the connection with the Sacrament of Confirmation,! and "beatitudes." to that treatment the reader is now referred. christians We may conclude our consideration of the endow- shouid recog- ments of the spiritual man with an earnest exhortation nize the rich- .,._.,.. ness of their to all Christians to recognize the dignity and riches endowments 0f the grace which they possess, and so to use these powers that they may bring forth fruit to the glory of God, the edification of the Church, and the salvation of their own souls. v. The doc- Before ending this chapter a few words may be in trine of merit. piace in regard to the doctrine of Merit, so often mis understood and misrepresented among Protestants. * Consecration Prayer (American Prayer Book). f Vol. I., pp. 148-159. THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 31 1 In its strict theological sense Merit has been de- Merit scribed as a quality which belongs to the moral actions describei1 of free and responsible agents, and makes these actions worthy of reward. Merit, therefore, implies a propor tion between the work done and the reward given. A servant who does his work well deserves or merits the wages which his master has engaged to give him, while a beggar who comes to receive an alms which he has been promised cannot be said to earn or to merit it. Hence a man who merits can claim his reward as a matter of justice, but one who has been promised a re ward out of all proportion to the work done may appeal to the fidelity and kindness, but not, strictly speaking, to the justice of the donor. In order to merit a man must be free, since he cannot claim reward for a service which he has no power to withhold, and which therefore is not his to give ; and what he does must obviously be good. It must also be done in the service of the person who is to confer the reward, and who must have agreed to accept the work done and to reward it, since no one is bound to pay for work, however excellent, which he does not want. Thus far we are speaking of merit as between man and man, and both Protestants and Catholics would probably agree in what we have said. At the Reformation Luther denied that the good protestant works of the just merit an eternal reward. His den|al of merit J . the logical theory of imputed justification, of course, logically result of compelled him to do so, since he taught that men are Luther's view . r. . . . 1 1 • r 1 ¦ r Of JUStifica- justified solely by the imputation of the ments of tion. Christ to them. Luther emphatically rejected the Catholic doctrine of Justification, that in counting sin ners righteous God makes them righteous by impart ing to them the grace of Christ and certain spiritual 312 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Merit depends solely upon GOD'S merci ful promise. No injustice, had GOD promised no reward. Our LORD tellsus how GOD might have dealt with us, endowments making them what God declares them to be, just in His sight and pleasing to Him. Hence Luther taught that the best works of good men are actually sinful. "Every work of the just man," Luther writes, ' ' is damnable and a mortal sin, if it be judged by God's judgment." Though Calvin is more moderate in his language, he maintains with Luther that the " good works of the faithful lack such perfect purity as can endure in the sight of God, and are in a manner defiled." The Catholic doctrine of Merit carefully lays down that the righteous have no claim for a reward apart from God's merciful promise. This follows from what we have said, for even with men we cannot in strict justice claim a reward for service done, unless they have expressly or by implication agreed to remunerate us. But besides this, we cannot profit God by our ser vice. His bliss is complete in itself, and He has no need of us or of our works. Besides, our service is already due to God by other titles. A slave claims no reward from his master, and any recompense he may receive comes from his master's generosity, not from hisjustice ; and man belongs to his Creator more abso lutely than any slave can belong to his master. There would, therefore, have been no injustice had God called us to serve Him without reward, and our ser vice at the best would be imperfect. Hence our Lord reminds us of the manner in which God might have dealt with us when He says : " Which of you, having a servant plowing or feed ing cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat ? and will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 313 may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken ; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink ? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him ? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are un profitable servants : we have done that which was our duty to do " (S. Luke xvii. 7-10). If this were the only text bearing on the subject the Protestant rejection of Merit would be justified, but, as usual in Protestant theology, one text is distorted and misapplied and made to contradict a large number of other passages. For in the first place our Lord distinctly promises but distinctly to do the very thing which the master in the parable ProJn»ses that J b r He will not does not do. He says, speaking of those servants who do so. are watching for His return : ' ' Blessed are those ser vants, whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching : verily I say unto you, that He shall gird Himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them " (S. Luke xii. 37). There are many other passages of Holy Scripture Many passages which are inexplicable apart from some theory of re- °f scripture • • 1 11 111 teach this ward or ment. Without going through them all, let us doctrine : examine a few. S. Paul says : " I have fought a good fight, I have 2 s. Tim. iv. finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth 7' 8 ¦ there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day : and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing" (2 S. Tim. iv. 7, 8). And here we must remember that the original word for righteous ness signifies justice. S. Paul, therefore, claims that because he has done his part in fighting the good fight 314 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Heb. vi. io ; Rom. ii. 6, 7 ; S. Matt. v. 12. The conditions of merit. Only works done in grace aremeritorious.This excludes works of the law, and those done throughnatural virtue. and keeping the faith, he is to receive a crown of jus tice, which the Lord, the just fudge, is to give to him and to others as a matter, evidently, of justice. So again we read : " God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love " (Heb. vi. io), which certainly implies that if God did forget this work He would be unjust ; and the justice in this case con sists in giving the reward of salvation, as the preceding verse shows. The same truth is proved by the reiter ated assurance that God " will render to every man according to his deeds : to them who by patient con tinuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life " (Rom. ii. 6, 7). Our Lord in His Sermon on the Mount distinctly says : " Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in Heaven" (S. Matt. v. 12). Here the word reward is piados. And again He exhorts His Disciples to lay up for themselves treasures in Heaven ; which, according to the Protestant theory, seems to be the last thing that anyone should be exhorted to do ; since all their good works being sinful, as Luther says, they cannot possibly be laid up in Heaven, where nothing sinful can enter. We must here, however, carefully draw attention to the conditions of Merit. Only those works are merit orious which are done in the friendship and by the grace of God. S. Paul constantly asserts that no man can be justified by the works of the law. In this he is, of course, referring to the Jewish law, and it is also true that no work can be meritorious which is done in man's mere natural power. To be of any efficacy good works must be done through the grace of Christ, so that they are really the fruits of that grace in our lives. This is clearly THE THEOLOGICAL VIRTUES. 315 proved by S. Paul's words : " Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Charity, it profiteth me noth ing " (1 Cor. xiii. 3). Good works must be the effect of the love of God in our heart. Hence no one can merit who is not in a state of grace, and all works, however good in themselves, done when in mortal sin, are absolutely valueless and wasted. In Articles XII. and XIII. of Religion reference is The teaching made to this subject, and we are told, first, in Article of Artfcles xii XII. , that ' ' good works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification," though they "cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith." In Article XIII. we are told that " works done before the grace of Christ," that is, before Justification " are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity. ' ' This Article is directed against a theory prevalent in the sixteenth century, that works done before Justification, while they cannot claim a re ward from the justice of God de condigno, still have some claim upon God de congruo. This, however, the Article rightly rejects, since all first motions of grace come from God, and can in no sense be merited by man. It may be well here to explain these two technical terms. Meritum de condigno is that merit to which ¦• Meritum de we have been referring as founded upon God's Justice co^e110-" in that He has promised to reward every man accord- „ Meritum de ing to his works. Meritum de congruo is not, properly congruo." 316 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Things we cannot merit : justification, and final perseverance. speaking, merit at all, but rather a right founded on friendship and liberality, and not on strict justice. No man, therefore, can merit the first grace, or justifi cation, nor, if he fall into mortal sin, can he merit a recovery from that state. Nor can he merit final perseverance. o CHAPTER XII. THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. F all the various mysteries of life that which introductory: meets us most often (if, perhaps, we except sin) The "niversai- ... , e or ¦ c • *u • «y of suffering; is the mystery of suffering. Sorrow is the uni- unuke sin it versal monarch of this world, and sooner or later every extends even one must bow before his throne. Sin is a universal creation"1 * fact in human life, but suffering is still wider reaching, since beneath its sceptre not only man, but all creation toils ; for, as S. Paul says, ' ' the whole creation [every creature] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now ; and not only they, but ourselves also ' ' (Rom. viii. 22, 23). Of so undoubtedly universal a fact in human hfe upon right theology must take account, since upon our view of yiewsofsuffer- OJ t r ing depends suffering must depend our explanation of many other our expiana- mysteries of life. Passing over the phenomena of suf- tlon of other 0 A mysteries. fering in the brute creation, and confining ourselves to its manifestation in human hfe, and without pretend- without pre- ing to offer a solution of the mystery, we shall in this tending to 0 . . solve this chapter endeavour to gam some idea of the purpose of mystery, its suffering by considering carefully its effects in the PurP°se may • • A A 1 \ e belearned training and development of man. from its effects. Pessimists, looking out upon the world of suffering, Pessimists use draw from it an argument against the existence of a ihf e*lstence 0 ° of suffering as benevolent Creator. Making a superficial study of the an argument 317 3i8 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. against a benevolent Creator. This requires suffering to be purposeless,and therefore useless ; shown to be a beneficent factor in man's development,pessimism is overthrown. I. Human life is developed in three spheres: the physical, moral, and spiritual.In each, suffer ing is a neces sary agent of progress. i. Suffering in physical life. Pleasure and pain the two guides of life — acting as a spur and as a curb. pain and misery of life both among men and the lower creatures, they use the universal phenomena of suffer ing as evidence against the Justice and Love of an Almighty God. Undoubtedly in the present day this argument ap peals to a school of shallow thinkers who are ever striving to find weapons with which to attack Chris tianity. Their conclusion, however, requires that suffer ing should be purposeless, and therefore useless in human life ; and if it can be shown, on the other hand, that suffering is not only a beneficent factor in man's de velopment, but that, so far as experience goes, it is an absolutely necessary agent in the progress both of the race and of the individual, then the position of the pessimist is absolutely overthrown. The development of human life may be traced in three different spheres : in the region of physical life, in the realm of morals, and in the spiritual domain. And in each case we shall find that suffering is not only a prominent, but, so far as we are able to see, a neces sary agent in the progress of life towards perfection. Let us, then, briefly glance at some of the effects of suffering in each sphere of human life, reserving a fuller discussion of the subject until after we have thus answered the accusation of pessimism. It must be evident to every one that in physical life pain plays a most important and a most beneficent part. In fact, pleasure and pain are the two guides of physical life. The first, acting as an incentive, moves man to those acts, and urges him in those paths by which physical life is unfolded and developed ; while the second, acting as a curb, restrains man from stray ing into paths of danger and destruction. Indeed, in physical life pain is almost the only safe- THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 319 guard man has to prevent him from losing life itself in Pain a safe- the pursuit of pleasure. We see this best, perhaps, g„"dit'OIhe in the matter of health. Pain, as sentinel, warns pleasure, and man of the beginnings of internal ailments, which, if forewarns man not checked, might become fatal. We see it also in the ravages of contagious disease ; in epidemics as suffering drives man to discover and to observe the suffering leads laws of sanitation, and so not only leads to the pre- tio^aneum- servation, but to the improvement of the race. provement Without pursuing the subject further in the sphere ° ° of man's physical life, we may assert that pain is man's best friend, warning him of many a pitfall, preventing many an irretrievable mistake, remedying many an evil — in a word, that the purpose of physical pain is altogether benevolent. If we turn from the region of physical life to that 2. suffering in of morals, we find that suffering here plays a part moraliife- which is even more important. For not only does it pain not only punish man for transgression of the moral law, and warns man so warns him from forbidden paths of sin, but, when sin| pa man has fallen, moral suffering is the great factor in his restoration. The misery of remorse, the sting of but is a great conscience is often the first beginning of that repent- faetor in his . . 11. restoration ance by which the sinner regains not only his peace after a fail. with God, but his own self-respect and self-mastery. And after the moral nature has been weakened by indulgence in sin, the suffering which comes from the effort to resist returning temptation restores strength to the wounded part. Just as when a man breaks his arm, it is bound up in splints for some weeks, and the bone knits. When the splint is taken off, however, the arm at first is so weak as to be useless. The physician comes and begins to work those muscles which have been weakened, in order to bring them back gradually 320 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. It is preven tive, remedial, strengthening, and educative. 3. Suffering in the spiritual life adds to its other functions by becoming sacramental, sacrificial, to their strength ; but as he exercises them, the pain is often greater than it was at the first setting of the bone, and yet this painful process is necessary to restore to the weakened arm its power. So in the sphere of man's moral nature suffering is necessary, not only to warn him from the path of sin, but, when he has fallen, to bring him back to peni tence, and more, through the penance which the sin involves, to restore completely the weakened part. Under this head, then, we may say suffering is pre ventive, is remedial, has the power of developing moral strength, and, in what it teaches man, is the greatest educative factor in his moral life. When we pass from the realm of morals to the higher domain of the spiritual life, we find that suffering, while fulfilling all the various functions which we have traced in the two lower spheres of physical and moral being, adds to them certain special powers. For it is in this sphere that suffering becomes sacra mental, that is, a means of uniting the soul to God. In the furnace of affliction the soul, relying upon God's grace, and enduring chastisement as from the hands of a loving father, becomes, as it were, welded to God beneath the constant blows, and thus united to God, attains a knowledge of the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ. Another stage is reached when suffering becomes sacrificial ; that is, when, united to Christ, the soul joyfully offers to God all its pains and sorrows in union with Christ's one Sacrifice upon the Cross. So S. Paul says : " [I] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His Body's sake, which is the Church" (Col. i. 24). Here suffering becomes both THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 32 1 sacrificial and meritorious, being borne in the grace of and mm- God and in union with the merits of Christ. torious, Enough has probably been said to show with how little reason suffering is used as evidence" against the Justice and Love of God. As well might a father who and is the corrects his wayward child be accused of cruelty as a^e.n!:y ky ; J which GOD our Heavenly Father, Who by the agency of suffer- trains man ing is training us, His children, for that life of eternal for eternal happiness. happiness where " there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain " (Rev. xxi. 4). Thus far we have briefly indicated some of the func- 11. The subject tions of suffering as a benevolent factor in the threefold treatedflore a generally. sphere of man's life on earth. Let us now approach the question in a more general way. The origin of suffering is a question of absorbing 1. The origin interest, but one which is steeped in mystery. For "otrfveaied- with the exception of telling us that death came into the world by sin, revelation is silent as to the origin of suffering. That it is often caused directly by sin is certain, but related That in some mysterious way it is always related in- 8^neraUvto directly to sin is probable. And yet nothing could be more untrue than to say that an individual's suffering can always be traced to the same individual's sin. In any practical treatment of this mystery we must Pain as a factor bear in mind that the question from man's point of view ln thte develoP- ^ *• ment of is the relation of suffering to human life, in the develop- character in ment of man' s moral being and character in the presence the Presence . . ofsin. and under the influence of sin. Whether there would be any suffering in the world if there were no sin, is a question which we have not here to consider. In another world, whence all sin will be shut out, we are distinctly told that there will be no more pain. 322 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PRA CTICE. 2. Sin is trans gression of law ; pain is the penalty of this disobedi ence, but also the antidote. 3. Suffering is evidential : i. As punitive, an evidence of GOD'S Justice and Holiness and of His hatred of sin ; ii. as revealing to us GOD'S Compassion, But here suffering is a most potent factor in the de velopment of man's moral nature in an atmosphere of sin ; and, so far as we are able to judge, there is no other means by which the same beneficent result could be accomplished in the development of what is good in man, and the conquest of all that is evil. Sin has been most generally defined as disobedience, or transgression of the law. Suffering is the penalty of this transgression or sin ; and not only a penalty, but it is almost always intended to be an antidote, — to be preventive, as we have seen, of transgression in the future, and remedial for that of the past. In many ways suffering is evidential. In that it is often punitive, it is an evidence of God's hatred of sin itself, and a witness, to the Holiness of God. Then, while suffering is punitive, it is not so much vindictive as vindicative, being the manifestation of God's Justice in the presence of moral evil. Suffering, as we have seen, has been considered by some an evidence of God's injustice and cruelty. The very opposite is the truth, for God being what He is, absolute Righteousness, Justice, and Truth, it is im possible that He can do otherwise than manifest His Justice wherever sin comes into His presence. For God's attributes are His Essence ; they cannot be laid aside at times, as in the case of the attributes of man. God's Justice, therefore, is no mere transient feeling, but a permanent and necessary hostility towards that sin which is so infinitely abhorrent to His Divine Nature. Suffering is evidential also in revealing to us that aspect of God's Love which we call the love of Com passion, for He suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow in His steps. How little could THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 323 we ever have known of this love of Compassion, if it had not been for the sufferings of our Lord upon the Cross ! And His Apostle tells us that in those sufferings He and by our leaves us an example, by thus calling us to the practice lord's exam- of that sympathy with others in suffering which has us sympathy; such enormous power to develop what is good in our own souls, to lighten the sorrows of the world, and through sympathy to make man GoD-like. Sympathy takes us out of ourselves, teaches us to be unselfish, brings sunshine into the clouded hearts of our fellow- men, makes us the ministers of love, and enables us, by bearing one another's burdens, to fulfil the law of Christ. Again, suffering is evidential in revealing God as m. asreveai- man's only Refuge in time of trouble. Suffering has a ing GOD .to De man s only twofold effect upon man, as we learn on Calvary itself, refuge. It mellows, and develops, and purifies, and leads him Its twofold to God; as in the case of the Penitent Thief — who caivaryintne by the experience of his own suffering and by witness- two robbers. ing the sufferings of our Lord, was driven to God in penitence and emboldened to pray, " Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom." Or, on the other hand, suffering hardens, and embitters, and drives man into rebellion and despair ; as in the case of the impenitent thief. There are many who have never thought of God in the days of health and prosperity, but who have been brought to God by suffering and can say with the Psalmist : " It is good for me that I have been in trouble : that I may learn Thy statutes " (Ps. cxix. 71). Then again, suffering is not only sacrificial in the sense that we offer it to God in union with the merits of the sufferings of Christ, but it is sacrificial in its 324 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iv. Suffering as a witness to truth. The power of martyrdom. 4. Not only is deserved suf fering effica cious, but undeserved has still greater power. We see this in the attraction of the Passion, which still lives on. 5. The vicari ous suffering of CHRIST, efficacy as a witness to truth. In the hour of His Passion our Lord teaches us this when He says : ' ' To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth ' ' (S. John xviii. 37 ; see 1 S. Tim. vi. 13). Many a preacher has met with nothing but opposi tion to his teaching, but when the seed sown has been watered with his blood, it has sprung up and produced a glorious harvest. The history of the Christian Church in the first three centuries of its life is a proof of the dignity and power of martyrdom, and our Lord tells us of its happiness when He says : " Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake : for their's is the Kingdom of Heaven " (S. Matt. v. 10). Indeed, while the sinner's conscience bears witness to the power of suffering as the penalty of sin, when he confesses in the words of the Penitent Thief : " We re ceive the due reward of our deeds ; " yet its greatest power is in the sufferings of those who have "done nothing amiss." Our Lord prophesied of Himself: " Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone : but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. ... I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me " (S. John xii. 24, 32). And, though nearly two thousand years have passed since then, the fulfilment of the prophecy goes on in the attractive power of the Cross of Christ, the magnet of souls, which year by year draws round it the sorrowing, suffering and sinful children of men. To the superficial thinker the vicarious suffering of Christ has ever been a stumbling-block, something irreconcilable with his view of justice. And yet is not the Passion, which redeemed the world, rather the THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 325 climax of that method of operation to which may be the traced all the progress of humanity ? For man's sor- ^"e^°f^e rows, not his joys, are the seed, not only of glory in which manias the life to come, but of many blessings to humanity progressed. in the life on earth. When we try to trace the fruit which has sprung Pleasure and from the legacy of pleasure and joy left to us by the ^'^^ individuals of the race, how little do we find ! Pleasure race ; and joy seem to be a seed which is sterile and unpro ductive. All the abundant fruit of the experience of its riches centuries has sprung from seed sown in tears, the seed s^^rom of labour, sorrow, and pain. ' ' Man learns wisdom by experience, ' ' says the pro verb ; but, it implies bitter experience. And so, our Lord's last act of self-sacrifice, by which He made satisfaction for the sins of the world and won for man eternal life, was surely the splendid climax to which all that was great and unselfish in the history of the race had been pointing. Man comes into the world through the travail of Man's whole another. The life which was brought forth with such ^carie0™an pain is largely supported by food gained by the death suffering. of many a creature. The comforts and even the necessaries of life are purchased for us at the price of the labour and often the suffering of numbers of our fellow-men. Indeed, all that makes life worth living, — liberty, law, art, literature, — all is inherited from others who won it through toil and suffering, through disappointment, and often death.* Vicarious suffering, then, seems to be the law of vicarious suf- human progress, pointing to the solidarity of the race ^"£f ?™ ts and enforcing the lesson of unselfish labour and suffer- arity of the ing for others. Was it not fitting, then, that He Who race- *J. R. Illingworth, The Problem of Pain. 326 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The teaching of Heb. ii. io. All suffering, rightly borne, is gathered up and sanctified in the Cross. Pain as a gift to be accounted for. The danger of wasting it. Rightly used, pain becomes the gold of heaven. was the Head and Representative of humanity should gather up in His life those marvellous sorrows and pains by which He showed the evil and broke the power of sin, — by which He manifested the mercy and proved the love of God for sinners ? As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us : " It became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings " (Heb. ii. io). We are familiar with the thought that from the Fall all things pointed to redemption through suffering. But may we not go a step further, and see how all suffering, rightly borne, is gathered up and sanctified in the Cross of Christ ? An important practical lesson follows from this ; namely, the value of pain in our lives as one of the gifts for which we must give an account, and which we are in great danger of wasting. When we read the parable of the steward who had wasted his lord's goods, we all feel most keenly that in many ways it represents our own case. Conscience reproaches us in regard to wasted time, wasted oppor tunities, wasted talents ; but few ever examine them selves about wasted suffering. Our Lord tells us to lay up for ourselves treasures in Heaven, good works done and sufferings endured in reliance upon and through the power of His grace. Suffering is our lot in this world ; we cannot escape it ; but we can either transmute it into the gold of God's Kingdom in Heaven, by bearing it in the power of grace and offering it in conscious union with the sufferings of Christ, or we can waste it through sheer thoughtlessness. The pain will be just as severe, the THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 327 grief just as poignant, but the result in eternity alto gether different. Hitherto we have considered suffering almost entirely in. suffering in its effect upon our life here in time. Our last in«lati°nto r eternity. thought, however, suggests that there is still another aspect in which suffering should be regarded, and it is to this view of suffering that S. Paul draws our s. Paul's thoughts when he says : " Our light affliction, which fcor.'iv! 17, 18. is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more ex ceeding and eternal weight of glory ; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen : for the things which are seen are temporal ; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. iv. 17, 18). In these words S. Paul teaches us that present Present suffer- suffering is the raw material of future glory, and that "^fj^ the result is so disproportionate to the toil that he future glory. speaks of our affliction as ' ' light ' ' and ' ' but for a moment. ' ' When S. Paul speaks of " our light affliction " being s. Paul's " but for a moment," we might have thought that his "moment." sorrows and labours, immense though they were, were summed up in some one splendid action, as has been the case in the history of many a martyrdom. But no ; his " moment " reached almost the ordinary span of human life, and from early manhood to old age it was crowded with experiences of sorrow and suffering, and yet he says of them in another place : " I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom. viii. 18). And again, when he speaks of our affliction as being s. Paul's " light," we shall realize the full force of his words ""?" 01 jr. affliction." when we remember by whom they were uttered, — by 328 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The condition on which the glorious result depends. The danger oi self-pity. one who more than most of the children of men had drunk to its very dregs the bitter cup of woe, and who describes his " light affliction " in these words : " In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep ; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren ; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the Churches" (2 Cor. xi. 23-28). With magnificent boldness his thought sweeps at once from the means to the end, from the seed to the harvest, from the cause to the result, from the suffer ings of this present time to that " eternal weight of glory, ' ' which the light afflictions of this life produce. But he adds a caution. He points out the condition on which this glorious consequence depends. He does not say that ' ' our light affliction . . . worketh for us ' ' always and absolutely " a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, ' ' but only ' ' while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen." He warns us against the danger of looking upon our own sorrows and sufferings as though they were iso lated experiences. He tells us that we must keep steadily in view, not the suffering, but its purpose, its effect in eternity, in the glories of that Kingdom of THE MYSTERY OF SUFFERING. 329 Love where those who have sown in tears shall reap in joy. He warns us that we must be careful to see things in The import- their true relation to one another, in their eternal syn- f"ce of.se"°s J things in their thesis ; otherwise we shall be in danger of making true relation mountains of molehills, of thinking that our light to each other. . . ,,1, , The danger of afflictions are unbearable because they are so great, or, exaggerating on the other hand, of losing our presence of mind and suffering. so making mistakes in meeting suffering. When we are standing on the edge of a precipice, if of letting it we look down and contemplate the awful depth, we are =>akeusdizzy r r ' from fear. in danger of becoming dizzy and falling; if, however, we look up, we can often walk safely on the brink. When our Lord called S. Peter to come to Him on the water, as long as the disciple's gaze was fixed on Christ he was able to walk upon the sea, but when he looked away from our Lord and saw that the wind was bois terous, he was afraid and began to sink. This is what S. Paul would teach us when he says : ' ' While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen." If we keep our gaze steadily fixed on the purpose and end of suffering, it will lose its bitterness. CHAPTER XIII. DEATH. Introductory : Eschatologybelongs largely to speculative theology. Its discussion valuable for ex posing error. Inferencesfrom revela tion, and theo logical opin ions not to be rashly rejected. IN approaching the solemn questions of Catholic Eschatology we must at the outset remember that in regard to this mysterious, though fascinating, subject but little more is revealed to us than the fact of the reality of Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell, and the Intermediate State. In striving to give some answer to the many anxious questions which man with passionate curiosity asks in regard to the great future for which he feels that this life is but a preparation, we must bear in mind that the treatment of such questions belongs almost entirely to the department of speculative theology. While, therefore, we may learn much that is interest ing from the opinions of theologians who have carefully considered the subject, yet these opinions can seldom be said to be de fide. The principal value of a treat ment of these questions is, perhaps, to be found rather in the exposure of what is erroneous than in the posi tive statement of certain truth. There are inferences from revelation and human ex perience which may guide us to conclusions of great probability ; and there are some theological opinions which come to us with a weight of authority so great that we should be rash indeed, if we did not accept them. 33° DEATH. 331 On the other hand there are popular theories which The limits of are not only unsound, but which transgress the limits t^010^1 speculation of theological speculation by conflicting with received to be here truth. Such views cannot be taught without grave observed. responsibility, and it may therefore be useful to show on how weak a foundation they stand. With this caution we approach the solemn subject 1. Death. of Death, the first of the Four Last Things. Death in its most general sense may be defined as 1. Different the cessation or privation of life. In Holy Scripture sef.se^!? and in ascetic theology two kinds of death are spoken term is used. of, the one spiritual, the other corporal. Spiritual or supernatural death is also subdivided into the death of the soul, and the death of sin. The death of the soul is the result of mortal sin, which deprives the soul, first, of that habitual grace which is the life of God in the soul, and then (unless there be repentance), of that eternal happiness in Heaven for which the soul was created. The death of sin, on the other hand, is the result of justification or the infusion of sanctifying grace. This mystic death is the truest life, and is effected in the soul by the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. It is to this death that S. Paul refers when he says : " We are buried with Him by Baptism into death ; " and again : ' ' Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord " (Rom. vi. 4, n). But it is of corporal or physical death that we have physical death now to treat, and this consists in the separation of the defined- body and soul, and therefore the dissolution of their vital union, and is the beginning in the body of those processes of disintegration by which it returns to dust. It is the act which fixes all the other actions of life, natural to man? 332 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and gives them their final meaning, and it is the occa sion upon which is determined for ever the state of the soul in eternity. 2. is death Among the first questions in connection with death which present themselves to us for discussion is, whether or not death is natural to man and other creatures. At first sight we might reply that it is, since the constitution of man's physical nature and of that of the lower creatures seems to involve the gradual wearing out by use of the organs of the body, even where death has not supervened as the result of acci dent or disease. And yet there is much to be said on the other side of this question. If death were a natural process in man as originally created, like other processes of physi cal life, such as eating, drinking, breathing, etc., we should expect it to be painless, if not actually connected with a certain physical pleasure, as they are. But the very opposite is the case with death. It is often extremely painful, a violent severance of body and soul, during which the sufferer groans and writhes, the features are contorted, and the form be comes wasted. Then again, if death be a natural process it is diffi cult to understand the creatures' terror of it and strug gle against it ; and this not only in the sphere of human life, but also among the brute creation. Even after death, in respect to the lifeless body man kind shows a horror of death as of a strange, hostile element. Among many races the repugnance to corpses is so great that both men and things which come into contact with them are considered unclean. This way of looking at death was found amongst the Jews, and received the sanction of the Mosaic Law. Even among DEATH. 333 some of the brute creation traces of this feeling may be observed. Again, the unwillingness of man to face the certi tude of his own death, and the difficulty of realizing, in spite of evidence all around him, that he as an in dividual must die — both these facts point to something strange and unnatural in death. If it be objected that life as we now see it could not go on apart from death, since creatures prey upon one another as a means of existence, the reply is that sin, which is unnatural and foreign to man as originally created by God, has produced this result, and that the very facts to which we have drawn attention show that the present condition of life was not its original con dition. This brings us to a consideration of the next question, 3. The origin namely, the origin of death in this world. On this ^fhinthe point we have the testimony both of revelation and ex perience. Holy Scripture tells us that " by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " (Rom. v. 12) ; that " the wages of sin is death " (Rom. vi. 23) ; and again, that " since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 21). In each of these passages death is spoken of as a re sult of sin, and this is in accordance with the general tenor of Holy Scripture. Experience leads us, though with less certainty, to the same conclusion ; since we find that death is the result of the transgression, either by accident or disease, of some law of life — the excep tion, perhaps, being death from extreme old age. But while death is thus seen to be the punishment Death is the of sin, a closer examination shows us that the punish- penalty ofsm ; 334 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. not, however, arbitrary, but remedial. 4. It is the antidote of sin, and, like Go liath's sword, destroys him who wielded it. Death is the close of the conflict be tween the flesh and the spirit. ment is not arbitrary, but remedial, and contains within itself a blessing to those who use it rightly. For death is represented not only as the result of sin, but as the great weapon of the devil, who was the cause of sin. But God in His wisdom and love out of evil brings good, out of the punishment brings the antidote. " For the creature" was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him Who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God ' ' (Rom. viii. 20, 21). The "vanity" to which the creature was subjected by God is, of course, in its ultimate conse quence, death. But as David in his combat with the Philistine cut off Goliath's head with that enemy's own sword, so our Lord on the Cross by death destroyed ' ' him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. ii., 14). And what our Lord did for all men He, in a sense, enables all who die in Him to effect in their own case, namely, the destruction of Satan's power over them, and therefore their own freedom; for, as S. Paul says, " He that is dead is freed [justified] from sin" (Rom. vi. 7). Death is the close of that long and painful conflict which the Apostle so graphically describes in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, verses 15 to 25. It is the answer to the question with which the passage ends, — " O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? " It is the close of the conflict, because it is the destruction of that sinful flesh through which the enemy of the soul so often tempted man. The nature of regenerate man has been described as DEATH. 335 a citadel captured by God's Holy Spirit, but sur- An illustration rounded by a town still in the hands of the enemy. from the • ii- • i • i-i • • ,-r i ¦ citadel of a The citadel is man in his higher spiritual life, his town. real ego, of which S. Paul says : "I delight in the law of God after the inward man ; " while the town represents those members of sin of which he says : " I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. ' ' The true ego leads him to will to do good ; the other lies in wait to frustrate his efforts, so that the good that he would he cannot do. How is the enemy to be driven out of the town, so as never more to return, never again to find a stronghold there ? The surest way is to burn the town, and thereby deprive the enemy of his dwelling and his cover ; and this is what death does for our beleaguered fortress, our higher self, our regenerated spiritual life, by a dissolution of the members in which the law of sin resides.* Here, too, we see why death brings no blessing to Death brings the unrepentant sinner. In him there is no fortress to °0°t"g^ns be saved when the town is set on fire ; for in him the repentant, enemy exercises sway in the fortress itself, and there fore he gains no benefit by the conflagration of the town. Thus to regenerate man death comes as a blessing, butto those since at the very moment when it reveals its might it ^j^1" unconsciously loses this by abolishing all further occa- is indeed a sion of sin. In death the devil seems to have con- blessins:- quered, as when our Lord died on the Cross, but his apparent victory, as then, is irretrievable defeat. If " the sting of death is sin," and sin in the regenerate * Dahle ; Life after Death, pp. 55, 56. 336 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. II. The properties of death. i. Its certainty. 2. Its uncer tainty. 3. It happens but once. 4. It is an un known experi ence to each. ceases at death, we have good reason to cry with S. Paul, ' ' O death, where is thy sting ? . . . Thanks be to God, Which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (i Cor. xv. 55, 57). Let us now approach our subject from another point of view, and examine the properties of death. The first is its certainty. This is not a matter of faith, but of experience ; indeed, death is the only absolutely certain thing in life. If we take a little child, just born into the world, how little we can foretell its future ! We cannot be sure whether it will be rich or poor, learned or ignorant, happy or wretched, whether its life will be long or short, whether it will on the whole do good or evil. One thing, and one only, we are certain of, — that child will die. The second property of death is its uncertainty. For as death in one of its aspects is the most certain event of life, so in another is it the most uncertain ; namely, as to time, place, and manner. When shall I die, — to-day, or not until after many years ? Where shall I die, — at home, surrounded by loving friends, or in some far-off land, alone, with none to minister to me ? How shall I die, — by the result of an accident, or of some fatal disease, or after a long life, from old age ? The third property of death is that it happens but once, and once for all. If we make a mistake about this, we may regret it throughout eternity, but we can not correct it. This gives to death its peculiar solemn ity — that all opportunities of doing good, of meriting, are gone forever. The last property of death which we shall consider now is that it is an unknown experience for all. The priest and the physician have witnessed the deaths, perhaps, of hundreds of men, but they have not the DEATH. 337 slightest idea what it will be like when they them selves come to die. We pass next to what we may call some accompani- in. The ac- ments of death, inasmuch as unlike the properties, ^mpa°iments they are not always present. First, we may observe that this penal act of dying i. Adverse has ordinarily to be performed at a time and under cir- C0ndlt10ns cumstances when, humanly speaking, we are least in fit condition for grave and solemn action ; or else it takes place so suddenly that it scarcely comes under our idea of an act at all. Its ordinary accompaniment is bodily and mental of bodily weakness. It appears almost an essential part of the ^STe'ss^ pains of death that it takes us at a disadvantage. We seem to need a strong body, a clear mind, a collected will, to do the many things which at that supreme mo ment we ought to do in order to make our preparation for the great eternity. We never need to be more thoroughly alive than at the moment when we come to die, and yet, (perhaps to prevent us from putting off our preparation until that moment,) experience warns us that physical circumstances will oblige us to perform the act of dying under great difficulty. Again, there is little doubt that where death is busy 2. the Pre- evil spirits are busy also. It is their last chance with sen.ce and r J activity of evil the departing soul, and the devil has great wrath, be- spirits ; cause he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Even though the soul has been his willing slave for years, yet Satan knows there is a chance of its repent ance ; and if death comes at the end of a long and dubious struggle between good and evil, all the more does he need to bring his forces to bear upon the soul at that supreme moment, that, if possible, the victory may be on his side. VOL. II,— 22 338 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 3. to help us— the Angel, GOD'S special grace,prayers of the Church and of friends,Sacraments of the Church. 4. Great possi bilities at the hour of death : for sinners, of repentance ; for some, apparentlyrighteous, of a bad death. 5. Death an opportunity for GOD to help His child. On the other hand the hour of death is a time of great grace. There is the Guardian Angel with earnest love tendering his last ministrations. There is the special grace which God offers in the hour of need. There are the constant intercessions of the Uni versal Church, the prayers of friends, and perhaps the ministrations of the Church, and the last Sacra ments, so full of power and consolation, — the Viaticum, the very Body of Him Who for our sakes conquered death, and the Last Unction, with its less defined but wonderful graces. There are great possibilities in death, possibilities even for those who have not lived well, as we learn from the Penitent Thief upon the cross ; possibihties, too, for those who have seemed to live well, of falling away at the last, as has been the case in some histories of martyrdom. Probably it was only a seemingly good life that had so sad an end. Then, death is not infrequently an opportunity ap pointed by God for a private and special interview with His failing creature, sometimes to cheer, sometimes to punish, mercifully and yet severely. How often the deathbed is thus a double one ! There is the visible deathbed with the priest and the physician and the friends around the sinking body, and there is with it the deathbed in the inner chamber of the soul, where the Father of all creatures is alone with His child — sometimes cheering and consoling and giving a foresight of the joyous reward which is so near ; at others afflict ing the soul with fear as sins imperfectly repented of rise up to accuse it, and yet by that very affliction arousing penitence and so, often, saving such a soul. There is one great danger which sometimes accom panies death, especially in these days ; namely, that DEATH. 339 of dying among irreligious people, who from mistaken 6. Danger of kindness (or more often from selfish cruelty) conceal our condition v J ' being con front us the fact that we are dying. ceaiedfromus. We should be told gently but plainly that the end is approaching. Those who love us make a great sacri- The respon- fice of themselves in telling us this. It is the kindest -ag"^ dying of all kindnesses, as the withholding of it is a very of their state. great cruelty and a very great sin. From this many a soul has been lost ; mothers are responsible for the loss of their children's souls, wives of those of their hus bands, because to spare themselves the pain of speak ing, or, as they persuaded themselves, fearing the risk of hastening death by agitation, they allowed their loved one to die without any opportunity of making peace with God. A mortal sin, which has never been repented of and which has been almost forgotten, in the mercy of God may rise before us when we know we are dying, and we are enabled to make the act of contrition by which our eternity may be changed. Many doubtless have owed their salvation to the love and kindness which gave them this opportunity of repentance at the last. Many, on the other hand, have been lost through the barbarous selfishness or irreligion which withheld from them the knowledge of the crisis through which they were passing. A further danger comes from modern medical methods, Danger of in that the sufferer at the approach of death is often drug- *™| d™^d ged, that he may escape the pains of death ; but in this death. way he is deprived of the precious moments of conscious ness on which his state in eternity sometimes depends. It would be well in cases of serious illness for us to such dangers give distinct instructions that we shall be warned of the should be pro- ° vided against. approach of death, and that we shall not be robbed of 340 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. IV. These con siderations enforce the need of pre paration for death. Elements of preparation : i . A knowledge of GOD and of His revelation ; 2. conquest of the besetting 3 habits of prayer ; 4. Sacraments received with right disposi tions.5. What is to be desired for a good death. our consciousness by drugs given to ease our pain. That very pain may be part of the debt of sin which God in mercy allows us to pay in this world, and which, if not paid, may involve far greater suffering in Purgatory. All these considerations, however, lead to the one simple conclusion that we ought not to put off our preparation for death until we are face to face with our foe. In many ways we may not then have the strength or the opportunity rightly to prepare to die. We should therefore be always prepared, or preparing. Let us notice here some elements of this prepara tion. First, we need to know much about God and His revelation to man before we enter His presence. We must therefore take pains to be instructed in these matters, and must not be content, as so many are, with any sort of religion, but must be certain that we hold the Catholic Faith. Secondly, we need really to conquer our besetting sin. We shall be in no condition to struggle against it on our deathbed, unless we have really striven to overcome it while in health and strength. Thirdly, we must learn habits of prayer in preparation for death. How sad to see a dying man who does not know how to pray ! Lastly, it is necessary to receive the Sacraments with right dispositions of heart ; therefore they should not be neglected and left until the hour of death. In order to obtain a good death we should pray that it may be perfectly in accordance with the Will of God as to time, place, and circumstances ; that we may re tain reason and memory to the last ; and that we may have a priest, and the consolations of the Church (but this as God wills) ; and, lastly, that we may die in the Faith of the Church. DEA TH. 341 We come now to consider the act of death itself, and v. what takes may reverently ask, what takes place at that moment, place a\ thf r ' moment after when the last struggle is over and the heart-strings death? have snapped, and the soul, freed from the trammels of the body, is in the presence of God. The answer which many theologians give us is that we see our at that moment we see our Lord face to face and are P°RDand.are . . ^ ludgedbyHim. judged by Him. These two things may be but one, for probably in that first sight of the glorious Face of our Lord we shall read our sentence, and shall be ravished with love of Him Whose glory and beauty absolutely fascinate and overwhelm. If we are lost, the recollection of that Vision will be our continual torment throughout eternity. If we are saved, it will be eventually our never-ending happiness ; but first, in its revelation to us of our sinfulness and imperfection it becomes the instrument of our purification. At the moment of death, then, the particular Judg- The particular ment of the soul takes place. This is entirely distinct Judsment A differs from from the general Judgment at the Last Day, and of the that of the differences between them we shall treat more fully in tast Day- the chapter on the Judgment. The evidence of the fact of a particular Judgment The evidence rests partly on revelation, but more, perhaps, upon °arrtTUd?art^,1|." the necessities of thought. Inasmuch as the soul is rests on the not unconscious between the moment of death and necessities of , . . . thought, the time of resurrection, it must pass either into a place of happiness or of torment ; but this necessitates a judgment. Our Lord reveals to us these two conditions of the and on reveia- soul before the Day of Judgment in the parable of tlon' the Rich Man and Lazarus. And in His words to the Penitent Thief He speaks of a place of happiness where the thief shall be with Him, and calls it Paradise ; 342 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. while in Acts i. 25 we are told that Judas went " to his own place," evidently meaning a place of woe. In some of the visions of S. John in the Apocalypse we have evidence of the presence of souls in Heaven before the day of the general Judgment. Hence the fact of the particular Judgment of the soul at the moment of death is a necessary inference, and is cer tainly the teaching of the Church. The fact is " de When, however, we come to the details of this Judg- fide-" ment, we find some differences of opinion. While the Different majority probably considers that our Lord Himself in opinions as to His incarnate Nature is the Judge, since the Father the details. . , ,, . hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (S. John v. 22), yet there are others who object to this on the ground that the particular Judgment of many generations of souls preceded the Incarnation. As regards the details of this Judgment nothing, of course, can be of faith. The most probable opinion is that it is effected by an internal illumination of the mind, by which the soul sees itself, and clearly appre hends itself to be judged according to its works. commonly The most common opinion is that this Judgment held that it takes place in the very instant of death and in the place takes place at . r the moment of m which the person dies. Some have thought that it death, and in js somewhat more formal than we have described, and whereonedies. tnat the Guardian Angel of the soul, and the devil are present and act as accusers ; and all agree that the sentence is immediately executed. After this judg- If the soul be lost, it descends at once to Hell. If it ment, the soul be saved> and be entirely free from all stain of sin and passes into . Heaven, Hen, imperfection, it passes immediately to the Beatific or purgatory, vision of God in Heaven. If it be saved, but still have some remains of sin to expiate, it enters a state of purification, which is generally known as Purgatory. A CHAPTER XIV. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. T the close of the last chapter we very briefly introductory: stated that after the particular Judgment the ^™?%£?f souls of the dead enter one of three states — death. those who are lost passing into everlasting punishment in Hell ; those who are saved, and are free from all stain of sin, being admitted to the Beatific Vision in Heaven ; while those who are saved, but are not yet entirely cleansed from the remains of sin, are detained in an intermediate state of purification. There are many questions in regard to each of these states which demand careful discussion, and we shall therefore consider them seriatim. The first is the question, Where are the dead, and i. where are what is their condition between the moment of death "* de.ad; a"d what is their and the day of the final Judgment ? The question is of condition ? supreme interest to every one, and the number of works on the subject which have lately been published bears witness to its importance. The majority of these books, however, is occupied with more or less original theories, which have httle or no claim to theological authority. Many of them, indeed, teach probation after death, or deny the doctrine of everlasting punish ment, and so plainly conflict with what is de fide in the teachings of the Church. In this place we shall simply discuss various opinions 343 344 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. To this three answers are possible : i. They sleep in unconscious slumber : An early heresy, revived in the Middle Ages among the Armenians ; and at the Reformation by the Anabap tists ; held by Luther ; and by the Irvingites.It has always been con demned by the Church, and is contrary to Holy Scrip ture. which have been held in the Church, and set forth those views which seem to be supported by the greatest authority. To the question, Where are the souls of the dead ? it is evident that for those who believe in a future life three answers are possible. First, these souls may pass the period between the moment of death and the. Day of Judgment in uncon scious slumber. Second, they may go direct to Heaven or to Hell. Third, they may enter an intermediate state of puri fication. The first opinion was taught by some heretical sects, called Thnetopsychita;, in the second and third cent uries. Tertullian and Origen called attention to this " soul-sleep," only to reject it. The doctrine has reappeared from time to time among individuals and among some sects, as the Armenians. Those who held it were called Psychopannychians or Hypnopsychitse. In the Reformation age the Anabaptists resuscitated this error, and Luther seems to have adopted it, at least in a modified form, for in a letter to Amsdorf, written in 1522, he says : "I am inclined to agree with you in the view that the souls of the righteous sleep, and do not know where they are until the Judg ment Day." In our own times we find a tendency among the Irvingites to hold this view. The Church has always condemned this opinion, and it is plainly contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. For if the soul continues in unconscious slumber until the Day of Judgment, how could the Penitent Thief know " to-day " that he was with Christ, and what consolation would there have been in our Lord's 'THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 345 promise, if both were unconscious ? (S. Luke xxiii. 43.) How could Dives recognize Lazarus, and think of his five brethren still living in the world ? (S. Luke xvi. 22 sqq. ) How could Christ preach to the spirits in prison (1 S. Pet. iii. 19), or how could the souls " under the altar ' ' have ' ' cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true," etc. ? (Rev. vi. 10.) This view is so untenable that it is amazing that thoughtful men could ever have adopted it. The second view, that all souls go directly to Heaven 2. au souls at or Hell, is held by the greater number of Protestants, ^^ ^°y to but it conflicts both with the teachings of Scripture and heaven or the conclusions of reason. For our Lord promised j"1?- the dying thief, " To-day shalt thou be with Me in flicts with both Paradise," but He did not ascend with His glorified Holy scripture Body into Heaven until forty-three days later. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we are told that the Saints of the Old Covenant ' ' received not the promise : God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect ' ' (Heb. xi. 39, 40). That is, they did not enter Heaven until by our Lord's triumph all humanity received the promise. Then again, this view seems to be contrary to the con- and reason ; elusions of reason, for we are told that nothing imperfect can enter Heaven, and that without holiness no man can see the Lord, and yet it is a matter of experience that the majority depart out of this life very imperfect. We must, therefore, either believe that death itself unless death (or something which takes place at the moment of "self has won- v ° r derful cleans- death) is the greatest of all Sacraments, and has power ing power. to work an instantaneous revolution in the condition of the soul, so that by its agency the soul is cleansed from all traces of sin ; or else we must condemn the 346 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. enormous majority of the human race to eternal per dition. It is true that some Protestants have supposed such a cleansing to be effected at the moment of death by a special application of the Precious Blood, but this view has no support in Holy Scripture or in the teach ing of the Church. Besides, death directly affects only the body, and although separating it from the soul, so far as we know it has no power to work any change in the soul. 3. souis not yet The only admissible opinion, therefore, is that the perfectatdeath SQuls f th faithful departed who are not yet perfect enter an inter- r t t J *- m mediate state enter an intermediate state of purification ; and this, in- of purification; deed is held b t]le immense maj0rity of Christians. this the view of J j j the great For although the Greek Church nominally does not majority of recognize an intermediate state, it practically regards Hell as including what the Westerns understand by Purgatory. Of this we shall treat later. And in the present day, even among the sects, we find an increasing tendency to believe in a Purgatory of some sort or other. For example, among the Lu therans Oertel, Rudloff, Rothe, Dorner, Kahnis, Mar tensen, Clausen, and others, while obliged by their own " confession of faith" to reject most of the teachings which make Purgatory reasonable, still hold that " the doctrine of Purgatory has a sound kernel which re mains after all that they consider to be shell has been removed." * 11. what is the If we now take the third opinion (that there is an relation of the intermediate state, in which the souls who have de- mtermediate . state to time parted this life in grace, but with the remains of sin, and space? are detained and purified) the first question that sug gests itself is, What is the relation of this state to time and space ? * Dahle, p. 212. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 347 Is there any time in the Intermediate State ? The answer to this must be certainly in the affirmative. A duration which has a beginning and an end is time, and these certainly are properties possessed by the In termediate State, for in the case of the individual it begins at his death, and in the case of all ends at or before the Judgment Day. Moreover, it runs parallel with the history of God's Kingdom on earth, which through all its course moves in time. It is, therefore, incorrect to say of the dead that they have entered into eternity, and Holy Scripture certainly never says so. It is not less certain that, so far as the Intermediate State is concerned, there is a warrant for speaking of space. Every creature, whether spirit or body, must necessarily occupy its distinct place in space. Only God is independent of space. Again, it is absolutely impossible to imagine any change which does not take place in both time and space. When anything is modified or altered in form its different parts necessarily come to occupy other po sitions in space than previously. We are quite ignorant regarding how much space a human soul requires, or with what celerity it moves from place to place, but this is a different question from the fact that such souls have a relation to space. Some people think that we have no warrant for speaking of the place of abode of disembodied souls, be cause their nature is supposed to exclude any determin ation of locality. This, however, is not so, and Scripture clearly shows it, for it speaks of the rich man seeing the soul of Lazarus " afar off" in Abraham's bosom, of Judas as going ' ' to his own place, ' ' and of our Lord as going to preach to the spirits " in prison." 348 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. III. Three views of the intermediatestate. i. The view of the Greek Church. i. The doctrine of the felonies or particular Judgment. Hence, in our discussion of the Intermediate State we shall assume that it has an existence in time and space. While a belief in an intermediate state is held by the great majority of Christians, and in some form or other by the whole Church, yet we find at least three distinct views in regard to it. There is first the view of the Greek Church. This is so peculiar and so little known in our Church that it may be useful to describe it at some length. In order to do so we must go back to the particular Judgment of the soul, which the Greek Church teaches in common with the rest of Catholic Christendom. The Western Church, as we have seen, asserts only the fact of the particular Judgment, and does not dog matize in regard to the details, its theologians giving as the most probable opinion that it is effected by an in ternal illumination of the mind, by which the soul sees itself, and clearly apprehends itself to be judged accord ing to its works. The Greek Church on the other hand elaborates a theory of judgment which is gener ally known as " the Telonies " (reXaovia), and which is found in substance in a sermon of S. Cyril of Alex andria on the Exodus of the Soul, ordinarily bound up in Greek prayer-books. This theory may be stated as follows. At the mo ment when the soul departs from the body it finds itself in the presence of two great armies of spirits, on the one side the hosts of the powers of light, on the other those of the powers of darkness, the evil spirits who rule this world. These hosts are the officers of the celestial custom house (reXooviov), to whom is committed the duty of examining and laying bare our works. At the sight THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 349 of these officers of Judgment the soul trembles, groans, and in consternation and affright seeks the protection of the Angels of God; but, although received and pro tected by the Holy Angels, it meets, in traversing ethereal space on its way heavenward, different felo nies, like barriers where merchandise is searched and duties exacted. These barriers obstruct the royal highway and arrest the soul in its flight. At each of these there is demanded of it an account of certain sins : at the first, of sins committed by the mouth and tongue ; at the second, of sins of sight ; at the third, of sins of hearing ; at the fourth, of sins of smell ; at the fifth, of all kinds of sins committed by the hands. At other barriers the examination discloses succes sively other sins, such as malice, hatred, envy, vanity, pride.' In a word, each passion, each sin has its own telony, its own officers and individual searchers. The good and evil Angels both assist at this examin ation. The good Angels search for the virtues of the soul, while the evil spirits examine it with respect to every kind of sin which man can commit. The scrutiny over, the soul is either condemned and loaded with fetters, or acquitted and its chains knocked off ; for each sin has its own special fetter. If the soul be justified, accompanied by the Holy Angels and freed from all further fear it wings its way direct to the Heavenly Kingdom. If, on the other hand, it be condemned, it hears a terrible voice, "Away with the wretch ! he shall not see the glory of the Lord " (Is. xxvi. 10, LXX. vers.). Abandoned by the Angels of God it is seized by frightful demons, and bound with everlasting chains it is precipitated into the regions of darkness. 350 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Three princi pal points of the Greek view. ii. Extracts from the Or thodox Con fession. From this Macarius draws the following conclusions. First, that the felonies represent the process by which all souls, whether good or evil, pass from this life to their eternal destination. Secondly, that in passing these different felonies the soul is examined with searching severity (and probably under the eye of the Judge Himself, from Whom no thing is hid) with respect to all its works done in the body, whether good or evil. Thirdly, that as a result of these examinations the holy souls, having successfully passed through all the scrutinies, are transported by the Angels of God to the joys of Paradise, while the souls of sinners, having been unable to endure the scrutiny in regard to some one or more sins, at the sentence of the Invisible Judge are dragged by the devils into their abode in Hell. Thus we see that the felonies are none other than the particular Judgment which our Lord Himself in visibly passes on the souls of men through the agency of the Holy Angels. To this He summons as accusers of the brethren the evil spirits, and it results in a definite condition being assigned to the soul. In the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogilas we are told that " neither the just nor the wicked receive the full recompense of their deeds before the final Judg ment, nor are they all in one state, nor limited to one place" ( Conf. Orth., Quest. 61). And again : " As the souls do not all go out of this life in the same degree of Divine grace, so neither after their departure are they in one and the same degree of happiness" (Quest. 62). " Of those who depart hence under the wrath of God, some after the last Judgment will be punished THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 35 1 with greater, some with lesser torments, but both will be without end " (Quest. 63). " Nevertheless it is certain that many sinners are freed from the chains of Hades, not by their own re pentance or confession, . . . but for the good works and alms of the living, and for the prayers of the Church made in their behalf, and chiefly for the sake of the Unbloody Sacrifice which the Church daily offers up for the living and the dead. . . . It is clear that after this separation the soul can no more perform penance, nor do any other works Whereby it might be freed from the chains of Hades ; therefore only the Sacrifices, the prayers and alms which are performed by the living, for their sakes, do comfort and greatly benefit the souls, and free them from the bonds of Hades " (Quest. 64). ' ' We are therefore taught by the Holy Scripture and the exposition of this Father [Theophylact] that we ought by all means to pray for the departed, to offer the Unbloody Sacrifice for them, and to dispense our alms with a liberal hand, seeing they can no more per form these good works for themselves " (Quest. 65). We are now in a position to form a tolerably accurate iii. Summary view of the teachings of the Greek Church in regard to °f the Greek the condition of souls after they depart from the body. We find that they hold a very elaborate theory of a particular Judgment at which Angels, both good and evil, assist, and that they teach that only those souls which are found to be entirely free from the stain of every sin are admitted into the presence of God in Heaven. They consign all other souls without distinction to Hell, to the place of torment, to the devil and his angels ; but they teach that there are certain of these souls which may be released from this place of torment, 352 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iv. The Greek view compared with the West ern theory of Purgatory.The differences are two : (i) As to the cause of the suffering ; (2) as to the manner of relief. Moral difficul ties of the Greek view. not by anything they can do or suffer themselves, but by the prayers and good works of their friends in the Church on earth. They do not teach that any soul can thus be freed from eternal punishment, but that only ' ' those who before leaving this present life have repented, but have not had time to ' bring forth fruits meet for repentance,' such as prayer, contrition, almsgiving, and other acts inspired by the love of God and of their neighbour, have still a possibility of obtaining an alleviation of their sufferings, and even a complete liberation from the chains of Hell."* This, of course, as Macarius admits, is practically the Western doctrine of Purgatory with some differences. These differences are chiefly in regard to the cause of the sufferings, and the manner in which those suffer ings are relieved. First, the Western doctrine represents the sufferings of Purgatory as the temporal punishment of sin, due to the Justice of God ; while the East makes the suffer ings depend upon the fact that while the soul began really to do penance, it had not time to complete its works of penance before God called it from earth. Secondly, the Western doctrine teaches that while all the souls in Purgatory sooner or later enter Heaven, they may be helped in their work of purification and satisfaction by the prayers of the Church on earth. The Easterns, however, teach that the soul must re main in Hell for eternity, unless it have the good for tune to be released by the prayers of its friends in the Church on earth. The comparison of the differences between the East ern and Western doctrines of Purgatory not only * Macarius, vol. II., p. 103. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 353 strongly inclines one to the Western view, but fills one with amazement that the Eastern Church can hold a doctrine so immoral and so derogatory to the Justice of God as that which is taught in their catechism and works of dogmatic theology. For in the first difference to which Macarius calls attention, the Easterns teach that the loss of the soul may be caused by God's calling it from this world be fore it had time to complete its works of penance, even though it has really turned to God in penitence ; thus making God responsible for the soul's loss by summon ing it before Him at a disadvantageous moment. The Westerns, on the other hand, teach that the moment of death is decided by the Love of God, and is the moment when it is best for each one to die. The soul turning to God in penitence, even at the very last moment of its life, will be saved, because God will give it the opportunity in Purgatory of completing what is left unfinished of its penitence. The second difference shows the Eastern doctrine to be still more immoral, for it makes the salvation of one who has begun to repent, but has had the misfortune to die before completing his works of penance, depend, not on God's Justice or Mercy, but on the condition that some charitably disposed friends on earth offer prayers and Masses for him. If, however, he does not happen to have any such friends, then he must, apparently, be lost for eternity ; except in so far as the prayers which the Church offers for all the souls in torment may be applied to his case. As Moehler remarks in his Symbolik, the doc- Purgatory trine of Purgatory flows necessarily from right views ^ °™* nf^m" of God's essential Justice and of the method by which right views of He justifies man. justification. 354 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Rejected by I^uther, be cause in con flict with his theory of im puted justice. The Easterns reject it rather in theory than in practice. 2. The view of those who deny that the souls of the saints are in Heaven. i. Not a modern error; Pope John XXII. its most celebratedadherent. Luther rejected the doctrine of Purgatory because, with his theory of righteousness imputed by a legal .fiction to a sinner who was altogether unrighteous, there could be no need of purification; since the con dition of the sinner's entrance into Heaven (where, according to revelation, nothing unholy or imperfect can enter) was not that he should be holy, but that the merits of Christ should be imputed to him. The Easterns, on the other hand, while teaching that the soul must indeed be made holy before entering Heaven, reject in terms, (though perhaps not so much in practice,) any possibility of the sinner's making satisfaction by temporal suffering to the Justice of God. And although they require, fully as much as the Westerns, worthy fruits of penitence, and teach that souls may be lost for lack of them, yet they are unable to assign any adequate reason why these fruits of penitence should be so essential. The next view of the Intermediate State which claims our attention is one which is held in the present day, chiefly by a small body of men who may be said to constitute a school in the Anglican Communion. Starting from the assumption that no souls can pass into Heaven, that is, into the Beatific Vision, before the Day of Judgment, they call the Intermediate State " Paradise," and in it place all the faithful dead. They divide it into departments, so to speak, to some assigning the greatest Saints, to others those who are only just saved, but allowing to none the sight of the Beatific Vision until after the Day of Judgment. This is not a modern error ; indeed, there have been traces of it in almost all ages ; but it was reserved for a Bishop of Rome, Pope John XXII., who died in the year 1334, to promulgate it in the form of a definite THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 355 doctrine. On All Saints' Day, 1331, Pope John XXII. History of the preached a sermon in which he said that the Saints controversy. would not enjoy the Beatific Vision of the Holy Trinity until after the Last Day. This sermon cre ated a great stir among theologians, and the Pope ear nestly pressed his side of the question, labouring to influence the opinion of divines by heaping preferment on those who agreed with him. At the beginning his old Franciscan opponents Mi chael of Cesena, Bona Gratia, and William of Occam eagerly raised the cry of heresy, and the celebrated Durandus a S. Porciano, with many others, joined them. The doctrine was opposed by the Dominicans, and the Italian cardinals threatened to bring the Pope before a general council. The question was preferred by Philip of Valois, King of France, before the theological faculty of Paris. The doctrine was condemned by the Doctors of the Sor bonne, who, however, suggested that perhaps the Pope might have propounded it only by way of a doubt or difficulty, and this loophole was eagerly used by John, who declared that he had only intended to state the opinion, not to decide in favour of it. There was little doubt, however, that he continued to hold it, and the excitement burst out afresh. At last on his deathbed John was brought (chiefly, it is said, by the urgency of his nephew Cardinal Bertrand de Poyet) to profess the Catholic doctrine that ' ' purged souls, being separated from their bodies, are in the Kingdom of Heaven and Paradise ; that they see God face to face, and clearly behold the Divine Essence, in so far as the condition of separate souls permits." * The story of the retractation has, however, been ques- *Mansi, XXV. 569 ; Baron., Annal, torn. XXIV., p. 485. 356 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. ii. Three objections to the Catholic view. (i) The first objection, that the soul without the body can not enter heaven, is a mere assumption, conflicting¦with the teaching of the Church, tioned. * John died the day after having made this declaration, at the age of ninety years. If, therefore, the adherents of this view are unable, as we hope to show, to support it by Scriptural testi mony, they can at least claim for it the authority of a Pope of doubtful orthodoxy. The holders of this opinion that the Saints are not now enjoying the Beatific Vision, and that Paradise is really Purgatory, object to the Catholic view on three grounds. First, that the soul without the body cannot enter Heaven, because without the body the soul is imper fect, and nothing imperfect can enter there. Secondly, that if the Saints are in Heaven, this renders the Judgment of the Last Day purposeless. And thirdly, that our Lord said to the thief on the cross : " Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise," thus showing that Paradise is the Intermediate State. We will consider these ob jections in order. To the objection, that the soul without the body cannot enter Heaven, because it is imperfect, three replies may be made. First, that the soul does not depend for its perfection upon the body. The proposition would be true if it asserted that human nature is imperfect without the body ; and both the Eastern and Western Churches recognize and teach that there is an increment of hap piness and glory after the Last Day, when the body, reunited to the soul, shares its bliss in Heaven. Secondly, it is de fide that the souls of the Saints are in Heaven, since it is taught alike by the East and the West. *Giesel., II. iii. 61. considered. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 357 Thirdly, Holy Scripture shows us that there are and with Holy souls in Heaven. scripture: For, first, S. John tells us that he saw in Heaven "four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white Rev. iv. 4; raiment ; and they had on their heads crowns of gold ' ' (Rev. iv. 4). And again, in the next chapter he tells us that these elders ' ' sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to Rev. v. 9. take the book, and to open the seals thereof : for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood" (Chap. v. 9). Some commentators take these twenty -four elders as objections to representing symbolically the twenty-four books of the Old Testament. But this interpretation is full of diffi culty, for the books of the Old Testament, even if we confine them to the protocanonical books, are not twenty-four, but thirty-nine. And if it be arbitrarily claimed (as is sometimes done) that the four major prophets and the twelve minor prophets together form but two books, it may be replied that there is much more reason for counting the first and second books of Samuel as one book, or the first and second of Kings, or of Chronicles, since in each case they had but one author, while in the case of the prophets there were no less than sixteen different authors. There are, however, far more serious difficulties to be met by the supporters of this interpretation. For while it is not easy to understand the symbolism by which the books of the Old Testament are clothed in white raiment and have on their heads crowns of gold, it seems absolutely impossible to conceive that they can describe themselves as redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb. The conclusion, therefore, seems to follow necessarily 358 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Rev. vi. 9-11. (2) Answer to the second ob jection, that the Catholic view renders thejudgment at the Last Day purposeless. that human souls, and human souls only, can here be meant, inasmuch as it was for them alone (so far as we know) that Christ died. Some, however, would answer to this that the Book of Revelation is largely prophetical, and that what S. John saw was to take place in the future. This does not affect the argument very much. Even if the scene be prophetical, it comes in any case before the Day of Judgment, which S. John describes towards the end of the Book of Revelation ; and the whole con tention of those who hold the opinion we are discussing is that no souls can enter Heaven until after they have been reunited to their bodies, that is, until the Last Day. If we pass to the next chapter we have an even stronger statement, for there S. John says : " I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held : and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ? And white robes were given unto every one of them ' ' (Chap. vi. 9-1 1). Here S. John distinctly says that he saw the souls of the martyrs, to whom white robes were given. The second objection which we have to meet is that, if the Saints are in Heaven, the general Judgment is purposeless. The reply to this is that it is at the particular Judg ment, at the moment of death, that the state of the soul is forever settled. This is the teaching of both East and West, and is made evident by our Lord's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where the rich man is already in torments — in Hell, for Abraham says, " Be- THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 359 tween us and you there is a great gulf fixed," and that it cannot be passed, which would not be true of any view of Purgatory. And further, the purpose of the general Judgment would seem to be, not so much the decision of the destiny of the soul, as the manifestation of God's Justice to all the world. This, however, will be more fully con sidered when we treat of the subject of the general Judgment. The third and last objection which the holders of (3) Answer to this opinion advance is drawn from our Lord's words ^heUurdob- r # jection, drawn to the Penitent Thief upon the cross. The thief said, fromthewords " Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy ofourI<0]p . to the penitent Kingdom. And JESUS said unto him, Verily I say thief. unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise ' ' (S. Luke xxiii. 42, 43). Here there seems at first sight to be some ground for thinking that Paradise must be the Intermediate State, and not Heaven ; since our Lord on the next day was in the place of departed spirits, and did not ascend into Heaven until forty-three days later. The explanation seems to be that Paradise is to be with Christ. The promise to the thief was not merely that he should be in Paradise, but " be with Me in Paradise." And when our Lord rose from the dead He broke asunder the bars of death and brought forth the "prisoners of hope," taking them with Him to Heaven. Some even suppose that the cloud which at the Ascension received Him out of sight consisted of the souls of the patriarchs of the Old Covenant, ascending with Him. And if to be in Paradise is to be with Christ, Paradise must be the same as Heaven, since our Lord is locally there, and there only. S. Paul speaks of being " caught up to the Third 3<5o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. S. Paul's use of the word Paradise. iii. The Catho lic view accords with Holy Scripture.Our LORD locally in Heaven only. The theory of the ubiquity of His Humanity a Lutheran heresy. Further Scrip ture proof: 2 Cor. v. 8 ; Phil. l. 23 ; Heaven ' ' and being ' ' caught up into Paradise " (2 Cor. xii. 2 and 4), where the terms " Paradise " and " the Third Heaven ' ' are generally, considered synonymous, and Paradise certainly to imply the Vision of God. And we must remember that no text of Holy Scripture, referring to the condition of the Saints of the Old Testament before our Lord's Ascension, can fairly be applied to the condition of the Saints since that event. Having now shown that these three objections are unscriptural, let us point out how exactly in accord with Holy Scripture is the Catholic view that the Saints are in Heaven. At the risk of repetition it must be emphatically as serted that it is defide that our Lord is locally sitting at the right hand of God the Father in Heaven, and is locally there only. Even His Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, while absolutely real, is a sacra mental Presence, and supralocal. And while the sub stance of the Divinity is omnipresent, we must bear in mind that the Sacred Humanity of our Lord is not ubiquitous ; the theory of its ubiquity being a Lutheran heresy, formally condemned. With this statement let us examine some additional texts which throw light on the condition of the Saints. (1) " We are confident . . . and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord " (2 Cor. v. 8). Here, to be absent from the body is evidently equivalent to being present with the Lord ; and we have a similar expression in the words ' ' Having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ ; which is far better " (Phil. i. 23). We have shown that Christ is only in Heaven. ''To be with Christ," therefore, must mean " to be in Heaven." THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 361 (2) In Phil. ii. 10 we have the statement that " at pmi. h. 10; the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," and in Rev. v. 13 the song of the Lamb is Rev. v. 13. uttered by " every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth." In both these passages, written by different Apostles, we have the same threefold division of the Church, under exactly the same terms, in Heaven, in earth, and under the earth — representing the Church Tri umphant in Heaven, which consists of the Angels and the blessed Saints ; the Church Militant on earth ; and under the earth the Church Expectant. It is quite impossible to refer the phrase ' ' under the earth ' ' to the devils, as some (though very few) have attempted to do ; because the devils will not join in the triumph-song of the Lamb, and this is distinctly said of those under the earth. " Under the earth," then, is a description of the In termediate State, where the holy souls are waiting until their purification is accomplished and they are made perfect. Heaven is the place where ' ' the spirits of just men made perfect," that is, of the Saints, behold the Vision of God. If we turn from the testimony of the Bible to that of iV. The teach the Fathers of the Church, the evidence on the Catholic in* of the ... , , . Fathers. side is overwhelming. 0my four The only writers who seem to question the fruition writers of of the Saints are Tertullian, Victorinus, Bishop of toquestionitm Pettau, Lactantius, and perhaps Irenseus. But Ter tullian was a heretic ; of Victorinus, S. Jerome says he was unlearned ; and of Lactantius, Bishop Bull states that he was more of a rhetorician than a theologian, and that his want of learning led him into serious and the Catholic view. 362 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. absurd errors. Indeed, we generally find him on the wrong side in theological questions. Authorities for On the other side we have Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Eusebius, John Damascene, Theophylact, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Anselm, Bernard, and many others. s. Gregory the Let us quote from one. We find in the Dialogues tSsubjectin3 °f S' Gre&°ry the Great (b°°k IV-> chaP" XXV0- the his Dialogues, following. The pupil Peter says : " I am well pleased at what you say ; but I would gladly know whether before the Resurrection of the flesh the souls of the just are received into Heaven ? " S. Gregory replies : ' ' We can neither affirm nor deny this of the souls of the just en masse. For there are souls of the righteous kept out of the heavenly king dom, for what reason, except that they are not yet per fected ! But nevertheless, it is clearer than day (luce clarius constat) that the souls of just men made perfect after that they are delivered from their carnal prisons are immediately received to their heavenly places. Which the very Truth Himself attests when He saith, ' wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together, ' because where our Redeemer Him self is in Body, there without any doubt will the souls of the just be gathered together. "Moreover, Paul desired to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Whoever then does not doubt that Christ is in Heaven, neither let him deny that the soul of Paul is in Heaven (esse in ccelo neget)." It would be difficult to find anything more unanswerable or more to the point. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 363 In conclusion we may observe that the practice of v. The incon- the supporters of the view we are now discussing is S1f!ency of ihe better than their theory, as they would probably have the " Para- no hesitation in singing on All Saints' Day the glorious dise" theory hymn of Bishop Wordsworth (A. and M., No. 436) : tain hymns. " Now they reign in heavenly glory, now they walk in golden light, Now they drink, as from a river, holy bliss and infinite ; Love and peace they taste forever, and all truth and know ledge see In the Beatific Vision of the Blessed Trinity." And also Hymn No. 234 : " O Paradise ! O Paradise ! Who doth not crave for rest ? Who would not seek the happy land Where they that loved are blest ; Where loyal hearts and true Stand ever in the light, All rapture through and through In God's most holy sight ? " It is not a little inconsistent for those who would make Paradise to be practically the same as Purgatory, to sing such words as these, and yet we never hear any objections to their use in the services of the Church. In the dense ignorance of the early days of the a cause of the Catholic Revival there was great need to plead for the ad°pt;°n of . . .... this view by recognition of an intermediate state in which there was some of the some sort of purification or development. In order, Ttactarians. however, to avoid offense and to gain adherents to such a doctrine it was important to make it differ as much as possible from the teaching of the Church of Rome, and hence the distinction was loudly insisted on, — that it was not the doctrine of Purgatory but of that the saints are in Heaven. 364 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Paradise which was taught, and that the word, ' ' Paradise ' ' was to be found in the Bible, although, as we have shown, not quite in the sense in which it is used by the advocates of this theory. vi. summary We may sum up our examination of this opinion by fo^andagafnst saying that it is not the teaching of the English Church this view. in any of her formularies, nor of her earlier theologians; nor is it the teaching of the Roman Church, nor of the Greek Church, nor of the Protestant schismatics, but only of a comparatively small body of men, headed by Pope John XXII. ; and though in a sense it may thus be called Papal, it is certainly not scriptural, and con tradicts the explicit teaching of both East and West. it is "defide" It must be clearly understood, however, that the point which we are discussing now is only whether the Saints are in Heaven, and that in saying that their present enjoyment of the Beatific Vision is defide we are not including under this term any views whatever in regard to the Intermediate State. 3. The faithful In regard, then, to the souls of the faithful departed, departed are theology divides them into two classes. divided into . two classes: First, the blessed Saints, who have been made per- the blessed fect and have attained to the Beatific Vision (although saints in v & heaven; — as S. Thomas and others point out — after the Resur rection there will be for these an increment of their bliss, when the glorified body is reunited to the soul). and the holy Secondly, the holy souls, who, having died in Christ, but not yet being made perfect, are in a state of purifi cation or purgation. objection to There are many who, while quite accepting the fact this term ; ^^ & souj whjcll jt o teaching of the more than a year after our Articles were set forth by Roman church the Synod in their present form, and more than ten on this subject. years after the Article had been drafted in its original form. It is therefore not too much to say that by no con- No protest ceivable process of reasoning can it be concluded that asamst the r ° . presentRoman our Article refers to a decree which was not in existence doctrine, and * Cone. Trident., sess. xxv. 366 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. some doctrine of Purgatory is demanded by the language of the Article. What was the "Romish" doctrineagainst which Art. xxii. is directed ? Bp. Forbes describes it. when it was written. Further, in protesting against " the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory " the very words imply that there was a doctrine of Purgatory against which the Article did not protest. A Protestant would protest against the Romish Church ; an infidel against the Church. The Protest ant, by his protest against ' ' the Romish Church, ' ' im plies his belief in some other Church ; the infidel, in protesting against ' ' the Church ' ' without any limiting adjective, protests against Christianity altogether. So, surely, if language means anything, is this the case in our Article. The protest against what it terms ' ' the Romish doctrine ' ' leaves untouched a doctrine which is not the Romish. If we ask, then, what was this ' ' Romish doctrine ' ' against which the Article was directed, it is not at all difficult to answer the question. It was a mediaeval corruption which was thought to invalidate the power of the Passion of Christ, which led to the most scandal ous abuses, and against which the decree of the Council of Trent was as true a protest as our Article ; for we must remember that the Council of Trent did effect very great reforms in the Roman Church. As Bishop Forbes, in his work on the Thirty- Nine Articles, remarks: " The doctrine of Purgatory, against which the Article excepts, is that which is made patent to the eye of every traveller as he passes from Germany into Italy. The wayside shrines which so edify him still continue, but the subjects are changed. In the place of the affecting representation of the sufferings of the Eternal Son . . . which speak[s] to the soul of the wayfarer, terrible representations of the holy souls in flames appal him . . . appealing for a few pence to the awakened sympathies of the passers by." THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 367 The popular doctrine thus symbolized prevailed in England at the time of the Reformation and probably had come in the case of most men to take the place of a living faith in the eternal pains of Hell. It was also largely mingled with interested motives on the part of the Clergy. There was a shameful traffic in Masses for these souls, and men fancied that by leaving money to the Church at the hour of death, and at the expense of their heirs, they might purchase miti gation or exemption from pains which in degree, though not in duration, were said to equal the pains of Hell. Very different from this is the wise reserve of the The wise definition of Trent on this mysterious subject. It «serveof , r>- , , ¦ r ¦ r ¦ ¦ 1 Trent on this simply affirms that there is a state of purification, with- subject. out attempting to dogmatize on it, and adds : " Let the itsdenuncia- more difficult and subtle questions, and those which t'onofthe ^ ' "Romish" tend not to edification and from which, for the most same part, there is no increase of piety, be excluded from doctrine. popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. But those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandalous and stumbling- blocks of the faithful." * Are not these words quite as strong a protest as our Article ? There are some who in their blind prejudice against everything that is Roman shut their eyes to these and many equally excellent teachings of the Council of Trent, which was for the Roman Church truly a reformation. Such prejudice, however, is surely not Christian, nor is it a mark of faith in the strength of one's own position to refuse to examine fairly the authoritative teaching on the other side, and to admit what is true and good in it. * Cone. Trident., sess. xxv. 368 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. IV. The doc trine of Purga tory consid ered. I. Its relation to the doctrine of justifica tion. The method of justifica tion. Sin has two effects, guilt and penalty. By infusion of grace,the guilt is removed and the eternal punishmentremitted. The payment of this "debt ' called "satis faction." We are now in a position to approach the considera tion of the third view, which is the Western dogma of Purgatory. This, as we have already intimated, is not an isolated doctrine, but flows from the Catholic teaching of justi fication, of which it will be well to give a brief review. The Catholic doctrine of j ustification starts from a real belief in God's essential Justice and Holiness. Such a belief requires that in justifying man God should really make man what He declares him to be, just and holy. The method by which this justification is effected is the imparting of the righteousness of Christ through the Sacraments ; that is, the bestowal through this in strumentality of the gift of sanctifying grace. This act, however, involves the co-operation of the will of man, who must appropriate the gift through the exer cise of a living faith, thus implying other necessary dispositions. Sin always has two effects : guilt or the alienation of the soul from God, and penalty or punishment. The imparting of the righteousness of Christ or the infusion of grace blots out the guilt of sin, and remits the eternal punishment which is due to sin. But in the case of sin committed after Baptism sanctifying grace, while it removes the guilt and remits the eternal penalty, still leaves a debt of temporal punishment to be paid by the sinner. The payment of this debt is called in theology ' ' satisfaction, ' ' * and is the third part of penitence. *The relation of this satisfaction to the "full, perfect, and sufficient " satisfaction which our Lord made upon the Cross is treated at length in Volume I„ pp. 196-201, to which the reader is referred. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 369 This temporal penalty, which remains after the guilt The debt must of sin has been removed by penitence, is paid either *Kn«1itiiis in this life, or in Purgatory. It is paid most readily in life, or in this life, because, the will being free, actions done Pursatory. through the grace of Christ are meritorious. In Pur gatory, however, there can be no merit, because, the will being fixed in perfect conformity to God's Will, there can be no possibility of temptation or sin. Hence, while we are in this life we have the power of making satisfaction (salisfaciendi) to the Justice of God. In Purgatory, however, we have only the power of suffering (satispatiendi) that Justice. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, au that is all that is absolutely necessary for justification or salva- abso}^V17 tion is a perfect act of contrition. This, however, in- salvation is an volves certain consequences and fruits, having regard actofcontri- to the sinner's knowledge and opportunity. Among these consequences may be reckoned paying but this in- the temporal penalty of sin, the eternal penalty having volves certain . ... T , r\ • r- i results. been remitted through our Lord s Sacrifice on the Cross. This temporal penalty, as we have said, must ordi narily be paid either in this hfe, or in Purgatory ; al though in some exceptional cases it may perhaps be remitted by the ardor caritatis. Hence we see that a belief in Purgatory is a necessary consequence of the Catholic doctrine of justification. We may now ask, What is Purgatory ? Purgatory 2. what is is a place and state in which the souls of the holy dead Purs:atory? who have departed this life with some traces of sin remaining or with some temporal penalties still due are detained and suffer until, the remains of sin being removed and the debt paid, they are prepared to enter Heaven. 37o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Distinguish between what is essential, and what speculative in this doctrine. 3. Three effects of Purgatory : in regard to venial sin, evil habits, temporal penalty. 4. Three properties of the holy souls : they are con firmed in grace ; are conformed to GOD'S Will ; cannot merit. Here we may distinguish between what is essential in the doctrine of Purgatory, and what is mere matter of opinion. Two points are essential : that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained can be helped by the prayers and good works of the Church on earth. All else belongs to the realm of speculative theology, and is therefore only matter of theological opinion. The remains or stains of sin which are removed in Purgatory have been thought to be of three kinds. First, venial sins which have not been remitted in this life, and these, according to S. Thomas and Suarez, are completely removed by a perfect act of love and contrition, made in the first moment after death. Second, evil habits, which are likewise expelled im mediately after death by acts of the opposite virtues. Third, temporal punishment, which cannot be re moved by meriting, or satisfying the Justice of God, since the time of merit has now passed ; but by en durance, or by the suffrages of the faithful on earth. The holy souls in Purgatory have three properties. First, they are confirmed in grace ; so that there can be no further increase in grace, since God has given them all grace. Some, however, have thought that as the capacity for grace is increased by the removal of the remains of sin, more grace flows into the soul. Secondly, they are perfectly conformed to the Will of God ; that is, they cannot have one thought or wish contrary to God's Will. Thirdly, they cannot merit, because they can no longer sin. Merit depends upon our having power to choose good or evil. In Purgatory there is no evil possible ; therefore the souls in Purgatory cannot merit, and because they cannot merit they cannot help THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 37 1 themselves, but must depend upon the suffrages of the Church on earth. In regard to the sufferings of Purgatory nothing 5. Two views of is certainly de fide, but there are two views among ^pu"ffa™ss. theologians. The one, which chiefly prevailed in the middle ages, i. The medi- dwelt upon the severe aspect of Purgatory and seemed ffivalview; to delight in exaggerating its pains. The other (which may, perhaps, be traced to S. a. that of s. Catharine of Genoa's celebrated treatise on Purgatory) QenoTa'nd0 has rather dwelt upon the joys and consolations of s. Francis de the holy souls in their preparation for Heaven, and is SaIes' probably best known through the writings of S. Francis de Sales. To the exaggerations of the earlier school undoubt edly are due many of the abuses connected with the doctrine of Purgatory, against which both our Article and the Council of Trent protested. S. Catharine of Genoa, who died in the year 15 10, s. Catharine says : " It would be impossible to find any joy com- of Genoa's , , , . . . opinion. parable to that of a soul in Purgatory (except the joy of the Blessed in Paradise), a joy which goes on in creasing day by day as God more and more flows in upon the soul, which He does abundantly in proportion as every hindrance to His entrance is consumed away." Again she writes : ' ' The souls in Purgatory, having their wills perfectly conformed to the Will of God, and hence partaking of His Goodness, remain satisfied with their condition, which is one of entire freedom from the guilt of sin." When the question is asked, in what the purification 6. Nature of of Purgatory consists, one must remember that in re- the sufferings gard to this very little has been revealed. First, it seems certain that the holy souls suffer the damni Poena 372 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. ii. " Pcena sensus " only an opinion. iii. Duration of Purgatory. 7. Consola tions of Purgatory. pain of loss (poena damni), since for a time they are shut out from the Vision of God. Of the greatness of this suffering we can form but a slight conception. The holy souls know the beauty and glory of God, and long with all the intensity possible to their nature for the time when they can enjoy the Beatific Vision ; and yet so earnestly do they desire to be entirely cleansed from every trace of sin that they would not hasten that time by one moment. Secondly, it is commonly taught that in Purgatory the souls also suffer pain of sense (pcena sensus), and some speak of the fires of Purgatory. Many theolo gians, however, hold that this does not mean material fire, since it is difficult to understand how an imma terial substance can be affected by material fire, and the tendency in the present day is to consider this an open question. Thirdly, of the duration of Purgatory nothing, of course, can be known. In each case it must depend upon the spiritual condition of the soul. But when the soul has been freed from all stain of sin and has paid the debt of temporal punishment, it at once enters Heaven and attains to the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. Purgatory, too, is not without its consolations, for the holy souls detained there rejoice in the knowledge that they are pleasing to God. It is generally sup posed that the Angels, especially their Guardian Angels, are with them, ministering to them and help ing them. The holy souls have, too, the knowledge that the Saints are praying for them, and they are also helped by the prayers of the faithful on earth. There is, moreover, a consolation which comes from God Himself, Who inspires the holy souls with a high THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 373 degree of faith and hope and love — virtues which pro duce perfect conformity to God's Will, and therefore perfect resignation and patience. In conclusion it may be remarked, without going v. conclusion. into its history, that a belief in Purgatory is of very '• Antiq.uity of great antiquity. purgatory. Inscriptions are constantly found in the Catacombs i. Testimony containing prayers for the refreshment of the souls of ^n^gCata' the dead, which certainly imply a belief that they are in suffering. We find also in all the most ancient liturgies, both a. and early of the East and the West, similar prayers for the repose hturgies- and refreshment of the soul. The doctrine of Purgatory, moreover, like all the 2. it removes dogmas of the Catholic Faith, is commended to us by t'ro ***?*¦ . ° ' -" stumblmg- lts reasonableness, since it removes two of the great blocks in re- stumbling-blocks in the way of our conception of the gard to G0D'S _ Providence : Justice of God. For if two men die, one of whom has ,. The saiva- lived the life of a saint and spent his whole strength in tion of two God's service and in doing good to his neighbour, wm,mhas while the other has neglected God, committed griev- lived a godly ous sin and lived a life of selfish indulgence, and yet foson'w' at the last has turned to God in penitence, and has turned to god been forgiven, as all are who repent, — if these two men are immediately to enter Heaven, and to receive the same reward, our ideas of God's Justice are outraged, and such a doctrine seems to offer a premium on leav ing repentance to the moment of death. If, however, we accept the Catholic doctrine of Purga tory, the difficulty is removed ; for this doctrine is founded on God's absolute Justice and infinite Mercy. His Mercy is so great that He will pardon the guilt of sin, even upon the deathbed, if there be true repent ance ; but His Justice demands satisfaction and requires at the last ; 374 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. ii. the un- that the penalty of sin should be endured. And since in the latter case this cannot be in this life, the debt must be paid in Purgatory. Besides, suffering is not only punitive, but remedial. A man who has lived a life of sin has been weakened in various parts of his nature by that sin, and though God forgives its guilt, His forgiveness does not at once remove the weakness. God's forgiveness bestows grace ; and suffering, borne in the power of that grace, to a great extent effects the restoration of the moral nature. Then again, the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory re- the equal distribu- moves -what to many is a still greater difficulty, tionof suffer- .,..,.-. f _ . , .... unequal distribution of pain and suffering in this life ing in this life. The teaching of the Church alone meets these diffi culties. The thought is often forced upon one, Why does this good man have so much to suffer, while that wicked man is so prosperous and happy ? The man who has striven all his life to serve God often meets with much trial and sorrow and pain, while the sinner goes down to his grave almost without a day's suffer ing. Even in the act of dying the earnest Christian has, perhaps, a most painful death, while the godless man dies in seeming peace. How can this be reconciled with the Justice of God ? If we take the ordinary Protestant view that every one who has repented goes directly to Heaven when he dies, it seems impossible to offer any solution of this difficulty. But, if we accept the teaching of the Church, the difficulty disappears ; for we learn that suffering — far from being an evil — is one of the greatest blessings of life, and we see that by it the earnest Christian is sanctified and made ready for Heaven. The godless and wicked man, however, has no suffering, because THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 375 in his spiritual state suffering would do him no good, and God does not send suffering unnecessarily. Such a man's pain may be in another world ; if he repent at the last, in Purgatory ; if not, in eternity. CHAPTER XV. PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. Introductory : Prayers for the dead follow from a belief in Purgatory, and in the Communionof Saints. The term "Saints." The HOLY GHOST, the life-blood of the mystical Body of CHRIST, effects the unity of all the members. A BELIEF that the souls of the faithful departed in the Intermediate State are being purified by suffering necessarily leads to the Christian prac tice of prayers for the dead. This practice, indeed, also follows naturally from an intelligent belief in that article of the Creed in which we profess our faith in the Communion of Saints. In the widest sense, the Saints are all those who are living members of the Body of Christ. In a more re stricted sense, by the Saints we mean those only who have been made perfect and so have attained to the Beatific Vision. But, when we say we believe in the Communion of Saints, we use the word Saints in the former sense. The Body of Christ, like all living bodies, has a system of circulation throughout all its members, and its life-blood, so to speak, is the Holy Ghost. As it is the special office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify the elect, so we may think of the Blessed Spirit of God as circulating through all the members of Christ's Body, and thus joining them together into that unity of which S. Paul speaks when he says : " We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another " (Rom. xii. 5). Our Lord in speaking of the relation of the believer 376 PR A YERS FOR THE DEAD. 377 to Himself likens it to the union of the branch with the vine. (S. John xv. 5.) We may draw a similar illustration from a tree, ThisMus- which has, roughly speaking, three parts : the roots tra*ed ^y *he beneath the earth, which we cannot see, but which are an essential part of the tree ; the trunk, which we can both see and touch ; and far above us, the topmost boughs, pointing heavenward ; but throughout the whole tree the same sap circulates, supplying life to thesapch-cu- everypart. lating through r every part ; So in the Body of Christ, the Church, there are so, in the Body within the apprehension of the eye of faith the Blessed of christ, . . . . . , , . _. . - all the metn- Samts in Heaven ; in a place which both S. Paul and bers are joined S. John describe as " under the earth," but not beyond together bythe the reach of Christian Charity, the souls of the holy °he holy° dead ; and within the sphere of our senses our fellow- ghost. Christians on earth ; all bound together in the unity of the same Spirit, the Holy Ghost, by His circula tion through every member, so that each part of Christ's Body, the Church, is brought into living re lationship with every other part. And this unity involves a fellowship of interest, and This unity in- therefore of prayer, so that " whether one member ™ives a feiiow- r J . ship of interest suffer, all the members suffer with it ; or one member and prayer. be honoured, all the members rejoice with it " (1 Cor. xii. 26). We pray for one another in the Church Militant on earth ; we pray for those members who are suffering in the Church Expectant under the earth ; and we re joice in the honour of those members who have already attained the Beatific Vision in Heaven. It is quite inconceivable that this fellowship can Quite incon- temporarily cease in the case of the holy dead. If the celvable that it n 1 1 can tempo- Sap ceases to flow into any branch of a tree, that rariiy cease in 378 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. the case of the holy dead. I. Evidence for the practice. i. The in stincts of natu ral piety. a. The witness of almost all religions. 3. Its place among the Jews. Belief in a future life among the Jews : testimony of Job; the case of Enoch ; branch withers and dies; and so it would be incon ceivable and unutterably selfish to teach that in our prayers we were only to concern ourselves with those members of the Church who are still on earth. Not only does the doctrine of the Communion of Saints necessarily require prayers for the dead, but the instincts of natural piety make the same demand ; and when we realize that those instincts were implanted in us by God, they become a very strong witness to the Divine authority of the practice which they teach. We find the practice of prayer for the dead in some form or other almost universal amongst mankind, and especially that it had its place in the religion of the Jews. While it is true that in the earlier part of the history of the Jewish people the doctrine of a future life did not occupy a prominent place, yet it is quite untrue that it was not recognized amongst them, and that from the very beginning. Not only have we the testimony of the patriarch Job on behalf of the resurrection of the body, — which indi cates how vastly superior was the knowledge of the patriarchs to that which existed amongst the most elevated of heathen philosophers, — " I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth : and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God : Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall be hold, and not another ' ' (Job xix. 25-27), but even before the Flood, we are told, " Enoch walked with God : and he was not ; for God took him (Gen. v. 24), and the comment on this in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 5, 6) amplifies and gives point to the simple tes timony of Moses. PR A YERS FOR THE DEAD. 379 The Book of Ecclesiastes, also, speaks of ' ' the spirit teaching of of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast Ecclesiastes that goeth downward to the earth" (Eccles. iii. 21), xu. 7; and says that at death, " then shall the dust return to the earth as it was : and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it (xii. 7). The account, too, of Samuel's appearance to Saul the case of and prophecy of Saul's death is another instance of a Samuel- behef in a future life. So that we may assert without hesitation that this doctrine was held by the Jews from the beginning, although it was not until later years that it seems to have been practically developed. We have evidence, however, that in the second cent- Prayer for the ury before Christ prayer for the dead was regarded dead "J thf . x ° case of Judas as a pious practice among the Jews, for we read that Maccabams ; Judas Maccabseus, after a battle in which many had 2Maccxli- been slain, gathered ' ' throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver ' ' and ' ' sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resur rection : for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin ' ' (2 Mace. xii. 43-45). Although this book is deuterocanonical, its evidence to the existence of the practice of prayers for the dead is unassailable ; and at the present day prayers for the dead have a prominent place in the Jewish ritual, and some of the forms used are said to be as old as the time of our Lord. Probably the reason why we find so little direct 43-45- 38o CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 4. The New Testament. The argument from silence applied to Holy Scripture. Example of S. Paul. Ancient inter pretations of S. Matt. v. 26 and xii. 32. 5. Testimony of the Cata combs, reference to this practice in the New Testament is that it was universally prevalent, and unless our Lord had desired to abolish it as erroneous, there was no need of any injunction with regard to it. If there had been anything evil about prayer for the dead we must feel quite sure that our Lord would have denounced it, as he did divorce and other corrupt practices which had arisen amongst the Jews. It may be said to be enjoined in S. Paul's exhortation that ' ' supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men " (i S. Tim. ii. i); since we can scarcely exclude the holy dead from the scope of this universal command. S. Paul himself evidently prays for the soul of Onesiphorus when he says : ' ' The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus ; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. . . . The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day " (2 S. Tim. i. 16, 18). From the mention in this verse, and again in chap. iv. 19, of the household of Onesiphorus, it seems quite clear that Onesiphorus himself was not alive at that time. Some refer S. Matt. v. 26 and xii. 32 to the Inter mediate State, and certainly the authority of ancient interpretation is favourable to the first of these texts being used in this way; an interpretation which at least shows strong conviction as to the lawfulness of the practice. But inasmuch as the practice of prayer for the dead is universal in every part of the Christian Church, it is not necessary to dwell further on its scriptural recognition. We find in the Roman Catacombs many inscriptions which bear testimony to this practice, and it has been said that there was no liturgy in use in either East or PRA YERS FOR THE DEAD. 381 West for 1500 years after Christ which did not con- 6. of ancient tain prayers for the dead. liturgies, It is a sad admission to have to make that it was re served for the age of the Reformation practically to abandon this pious custom, and to its neglect may doubtless be traced the obscuration of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, and many erroneous views in regard to the state of the faithful departed. We do not give a catena of authorities from the 7. and of the Fathers, because with scarcely an exception they all, Fathers ; from the time of Tertullian on, bear witness to this practice. We make one quotation from S. Augustine s. Augustine, as a specimen. In his i72d Sermon he says : " There sermon 172. can be no doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of Holy Church, by the life-giving Sacrifice, and by the alms which are offered for them, to such an extent that they are treated by the Lord more leniently than their own sins have deserved." It is the authoritative teaching alike of East and 8. Theauthorf- West ; for in the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern tative tuning of the East Church we read : " We are therefore taught by the (orthod. Holy Scripture and the exposition of this Father confess.), [Theophylact] that we ought by all means to pray for the departed, to offer the Unbloody Sacrifice for them, and to dispense our alms with a liberal hand, seeing they can no more perform these good works for them selves ' ' (Quest. 65) ; and in the Council of Trent, 9. and of the " that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls detained J^^J011 there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, but Trent). especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar ' ' (Sess. 25). While the practice of prayer for the dead was un- 10. Discour- doubtedly discouraged at the Reformation in the 5Fed1.aithe Church of England on account of its connection with Reformation 382 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. on account of the particular doctrine of Purgatory condemned in gross views of Article XXII., it was never authoritatively con- but never con- demned, and was always more or less used, espe- demned ; dally by pious persons. found in the Moreover it found a place in the first English Prayer first English Book in the Service for " the Supper of the Lord, Prayer Book, ' rr ' and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass." in the Canon The following extract is taken from the Canon : ' ' We of the Mass; commend unto Thy mercy (0 t^ord) all other Thy servants, which are departed hence from us, with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace : (part of which Grant unto them, we beseech Thee, Thy mercy, and caTpilBA,neii" everlastin& Peace, and that, at the day of the general Burial of the Resurrection, we and all they which be of the mystical Dead, Addi- j30(iy of Thy Son, may altogether be set on His right tional Prayers) . .... hand, and hear that His most joyful voice : Come unto Me," etc. In the Order for the Burial of the Dead, in the same book, we find three prayers for the faithful departed, and provision for a funeral Mass. and in the In our own Prayer Book of to-day, in the Communion present Book. Qfo^ w£ pray tha(. ., we> and &u Thy whole QhvLrch> may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His Passion," which, unless we are prepared to affirm that the faithful departed have no place at all in Christ's whole Church, certainly is a prayer for the dead. And at the end of the Prayer for Christ's Church Militant we say : " We also bless Thy Holy Name for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be par takers of Thy heavenly Kingdom." There are also other prayers which indirectly witness to this practice. PR A YERS FOR THE DEAD. 383 The only teaching against it is the " Sermon con- AHomiiy cerning Prayer" in the Second Book of Homilies. agai"st"' 0 J ' but the Homi- But, as all writers admit, the doctrines taught in the lies not neces- Books of Homilies are not necessarily the doctrines of sarily the teaching of the Church of England, nor are the practices therein the church. faulted necessarily condemned by the Church of Eng land ; since, while, as Article XXXV. says, they " con tain a godly and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times," this does not assert that all their contents are equally valuable, and the limiting phrase, ' ' necessary for these times ' ' implies that their useful ness was but temporary. This is made the more evident from the judgment The judgment delivered by the Right Hon. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, !n"f favour in 1838. Knt., D.CL-, in the Arches Court of Canterbury, in the case of Breeks versus Woolfrey, Nov. 19, 1838. In this case the judge stated that prayer for the dead was not in any sense contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, and gave judgment for the defendant, a Roman Catholic who, without the consent of the Rector of the Parish of Carisbrooke, in the Isle of Wight, had caused to be erected a tombstone in the churchyard of this parish with the following inscription : ' ' Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey. ' It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead ' (2 Mace. xii. 46)." Since this time the practice of prayer for the dead, The growth of like other Catholic practices, has grown in the Church the pfactlce ¦*¦ . among us. of England until it is no longer the characteristic of any distinctive school. In the last chapter we discussed at some length the n. The prac- state of the faithful departed who have not yet attained tlc£ itself- to the Beatific Vision. Even at the risk of repetition it may be well at this point briefly to describe their condition. 3«4 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i. The condi tion of the faithful departed. i. They are confirmed in grace ; ii. conformed entirely to the WiU of GOD; iii. they can no longer merit, and must therefore de pend for help on the Church Militant, and Triumphant.We should strive to pay the debt of sin in this life. Those souls who have died in a state of grace, and who, while free from the guilt of sin, are not yet puri fied from all its stains, or who have not fully paid the debt of temporal punishment due for their sins, are de tained in a place which from its effect in purifying the soul is generally called Purgatory. Their condition may be stated in three propositions. First, they are confirmed in the grace of God. There is, therefore, no further growth in grace for them, since God has bestowed upon them all the grace of which they are capable ; unless indeed we may say that grace flows into the soul in proportion as, by the removal of the traces of sin, its capacity is increased. Secondly, the soul is absolutely conformed to the Will of God. It has no will, then, but God's Will. It would not, if it could, escape one suffering which is necessary to its absolute and perfect purification. And thirdly, as a result of the other two propositions, the soul can no longer merit. It cannot sin, for it can not be tempted ; it has no further choice between good and evil, and therefore can no longer merit, or help itself. It can say, as we never can in this world, the words of the Psalmist : " My heart is fixed, O God, my heart is fixed : I will sing and give praise ' ' (Ps. lvii. 8). And it is because the soul cannot merit that it can not help itself, and must therefore depend upon the good offices of the Church Militant, and perhaps of the Church Triumphant, for the alleviation of its condition or for the shortening of the time of its purification. It has to pay the debt of sin. In this life we can make satisfaction far more effectively than in Purga tory, because we still have the power of choice, and therefore can merit. Indeed, if we will, we can do an PR A YERS FOR THE DEAD. 385 immense deal, before we die, to join in our Lord's work of satisfaction and to pay the debt of our sins. The holy souls, however, strictly speaking, can make no satisfaction for sin. With them (to use a Latin term for which it is difficult to find an English equiva lent) it must be the opus satispatiendi instead of the opus satisfaciendi. It is because they cannot help themselves that they in what ways must depend so largely upon our prayers and good can our works ; and if it be asked, In what way can these help them ? them ? we must reply that our prayers help them in the same way as by prayer we help one another on earth. S. James tells us that " the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much " (S. James v. 16), and goes on to speak of the wonders wrought by prayer. We are not, therefore, to doubt but that in praying for the dead we are helping them in the most effectual manner. A further question which may be asked here is do the hoiy whether the holy souls know of our prayers, and soulsknowof 111 - r* our prayers whether they pray for us. S. Thomas, though with and do they some hesitation, thinks it more probable that they do pray for us? not pray for us, since those in Purgatory are not in a state of praying so much as of being prayed for. He also considers it doubtful whether they know anything about our affairs. The majority oftheoiogians since his day, however, as Suarez tells us, have taken an opposite view and teach that the holy souls probably do pray for us, and that by the ministry of Angels and in other ways they know something of the lives of those on earth who are dear to them. Other theologians again point out that even without this knowledge there is nothing to prevent the holy 386 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 2. Their conso lationsi. Their know- edge that they are saved ; ii. their pos session of joy and peace ; iii. angelic ministrations ; iv. the prayers of the Church. An objection noticed : Are our prayers, if unavailing for the soul, there fore useless? souls praying for us that God will give us those things which He knows we need. The whole question, in deed, belongs purely to speculative theology. During this period of purification the holy souls have great consolations. They know that they are saved ; they know that the Beatific Vision of God awaits them. They are filled with happiness and joy, and have great peace, for, as the Psalmist says, ' ' Great is the peace that they have who love Thy law ' ' (Ps. cxix. 165), and sure ly of none can this be more true than of the holy souls, who are altogether in love with God's law, and would not to gain Heaven offend against it one jot or tittle. Then it is thought that the Holy Angels, and espe cially their Guardian Angels, minister to these souls, that they are helped by the alms and prayers of their friends in the Church on earth, especially by the offer ing of the Holy Sacrifice, and by the prayers of the Saints in Heaven. Before we pass to the practical consideration of the means by which we can best help the holy souls in Purgatory we will anticipate a somewhat common ob jection. Of course it is understood that we do not pray for those who are lost, nor, indeed, for those who are already enjoying the Vision of God ; since the lat ter do not need our prayers, and for the former no prayer can avail. But some object that we cannot know with any cer tainty whether our loved ones are in need of our prayers, that is, are amongst the souls in Purgatory ; and if not, they ask whether our prayers and almsdeeds and good works offered for them are all lost. By no means. The merit of all our prayers and good works remains with us. We cannot transfer our merits to anyone else, as we shall show later on. PRA VERS FOR THE DEAD. 387 There are some words of our Lord which may help us to see that what we do for the souls of the departed, even if they should not need it, or should not be able to avail themselves of it, is not by any means lost. When our Lord sent the Seventy on their mission our lord's He said to them : ' ' Into whatsoever house ye enter, words to the first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of i,Uke x. 5, 6. peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it : if not, it shall turn to you again " (S. Luke x. 5, 6). So if our prayers and good works do not avail for those souls for whom we offer them, they will turn again with blessing upon ourselves. Let us now consider what we can do to help the 3- how can we holy souls in Purgatory. We can do four things for ^ *he holy them : pray, give alms, fast (the Three Notable Du- i. By prayer ; ties), and fourth and most important of all, offer the ^ky310"- . giving; Holy Sacrifice. iii. by fasting ; All these four works are really included in the word iv- °y offering . the Holy Sacri- prayer ; since every good work we do, whether it fice for them. be a prayer said, an alms given, or a penance done, may be done in the spirit of prayer, that is, offered to God. Here perhaps we should pause to explain what we 4- what is mean by a good work. As Articles XII. and XIII. I^works." point out, a good work, to be " pleasing and accept able to God in Christ, ' ' must be done through grace ; so that good works are really the fruits of grace in the soul. Those works of philanthropy which are not the re sult of grace, but of generous impulse or of natural virtue, and have not God for their end, but rather the pleasure produced by the act itself, or the enjoyment of its results, are not good works in the sense of the Articles. 388 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Every good work has three effects : i. Merit, which is inalienable ; ii. impetration, which can be offered for others ; iii. satisfac tion, which also can be offered for others. 5. We can help the holy souls : i. by prayer (some exam ples) ; Every good work of whatever kind has three effects : merit, impetration, and satisfaction. The merit of a good work, as we have already said, is inalienable. It cannot be transferred to anyone else. We cannot assign our merits to help the dead. Our Lord said, " Lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven," that is, merits; they are our treasures. But while the merit of a good work remains our own, there are two other things connected with it which we can offer for the dead. The one is its impetratory character, the other is its satisfactory efficacy. Laborare est orare ; that is, every good work is an act of prayer ; so that if instead of spending an hour upon our knees saying prayers, we go and work for that hour, and in doing this ask God to accept it, it becomes impetratory and pleads with God. In this sense we can assign the impetratory power of our good works for the benefit of the holy souls. Then, again, every good work has a satisfactory effi cacy ; that is, it enables us to pay the debt of sin, which can be discharged negatively by bearing suffer ing with patience, positively by working for the glory of God. We shall now be better able to see how we may help the holy souls by prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. And first, by prayer. The best prayer to say is Psalm CXXX., " Out of the deep have I called unto Thee, O Lord. ' ' Say it for the soul of some one whom you desire to help, some one you have loved on earth, some one, perhaps, with whom you have sinned ; or say it for any soul in Purgatory that needs it, — the last soul that has entered there, or the one that is nearest to bliss. Use often the short prayers which we find in the PRA YERS FOR THE DEAD. 389 Church's Offices: "Let light perpetual shine upon them ; " " Eternal rest grant unto them ; " " May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace." Secondly, we can give alms for them. This was ii. by aims- what Judas Maccabseus did ; he gave two thousand sivmg 0 (examples); drachms of silver and sent it to the temple at Jerusalem. A good many of us who have benefited by legacies left us by those now dead might use for this purpose a part of what we have received. What could be bet ter than founding a chapel for the poor in memory of one whom we have loved and who has gone before us ? In that chapel the Holy Sacrifice will be offered day by day and, perhaps, hundreds of souls ministered to, among the poor and sinful and deserted ; and all these good deeds will go to help a soul in Purgatory. Do not be satisfied with prayer only ; go on to aims- deeds. S. Augustine says, " prayers, the life-giving Sacrifice, and alms." Judas Maccabaeus not only prayed, but he gave very large alms, and Holy Scrip ture tells us " it was an holy and good thought." Again, we can help the holy souls by fasting ; and w. by fasting, this not only means abstaining from food, but includes a^cc1Jsi"fldes all acts of self-denial and penance. They can all be penance ; offered for the holy souls. Lastly, and chiefly, there is the offering of the Holy iv. by offering Sacrifice. The Eastern Church in her Catechism the Holy sacri- nee ; (which we have quoted), the Council of Trent, and all o,0th East and the Fathers specially dwell upon this, that in no way ^est dweU on can we help the holy souls so effectually as by offering for them the Holy Sacrifice ; that is, by procuring that a Priest shall offer the Holy Eucharist for that end, and attending ourselves at the Holy Sacrifice with that intention. 39° CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 6. What mo tives should impel us to care for the holy souls ? i. Charity — S. Augustine ; S. Jerome; S. Francis de Sales, applying the Corporal Works of Mercy to the holy souls ; What are the motives which make us do these acts of Charity ? Passing over the many visions which people have had in regard to Purgatory, — people very near to God, and whom the Church has recognized as Saints, — there are four further motives, not to mention yet others, which we shall briefly consider. The first is Charity. God is rich in mercy towards us, and we are so poor in our Charity to the holy souls ! We expect God to do so much to help us in our diffi culties and sufferings, and yet selfishness causes us to do so little for them! Our Lord says to us : " With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again, ' ' and, ' ' Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." S. Augustine* says in his sixteenth homily : " One of the holiest works, one of the best exercises of piety which we can practise in this world is to offer Sacrifice, alms, and prayers for the dead." S. Jerome* says : ' ' The relief which we procure for the departed obtains for us like mercy in our hour of need. ' ' S. Francis de Sales, referring to the works of mercy mentioned in the twenty-fifth chapter of S. Matthew, points out that we may perform these by praying for the dead. In the parable of the Judgment in that chapter the King says to those on His right hand : " Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world : for I was an hungred, and ye gave Me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink : I was a stranger, and ye took Me in : naked, and ye clothed Me : I was sick, and ye visited Me : I was in prison, and ye came unto Me. * Quoted from Schouppe, Purgatory, p. 216. PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 391 " Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee an hungred, and fed Thee ? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink ? when saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in ? or naked, and clothed Thee ? or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee ? ' ' And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me " (verses 34-40). The holy souls are hungry and thirsty, as no souls in this world can be, for the Vision of God. They have had one glimpse of our Lord at the moment of the particular Judgment, and it has filled them with a burning desire to see God and to be with Him ; and our prayers, in helping them to that Vision, are quenching their hunger and thirst. " I was a stranger, and ye took Me in." These souls are poor exiles almost at the doors of Jerusalem. If we help them in, we are indeed helping the stranger to the hospitality of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. ' ' Naked, and ye clothed Me : I was sick, and ye visited Me : I was in prison, and ye came unto Me." In the prison of the Intermediate State are sick souls not yet made perfect, naked souls ' ' earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with " their " house which is from Heaven : if so be that being clothed " they " shall not be found naked " (2 Cor. v. 2, 3). By our prayers and works of charity for the dead, as S. Francis de Sales most beautifully shows, we fulfil every one of those acts of mercy which, our Lord tells us, are the titles by which those on the right hand have won the Kingdom of Heaven. 392 CA THOLIC FAITH AND PR A CTICE. ii. the thought that we may need the same charity ; iii. its helpful ness in re minding us of our own death; iv. and in teaching us to make our satisfactionhere. Another motive is the thought that some day before very long, if we die in grace, we shall be in the same condition as the holy dead, and dependent on the charity of others. Again, to pray for the dead is a salutary act, in that it reminds us of the unseen world so near to us, and which we must so soon enter ; reminds us of our own death, a thought we are often prone to put aside. Lastly, it suggests to us a means by which we may ourselves escape a great part of the suffering of the Intermediate State ; namely, the making satisfaction now by striving so to accept the sufferings of life and so to work for God's glory that when we are called into His Presence there may be little left to be done in Purgatory. T CHAPTER XVI. THE INVOCATION OF THB SAINTS. HE invocation of the Saints, like prayer for the introductory: dead, is not a doctrine, but a practice of the The difference *¦ between a Church. As it is of importance clearly to grasp doctrine and a the difference between a doctrine and a practice of the Practice of Church, we shall therefore take this opportunity of pointing out in a few words not only the fact of this difference, but the principles on which it is based and some of the consequences which it involves. As we have already shown in the chapter on the Rule a doctrine, to of Faith, no doctrine can be de fide which did not form be "de fide'" must have part of the original deposit committed to the Church at formed part PenteCOSt. ofthePente- >*.. .-*, i /- -i t .-ii costal deposit. The Church cannot put forth new dogmas. She can Ti,e church only define those which have existed from the begin- cannot put ning. Nor can she ever retract any of her teachings, dogmas.'nor since the very nature of truth implies that it cannot retract those , defined. change. This, however, is not the case in regard to her The opposite practices. She can at any time adopt a new prac- ls.*?etfase tice which seems to her to be for the edification of the practices of faithful, and she can abandon practices which, though the church. once universal, have from some cause ceased to be beneficial. Hence the rejection of a practice of the Church stands 393 394 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The rejection of a practice very different from that of a doctrine of the Church. Art. xxxiv., of the Tradi tions of the Church. on very different grounds from that of a doctrine of the Church. The rejection of the former may be rash and lead to the forfeiture of opportunities of grace ; the re jection of the latter is heresy, and, if it be " formal," may lead to the loss of the soul. This distinction is very admirably brought out in Article XXXIV., " Of the Traditions of the Church." " It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, . . . ought to be re buked openly. . . . " Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying." This Article treats of two things only: the traditions, or practices of the Church, and its ceremonies, and does not refer to matters of faith. And while it affirms that the Church can change its traditions " according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word," yet it severely condemns indi viduals who should presume to break those traditions and ceremonies. That is to say, while it allows to the Church authority to change its traditions, it does not allow to the private individual any right to disregard them. In the last paragraph of the Article it treats of the second matter, the ceremonies, or rites of the Church, THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 395 and asserts that even a national Church " hath au thority to ordain, change, and abolish " them ; thus claiming that the jus liturgicum is vested in the episco pate of a country, and not in the Church at large. But it is most careful to exclude from the authority of the particular or national Church the matter first treated of, namely, the traditions, — as a careful reading of the Article will show. The conclusion we may draw from these considera- inference tions is that while in the case of a doctrine we should drawn from look upon it with great suspicion, if we could find no traces of it in the early ages of the Church, yet in the case of a practice, so long as we are sure that the Church has given it her approval, it is not decisively of consequence that it cannot be traced to primitive Christianity. For instance, it was a practice of the Church, enforced some with severe penalties, never to kneel at any of the Ser- examPles' vices on Sundays, and yet we do not on that account consider it binding on us to-day. On the other hand, we now teach that Baptism by aspersion or affusion is sufficient, although the early Church, except in case of great necessity, always prac tised Baptism by immersion. We have shown that it is not of imperative necessity important that that we should be able to prove that the practices of the doctrine on A which a prac- the Church can be traced back to extreme antiquity, tice rests It is, however, of importance that the doctrines on should be , . , , ,,.,.,, . unassailable. which they rest and of which they are an expression should be beyond dispute. The practice of the invocation of the Saints, which 1. The practice is the subject of this chapter, follows without doubt ^invocation a • 1 ^ 11- • follows from a from an Article of the Creed, — that we believe in the belief in the Communion of Saints. While this inference will not communion of Saints. 396 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. This Article in serted in the Creed to meet the heresy of Vigilantius, who denied the intercession of the Saints ; its history ; Dr. Harnack's opinion. seem strange, yet it will perhaps be new to some to be told that the insertion of the article ' ' The Communion of Saints " in the Apostles' Creed appears to have been made expressly to teach the doctrine that the Saints pray for us. As many are aware, this article is the very latest addition to the Creed. It is not found in the Creed of Rufinus, nor in the African Creed expounded by S. Augustine, de Fide et Symbolo, nor, in short, until the end of the fifth century. It first occurs in a sermon preached about the year 490, probably by Faustus of Riez, in France, and next in the Mozarabic Liturgy ; that is to say, in southern Gaul and Spain. Now these two countries were infected with the heresy of Vigilantius, who after living for a while with S. Jerome in his monastery at Bethlehem, left him, and, making his way to France, there propagated certain erroneous doctrines, earnestly combated by S. Jerome in his treatise, Contra Vigilantium. The heresy which Vigilantius taught was a condemnation of the cultus of the relics of the Saints on the ground that the Saints in glory do not pray for the living. Vigilantius lived in the early part of the fifth century, and, as we have said, it was in the last decade of that century and in the same neighbourhood that we first find this article of the Creed. This view finds support in Dr. Harnack's pamphlet, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis (Berlin, 1892), and certainly has enormous weight as bearing upon our present discussion ; since Dr. Harnack cannot be sus pected of any bias in favour of Catholic doctrine. It is true that the heresy of Vigilantius was only a denial that the Saints pray for those on earth, and of course it would be quite possible to hold, as some THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 397 have held, that the Saints pray for us, and yet to stop short of the practice of asking their prayers. On the other hand, however, if we believe that the The invocation Saints in glory pray for us, the practice of invocation, fbI,lowf fr.om a . . belief in the or asking their prayers, seems a most reasonable, if not intercession of necessary, consequence of this belief. And so we find the Saints. in the address to the Emperor, which is prefixed to the Canons of the Second Oecumenical Council (I. Con stantinople, 381), that the prayers of the Saints are in voked on behalf of the Emperor. Our subject, then, suggests two questions : First, Do the Saints pray for us ? and second, Should we invoke their prayers ? That is, we may separately trace the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints, and the practice of the invocation of the Saints. As regards the first, the intercession of the Saints, 11 The inter- in all probability scarcely any one doubts its orthodoxy. cesslon °{the Both Holy Scripture and the writings of the Fathers are full of it ; and, as we have shown, it is the very doctrine the denial of which apparently led to the in sertion of the article on the Communion of Saints in our Creed. We know that God has " ordained and constituted the services of Angels and men in a wonderful order," that the Angels are ' ' ministering spirits, ' ' succouring Testimony of and helping those who are heirs of salvation ; and HoiyScripture: amongst these ministrations prayer forms an important function, as the word for " ministering " in the original implies (Xeirovpyixa). It is a matter of revelation that they help us, that they rejoice over our penitence, that they always be hold the Face of our Father in Heaven ; and surely this implies that they pray for us. Indeed we find in the Prophet Zechariah this prayer old Test. •, 398 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. of the Angel of the Lord for Jerusalem : ' ' Then the Angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years ? ' ' (Zech. i. 12). And in Jeremiah the Lord declares: " Though Mo ses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be toward this people " (Jer. xv. 1), and the force of the words here certainly implies that Moses and Samuel could intercede, and probably in the past had done so ; though doubtless, knowing the will of God, they did not on this occasion. Isaiah's plea to God, " Doubtless Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not" (Isa. lxiii. 16), implies the same. And later, in the deuterocanonical books, we read that the Angel Raphael said to Tobit : " When thou didst pray, and Sara ... I did bring the remem brance of your prayers before the Holy One " (Tobit xii. 12) ; and again, he tells Tobit that he is " one of the seven Holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One " (verse 15). In the Second Book of Maccabees we read that Judas had a vision, " and this was his vision : That Onias, who had been High Priest, a virtuous and a good man, . . . holding up his hands prayed for the whole body of the Jews. " This done, in like manner there appeared a man with gray hairs, and exceeding glorious, who was of a wonderful and excellent majesty. Then Onias an swered, saying, This is a lover of the brethren, who THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 399 prayeth much for the people, and for the holy city, to wit, Jeremias the Prophet of God " (2 Mace. xv. 12-14). Both are confirmed in the New Testament, where New Test. ; Heaven is opened to us and we see the Angel who ' ' stood at the Altar, having a golden censer ; and there was given unto Him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the Throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angel's hand" (Rev. viii. 3, 4). And not only the Angel offered prayers, but they who are represented by ' ' the four beasts and four and twenty elders," who " fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of Saints; " and those four and twenty elders who present the prayers of the Saints must themselves be of our race, for in their "new song" their thanksgiving is : "Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God by Thy Blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests ' ' (Rev. v. 8-10). That these are not Angels is clear, since they say that they were redeemed " out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," and we have no reason to suppose that the Angels needed any such re demption, or could be said to belong to a kindred, tongue, people, or nation. If we turn to the Fathers we find their testimony Testimony of so clearly unanimous from the earliest to the latest the Fathers. that it seems hardly necessary to do more than to refer the reader to the catena of authorities in Bishop Forbes' s work on the Articles.* * P. 388 et seq. 400 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. But we may observe that in more than one place Origen quotes the texts from Tobit and Maccabees in proof of the doctrine of the intercession of the Saints, which is specially interesting as showing the interpre tation put upon them by the Church even in those very early days. in. invocation We may now pass to the second question : Should of saints. we juyojjg the prayers of the Saints ? Two methods, The prayers of the Saints may be invoked in two direct and ways : directly, and indirectly. That is, we may say : " Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us," or we may say : ' ' May the intercessions of the Holy Mother of God, of the Prophets, of the Holy Apostles, of the Martyrs help me ; may all the Saints and elect of God pray for me, that I may be worthy with them to possess the Kingdom of God. ' ' few object to To this second, or indirect method few, probably, the latter. have made any objection, since the prayer is addressed to God and asks that He will allow or direct the Saints to pray for us. Even the most anti-Roman writers of our Church in treating this subject admit that this in direct method of invocation cannot be censured. i. objectionsto The whole force of the opposition has been against a direct invoca- direct invoking of the Saints. And against such in- tion answered. ° , ° vocation various reasons are given. First, that the Saints do not know our pra}rers, and therefore praying to them is useless. Secondly, that as the Saints have perfect Charity, they would pray for us even if we did not ask them. Thirdly, that the time spent in invoking the Saints would be better em ployed in praying to God, and that such invocation detracts from our prayers to God. Fourthly, that it makes the Saints mediators, whereas there is but one Mediator and Intercessor, our Lord and Saviour JESHS THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 401 Christ. Fifthly, that dangerous abuses have arisen in connection with the cultus of the Saints. Briefly to answer these objections, we may say in re- i. That the gard to the first that to suppose the Saints do not know f aints do not 0 c r know our our prayers is a mere assumption, and contrary not prayers, only to the received opinion of theologians, but to the contrary to ,. . , . . „ , _ . . Holy Scripture implicit teaching of Holy Scripture ; since, while it is and theological not defide that the Saints hear our prayers, yet it is an opinion. opinion which seems to have Scriptural support. For we are told that " there is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth " (S. Luke xv. 10), and again, that "joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth" (verse 7). If, then, the Angels in Heaven are cognizant of our penitence, why should not the Saints know of our prayers ? But we are expressly told in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xii. 1) that we " are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses," and the common opinion of the Church is that these witnesses are the Saints. Some would confine them to the Martyrs only, but this does not weaken the force of the argument. And in the passages already quoted from the Revela tion, where the four and twenty elders and the Angel offered the prayers of the Saints, there is clearly an in timation that they know what the prayers are, other wise how could they offer them to God ? If it be asked, How do the Saints hear our prayers ? we have no we must reply, as we do to many such questions about ^eofthe^ the manner in which God effects His purposes, that we manner in do not know. which 'he ... , , - , Saints know When we use the term hear," of course we do not our prayers; for one moment mean to imply that the Saints exercise certainly not a sense of hearing, as on earth. This is evident, be- £!ff*ff™X cause, being separated from their bodies, they have no VOL. II. — 26 402 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Varioustheories : That the Saints see us "in the WORD," or in the mirror of the HOI.YTRINITY ; or by some particularmanifestationfrom GOD. ii. That, hav ing perfect Charity, the Saints do not need to be asked to pray for us. iii. That the time spent in invocation would be better spent in prayer to GOD, from physical organ of hearing, and for many similar reasons. When we say that the Saints hear our prayers, we mean simply that they are cognizant of them. There have been various theories in regard to this, the most common being that the Saints see us, ' ' in the Word, ' ' or, as some theologians have expressed it, in the mirror of the Holy Trinity ; that is, beholding the Vision of God in Heaven, they see in God, (not absolutely all things,) but all that God wills them to know, and all that it is necessary for their happiness that they should know. This is not a mere speculation of theology, for S. Paul says : " We know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. . . For now we see through a glass [mirror], darkly ; but then face to face : now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known " (i Cor. xiii. 9, 10, 12). Some have thought that the Saints know our prayers by a particular manifestation from God. But it is not for us to expect to understand the manner ; it is suffi cient for us to know the fact. The second objection to invocation is that as the Saints have perfect Charity, they would pray for us even if we did not ask them. This objection applies equally to God, Who is perfect Charity, and Who knows all our necessities, and yet has commanded us to pray. And further, prayer may be the means by which God wills that the Saints should know our needs and intercede for us. The third objection is that the time spent in invoking the Saints would be better employed in praying to God, and that such invocation detracts from our prayers to God. The answer to this is that the time spent in in- THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 403 yoking the Saints is spent in praying to God, since we which it are asking those who are very near and dear to God to detracts- pray for us, just as we may ask a Priest to remember us at the Holy Sacrifice, or a dear friend on earth to pray for us. It has probably never entered into anyone's mind This is true of that it would be better for us not to ask for these inter- a." ™l"? es~t sion, and yet cessions, and indeed it is a precept of Holy Scripture the scripture that we are to pray for one another (S. James v. 16), ^y pfecept aid and in the Bible we find examples of the invocation of example ; such intercession. For in the Book of Job God Him self says to Eliphaz : ' ' Go to my servant Job, . . . and my servant Job shall pray for you : for him will I accept " (Job xiii. 8) ; and S. Paul says to the Thessa- lonians, " Brethren, pray for us " (1 Thess. v. 25), and to the Romans : "I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me " (Rom. xv. 30). In the same way it may be shown that invocation of the Saints does not detract from prayer to God, any more than does the invocation of the prayers of our friends on earth. And here we must remember that God sometimes Besides, the hears one person's prayers when He does not hear an- ^ffffffff^l the other's. S. James tells us (v. 16) that ' ' the effectual fer- be more vent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, ' ' and we effectual r J ° . than ours. read in S. John (ix. 3i)that " God heareth not sinners." What we may not ourselves be able to obtain from God by our prayers, we may by the intercession of the Saints ; for, as we have just seen in the case of Job's friends, while God refused to receive their prayers, He told them to seek the intercession of Job and they should be forgiven. 404 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iv. That invo cation makes the Saints mediators, and so detracts from our LORD'Smediatorship. The Church's teaching in regard to the veneration of the saints. The fourth objection is that invocation makes the Saints mediators, whereas there is but one Mediator and Intercessor, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is true that there is but one Mediator Who shares the nature of each of the parties to be mediated be tween, and in this sense is also the only Intercessor. There is but one, too, Who prays for all, and for Whom no one prays, and Who relies upon no other mediator, since His own merits are the source of the grace which He bestows upon His suppliants. In this sense there is but one Mediator, as there is but one Lord, one Master, one Father. And yet in a secondary sense, and with no derogation from this unique mediatorship, we speak of other mediators and masters and fathers, for our Lord Himself appointed the priesthood of the Church as His representatives, and as they offer the Holy Sacrifice, they are in this secondary sense mediators. Even our friends, whom we ask to pray for us, are in a still lower sense medi ators. How much more, then, may we ask the Saints, who are our friends and the friends of God, near and dear to Him, to intercede or mediate for us, without in the slightest degree detracting from the prerogatives of our Blessed Lord. If a person has friends among a king's courtiers, he surely is not depriving the king of his rights or honour in asking the king's friends to intercede for him. Besides, the very words ' ' pray for us ' ' clearly show the character of the mediation we invoke. At this point it may be well to say a few words in regard to a kindred subject, the veneration or honour due to the Saints. The Catholic Church both of the East and West has authoritatively defined that God, and God alone, is to THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 405 be worshipped with the worship called latria, this being Distinction the noun corresponding to the verb used in the LXX. ^eTtw.e!n„ version of Deut. vi. 13, which has" worship Him alone" "Dulia," (avroo povoo XarpevGEis), where our translation has " serve Him." This supreme worship is due to God alone, and could not be offered to any creature without the most terrible sin of idolatry. Dulia is that second ary veneration, which is given to the Saints and Angels as the servants and special friends of God. Hyper dulia is only a subdivision of dulia, and is the veneration which is given to the Blessed Virgin as the most ex alted of mere creatures, though of course infinitely in ferior to God, and incomparably inferior to Christ in His Human Nature. We may observe that the difference between latria one not of and dulia is not a difference of degree, however great, „£ f£*j . u but a difference altogether of kind. We worship God with adoration; to the Saints as the friends of God and on account of their dignity as Saints, we offer only veneration, honour. This distinction is well illustrated by the use of the illustrated by English word ' ' worship. ' ' We speak of ' ' the worship ^ ^soer°f of God," by which we mean, of course, latria, that "worship." praise and adoration which is due to God from all creatures. But we also use the term for that reveren tial recognition of merit which we pay to those who, while they are but creatures like ourselves, yet from their position or intrinsic worth command our rever ence. This use of the word " worship " may be illus trated from Holy Scripture and the Prayer Book, for our Lord says in one of His parables : ' ' When thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room ; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher : then shalt thou have worship in 406 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. v. That many abuses have arisen from the cultus of the saints. Extract from sermon of Abp. of York. 2. Evidences for the practice of direct invocation ; authoritiesand examples the presence of them that sit at meat with thee " (S. Luke xiv. io) ; and in the Marriage Service in the English Prayer Book the man is instructed to say to the woman : ' ' With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow." The fifth objection is that dangerous abuses have arisen in connection with the cultus of the Saints. But surely the abuse of a thing is no argument against its lawful use. One must confess with sorrow that the cultus of the Saints has been greatly abused, and that it was these abuses which led at the Reformation to the removal from our Prayer Book of the pious practice of invoking the Saints. But the cultus of the Saints was not the only thing abused, and we have to lament much else that was given up along with it. As the Archbishop of York said in his sermon at the opening of the Norwich Church Congress in 1895 : " Put. after all, the Reform ation was initiated and carried on by fallible men ; and in the storm and stress of the sixteenth century they may sometimes have mistaken their course, and, per haps, cast out too hastily some of the precious lading of the ship." We shall, however, recur to the question of the dangers and abuse of this practice in the latter part of this chapter. Catence of authorities for the practice of direct in vocation of the Saints will be found in Petavius, de Incarn., lib. xiv. ; Perrone, torn. V., chap. iii. ; Forbes, on Article XXII. ; and Percival, Invocation of Sai?its, pp. 154-182. We shall mention but one or two of the many instances there given. First, we may observe that carved on imperishable THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. A.OJ stone in the Roman Catacombs we have abundant wit- The ness to the practice in those early ages of the Church Catacombs ; when these Catacombs were in use. Here are a few examples : ' ' Lady Bassilla, we, Crescentinus and Micina, commend to thee our daughter Crescentina." ' ' Matronata Mateona, who lived a year and fifty-two days, pray for thy parents." " Vincentia, in Christ, pray for Phoebe and her husband. " " Anatolius made this for his well-deserving son. . . . Pray for thy sister." " Dionysius, an innocent child, now with the Saints, remember us in your holy prayers." These might be multiplied indefinitely, but are sufficient to show how early was the practice of direct invocation. S. Gregory of Nyssa asks the Martyr S. Theodore : s. Gregory " Intercede with our common King for thy country," Nyssen; etc. ; and he closes his panegyric on S. Ephrem : " Do thou, standing by the Divine Altar and ministering with the Angels to the Life-giving and Holy Trinity, remember us all, asking for us remission of sins, ' ' etc. S. Gregory of Nazianzus prays to S. Cyprian : "Do s. Gregory thou look down on us propitiously from above, and Nazianzen; direct our speech and life," etc. ; and to S. Basil : " Do thou, divine and sacred one, look down upon us, and by thy intercessions either stay the thorn of the flesh given us by God, our discipline, or persuade us to endure it bravely, ' ' etc. S. Chrysostom says to the people : " When thou s. chrysostom; perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly ... to His friends the Martyrs ; ' ' and again he exhorts the people : " Not on this festival only, but on other days too, ... let us invoke them [SS. Bernice and Prosdoce], let us beg them to be our patronesses." S. Jerome says to S. Paula : " Help with thy prayers s. Jerome. the extreme old age of thy devotee." 408 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Testimony of the Eastern Church. (OrthodoxConf.) Testimony of the Latin Church.(Council of Trent.) The invocation of the Saints, which some persons suppose to be a purely Roman custom, is quite as prevalent in the East as in the West, and has the sup port of the Eastern confessions of faith. We quote from the Orthodox Confession (part iii., quest. 52) as follows : " We pray unto the Saints for their interces sion to God, that they may sustain our cause with Him by their prayers ; but we do by no means call upon them as gods, but as the beloved of God, Whom they serve, Whom they worship and glorify with united hymns. And surely their assistance is very necessary for us, not, indeed, that of their own power they can help us, but because by their prayers in our behalf they may obtain the grace and favour of God for us. ' ' And again : ' ' We are far from offending against this commandment when we put up our prayers to the Saints, who, standing always like faithful servants be fore the Divine Majesty, can therefore become sup pliants for our salvation unto that one only true God. On the other hand, if we despise and reject the assist ance and labouring for us of the Saints, we shall most grievously offend the Divine Majesty, forasmuch as we refuse to do honour unto those who have most faith fully and most holily served Him." If we take the Council of Trent as representing the Latin Church, we find that in the 25th Session it enjoins all Bishops to ' ' instruct the faithful diligently touch ing the intercession and invocation of Saints, . . . teaching them that the Saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men ; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, to resort to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. ' ' THE INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 409 We have, therefore, to acknowledge with regret that The Anglican during the past three hundred years, of the whole ^°™^°°e Catholic Church, East and West, the Anglican Com- in its neglect munion alone has virtually abandoned the practice of of mvocation- the invocation of the Saints, a practice not only uni versal, but reaching back, as we have seen, to the very earliest days of the Church, and supported by the au thority of all her theologians. When we inquire the cause of this neglect of a prac- iv. The cause tice so dear to the rest of Christendom, we find that it °nta removal ' from our was doubtless occasioned by the grievous abuses which prayer Book, prevailed in connection with the cultus of the Saints in the sixteenth century. The shameful traffic in relics, its abuse. many of them undoubtedly spurious, and the special devotion to a popular or easy-going Saint, which led to his Altar or shrine absorbing all the devotion of the faithful, are instances of this evil. Bishop Forbes tells us that so great was the popu- Popularity of larity of S. Thomas's shrine at Canterbury that in one canterbur^ year the offerings amounted to ^954 65. 3d., while during the same period at our Lord's the offerings were nothing, and at our Lady's £\ is. 8d. The arbi trary division of the Saints as patrons of different de partments of life, so to speak, probably contributed in the same direction. The teaching still prevalent in some places among Dangerous Romanists, which would make our Lady more merciful *^nf0itnhe than our Lord, and direct the sinner to have recourse B. v. m. to Mary rather than to JESUS, is an error which cannot be denied, and whose effects are altogether deplorable. These evils were most real, and we must be lenient in our judgment of those who thought that the only remedy was to remove the cultus of the Saints alto gether. Such abuses, however, are not necessarily 4io CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. "But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it." To some souls invocation is especiallyhelpful. involved in the invocation of the Saints, and we may well desire to unite ourselves to the rest of Christendom in this practice, while keeping ourselves free from any misuse of it. As Bishop Forbes well says * : " There are certain high-strung souls, of whose undivided and entire love to God there can be no doubt, whose in tense personal devotion to our Lord is the warmest, and who realize His Passion in a measure into which our cold hearts cannot enter, to whom this devotion [to the Saints] is congenial. . . . There must, therefore, be some aspect of this practice which appeals to a very high part of our nature, and therefore well deserves our careful consideration." * P. 382. I CHAPTER XVII. THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. T is an article of the Christian Faith that at the introductory: Last Day our Lord " shall come again with glory ™^£{^fnt to judge both the quick and the dead ; " an article the creed, set forth in each of the three Creeds, and a special revelation of the New Testament. For although, as in the second and third chapters of the Book of Joel, the Last Judgment is foreshadowed in the Old Testa ment, yet we find there no direct prophecy of it; and it is nowhere clearly stated that this judgment shall take place beyond the grave, unless it be in Dan. vii. io and xii. 1-3. In the New Testament, however, we are told with and a special the greatest distinctness on many occasions, both by gelation of 0 j 1 j the New Test. our Lord and His Apostles, of the Judgment of the Last Day. Lacordaire in his Conference on Reason points out Lacordaire's that a belief in a final discrimination between good and a^e^„s" *at evil, in a judgment to come, is implied in that sense responsibility of responsibility which is one of the properties of human J™Phes a r J \ r judgment. nature. Every man, whether religious or not, believes that he is responsible for his actions ; and this idea of responsibility postulates an occasion on which his account must be rendered, and one to whom it must be given. 411 412 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The judgment, like death, a most certain and a most uncertainevent. I Differences of the two judgments. If there be a particular judgment, what is the object of the general ? i. Difference of purpose in the two judgments :— i. the first, to decide the des tiny of the soul; ii. the second, to manifest three great facts : (i) The Justice and I^ove of GOD in His providential ruling of the world, The death of the individual, and the day of the Gen eral Judgment of the world are alike in that each is a fact of absolute certainty, and yet that the time of the occurrence of each is most uncertain. Of the General Judgment our Lord says, ' ' of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the Angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father " (S. Mark xiii. 32), and S. Paul writes to the Thessalonians : " Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" (1 Thess. v. 2). And on account of this very uncertainty we are con stantly warned to watch, that is, to be always preparing for the coming of this great Day. There is a question which is often asked in con nection with the Judgment : If the fate of the soul is decided at the moment of death by the Particular Judgment, what is the object of the General Judg ment ? We can only answer this, of course, in part, and there may be purposes of which we have no con ception ; but it seems clear that, although their objects are quite different, the two Judgments are equally necessary. The purpose of the Particular Judgment, as we have seen, is to decide the state of the soul for eternity; and this seems necessarily to take place at the moment of death, since the soul does not remain unconscious be tween death and the Last Day, and therefore its destiny must be immediately decided. But the purpose of the General Judgment is not to decide the fate of the soul, but to manifest to the whole world three great facts. First, the Justice, Mercy, and Love of God as evi denced in His providential ruling of this world. In this life we are often unable to understand God's pur poses when we see misfortunes happening to the good, THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 413 whilst the ungodly flourish " like a green bay-tree." But in the day of the General Judgment the reason of all these dispensations of God's providence will be made clear to the whole world, and God's Wisdom, Justice, and Love will be magnified by all. Second, the Majesty of our Blessed Lord. At His (2) the first Advent He came among men as one Who was poor, Maiesty of our Blessed and humble, and obedient. He put Himself into the lord, power of man, and without resistance suffered all the indignities of His Passion, even to the death upon the Cross. And even since His Ascension into Heaven His Passion has lived on in His Church ; He has still patiently suffered the world to treat Him with con tempt, to disobey His precepts, and to persecute His Church. But at the day of the General Judgment, when He shall appear with all His glory, He will mani fest to all men His almighty Power, His eternal Majesty. Third, the glory of His elect. In this life the child- (3) the glory ren of God, like their Master, often suffer injury and ofHlselect- persecution. The world despises them. But in the day of His appearing they will receive the reward of their sufferings, the crown of glory which the Lord shall give to them that love Him. Then, too, the wicked and those hypocrites who have deceived the world by simulating virtues which they did not pos sess will be put to shame and confusion. But all these things may be summed up in one, namely, that the General Judgment will be a mani festation of the absolute Justice and Love of God. *; ™ ^ces Again, we may observe that the General Judgment dif- judgments : fers from the Particular especially in its completeness. jjjn |h* ^ At the Particular Judgment the soul only is judged, is judged; in In the General Judgment the body also will receive its the latter, body and soul. sentence. 414 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. ii. at the for mer, no other man present ; at the latter, every one ; iii. the matter both of sin and of good works incomplete until the Last Day — effects of S. Stephen'sprayer, of Boccaccio's Decameron ; iv. the chief constituents of this judgment Then, too, there is a completeness in the arrange ments of the General Judgment which is wanting in the Particular. At this no one will be present to hear your sins and to know your sentence, except per haps your Guardian Angel, and the devil. At the General Judgment all the world will be there, and the page will be opened on which your life is written, and all will be read out. Again, there is a completeness in the matter of the General Judgment, which we do not find in the Particu lar. Our account is imperfect when we die, for though both our good works and our sins are ended, their con sequences are not ended. Think of the effects of the last good work in S. Stephen's life— the prayer which he said for his mur derers ! To it we may trace S. Paul's conversion, and therefore all his glorious missionary work in preaching the Gospel throughout the world, and besides, all the good done to those whom his Epistles have helped in the centuries long after he had passed to his reward. How wonderful will be the fruit of some good works ! At the time when they were done they seemed insig nificant, but God blessed them, and so they brought forth fruit in abundance. The same is true of sins. A man writes a bad book, like the Decameron of Boccaccio. He may afterwards repent, as it is said Boccaccio did, but the world goes on reading the book, and souls are polluted and ruined. At the General Judgment the matter of all our sins and good works, with all their consequences, will be com plete. The constituents of the General Judgment are chiefly two : absolute truth, and entire completeness. In the light of that great Day of Christ's appearing THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 415 all falsehood and deception will flee away, and every are truth and one will see himself, and be seen of all, exactly as he is. comPleteness- And besides, as we have shown, there will be a com pleteness in the nature of him who is judged. The Judgment will be both of the deeds done in the body and of the inmost thoughts of the soul. There will be a com pleteness in the matter of the Judgment ; all sins and good works, with their consequences, will be manifested. And there will also be a completeness in the arrange ments of the Judgment ; all the world will be there. In the New Testament the signs and circumstances 11. The time of of the Judgment are described with great minuteness, the judgment. Although the time of the Judgment is hidden from us, there will be certain signs of its approach, such as the appearance of Antichrist, and a great falling away from the Faith, together with disturbances both of nature and society. It will be the Last Day, the end of the world, the end of the reign of grace, the begin ning of the reign of glory. ' ' And then shall appear the Sign of the Son of Man in heaven" (S. Matt. xxiv. 30), — the Sign of that Cross on which He died to redeem mankind, that Cross the sight of which will overwhelm with confu sion those who neglected so great a salvation. Our Lord will come as the Son of Man, for ' ' the m. The cir- FaTHER judgeth no man, but hath committed all ^mu^nceesnf judgment unto the Son" (S. John v. 22), and will manifest to the world all the glories of that Human Nature which, hypostatically united to the Word from. the first moment of Its Conception, has been exalted to the right hand of God in Heaven. The Judge will be attended by the armies of the Angels and by the glorious multitudes of the Saints. His coming will be heralded by the Angels of Judg- 416 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. A question concerningthose who are living when CHRIST appears. IV. The subjects of the judgment : all men and the fallen angels. ment, who ' ' with a great sound of a trumpet . . . shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (S. Matt. xxiv. 31). Then will be set up the great white Throne, and the books will be opened, and the dead will be judged after the things which are written in the books, according to their works (Rev. xx. n, 12). At the sound of the Archangel's trumpet all the dead, both great and small, will arise, and in a moment those who are living will be transformed (1 Thess. iv. 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 52). A question is sometimes asked concerning those who are living (and those who have but lately died) at the time of our Lord's appearing, and who, while in a state of grace, have not fully satisfied for their sins. In what way are they purified ? While this is a matter of purely speculative theology, some have supposed that the fire spoken of by S. Paul (1 Cor. iii. 13), which " shall try every man's work of what sort it is " at the Day of Judgment, will be the agent of purification in such cases. Although it must be remembered that S. Paul is there speaking of the trial of the results of the work of the ministers of Christ, yet his words may be referred by accommodation to believers in general. This, of course, is a mere opinion in regard to a mys terious question on which we have no clear revelation. At the General Judgment all souls will receive again their bodies — those bodies which were the instruments of their good works and of their sins. Before the Throne ' ' shall be gathered all nations ' ' (S. Matt. xxv. 32) ; every one will be there. All will be judged, even those Angels that sinned and were cast down to hell, and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 S. Pet. ii. 4). THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 417 The matter of the judgment will consist of all our v. The matter deeds, for the Judge " will render to every man accord- ofthe ing to his deeds ' ' (Rom. ii. 6) ; of all our words, for t_ deeds, ' ' every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give z- words> account thereof in the Day of Judgment " (S. Matt. xii. 36) ; and more, of even our inmost thoughts, for 3. and the Lord " will bring to light the hidden things of thoughts. darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Cor. iv. 5). An interesting question arises here : Do those sins Are the sins of which have been repented of, forgiven, and blotted out the Samts _ , known at the by the Precious Blood of Christ, form matter for the judgment? General Judgment, or are they passed over, as it were, in silence ? This question seems first to have been raised (circa 1140) by Robert Pulleyne (Sentent., lib. Puiieyne's VIII., c. xxvii.), who replied that all sins, even those view; of the Saints, would be manifested at the Day of Judg ment. Peter Lombard, however, took the opposite peter view. The more common opinion amongst theolo- Lombard's; gians is that of Pulleyne, although they hold that such manifestation will cause no sorrow or shame to the the more com- Saints ; that it will be rather a manifestation of their mon "ew- penitence and of God's Mercy. We must remember in following the details which vi. The man- are so vividly described in Holy Writ, that they must f^^t. not be interpreted only according to the letter and in a the imagery of mere strict human sense. The images under which Holy scripture 0 true, but not to our Lord and His Apostles describe the Judgment are be taken absolutely true, since they convey to our minds what literally. the Holy Spirit willed to convey, and yet they are only images of the events which shall take place in that great Day. S. Thomas well remarks that most probably the 1. Thejudg- Judgment will not be by utterance of words, but by a £XbyPwardsly VOL. II.— 27 ' 4i8 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. but by illum ination. 2. The separa tion between the good and evil. 3. The sen tence, and its execu tion. Conclusion. The vision of heaven de scribed by S. John. certain illumination of the mind, and that therefore it will probably be instantaneous in its operation and in its execution. Then will come the separation between the good and the evil, between the sheep and the goats. ' ' Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom pre pared for you from the foundation of the world ; ' ' and to those on the left hand : ' ' Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (S. Matt. xxv. 34, 41). The sentence will be no sooner spoken than it will be executed. Immediately will come the end described in the Book of Revelation : " And the devil . . . was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, . . . and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. . . . And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. . . . And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. xx. 10-15). Then, on the other hand, will be seen " the Holy City, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband," and " a great voice out of Heaven" will be heard, ' ' saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away. And He that sat upon the Throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said unto me, Write : for these words are true and faithful (Rev, xxi. 2-5). o CHAPTER XVIII. HEEL. F all the subjects which have to be treated in introductory: dogmatic theology certainly none is so solemn, Thc ; awfulness - , of the subject. so unspeakably awful as that which forms the topic of our present chapter. In approaching the discussion of the doctrine of eternal punishment one shrinks from attempting to teach in a matter in which every word must be most carefully weighed, in which on the one hand one has to avoid the exaggerations that have crept into the opinions of theologians and on the other to realize the danger of diminishing aught of the awful truth re vealed by our Blessed Lord to His Church and which the Holy Ghost has unfolded in her teachings. The general tendency in our own day is to pass over Tendency of this solemn question, or where it is treated at all, to the age to pass ... , , . „ , over or tamper minimize or to deny the doctrine of Hell, or else to with this substitute for it some human theory unknown either doctrine. to Scripture or the Church. This tendency naturally belongs to an age characterized by lax views of moral ity and extreme impatience of all restrictions of author ity. Under the influence of this spirit it is easy to overlook or fail to realize the tremendous and awful responsibility incurred by those who put into the back- The responsi- ground or explain away a doctrine not only especially ^ity of ex- revealed by our Lord Himself, but which occupies so what is cieariy 419 420 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. revealed by our LORD. Nearly all we know of hell comes from the lips of CHRIST, Who teaches this doctrine again and again. Our LORD knew exactly in what sense prominent a position in His teachings as does the doc trine of eternal punishment. The trend of teaching in such an age will be to dwell upon the easy side of the Gospel of Christ, to enlarge upon the love and mercy and long-suffering of God, the gentleness and kindness and sympathy of our Blessed Lord's utterances, and to forget that it was part of His kindness to foretell, as He did in words of almost exceptional sternness, the punishment which awaits the impenitent. At the risk of anticipating what must presently be dealt with more fully, we would draw attention at the outset to the fact that nearly all we know of Hell comes from the very lips of our Blessed Lord, and that it depends not upon a forced interpretation of some one text, but that side by side with His words of pity and yearning and love are found the most uncom promising declarations of the fate of the impenitent. It is our Lord Who says that those on the left hand shall go ' ' into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels " (S. Matt. xxv. 41) ; Who speaks, not once, nor twice, but thrice of the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched, and warns us that it is better to cut off the hand or the foot, or to pluck out the eye, and enter into life maimed, than to be cast into hell fire (S. Mark ix. 43-48) ; Who tells us of the " outer darkness " and the " weeping and gnashing of teeth " (S. Matt. viii. 12) ; Who exhorts His disciples that they " fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell " (S. Matt. x. 28). When we remember that our Blessed Lord knew exactly in what sense His words would be understood HELL. 42 1 by His Church, and indeed promised that the Com- the church forter, the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father would ™"tt™d«-- stand these send m His Name, should teach His Apostles (and in words. them the Church) all things, and bring to their re membrance all things which He had spoken (S. John xiv. 26) ; and when we further find in both East and West an entire consent in teaching the doctrine of everlasting punishment, it does seem rashness amount ing to presumption to weaken or change this teaching to suit the refined sensibilities of an age whose moral sense is not shocked at sin, but is greatly scandalized at the revelation that the consequences of sin may to the sinner be eternal. Hell has been defined as the place and state in which 1. Proof of the the devils and such human beings as die in enmity with existence of God suffer eternal punishment. The Old Testament contains few direct and clear 1. The old announcements of a life beyond the grave, so that we Test- ¦ should not expect to find in it many proofs of the exist ence of Hell. Three passages, however, are quoted as bearing on this point : Isa. xxxiii. 14 ; Ixvi. 24 ; and isa. xxxiii. 14 ; Dan. xii. 2. It is doubtful whether the first can fairly lxvi- 24 ;. Dan. xn. 2. be applied to more than the temporal punishment of the Assyrians and the sinners among the Jewish nation, to whom Isaiah evidently refers. The other two are more definite, especially the last, where Daniel says that " many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. ' ' In the deuterocanonical books we find two passages Two passages in which the second text from Isaiah is applied more ln the deutero- canonical definitely to the future sufferings of the wicked. In books : Ecclesiasticus (vii. 16, 17) we read: " Number not thy- Eccius. vii. 16, self among the multitude of sinners, but remember that I7; 422 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Judith xvi. 17 ; both applying Isa. Ixvi. 24. The views of the Talmud- ists. 2. In the New Test., hell is unmistakably revealed ; it has a special name, Gehenna ; and a long series of pas sages refers to it. 3. The testi mony of the Church : in the Athan asian Creed, which is au thoritative in the Latin and English Com- wrath will not tarry long. Humble thy soul greatly : for the vengeance of the ungodly is fire and worms." And in Judith xvi. 17, we read : " Woe to the nations that rise up against my kindred ! the Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgment, in putting fire and worms in their flesh ; and they shall feel them, and weep for ever. ' ' This last passage has a special importance from an historical point of view, because, as is well known, the Talmudical Doctors disputed whether immortality and resurrection were common to the bad and good, or re served only for the latter, and again, whether any but Israelites attained to the future life. This text from the Book of Judith speaks clearly on this question. And further our Lord evidently is referring to this passage of Isaiah in S. Mark ix. 44. 4.6, 48. In the New Testament the revelation of Hell as a place of eternal punishment is clear and unmistakable. It has a special name, Gehenna, which occurs no less than twelve times. It is not necessary here to give a list of the many passages in which it is referred to in the New Testament. Admitting that in those in the Book of Revelation it is described under poetical ima gery, we have, as we have already shown, abundant teaching in the clearest terms from the very lips of Christ Himself. If we turn from the testimony of Holy Scripture to that of the Church, we find that this doctrine forms part of the Athanasian Creed : " At Whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies : and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting : and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." This Creed is the authorita tive teaching of both the Latin and English Churches. HELL. 423 In the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, in the ortho- in answer to the question : " What are we to think do* confession , of the Eastern concerning those who depart hence under the wrath of church. God ? " we read : " Of these some after the Last Judg ment will be punished with greater, some with lesser torments, but both will be without end " (Quest. 63). And again : ' ' Where is the place of those souls who leave their bodies under the displeasure of God?" Answer : ' ' Many names are given to that place which is called Hell, into which the devil, when thrust out of Heaven, was driven. To this place go down the souls of all those who die at enmity with God and under his wrath, and here are they damned " (Quest. 68). If we turn now from the fact of the existence of Hell 11. The nature to the nature of the punishments of Hell, we can speak of the Pumsh- * ' r ments of Hell. with less certainty. All theologians agree that the lost 1. ah agree in souls will suffer " the pain of loss " (pcena damni), that yegardtothe is, the deprivation of the Beatific Vision and of all those damni ; " good things which belong to it. This means that the what thls souls in Hell are deprived not only of the Vision of God, but of the friendship and society of our Lord, of the Saints and Angels, of all earthly friends and re lations, both natural and spiritual, who are in Heaven ; and of all those ineffable joys which God has prepared for those who love Him. This pcena dam?ii follows with certainty from our Lord's saying, "Depart from Me, ye cursed." To realize the bitterness of this punishment one must re member that the soul by its natural constitution tends to God as its true and final End, and when after death all the secondary allurements of the creatures are re moved, it has no other attraction but God alone. Then again, at the Day of Judgment it has seen our Lord in 424 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 2. The common opinion that there is a "poena sensus." No consensus in regard to the fire, whether material, or metaphorical.3. The com panionship in hell. 4. The worm of remorse. 5. The duration of punishment the same for all, but of un equal severity. all the Majesty and Beauty of His glorified Humanity ; it has learned, when too late, to long to possess Him Whom it has come to know as its only happiness. This insatiable craving for God, with the sense of separation from Him, is the chief element in the poena damni. In addition to theposna damni it is the common opin ion of theologians, based upon our Lord's revelation in Holy Scripture, that there is in Hell a poena sensus, since our Lord tells us to " fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell. ' ' Besides, as the body has been the instrument of many of the sins we have committed, it seems fitting that it should receive its own special punishment. The majority of theologians consider the fires of Hell to be in some sense material. Some of the Fathers, however, as S. Ambrose, Theophylact, S. Jerome, S. John of Damascus, and others, think that the fire is metaphorical. Among the punishments of Hell must be accounted the companionship of the devils and of other lost souls. Among these the lost will perhaps find partners of their sins, those who tempted them or were tempted by them, and mutual reproaches will be among the miser ies of Hell. Then again, our Blessed Lord specially calls at tention to the " worm " that " dieth not," — the worm of remorse, of self-accusation ; the constant thought, ' ' It was my own fault, my own choice ; I might have chosen Heaven ! " While as regards duration the punishment will be the same for all, since it will be eternal, it will differ in severity according to the sins of each. This is taught alike by East and West. HELL. 425 Some theologians, too, admit what they call an Accidental " accidental mitigation " of this punishment on several mitigations; grounds ; first, because the punishment for venial sins will come to an end after a certain time, and also the temporal punishment due to mortal sins which have been remitted ; so that S. Thomas * thinks it probable that there will be some diminution of the punishment diminution of required by the j ustice of God. punishment ; Other theologians and Fathers also hold that by theory of suc- reason of Divine Pity, not of Justice, there will be sue- c*sslve nntiga- cessive mitigations of the punishment of the lost ; so that though they will always remain separated from God, their condition will become more tolerable. This view is permitted by S. Augustine, hinted at by S. Chrysostom, and plainly taught by S. John of Damascus. The reader is referred to an interesting passage on this subject in Petavius,! and to Note 3 in the appendix to Newman's Grammar of Assent, in which a special view of this question is discussed. Zaccaria in his notes on Petavius shows that both in Prayers for the the East and the West prayers for the lost were said lo!' in, old in 1SS 4IS • in the Mass. He cites an ancient Latin Missal which contains a touching prayer for a person taken away without time for repentance, beseeching God, if the dead man's crimes make it impossible for him to rise to glory, at least to make his torments endurable. We come now to the question of the eternal duration in. The eter- of the punishments of the lost, and as this is the point juration of of attack in the present day, we shall, at the risk of repetition, briefly consider some of the arguments by which the Church's view is supported. And first, of course, we turn to Holy Scripture. As The testimony we have seen, in the Old Testament there are three of Holy script ure. * IV. Dist. xxiii., q. 1, a. 1-5. t De Angelis, iii. 7. 426 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. i. The Old Test. ; the deutero canonicalbooks. 2. The New Test.Three classes of texts. i. Those that use the word 2 Thess. i. 9 ; S. Matt. xxv. 41, 46 ; S. Matt, xviii. 8. ii. Those that speak of the punishments as having no end*S. Mark ix. 43-48 (five times) ; 1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v. 21 ; texts, — -Isa. xxxiii. 14, Ixvi. 24, and Dan. xii. 2, — which more or less clearly teach the eternal punishment of the wicked. In the Books of Ecclesiasticus and Judith we find the passage in the sixty-sixth chapter of Isaiah elaborated and clearly applied to the future punishment of the lost. But what gives this text and that in the Book of Daniel their special force is that they form the basis, and supply the imagery of many of the utterances of our Lord and His Apostles on this subject. If we pass now to the New Testament we find that the texts in reference to eternal punishment arrange themselves under three heads. First, those which in describing the punishment use the word "eternal" (aioovios). Among these are: " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction " (2 Thess. i. 9). "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ; ' ' and again : ' ' These shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal" (S. Matt. xxv. 41, 46). " It is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire " (S. Matt. xviii. 8). In the second class we may place those passages which speak of the punishments of the lost as having no end. " It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (S. Mark ix. 43. This expression occurs twice and " is not quenched" three times in this passage). " Know ye not that the un righteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God ? " (1 Cor. vi. 9). " They which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God " (Gal. v. 21). " He will HELL. 427 burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire " (S. Matt. s. Matt. m. 12; iii. 12 ; S. Luke iii. 17). s. Luke iii. 17. Under the third head we may arrange those texts iii. Those that which speak of the state of the lost and of the saved as speak of an , . unchangeable unchangeable, so that there is for the lost no oppor- state: tunity of penitence. The first of these is from the Old Testament. " If the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be" (Eccl. xi. 3). "He that shall (Eccl. xi.3;) blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never for giveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation " (S. s. Mark iii. 29 • Mark iii. 29). ' ' Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (S. Matt. xii. s. Matt. xii. 32 ; 32). " Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they which would pass from hence to you can not ; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (S. Luke xvi. 26). s. Luke xvi. 26. In regard to the first set of texts it is objected, by The first class those who do not receive the Church's teaching, that fltexts' r , ° ' The use of aioovios does not necessarily mean "eternal;" that ai^os in the it simply implies a duration of time, and that the sub- New Test- stantive from which it is derived is sometimes used for " an age." In reply to this we may observe that the adjective occurs in the New Testament seventy-one times, of which perhaps two cases are doubtful, but all the others signify eternity. It is used of eternal life forty-four times ; of Almighty God, His Spirit, and His glory, thrice ; of the Kingdom of Christ, His Redemption, the Blood of His Covenant, His Gospel, salvation, and our habitation in Heaven, seven times ; of the glory Laid up for us, thrice ; of our inheritance, consolation, and of a sharer of eternal life, seven times ; of eternal 428 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The parallel ism of everlast ing punish ment with everlasting life in S. Matt. xxv. 46. The second class of texts. The force of acrfleo'TO'f con sidered. The third class of texts. An ' ' un changeablestate " explained. 3. Two pas sages adduced in favor of Uni versalism : Acts iii. 19-21 ; fire, thrice ; of punishment, judgment, destruction, four times ; from which we see that it is nowhere used in the New Testament as referring to the future, except of eternal life or eternal punishment. Again, it is an unvarying rule of interpretation that a word which is used in two members of a sentence must have the same force in both ; and where our Lord says : ' ' These shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal," the adjective aiooviov must have the same force in both places ; so that if we deny that the punishment is eternal, we must give up also the belief that the reward is eternal. However, the doctrine of eternal punishment does not depend only upon those passages in which the word aioovios is used, for in the second class of texts we have no less than seven instances in which the punishment is said to be without end. Here again we may notice an objection, that the adjective aGfteGros, which qualifies the word " fire," does not mean " in extinguishable," but only that which de facto is not extinguished. We can grant this without weakening our argument, for if the fire truly is not extinguished, the torments of the lost de facto will not cease. Again, we have the third class of texts, in which the state into which the soul passes at death is said to be unchangeable. We may observe here that it is the state which is unchangeable, and that within that state either of salvation or loss the soul may undergo change, but that it can never pass from that state into another. Against this array of texts two have sometimes been quoted as implying a final restitution of all things, when all men shall be saved. The first is : " Repent HELL. 429 ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord ; and He shall send Jesus Christ, Which before was preached unto you : Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things " (Acts. iii. 19-21). There is some obscurity in this text, but it certainly the exegesis of cannot be twisted into a support of Universalism. S. the Passase ; Peter is exhorting the Jews to repent in order that they may be able at the Day of Judgment to enjoy refresh ment when all things shall be restored, or ' ' made new." There is not the slightest sign here of a repentance after the Day of Judgment ; indeed S. Peter exhorts the Jews to repent at once, that in the Day of Judg ment they may be found in a state of grace. This will be made quite clear by a comparison of this passage with Rev. xxi. 1-5. And, besides this, it is evident that S. Peter has in mind a renewal and restoration which is to take place on earth and not in Hell, and before the Judgment, not after it. The other text is : " And when all things shall be icor. xv. 28; subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be the context ' considered. subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all " (1 Cor. xv. 28). The phrase which the Universalists attempt to pervert is " that God may be all in all ; " but a consideration of the context will show that this does not in any sense imply the salvation of all, but only that the lost and the rebel angels shall be subject to God and shall recognize His dominion. God is not to be " all in all " to Christ's enemies ; on the contrary, S. Paul distinctly says in a previous verse that Christ is to put those enemies under His feet. 43° CA THOLIC FAITH AND PRA CTICE. 4. The testi mony of the Fathers : S. Polycarp ; S. Justin Martyr ; consensus of Fathers,except Origen, Gregory Nyssen, Greg ory Nazianzen, and a few others. Origen's He, denying the restoration of Satan, If we turn from Holy Scripture to the testimony of the Fathers, we find that among the very earliest there was a clear understanding of the doctrine of eternal punishment. " Thou threatenest me," says S. Poly carp to the proconsul, ' ' with fire which burns for an hour and so is extinguished, but knowest not the fire of the future Judgment and of that eternal punishment which is reserved for the ungodly " (Martyrium, § n). S. Justin says, " Christ revealed beforehand that the devil will be sent into fire with his host and the men that are his followers, there to be tormented to an end less eternity " (Apol., i. 28). We have not space to quote further examples, but we may say that this is the teaching of all the Fathers, both East and West, with the possible exception of Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, and one or two others who were influenced by Origen's teaching. In his De Principiis (i. 6), Origen gives it as his opinion that even the devils will undergo a long course of purification and be saved at last ; and in his com mentary on Joshua (Homily viii.) he asserts the same thing of men who have been condemned at the Day of Judgment. The book, which contains most of the heresies known under the name of Origen, — amongst them the pre- existence of souls, and their subsequent restoration, — was unknown to the Church until translated by Ru- finus, 398. It was written while Origen was yet quite young and before he had left Alexandria, therefore about 231. One heresy involved in the doctrine of universal restitution, namely the restoration of Satan, he indig nantly denied at the time in a public letter, wherein he HELL. 43 1 says : ' ' Although they say that the father of malice and of the perdition of those who shall be cast out of the Kingdom of God, can be saved, which no one can say, even if bereft of reason ; ' ' and again : " Of them [Israel] there will be a conversion even at the end of the world, then when the fulness of the gentiles shall come in, and all Israel shall be saved ; but of him who was said to have fallen from Heaven, not even in the end of the world would be any conversion" (Opp., t. I., p.5 ; t. IV., p. 634). Origen taught the orthodox belief in his popular generally writings, and he is careful to state that what he said in teaches the orthodox view, the matter of the end, or consummation, was advanced and distinctly ' ' with great fear and caution, discussing and treating disciafms any .... ,. . ii,-i,, certainty in rather than laying down anything certain and defined . regard to uni- He was, however, condemned by name in the eleventh versaiism ; anathema of the Fifth General Council. Some think aTcecumeni-y that Origen's name was a later addition, but Hefele cai council. defends its authenticity. From this we may gather how little support the summary of doctrine of Universalism has from the Fathers. It is authority . against Um- stated only in a hesitating way by Origen, was con- versaiism. demned, and has not reappeared among any of the Church's theologians. We have already, by references to the Athanasian Creed in the West and the Orthodox Confession in the East, shown it to be the authoritative teaching of both East and West that the punishment of Hell is everlasting. The only arguments which are brought against this teaching are a priori arguments based upon the opinion of certain individuals con cerning what God ought to do in punishing sin, as distinguished from what God has revealed that He will do. Before we proceed to speak of some of these modern considerations ; 432 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 5 a warning theories in regard to the punishment of sin in another ranted're're"" ^e' a W0T& °f earnest warning may be in place against sentationsof attributing to the Church views on this awful subject the doctrine. which, though put forth by many individual writers in the Middle Ages, have certainly not received the au thoritative sanction of the Church. Extent of All that the Church teaches is that for some souls church'5 an<^ f°r ^e devils there will be a state of everlasting teaches. punishment. What proportion of our race will be saved or lost is not a matter of revelation, and there fore has no place in the Church's teaching. 6. Extenuating We may be sure that God condemns no single soul unless He has first bestowed upon it full opportunity of securing a life of eternal happiness. It is a matter of faith that God desires the salvation of all men, and that in judging He will take into consideration the advantages and disadvantages which each soul has had. It may be that only those will be lost in whom God sees that there is no further possibility of good. And when we say that those who die separated from Him by mortal sin are lost, we must bear in mind that we cannot authoritatively say who these persons are. Sins which seem grievous to us and which are ma terially mortal sins may be excused by ignorance or want of deliberation ; and even men who seem to end evil lives with evil deaths may nevertheless at the last moment be enlightened by God's mercy, perhaps just as their souls are passing out of their bodies, and so die in peace with Him. While we should be most severe in the judgment of ourselves, and so leave nothing undone to ensure our own salvation, we should be most charitable in our judgment of others, praying for all, and hoping that God's Mercy may devise some means not inconsistent HELL. 433 with His Justice of saving those who appear to have forfeited salvation. With respect to those who have not had the oppor- the heathen tunities of Christianity— the heathen and the un- andunDaP- t_ i • tized may baptized — theologians teach that if they have lived attain to natu- according to the light of nature they will in eternity ral beatitude. have a natural beatitude ; that is, while they have not the capacity to see God in His Essence in the Beatific Vision, yet they will share in God's goodness, will re ceive the beatification of all their natural powers, and will know and praise God as their Creator, seeing Him not immediately, but as manifested in His works. This, to some extent at least, answers the difficulty in regard to the salvation of the heathen. Most dis tinctly we may say that those who live up to the light of nature are not consigned to the torments of Hell, although they may not attain to the full joy of the Beatific Vision. They do not, however, grieve at this deprivation, since, having no capacity for the Beatific Vision, they have no sense of what they have lost. Newman, in his Grammar of Assent lays down the 7. The moral general principle that no religion can be from God ^"j^011"1" which contradicts our sense of right and wrong ; but, Newman on while fully admitting this, he points out that we must our moral f. , , . . , sense and ever- first be certain that we have satisfactorily ascertained lasting punisn- what the dictates of our moral nature are in the par- ment. ticular case before us, and then that we are applying them rightly. In regard to those who consider the doctrine of retributive punishment or of Divine vengeance to be incompatible with true religion, he says that in order to maintain such a position ' ' they have first to prove that an act of vengeance must as such be a sin in our own instance ; but even this is far from clear. Anger 434 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and indignation against cruelty and injustice, resent ment of injuries, desire that the false, the ungrateful, and the depraved should meet with punishment, — these, if not in themselves virtuous feelings, are at least not vicious. . . . The rule of morals is the same for all, and yet notwithstanding, what is right in one is not necessarily right in another. What would be a crime in a private man to do is a crime in a magis trate not to have done. Still wider is the difference between man and his Maker. Nor must it be forgotten that . . . retributive justice is the very attribute under which God is primarily brought before us in the teachings of our natural conscience. . . . We all feel the force of the maxim, Audi alteram partem, . . . " and " we read of a day when the Almighty will condescend to place His actions in their complete ness before His creatures and ' will overcome when He is judged.' If till then we feel it to be a duty to sus pend our judgment concerning certain of His actions or precepts, we do no more than we do every day in the case of an earthly friend or enemy whose conduct in some point requires explanation. . . . Moreover, when we are about to pass judgment on the dealings of Providence with other men, we shall do well to con sider first His dealings with ourselves. We cannot we must argue know about others, about ourselves we do know some- do0kn^watoWe thinS> and we kn°w that He has ever been good to us what we do and not severe. Is it not wise to argue from what we not know. actually know to what we do not know ? " * But not only is retributive justice "the very at tribute under which God is primarily brought before us in the teachings of our natural conscience," but if we argue from what we know of man's moral nature * Pp. 419-421. HELL. 435 we have surely no reason to suppose that an arbitrary no reason to forgiveness of sin would have the effect of arresting the suPP°se that a i i r- 11,11 i . moral nature downward course of a soul already deeply steeped in can be arbi- evil. Our experience certainly shows us that there is trariiy a time in the sinner's history after which the will be comes so weakened from indulgence in sin that nothing but a miracle of grace can effect restoration. May not, therefore, what we call eternal punishment Eternal pun- be only the necessary consequence of sin in a being to jshment may whom God has given a free will ? The sinner has necessary con- been striving all his life to live apart from God, Who sequence of sin " and free will. is his true End, and the sentence at the Day of Judg ment, " Depart from Me," is simply God's ratification The choice of the sinner's deliberate choice. ma°'f' not GOD'S. Do not those who say that the idea of vindictive vindictive pun- punishment outrages man's moral sense (since punish- ishmentand ment should always be remedial) overlook the fact that sense. man's moral sense of justice leads him in certain cases, and those not a few, to inflict punishment which is not remedial and is vindictive ? Take but one instance, the punishment of death for murder. While it may be pleaded that this punish ment is remedial in the sense that it discourages others from committing that crime, yet no one can maintain that to put an impenitent murderer to death is in his case remedial. His death may be to others a strong deterrent from crime, but if he dies impenitent, the punishment is surely vindictive, and vindictive only, as far as he is concerned. Our instincts of justice were implanted in us by God, and are they not in this case in striking analogy to what God has revealed of his own attitude towards sin ? The testimony of thousands is that the revelation of The power of eternal punishment is one of the strongest deterrents this doctrine as 436 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. a deterrent from sin. IV. The prin cipal modern substitutes for this doctrine. i. Universal ism; its difficulties. from sin, and therefore remedial in the case of all who will allow it to be remedial, and vindictive only towards those who, knowing the consequences, deliberately incur them. We need now do little more than mention the prin cipal modern theories which have been put forth in antagonism to the Church's teaching about eternal punishment. They are three. First, Universalism, or the theory of a final restitution of all things. This view affirms that in the distant future every being who possesses a moral nature will be brought into voluntary subjection to God ; and, while it exists in various forms, it generally teaches that Hell is a sort of Purga tory in which the souls of the lost will by suffering have their moral nature changed. This is equivalent to saying that what God has been unable to effect in man by His Goodness and Love and the grace which He has abundantly bestowed, will be effected by the companionship of the devils and the lost in Hell ; so that in eternity, if one may say it with reverence, instead of singing the praises of the Re deemer Who died upon the Cross to save them, such souls would proclaim the efficacy of Hell to accomplish what grace had failed to do. A further difficulty is that we cannot conceive in what manner the companionship of the devils, and per haps of the vilest of the human race, can work a moral improvement. Indeed, our experience in this world would lead us to the very opposite conclusion. And yet again, this view demands the existence in eternity of both time and change, both of which are contrary to the definition of eternity ; so that, apart from its other difficulties, Universalism is simply un thinkable. HELL. 437 The second view, which is generally known as 2. probation ' ' Probation after death, ' ' teaches that for those at least after death ; who have had little opportunity of salvation in this life there will be a further period of probation beyond the grave. We need only say that there is not the slightest its immoral warrant for this in Holy Scripture, and that it is con- intanceon J *- sinners. trary to the teachings of the Church ; and further, that its practical results would be most immoral, since in many cases it would encourage sinners to put off re pentance and amendment of life, in the hope of some further opportunity of grace. The third view is called by its adherents " Con- 3- conditional ditional immortality," or " life in Christ." Accord- j^Sj^™ ing to this theory all men are naturally mortal, and their survival after death is no natural endowment of man, but is a gift bestowed on him through Jesus Christ. Man as originally created might have avoided death by eating of the tree of life, but this condition of things, in consequence of the sin of Adam, now no longer exists. Yet, as the result of the Incarnation, all men will be raised again in their bodies and rewarded or punished according to their works, the wicked pass ing into a state of suffering which will ultimately destroy them. In other words, this is the theory of annihilation. While the body of man may be naturally mortal and may have needed the tree of life to preserve it from physical death, revelation gives us no reason to suppose unsupported that the soul which God breathed into man is also fey revelation, mortal. For by this gift " God created man in His own image," which certainly does not suggest a mere conditional immortality ; but rather, as the Book of Wisdom (ii. 23) teaches: " God created man to be im- 438 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. and contrary to what we know of the inde structibility of both matter and force. V. Conclusion. i. Misbelief and disbelief in everlasting punishment compared with the first tempt ation of Eve. The method, first to doubt the fact of the revelation, mortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity; " and this even the heathen recognized. Moreover, the theory of annihilation is contrary to our experience of the indestructibility both of matter and force, and certainly finds no support in either Holy Scripture or the teachings of the Church. There are various modifications of these views, which we have not space to notice here. In conclusion we would point out that to call in question the truth of God's revelation of the everlast ing punishment of sin is no mere modern invention. We may trace it, more distinctly than most errors, to the father of lies himself, for it was the very method by which he seduced our first parents to sin. God had revealed to them that in the day in which they dis obeyed Him by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they should surely die. Satan first suggested a doubt as to whether God had really revealed this. " He said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? " (Gen. iii. i). When Eve replied distinctly: " Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die " (verse 3), Satan replied by flatly denying the truth of God's revelation, and answered, " Ye shall not surely die " (verse 4). God reveals a truth to man, that sin will be pun ished ; and this truth is hard and unpleasant for man to believe. Satan first suggests a doubt, that perhaps man has misunderstood God, and that He really has never revealed any such thing. He first of all calls in question the fact of the revelation :— " Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? " And when this fails and he finds man convinced of the HELL. 439 fact of the revelation, he goes on to deny its truth, and then to deny says, ' ' Ye shall not surely die. ' ' it3 truth ; From the first temptation of man to the last, Satan to deceive man probably finds no method so efficacious as to hide from as to the con; sequences of man at the moment of temptation the consequences of sin is always sin. God has revealed to us that the consequences Satan's of sin, unless it be repented of and forgiven, will be eternal. Satan suggests to one class of minds a doubt whether God ever has revealed this, and they labour to prove that there is no such revelation in Holy Scrip ture, and do this by trying to force an unnatural sense into one or two passages, and to explain away the natural sense of many others. With another class Satan is bolder, and persuades them that though it is clear that God has revealed this, it is not true. Man ' ' shall not surely die ; ' ' God could not be so cruel, so unjust. In this way the greatest deterrent from sin is removed. For there can be little doubt that when a belief in everlasting punishment is given up, the greatest hindrance to sin is removed. If there is a possibility of a future probation, or of annihilation, or of a final restitution of all things, the sinner in his folly is tempted to say, ' ' Then I will take my chance of this." When we remember that almost all we know of the 2. The reveia- awful doctrine of everlasting punishment comes from tionofheiiisfrom the lips the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who ofCHRisT; loved us and died for us, we shall hesitate to ask, ' ' Hath God said this ? " we shall refuse to admit that " man shall not surely die; " we shall realize that it it was part of was part of our Lord's kindness to reveal to us this H,skmdness- stern truth. If He had not done so, many souls that are now in Heaven would never have won their crowns. Many 44° CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. with many of of the Saints tell us of themselves, that it was the the saints fear fear of H n th t firgt , d them t repentance. Fear is was the first r motive of not the highest motive for repentance, but it is very repentance. often the first) and jeads Qn tQ love s. Augustine As S. Augustine says in commenting on the passage of fear to love" ' ' Perfect love casteth out fear ' ' : — And yet the needle of fear must go before the thread of love, the needle piercing the sinner's hard heart, and then the thread of love gaining its entrance into that heart. And as the needle is drawn out, leaving the thread behind to keep the work together, so ' perfect love casteth out fear,' and binds the work together, binds the soul to God with the cords of that love. CHAPTER XIX. HEAVEN. " T~^YE hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have introductory: f" entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him " (i Cor. ii. 9). S. Paul uses these words to tell None can now us how impossible it is for us to comprehend the glories tke^foriesof of Heaven. And the words come to us with peculiar Heaven, force and authority when we remember that S. Paul was one of the very few to whom it was permitted, even while in his pilgrimage here, to see the glories and hear the voices in Paradise ; and that he himself records how in that rapture he ' ' heard unspeakable words, which it is not possible for a man to utter ' ' (2 Cor. xii. 4). Yet, but revelation while we cannot hope to describe the good things which abou"th^m ^ the Blessed enjoy in the Beatific Vision, there is much in regard to it which we may gather from revelation. Heaven will be the result of the working out of our Heaven win be life here. It will be the Beatitude of every faculty *^t rfow Hfe which has been developed, of all the senses which here. have been disciplined in this life. It will not be the mere admission into a place of surpassing glory, but it will be such a transformation of the powers of our nature as will enable us to drink in as from a river the joys of the Beatific Vision. Heaven is a place and a state in which Angels and Heaven is a men enjoy the possession of God. It is not only a as^state^11 441 442 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Definition of Beatitude. The glory of Heaven is two fold.I. The glory of the soul. This consistsin its union with GOD by an act of the intellect and of the will. i. Definition of the Beatific Vision.It is distinct, state, but also a place; since it is the special place in which the glorified Humanity of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the Angels, and the Saints together dwell in the enjoyment of eternal Beatitude. S. Thomas defines Beatitude as " a perfect good which entirely satisfies our desires," and he shows that men cannot find Beatitude in created things, but only in the uncreated Good, that is, in the possession of God. For God, and God alone, is at once the First Principle from which we receive our being and all other good things, and the Final End to which our intel lectual powers, rightly used, ceaselessly tend. But created good things, since they are finite and trans itory, can never satisfy the desires of an immortal soul. S. Augustine, after he had vainly sought happiness in created things, addressing God, says : ' ' Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it rests in Thee." The happiness of Heaven, which is also spoken of as the glory of Heaven, may be considered as twofold : the glory of the soul, and the glory of the body. The Beatitude or glory of the soul in Heaven con sists essentially in its vital union with God, and this union by some is thought to be perfected by a twofold act, — by the Beatific Vision, in which the intellect im mediately sees God, and by a beatified Love, with which the will loves Him. By these two acts the Blessed possess and enjoy God. The Beatific Vision has been defined as a distinct and intuitive, but nevertheless not comprehensive, knowledge of God as He is in Himself. It is distinct or clear, as differing from a knowledge of God acquired either by reason or by faith, since such knowledge has always a certain obscurity. HEA VEN. 443 It is intuitive or immediate, in the sense that God is intuitive, seen in Himself directly, and not through the medium of creatures. And thus the Beatific Vision is dis tinguished from abstract or deductive knowledge, for in these God is apprehended by effects, whilst in the Beatific Vision we see God directly and in Himself, as really present to the intellect. We are not, however, able to see God, even in the butnotcom- Beatific Vision, comprehensively, since a finite intellect pre cannot perfectly comprehend God, Who is infinite. In the Beatific Vision we see not only God's at- in the vision tributes, but His very Essence, God Himself, the Ever- GOd's Blessed Trinity. Essence ; It is, of course, with the eyes of the soul, not with not, of course; the bodily eyes, that God is seen. This follows from ^hbodily the fact that God is incorporeal. Nor can any created intellect in its own natural strength enjoy the Beatific Vision, for there is no proportion between the Divine Nature and the highest created intelligence. As we have said, there will be a transformation or ele- but by an eie vation of the natural powers of the soul to enable it to eyes, vation of the powers of the the bestowal of a special gift. apprehend the Beatific Vision. For as the natural eye soul, through requires two things to enable it to see, the presence of an object, and light in order that the image of the ob ject may be received, so the intellect in order to see God requires not only the proximity of the Divine Essence, but also an interior gift by which it is elevated to an act above its natural powers. This quality in the intellect of the Blessed, theologians \- Thisquaiity call the light of glory, a term which is used frequently "\\%]^0i in the Fathers, and which was adopted by the Council glory" of Vienne. The light of glory bestows three gifts upon it bestows the intellect of the Blessed. First, it raises it to a mode of apprehension altogether 444 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (i) it elevates the intellect, (2) expands it, (3) directs and assists it. ii. The Saints differ in capac ity for the Vision ; this difference depends chiefly on faithful use of GOD'S gifts here. Divine, so that they are able to know God directly and immediately, as He knows Himself. Secondly, it increases the capacity of the intellect, so that it may be capable of immeasurable and unlimited good. Thirdly, it determines and assists the intellect in its apprehension of the Beatific Vision, as light enables the eye to produce, not the object which it sees, but the vision of it. While the Saints in Heaven all intuitively behold God face to face, they do not all apprehend Him in an equal degree. The first part of this proposition re quires no proof, since we are told again and again in Holy Scripture that we shall see God face to face and shall know even as we are known. That we shall not all apprehend God in the same degree S. Paul clearly tells us when, speaking of the state of the Blessed after the Resurrection, he says : " One star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 41, 42). And our Lord said : " In My Father's house are many mansions " (S. John xiv. 2). Besides, Holy Scripture in many places declares that God will ren der to each one according to his works (Prov. xxiv. 12; S. Matt., xvi. 27; 1 Cor. iii. 8), and that " he which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly ; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully " (2 Cor. ix. 6). And this inequality follows from that difference of capacity in the soul which depends partly upon the talents which God bestowed upon it in creating it, but still more upon the fidelity with which those talents have been developed. Their inequality, however, will be no cause of envy HEA VEN. 445 amongst the elect ; since each one will enjoy the Beatific Vision to his full capacity, and this for him will leave nothing more to be desired. Two objects are seen in the Beatific Vision. The m. Two objects first is God Himself, as seen in Himself. The second areseenfn the Vision : is the creatures, which are known in God. The first object constitutes the essential, the latter (Z) god Him- the accidental Beatitude of the Saints. In the Beatific self> Vision we see God Himself; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; Truth, Justice, Love, etc. The Blessed see, besides God, many other things, (2) and the past, present, and future, and especially those which creaturesin belong to their condition. In regard to this theolo- Thissecond gians have taught that the knowledge bf each of the knowledge is Blessed will be threefold. First, as elevated to the order of grace, they will under- (i) The mys_ stand in a more perfect manner the mysteries in which teriesofthe they believed when they were upon earth ; they will al ' know the other Saints and their fellow-citizens in Heaven, and especially those whom they knew and loved on earth with a supernatural affection. Secondly, as part of the universe, they will know all (ii) th,e laws of the laws of nature ; and it is thought by some that those nature; who in their work for God gave themselves to the study of any particular science will probably have special joy in penetrating the principles of that science. Thirdly, as individuals, holding public or private (iii) individ- office, each will know all those things which appertain ual mterests- to his former state. A Bishop, for instance, will see especially all that pertains to the government of the Church. A mother will perceive those things which relate to her children. Those persons and matters in which they were interested when they were on earth will remain special objects of care to the Saints in recognizingGOD as this 446 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Heaven, and they will pray for them. This last, of course, is before the Day of Judgment. 2. By an act of From the intuitive knowledge of God in the Beatific Blessed love Vision flows a perfect and beatified love, so that the god perfectly. Saints love God fully and perfectly, for S. Paul says : " Charity never faileth : but whether there be pro phecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall i. The will is vanish away" (1 Cor. xiii. 8). The will is infallibly attracted to the .. .1..1 , • i , ,-, , T , „ .„ highest Good, attracted to the highest Good. In the Beatific Vision the intellect the intellect recognizes God as the highest Good. Therefore the will reaches out to God with most burn ing and perfect love. As the light of glory is bestowed upon the Saints in Heaven to perfect the intellect and to enable it to know God absolutely, so in the Blessed enabied'toiove the wil1 is strengthened by the habit of Charity, which god perfectly; enables it to love God perfectly as the supreme Good. thiswrnf °f Theologians teach that the effect of this beatific Love love is two- may be regarded as twofold : ecstasy, and union with fold: God. (1) cstasy, Ecstasy may be described as a state in which a man, so to speak, passes out of himself into the possession of the object of his love. Thus the Saints are so drawn to God in thought and affection that all thoughts and motions of self-love become entirely extinguished in them, and they are, as it were, dead to self, and live only to God ; seeking nothing but His glory, as S. Paul says : " I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. ii. 20). uniofwrtif^1 ^ °ther T*** °f beatlfiC L°Ve iS PerfeCt UIlion witk god. GoD- By this union the Saints are joined so closely to God through the sublime and perpetual contemplation of the Divine Essence (since they always behold the Face of God), and by continual imitation of the Divine HE A VEN. 447 character and perfect conformity with the Divine Will, that they are in a sense transformed into God. Thus the Saints are so consumed with the love of God that they all seem to be absorbed or immersed in the abyss of Divinity, and yet without any loss of individuality, for they always remain distinct from Him. Before we pass from this point we may observe that iv. a contro- there is a controversy among theologians in regard to versy as to the the essence of formal Beatitude. There are three Beatitude: principal opinions. First, that of the Scotists, who hold that formal co the scotist Beatitude consists essentially in the beatific Love. vlew; Second, the opinion of the Thomists, who teach that (2) that of the formal Beatitude consists in the Beatific Vision alone ; Thomlsts ; so that Love, although proceeding from the Vision and pertaining to the state of happiness, yet does not per tain to its essence. Third, the view of some of the Jesuits, of whom Les- (3) a Jesuit sius and Suarez were the leaders. They, following S- ^°^tc^"e Bonaventura, contend that Beatitude essentially con sists both in the Vision and in the beatific Love, since the ultimate perfection of a rational creature consists essentially in an act both of intelligence and of will ; for both faculties essentially constitute man ; therefore in order that man may be happy both faculties must be perfectly satisfied. We may sum up this part of our subject by saying summary of that the Beatific Vision and the beatific Love of God ^^rtofthe are to the Saints an endless source of unspeakable joy and supreme happiness. As the Psalmist tells us: " They shall be satisfied with the plenteousness of Thy house : and Thou shalt give them drink of Thy pleas ures, as out of the river. For with Thee is the well of life : and in Thy light shall we see light ' ' (Ps. xxxvi. 448 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. II. The glory of the body. i. All men shall rise at the L,ast Day with their own bodies. i. The resur rection-body will be perfect and entire, ii. but no longer depend ent upon the functions of animal life ; iii. and will be of perfect development. 8, 9); and again : " As for me, I will behold Thy pres ence in righteousness : and when I awake up after Thy likeness, I shall be satisfied with it " (Ps. xvii. 16). And this glory and happiness can never be lost, for it is eternal ; from whence it follows that the Saints in Heaven are altogether sinless and unable to sin. When our Lord comes to judge the world, " all men shall rise again with their bodies. ' ' * Here we may observe two things : the one, that all men, that is, both good and evil, shall rise at the Last Day ; the other, that all men shall rise with their own bodies, the same bodies which were the instruments of their sins and of their good works on earth. With what j oy will the souls of the Saints be reunited to those bodies, and in that union receive an increment of Beatitude ! With what horror will the souls of the wicked be forced to take again those bodies, which, as they were the cause of many of their sins, will have their own special suffering and punishment ! Here we may observe, first, that all alike will rise with perfect and entire bodies ; they will be free from the effects of disease, and no part will be wanting. Then, that these bodies will no longer be dependent upon the functions of animal life; they will no longer need to eat and drink and sleep, nor will they generate; all of which pertain to the animal body and not to the spiritual. It is commonly taught that the bodies of the Blessed, whether they were old or young when they died, in the Resurrection will be of perfect development, as in the prime of life. S. Paul tells us of our body that " it is sown in cor ruption ; it is raised in incorruption : it is sown in dis- * Athanasian Creed. HE A VEN. 449 honour ; it is raised in glory : it is sown in weakness ; 2. Thefour pro- it is raised in power: it is sown a natural [ibvxixov] parties of the ... L.r A J glorified body, body; it is raised a spintual body " (1 Cor. xv. 42-44). 1 cor. xv. 42- From which passage we may learn the four properties 44: of the risen body. For as the soul in Heaven has its endowments, namely the light of glory and the in crease of Charity, so will the bodies of the Saints have their special gifts. The endowments of the glorified body are said to be four : Impassibility, Subtlety, Agility, and Clarity. Impassibility means freedom not only from death, i. impassi- but from all pain and suffering. This property of the bUlty'— risen body follows from S. Paul's words : " It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption." And, as S. Thomas tells us, this impassibility arises from the its cause ac- perfect subjection of the body to the rational soul, by c°rdmsrtos. . ,. , . 1 , , . . . . Thomas ; virtue of which the soul communicates its own impassi bility to the body.* Subtlety is that quality by which the bodies of the «. subtlety- Saints are able to penetrate other bodies without injury either to themselves or to those bodies through which they pass. This attribute does not arise from absence of dimension or extension in the glorified body, but rather from the fact that these properties are so sus pended that it is able to penetrate other bodies. Thus we find our Lord appearing in the upper chamber at Jerusalem on Easter Day, when the doors were shut for fear of the Jews. This property of the risen body seems to be implied in S. Paul's words : " It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." S. Thomas says that this arises from the dominion of the its cause ; glorified soul, which ' ' informs ' ' the body ; whence the * S. Thomas, Summa; supp., qusest. lxxxii., a. 1. vol. n. — 29 450 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iii agility, — iv. clarity,- glorified body is called spiritual, since it is altogether subject to the spirit.* Agility is that endowment by which the risen body is able to transfer itself from place to place with the swiftness of thought, at the will of the soul, which property S. Paul implies when he says : " It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power." S. Thomas tells us that " the soul is not only joined to the body as its form, but as its motor, and in both cases it befits the glorified body to be entirely subject to the glorified soul, so that it may be apt and obedient to all the motions and actions of the soul. ' ' f Clarity is that property of the bodies of the just which causes them to shine with the glory and beauty of Heaven, of which the Apostles had a glimpse when our Lord was transfigured, when " His Face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light " (S. Matt. xvii. 2). To this property of the risen body S. Paul refers in the words : " It is sown in dishonour ; it is raised in glory. ' ' And our Lord expressly foretells this in the parable of the Tares, when He says : ' ' Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the King dom of their Father" (S. Matt. xiii. 43). This brightness will be caused, as S. Thomas thinks, by the overflow of the glory of the soul upon the body.| So far we have spoken only of the positive joys of Heaven, but revelation reminds us that there are i*Thenegative negative joys also ; that there shall be no more sorrow j°ys ; and suffering, no more doubts and fears, no more sin, no more death ; for " God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, *S. Thomas, Summa ; supp., qusest. lxxxiii., a. 1. fib. ; supp., quaest. lxxxiv., a. 1. lib. ; supp., quaest. lxxxv., a. 1, III. Other ele ments of joy in Heaven HE A VEN. 45 I neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away ' ' (Rev. xxi. 4). Then, too, in Heaven, as we have said, there will 2. the individ- be no loss of our individuality. We shall not be merely u0ayStfnof the swallowed up in one great ocean of goodness in which Heaven,— all personahty will be lost, but we shall each drink in the joys of that Vision and shall be individually satisfied with it. S. John describes the souls of the just as thisimpiiedin precious stones in the foundations of the walls of the gheTom^ery of New Jerusalem, and proceeds to enumerate some of those stones (Rev. xxi. 18-21). They are not all the same, but each has its own individual colour, each its own special beauty. So will it be with the Saints in Heaven. There will be no monotony there, for no two Saints will be quite alike. Each will have his own special charac ter, and that character will be largely the result of the discipline of earth. The precious stones of earth are intrinsically only particles of worthless matter, and owe all their beauty and value to the forces which have acted upon them. The diamond is but carbon which has been crystallized by being subjected to certain forces ; the sapphire is mere clay; the opal only sand. So the individual beauty of the Saints in Heaven will depend much upon the struggles of earth. The brilliance of their 3. the special own special colour, so to speak, may have been pro- f^ ^rgeiy duced by the struggle against some besetting sin which the result of they loathed and strove against all their lives, and that thf st">ggies 11 • of earth ; struggle developed the special beauty of the soul in Heaven. Colour in a creature depends upon the power it has of absorbing certain light-rays and reflecting others. So the beauty of the Saints is their power of absorbing 452 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. 4. Heaven is eternal: Eternity defined. the light of God's presence and, as it were, flashing back their acts of love. And lastly, Heaven is eternal. In this life, to spoil every joy, is the certainty that it will not last. Here is ceaseless change. But ' ' of His Kingdom there shall be no end " (S. Luke i. 33). Eternity is not an infinite succession of years, but that which exists necessarily and has no beginning, no end, and no change. Eternity is distinguished from immutability, too, in that immutability is only the negation of change, while eternity expresses something more, duration and perseverance in being, together with the negation of measure. As S. Thomas says, " Eternity is a simultaneously full and perfect possession of in terminable life. ' ' Eternity, therefore, is to time what immensity is to space. Both belong to God necessarily, because He is infinite and self-existing, and to the Saints in Heaven by virtue of their union with God. CHAPTER XX. THE STUDY OF THEOEOGY. WITHOUT attempting a scientific treatment of introductory: this vast subject, it is proposed in this last chapter to consider, from a practical stand point only, some of the difficulties which hinder the study of theology among the Clergy of our Church, to investigate their causes and suggest the means by which they may be overcome. We have reason to be proud of the splendid work Excellent done of late years by some of our own scholars in the g°r^^ne by department of Biblical Criticism, work in its breadth scholars in and accuracy certainly not surpassed, probably not blbhcal^ntl- equalled, in any other country, and resulting in the exegesis, complete overthrow of that school of German ration alists which would have left us as authentic only four books of the New Testament. Much excellent work, too, has been done on exegetical lines, and the com mentaries of Lightfoot, Westcott, Alford, and others, in profound scholarship, deep reverence, and spiritual discernment, leave little to be desired. Neither do we forget how much that is valuable has in editing been done in another department, in editing ancient MSS-> manuscripts and fragments, by Routh, Cureton, and others. And we can point back to the splendid labours of such and in other men as Hooker, Andrews, Overall, Montague, Laud, ^^^ents 453 454 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. but Dogmatic Theology neglected. I. The lack of knowledge of systematic the ology among Anglicans. The average priest has a good educa tion, but the ology as a sci ence omitted. The result of this. The necessity of facing it. Cosin, Beveridge, Field, Thorndike, Taylor, Butler, Paley, Sparrow, Bull, Pearson, Forbes (of Edin burgh), and others, whose scholarship gave rise to the saying, Clerus Anglicanus stupor mundi. We must, how ever, lament that the marvellous stores of learning pos sessed by our great divines should have been expended in controversies for the most part fruitless at the time, and entirely out of date to-day. But when we turn to the study of theology, in the department either of Dogmatics or Morals, the contrast is appalling, and we are obliged to admit with shame that systematic theology has been almost entirely neglected among us. The average priest in England has generally received a far better education than the average priest in the Roman Church, and yet when it comes to a knowledge of the Queen of Sciences, Theology, the English priest has ordinarily no scientific acquaintance with the sub ject, although he is expected to spend his life in in structing others in it. He has, of course, views more or less accurate in re gard to the principal doctrines of the Church, but they are as a rule not co-ordinated, some doctrines being given undue scope, while others are scarcely grasped at all ; and of theology as a system, as a science, of the Catholic Faith in the due proportion of its component parts, but few have any clear conception. This may seem a very sweeping statement, and one which, because it is unpopular, it is unwise to make. Our aim, however, must be truth, not popularity, and unless weak points be recognized and the cause of them investigated, they are never likely to be removed. It is in no spirit of captious criticism, but with the most earnest desire to see the Clergy of our Church as THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 455 efficient teachers as many of them are brilliant examples of self-sacrifice and devotion in pastoral work, that we shall venture to examine the causes of the lack of accurate theological knowledge in our own times ; for when the cause of a difficulty is known, it is generally easy to find and apply a remedy. There is little doubt that the original cause may be 1. The root of traced back to that right (or license) of private judg- ^f^p*6 ment which was the mainspring of protestantism at testantism, the Reformation, and from the effects of which we are ^f^ »s *e 1 . »«i • -1111 right of private only now recovering. This necessarily led to the neg- judgment. lect of any scientific study of theology, since neither the teachings of the Church nor the opinions of theolo gians were of any weight with those who believed them selves to be quite competent to decide the nicest points of theology, but who in following Luther and Calvin were not sufficiently logical to see that the treatises of Luther and the Institutes of Calvin were as much an infringement of this right of private judgment as was the Summa of S. Thomas. While this was the root from which all the evil sprang, From this root in our own time we find three secondary causes which *nree fruits have sprung : to some extent may be considered its fruits, namely, lack of method in theological study, lack of English theological works, and inability to read Latin easily, at least among the majority of the Clergy. Let us con sider these in order. In the theological course of most dioceses and schools 1 tack of the department of dogmatic theology was, until quite ^oto^cai lately, chiefly covered by two books, Pearson on the study. Creed, and Harold Browne on the Articles. While <¦> The books 1111*111 mostly used. Pearson's work is most scholarly and admirable, and, (i.) Pearson on with a few notable exceptions, thoroughly satisfactory the Creed- so far as it goes, yet it was never intended to be a sys- 456 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (ii.) The Arti cles ; their value. Their defects as a manual of theology. The purpose for which they were intended. The conditions to be met in the 16th century ; tematic treatise on theology, but only an exposition of the Apostles' Creed. A very large number of import ant theological subjects are not touched upon at all, and from the nature of the work no basis or rule of faith is laid down. It is simply a commentary on the various articles of the Apostles' Creed, and while, as we have said, most excellent, it is limited with respect to the ground it covers. The Articles too are in themselves most valuable, especially as a bulwark against the rationalism of the present day, and they are far more Catholic than most people are aware. For example, while they condemn thirty-one doctrines very prevalent among Protestants, they condemn but four practices and not one doc trine of the Church of Rome, and they neither teach the distinctive doctrines of protestantism nor con demn the distinguishing doctrines and ceremonies of Catholicism.* But as a manual of theology the Articles labour under two fatal defects. The one is lack of method, the other that they are largely taken up with the con troversies of three hundred years ago. And indeed, the first defect is probably only the result of the second. The Articles were put forth for a certain purpose,— not to teach theology, but in a time of intense theologi cal controversy to lay down certain principles as those of the Anglican Communion. More than three hundred years have passed, and we have to-day to meet an en tirely different set of difficulties and conditions. In the sixteenth century everyone dabbled in the ology. A perfect babel of opinions was to be heard, * For an excellent and appreciative examination of the teach ing of the Articles see Appendix to Percival's Digest of The ology, pp. 219-253. THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 457 the clamour of different schools of protestantism, and besides this not a little both of the teaching and practice of the Church was corrupted by superstition and that which superstition fed, a spirit of gain among the Clergy. At such a time it was necessary to define the position of the Church of England with respect to these false doctrines and unedifying practices. To-day we have to deal with an entirely different those to be state of affairs. Instead of theology being the one d^"with science in which every one is interested, there are but few who know anything about theology. What re ligion there is takes largely a practical turn, and though often mistaking philanthropy for charity, yet does try to minister to the misery and suffering of the poor. Its spirit is unconsciously the very opposite to that of the protestantism of the Reformation. Instead of faith being everything and good works entirely worthless, as the reformers taught, to-day good works are every thing, while theological belief is often very hazy and therefore considered as an unimportant matter. This, of course, does not hold good of well-instructed Catho lics, yet there can be little doubt that it is the spirit of the age, and a much more hopeful spirit to deal with than that which it has supplanted. The need to-day, in order to utilize what is good and our present true of this, and to expose what is false, is clear dog- ^ed definite • r 1 -r* • 1 -n dogmatic matic teaching on the great verities of the Faith. By teaching, this means we may counteract the evil done by the to counteract wild speculations of writers whose great aim is to be false teaching original, and who, unrestrained by the recognition of any authority greater than their own judgment, and unhampered by any knowledge of theology, often suc ceed in producing original views — views so original that we may well concede that they probably never be- 458 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. fore entered the mind of any orthodox Christian, al though their germs may frequently be recognized among obsolete speculations of heretics. and to satisfy But still more is clear dogmatic teaching needed to seekers after SUppiy restless minds thirsting for truth with that which may satisfy their cravings. a very large If we now return to our examination of the Articles, part of the we find tliat a very large part of their teaching is teachingofthe . «,..,,,, i ,1 Articles is negative. This indeed was rendered necessary by the negative. very purpose for which they were drawn up. In the many controversies of the sixteenth century it was most necessary to tell men what they were not to be lieve in regard to Pelagianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglianism, the teachings of Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, etc., and the doctrines of certain Romanenses ; the last named being a school in the Roman Church of that day, many of whose errors were likewise condemned by the Council of Trent. But while these condemnations are most important in their place, they certainly do not form a good basis An illustration for a system of theology. What should we think of from medical learning medical science from books principally taken science. ° r r j up with disproving and condemning the errors of medi cal science in past ages — for example, which carefully refuted the Hippocratic theory of disease, that it is hu moral, the body containing four humours, a right pro portion and mixture of which constitute health, an improper proportion and irregular distribution, disease ? Or from books which spent much time in proving that the Roman School of Asclepiades was mistaken in holding that all diseases depend upon alterations in the size, number, arrangement, or movement of the atoms of which, according to Epicurus, the body consists ? Or the so-called Pneumatic School of Athenseus, by THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 459 which the normal as well as diseased actions of the body are referred to the operation of the nvevpa or universal soul ? Or the theory of Paracelsus, that the human body is a microcosm, corresponding to the macrocosm, and containing in itself all parts of visible nature, — sun, moon, stars, and poles of heaven ? The examination of these theories would be most ap- such teaching propriate and interesting in a history of medicine, but belongs rightly * r . to the history students who had been trained chiefly in the refutation of the science. of them would not find their studies of much value to them when as physicians they had to deal with serious cases of disease. And so our theological students who have been through a course on the Thirty-Nine Articles, The Articles whilst they may be able to detect tendencies towards the forn* an Ulls"- J . entific basis for various false doctrines against which they have been theological warned, have very often but little definite idea in regard study- to .the positive doctrines which they need to teach. If we examine Bishop Harold Browne's treatise on Anexamina- the Articles, as the book most generally used, we find tion of bp. r , , . 1 Browne's that it is certainly a most safe " book, in the sense treatise. that it avoids expressing any definite opinion on con troverted questions. It has been called scholarly, we suppose because the few quotations from Latin and Greek are correctly translated, but with respect to the ological scholarship it is difficult to see on what grounds its reputation rests, for it shows no extensive reading in theology, and indeed a singular unfamiliarity with the writings of the great theologians. Its chief value seems to consist in its indefiniteness, and the skill with which (except in regard to what are called "extreme " views) it leaves room for almost any opinion, and the man must indeed be a theological genius who from such a text-book could construct for himself a clear and definite theological system. 460 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. (iii) Marten- sen's "Dog matics." (2) The prac tical result of studying such books. The lack of method leads to unbalanced views of truth, In not a few dioceses Bishop Browne's book on the Articles is supplemented by Martensen's Dogmatics, which candidates for the Ministry are advised to read. We must realize that Martensen is a Lutheran, and therefore that his whole treatise is more or less per meated by the Lutheran heresy (to the evil tendencies of which we have especially drawn attention in Chapter IX.), and that in addition to this he is the inventor of a heresy in regard to our Lord's Person, which goes under the name of the Martensen theory of the Kenosis, and which has been described on pages 182 and 183. Is it then wonderful if, from an English Bishop who avoids teaching anything definite, and from a Lutheran who teaches some very definite heresy, the unsophisti cated student derives somewhat chaotic ideas of the science of theology, and later comes to find that much which he has learned is false doctrine, and that he needs to study theology again from the beginning, and on a very different basis ? If, however, we pass over both what is indefinite and what is erroneous in such teaching, there still remains the lack of method, which leads to a disproportionate view of truth ; doctrines being considered separately, as though they were not each of them a necessary part of the great body of truth, the Catholic Faith. Here we may quote from Bishop Burnet, whom no one will suspect of Catholic views. In his work en titled Discourses of the Pastoral Care, he says : " A sys tem of divinity must be read with exactness. . . . Here is a vast error in the first forming of our Clergy, that a contempt has been cast on that sort of books. . . The throwing off of these books makes that many who have read a great deal, yet have no entire body of divinity in their head. They have no scheme THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 461 or method, and so are ignorant of some very plain things, which could not have happened to them if they had read and digested a system." This has not only been the most fruitful source of as well as to actual heresy, but it leads to an unbalanced and illogical actual heresy- grasp of truth. There are some, doubtless, who regard (3) some ob- this as an advantage ; for not a few among our Clergy ^"° loslc in dread nothing more than the application of logic to from fear of theology, because they feel (and justly) that the con- 3°?^ elusions of logic carry them irresistibly on to doctrines which, because they are unpopular, they are not pre pared to teach, and would therefore very much prefer not to hold. There are others, too, (like the Kenotists,) who others because earnestly warn us against bringing logic to bear on ltlsfatalto , . , , . , ,.., their special theological truth, since such application has resulted, views. they tell us, again and again in heresy ; and in support of this they generally instance Arius. Their objection to it probably arises from an unpleasant apprehension that their own pet heresy would not for a moment stand the application of logic. But what is logic ? A well- Definition known definition is, Logica est ars rede utendi ratione. ofloeic- Those who object to the " right use of reason " in the investigation of truth lay themselves open to the sus picion of having an uncomfortable conviction that such a process would be fatal to their own views, and that this is the motive of their solemn warnings against the application of logic to theology, by which they mean their own peculiar theology. In theology, for a conclusion which is de fide both Logic applied the premises must be drawn from revelation and so de- t0 heresy- clared by the Church ; and even for a theological con clusion (as we have seen, page 153) one premise must be a revealed truth, and the other must be a truth 462 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. The "reductio ad absurdum" fatal to heresy. Heresy gener ally starts from false premises. Logic has its limits. ii. Lack of theologicalworks in English. known in some other manner, that is, known to be true. Now logic has a method of exposing the falsity of premises which is called the reductio ad absurdum, when from certain premises a conclusion follows contra dicting some other known truth. This method, so often used in Euclid, is the bite noire of heresy, but one of the most valuable tests of truth in the Church. The trouble with heretics is generally that their pre mises are false, and therefore their conclusions untrue ; but this is not the fault of logic, and it is part of the province of logic to expose such errors. It is quite true that logic, like human reason, has its limits, but within those limits we entirely deny that it has ever led to heresy ; and beyond those limits it ceases to be logic, for it is then the wrong use of reason. The second cause, itself a result of the lack of method in theological training in the past, is the very small number of treatises on theology in the English lan guage, and the fact that many of those we have deal with their subject in an exaggerated and disproportion ate manner, or else are so inaccurate as to be worse than useless. By this we mean that many works which are really learned and accurate treat their subject as though it had no relation to theology in general, and so often give their readers an impression that the subject occu pies a far more important place in theology than it really does, and thus perhaps they lead others to still greater exaggeration in regard to it. We thankfully recognize that there is an increasing number of really valuable theological works, to which this criticism does not apply, but these are, we believe without exception, on special subjects. THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 463 On the other hand a large number of books are so inaccurate as only to lead astray those who follow them. These for the most part are written, as we have said, by men whose great desire is to be original, and whose flights of imagination are quite unfettered by any know ledge of scientific theology. Hence at times an attractive theory becomes very popular because it has appeared in a new book, or has been taught by some popular preacher, but after it has been quite widely adopted some one discovers that it is a condemned proposition, harmless, perhaps, in itself, but condemned because it conflicts with some article of faith. This last class of books is, of course, product ive of nothing but harm. The constant reading of books of the former class by those who have little systematic theological knowledge results very much as when in music a person picks out a tune by ear, and then, delighted with it, another, and so on until almost anything can be played by ear, two unfortunate results generally following : first, that however well the harmonies may sound to uncultivated ears, they are practically certain to contain false pro gressions ; secondly, that those who learn to play thus by ear never can become thorough musicians. So it is with a large number of our Clergy, who have picked out this doctrine and that doctrine, as various books came out, without any real grasp of the true place of each in the great body of theology, or its right relation to other doctrines. If this course is persevered in long enough, it becomes almost impossible for a man to get that theological insight and judgment without which he can never be a good theologian, and which is really the power of grasping a truth in the place where it should stand in relation to the whole body of truth. 464 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. iii. Inability of the Clergy to read Latin easily. 2. The reme dies for our lack of theo logicalknowledge : i. A practical knowledge of Latin ; A third cause of lack of theological knowledge is the inability of most of the Clergy to read Latin easily. While most have had what is called a classical educa tion and have spent a good deal of time over Latin grammar and a critical study of some of the best Latin authors, very few can read Latin as readily, for in stance, as they can read French. Now nearly all theological works of value are written in Latin, just as most heretical works are written in German. Apparently from this very reason German theology is generally translated into English and sown broadcast (like the tares in the parable), while the Latin books are left in their original tongue. It is surely most suggestive that (to take but one publisher), in Messrs. Clark's Foreign Theological Library alone, 134 volumes have been translated, all of them the works of schismatics or heretics, some of them quite valuable, but scarcely any without serious theological errors. On the other hand, so far as we are aware there is not in existence the translation from the Latin of one work on dogmatic theology. There are translations of some ascetical works, of patristics, homiletics, histories, etc., but (to take what is admitted on all sides to be the greatest of such works) no translation of the Summa of S. Thomas, or indeed of any other work on scientific theology. If these facts be true (and we have not intentionally overstated them), we must consider what can best be done to meet and to alter this condition of affairs. To take the last point first : since we cannot get translations of Latin works, we must learn to read Latin readily, which, for those who have a good know ledge of the grammar of the language, requires only a THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 465 little patience and perseverance. Theological Latin is extremely easy, and in a very short time one who practises reading Latin will find no more difficulty in it than in reading French. Secondly, a good general outline of theology should a. mastery of be mastered, a sort of panorama of the ground after- afst^0ed°utlilie wards to be studied in detail. The simplest and most perfect sketch of universal The divisions theology is to be found in the Summa of S. Thomas. °f *he ,, OJ . "Summa" Like most things that are perfect, it is extremely of s. Thomas. simple. He divides the whole subject into three parts. In the first he considers God as He is in Himself ; in the second as He is in the creatures, their Beginning and End ; in the third he considers the movement of the creatures themselves towards God through Christ and the Sacraments. In the First Part, which con tains 119 Questions, he treats of God, the Hoey Trinity, the world, Angels, and men. The Second Part has two subdivisions. In the Prima Secundcs, which consists of 114 Questions, S. Thomas treats of beatitude, human acts, passions, habits, virtues, sins and vices, laws, grace, and merit. In the Secunda Secundcs, containing 189 Questions, he discusses the theological and cardinal virtues, their opposite vices, gifts (or gratia gratis data), divisions of life, and the duties and various states of men. In the Third Part he treats of the Incarnation, the life of Christ, and the first three Sacraments. This part, which contains 90 Questions, was interrupted in the midst of the treat ment of the Sacrament of Penance, by the death of S. Thomas. The Supplementum of the Third Part, which is taken from S. Thomas' Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, completes the work, and in a series of 99 Questions concludes the Sacrament of Penance 466 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. II. Latin theo logical treat- General works:Schouppe, Hurter, Tanquerey, Franzelin,Perrone. Gousset (in French). and treats of Extreme Unction, Orders, Matrimony, the Resurrection, the Last Judgment, the Saints, and the lost. When we have obtained a good grasp of this outline, special attention should be paid to the great verities, especially to the Being and Attributes of God, which are often passed over quickly (a great mistake) ; then the Incarnation ; then some clear knowledge of man in his natural, restored, and supernatural state, and of his gifts and endowments ; then of the Sacraments, and lastly of the less important teachings of the Church. As we are writing chiefly for beginners in the study of theology, we shall venture before concluding the chap ter to make some suggestions with respect to those books of Latin theology which will be found most use ful. We must, however, confine ourselves to a few only out of many valuable works. For a general survey of the whole ground we would recommend Schouppe' s Elementa (2 volumes octavo), Hurter's Theologies Dogmaticcs Compendium (3 volumes octavo), Tanquerey' s Synopsis Theologies Fundamentalis atque Dogmaticcs (4 volumes octavo, the last not yet issued), Franzelin's Works (8 volumes octavo) and Perrone's Prcslediones (8 volumes octavo). The last work, which does not follow the ordinary scholastic method, is especially valuable for the appendix which follows each chapter, in which are answered the ob jections ordinarily brought against the teachings of that chapter. Any one of these works would afford a good general view of theology. Schouppe is the shortest, Tanquerey the most recent. For those who cannot read Latin Cardinal Gousset' s Thiologie Dogmatique (in French) may be useful. THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 467 Of course above all the Summa of S. Thomas should s. Thomas. be read, but although its Latin is very easy, yet the fulness of treatment of the various subjects makes the work somewhat long. It would perhaps be well to read in full the Third Part, which treats of the Incar nation and the Sacraments, and only articles of special interest in the other two parts. The Promptuary of Ferraris is an excellent work for Ferraris. theological reference. It is a five-volume folio, but can often be obtained for a very moderate sum of Mr. Baker * or of some other good theological bookseller. The best modern treatment of the Sacraments is per- special works haps that of De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria (2 ™ ^ sacra- volumes octavo). There is a shorter and less valuable De Augustinis, work which covers the same ground by Billot, De BlUot' Ecclesics Sacramentis (2 volumes octavo). Among special treatises may be mentioned Gasparri's Gasparri. works, De Ordinatione, De Matrimonio, De Eucharistia (each in 2 volumes octavo) ; Mazella's De Gratia (1 onothersub- volume octavo) ; Denzinger's Enchiridion, a most use- J^cts. MazeUa. ' ° ' Denzmger, ful manual of creeds, canons, and decrees ; and the Manuale Ecclesiasticorum, which (while not belonging "Manuaie strictly to dogmatic theology) contains the principal Ecciesiastic- decrees of the Sacred Congregation in regard to practi cal questions. With the exception of S. Thomas and Ferraris all The three these treatises are modern and of comparatively small *T eat °ieo1?" r J gians after S. size. For those who have the opportunity of reading Thomas : them the three great works are (1) the Disputationes of De Lugo (8 volumes large octavo) , who next to S . Thorn- De Lugo, as was perhaps the greatest theologian of the Church, though unfortunately he died before his work had ex tended to the whole ground of systematic theology. * 1 Soho Square, London. 468 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRACTICE. Vasquez, Suarez. Other able writers : Bel larmine,Estius,Petavius,Tournely,Billuart.Roman works untrustworthy on two sub jects, Papal claims and Cul tus of B. V. M ; but Roman dogma far more conserva tive than practice. Examples : S. Thomas, (2) Vasquez (9 volumes folio), called " the Augustine of Spain," whose works, while not to be followed with out caution, are especially valuable as containing a dis cussion of the opinions of theologians of his own time and some centuries before, so that in reading Vasquez we have many most interesting theological opinions brought before us. (3) Suarez (30 volumes large octavo), in some sense the prince of theologians ; his works, admirably in dexed, form a very library of theology. Bellarmine, Estius, Petavius, and Tournely are also interesting and helpful, and we may find much that is useful in Billuart's Commentary on S. Thomas (10 vol umes octavo). Roman books must of course be read with a realiza tion that there are subjects in which they cannot be followed. These, however, are much fewer than might be supposed. Indeed, they may be reduced to two, the Papal claims and the cultus of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and even in regard to the latter the most objectionable teachings are found not in works on dogmatic theology, but in devotional manuals. The Papal claims and all that is based upon them must be looked upon with suspicion or absolutely re jected; but outside of this there is very little in Roman theology (except when written for controversial pur poses) which need trouble us. The more objectionable doctrines and practices of modern Romanism are generally passed over, and theo logical opinion is much more conservative in dogmatic treatises than theological practices on the Continent would lead us to suppose. For example, it is doubtful whether in S. Thomas anything could be found which could be called purely THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. 469 Roman, and even his commentator Billuart does not Biiiuart. hesitate to express disagreement with the teachings of Popes. Thus, to give an instance, in treating of Matri monium Ratum he refuses to admit the power of the Pope to dispense, and to those who advanced the argu ment that many Popes had so dispensed he replies that ' ' the action of Popes does not constitute an established law, ' ' quoting the saying of Dominic de Soto, Fadum pontificum non facit articulum fidei ; and further, to those who brought forward the dispensations granted by Martin V., Paul III., Pius IV., and Gregory XIII. he boldly answers, ' ' To these Pontiffs I oppose Alex ander III., Innocent III., and Nicholas I., who nei ther recognized nor admitted that they possessed this power." * Inasmuch as but few theological and ecclesiastical conclusion. writers are included in ordinary encyclopaedias of bio graphy, a table of the principal writers of the Church, a table of arranged under the centuries in which they flourished, ecclesiastical ° . , . , writers added. has been added as an appendix to this chapter. We would guard against being understood as in any no desire to way desiring to discourage the use of the works of ^j011^!6 the English divines who are really learned and orthodox. uSh divines We would only deprecate the study of books on special subjects before the student has really mastered some general treatise on dogmatic theology. *Vol. X., pp. 168-170. A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL THEOLO GIANS AND WRITERS OF THE CHURCH. I. EASTERN AND WESTERN WRITERS. First Century : * Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas. Second Century : Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Aristi- des, Justin, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, Melito, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, Tatian, Irenseus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Minucius Felix. Third Century : Ammonius of Alexandria, Hippo lytus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alex andria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Victorinus of Pettau, Hesychius, Pamphilus. Fourth Century : Lactantius, Arnobius, Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Ephrem Syrus, Diodorus of Tarsus, Basil of Cappa- docia, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gaudentius, Pacianus, Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, Chro matius, Rufinus, Chrysostom. Fifth Century : Gregory of Nyssa, Prudentius, Sul- picius Severus, Isidore of Pelusium, Jerome, Augustine, Socrates and Sozomen, Cyril of Alexandria, Cassian, Basil of Seleucia, Vincent of Lerins, Peter Chrysologus, Theodoret, Mamertus, Leo the Great, Dionysius the * The authors are arranged in the centuries in which they flourished, but not necessarily in which they died. 470 THEOLOGIANS AND WRITERS. 471 Areopagite (writer so called), Prosper, Faustus of Riez, Vigilius of Thapsus. Sixth Century : Cassiodorus, Boetius, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Csesarius of Aries, Primatius, Rusticus the Deacon, John Climacus, Benedict of Nursia, Venantius Fortunatus, Gregory the Great. Seventh Century : Theophylact Simocattes, Isidore of Seville, Andrew of Crete, Hildefonsus of Toledo, Adamnus, Aldhelm. Eighth Century : Bede, Benedict of Aniane, John of Damascus, Floras of Lyons, George Syncellus, Alcuin. II. LATIN THEOLOGIANS SINCE THE DIVISION OF EAST AND WEST. Ninth Century : Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, Pascha- sius Radbert, Remigius, Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus, Hincmar. Tenth Century: Odo of Cluny, Liutprand, Notker, Gerbert (or Sylvester II.). Eleventh Century: Odilo of Cluny, Durandus, Peter Damian, Bruno of Aste, (the author of) the " Microlo- gus," Anselm of Lucca, Lanfranc, Ivo of Carnot, Hildebert. Twelfth Century : Anselm of Canterbury, Sigebert, Algerus, Peter of Cluny, Rupert Tuitiensis (of Deutz), Hugo of S. Victor, Robert Pulleyne, Hildegarde, Gra tian, Bernard, Thomas (Cant.), Peter Lombard, Richard of S. Victor, John of Salisbury, Alanus ab Insulis. Thirteenth Century: William of Auvergne, William of Paris, Innocent III., Alexander of Hales, Hugo a S. Charo (of S. Cher), Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Raymond of Pennafort, Albertus Magnus, Henry of Ghent, -v , 189. Xa.pH, 80. Xapi6)Ja, 80, 81. Catholic Faith and Practice A MANUAL OF THEOLOGY Part I. By the REV. ALFRED G. MORTIMER, D.D. RECTOR OF ST. MARK'S, PHILADELPHIA Author of " Helps to Meditation?' " The Seven Last Words of Our Most Holy Redeemer" etc. Small 8vo, cloth, pp. XLVi-340, $2.00. Contents : Chap. I.— God. II.— The Creation and Fall of the Angels. III.— The Creation and Fall of Man. IV.— The Incarna tion. V.— The Atonement. VI.— The Church. VII.— The Origin of the Church's Doctrine. VIII. — Grace and the Sacraments in General. IX. — Baptism. X. — Confirmation. XI. — The Sacrament of Penance. XII. — Sin and Self- Examination. XIII. — Conditions required for Penitence. XIV.— The Holy Eucharist. — As a Sacra ment. XV. — The Holy Eucharist.— The Real Presence. XVI.— The Holy Eucharist.— The Sacrifice. XVII.— The Holy Eucharist.— The Communion. XVIII.— The Liturgy. XIX.— Prayer. XX.— The Rule of Life. Index. ©pinions of tbe prees " Any work from the pen of Dr. Mortimer is sure of a cordial welcome. . . . He has already laid us under many obligations, but we do not think that any of his works, not excepting the valuable Meditations^ will prove of greater or more permanent value than the one now under notice. . . . It is a systematic out line of dogmatic theology, based upon, by no means blindly following, Western theology as formulated Dy St. Thomas Aquinas ; scholarly, concise, and written in a clear and luminous style . . . the manual, as a whole, seems to us of the highest value. It pursues no phantoms of modern speculation, but appeals throughout to conservative theologians of repute. It will supply the need of those intelligent lay folk who desire some manual more detailed than The Catholic Religion ; and we can imagine no work more useful to the student who desires to have before him at the beginning of his theological course an accurate outline of which his after-reading will fill in and complete the details." — The Church Times, "We can highly commend it for parish libraries as a little encyclopaedia of the main points of Catholic doctrine. . . . The chapter on the origin of the Church's doctrine is quite a little^ compendium of Christian philosophy, and is cer tainly very excellent. We want in England, as well as in America, to give some reasons for the faith that is in us. Thoughtful men often ask the clergy for the basis of their doctrine: "Why is it so?" This is not merely cavilling, but a search for an intellectual basis of belief. In this book certainly (although very briefly}, we have this basis cleverly stated. . . . The chapter on Baptism is interesting and full, but not nearly so long^ as those dealing with the Holy Euchar ist. Between Baptism and the Eucharistic chapters there are thoughtful chapters on Confirmation and Penance, as preparations for a worthy reception. The infor mation given as to the forms of Confirmation in divers churches and on the seven fold gifts of the Spirit is very valuable. . . . The chapter on the Liturgy is full of valuable information lucidly expressed. . . . This is a most valuable book, lucid, Catholic, simple, and thoughtful, and is one of the most important recent contributions to theology that we have had from the other side of the Atlantic." — The Church Revie-w. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY ¦wnorfcs bs tbe TRev. Blfre5 ©. Mortimer, D.D. RECTOR OF ST. MARK'S, PHILADELPHIA Catholic Faith and Practice : A Manual of Theology. In two parts. Crown 8vo. Part I., pp. xlvi-340, $2.00 Part II., pp. lxix-5ig $2.50 The Seven Last Words of Our Most Holy Redeemer, with Meditations on some Scenes in His Passion. Crown 8vo $1.00 Jesus and the Resurrection. Thirty Addresses for Good Friday and Easter. Crown 8vo . . . $1.25 Helps to Meditation : Sketches for Every Day in the Year. Vol.1. Advent to Trinity. 8vo . . Net $2.50 Vol. II. Trinity to Advent. 8vo . . Net $2.50 Sermons in Miniature for Extempore Preachers: Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy Day of the Christian Year. Crown 8vo . . . . . . $1.50 Notes on the Seven Penitential Psalms, Chiefly from Patristic Sources. Small 8vo .... $1.00 Learn of Jesus Christ to Die : Addresses on the Words of Our Lord from the Cross, taken as Teaching the Way of Preparation for Death. i6mo ... 60 cents The Laws of Happiness ; or, The Beatitudes as Teaching Our Duty to God, Self, and Our Neighbour. 18 mo, 60 cents The Laws of Penitence : Addresses on the Words of Our Lord from the Cross. i8mo ... 45 cents Stories from Genesis : Sermons for Children. Crown 8vo $1.00 " These sermons will show how a very valuable foundation of Church teaching may be laid in young minds, and how children may be taught to trace the vital connection between faith and morality." — The Guardian, London. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. NEW YORK, LONDON, AND BOMBAY