. N I.'
'.r'U ,"'|
L 'l' ' iLi.L
¦ ll'"'^ I
IIL > I I 1 I I
- J-fLL L r c >tl
rpti :li,u I '.il
I 11 ¦¦ -i"i , i|
Iu Uli I 'iL.LilJ
11 II ¦¦
I 1.. lC - |,!.i.p4 r
I L Tr" I ''l '
¦ L . C lUi .. ' L
•¦ "I {I ¦¦ c '
L L !.LJL XL
, 1 1 «ri ^r
I eti-SSLrL..L...i

'Yi^L]E''¥]Mn¥E]^S2ir¥-

Presented by the Author

A Vindication of Christ
By a Catholic Priest

Roman Catholicism
Capitulating Before
Protestantism

T
BY J

G. V. FRADRYSSA px^^u
Doctor of Philosophy and Theology ; Lecturer on
Sacred Scriptures ; Synodal Examiner

TRANSLATED FROM THE SPANISH

SOUTHERN PUBLISHING COMPANY
MOBILE, ALABAMA
1908

Copyright 1908, by
Southern Publishing Company
Mobile, Ala.

Entered at Stationers' Hall, London, England
1908
All rights reserved

Issued from The Cumberland Press, Nashville

CONTENTS.
Prologue vii
Introduction xi
CHAPTER I.
Discussion Outlined. Enumeration of the Funda
mental Principles Admitted by both the Protest
ants AND the Catholics i
CHAPTER II.
Discussion and Outline of the Means of Knowing
Christ - - 8
CHAPTER IIL
The Only Sure Way of Knowing Christ and His
Church Is through the Gospels - i8
CHAPTER IV.
Are the Gospels Sufficient in Order to Know Christ
AND His Church? 26
CHAPTER v.
The Subject of the Previous Chapter Continued - 37
CHAPTER VI.
In This Chapter We Corroborate the Same Doctrines
Outlined in the Preceding One, by the Conduct
AND Writing of the Apostles, and Also Answer
the Main Objection of the Romans 51
CHAPTER VII.
The Church According to the Gospels and the Writ
ings OF THE Apostles - - 62
CHAPTER VIIL
Did Christ Establish an Official Jurisdiction ? and if
so. Did He Grant It Collectively or Was It As
signed by Him to Some Members of the Whole? 75
(iii)

IV CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX.
Is the Fourth Theory Admissible, Which Declares an
Infallible Papacy over the Episcopate? 83
CHAPTER X.
Do the Acts of Peter and the Conduct of the Other
Apostles Affirm or Deny the Infallibility of the
Pope? 108
CHAPTER XI.
Did the Sub-Apostolic Fathers Believe in the Pope's
Infallibility? 125
CHAPTER XII.
Will It Be Possible Fully to Explain the Primacy
and Pontifical Infallibility by Simple Reference
to the General Laws of History? 140
CHAPTER XIIL
Bewildering and Fatal Condition of the Roman
Church, Subsequent to the Pontifical Infalli
bility 159
CHAPTER XIV.
Can the Temporal Power of the Popes Be Upheld in
the Midst of the Twentieth Century? 173
CHAPTER XV.
Notes of the Church 190
CHAPTER XVI.
Sanctity of the Roman Church 200
CHAPTER XVII.
Unity in the Roman Church 218
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ecclesiastical Celibacy - - 244
CHAPTER XIX.
The Inquisition and Romanism 257
CHAPTER XX.
Justification, Its Causes and Consequences 283

CONTENTS V
CHAPTER XXI.
The Sacraments 305
CHAPTER XXII.
Purgatory and the Mass 321
CHAPTER XXIIL
The Roman Doctrine and Man in His Triple Aspect
— Religious^ Scientific and Social 334
Epilogue - - 352
Appendix - 354
Errata 360

PROLOGUE.
Indulgent Reader :
You may never have had the opportunity of read
ing an author (a Roman Catholic theologian) whose
purpose was to defend Christ and his Church, while
refuting official Romanism.
While this statement may appear somewhat para
doxical, I believe that with your indulgence and pa
tience, it can be made plain and comprehensive.
At the outset, however, it must be stated, that if
antagonistic to the Roman Catholic doctrine, and as
one of its enemies you expect to find mention here of
the many scandalous historic calumnies, the effective
and plausible sophistries frequently directed against
that Church, you will be bitterly disappointed and
seek in vain, for all such mention has been scrupu
lously avoided.
On the other hand, if a Romanist, and you hope to
find in this work a defense of many of your doctrines
and even dogmas of your present Pontiff, you will
likewise be disappointed.
The Pope's pretended monopoly of the correct
interpretation of the Bible, his authority, temporal
power, infallibility and many other important and
serious historical and theological questions are herein
clearly set forth against Romanism. Should, there
fore, such conclusions prove odious to you, it is hoped
that you will place the blame where it belongs, namely :
(vii)

Vlll PROLOGUE.
in their own Philosophy, Theology, Exegesis, and also
their own Apologetics.
In fact, by carefully following the work you will
satisfy yourself that in all my references the most
renowned and conspicuous authors in their respective
fields have been selected. For example: On Philoso
phy I refer to Cardinals Gonzalez, Zigliara, etc. ; on
Theology, many quotations are taken from Billuart
and Cardinal Noris, who are recognized as the most
dignified and noblest representatives of St. Thomas'
and St. Augustine's schools; supporting the above
theologians I refer to such authorities as Hurter, Per-
rone, Bertier; on Canon Law, giants of such promi
nence as Bouix, Cardinal Vives and others are named ;
on Ecclesiastical History, Eusebio, Baronio, Rohr-
bacher, Rivas and Hergenrother are cited; on Apolo
getics I quote Moigno, Hettinger, Jaugey; on Exe
gesis, Comely, Vigouroux, Patrizi, etc., have been
noted. Thus you will see that the references are from
the most learned, most profound and distinguished
authors. During the course of this writing frequent occa
sion has been found to refer to the memorable work
of His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, from whose
teachings I often dissent. I, therefore, may be par
doned for appropriating to myself the words of that
distinguished prelate, who says : "I have imbibed her
doctrines (Roman Catholic) with my mother's milk,"
as to that doctrine; I have also consecrated not only
my early days, but practically all my life has been lived
in Romanism.
By that Church I have been deemed worthy, and

PROLOGUE. IX
from it I have received ample applause and honorable
distinction. As a priest and a gentleman I can sol
emnly assure you under oath, that I possess and hold
valid, ample and perpetual ministerial faculties from
more than twelve prominent prelates, and other spe
cial authorities direct from the Pope, which authori
ties are not ordinarily granted to bishops, much less
to priests.
In conclusion, I desire to say that no pecuniary self-
interest has guided me in this work, since I volun
tarily abandon and renounce my brilliant ecclesiastical
future in exchange for an humble and burdensome
manual labor. Neither has rancor nor any other igno
ble passion prompted me in my writing. Far from
being discharged of the Roman Community, I am
leaving it of my own free will, after refusing exceed
ingly remunerative offers.
To be able to live at peace with my conscience, and
to proclaim the whole truth, is the only inducement
that prompted me in this work, which I submit to
your generous consideration. G. V. Fradryssa.

INTRODUCTION.
To THE thoughtful and analytical observer, the mod
em religious movement of the vast Christian family
when comprehensively viewed, seems to embrace two
apparently opposite tendencies.
On the one hand, there is a tendency towards
decentralization, where centralization has been the
dominant factor, while on the other hand, there is
a strong and growing sentiment toward unification,
where heretofore independence of thought and asso
ciation has been the prevalent idea. In Latin and
Catholic Europe there are springing up, from time to
time, each time with greater force, keener longings
for religious expansion. A new spirit of criticism
invades the seminaries, colleges and convents;
thoughts tending toward dogmatic decentralization
vibrate everywhere. In the face of old tradition, and
of a dry and narrow scholasticism, a stream of dar
ing theories in every direction flows counter to the
old standards. In fine, a torrent of new ideas threat
ens to overflow, producing an inundation in the realm
of religion, similar to the reform of the sixteenth cen
tury. Whoever wishes to assure himself of the truth of
this fact needs only to cast a rapid glance at what the
present Pope has just condemned under the name of
"Modernism." To his surprise, he will there see this tendency (xi)

Xll INTRODUCTION.
clearly outlined: that starting from the biblical exege
sis, it has spread over every branch of human knowl
edge, until it now constitutes a distinct doctrine.^
Among the Anglo-Saxons and European Protestants,
on the contrary, the tendency to a more complete and
far-reaching centralization in religious affairs, makes
itself more and more manifest. The various efforts to
establish a Central Authority, which shall assume ev
ery right, are more noticeable in religious surround
ings. The aim to establish a supreme judge, from whom
there shall be no appeal, who shall silence all doubts,
harmonize all discordant rights, become the founda
tion and center about which every religious sect shall
be coordinated, and establish its fundamental princi
ples, sparkles in every controversy on modern the
ology, reflects itself in the new rituals and conciliatory
assemblies, and sheds light upon the oft-repeated at
tempts at approximation, which nowadays are so fre
quently made by the Protestants.^ In a word, while
the Latin races, in a somewhat covert but energetic
"^The Pope's bull against Modernism may be consulted on
this subject; also the explanation of this matter given to the
Pope by various Italian priests, and an amplified translation
of the same in English also by clergymen; various articles
published by the Arnerican review, The Catholic World, im
mediately after the issuance of the Encyclical. The Spanish
reviews entitled, Raeon y Fe (Reason and Faith) and La
Ciudad de Dios (The City of God), may also be consulted.
^ See as to this point the work entitled, "Losses and Gains,"
by the converted Protestant, Newman. Read the letters of
Fr. Faber, also a renowned convert. "The Diary of a Prot
estant Clergyman," published by The Catholic World. Con
sult the minutes of the last Protestant meetings. Read the
declarations of the Episcopal ministers who have just been
converted in Baltimore and those who are being converted
in Chicago.

INTRODUCTION. XUl
manner, approach the older form of Protestantism, in
a latent but none the less pronounced way, the Anglo-
Saxons are coming nearer to modern Catholicism.
How are we to explain this double and antithetical
movement? How can we find a common cause for
this twofold divergence of ideas?
The loyalty, learning and virtue of the champions
of either standard cannot be questioned. They are un
excelled for their integrity, are most profound in their
scientific attainments, and are of the noblest of man
kind in their lofty purposes and their simple demand
for liberty of thought. Such is the character of those
who lend their weight against either tendency, or stand
in the forefront as a vanguard of both of these com
mendable and glorious armies.
How, then, can it be explained, that such conspicu
ous soldiers aspire to the salvation of their respective
churches, by proclaiming doctrines so antagonistic,
and practicing such contradictory evolutions?
This modest work is intended partly to draw aside
the curtain which envelops this phenomenon, the more
so as we note with sorrow, that Protestants and Catho
lics alike often overreach themselves in their assertions.
While the former too frequently heap against the
Catholics crimes and abuses (not always confirmed
by history), the latter are wont to represent Catholi
cism as a serpentless Eden, as a society without dis
cord, and as a people without blemish, all of which
is also far from the truth. Between these two ex
tremes, science walks serene.
Let us then exhibit to the Protestants the internal
and actual state of Catholicism, analyze its princi-

XIV INTRODUCTION.
pies, lay bare its institutions and methods, unfold its
doctrines, and make public the condition of its col
lective conscience.
I undertake this laborious work because the Catho
lic pamphlets that have come into my hands are not
always well authenticated, not always truthful in ex
plaining the Catholic standards, but, on the contrary,
are deficient in many cases, and incomplete in others.^
Only by disclosing the tmth, the whole truth, can the
Protestant, with a full understanding of the facts,
decide whether it is advantageous or prejudicial for
him to abandon his own religious hearth for that of
a stranger. Thus, and only thus, can he honestly and
conscientiously determine, whether, in these critical
moments, he ought to lend his aid with Christian
loyalty to the Catholic uplifting already begun, by
paralyzing his own.
I have said critical moments, because there can be
no room for doubting, that Romanism is just now
passing through one of its most trying crisis.
The time-worn "Magister dixit," invoked by the old
scholasticism as the supreme judge in the decision of
all controversies, has disappeared, to make room for
the scientific investigation of doctrines and facts. The
absolute and unqualified respect for authority, as the
chief regulator Of the individual and public conscience,
has been replaced by a freedom of inquiry, by the
tribunal of enlightened reason, by the conclusions of
unerring science, by the evidence of findings of an
irrefutable historic light.
"We refer preferably to the popular book entitled, "The
Faith of Our Fathers," by H. R Cardinal Gibbons.

INTRODUCTION. XV
The longing to embrace as genuine brothers, those
who were formerly believed to be dangerous heretics,
palpitates in the vast majority of Catholic hearts. An
irrepressible impulse to proclaim as legitimate reform
ers, those who heretofore were designated by the de-
- grading epithet of Protestants, animates most minds.
The expansion of the Bible, and the teachings of the
Saviour, by fusion of all creeds into one single creed,
and of all congregations into one single congre
gation, professing the same faith and receiving the
same sacraments, is the aim and the idea that is irre
sistibly subjugating the most renowned Catholic per
sonages. And in case this universal and fraternal em
brace should become a reality, in what nation couM it
be attempted with greater probability of success than
in the colossus of the modern world, vast and highly
civilized North America?
Here, as nowhere else in the world, one lives in a
vivifying atmosphere at once religious and tolerant.
In Old Europe, all discussion on religion arouses the
passions and awakens sectarianism. Religious preju
dice has, so to speak, become crystallized in the con
science of the masses, and everything is looked at
through its dangerous mirage.
The man and the sect hover like darkening phan
toms overshadowing truth and reason, passion flashes
before impartiality illumines, satire and sarcasm take
the place of reason and deduction, the controversial
criticism becomes hermetically sealed ere the sun of
science can throw upon it the light of its resplendent
rays. Here, on the contrary, sympathetic reception
is accorded to every constructive system, let it come
2

XVI INTRODUCTION.
whence it may; here is adopted every elevating idea
by whomsoever asserted; here all honorable institu
tions and all legitimate rights are held equally sacred,
while befitting respect is paid to human personality.
Here the frequent communication between citizens
of every clime, and between believers of every form
of religion, has smoothed all bitterness and created a
deep current of human civilization.
It is only here that the synagogue by the side of the
temple, and the humble Protestant chapel by the side
of the sumptuous Catholic cathedral, can camp in the
wide avenues without one or the other arousing in the
passer-by, either angry protests or passionate affec
tion, because here also more freely than elsewhere, the
bishop side by side with the rabbi, and the minister
side by side with the priest, move in society without
scandalous clashes, and even with mutual respect.
To you, then, most excellent American people, I
dedicate this humble work. It may not be profound,
but it is honest ; it may not be always scientific, but it
is inspired by a deep desire to proclaim the truth,
and dictated by a yearning for the betterment of the
people.

Roman Catholicism Capitulating
Before Protestantism.

CHAPTER I.

DISCUSSION OUTLINED. — ENUMERATION OF THE FUNDA
MENTAL PRINCIPLES ADMITTED BY BOTH THE
PROTESTANTS AND THE CATHOLICS.
IN order to proceed systematically and with some
hope of success in a most serious and intricate re
ligious problem, we must first determine whether there
be any fundamental principle which is admitted alike
by Protestants and Catholics, or any dogmatic truth
which is professed and believed by both of these
religious denominations. Not to do so, would be to
stray from the question at the very outset. To ac
knowledge principles which would be admitted only
by the Catholics, would be to decide in advance the
question in their favor, and against the Protestants.
To proclaim truths which would be believed only by
Protestants, would be equivalent to deciding the mat
ter in their favor, and against Catholicism.
Our discussion, therefore, should be based on these
principles and truths which are believed and admitted
by adherents of both of these denominations. Will
this be possible? Is there in the multitude of Chris
tian churches any principle common to all? Will it
be possible to find a general basis in which that whole

2 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
series of institutions, apparently so heterogeneous and
contradictory, may claim to be founded? Will it be
possible to discover in that mass of assertions and
denials, of codes and sacraments, of usages and cus
toms, a central truth toward which all the others con
verge, and from which they spring?
Fortunately we can say that such a principle, such
a truth, such a general basis common to all, does exist.
We may add, we may even affirm, that the primary
truths and principles of the entire Protestant Chris
tion Church are identical with the principles and
truths of Roman Catholicism. The differences and
divisions appear afterwards, in the secondary prin
ciples and in later issues.
Let us begin the argument.
First assertion: Catholicism proclaims,^ and the
Protestant believes, that Christ is God and the Son
of God.
Second affirmation: The Protestant believes, and
Catholicism proclaims, that Christ accomplished the
redemption of man; that He is the only mediator be
tween earth and Heaven, between sinful humanity and
the Supreme Being.^
The third assertion is so fundamental ana compre
hensive, that both religious denominations agree.^ The
Catholic and the Protestant alike teach, that Christ
' Read the Confession of Augsburg and Concilium Triden-
tinum De Fide (Concilium of Trent; title. On Faith).
' Read same authorities as citation No. i.
' See the Confession of Faith of any Protestant denomina
tion. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe (Dictionary
Apologetic of Faith), s. v. Jesucristo, Iglesia. Regla de Fe,
Revelacion.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 3
proclaimed truths which must be believed, formulated
commandments which must be obeyed, and instituted
sacraments which must be received, if we wish to be
saved.* The name of "Master" is given to Christ in
such a way, that Romanist and Protestant both agree
that He is the only teacher of the dogma, the only
lawgiver of ethics, the only author of the sacraments.'
Both further agree in according to Christ exclusively
the power to proclaim dogmas, to formulate com
mands, and to institute sacraments. It follows from
this, that in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant
theology, any sacrament not instituted by Christ him
self and not originating with Him, is not a sacrament
at all, but a false and damnable institution. A dogma
which does not spring from Christ's teachings, is not
a dogma at all, but an arbitrary human imposition
not to be tolerated.
Fourth affirmation : Christ as a man was transitory
and mortal, and redemption was to be permanent,
everlasting and universal. Redemption is not confined
tO' a certain people, but is intended for all men; it is
not limited to a specific era, or to a certain race, but
' Read the same testimonies mentioned in citation No. i.
° Read the same authorities mentioned in citation No. i and
also : — The Protestants are referred to the Encyclopedia
Britannica for titles as follows: Luther and Lutherans, vol.
XI, pp. 71 to 86; Calvin, vol. IV, pp. 714 to 720; Presbyte
rian, vol. XIX, p. 339, and vol. XXVIII, p. 479; Protestant
Episcopal Church, vol. XX, p. 339, and vol. VIII, p. 493;
Baptists, vol. Ill, p. 353, and vol. XXV, p. 353 ; Methodists,
vol. XVI, p. 185, and vol. XXVIII, p. 79. Catholics may
consult Bertier's Compendium Theologicum : titulo, De Reve-
latione et Doctrina Ecclesis ; Perrone et Hurter : the same
titles; Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe (Dictionary
Apologetic of Faith), s. v. Jesucristo, Revelacion, Iglesia.

4 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
it embraces all times and all peoples. It was neces
sary, then, that Christ should establish His Church in
such a way, that it might become the depository, at
once dogmatic and ethical, of His true doctrine; that
it might be the guardian of His true worship, and the
administrator of His own sacraments. This is the
reason why Catholics as well as Protestants acknowl
edge the existence of a Church, founded by Christ,'
which shall be at once the synthesis and the prolonga
tion of His sublime work throughout the centuries
and for all peoples. But for Catholics as well as for
Protestants, the Church is not greater than Christ,
nor should its work and mission go so far as to inter
polate or modify His teachings. It should be solely
and exclusively the true echo of the sovereign voice
of Christ, and the dispenser of his mercies.'^ Christ,
and Christ alone, is the splendid sun from whom pro
ceed, Hke luminous rays, the truths which the Church
shall teach. Christ, and Christ alone, is the only
supernal fountain from whom shall emanate, like liv
ing streams, each and every saci-ament which the
faithful receive. Christ, and Christ alone, is the mystic
tree implanted in the midst of humanity, and from
whom shall come forth, like branches, all the churches
and all the ecclesiastical institutions.
Behold, then, how, amid that tangle of difference
which actually separates one creed from another, yet
both acknowledge the same fundamental principles.
"Perrone: De Vera Religione. P. Fernandez: Teologia
Dogmatica ; same head.
'Confession of Augsburg. Concilium Tridentinum; De
Fide et Revelatione (Concilium of Trent; Of Faith and
Revelation). Perrone: De Vera Religione,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 5
Behold, then, how, in that mass of curses and bless
ings, of denials and assertions, of hates and loves,
which constitute the actual character of the Catholic
and Protestant, both at the same time proclaim Jesus
as their Lord and Master, His Church as a legitimate
association, and the depository of His dogma and
ethical teachings. And who would believe it, if it
were not recorded on the pages of history in charac
ters of blood, that the very men who confessed Jesus
as their Lord, and His Church as the legitimate Church,
waxed wroth with one another as if the true doctrine
of Christ meant nothing? In the name of Jesus and
in the name of His Church, the stakes of the Inquisi
tion were set aflame, and in indescribable torment
thousands of the best men perished who proclaimed
Christ as their Lord, His doctrine as a divine doctrine,
and His Gospel as the only Gospel leading to salvation.*
In the name of Jesus and His Church, the gallows
was raised in England, as the stake was blazing in
Spain." In the name of Jesus and His Church, Calvin
decreed that the immortal Servetus should die, as in
the name of Jesus and His Church, Alexander VI
signed the death warrant of the great Savonarola.^"
In the name of Jesus and His Church, desolation and
death, curses and execrations, anathemas and excom
munications, bitter quarrels among men and factional
fights among cities, filled the land.^^
" Capa : La Inquisicion Espanola.
°La Fuente: Spanish Histories of the sixteenth and sev
enteenth centuries. Robertson (Scottish historian) : His
tories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
"Rivas: Historia Eclesiastica ; title, Siglo XVI.
"Castelar: Revolucion Religiosa, vol. II, chap. ii.

6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
I have briefly referred to these unhappy occurrences
for the reason that the subsequent chapters cannot be
studied to advantage, if we do not view the subject
dispassionately, and set aside our inherited prejudices.
If we seek Christ faithfully and sincerely, it is impos
sible that His doctrine — which, as we shall see later,
is eminently a doctrine of universal love — should sepa
rate us one from the other. It is impossible that our
hearts should not beat in unison, and that we should
not all be fused in one great universal Church.
Let us weigh well in our minds the fundamental
principles appHcable to all: The divinity of Christ
and the legitimacy of His Church. At the same time
let us not diminish the power of Christ nor magnify
that of His Church. Let us not reject any of the
authentic teachings of Christ, nor deny any of His
precepts, nor belittle any of His sacraments. To do so
would be to separate ourselves from Him, to turn
away from His spiritual body, to deny the divine
efficacy of His splendid mission. And let us not un
duly exalt His Church, nor concede to it greater
powers than rightfully belong to it. To do this would
be to elevate the Church at the expense of Christ, to
proclaim the Church a God, and Jesus Christ a man.
By merely noting these two fundamental principles,
our discussion will be to some purpose, harmony will
become possible, and we shall be able to arrive at our
convincing conclusion. For, as will be shown in the
succeeding chapters, all the differences that have arisen
are due to the modification of the one or the other
of these two principles: namely, conceding to the
Church on the one hand, prerogatives which Christ

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 7
himself did not concede to it; and supposing on
the other hand, that institutions which are of purely
human origin, are derived from Christ.
Let us be careful to distinguish the divine from the
human, the fundamental from the accessory, the transi
tory from the permanent; and in order to accomplish
this, let us examine from time to time Christ and His
Church ; and let us never admit any doctrine as divine,
unless coming from Christ himself; let us concede
nothing to the Church which Christ would not have
conceded to it.

CHAPTER II.
DISCUSSION AND OUTLINE OF THE MEANS OF KNOWING
CHRIST.
WE have seen in the preceding chapter that our
only Master is Christ, that all our institutions
and sacraments connected with the spiritual life should
have their origin with Him. But we have not had
the ineffable happiness of being called personally to
His apostleship ; the inexpressible consolation of hear
ing from His adorable lips, His splendid and divine
doctrine of salvation, has not been vouchsafed to us.
How, then, shall we be able to receive the light of the
Gospel? How may we know its dogmas in order to
believe them? How find its true teachings in order
to follow them? How distinguish its true sacraments
in order to receive them? How recognize the true
Church in order to embrace it? Here we have the
fundamental questions, the answers to which are of
vital interest alike to Catholics and Protestants, to
believers and unbelievers. What means has divine
Providence provided for humanity to enable it to know
Christ and enter His Church, and become a member
or part of His spiritual body?
If Christ and His Church were not within the reach
of every human being, then the advent and the re
demption of our adorable Saviour would have been
in vain. What avails it to proclaim the divinity of
Christ and the efficacy of His redemption, the purity
(8)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 9
of His precepts and the infallibility of His doctrine,
if, after all, we should remain unenlightened as to
His person and His Church ?
The one affirmation is the complement of the other.
If the Eternal One sent His Divine Son to save man
kind; if His Divine Son saved and redeemed man
kind, and as a continuation of His adorable mission,
established His Church, it was necessary, it was indis
pensable, that there should be a simple and easy way
to know and find Christ, to know and find His Church,
to know and find His doctrine, His precepts. His sacra
ments. To affirm the first, without affirming the sec
ond, would be to imply a deficiency in His divine
work; but this is a blasphemy which would involve
the denial of the divinity of Christ Himself, the de
struction of Providence, and the annihilation of all
religion, both revealed and positive. Therefore, as we
affirm the existence and divinity of Christ, the exist
ence and indestructibility of His Church, we should
also affirm, that there are simple and universal ways
of knowing Christ and His Church. But what are
these ways? Which is the safe road? What course
shall we take in order that we may definitely say,
"At last I have found Christ. I have found His
Church"? In attempting to answer this most serious question
we come upon the points of opposition between
Catholics and Protestants; differences between the
two begin to appear. But in seeking a veritable and
sincerely Christian criterion, fortified by sound theo
logical reasoning, and calling to our aid clarified his
torical testimony, we confidently hope to remove and

10 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
solve all the difficulties in our path to the satisfaction
of both the religious denominations.
Let us hear first the answer of the Roman Catholic
theology. It begins by affirming the priority, saying
to the believer : ^ "I am the only Church founded by
Christ, and for that reason the only true one. I pos
sess the divine prerogative of infallibility, and for that
reason, I only can guide you to Christ without devia
tion and without error; I can show you His dogmas
as they are; His ethical teachings without mystifica
tion; His sacraments truly and without addition.
Hear me, for whoever hears me,'^ hears Christ; obey
me, for whoever obeys me, obeys Christ; follow me,
for whoever follows me, follows Christ." This, in
brief, is the answer of Romanism.*
Let us explain this more fully. The answer to be
given to the above questions should be universal and
general in nature ; it should be applicable to all times,
to all peoples, and to all classes of society. If it is
not applicable to a given epoch in history,* if it is not
^ Bertier : Compendium Theologicum ; De Vera Ecclesia.
Casanova: Theologia Fundamentalis ; De Vera Ecclesia.
''Hettinger: Theologia Fundamental; De la Iglesia Ro-
mana, Spanish translation. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico,
s. V. Iglesia.
'I will say right here that notwithstanding my title of
Doctor of Theology, notwithstanding that I have studied and
taught this great and perspicuous science, I have never been
able to find this answer sufficient and adequate ; I have never
considered this affirmation effective and rational; nay, more,
I have always regarded it as a "begging the question" and
an obvious contradiction to other clear and definite doctrines
of the Church.
* Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico; s. v. Razon, Revela
cion, Conocimiento Religioso. Moigno: Esplendores de la
Fe. (The Spanish translation of both of these works.)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. II
applicable to any given people, if it is not applicable
to each and every person individually, then it is not
a legitimate procedure, and hence the answer is false
and should be rejected as inadequate and contradic
tory. Now let us suppose, that instead of giving the an
swer in this twentieth century, we should have been
asked to give it in the Middle Ages, the most critical
period of Romanism, when there were three Popes : '
one in Spain — Benedict XIII; another at Avignon
¦ — Clement VI; and the third in Rome — Gregory IX.
Each of them had a large following in the Church ;
each one had his cardinals who had elected him and
proclaimed him to be legitimate; his doctors of the
ology who defended him, kings who obeyed him, and
saints since canonized, who believed in him." To which
of these three Churches, then, should we send the man
who wants to believe? For it must be borne in mind
that according to the Roman Catholic theology the
faithful without the Pope are a little less than nothing,
while the Pope without the faithful is the Church,
the whole Church. Let us suppose that all the nations
should renounce the Pope, that all the faithful should
turn away from him, then he alone would constitute
the entire Church, all-sufficient and adequate in him
self ; ^ and all the faithful and all the nations would
be as nothing but error and heresy. Don't imagine
^Rohrbacher and Baronio: Historia Eclesiastica; Cismas
de Occidente.
"Alzog: Historia Eclesiastica; Cismas de Occidente.
Rivas : Lecciones de Historia Eclesiastica ; same title.
'Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe; title, Papa,
Iglesia. Maistre : Del Papa. Pio IX : Enciclica a los P. P.
del Vaticano.

12 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
that we are inventing doctrines ; we are merely stating
the most essential and positive tenets of the Roman
theology, as anyone may see who will look up the
authorities to whom we refer in our notes. If, then,
the Pope without the faithful is the Church, the whole
Church, and the faithful without the Pope cannot of
themselves constitute a Church, to which of the three
Churches should we send the faithful, at the time of
the three Popes?
If, then, we could not accept that answer in the
period of the Middle Ages, neither can we accept it
now, for do not forget, that according to the Roman-
istic theology, the answer, in order to be a valid one
must be universal and applicable to every period of
time ; for if there be found any period which this an
swer does not cover and to which it does not apply,
then the answer is not a valid one, but is false.'
Hence, if it did not apply to certain specified circum
stances in the Middle Ages, neither does it apply now,
and therefore it is not general ; if it would have been
inadequate and contradictory then, it is inadequate and
contradictory now; therefore it is not universal. Fur
thermore, who can assure the Roman Catholic that,
as schisms rent the unity of Romanism in past times,
so schisms may not rise to disturb the Church in times
to come? In case this should happen — and it is not
outside of the limit of probability — how should we
answer the man who wants to believe? to which
Church should we send him? And in the interreg
num between the death of a Pope and the election of
'Abate Moigno: Esplendores de la Fe. Jaugey: Demos-
tracion Religiosa.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I3
his successor, what shall we say to the man who comes
to us for advice ? Shall we say to him in this case : "
Now we are in a period of transition, at this moment
we are without a head ; we lack the most fundamental
and constitutive part of the Church; and while this
transitional period lasts, we cannot give you any
definite advice, because we are not infallible; we shall
be so before long, and then we will guide you calmly
and without danger ; for the present keep your faith in
abeyance and restrain your desire to join us, for soon,
very soon, we sha,ll have among us our infallible Pope
and then we shall be a whole and complete society.
Is there anyone who does not perceive the absurdity
of this reasoning? If the conclusion is absurd, then
the premises from which it derives are equally absurd,
and consequently such antiquated affirmations can no
longer be supported in this, our twentieth century.
And again there is brought forward a great soph
ism, known as a "begging the question," referring
back to the scholastic philosophy, which is the official
philosophy of Romanism. To what kind of arguments
has Romanism recourse, on which it seeks to base its
claims of being the legitimate Church, and on which
it seeks to found the many prerogatives it attributes
to itself? Who are the teachers that say to Roman
ism, It shall be thus? Whence does it derive the
assertion that it rests on solid foundations, that its
dogmas are unerring, that its ethical teachings are
pure, and that its sacraments are genuine? From
"Famosisima carta de Pio IX a los P. P. de! Concilio
Vaticano. (Famous letter from Pius IX to the P. P. of the
Vatican Concilium.)

14 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the Divine Word," from the authority of C:hrist.
Nothing that is not contained in this Word, says the
theologian, may claim to be infallible, nothing that
does not proceed from the authority of Christ may
claim to be divine ; " man, individually and collect
ively, shall receive and venerate the doctrine of Christ
such as He taught it, and yield obedience such as
Christ demanded it, and there is no human power on
earth, be it called a believer or a priest, be it called a
bishop or a cardinal, be it called a king or a pope,
be it called nation or concilium, which may alter one
iota of that which Christ has taught or imposed.^^
This is a theological doctrine common both to Catho
lics and Protestants. For this reason, therefore, the
Church must continually seek in the Bible for each
and every one of her dogmas, each and every one of
her sacraments, each and every one of her preroga
tives. If she must admit to us, then, that she holds
nothing that has not been commanded by the Bible
and by Christ, why not go directly to Christ and His
Gospels? If she believes in her own affirmations, if
she admits that they are all derived spontaneously
from the infallible doctrine of Christ, why this out
cry, when the faithful study for themselves those same
Gospels, and seek with the light of their own under
standing for that which the Bible teaches, and which
"Perrone: De Vera Religione. Bertier: De Doctrina
Ecclesiae. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, s. v.
Iglesia, Biblia.
"Concilium Tridentinum et Vaticanum; De Fide (The
Conciliums of Trent and of the Vatican; sections of the
Faith). Sacra Scriptura et Revelatione.
_ " P. Fernandez : Theologia Dogmatica De Doctrina Eccle
siae. Hettinger : Theologia Fundamental De Sagrada Escritura.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 1 5
is SO clear and self-evident? This outcry" is not
rational or justifiable; this anxiety to keep the Gospels
from the believers injures her grievously, instead
of working to her advantage, because it creates a
prejudice against her, for the believer says to himself :
You affirm that you are the one legitimate, the only
true Church, because the Gospels and Christ proclaim
it thus, and then you command me : Do not read the
Gospels except under my tutelage; do not seek to
know Christ except under my authority. But who
will guarantee me that your tutelage is the legiti
mate one? Who will assure me that your authority
is incontrovertible?
This rejoinder is one that may rise to the lips of any
believer who reflects, and if to this reflection is added
some knowledge of ecclesiastical logic, then he may
say further: You affirm that you are the only legiti
mate Church, because Christ and His Divine Word
teach it so; you affirm that Christ and the Divine
Word proclaim it so, because you teach it so, because
you interpret it so. Thus you beg the question and
you fall into a vicious circle, because you derive the
validity of one principle from the validity of another
that you have taken for granted, without having previ
ously proved the rationality of either of the two, which
might serve as the basis and point of departure. This
is precisely what in your own philosophy ^* is called
" Leo XIII : Enciclica sobre los estudios biblicos. Reglas
del Indice, by the same Pope, in which the reading of the
Bible is forbidden under penalty of severe punishment, unless
it be read under the conditions imposed by the Popes. _
" Cardenal Zigliara : Philosophia Escolastica, Logica ; De
Sophismatibus. Cardinal Gonzalez: Filosofia Tomista; same
title. 3

l6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the sophism of the begging the question, the soph
ism of the vicious circle. This certainly may deceive
the ignorant old woman whose stock of reasoning
does not go beyond her breviary. But take a person
of education who knows Christ and His Gospels ; who
has passed from them to the apostles and the men of
the apostolic age; has then studied the first centuries
of Christianity and the lives of the first believers, with
their primitive reunions, the foundings of the first
congregations, with their divisions and conciliums;
passing thence to the quarrels and schisms of the
Middle Ages and through the Vatican down to the
dawn of the modern era; listening to the Fathers
assembled at Basle and Constance ; ^^ and turning
from them to the prelates congregated at the present
time at the Council of the Vatican — to proclaim off
hand and as if by the way, to such a man, moderately
well versed in such studies, the existence and indefecti
bility of the Roman Church, and to rear up on this
statement that whole religious system, is like the at
tempt to erect a grand edifice without a foundation,
making it stand insecure at the very outset; it is
equivalent to undermining his faith and driving him
into the most crude rationalism.
Finally, the conduct of the Roman Church is not
logically consistent with itself and is contradictory to
the latest definitions that have just been laid down by
the Council of the Vatican. This Council condemns
the philosophic system called Traditionalism, and pur-
" Rivas: Historia Eclesiastica; Concilio de Constanza y
Basilea (Conciliums of Constance and Basle). Rohrbacher:
same title.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I/*
suant to its condemnation it proclaims, that reason
unaided is able to arrive at the demonstration of the
existence of a personal and infinite God ; that unaided,
it can demonstrate the divinity of Christ ;^° that reason
unaided can investigate and determine with certainty,
which among all the religions is the true one. If
reason unaided can arrive at those fundamental and
self-evident conclusions, then why forbid it to examine
these questions except under the authority of the
Church? Why proclaim, on the one hand, that reason
is, so to speak, of age and capable of self-guidance,
and then immediately afSrm its incapacity and declare
it to be still a minor and under the tutelage of the
Church? Is not this an obvious contradiction? If
the authority of the Vatican Council is upheld, why
not also uphold the truths of its utterances? If the
Romanists, leaning upon the Council, proclaim the
infallibility of the Pope, on what grounds do they
forbid other Catholics, who lean upon the same Coun
cil, to proclaim in their turn the sovereignty of reason
in finding Christ and His true Church?
Summing up this long chapter, then, we affirm that
the ancient criterion of the Roman Church, which in
sisted on taking the believer by the hand and leading
him into the knowledge of Christ and His Church,
can no longer be accepted in this twentieth century,
for it meets with the opposition of the Catholic phi
losophy and theology, the history of the Church, and
the Council of the Vatican.
" Concilium of the Vatican ; De Ratione et Fide.

CHAPTER IIL
THE ONLY SURE WAY OF KNOWING CHRIST AND HIS
CHURCH IS THROUGH THE GOSPELS.
THE principle of authority having been dismissed
in the previous chapter, we have no other ration
al and adequate means of knowing Christ and His
Church, except in the Word of God, the Bible. We
do not believe that this way is free from difficulties;
still we may say, that they are less than in the Roman
system, and that Protestantism, in setting the Bible
above the Church and giving it preference to the
Church, has taken a step forward instead of going
backwards, and has instituted a beneficial reform in
stead of a dangerous practice. We beg the Catholic
who has not been fully convinced by the reasons which
have been brought forward, to follow us further with
patience, for in the succeeding chapters he may per
haps see how one after the other all the objections of
Romanism on this point will disappear. At the same
time he will come to see that the Protestant reason
ing is better adapted than the Roman system, to de
fending the catholic faith and checking the steadily
growing advance of rationalism. But in order that
we may not be accused either of a diffuse or incom
plete statement of the question, we will here remind
the reader of the limits that we have set ourselves in
the beginning. We are addressing Catholics as well
as Protestants, both of whom beheve in the divinity
(18)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I9
of Christ and in the infallible efficacy of His rule.^
Therefore we shall not stop to prove what they already
concede to us as articles of their faith.
Both Catholics and Protestants uphold the existence
of a Biblical canon, and as this canon, in the New
Testament, hardly differs in the two denominations,
we admit it as valid, with the restrictions imposed by
Protestantism. The Catholic, in following the unfold-
ment of the doctrine, will see that there is nothing
alarming in this slight concession.
But let not the reader expect us to stop and enter
into historical disquisitions in order to determine the
legitimacy of the canon. Why should we take up time
with questions which both denominations already
concede to us ? ^ Since Catholics as well as Prot
estants believe in the divine inspiration of all the
books included in the canon, we shall similarly not
touch upon the numerous e'xegetical questions on this
point discussed in both of the denominations.^ Our
discussion admits and regards as valid all the theories,
from the most restrictive to the most liberal ; from the
theory which would confine the divine inspiration, to
those passages only which deal with the dogma, with
ethics and with the sacraments, to the theory which
holds that each and every one of the sentences, words,
' The Augsburg Confession : Concilium Tridentinum et
Vaticanum; De Christi Magisterio et Fide (Trent and Vatican
Councils; Christ's Magistery: On Faith).
^Read any Protestant author on the subject. For Catholics,
consult: Patrizi: De Inspiratione. Vigouroux: Manual Bib-
lico; same title.
" Consult Cornely : Manual Exegetico y Hermeneutico. Also
Vigouroux : where all the theories are expounded. Jaugey :
s. v. Interpretacion biblica (Biblical interpretation).

20 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
accents and commas is inspired. Without passing
judgment upon any of these theories, without favor
ing or condemning any one of these schools, we say
that the most restrictive, and on better grounds still,
the most liberal theory suffices for our discussion.
Nor shall we refer to the Old Testament in our dis
cussion. As we are not required to demonstrate the
divinity of Christ nor the divinity of His Church,
why should we appeal to the Old Testament when
all its virtue and efficacy consist chiefly in being the
preamble and annunciator of the New Testament?
Why appeal to the ancient symbolism, when we pos
sess the living reality? Why question the prophets
regarding that which Christ might say, when we pos
sess the same Christ speaking for himself? Why
seek light from the forerunners, when we possess the
Messiah himself, speaking clearly in his own voice?
To go to the Old Testament would be equivalent to
saying, that the symbol is clearer than the reality
symbolized, that the prophet is more explicit than the
thing about which he has prophesied; in other words,
that the penumbra is brighter than the light, that the
dawn is more brilliant than the splendid sun from
which it proceeds. Therefore we admit and need for
our demonstration the testimony of the apostles and
the apostolic writings.
Why should we not do so, if the first churches
were established before the redaction of the Gospels ? *
Why not, if in the first days of Christianity the apos-
* Following authors: Rohrbacher, Baronio and Rivas : His
toria Eclesiastica; Fundacion de las primeras Iglesias (Ec
clesiastical History; title. Foundation of first Churches).

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 21
ties were the living Gospels, the incorruptible wit
nesses of the Word of Christ, and those who, finally,
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, committed
that Word to writing in the four Gospels and in their
many epistles, well along in the first century? To set
aside the testimony of the apostles would be equiva
lent to setting aside the Gospels themselves, and de
molishing the fundamental basis of the Divine Word.
Here we have, then, the aggregate of the books that
will enable us to know Christ and His Church: the
four Gospels and the Epistles of the apostles. Here
we have that which will serve us as a standard, as an
infallible guide. Oh, how our spirit is calmed ! How
our heart is pacified ! How our anxiety is removed !
No, do not let us remain at the mercy of that which
resolves itself into a human personality. Do not let
us run the risk of having our dogmas changed or
extended, of having additions or modifications made
in our moral code; of having our sacraments sup
pressed and new ones instituted. If our confession
of faith is fixed once and for all, it will remain the
same throughout the centuries; it will be attainable
alike by all men and all nations ; it will always remain
whole in the midst of all perplexities and disturbances.
What will it matter to the believer, then, that there are
divisions and apostasies? What will it matter to the
believer then, that there are one or two pontiffs in the
chair of Peter ? What will it matter to him, that many
priests are losing their faith, that public morals are
corrupted, that the scribe and the Pharisee are stand
ing in the pulpit? Safe above all and beyond all, the
august voice of Christ shall then be ever heard; the

22 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
voice of Christ in accents of thunder unceasingly pro
claiming His Gospel — "These are my precepts which
will not change, though the centuries may change ; this
is my dogma which may not be aUered, though the
customs may aher; these are my sacraments, which
will not be increased or diminished, though my fol
lowers may increase or diminish."
There is no doubt but that on this point Protestant
ism has taken a better stand than Catholicism, and
that its position is more clear and unassailable than
the tortuous and vacillating position of Romanism.
Who can assail it? Can it be said that the Gospels
may perish or be adulterated ? What ? Is this in any
way possible, with their innumerable editions and in
contestable copies ? ^ If such a thing is not likely with
works of lesser importance, as for instance those of
Cicero or other authors that are hardly known, how
should this be possible with the Word of God, which
is in the hands of all men, which has been translated
into all languages, and of which all people possess
codices ?
And if there really should occur a general mistake
among men, how can we believe in a Divine mistake?
Did not the Holy Ghost, while inspiring those books,
impose upon himself at the same time the sacred obli
gation of watching over them with His adorable
Providence? If human means should be insufficient,
a supposition that is repugned on moral grounds, then
the omnipotence of the Holy Ghost would come to
" Both authors, Patrizi and Cornely : Sobre la Imposibili-
dad de perderse 6 adulterarse los Libros Santos (On the Im
possibility of either losing or adulterating the Sacred Books).

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 23
their aid and supply the deficiency. If men could not
and would not watch over their preservation and
purity, then He who never sleeps would watch over
them. He who is all-powerful would take care of them ;
their falsification would be prevented by Him who,
being infinitely wise, could never mistake their true
meaning. In brief, God aids humanity, so that it may never
lose His divine and inestimable treasure.
Note, then, the most signal difference between Ro
manism and Protestantism. The first says : Jesus Christ
spoke, I do not deny that; but for you His word is
an unprofitable riddle, unless I solve it for you.^ Jesus
promulgated dogmas which every faithful one shall
believe, gave commands which every man must obey,
established sacraments which every believer must re
ceive. All these were laid down in the Bible, and
although they were committed to writing by order
and under the inspiration of Heaven, do not weary
yourself with reading them, for you will find nothing
in them if I do not guide you ; you can know nothing
with certainty, if I do not add my own sanction to
the sanction of the Holy Ghost, if I do not add the
authority of earth to the authority of Heaven, and if
the word of the Pope is not joined with the Word of
God. For Romanism, Heaven and earth are entirely sub
ject to the will of the Pope; Heaven has no means
of communicating its commands except through the
Pope, and earth has no way of receiving them except
"Leo XIII: De Studiis Sacrje Scripture (Encyclical on the
Holy Scripture).

24 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
as interpreted by the Pope.' And the more false these
printed monstrosities are, the more firmly they must
be believed. In order that the reader may see for
himself, a bull by Pius IX is quoted in the footnotes
for the benefit of anyone who will read it.®
Protestantism, on the contrary, says: Here you
have the fundamental code of your beliefs, precepts
and sacraments; receive it with respect, for it is
divine ; read it with veneration, for it came down from
Heaven. Do you wish to believe? Seek, and here
you will find your faith. Do you wish to do right?
Search and here you will find your code of ethics.
Do you waver? Do you doubt? Do not seek human
aid but implore Heaven, and the same Holy Ghost
who inspired and dictated to those who wrote these
books will likewise inspire and dictate to your con
science. What a notable difference we have here! Roman
ism circumscribes the activities of the Holy Ghost and
' Pius IX : Enciclica ad Vatican Conciliarios P. P. (Letter
to the P. P. Councilors of the Vatican). Leo XIII: De In-
terpretatione Sacrae Scriptures.
° Pius IX : Pope's Bull : Obitus Rom. Pont, durante Concilio.
Pius IX in Litt. Ap. "Cum Romanis Pontificibus" ait "De
apostolicae potestatis plenitudine declaramus, decernimus atque
statuimus quod. . . . Nos decedere contingerit, idem existat,
illico et inmediate suspensum ac dilatum intelligatur, quemad-
modum per Nostras has litteras illud nunc, pro tunc suspen-
dere atque in tempus infra notandum differre intendimus,
adeo ut nulla prosus interiecta mora cessare statim debeat a
quibuscumque conventibus, congregationibus et sessionibus, et
sequibusvis decretis seu canonibus conficiendis nee ob qualem-
cumque causam, etiamsi gravissima et speciali mentione digna
videatur ulterius progredi donee novus Pontifex a sacro Car-
dinalium collegio canonice electus suprema sua auctoritate
Concilli ipsius reassumptionem et prosequitionem duxerit in-
timandam. Idem Pontifex mandat quod certam stabilemque
normam in simili rerum eventu perpetuo servandam. . . ."

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 25
places itself like a barrier between God and man;
Protestantism removes all obstructions and establishes
a constant and most ample communication between
Heaven and earth, between God and man.
The objection that Catholicism opposes to Protest
antism will be met in the next chapter and will be
refuted.

CHAPTER IV.
ARE THE GOSPELS SUFFICIENT IN ORDER TO KNOW
CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH?
HERE we frankly and succinctly formulate our
answer. Since the Gospels comprise the writ
ings of the apostles, they should contain all that is
necessary to believe, to do and to receive, in order to
be saved; and they should state this so clearly and
self-evidently, that with the assistance of the Divine
cooperation, the mere reading will be sufficient to com
prehend it, as both denominations suppose and admit.
Let us see if it is so.
These books, dictated by the Holy Ghost, contain
the genuine Word of Christ. Who wrote them?
Two of the evangelists, Matthew and John, were eye
witnesses; the two others, Mark and Luke, wrote in
conjunction, the one with Peter, also an eye-witness,
and the other with Paul, who admitted that he had
received the Gospel from Christ himself, through reve
lation ; ^ moreover it must always be borne in mind
that the four wrote under the direct and all-sufficient
inspiration of the Holy Ghost. What results there
from? We must collate and synthesize the doctrine
of our Saviour; determine once and for all the trae
teachings of Christ, and at the same time refute the
apocryphal writings, which were even then appearing
everywhere, serving as the basis for the first heresies.
^ Galatians i. 12.
(26)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2.y
Very well, then. According to St. Thomas and the
entire school of Romanism ^ if we wish to know God
and deduce His attributes, we must begin with the
created beings and ascend from them, conceding to
God whatever of beauty, perfection and wisdom we
find in creation; with this proviso, however, that in
creation all perfection is found to be mixed with im
perfection, while in God all the perfections are found
entire and pure. In creation we see the perfections
divided among the different classes of created things ;
some we behold shining in the things not endowed
with sensation, others appear resplendent in the living
creatures ; and the most marvelous ones scintillate in
the chief being, the crown of creation, the synthesis
of the universe, the compendium of the miracles of
(jod — in Man: but in God they are all summed up in
their highest potentiality and with fundamental unity
and simplicity, in one single Being. In creation all
beauty and virtue, all perfection and hoHness, is al
ways accompanied by some bounds and restrictions,
all is finited and limited ; but in God all these perfec
tions are infinite and immense, without term and with
out limits. Hence, we see God, as it were, mirrored
in creation, but we must never forget that the mirror
is the finite while the image is infinite, that the mirror
is cloudy and obscured, while the image is clear and
magnificent, that the mirror is imperfect and inade
quate, while the image is absolutely perfect in all its
proportions. Hence there have been deep thinkers who have
^ St. Thomas : De Deo. S. Dionysius : De Divinis Nomini-
bus.

28 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
held that this world, being the work of God, must
needs be the most perfect of all the possible worlds ; *
for if it were not it would lack something, hence it
would be imperfect, hence it would presuppose imper
fection in the Supreme Artificer who made it. St.
Thomas, and with him the entire Catholic school, since
they could not concede to creation the attributes of
infinity and immensity,* which would be equivalent to
proclaiming the simultaneous existence of two infinite
beings — a supposition that involves an obvious contra
diction in philosophical reasoning — and since they felt
obliged, on the other hand, to admit the full perfection
of the works ad extra, as God is absolutely perfect ad
intra, tried to compromise by saying: If you ask us
whether this world is the most perfect that God could
create, we say roundly, No. God can create an in
finitude of worlds more perfect than the existing one ;
an infinitude of beings more beautiful, more grand,
more sublime than the existing ones ; but in view of
the end that God proposed to himself in creating this
world, in view of the gradations of glory that He de
sired to see sparkling in creation, this world is the
most perfect of all the worlds, this creation is the
most adequate of all the creations. Not to affirm this,
continues St. Thomas, would be to suppose a lack of
proportion between the Artificer and His work, to
proclaim a deficiency between the Creator and His
creatures, which would be equivalent to denying the
'Leibnitz: In his philosophy, which is perhaps the most
profound work of Protestantism, and one of the wisest works
of humanity. See also the works of Cardinals Zigliara, and
Gonzalez's Cosmologia. De possibilitate creationis eternae.
* The same testimonies as cited on No, 3,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2$
infinite wisdom of God and the harmony of Provi-
dence.° In expounding our thesis, we go back, as the Roman
Catholic believer will see, to the most fundamental
doctrines of the Roman philosophy and theology, we
appeal to the testimony of its deepest thinkers, of its
most renowned and tried theologians ; this will show
that we have undertaken to write a rational work
making for harmony, and not a work appealing to
sectarian prejudices. Let us, then, turn the light of
those doctrines upon the question in hand, let us apply
the philosophic and theologic reasoning of Romanism
to the work above all others divine, the redaction of
the Gospels.
Here we have clearly an object proposed by God —
the collation of the doctrine of Christ ; " we have also
the means chosen by the same God ''• — the writing of
the Gospels. Is there due proportion between the end
and the means, both chosen by the same God? Then
the result is a complete work. Is there no such pro
portion? Are there shortcomings in the Gospels?
Was the object in view not attained? Then they are
° The same testimonies as cited on No. 3.
° Consult the Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, and the
Epistles of the apostles, where both of these truths are re
peatedly stated. It is sufficient to read the beginning of the
Gospels in order to see how the evangelists viewed Christ s
doctrine. St. John begins with the Divine generation and ends
with the Resurrection ; St. Matthew and St. Luke begin with
the human genealogy and reach, the first, as far as the Resur
rection, and the second, as far as the Ascension; St. Mark
begins with the public appearance of Christ and goes as far
as the Ascension. See especially the first verses of St. Luke,
and St. John xx. 30, 31 ; also Acts i. 2.
' Consult same testimonies as cited on No. 6.

30 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
not a divine work, then the theory of inspiration falls
to the ground. Then good-bye to the Gospels!
This reasoning is not rational; it is not philosophic
nor theologic within the limits of the scholastic
philosophy and theology. It undermines the founda
tion of the entire Christian revelation. It is equiva
lent to proclaiming the most destructive exegetic doc
trine where we should find the most humble submis
sion, the most profound respect, the deepest reverence
for the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
May we not say, rather, that in the Creation all is
harmonious and proportionate ; that the stone as it
falls, the river as it runs, the star as it shines, the
plant as it grows, the beast as it roars, and man while
he thinks are harmonious and proportionate, are fin
ished and perfect, each in its class and species, because
they all respond adequately to the concept which the
Supreme Artificer has formed of them, making them
completely and entirely perfect, each in its way ? *
May we affirm all this of the Creation and then when
we come to the work which is above all others the
work of God, to the work of redemption, the redaction
of the Gospels, which are the indispensable means for
the continuation of this redemption — when we come
to the chief work, I say, which is the foundation and
basis of Catholicism and of humanity, shall we then
declare: This is a deficient and incomplete work, this
is a work which does not correspond to the end it pro
posed? For it proposed to expound the doctrine of
° See Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico de Fe ; Creacion,
Providencia, Perfeccion del Mundo. Consult also Granclaude :
Filosofia Escolastica, Cosmologia.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 31
Christ, and it does not expound it; it proposed to
reflect all His dogmas and it does not reflect them ; it
proposed to set forth all His precepts and does not
set them forth ; it proposed to establish all His sacra
ments and they have not been established ; it proposed
to describe the constructive elements of His Church
and they have not been described ; this work remained
incomplete, remained deficient, although the apostles
redacted it, with the aid of the infinite wisdom of the
Holy Ghost ; therefore we must complete it by seeking
the assistance of the first Churches, we must add to
it by seeking human testimony, we must go to tradi
tion for support.^ Is this rational? Is this conceiv
able? This is the greatest of philosophical and theo
logical absurdities imaginable, from the point of view
of scholasticism, the official doctrines of Romanism.
We shall further demonstrate this fallacy by taking
up another line of reasoning, and we appeal to the
reader's patience if we propound and solve this great
question somewhat diffusely. For it is a question that
is not only of the utmost importance in itself but is
also a fundamental one for the discussion in the fol
lowing pages. We cannot proceed with our subject
without having answered it, for we should meet with
doubts and stumbling-blocks at every step; but if it
has once been cleared up, then we can easily meet and
overcome each and every one of the obstacles that we
shall find on our way.
The apostles were the first true followers of Christ.
I take it for granted that there is no Romanist, how-
' Bertier: Compendium Theologicum. Perrone, Casanova:
De Traditione. 4

32 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
ever irreverent he may be, who will not concede, that
they believed in the entire Christian dogma, that they
practised all its moral precepts, that they received
each and every one of the Divine sacraments, that
they lived within the true and legitimate Church.
To doubt any one of these affirmations would be
equivalent to doubting the foundations of ecclesi-
asticism.^" Very well, then. Let us suppose for a moment that
they were not prompted by the Holy Ghost, let us
consider them for a moment as mere historians, as
men of integrity and sincerity. How would they have
to proceed in order to record the true doctrines of
Christ? They would have to question their own in
telligence on the supposition that they believed in each
and every one of His dogmas; they would have to
seek counsel from their own will, provided that they
fulfilled each and every one of His precepts; they
would have to reflect the experiences of daily life,
provided that they received and administered each and
every one of the sacraments; they would have to de
scribe the events happening around them, provided
that they were living within the true Church. Then
if we suppose that they were men of integrity and
truth (and to doubt that would be blasphemy for a
Romanist ^^), we must further suppose that they were
capable and perfect men; as according to all reports
they possessed the necessary knowledge and integrity ;
I therefore say that they were true and perfect Chris-
'°Pope S. Leo: Petri et Pauli Sermo (Sermons on St.
Peter and St. Paul). The unanimous testimony of the Roman
Church. " Consult the same testimonies as cited on No. 10.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 33
tians. ^^ Among historians every eyewitness is admit
ted as a credible one, who possesses adequate knowl
edge of that which he recounts, undoubted integrity
in recounting it, and absolute veracity. To deny this
standard of criticism is to destroy the records of his
tory, and to grope about in the dark regarding the
past; it is to assert that historical accuracy is im
possible. Therefore, according to our reasoning, the
apostles must have been perfect in their Gospels, and
if we add thereto the Divine aid, proclaimed and be
lieved in by both the religious denominations,^^ then
we arrive at a degree of certainty that is not human
but divine ; then we have evidence not based on scien
tific grounds but evidence that is absolutely infallible.
Let us examine the Roman theology somewhat more
closely. For God, time does not exist.^* Seated on
the summit of eternity. He encompasses in one single
present idea that which was, that which is, that which
shall be, and that which might be. Before anything
at all existed. He saw within His divine Essence all
that which had to be, and how it would come to be.
Hence the development of His Church was clear and
visible to Him since eternity. Before the heresies ap
peared in time and among men. He beheld them rise
up out of the depth of His infinite wisdom. He be-
^ Balmes : El Criterio. Granclaude : Logica ; Criterios de
Verdad. Mendive: Logica; Criterios de Verdad (Criteria
of Truth).
" Concilium Tridentinum et Vaticanum : De Canone Sacrae
Scripturse. The Biblical Canon of any Protestant ritual, and
the Biblical Canon of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican.
" Hurter : Theologia Dogmatica de Scientia Dei. P. Fer
nandez : Same title. Perrone, Casanova, Genicot, Gotti :
Same title.

34 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
held scandals and schisms distarbing and defiling His
Church before they actually arose. He beheld vice
and sin passing triumphant from century to century,
from society to society, from people to people; He
saw that no class of society remained exempt; He
beheld their impure stigma on the forehead of the
people as well as on the crowned head, on the car
dinal's hat as well as on the Pontiff's tiara; and He
beheld all these things at the moment when He was
inspiring and dictating to His apostles. Is it within
the bound of reason to believe that, having the power
to establish the word of His adorable Son in an in
controvertible and indubitable way, He should instead
entrust it to the volubility and wavering of this same
humanity, which He beheld so much inclined to falsify
and adulterate it, in order to cloak therewith their
vices and crimes ? No, a thousand times no ; God had
to choose the best and most adequate way, that which
was the least open to mystifications and abuse, in
order that the Gospels might condemn for all time the
sins of the Pontiff as well as the sins of the faithful,
the sins of the king as well as the sins of the people.
Our affirmation appears still more categorical as we
turn to the last one of the dogmas proclaimed by
Romanism, the infallibility of the Pontiff. According
to the Catholic theology," inspiration as the general
source of authority ceased with the apostles. The
body of the doctrine was then entirely complete, and
no one is empowered to add to it or take away from
" Melchor Cano : De Locis Theologicis. Jaugey : His work
above mentioned; Revelacion, Inspiracion, Infalibilidad. Ber
tier, Perrone, Cardinal Vives: De Inf allibilitate ; Ecclesije.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 35
it." Consequent upon this affirmation that theology
further holds that if the Holy Ghost continues to com
municate with His creatures by means of voices, vi
sions and other mystical manifestations that abound in
the lives of the saints, this does not affect humanity
at large, but concerns only those individuals who re
ceive such communication.^^ It holds furthermore, in
regard to the personal infallibility of the Pontiff, that
this is neither revelation nor inspiration, but means
merely preservation from error ; ^^ and in defining its
powers it says: he can originate nothing and add
nothing; the only thing he can do is to indicate to us
the true meaning of that which has already been re
vealed. We, therefore, stand justified in our point of
view, for both Romanism and Protestantism affirm
alike that the entire Christian doctrine is contained in
the Gospels and the writings of the apostles; we are
certain, therefore, that neither in the apostolic tradition
nor in the words of the first disciples of the apostles
do we find anything, nor can we find anything, that we
may not find in the Gospels or in the writings of the
apostles themselves.
Let us sum up in a few words the doctrine as ex
plained in this somewhat lengthy chapter. Protestant
ism holds that the Bible, being the Word of God, is
complete; being inspired by the Holy Ghost, it is in
fallible; reflecting the teachings of Christ, it contains
the articles of our faith, the exemplar of our conduct,
"Same testimonies as cited on No. ll.
"Scaramelli: Obras Misticas (Spanish translation). Jau
gey: His work above mentioned; Revelacion.
" Schouppe : De Inf allibilitate. Hurter and Hettinger :
Same title.

36 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the summary of our sacraments. Since Christ is our
one and only Master, Him only shall we hear and
obey.^° Romanism holds that although the Bible is
the Word of God, still it is not complete, and does not
contain the entire Christian doctrine.^" Although it
is inspired by the Holy Ghost and therefore infallible,
yet its meaning is so hidden and difficult to under
stand, that it requires further authentic and infallible
interpretation, that of the Pope.^'- While Christ is our
only Master, yet we need a man to guide us to hira,
we need the Pope to go with us.
Let the reader examine and decide impartially which
of these two theories is the more rational, the more
theological, the more human and the more divine.
"Consult any Protestant ritual on Articles of Faith.
™ Tridentinum et Vaticanum de Traditione et Fide (Coun
cils of Trent and the Vatican). Perrone, Casanova: Same
title. "Leo XIII: De Studiis Biblicis (Encyclical on Biblical
Studies). Jaugey: His work above mentioned on Exegesis.

CHAPTER V.
THE SUBJECT OF THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER CONTINUED.
WE have asserted in the preceding chapter, not
only that the Christian doctrine is contained
in the Gospels and the Epistles of the apostles, but
also that the language of these works is so clear
that it may be understood by any person who is
in possession of all his faculties. As the Romanist
may see, we have thereby answered one of his gravest
charges against Protestantism. The other objections
consequent upon the acceptance of tradition and in
volving the view that the Gospels do not contain the
entire doctrine, will be the subject of the following
chapter. We say this here, in order that he may con
vince himself that we are aware of the number and
the force of his objections.
One of the most conspicuous facts confirmed both
by history and tradition, is the charming simplicity
of the language used by Christ.^ It would not have
been judicious in Him to do otherwise. The first and
most rudimentary rule for every orator is to accom
modate himself to the social status of the people he is
addressing, so that he may be accessible to the ma
jority of them. Not to do so would be to speak in
* Chrysostomus : De Humilitate et Simplicitate Christi (On
the humility and simplicity of Christ). The Venerable Bede
on the same subject. The entire tradition of the fathers of the
Church, corroborates this statement. (37)

38 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
vain, to move the air and not the souls, as St. Paul
graphically says. Very well, then ; who were the peo
ple that for the most part composed the audience of
our adorable Saviour? Simple fishermen and humble
countrymen of Galilee, the illiterate and poor people
of Palestine.^ Let us glance briefly at the degree of
culture of this people, that we may thereby gain some
insight into this important question.
As the immortal Balmes " says, one of the rules most
necessary to observe for the good historian, but which,
unfortunately, is too often forgotten, is that he should
set aside for the moment his own state of civilization
and his own theories, when he is studying the ancient
civilizations. Living as we do in a social environment
entirely different from that of Palestine, it is very dif
ficult for us to form an adequate picture of that people.
We may, however, get some idea, in following the
principle of exclusion, and guided by the few histori
cal records which we possess of them, and although
the picture may not be a complete one, it will suffice
to demonstrate our thesis.
The people of Palestine, at the epoch when Christ
appeared among them, selecting them as the sole re
cipients of His rehgion, were living isolated in the
midst of the stream of Hellenism and Romanism
which at that time was spreading all over the vast
Roman empire.* The proud and hypocritical Phari
sees considered the study of Greek and Latin as de-
'The Gospels and Apostolic Writings: In almost every
chapter, for instance. Matt. xi. 25.
" El Criterio : Modo de estudiar y escribir la historia (Man
ner of studying and writing history).
* Talmud of Jerusalem : Megillath Taanith.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 39
grading as the eating of unclean animals." One of
these pompous doctors, on being asked the age on
which a boy might begin to acquire the profane
culture, replied: "At the time when there shall be
neither day nor night, for Moses commanded that
both the day and the night shall be given to the
study of the Law." Schools were few in the land."
Their teachers were the same scribes who devoted
themselves to the interpretation and explanation of
the Holy Books. The course of study was confined
to learning to read those Holy Books in a mechanical
routine fashion. Nothing that could be called gen
eral culture was taught in the schools or could be
acquired in social intercourse. Any branch of learn
ing that was not directly or indirectly derived from
the Holy Books was denounced as profane and dan
gerous, and despised and abhorred as impious and
heretical. If such was the culture of the upper classes, we
may imagine the state of the lower classes, of the
working people. Gaume says correctly,' that the low
est classes of our modern society would appear as
great scholars and men of encyclopedic wisdom in
comparison with the ignorant and humble masses of
the Palestine people who heard and followed Christ.'
No one who has looked into profane history and
knows the historical records to which the historians
^ Talmud of Jerusalem : Pe'ah.
'Renan: The Life of Christ, chap, iii (Spanish translation).
'Gaume: FoUeto, Credo (Spanish translation). Josephus:
Using his own words : "I am an unusual, cultured man."
Philo, another Jewish rabbi of that period, was educated out
side of Palestine.
'Fleury: Costumbres de la Palestina (Palestine Customs).

40 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
refer in regard to this people can deny that at the
time of Jesus Christ the intellectual level of the peo
ple of Palestine was much below the intellectual level
of the people of our time, of our working classes..
This people, then, most humble in its origin, ilHter-
ate and simple because of its lack of instruction, is
the congregation that Christ chiefly addresses ; and
the people listen to Him and understand Him; thou
sands from all over the country follow Him with
reverence and enthusiasm. And why should this not
be so, since there is nothing so clear as the sublime
preaching of Christ ? " In His exposition He adopted
the form most easily understood by the masses.
There are no profound discussions, no forced inter
pretations, nothing that is not lucid as the light, clear
as day, true as the people surrounding Him were
true.^° He uses the symbol, the parable, the fable,
metaphor and allegory; but these oratorical artifices
serve only to make His thought more vivid, His teach
ings more clear. He not only seeks to impress the in
telligence of His audience but to appeal to their feel
ings, to move their imagination; because this simple
people (and the Saviour addressed by preference the
simple people) cannot grasp pure ideas and abstract
reflections if they are not garnished and simplified by
homely similes and vivid imagery. To deny this fact
is to deny the historical personality of Christ, to deny
His divine and august mission.
To believe that His Gospel was written only for the
' See any of the sermons of Christ ; in the Gospel of St.
Matthew, for instance, v. 1-12; also xiii.
'"See the parables of Christ in all the Gospels, especially
Matt, xiii, and Luke viii.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 4I
leading classes to^ read ; to suppose that only the upper
and illustrious classes could grasp its meaning, to
affirm that only those who have previously mastered
auxiliary sciences can profit by its reading and inter
pretation, is to contradict the Gospel itself, to asperse
and disfigure its divine simplicity, its immaculate
beauty, its incomparable tenderness.^^ Poor and sim
ple are those who first approach Jesus, women and
children are the first who hear His doctrine of salva
tion; and Jesus Christ never forgets the condition of
His hearers, in His sweet and tender exposition. His
candid speech and His enchanting parables.
Le't us, therefore, go to the Gospels, with the pro
found conviction, that plain, common sense is sufficient
to understand them; away with all attempts at pro
found criticism, all search for recondite meanings and
deep mysteries, all endeavors to get hold of them with
the aid of absurd suppositions and strained and far
fetched interpretations. That which we shall believe
and do and receive we find here stated with self-
evident clarity without effort or straining of any kind ;
and we find it expounded and affirmed as Christ ex
pounded and affirmed His doctrine: with frankness,
for the people who listened to Him were frank ; with
simplicity for the people who heard Him were simple ;
with transparent clearness, for only thus could the
people who surrounded Him understand Him.^^ Un
less the Roman Church thinks that our people are in
ferior in knowledge to the absolutely ignorant people
" See the Gospels, especially Matt. v. 1-12.
" Fleury : Costumbres de la Palestina. Renan ; Life of
Christ; chaps, ii, iii, iv.

42 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
of Palestine, that our society is inferior in culture to
the illiterate society of Judea, she may never affirm
that we require a tutor or an interpreter in order to
hear and comprehend that which was heard and
easily comprehended by the poor fishermen of Galilee
and the simple women of Nazareth.
Since this is a question of life or death for the
Romanist; since the denial of the absolute necessity
of an authoritative interpretation means the downfall
of the great majority of the air castles reared within
the shadow of this fantastic power; since the ad
mission of a more liberal interpretation might lead
liberal reasoning to cast down the many bugbears
which have been gathered around the central Roman
power, encouraged by authority and false tradition, —
since Romanism foresees this inevitable catastrophe,
it clings more and more closely to its favorite theory.
Let us hear its reasoning.^^
If we did not admit the necessity of a single cen
tral authority, whose interpretation shall be equally
obligatory upon all, the Sacred Books would be a nest
of discord instead of being a center of unity ; a ground
for dissensions instead of a basis of unity.^* Human
standards are so varied and numerous, the likes and
dislikes of men are so diverse and heterogenous that
it would be morally impossible to arrive at a common
understanding, and the precepts, the dogmas, the sac
raments, all the consthutive elements of the true
" Leo XIII : Studies in the Sacred Writings, Conciliums
of Trent and of the Vatican. De Sacra Scriptura.
"Jaugey: His only work mentioned in this book: Inter
pretacion Biblica; Autoridad de la Iglesia.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 43
Church, would be multiplied or diminished accord
ing to the individual likings. Such is in brief the
strongest argument of the Roman Church.
To this we may at once reply: Do you believe in
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in the redaction
of the Holy Books? Do you believe that the Holy
Ghost is constantly and directly active in elevating
those who sincerely implore Him, in the supernatural
order of faith?
We believe, they say to us, in these things. And
we beheve more; we believe that without Divine aid
human reason is incapable of entering into the su
pernal world of faith. We affirm that neither the
clearest and keenest intelligence nor the most pro
found exegetical studies, neither the most accurate
knowledge of history nor the infallible authority of
the Church itself can introduce the simple mortal
man into the supernal world of faith and redemption ;
that this ^° is the free gift of Heaven, that this is a
favor exclusively bestowed by the Holy Ghost; and
we affirm at the same time that He denies it to no
one, that He concedes it to all who sincerely ask for
it, and who do not knowingly place any obstacle in
the way of the divine impetus.^"
According to your own confession, then, the faith
ful who sincerely seek for the truth in the Sacred
Books can never find therein any cause for perturba
tion and error. Whence should come error and per
turbation? Out of the Bible? That is impossible, for
'° Concilium of the Vatican ; De Ratione et Fide.
" The attention of the reader is called to : James i. S.
Matt. vii. 7; xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. Luke xi. g. John xiv. 13;
XV. 7; xvi. 23.

44 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
according to your own confession it is divine. From
the impetus of the Holy Ghost? No, for you believe
that he is infallible. From the weakness of the faith
ful ? No, for you affirm that the Holy Ghost himself
aids them.
Hence, according to your own theologic doctrine,
the faithful can go direct to the fountains of revela
tion, if only he goes sincerely, invoking the divine
aid. And if, notwithstanding these conditions, di
versity of opinion should arise among the faithful,
bless it, for this diversity would be due to the very
fruitfulness of the Word of God; it would be a sign
of life and not of death, a signal of progress and
not of regression.^' The countless number of nebu
lae and constellations, of stars and planets, have been
produced out of one single cosmic matter and this di
versity is the source of its sublime and incomparable
beauty.^' One vegetative life has produced the har
monious gradation of plants and flowers, and its di
versity is brilliant with the wonders of nature. ^^ One
single, living breath animates the fish in the water,
propels the bird through the air, gives breath to the
beast in the field and in this very diversity resides
the majestic and overpowering beauty of creation.^"
The power of judgment is the specific attribute of
man, and what a diversity of races and people, of
"Renan: El Porvenir de la Ciencia (Spanish translation)
(The Future of Science), first chapters.
^'Sechi: De los Astros (Spanish translation). Palmiere:
Cosmologia. "Zigliara: De Vita Vegetativa. Mendive: De la Vida
Vegetal. "° Cardinals Gonzalez and Zigliara ; Filosofia : Del Principio
Racional.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 45
philosophic systems and literary theories, of political
institutions and other human creations, and above all
these things how beautiful appears humanity in its
ceaseless, majestic march toward progress, toward
its entire and complete perfection ! -^ Diversity within
unity is the sign of harmony, of progress, of life.
Centralism within unity is the sign of usurpation, of
decadence, of death.
Perhaps the Romanist will reply here: But your
theory applies only to the good among the faithful,
only to those who sincerely seek for the truth, implor
ing Heaven to aid them, and applies by no means to
all. We grant that; we speak only of those among
the faithful who seek in the Holy Books before all
and above all for their creed and their rule of con
duct, not of those who interpret the Scriptures so
as to palliate their vices and cloak their sins. Does
Romanism believe Protestantism to be so ignorant and
unsophisticated as to think that the Sacred Books,
aside from being the guide to the creed and the rules
of conduct of the sincere beHever, are of such nature
that the wicked and perverse cannot make wrong-
use of them? Protestantism is aware and Romanism
knows that the insolent can falsify and adulterate the
Holy Books according to his caprice, with or without
a free examination, with or without the authority of
the Roman Church; but it does not follow from this
that the truly faithful may not reap a rich harvest
in reading them.
Here we have one of the most crafty sophisms of
" Renan : El Porvenir de la Ciencia (The Future of
Science) ; chaps, ii, iii, iv, v.

46 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Romanism. Seeing that among those which it arro
gantly calls sects there are some who make a wrong
use of the Scriptures, it exclaims with indignation : ^^
Here you have the fruits of free examination; here
you have the results of not believing in one central
authority that shall determine the interpretation. The
reader will pardon me if scholastic terms are made use
of in replying, for it must be admitted that in treat
ing of Romanistic matters this language is very often
precise and to the point.^^ According to your ethics,
when a thing is good in itself and evil by accident,
it is permitted and commendable if the good is in
tended, and it must never be condemned and prohibited
in general.^* Should anyone suggest that many go to
confession and partake of the communion sacrile
giously and that therefore these sacraments should
be suppressed, you reply. You talk very extravagantly.
We do not deny that there are many, very many sacri
leges, but this is by accidence ; the sacraments in them
selves are good and not to be forbidden, for good men
derive benefit from them. Here, then, you have the an
swer, my Roman theologic gentlemen: if some men
make wrong use of the Scriptures, this is by acci
dence, and there are, on the other hand, many, very
many men who find in them the sure rules of their
conduct. Do you attempt to deny it ? Then you deny
history. And if you affirm that the defects by acci
dence are sufficient ground for refusing the interpre-
" Jaugey: His work mentioned. Protestantismo, Biblia.
"Elber: Theologia Moralis; De Actibus Humanis (Human
Acts). Sporer and Lenkhul : The same title.
"S. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio: De Sacramentis. Cardinal
Vives: Same title.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 4/
tation of the Scriptures, then you suppress your chief
sacraments. What do you reply to the Protestant
when he says: The papal authority is bad because
it gives rise to schisms and heresies? You hasten to
answer that this is by accidence, and it is thereby
corroborated by the true faithful. And Protestantism
answers you back with the same argument, based on
the same terms. The free interpretation of the Bible
gives rise to evils by accidence ; ^^ and is thereby
fortified and corroborated for the true believers.
If the argument is sound in the one case, it is also
sound in the other case, for true philosophy is neither
Romanist nor Protestant — the truth is the same
for all.
Let us now demonstrate the same affirmation by
following a line of reasoning that is perhaps more
exegetical and philosophical. In exegesis, when ques
tions referring to divine inspiration are under discus
sion, men not well versed in such matters are con
fronted with serious difficulties.^" If it is the Holy
Ghost who has inspired the Sacred Books, why have
they been written in diverse idioms and diverse styles ?
Why were some written in Hebrew, some in Greek,
some in Syrio-Chaldjeic, and some in Latin? Why is
the Hebrew of Moses not like the Hebrew of Job ? Or
that of the Greater Prophets not like that of the Minor
^° Authors cited on the citations Nos. 23 and 24. For the
scholastic and technical terms, consult Perujo: Dictionarium
Scholasticum ; s. v. Per se, and Per accidens.
'" For all the exegetical questions, consult Cornely, Patrizi
and Vigouroux, who are the most authoritative. For the
question under discussion, it will be siifficient to read Manu-
ale Biblicum et Hermeneuthicum ; Inspiration and Its Ex
tent. S

48 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Prophets ? Why is the Greek of St. Paul "" not hke
the Greek of St. Luke, or the Greek of St. Mark like
the Greek of St. John? Why, if there is only one
principal author, the Holy Ghost, has every one of the
special authors his own style, his favorite phrases, his
own vocabulary?
I know your answer, and I accept it as a good one ;
for Protestantism must also accept it as a good one,
on the supposition that it is rational, philosophical
and the only one that can maintain currency.^* These
differences of idiom and style are due to the fact that
the Holy Ghost, while in the act of inspiring the writ
ers, accommodated himself to the laws of the language
obtaining at a given epoch ; these divergencies arose
because the divine act combined with the natural mode
of expression peculiar to each author before the mo
ment of inspiration and in the course of inspiration.
The divine act prompted the holy man to set down
the truth and preserved him from falling into error;
but it left him free to express his thoughts and choose
his words as any profane author might do. A fine
confession ! An admirable mode of reasoning ! If
the Holy Ghost accommodated himself to the gen
eral laws of the language of each given epoch, if the
holy men in writing the Sacred Books proceeded as
any other author would, except that they were
prompted to set down the truth and were preserved
from error, then the rule of grammar, some idea of
philosophy and the rudiments of history, or in brief.

27 28 '

' The authors cited and also, Moigno : Esplendores de
la Fe ; Milagro de Josue. Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico
de la Fe (Spanish translation) ; Inspiracion,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 49
the general laws of criticism, are sufficient to inter
pret those books. That which is adequate and suffi
cient to interpret any profane author is also adequate
and sufficient to interpret the Bible, since the Revealed
Writings do not differ in their morphological struc
ture from profane works. You yourself therefore
admit that the Protestants are justified in maintaining
that anyone can interpret the Holy Books.
Finally, Romanism is at great pains to demonstrate
that without a central authority the canon cannot re
main fixed and that it is not possible to arrive at a
common understanding in the knowledge of the Bible,
and both of these things are not only desirable but
indispensable for the true Church.-^ Very well; then
the first churches and the first believers, who did not
have this canon and this central interpretative au
thority, were not of the true Church?
^^ Then you were not the true Church until the time
of the Council of Trent, which determined the present
canon? Therefore the Roman Church was lacking in
something during the sixteen centuries which preceded
the Council of Trent ; she lacked this precious and in
dispensable thing which you now proclaim to be so
necessary. It seems incredible that Romanism should
not perceive how it is standing in its own light by ex
aggerating and insisting on such determinate affirma
tions. While imagining that it is cutting the supports
'" Leo XIII : Encyclical on Bible Study. Jaugey : On his
work above mentioned; Interpretacion de la Biblia (Bible
Interpretation). Bertier, Perrone, Casanova : De Auctoritate
Ecclesiae. ¦" Vigouroux ; Cornely : Their mentioned works : History
of the Biblical Canon. Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de
la Fe; Same subject.

50 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
away from under other roofs, its own roof is insecure
and leaky. Further on we shall see that the so much
bepraised authority was not able then, nor is it able
now to conserve the unity of doctrine and interpreta
tion within its own house.
It follows from all these arguments that the Catho
lic philosophy and theology, dogma and exegesis, tak
ing them in conjunction and interpreting them ra
tionally, proclaim the Protestant doctrine as regards
the interpretation of the Bible, and refuse the monopo
lizing central authority which Romanism arrogates to
itself on this point.

CHAPTER VI.
IN THIS CHAPTER WE CORROBORATE THE SAME DOC
TRINES OUTLINED IN THE PRECEDING ONES, BY
THE CONDUCT AND WRITINGS OF THE APOS
TLES, AND ALSO ANSWER THE MAIN OB
JECTION OF THE ROMANS.
WHEN the short, but admirable, life of Christ
is looked into; when it is considered that the
apostles ^ came before the people not with a doctrine
of their own, but with one emanating from Christ
direct; and that in order to silence the existing doc
trines and prevent future ones from appearing,^ the
apostles endeavored to draw up and to explain the
genuine doctrines of Christ ; '" when all these consid
erations based upon irrefutable historical testimony,
are connected together; though we should even mo
mentarily abstract the divine assistance, we arrive at
the certain conclusion that nothing that was funda
mental and necessary to the true Church of Christ,
could have been left to tradition.
Many of the writings of the New Testament were
drawn up at a time when heresy and schisms were
^ St. Paul : In nearly all his epistles. Read especially Gal.
i. 12.
"St. Paul: I Cor. iv. i-S; xi. 18-26. II Cor. xi. 17. Mark
xiii. 22.
' Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History, First Heresies, and the
same authorities mentioned in citation No. 2; also consult the
Acts of the Apostles, chap. xv. (51)

52 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
already tearing asunder the dawning Christian
Church.* There existed already believers who denied
the divinity of Jesus Christ, and believers who re
jected His human nature. There were already diver
gences of opinion upon the authority of His disciples,
and upon the reception of His highest sacraments.
The same Gospel speaks to us of the false evangel
ists and the false Christs,^ who would attempt to de
ceive the people by erroneous doctrines and spurious
sacraments. St. Paul unhesitatingly states that from
among his listeners there v/onld arise false prophets,
who would endeavor to cheat the masses, by pervert
ing the true doctrine of Christ, and tarnishing the
purity of His Church. Since the apostles knew and
foresaw these things, since they witnessed on every
side the sprouting of error ° and of mystification ;
since, for the purpose of unmasking this treacherous
class and strengthening the faithful in their creeds
they drew up their writings and their history of the
life of Christ, is it reasonable or admissible so far as
the human judgment is concerned, that they would
have omitted anything fundamental, anything neces
sary or anything of a constructive nature ? Is it con
ceivable that they should have left dogma, morals,
sacraments, their very Church itself, in uncertainty?
Was not this more like an occasional cause of the
coming heresies and future errors? To write a part
*St. Paul: I Cor. i. ii, and iii. 4; also xi. 13. Gal. i. 7.
'Matt. vii. IS; xxiv. 11; xxiv. 23, 24. Mark xiii. 22. Rom.
xvi. 17, 18. Eph. v. 6. Col. ii. 6. II Peter ii. 2, 3. The Acts
of the Apostles xx. 29, 30.
" Same testimonies as citation No. 5, and also I Con xi,
from v. 18 on.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 53
of the dogma and to omit another; to speak of some
moral precept while keeping silence on others ; to
proclaim certain specific sacraments, and overlook
others, was not that to open a wide breach to error
and to doubt? Was not that equal to befriending the
very evil-doers whom they purposed by their writings
to banish from their Church? The soundest his
torical judgment rejects so monstrous an aberration.
Could it be believed that they have delivered up to
the crowd some portion of their sacred trust, when
they well knew that from the masses would arise the
adulterations? Besides, that was opposed to the very
teachings of Christ upon tradition.
'' Jesus Christ knew, and they could see, that by
means of tradition the former synagogue had falsi
fied and prevented the true laws ; ' Jesus Christ knew,
and they could see, that thanks to tradition, the syna
gogue had created an organization and a code other
than the right ones ; hence, the reason why Christ
arose against tradition, accused it of forgery, used
severe language towards it and against its followers,
and rejected it as an injurious doctrinal teaching."
Since Jesus condemned the old tradition, and the
apostles knew of His prohibition, as well as of the
great evils that the former was causing, can it be ad
mitted, can anyone explain, for what possible reason
they should have committed to the care of tradition
any portion of their dogmas, of their morals, or of
' Consult Matt. xv. 1-9. Consult Mark vii. s. 6. Consult
Col. ii. 8. Consult Luke xii. i.
"Matt, xxiii. Luke xi. 39, 40, 41, 42. Mark vii. 4-14.
" Luke xiii. iS, and also citation on No. 8,

54 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
their sacraments ? " If both Jesus and the apostles
looked upon it as a wicked tradition of corruption
and prevarication, how can we believe that they would
intrust to it any one of the things necessary to our
salvation? Does not this assumption involve a most
evident contradiction? Would not this be equivalent
to an act of approval, of that which they so strongly
condemn in their writings ? Would not this be lacking
in sincerity and honesty?
Since we are reasoning according to human judg
ment, let us advance a few historical considerations
that bear out our contention.
Suppose for a moment that after the death of the
immortal hero, Washington, some criminally disposed
person had written pamphlets libeling his wonderful
mission to this great nation; that some should pre
sume to discredit his military genius, misrepresenting
his most important feats of arms ; that others should
deny him his political ability, mutilating and pervert
ing his principles, that still others should try to im
pugn his public and private character, by inventing
and divulging atrocious calumnies !
Suppose that an intimate friend of this immortal
hero, contemporaneous with him, and knowing all and
every one of his deeds, comes to his defense by writ
ing his true biography.
Would you understand such an author as likely to
omit knowingly any important fact relating to the
public and private life of his exalted subject? Can
"Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel already cited; also
I John i v. 1-4. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History ; Heresies of
the First Century. Rohrbacher : Same head. Jaugey : First
Century of the Church.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 55
you conceive that he would neglect to write some
thing on all indispensable circumstances such as would
tend to make his Hfe shine in the heaven of history,
as the sun shines in our planetary system? And if
consciously he did omit something absolutely neces
sary to successfully dispel the calumnies so made pub
lic, would not such a historian be guilty not only of
lese-majeste (high treason) but assist also in promul
gating the calumny?
Apply then, this reasoning to our case. Ever since
the first century atrocious and frightful calumnies have
been launched against Jesus Christ. ^^ His divine mis
sion is either denied or ignored, as is His human na
ture ; His doctrine is distorted ; His sacraments are
falsified,^^ and the apostles, Christ's intimate friends,
and ear-witnesses of His preaching, thoroughly ac
quainted with His doctrine, come out in His defense,
compiling it and writing it up. Can you understand
their omitting anything fundamental, anything con
structive? And if they should knowingly omit some
thing, would not that show the apostles as being at
times the means and cause of propagating error and
heresy? Such an omission would be inconceivable to
human judgment.
^^ Only those having a preconceived interest in the
subject would be able to grasp its meaning; but in
the mind of impartial thinkers and clear reasoners,
everything must have been left recorded.
" St. Paul : Epistle I to the Corinthians, especially chap, xi ;
also read citation No. lo.
'" Same authorities as cited on Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
" Balmes : Criterion ; Rules to Judge History. Granclaude :
Same heading.

56 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Here is the main argument of Romanism: looking
into its Gospel, St. John declares: "And there are
also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books that should
be written." St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy,
remarks : "The traditions received from me," Rom
anism says then: "Not everything was left written,
therefore we must heed tradition." St. John teaches
the first, St. Paul orders the second. Pause, Roman
ist, for within your own and more commendable exe
gesis. Protestantism can find a satisfactory answer.
Let us proceed in order as taught by your scholasticism.
We are dealing with a grave question, and it is worth
while to look into it minutely and conscientiously,
in order to deduce from it the only rational agree
ment. Let us see what St. John says, what Roman
ism affirms, and what Protestantism denies. Only
by connecting these three points shall we be able to
reach a positive result, and one conformable to bib
lical exegesis. To begin with : It seems to us
that no Romanist would venture to take literally the
passage quoted from St. John,'^* because the world
is very large, and Jesus' public life, although astound
ing and admirable, is too short to provide sufficient
matter for so colossal a number of books, as not to
find room in space. We do not suppose anyone so
foolish as to dare to believe so much, and, therefore,
we must interpret that passage with mica satis (with
a grain of salt) as some of your scholastics would
^' St. John : Gospel, last chap., last v.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 57
say. Such words must be taken as hyperbolical, in
the language of rhetoric.^''
That passage, reduced to its logical term by exe
gesis and rhetoric, would mean that neither were all
and every word spoken by Christ copied, nor were all
and every one of His miracles recorded. But what
will you have gained by that wonderful discovery?
From where have you deduced that Protestantism
believes that all and every one of Christ's words, and
all and every one of His deeds were recorded in writ
ing? ^°
Do not confound the terms : The only thing that
Protestantism asserts is, that everything that must
be believed and practised, everything that must be ac
complished and received, was left written.
That is their affirmation. And is there, perchance,
any contradiction between the Protestant dogma and
the words of St. John? Read over carefully the pas
sage, apply it as prescribed by your own exegesis
and enlightened reason, and you will see that said
passage is more opposed to Romanism than to Protest
antism. Does St. John say that among the innum
erable words uttered by Christ, that he did not copy,
and among the uncountable deeds that Christ per
formed that he did not record, there exist any new
precepts, any new dogmas or any different sacraments ?
And since St. John says nothing, because it was im
possible, because it would have been contradictory, of
what use is it to you to invoke testimony that means
'° Colonnia : Rhetoric.
" Encyclopedia Britannica ; Luther and Lutheranism, Cal
vin and Presbyterian.

58 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
nothing, unless it is that the Protestants are right?
Because since St. John writes the Hfe of Christ, of
His dogma and of His morals, do you not understand
that if he omits something it is on account of its ir
relevancy to those morals and to that dogma? Can
you not see that he himself proclaims it thus, since
he gives no directions on the subject? If, on saying
that he omitted part of Jesus' preachings and of His
miracles, St. John had added that such a portion as he
did not copy carried within itself new teachings that
must be followed, embodied different moral precepts,
separate sacraments which were indispensable to re
ceive: then only could such words give cause for
doubt. But as nothing of the kind is said, you cannot
deduce anything in your favor. It is only the Prot
estants who can profit by that passage, since it shows
the difference between a fundamental doctrine and
that which is auxiliary.^^ But it is desirable that a
more exegetic answer be given you, a reply in ac
cordance with your own doctrine. In studying some
of the allusions contained in the sacred writings, espe
cially the Old Testament, it is quite evident that some
of the inspired books were lost.^* Such is the opinion
of many holy Fathers ^^ and of not a few expositors,^"
but they ah unanimously agree in asserting, that in
that case, either they did not contain any dogmatic
truths or moral precepts, or that if they contained them,
neither the one nor the other would be indispensable
"John XX. 30, 31.
" Read Cornely on this question.
"St. Augustine, St. Jerome and others on this subject.
'" Vigouroux, Patrizi, Lobera and Caminero.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 59
to salvation, as the contrary would be repugnant to
the economy of divine providence.
We are, therefore, in the same identical case : every
thing that it pleased Jesus Christ to teach as dog
matic, everything that He wished to impress upon
humanity as a teacher, all remained written. Let us
illu.strate this most weighty doctrine with some ex
ample that may, so to speak, render it more percepti
ble. Suppose that a very learned man wrote a vo
luminous work, and that later on some one else, in
fewer words, were to extract synthetically a com
pendium of all the principles therein formulated and
all the truths therein demonstrated. If such a com
pendium reproduced all and each of the truths, all and
each of the principles contained in the main work,
would it cease to be complete because it was smaller
and did not contain all the words of the original work ?
Certainly not. Our case is absolutely similar. The
author of the great work is Christ in His divine life
and infaHible preaching; the writer of the compen
dium is St. John ^^ and the one who comes out vocif
erating "that the compendium is not complete because
it does not embrace all the preaching of Christ" is
the Romanist. But in turn Protestantism rises, and
with its usual good sense reaches a masterly solution
by saying: "it is ^^ complete as regards the substance
and the doctrine; it is incomplete in that it does not
contain all the words of Christ, nor all His miracles ;
"^ Consult St. John and connect his Gospel with his last
chapter and verses.
""^ Encyclopedia Britannica; Luther and Lutheranism, Cal
vin and Presbyterian.

60 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
this last I present to thee as an ornament, for I have
more than enough with the first."
Still more obvious and simple is the answer to the
argument based on St. Paul's words.^^ He explains to
Timothy principally the precepts to be observed by the
head of a Church, and incidentaUy touches upon the
obligations inherent in a Christian; but as Timothy
frequently accompanied St. Paul, and often by the
latter's orders, wrote some letters to the faithful, St.
Paul took Occasion to remind him, not to forget either.
It was like saying to him: "What thou knowest al
ready by other letters written by thyself, and what I
now tell thee, thou must observe to be perfect." Let
Romanism seek the light in the Gospel in the writ
ings of the apostles, for it will never find anything
to favor tradition as it proclaims it. The very force
ful language used by Christ -'' in rejecting the Judaical
tradition was stih buzzing in the ears of the apostles;
they still remembered those severe words, those sar
castic and steel-like epithets which he applied to the
wicked scribes and Pharisees who, standing on tradi
tion,^' had outraged the law and perverted the dogma.
How, then, could they be so disrespectful to their
Master and so short-sighted as to knowingly promote
abuses with lamentable consequences so much deplored
by themselves?
Tradition, then, in the spirit that Romanism takes
it, is indefensible ; it is opposed to the character of
^ St. Paul : II Tim. i. 13 ; ii. 2.
^* Matt, xxiii. 13-36 ; Luke xii. i ; also xi. 39-42.
'^ Same authorities cited on the last two citations.

Capitulating fiEFOkE protestantism. 6i
Christ, to the nature and epoch when the gospels were
written ; it is contrary to divine inspiration and the
economy of God's providence; common sense rejects
it, exegesis combats it, and critical judgment repels it
as irrational.

CHAPTER VII.
THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE GOSPELS, AND THE
WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES.
HAVING adopted the New Testament as the
standard for our discussion, it must be the one
to decide, as the supreme judge, upon all the ques
tions at issue between Protestantism and Romanism.
These may be reduced to five different questions,
namely : First, Constitution of the true Church ; sec
ond, Characteristics it should possess; third. Number
of Sacraments, and the essential elements necessary to
their integrity; fourth, Worship and the form to be
adopted; fifth, What, if any, innovations exist?
Whoever examines the Gospels, hoping to find in
them a close and compact doctrinal body, similar to
a modern treatise, will be grievously disappointed.'
Christ expounds His doctrine by means of apho
risms and parables, in which there does not exist any
kind of methodical inference. According to the cir
cumstances of the moment, the quality of His hearers,
the objections of His opponents, does He proceed,
sometimes explaining a precept, at others correcting
some vice, or again speaking on a sacrament; but
' Read the Gospels, and the truth of this assertion will be
seen. Only that in St. John's Gospel and in some of St. Paul's
Epistles there appears some method.
(62)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 63
without His teachings ever conforming to any studied
or systematic method. In order to properly grasp
His doctrine, it is necessary to follow His every step,
from one people to another, from one parable to an
other, from one aphorism to another. It is necessary
to connect the passages in the Gospels and to seek,
as it were, the resultant.^ Then it becomes clear
that His dogma is reduced to a very few fundamental
truths; that His precepts are not numerous but most
important; that Plis sacraments are very simple and
clear. Then it appears also ^ that there exist in His
dogma and in His morals, certain points that He
favors most; some. He never tires of repeating and
inculcating on His hearers,* while others He only
touches upon incidentally. On no point, perhaps ex
cepting the clearness of His exposition, does Christ
insist more often in His Church, than upon its founda
tion. Similes, parables, apologies, allegories — every
thing,'' in fact, is used by Christ to illustrate to us
His establishment and His organization. We will not
dwell at length upon the establishment of the Church.
Since it is our purpose to limit ourselves only to the
differences between Protestantism and Romanism, and
to determine which are better grounded in the sacred
Books, we will not delay in proving the existence of
'Read Camunero: Manual Isagogicum (Biblical Manual);
General Rules of Exegesis.
° See same author : Synthesis of Christ's Doctrine.
' See St. John's Gospel, and it will be seen how frequently
he inculcates charity. In all his Gospels he insists numberless
times on meekness, modesty, etc.
° See Matthew, chapters xiii and xv, and the other Gospels,
in the respective paragraphs dealing with the same parables.
6

64 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the Church, inasmuch as both these professed religions
believe in such existence.^ The discussion will arise
afterwards, when we come to assign to the "True
Church" its properties and characteristics, its function
and organization. Anyone wishing to convince him
self that Christ did establish the Church, has but to
peruse the chapters and verses quoted in the margin.'
In them he will find a complete demonstration that
Christ presupposed collectivity in the Church, for
sometimes he uses the expression, "God's kingdom,"
at others, the "coming of God's kingdom," and some
times the concrete word, "Church." Now He com
pares it to a field of rye and good wheat growing
together; again to a net catching good and bad fish;
still again to a mustard seed, which, although it be
the smallest of grains, yet produces one of the most
luxuriant of plants.
But where the difficulty arises is not in confessing
the existence of the Church, whereon both Protestants
and Catholics are agreed, but mainly on its organiza
tion. Should it be democratic or aristocratic? That
is the question, the answer to which separates Protest
ants from Catholics, and disunites both from their
own organizations, because neither do all * the Catho
lics consider it absolute, however much they may pro-
° Confession of Augsburg. Read Luther and Calvin in En
cyclopedia Britannica. Also read all the Roman theologians.
'Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17. Mark iv. John x. Acts v. 11;
viii. 3 ; V. 27. The exclusion with which they sometimes con
demn the heretics and scandalous proves the same; for in
stance: Rom. xvi. 17. I Cor. v. 9. II Thess. iii. 6, 14.
II John 10.
' Read Cardinal Gonzalez : Address on the organization of
the Church. Declarations of the Gallican clergy.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 65
claim it as monarchical, nor do all " the Protestants
agree in proclaiming it either democratic or aristo
cratic. Let us see whether, through systems so intricate
and tortuous, we can discover the light and establish
the true system, the one that unequivocally proceeds
from the Divine Word, from Christ's own august
authority. This is precisely a point that at once strikes the eye
of whoever reads the New Testament without bias.
There is perhaps no more oft-repeated doctrine, and
none stated with greater clearness and energy, than
the doctrine referring to the organization of the
Church. There are teachings showing us how Christ
does not wish it to be, and others ordaining how it
should be. He sets and establishes it, as the scholastic
would say, in the negative and in its positive sides.
In order to understand the mind of Christ concern
ing the organization of His Church, it is very neces
sary to bear in mind the two kinds of organized
powers that ruled Palestine in those times : First, the
theocratic, represented by the synagogue; and second,
the civil, represented by the Roman delegates.
To Christ's most humble eyes, both forms of or
ganization appeared monstrous and repulsive. Far
from inspiring Him with esteem or respect,'" both
awakened in Him only indignation and profound con
tempt. No, He does not wish indeed that His Church
should imitate either of the two. He does not wish it
° See heads in Encyclopedia Britannica : Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Baptists.
"• Read Matt. x. 6. Mark viii. 15.

66 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
to have the least resemblance to either, but He does
wish, that the organization of His (Thurch be the liv
ing and obvious denial of those organizations, and
that where they said yes His should say no. This is
the thought that seemed to absorb the mind of Christ ;
which we see referred to in all the Gospels; and
which some of the Evangelists repeated thrice, such
was the insistence that Jesus laid upon it in His teach
ings.'' The crowned heads of earth, says He, reside
in royal palaces, like to have numerous servants, and
domestics to wait upon them, in all their acts love to
make a show of power and dominion over others, in
sist on being called lords, eat and feast sumptuously
at splendidly served tables, and live in grandeur and
magnificence. Such is a characteristic example of
civil power, in describing which He omits nothing;
He speaks of its internal working, of its external
manifestations, such as might and authority, luxury
and pompous show ; He speaks of its public and private
displays — luxury of servants, submission and hom
age from others, of the stately appearance in dress
and speech; and speaking of the private side. He
enumerates the palaces, the attendants and their treat
ment. Jesus Christ shows the well-marked purpose
to determine with precision and minuteness the con
stituent elements of civil power, so as to better elimi
nate all of them from the organization of His Church.
Let us now see how He characterizes the theocratic
or religious power of His time : '^ The scribes and
"Matt. XX. 25-28; xxiii. 8-12. Mark x. 42-45.
" Read the chapter mentioned and also Matt. xv. i-ii. Mark
vii. 1-13. I Peter v. 3.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 67
Pharisees like to be called fathers and masters; they
expect from others the consideration and obedience
due to such ; they choose the foremost seats at public
functions; they dress with show and walk with arro
gance; they interpret the law according to their own
convenience and impose upon others heavy penalties
from which they are exempt; they are harsh and
haughty toward the meek and humble, while they
flatter the rich and powerful; they enjoy appearing
in showy religious garbs ; but within, they are hun
gry wolves, putrid sepulchers, depraved souls. There
we have another minute description, lacking in noth
ing to enable us to form a complete idea of that
haughty and hypocritical body that monopolized all
religious teaching during Christ's epoch.
We almost see those two Powers photographed in
their respective characters. And what judgment does
Christ pass upon them? To His apostles, says He:
"Beware of the leaven of the Herodians (Roman Or
ganization) and of the leaven of the Pharisees (theo
cratic Power). Throw away from you as a deadly
poison everything transcending to either of those
Powers. See ye here how I wish my Church to be,
and how the duties pertaining to it must be allotted
and performed. In the Powers before mentioned
there is one to command and one to obey; not so
amongst ye, who must all obey each other recipro
cally ; " in the said Powers there are lords and serv
ants; not so in my Church, which must contain only
sons and brothers, since there exists as father only
" Read Matt, xviii and Mark ix. 35.

68 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
your Heavenly Father, and as master your God;
therefore take great care never to call any one 'lord,'
nor 'father,' nor 'master,' lest ye give offense to
your only Heavenly Father and to your only master,
God ; take great care that none amongst you arrogate
to himself the title of 'lord' or 'father' or 'master,'
lest he become an infractor of my doctrine and an
enemy to God. Sons of one only Father, you are
equally brothers; vassals of the same God, you are
equally free. Let not one of you wish to preside over
the others.'* He who thinks himself greatest is the
smallest and must wait upon the others. He who
humbles himself most shall be more exalted, and he
who is proudest shall be the most humbled and con
fused. Let modesty and meekness excel in your words
and deeds.'' Flee from the gaudy luxury of outside
show as not proper to my Church. By lowliness you
will subdue human pride ; by modesty subdue luxury ;
by simplicity conquer malice; be, in short, gentle
lambs among wild wolves and you will triumph over
the world. Let nothing frighten or terrify you, for I
will be with you till the end of time. Where two or
three of you congregate '" there will I be to preside
over and help you. My spirit and my power, my
wisdom and my love will accompany you everywhere,
and the same as I triumphed over the world, so shall
you triumph; the same as the world hated me, so it
will hate you ; but above the power of the world there
is my power, which I will communicate to you; over
^' See the three foregoing notes.
" Read nearly all the chapters of the Gospel.
" Matt, xviii. 19, 20.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 69
the world's learning the wisdom that will be granted
to you by the Holy Ghost, and over the world's per
secution there is my help omnipotent, that can do all."
And wishing these principles to remain deeply en
graved in their minds, carved, so to speak, in their
hearts, on the eve of His glorious passion, on the most
memorable date of His august life, at the moment of
the supreme mysteries (according to the Catholic
Church), at that everlasting hour, after He had syn-
thetized as a basis of His moral teaching, the holiest
precept of universal charity ; of His dogma, the procla
mation of His divinity; and of His institutions, the
Eucharist, as the final coronation of His august work,
as a last legacy, in His Testament, He returns to the
constitution of His Church, and gives to His disciples
the most astonishing example of humility practised
during His life. He commands " everyone to sit
down, orders a wash basin with water to be brought,
kneels at the feet of His apostles and washes the feet
of them all. And when His disciples had scarcely
recovered from their profound amazement that so un
expected an act had caused in them, Christ exclaims
as follows, in a voice at once magnificent and impos
ing: "You call me lord and master, and you mistake
not, for I am such. For if I, who am truly your lord
and master, humble myself to wash your feet, so with
greater reason must you humble yourselves toward
one another, and as I did just now must you do al
ways." Away from you, all idea of command and
authority all thought of exaltation and pride, away
from you all imperial distinction, all semblance of
"John xiii. 1-24. "The same.

yo ROMAN CATHOLICISM
superiority. Humbleness must be the basis of my
Church, charity its summit, and I condemn and abomi
nate everything that may tend to pollute it." O sover
eign, magnificent and divine democracy! Thou wert
the fruitful dawn of true liberty! Thou wert the
legitimate beginning of universal brotherhood! Thou
wert the mighty germ of a harmonious equality! O
blessed Christian democracy! Thou didst overthrow
the narrow and proud synagogue, felling to the
ground its proud and senile priesthood; O a thou
sand times venerable and worshiped Christian de
mocracy ! " Thou didst demolish the great mountain
of the despotic pagan empire, and where before
existed the odious distinction between freemen and
slaves, between masters and servants, thou didst pro
claim liberty to the sons of God, and not a degrading
subjection to man, but to the authority of reason, to
the laws of justice. Those who in future may have
the power to command, shall no longer do so wanton
ly, nor despotically and tyranically, but in accordance
with reason and justice, and if besides occupying a
high rank, they are also Catholic, they will have to be
servants of servants, who obey them. Oh ! if as Thy
Gospels have endured through the centuries Thy meek
and life-giving spirit had also been preserved ! Oh !
if as Thy first apostles and disciples, impregnated with
Thy divine teachings and powerful examples, estab
lished the first congregations of the faithful, on the
grounds of humility and charity,^" those who pride
" Monsabre : Conferences upon Christ's Doctrine.
^ Castelar : Revolucion Religiosa (Religious Revolution) ;
Book III.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. y\
themselves on being their successors had only followed
in the same wake, how many black pages that stain
ecclesiastical history would never have been written;
how many bloody furrows that are an affront to hu
manity would never have been filled ! How many dis
turbances, desolations, drawbacks that have hindered
and vitiated our civilization would have been avoided !
But, no ! most meek and gentle Jesus, the first to
trample under foot Thy humble spirit, are those who
pride themselves on being the sole depositories of Thy
doctrine. Thy commands were that preaching and
mildness should be the channels of Thy teaching, but
they will construct the dungeon,^' they will raise the
scaffold, they will fire the stake to the unbeliever.
Thy command to Thy followers was to avoid all showy
servitude, but he who calls himself the successor ^^ to
the poor and humble fisherman, will reckon his serv
ants by the thousand, and even his menials must be
the great and the noble. Thou didst say that those
who were Thine should not dwell in regal palaces,
as that was contrary to Thy humble doctrine; but the
successor to the meek fisherman inhabits ^^ a palace
so vast and sumptuous, so showy and regal, that the
residences of the great on earth, the palaces of the
kings and emperors throughout the world, the build
ings Thou didst see with horror and didst indignantly
abominate, are as nothing compared to this vast
palace; they are even as the humblest huts, as the
poorest shelters beside its magnificence. Thou didst
^ Read Father Richard Gapa : Spanish Inquisition.
^^ See Manual and Manners of the Vatican, and list of
servants. "Anyone can become convinced by merely seeing it.

72 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
say that not one of Thine should assume any power
or authority over others, but the successor to poor
Peter ^* takes upon himself such jurisdiction, that the
might of the Roman empire, so much despised by
Thee, were not even a shadow compared with the
power attributed to the Roman Pontiff. The em
perors styled themselves divine, but were considered
as men, and believed their decrees liable to revocation
and amendment; but he who calls himself Thy suc
cessor, calls himself irrefutable, unimpeachable,^^ in
fallible. Thou didst say that he who believed himself
greater should bow to the smaller, but he who appro
priates Thy representation in Rome will shut his door ^°
to the poor and the humble, and when the noble or
the rich succeed in being received by him, they will
have to bend the knee ^' and prostrate themselves as
before a divinity, they will have to kiss the sandal
as to a God.^' Thou didst say to be simple in treat
ment and dress, but he who claims to be Thy visible
head on earth will appear cloaked in the richest garbs ;
loaded not with poverty as Thou dost prescribe, but
with precious stones, and seated on a throne ^^ as a
divinity of the pagan Olympus. Thou didst feel in-
" Read Cardinal Vives : Compendium Juris Canonici de
Juribus Pontificum (Compendium of Canonical Law on Pon
tifical Rights).
^^ Same author and heading.
"" Anyone can become convinced by attempting it without
money or without being a noble. Some exception is some
times made to heretics.
''' The same Vives. We prefer quoting this author because
he is considered an oracle among Romanists.
^ The same Cardinal Vives : Names given to the Pope and
conduct to be observed in his presence.
™ Same authors mentioned before.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 73
dignant against the hypocritical Pharisees who mo
nopolized the law for their own benefit and to the detri
ment of others, who at their pleasure issued new pre
cepts, the fulfillment of which they exacted from
others, while considering themselves exempt; but Thy
sovereign Pontiff ^" centralizes all the power in his
despotic hands, he is the only source of jurisdiction
and command, the only legislator, the only judge, and
he declares himself exempt from all laws, free from
judgment. And all that monstrous show, all that gather
ing of arbitrary proceedings and crushing monopoly,
they endeavor to base on Thy humble doctrine, on Thy
redeeming teaching.
If Thou shouldst appear anew in visible form. Thou
wouldst find a synagogue and an empire, prouder and
more despotic than the former synagogue and the
former empire. Thou wouldst also need now as
formerly, to grasp the whip and throw out of Thy
Church the traffickers in Thy doctrine. (We beg the
writer to peruse the marginal notes, to see that we
do not make any statement not based on trustworthy
and irrefutable evidence taken from reliable Romanist
authorities. )
One need no longer be surprised at the following
Italian saying: "Roma viduta, fide perduta" (Rome
seen, faith lost), having become popular in Latin
Europe, although it should be modified by saying
that "when Catholic Rome is seen and studied, all
faith in Romanism is lost."
'" Cardinal Vives : Compendium Juris Canonici de Juribus
Pontificum (Compendium of Canonical Law on Pontifical
Rights).

74 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
But as Christ energetically proclaims, that He did
not wish the power of jurisdiction perpetuated in any
of His followers, He proclaimed as energetically
against the power of the order or office. Here is the
question that impartially and with abundance of data,
we are going to expound in the next chapter. Let
not the two questions get mixed, for as the reader
will see, they are separate and distinct.

CHAPTER VIII.
DID CHRIST ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL JURISDICTION?
AND IF SO DID HIE GRANT IT COLLECTIVELY, OR
WAS IT ASSIGNED BY HIM TO SOME
MEMBERS OF THE WHOLE?
THIS is one of those most intricate questions
which has divided and continues to divide the
ranks of both Catholics and Protestants. We will
clearly and sincerely expose that which in our opin
ion we consider justified, but in doing so we do not
propose to confine ourselves exclusively to this opinion.
Consequently, with our harmonious and tolerant judg
ment, we would never venture to consider as beyond
the pale of the great Christian family, nor beyond the
spirit of Christ, those who, while not openly contra
dicting any of the evident evangelical or apostolic
truths, endeavor nevertheless to ground their theories
on the New Testament. On this question, more than
on any other, we must guard ourselves against all
idea of exclusivism, and remember Christ's tolerance,
as well as the apostles' ample indulgence.' The apos
tles in their evangelistic excursions met another man,
who without being sent by Clirist, was also preaching
and expelling demons, and they begged of Christ to
forbid him doing so; He answered: "I will do noth-
'Mark x. 38, 39. (75)

76 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
ing of the kind, for that one also honors me." When
St. Paul expounded some doctrine about which he had
not received any special instructions from Christ ^ he
would say : "I understand this to be for the best, but
I do not condemn anything contrary to it; each one
can have his own feeling and opinion." Upon this
standard we must also model our conduct. Is it
evident and clear? Let us bow to it, never forgetting
that, however great the probability may be, it does
not exclude error from our opinion nor certainty in
that of another.^ Is it doubtful or confused? Then
let each one freely elect whatever he thinks best. Not
to do so would be to contradict the very spirit of the
Gospel and to fall into the same narrow and despotic
ways charged against Romanism.
If the allegations adduced were not sufficient to in
spire in us a charitable and eclectic judgment, im
piety's own example should prove enough to do so.
Can we not see how all the elements of ungodliness
group themselves to combat the supernatural?* Can
we not see that within their organization there is
as much room for the pantheist as for the materialist,
for the rationalist as for the positivist? Dost thou
deny the supernatural? Then thou art ours, no mat
ter what thy arguments and thy theories may be. The
argument based on hypnotism, which presupposes a
psychic principle, is as good for us as the one deduced
^ I Cor. vii. 25.
° Granclaude : Philosophy on Probability. Mendive : Phi
losophy ; Characteristics of Probability. Zigliara : Philoso
phy ; Conflicting Probabilities.
* Haeckel : By-Laws of the Anti-Religious Society recently
established in Germany.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. yy
from the eternity of matter, that denies all vital prin
ciple. The ideal pantheist, who denies the super
natural on the ground that there is nothing real in
the universe, but only a mere representation of our
subjective ego, is as admissible to us as the material
istic pantheist for whom everything is mere substance,
without any accident or ideality. Let us, then, join the
opposite army. Dost thou proclaim the divinity of
Christ and His Gospel? The efficacy of His redemp
tion and the mission of His Church? Dost thou not
exclude anything that is clear? Nothing of what is
self-evident in the Bible? Then, come in, thou art
one of us. Welcome to thee, whichever thy congrega
tion may be. This wifl have to be the language and
the conduct of the great Christian community if it
aims to successfully stem the inroads of impiety, and
defend its own existence. No energy must be wasted
on discussions that we might call domestic, or contro
versies with those at home, but on the contrary, hus
band it, to fight and resist the onslaughts of outsiders
and enemies.
This bright thought attributed to St. Augustine,
must be our motto: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis
libertas, in omnibus caritas:" "In things necessary,
unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, char
ity." And in support of this very thought, after ex
pounding our opinion, we will also shortly give the
foundations of those contrary to ours. The questions
that head this chapter have been met by four affirma-
tions.*" All of them suppose that Christ established an
official jurisdiction and made a difference only in the
° See Encyclopedia Britannica ; head. Church.

78 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
assignment of such jurisdiction. The first, which is
the most radical of the four, supposes that CThrist es
tablish no difference between clergymen and lay
men ; " all faithful are also ministers and priests, if the
masses appoint and delegate their authority to them.
For the upholders of this theory, the official jurisdic
tion resides with the collectivity, and the latter alone
can delegate it to individuals, either permanently or
temporarily. The second theory attributes to divine '
origin, the designation of the ministers, and, there
fore, supposes that Christ and the apostles had previ
ously divided the masses into two classes, namely:
Clergymen and laymen.'' But what kind of ministers
did Christ select? What are their powers? In the
answer given to these questions, the three theories
that admit divine origin for the distinction between
clergymen and laymen, differ. The Presbyterians
say : The priest exists only from divine source.' All
the sacraments to be administered, all the services to
be performed in the Church, can, and must be done,
by the priest, considered in his individual or his col
lective capacity. These are followed by the Epis
copalians who say : " Two kinds of priests are of di
vine source: those with limited authority who can
only administer the sacraments, but who cannot dele
gate their powers to others to do likewise; those with
limited powers also, but who beside themselves ad-
" Same ; head, Baptist.
' Same ; head, Presbyter and Presbyterian.
" Same ; head, Calvin and Calvinism. We prefer quoting
this work because beside considering it as one of the soundest
and most serious, it is recommended by such enlightened
Romanists as Cardinal Gibbons.
° Same work ; head. Episcopate and Episcopalians.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 79
ministering the sacraments, can delegate others to do
so. We incHne to this opinion, believing it to be
better establish on apostolic history, and follow
ing it most closely. The fourth '" affirmation is that
of the Romanists, who suppose that besides the dis
tinction between laymen and clergymen, beside the ex
istence of inferior priests and superior priests, called
bishops, there exist lower degrees styled deacons, sub-
deacons, and still lesser degrees known as ostiaries.
Gospel readers, exorcisers and acolytes, and over all
of them a degree superior to that of bishop, which
supersedes them all, the Pontiff. This is the theo
retical hierarchy, the one defined in the councils, be
cause practically there is another " intermediary de
gree between the bishop and the Pontiff, namely car
dinal, a dignity superior to the bishop's in the honor
it confers, and yet in the order of power and jurisdic
tion it is inferior to him and even to the priest's, since
it can be granted to a simple deacon. There is no
room to doubt that Christ '^ selected the twelve apos
tles and granted to them faculties not granted to the
masses. He orders them during their life to go and
preach to the nations the kingdom of God, He be
stows upon them the power to heal the sick and to
expel the evil spirits. He explains in advance to them
the parables that He expounded before the people,
" Cardinal Vives : Compendium Theologicum de Hierarchia
(Theologicum Compendium on Hierarchy). Casanova: Fun
damental Theology. Bouix: Jus Canonicum (Canonical
Law) ; same head.
" Cardinal Vives, Bouix : same head. Ferrais : Canonical
Dictionary; same head.
"^Matt. xvi. 19; xvii. 18; xxviii. 19, 20. Mark xvi. 15.
Luke xxiv. 47. John xx. 21, 23.
7

80 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
He holds the Last Supper with them and charges them
to do the same in His memory, upon them He confers
the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and to
condemn. Therefore, there can be no doubt that they
appear as separate from the common people, that the
distinction between clericals and faithful appears well
defined and as emanating from the Lord. But, were
the apostles priests only, or were they invested with
episcopal dignity? If we are guided by the Gospel
alone, we cannot reach any certain conclusion, because
the word priest is sometimes taken as synonymous
with bishop, and the word bishop synonymous with
priest.'^ However, some indications appear to demon-
state that they were different. St. John writes to the
seven Churches of Asia Minor. We must for the
start believe that there were many priests and that
the designation of the seven who were at the head
of each one of those Churches, seems clearly to
indicate that they ranked higher than the other
priests. When '* the discussion about circumcision crops up
St. James appears to address the priests as though he
were a superior over them. When St. Peter walks
miraculously out of prison he orders St. James to be
informed first and the other brothers afterward, as if
St. James were at the head of them all.'^ St. James
decides as judge and teacher over all outstanding
questions. When St. Paul arrives in Jerusalem he
" Connect these passages together : Acts viii. 29 ; x. 19 ;
xi. 12; viii. 2; xxv. 28; xxvi. 6, 7; xix. 21; xx. 23.
"Acts, chapter 15.
" Consult and connect these passages : Acts xiv. 23; xii. 17;
XV. 13, 19; xviii.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 8l
visits St. James first. St. Paul says that he visited
and spoke with St. James, Peter and John, whom he
calls pillars of the Church.'" AH these indications ap
pear to demonstrate that already there existed from
the time of the apostles a distinction between priests
and bishops. But that distinction is only found well
marked at the time immediately contemporaneous with
the apostles and emanating from them." In Asia
Minor we can see already how bishops supersede the
priests who are the immediate successors of the apos
tles. There appear St. Polycarp, St. Papias, St. Igna
tius, St. Irenaeus. In St. Ignatius' epistle, admitted
by many as authentic, the differences between priest
and bishop are clearly conspicuous. The same thing
is noticeable in the letters from Clement of Rome,
and let it not be forgotten that those authors can be
looked upon as immediate successors to the apostles,
especially St. John, to whom history and tradition
grant an extraordinary longevity.'^ To this it must
be added according to the testimony of St. Polycarp,
St. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Ter
tulhan, that the constitution of the bishops was estab
lished by St. John himself.
As the reader can satisfy himself by reference to the
biblical records, and the testimonies adduced, the rea
sons put forward by the Episcopalians are very earnest
ones and if they do not convey an absolute certainty,
" See Gal. i. 19 ; xi. 9, 12.
" See Encyclopedia Britannica, under head, Church. See
Clement of Rome : Letter to the Corinthians. Hefele : St.
Ignatius' letter and St. Irenaeus against Heresies.
" Besides the heads mentioned, see Encyclopedia Britannica,
under Episcopate.

82 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
they give rise to a most firm probability.'" To this may
be added an endless number of old and contemporane
ous historical testimonials and the statements of emi
nent theologians. Nevertheless, we are going to give
the basis of the two other theories. According to
the Baptists, Christ did not establish ^" any difference
either in the ministerial power or jurisdiction. Christ
says: "Let there be among you neither greater nor
smaller than the other. Whoever claims to be greater
must be the smaller. Whoever leaves his all behind
and follows me, is equal to the apostles." Christ says
unequivocally that no one is to be called lord, master
or father, because He alone is the only superior, mas
ter and father. He Himself ^' promises to stay among
His faithful followers till the end of time, and if this
is so it was no longer necessary to leave behind Him
any constituted authority. He offers that wherever
any two or three of His disciples congregate He will
be with them as president or head. If He presides,
any other dignitary or minister is superfluous. A col
lective body may appoint whom it deems suitable to
perform this office, and can also withdraw such ap
pointment.^^ (Anyone desiring further information
may obtain the same by referring to the Encyclopedia
Britannica, under the headings in the footnotes.)
" Besides the works mentioned, read those of the Protest
ants Bilson and Cotterill. For the Romanists see Baronio,
Rohrbacher, Hergenrother, Natal Alexander and Rivas.
'" Matt. xx. 26 ; xxiii. 8, 9. Mark ix. 25. Luke xxii. 25.
John XV. 2.
^' Matt, xviii. 20.
'^ Read the historians : Neander, Rev. I. H. Ross and Mr.
Morrison, also Encyclopedia Britannica: Under Baptist.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 83
The second theory has to support it, some serious
arguments and powerful reasonings. It may at once
be asserted that nearly all the reformers were parti
sans of this theory. So thought ^^ Luther, and thus be
lieved Melancthon, Bugenhagen and especially Calvin.
They say, and they are not without reason, that as
many passages as may .be invoked in defense of the
episcopate, as coming from the Gospel and the apos
tles, just as many can be adduced to demonstrate that
there are only priests.^* And, in effect, those writings
show the two offices performed by priests. See the
same passages above mentioned and those we are
adding here. Add also the powerful testimony of
St. Jerome.
No one doubts that this learned author was one
of the best informed on ancient times. Driven east
ward to prepare his translation of the Bible and to
investigate every known code, as well as to interro
gate the most learned, his decisions may be taken as
oracles. That author affirms in the most unquestion
able terms that between bishop and priest there is no
distinction whatever as coming from the teachings of
Christ or His apostles. Read the letter mentioned in
the footnotes. ^° Resuming, we declare that our in
clination is toward the episcopal theory, but that we
do not consider it so certain as to justify the rejection
of the others, especially the Presbyterian,^" and when
"" Melanchthon's Writings. Calvin's Theology.
" Connect the following passages : Acts viii. 29 ; x. 19 ;
xi. 12; viii. 2; xxv. 28; xxvi. 6, 7; xix. 21; xx. 23.
'' Collection of St. Jerome's letters. No. 146.
'" See Encyclopedia Britannica : under Luther, Priest and
Presbyterian, Calvin.

84 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
viewed strictly by the Gospel, it appears that the
theory of the Baptist is the most well-founded. The
reader who may feel interested in acquiring a more
exhaustive knowledge of the subject is referred to the
several authors mentioned.

CHAPTER IX.
IS THE FOURTH THEORY ADMISSIBLE, WHICH DECLARES
AN INFALLIBLE PAPACY OVER THE EPISCOPATE?
IN answer to this question Romanism has three
groups of arguments: (a) Biblical and socio
logical arguments (theological reasons) ; (b) Apos
tolic and sub-apostolic testimonies; (c) Arguments
properly called historical.' We propose using these
same three sources for the purpose of demonstrating
that such theory is purely an arbitrary one. But upon
this point more than on any other question, we would
beg our readers to dismiss all prejudices, and to be as
sincere and impartial as possible.
So weighty is this question as to make it worth
while for us to concentrate all the energy of our mind,
for the purpose of making it clear. The consequences
attending a solution one way or the other, are so
transcendental, that nothing should be omitted from,
nor be added to, what Christ taught His apostles to
believe, on the penalty of incurring the most horrible
and lamentable results. Let us listen to Romanism
' Jaugey : heads, Church and Infallibility. Hettinger :
Apology of Religion; Church and Pope. See also Cardinal
Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers, referring to the Pri
macy and Infallibility of the Popes. As the reasons on which
Pontifical Primacy are based are often the same as those
adduced to establish Infallibility, we understand that after
the latter has been refuted, the former meets the same fate:
for that reason we say nothing on the Primacy. (85)

86 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
through the mouthpiece of H. E. Cardinal Gibbons.
His book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," summarizes
with a fair degree of accuracy, the arguments invoked
by the school he represents. We will make only one
remark considered, if anything, favorable to that
authority. To devote two chapters in order to demon
strate the infallibility of the Church, seems to us some
what unbecoming at this time, and even liable to make
the faithful fall into error. According to the brand-
new Roman theology, since there is only one head,
there cannot be two infallibilities, but only an ex
clusive one, that of the Pope.^ The manner of exposi
tion adopted by H. E. Cardinal Gibbons is rather of
the epoch preceding the Vatican Council. The Fa
thers assembled at '" Basle and Constance conceived an
infallible Church and believed in it, without making
any direct mention of the Pope's infallibility.* Gal-
licanism, so rigorously condemned by the Vatican,
thought and beheved the same; but he who now
adays would venture to uphold an infallible Church,
and in addition an infallible Pope, would break away
from the doctrine of the Church. That dualism has
constantly been rejected by Romanism. It was after
the Vatican Council that the Pope, by his own decree,'^
became the whole Church, sufficient and adequate, and
the Church without the Pope, nothing, absolutely noth-
^ Bertier : Compendium Theologicum de Infallibilitate. Car
dinal Vives : Same head. Casanova : Theologia Fundamen
talis; same head.
" See canons of both councils by Robracher, Baronio, Rivas
and Alzog.
* Gallican : Articles attributed to Bossuet. Declarations of
the Gallican clergy.
"Jaugey: heads. Church and Infallibility.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 87
ing. There exists only one infallibility, that of the
Pope, and from him it is communicated to others ; the
episcopate, considered collectively, is also infallible
in so far as it shares the pope's infallibility by teaching
its doctrine and assenting to it. Let His Eminence
read the beautiful encyclical of Leo XIII on the unity
of the Church." I call it beautiful because the style
could not be more elegant nor the Latin more classical.
Would His Eminence have another irrefutable testi
monial that infallibility is a thing of the past, if not
taken as the papal infallibility? Here it is: the first
pope to enjoy infallibility as an obligatory dogma
furnishes the clearest and most complete one. The
Vatican Council was ecumenical, was it not? In it
was represented the whole Church. Is not that so?
Well, then, please read Pius IX's bull herein trans
lated but reproduced in the appendix in Latin.' "If
I should die during the celebration of the Council,
let the Council be adjourned at the very moment of
my death, let all discussion be suspended, let nothing
be done, nothing be resolved; and from now, if such
an event should occur (my death) by these presents
I adjourn the Council. Only after a successor has
been elected and he deems it proper, shall the fathers
composing the Council resume its labors." The text,
as Your Eminence can see, is still more energetic and
ample. And in order that no one should believe that
such an act referred to that Council only, the Pope
ordered that the same * be observed always and in per-
°Leo XIII: Encyclical; De Unitate Ecclesiae (Of the
Unity of the Church).
' Pius IX : Encyclical to the fathers of the Vatican Council.
' Same Pius IX : Encyclical.

88 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
petuity. Now, that was a legitimate and ecumenical
Council, that is to say all the Church. In case of death
it was not to be said that the Council parted from
the Pope, nor that it got away from its spirit and in
structions, for notwithstanding, as Your Eminence sees,
it leaves the whole Church, although legitimately as
sembled, entirely incapacitated to resolve anything
whatsoever, absolutely nothing," however weighty or
urgent the case might be. There is, consequently only
one sole infallibility, the single and exclusive one of
the Pope. If Your Eminence is not convinced, there
is another obvious and very rapid way to proceed.
Address to Your Eminence's colleagues, the cardinals,
the following question : Besides the infallibility of the
Pope, can the Church be considered as infallible?
Your reputation and good name being well known in
Rome, and your brothers of the hat being most at
tentive to their confreres, they might even answer by
telegraph. It may be safely wagered, however, that
they will not reply in the sense in which infallibility
appears explained in Your Eminence's book. But if
you say that in speaking of the infallibility of the
Church you mean the personal infallibility of the Pope,
then one of the two chapters would be superfluous,
and Your Eminence would commit a redundancy that
might occasion lamentable misunderstandings, for
some might believe that beside an infallible Pope there
is also an infallible Church. We have ventured on
this remark not only because we think it necessary,
but also because it is esserttial to prosecute the discus
sion within definite limits. When Wt- say that we con-
° Same Pius IX : Encyclical,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 89
sider the papal infallibility as arbitrary and mislead
ing we refer exclusively to the Pontiff's own person
ality, and in no manner whatever to the Church, con
sidered as an universal collectivity. Whether the
Church is or is not infallible, we neither admit nor
reject in this work: what we do reject and do not
admit is the individual infallibility of the Pope. Syn
thetically, these are the arguments adduced by Roman
ism : ">
Matthew xvi. i6, 17, 18:
"And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God.
"And Jesus answered and said unto him. Blessed
art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it."
Luke xxii. 31, 32:
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan
hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as
wheat :
"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not :
and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
John xxi. 15, 16, 17:
"So when they had dined Jesus saith to Simon
Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than
these? He saith unto him. Yea, Lord; thou knowest
that I love thee. He saith unto him. Feed my lambs.
" See Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers, re
ferring to Primacy and Infallibility of Peter and the Popes.

90 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him. Yea,
Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto
him. Feed my lambs.
"He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because
he said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? And
he said unto him. Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou
knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him. Feed
my sheep."
Let us examine each and every one of the argu
ments. In the first, a most energetic one, it is most
noticeable that although all the evangelists quote the
same passage, one only, namely, St. Matthew's, adds
the statement mentioned." Connecting the Gospels
together it may be deduced as a general rule, that the
necessary and fundamental portions are not only re
produced by all the evangelists, but that at times such
portions are repeated in the same Gospel. See for
instance : The Eucharist, the command to preach the
Gospel, the powers granted to the apostles ; baptism ;
the precept on charity; the divinity of Christ. It may
at once be asserted, that in all things fundamental to
the organization of the Church, we shall find all the
evangelists as one, and we shall find many passages
on the Divine Word repeated.'^ However, dealing as
" Compare Matt. xvi. i6 and following, with Mark vii. 29
and following, and Luke ix. 20 and following, and John vi. 69
and xi. 27 and following, with Matt, xvi, before mentioned.
'^ Read the four Gospels, looking up in them any of the
points mentioned, and the truth of what we affirm will become
evident. For instance : On the Eucharist : Matt. xxvi. 26, 27.
Mark xxv. 22 and following. Luke xxii. 19 and following.
John vi. 51. I Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25. On The Preaching of the

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 91
we are doing here with this most important dogma
of the organization of the Church, it is truly surpris
ing to find only one evangelist making reference to so
great a doctrine, and that he should be, not Mark, who
writes in association with St. Peter, but Matthew.
And ^ the surprise increases still more, when we con
sider that all of them relate the dialogue between Jesus
and Peter. In all of them Christ inquires concerning
the mission that the people attribute to Him ; in all of
them Christ questions His apostles as to what they
think of Him, and in all of them Peter answers :
"Thou art the Son of God." And whHe three evan
gelists conclude the passage without adding anything
more, one only proclaims the most important of the
dogmas.'^ Anyone who reads the Gospels carefully
and connects and compares the substantial portions
of them, must see in this exception an inexplicable
anomaly.'* It is not surprising that some commenta
tors notwithstanding their faith in the infallibility and
inspiration of the Bible, believe that there has been some
subsequent interpolation here.'^ We do not venture
so far and would rather admit the authenticity of the
passage; but the fact that only one evangelist repro
duces it leads us to believe that it is not worthy of
the great significance attached to it by Romanism, for
if it had such importance, it seems that all the evan-
Gospel: Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 15. Luke xxiv. 47.
On Baptism: Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. John iii. 18, 36.
Acts ii. 38. On Charity : John xiii. 34. Matt. xxii. 37, 38, 39.
Luke X. 27. Mark xii. 35.
"Read the four Gospels in the places named.
" Make a test by reading and connecting the Gospels in any
important matter.
" See Encyclopedia Britannica : Heads, Church and Papacy.

92 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
gelists should mention it, as they do the other dogmas
and things fundamental. Let us analyze the text:
Christ caHs Peter blessed, because he confesses His
divinity, and that only the Eternal Father would have
inspired that confession in him, and as a consequence
of such a profession of faith, Christ offers to estab
lish His Church upon Peter (synonym of stone) and
adds, besides, that the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. One cannot believe that anyone would
interpret these words so materially as to suppose that
Christ promises to establish His Church upon the
Apostle Peter, as an ordinary individual like anyone
else, but in whom He has discovered something super
natural and divine. If this is not so the passage has
no meaning. It is necessary to connect Peter's con
fession with the subsequent promise made by Christ.
The latter is the result of the former, and that is the
basis of this. The meaning appears, therefore, to be
as follows: "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah,
because the flesh and the blood did not reveal to thee
that I am the son of God, but my heavenly Father,
and to thee I say that because thou art believing in
that truth thou art a hard rock, and upon it I will
establish my Church." Which would be clearly equiv
alent to meaning that Christ promises that the founda
tion upon which He shall raise His Church is the
explicit confession to His (Christ's) divinity.'" He
does not refer to anyone personally, only that Peter's
confession gives Him an opportunity to expound the
foundations on which He will cement His Church,
and the reward He wishes to grant to His believers.
" Matt. xvi. 17 and following.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 93
This distinction can be seen much more clearly if we
pay attention to the words that follow. From them
Peter's personality disappears altogether and is sub
stituted by the Church. Christ promises indefectibility
not to the person of Peter, but to His Church.'' The
gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, not
against Peter. Therefore, concerning the personal
infallibility of the Pope, far from establishing it, this
text shows that the usurpation of it by the popes, as
a private and exclusive attribute, is arbitrary and
absurd. That the Church does not and cannot possess
it, according to the Papacy, is clearly affirmed by
Pius IX in the letters quoted above, because, if the
Church assembled in General Council could be infal
lible, why render it unfit to discuss, resolve and de
cide? Let, then, this text be carefully examined, and
it will be seen that He says nothing about the per
sonal infallibility of the Pontiff, and that the only
thing He affirms is that His Church, not the Pope,
shall be: that is to say, that Christ granting infalli
bility to the Church, and Pius IX wresting it from
the Church in order to concentrate it in the hands
of the Papacy, are in flagrant contradiction. Another
interpretation can still be given which is attributed to
Origen.'* It is not easy to explain how Christ could
establish His Church on any one person but His
own, on His own omnipotence and unfailing divinity.
Now, when for the first time and most energetically,
Peter acknowledges the divinity of Christ, the latter
" Same : Chap. xvi. 17, 18.
" See the work entitled Extract from the Doctrine of
Origen and TertuUian, by a Franciscan Father.

94 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
avails himself of the occasion to disclose his doctrine.
According to this theory the meaning would be : Thou
art stone and I, Christ, also, and upon my divinity I
will establish my Church. At first sight this inter
pretation seems strained, but when properly analyzed
it will be found to be the most correct, since it is the
most gram.matical, and when it becomes necessary to
deduce a probative argument, one has not to seek the
mystic nor the accommodating sense, which of them
selves, prove nothing, but confine the question, as far
as possible, within the grammatical and the Hteral sense.
According to syntax, if Peter were the stone upon
which Christ intended to build His Church, He should
have said: upon that stone, and not, upon this stone.^^
The word "this" can only be applied in correct syntax
as referring to Christ himself. The meaning, there
fore, would be: Thou art a stone and I (Christ) am
also a stone and upon this (Christ pointing to himself)
I win build my Church. In this manner only can be
properly explained the use of the pronoun this and
not of the pronoun that which is the corresponding
one, if the foundation stone of the Church were Peter
and not Christ.^" Read the Vulgata Latina, the only
one authentically approved by the Council of Trent
and in which will be found a more exhaustive treat
ment of this question. The following additional con
sideration is well worthy of notice. While the apos
tles do not draw any inference from the nickname
"Stone" attributed to Peter, and one would think they
would have done so, if it had the meaning subse-
" See Matt., chapter and verse already mentioned.
^'' See the same chapter and verse of the Vulgata Latina.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 95
quently put upon it by Romanism, yet from the date
of that dialogue, there has existed a kind of unwhole
some desire to call Christ the foundation stone,^' the
angular stone, the corner stone, the stone of contradic
tion, the smashing stone. All this seems to lead those
who sincerely search for the truth to believe that so
much eagerness to dub Christ in so many ways as a
stone is due to the fact that in that most important
passage Jesus referred to Himself and not to Peter.
It is worth while to take into account an interpretation
backed not only by exact construction, but also cor
roborated by the oft-repeated language and symbol
ism of the apostles. But it is useless to longer dwell
on this point since it is as clear as noonday that Christ
does not refer in any way to the person of Peter, but
to His Church.^^ The last words spoken by Christ to
Peter namely: "To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven and everything thou dost bind,"
etc., have no probative force whatever because "quod
nimis probat nihil probat" (too much proof proves
nothing) is true according to Roman philosophy.
Christ says those same words, with the same fullness
of meaning, to the other apostles : therefore, if they do
not prove in the apostles that Christ grants to them an
infallibility transferable to others, they must not prove
either that He granted it to Peter ; and if on the con
trary they should prove it, good-bye to papal infalli
bility. Perhaps, we will be told there is something
He grants to Peter that He does not give to the others :
"Matt. xxi. 42, 44. Mark xii. 10. Luke xx. 17. Acts iv. 11.
Eph. ii. 20. I Peter ii. 6, 7.
^' See Matt. xvi. 17, 18, 19.
8

96 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
yes, the keys ! ^^ Cardinal Gibbons furnishes the an
swer. The keys, says he, are a symbol of authority,
they are a testimony that the authority given is most
ample. Therefore, if speaking of Peter he means
the symbol and the thing symbolized, and if when
speaking of the apostles He grants the thing symbol
ized without the symbol. He neither takes away from
the other apostles, nor does He add anything to Peter,
for the symbol by itself is nothing, it is the thing sym
bolized that is effective. (St. Matthev/, chapter xviii.
18.) Perhaps it may be said, Peter alone is spoken of
in this case and not the others. The same passage
answers itself because Peter was the only one on that
occasion to acknowledge the divinity of Christ.^* If
under those circumstances Christ had intended to re
fer to all. He would not have mentioned anything
about a corresponding reward, such as He wants to
make evident in this case. Thou art the first to
acknowledge me as the son of God, to thee first I
grant that which in the same manner and on diverse
occasions I will grant to the others. On the other
hand it is dangerous to strain individual indications.
Following that theory we should find in the same
chapter that Peter is the worst among the apostles,
and comparable to Satan. Follow the maxim wisely
set by scholasticism that "quod nimis probat nihil
probat" (too much proof proves nothing) and we
shall then be able to coordinate individual exclusiv-
isms that otherwise would create fatal errors ^^
^ Read Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers ; chap
ter on Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope.
" Read Matt. xvi. 13-19.
^ See Peru jo's Dictionary, ecclesiastical terms and phrases.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 97
Let us, then, discard the first text as a contradiction
of proof of the papal infallibility, and see it rather as
a great obstacle than a firm support. That was clearly
seen by the Vatican Council ^" which attempted prin
cipally to establish the pontifical infallibility in an
other text by the words spoken by Christ: "Simon,
Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren." What a poor opinion must anyone form
of certain personalities, who examines this passage
with greater fear of error than of ecclesiastical cen
sure; with the irrevocable longing to proclaim the
truth, rather than flatter somebody, be that somebody
the chief Pontiff ! To invoke this text for the purpose
of laying the whole foundation of the papal building,
seems to us the grossest absurdity and the most fla
grant contradiction. The papal infallibility is a nega
tive and external prerogative, not an internal and posi
tive one ; it means only that while the Pope teaches the
world as a universal doctor, he cannot communicate ^'
error. This is so much so that the majority of theolo
gians ^' suppose that infallibility may be compatible
with an internal infidelity of the Pope ; that is to say,
a Pope may be an occult heretic and yet continue be
ing Pope and infallible, since that is an outward privi
lege and one beneficial to the Church: consequently,
"See Vatican Council: De Fide (Faith).
"Jaugey: Heads, Infallibility, Pope. Cardinal Gibbons:
Book mentioned, chapter referring to Infallibility of the Pope.
"^ St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio: Theologicals, chapter the
Pope. Apologetic Dictionary of Faith, under heads already
mentioned.

98 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
infallibility is incompatible with an external loss of
faith. Outwardly, the Pope cannot teach error. Now,
can that passage mean such a thing? When does
Christ utter those words ?^" Doubtless long before
His most cruel Passion. Did Christ then, promise to
Peter that external faith should not fail him? In that
case His promise proved false, for did not Peter deny
Christ? and was not his denial an act of infidelity?
It does not avail to say that internally he continued
to believe, because this only entangles and complicates
the question for the Romanists themselves.
Have we not agreed that infallibility is external
and not internal? Do you not affirm that the Pope
can break faith internally but not externally? Do
you not say Christ granted to Peter that external pre
rogative when He uttered those words? Therefore,
one of three things must be evident: either this state
ment was made after the Passion, which amounts to
contradicting the evangelists, who distinctly claim
the contrary ; or Christ made a mistake, which is blas
phemous ; or those words must have another meaning.
This is an example of the inexplicable proceedings
of the Romanists to get into the good graces of their
papal idol, by whom they seem to be possessed: they
do not hesitate to make Christ contradict Himself. To
deny that Peter was unfaithful to Christ would be
heresy; to affirmi that Christ made a promise to Peter
that He did not keep would be blasphemous; there
fore, no room is left for any other meaning, than the
literal and obvious one, but not the contradictory and
" See Luke xxii. 31 and following.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 99
arbitrary one of the Romanists.'" Christ foresaw
Judas' apostasy, Peter's denial and the other apostles'
scandals ; He saw Judas horror-stricken at his crime,
dying in despair, and Satan trying to plunge Peter
into the same abyss and to confuse the other apostles ;
but Christ prays for Peter and succeeds in saving him
from utter loss that he may repent and live ; and as he
better than anyone else was to feel the truth of His
prophecy, and the sweetness of His mercy, recommends
him to strengthen the others. Let us translate the
passage on antecedents and consequents : "Peter, Peter,
Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift you
as wheat; he has succeeded with Judas and thou hast
run great danger, but I have prayed for thee and
although thou wilt be unfaithful to me, thou shalt
not be altogether lost, but shall become converted and
do penance for thy sin ; when this happens thou better
than anyone else shalt feel that what I am saying
is the truth; for my prophecy shall be accomplished
in thee; endeavor to strengthen the others that walk
astray and hesitate." What is there in this translation
not clear, well established and in harmony with the
literal sense, given the antecedents and consequents?
Therefore, why throw doubt upon the infallibility of
Christ's promise if not to infer as a consequence the
personal one of the Pope? The second argument is
thus thrown out of the discussion, because to interpret
it as the Romanists do, would be heresy or blasphemy.
That which "nimis probat nihil probat" proves, then,
'" Read the Gospels, chapters referring to the Passion, and
connect them with each other. See also John xvii. 9 and fol
lowing, and it will be seen how He prays in a similar manner
for all His apostles and disciples.

lOO ROMAN CATHOLICISM
nothing as to personal infallibility. We will now ex
amine the third and last biblical text. Christ after His
resurrection in conversing with Peter and the apostles,
spoke in this manner: "Simon, lovest thou me?" etc.
Says Romanism : Here Christ by recommending to
Peter to tend His lambs and His sheep, places faith
ful and bishops under his pastoral jurisdiction. The
former are represented by the lambs, and the latter by
the sheep.^' It is probable that Cardinal Gibbons has
not forgotten that the mystic meaning is an excellent
one to edify the faithful, an admirable one to display
oratorical talent, and to write brilliant discourses, but
extremely poor and insufficient for the deduction of
demonstrative argument.^- Only in case another in
spired writer deduces and determines the same, can
the mystic types have any demonstrative efficacy. And
where has Cardinal Gibbons discovered that by lamb
is to be understood the merely faithful, and by sheep
the bishop? In which passage of the Gospel does he
find the classification and separation of those types?
Which apostle determined it in his writings? Let him
not say to us that that is so understood by the Roman
Church, because such an answer to us would be equiva
lent to saying nothing. That would be begging the
question which we are not disposed to admit. We
need an inspired passage, some authentic testimony.'^
That Christ may be called shepherd and His Church a
'^ See Vigouroux : Biblical Manual, Rules of Exegesis. Pat
rizi, Schouppe : same head. Cornely : Biblical Meanings.
Lobera : same head.
'^ Add to the authors named the Apologetic Dictionary of
Faith, under head, Exegesis.
"^ John x. 14.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. lOI
sheepfold, we do find in St. John. But that for lamb
must be understood the merely faithful, and by sheep
the bishops, we have not found anywhere. What we
have found in St. John is that sheep is synonym with
the merely faithful.^* "I have other sheep that it is
necessary to bring to the fold." Here Christ speaks
of the faithful in general, and let not Cardinal Gib
bons forget it — He calls them sheep.^^ The shepherd
that tends one hundred sheep and loses one leaves the
ninety-nine behind and goes in search of the stray
one. Here He speaks of the sinner in general and also
calls him sheep. Where, then, is the passage in which
he says that by sheep must be understood bishop, and
not the merely faithful? Wherefore seek for ab
struse meanings, when the literal translation is so
clear and so evident? Thou lovest me, Peter, there
fore preach my gospel, convert the people and by that
means show me thy love. Thou thinkest to love me
more than the others, preach then more than they
do, for love is in the deeds, not in good words.
But it may be asked. Why that preference in ad
dressing Peter and not the others? Because Peter
by his impulsiveness, by his years, appears perhaps
more conspicuous. That may also be the reason why
Christ's reproaches are addressed to him.^" If the
second circumstance demonstrates nothing against him,
neither does the first prove anything in his favor.
None of the three biblical arguments bears out the
claims of Romanism: the first because it refers to its
"* John X. i6.
™ Matt. xvii. 12. See also Matt. x. 6 and xv. 24.
"¦ Matt. xvi. 23.

102 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Church and not to Peter; the second because it is
based on a false supposition, the third because it is an
allegory that demonstrates nothing. Your Eminence
can see that the free interpretation of the Bible is
good for something. It serves at least to undermine
and to demolish the shaky foundations on which it is
sought to implant that of the Vatican. Against the
doctrine of the despots of old, there was only one set
back, revolution; against Roman despotism there is
only one barricade, namely: Biblical revolution, free
interpretation of the Divine Word assisted by the help
of Christ so many times promised to the faithful
until the end of time.^^ This is the last means left to
save religion. That centralism proclaimed by Your
Eminence as a divine panacea, as an unequivocal proof
of life and progress, is looked upon (and an effort
made to demonstrate it in another chapter) as an in
dubitable sign of ruin, as a sure mark of approaching
death. As a rule, centralization and tyranny are the
last conclusions of decayed and senile power. Well
understood liberty and independence are, according to
reason, the dawn of all progressive and lasting civiliza
tion. Let us look into the sociologic theological argu
ments : These may be considered as Cardinal Gibbons'
favorite themes.^^ If we are not mistaken in our
reckonings, he has thrice adduced the same argument
on the necessity of a central power, of a supreme
authority, final, similar to any human assembly or
"' See Matt.; last chapter and last verse. Read also Matt.
vii. 7, 8; xxi. 22. Mark xi. 24. Luke xi. g, 10. John xiv.
13, 14. James i. 5, 6.
^ Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter already mentioned.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. IO3
government. This argument is unquestionably sensa
tional, of a kind to appeal to the irreverent masses;
and forsooth to the literary classes as well, if they
should not possess a deep philosophical and theological
foundation. On the other hand this argument boasts
the glorification of a most astounding success.^" At
the last lamentable sitting preceding the vote on in
fallibility, the last speaker was the then Bishop of
Cuenca, H. E. Sr. Paya, and his most eloquent dis
course is precisely based on variations upon the same
theme that' Cardinal Gibbons so much likes to handle.
If he should publish another edition of his popular
book, we would recomm.end it to His Eminence.*" The
most trustworthy chroniclers of Romanism say, that it
called for embracements and even kisses from the
Pontiff. History adds that he passed from Cuenca,
one of the poorest and smallest dioceses in Spain, to
the vast and prosperous Santiago, in Galicia, where
later he received the capels, and died as Primate of
Spain. I might say as much of the famous and im
mortal Dupanloup, and many more things concerning
the impartiality and liberty in which Romanism left its
defenders and accusers. But let us not touch super
ficially on a subject to which we intend devoting an
entire chapter. What we wish to assert at this time,
is that the testimonies before mentioned are taken
from the rabid Romanist, the indefatigable controvert
ist, the lasher of liberals and Protestants in Spain, the
illustrious priest, Mateos Gagos, on whom we rely
^ Read Address of H. E. Sr. Paya : On Infallibility.
'" Read Father Mateos Gagos : Chronicle of the Vatican
Council.

I04 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
principally for our history of that eventful and turbu
lent council. Listen, Cardinal Gibbons ! he appears to
say : Why do you wonder at the central power of the
Vatican ? *' Why are you smitten with the infalli
bility of the Pontiff? Have you mot a president in
every republic? Have you not a king in every mon
archy? Have you not in every well organized gov
ernment, supreme courts, whose decisions are final?
Why then refuse to the Church, that is a most per
fect social organization, what other societies possess,
whatever their degree of imperfection might be? Let
us proceed slowly, as the scholastic would say.
Your Eminence will permit me to state that in good
exegesis, allegorical argument demonstrates nothing
trustworthy ; ^' in good philosophy and sound theology,
arguments of similitude and analogy throw light upon,
illustrate and corroborate what has already been
proved, but do not demonstrate what has to be proved.
By whose authority does Your Eminence deduce, that
because civil governments have central powers and
supreme courts, the Catholic Church should also pos
sess them? Have you received some inspiration or
mandate from heaven to make such a proclamation?
If the Baptists, taking the Gospel as their standpoint,
would reply: Jesus Christ knew the Roman organi
zation and the Hebrew organization; He knew that
the empire and the synagogue had supreme courts,
and yet when He speaks to His apostles of the organi-
" See Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter mentioned.
¦•^See Melchor Cano: Lugares Teologicos (Theological
Places). See Casanova: Teologia Fundamental, Introduc-
cion (Fundamental Theology); Jaugey: Apologetic Diction
ary of Faith ; head, Proof,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. T05
zation of His Church He says to them : ^^ "Beware
of the leaven of the Roman and of the leaven of the
Pharisee, your society must be different; in the im
perial, and the synagogical, there are haughty persons
and masters, in mine I do not wish for any such." **
If the Baptists argued thus, I say, what answer could
be made to them? For their argument has the ad
vantage of being biblical, while Your Eminence has
the disadvantage of being antibiblical.
But let us gratuitously assume that the comparison
is good, that the Church is a society identical with the
civil society, and that since the latter has a central
authority, the former must also have one, and that if
the latter has supreme and final courts, the former
must also have them. Should we then have advanced
anything towards the personal infallibility of the Pope ?
Alas! Cardinal Gibbons! must we forget the logic
which we learned in our school days ? '^^ One of the
most important rules of syllogism, is that the con
clusion must never be greater than the premises. The
only possible consequence would be this: that there
must, therefore, exist a central authority and a su
preme tribunal identical with those existing in the
civil powers. But Your Eminence has seen that some
of these powers, although called final, assume the pre
rogative of infallibility. Has Your Eminence ever
known a president so foolish, or a king so stupid as to
" Mark vii. 15. Matt. xvi. 6.
^ Connect together the following passages : Mark ix. and
following, and Matt. x. 43; xx. 26, 27, and xxiii. 11.
''^ See Cardinal Zigliara : Filosofia Tomista (Thomist Phi
losophy) ; book I : Rules of Syllogism. Gonzales ; Same
bead.

106 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
say : "I am infallible because there is no appeal from
me ?" Does not Your Eminence believe that both presi
dent and kings are liable to error, although there is
practically no appeal from them ? Does not Your Emi
nence believe, that if after pronouncing a judgment,
they became fully satisfied, by the evidence, that they
had committed a mistake, and that their mistake might
have fatal consequences, they would not correct their
mistake and alter their decision? Have we not the
recent example of France? Now if Your Eminence
considers infallibility identical with finality, and
nothing more, then Your Eminence is one of us,
and I would at once proclaim Your Eminence Pope,
and kiss as a sign of submission, not your sandal,
which I would consider humiliating, but your pas
toral ring.
That a certain kind of argument only is permitted
in Rome, where Vaticanism exercises a paramount in
fluence over ecclesiastics ; that another kind of argu
ment cannot be published in Latin Europe, where
Rom.an excommunication, like the terrible Hercules'
club, still presses down in a horrible manner upon the
conscience and the human intelligence, one familiar
with the conditions there existing, can understand and
explain to himself. But here in this country of true
freedom, an essentially progressive and expanding
nation, a state where all legitimate and rational inde
pendence is looked upon with approval, instead of
fear or apprehension, a region where the "ensemble"
of doctrines has given rise to the ecclesiastical term
"Americanism," redeeming synthesis of modern reli
gious societies; here, be it said, one cannot under-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 10/
Stand or explain the exposition of certain doctrines.
Still "Unusqmsque in sensu suo spondet" (Let every
one do as he pleases).
Let it be recorded that neither the Bible, nor so
ciologic theology, demonstrates the personal infalli
bility of the Pope. Can this be demonstrated by apos
tolic or sub-apostolic testimony? This will be the sub
ject of the next chapter.

CHAPTER X.
DO THE ACTS OF PETER AND THE CONDUCT OF THE OTHER
APOSTLES AFFIRM OR DENY THE INFALLIBILITY
OF THE POPE?
IN order to avoid useless digressions, it is well to
clearly establish at the outset, the meaning involved
in the double title of this chapter.
If Christ granted infallibility to Peter in a solemn
manner and in the presence of the other apostles,
Peter should be the first to be persuaded of that ex
traordinary prerogative. His words and acts must
therefore harmonize with that persuasion. This must
be applied and understood in such a way, that if we
should find any passage in which Peter had to exer
cise the said privilege, but failed to do so, we should
at once have a most powerful argument for denying
his infallibility. For, merely an erroneous definition
coming from one Pope, would demolish the infalli
bility of all of them, according to. the Romans them
selves.' And so also in any single passage, in which
Peter spoke and acted, as if he did not possess such a
valuable gift, it would be more than sufficient reason
to deny, or at least to question, the infallibility of
'Read Jaugey: Infalibilidad (Infallibility). Read Casa
nova : Fundamental Theology. Read Perrone : De la Verda-
dera Religion (True Religion). Read The Church and the
Pope. Read Hettinger : Same head. Any of the Roman
theologians will confirm this statement.
(108)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. lOq
Peter, whenever we are dealing with cases or oc
casions in which he should invoke his said infallibility,
to determine or decide them. The apostles would act
in like manner, since they are the ear-witnesses to the
concession and magnificent privilege granted to Peter
by Christ. They must, therefore, be the principal be
lievers in the said infallibility, they must be the first
to respect and revere it, they must be the first teachers
to convey it to the new people. If they did not act
thus, and we should find that in their preaching and
behavior they proceeded as though they knew noth
ing of such a privilege, we would then have sufficient
cause to question its existence. And if we should
find only one passage, only one word, only one act
on the part of the apostles contrary to such infalh
bility, then we would not only be justified in doubting
such infallibility, but also in roundly denying it.
Either of these three declarations, if not admitted as
good by our opponents, places them in contradiction
either with the most fundamental rules of sound criti
cism, or with the main principles of their history and
theology.- The Romanists must never forget that they
have always to prove, on every necessary occasion,
that infallibility did accomplish and does accomplish
everything; and that to us, on the contrary, one single
word from the apostolic times, one single act of the
apostles contradicting that prerogative, is more than
sufficient reason to demolish it. In return, we admit,
and this will show the sincerity of our arguments, that
if Peter and the other apostles spoke and acted as if
'Jaugey: Head, Critics and its Principle. Read the his
torians Rohrbacher, Rivas, etc.

no ROMAN CATHOLICISM
such infallibility did exist, then we would be the first
to respect it, because being moved as they were by the
Holy Ghost in all their acts, the idea of their erring
would be conflicting.^ A similar consideration must
be applied when dealing with the immediate success
ors of the apostles, with only this exception: that the
arguments based on sayings and acts of the latter,
would carry divine and irrefutable authority, whereas
the arguments of the others would carry only human
and controvertible authority. The question being thus
put with all loyalty and frankness, we will now ex
amine it, beginning with the conduct observed by Peter
himself. We select precisely the same Chapter xv
of the Acts of the Apostles ; and with deep regret we
must again invite the attention of the most learned
primate or pontifical delegate of North America. We
may, perhaps, be mistaken, but the manner in which
Cardinal Gibbons narrates what happened at the cele
brated Jerusalem Council may lead into error those
who have not read the whole of Chapter xv, but are
contented with the mutilated portion of it, as presented
by Cardinal Gibbons.* Reading the passage as stated
by H. E. the Cardinal, there would appear to have
occurred some discussion before Peter spoke; that
Peter alone rises to speak, and that after listening to
him, they all remain silent, and Peter's motion is car
ried in his sole name, and under his exclusive re
sponsibility, without anyone else speaking. Now,
Your Eminence, when a Romanist of your rank de
clares in your own words, that you imbibed her doc-
° Jaugey: Head, Revelation.
* Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, p. 127.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. Ill
trine with your mother's milk, and made her history
and theology the study of your life, and present to us,
as proof of infallibility a garbled chapter, when that
chapter taken in its entirety, states exactly the con
trary, the stock of proofs must be very scanty indeed,
else you would not have recourse to such deficient
and contradictory means. I presume your Bible to be
as complete as mine. Let us, then, continue reading
from that celebrated chapter. Then (after Peter
spoke) all the multitude was silent and listened to
Barnabas and Paul (two others who spoke after
Peter), who related all the miracles and marvels per
formed by God through them, among the Gentiles.
And after these had spoken the multitude becomes
silent again, in the same manner as they did when
Peter spoke; St. James (a third apostle, who speaks,
and who does seem to be the true Pontiff, by the tone
of his language, unHke that of the humble Peter's)
answered by saying: "Men and brethren, listen to
me," etc. (we will later copy his doctrine in full).
As Cardinal Gibbons can see, it is not Peter alone
who speaks, but also Barnabas, Paul and St. James,
who, speaking later, do not suppose the matter entirely
settled by Peter. Now, according to a prudential
maxim of canonical law, in great councils and col
lective decisions, in order that the junior dignitaries
may not appear as though restrained, and may express
their opinion with entire freedom, they are granted the
privilege of speaking and deciding first, for if they
did so after the seniors, the prestige of the latter might
curtail the independence of the former.' According to
"Read Bouix: Canon Law (De Jure .Canonico). Read
9

112 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
this maxim, Peter appears of minor importance, hav
ing been the first to speak, while St. James, who spoke
last, is favored. When we examine the language of
the two, we shall arrive at the same conclusion. For
that reason we cannot recover from our astonishment
at the fact that a man of Cardinal Gibbons' character,
an American prelate of his reputation and prestige,
and one possessed of his vast enlightenment, should
employ the same methods of demonstrating infalli
bility, as those used by the fictitious and decadent
Romanists. What a disenchantment the reading of
his book has been to me! What a bitter disillusion!
What a blow to the belief that in America I would find
prelates of the tenacity of the immortal Cardinal New
man, who, notwithstanding the declaration of infalli
bility, dared to face the wrath and storm of the Vatican
by denying such documents of Pius IX as "The Sylla
bus," which document is recognized as one of the most
important of the Romanists'." Imagine, as I say,
my disappointment and disenchantment in coming to
America from Europe, where one sees everything in
religious circles corroded, where decay invades all, from
the tiara to the village curate, where senility and
moral looseness adorn themselves with the showy
drapery of submission and virtue, where prevails an
eagerness to praise and flatter individuals rather than
telling the truth, the whole truth, thereby being able
the better to enjoy the power of mere sordid wealth —
to find, alas, in America, the far-famed home of true
Bouix: De Jura Regular! (Regular Law). Read Bouix:
Head, Reuniones Definitoriales.
" Jaugey : Head, Syllabus.

CAPITULATING IBEFORfe PROTESTANTISM. 113
liberty (where the enlightened pioneers who conceived
and systematized the doctrinal compendium termed
"Americanism," ^ must be of another way of thinking),
that the classical book on religion, the one authorized
by the signature of the greatest prestige, is not only
an echo of the most rabid Romanism, but one not pos
sessing even the merit of the crafty art, and seductive
cunning of European Vaticanism. But let us return
to the subject. What is the teaching that springs in
the clearest manner from Chapter xv of the Acts of
the Apostles ? To anyone reading it carefully and im-
partiaUy, that which strikes the eye without even seek
ing, is that aH those blessed pioneers believed in every
thing, excepting in Peter's infallibility ; everything was
conducted and everything was determined upon, as if
Peter had been one of their number, nay, even, as if
Peter had been in fact inferior to St. James. Let the
Bible speak for us, since its language is most clear
and convincing. "And certain men which came down
from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye
be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot
be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had
no small dissension and disputation with them, they
determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other
of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles
and elders about this question." Pray observe. Car
dinal Gibbons, that Paul and Barnabas go to Jeru
salem not to see Peter alone, but also the apostles and
elders. To proceed : "And being brought on their
way by the church, they passed through Phenice and
Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles :
' Read Encyclical of Leo XIII about Americanism.

114 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And
when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received
of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they
declared all things that God had done with them."
Pray, listen to it, cardinal: they were received not by
Peter alone, but by the Church and by the apostles and
by the elders. Let us continue: "But there rose up
certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
saying. That it was needful, to circumcise them, and to
command them to keep the law of Moses. And the
apostles and the elders came together for to consider
of this matter." Let not Cardinal Gibbons forget:
they assembled to resolve upon a question, not with
Peter alone, which sufficed had he been infallible, but
with the apostles and the elders. Proceeding: "And
when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up,
and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how
that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word
of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth
the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy
Ghost, even as he did unto us : And put no difference
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon
the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor
we were able to bear? But we believe, that through
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,
even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence."
Pray notice. Cardinal, the tone in which Peter speaks,
explains, relates and enquires Hke anybody else; he
neither decides, nor judges, as he should do if he him
self had believed in his own infallibility. Let us read

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. II5
further. "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave
audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what mir
acles and wonders God had wrought among the Gen
tiles by them. And after they had held their peace,
James answered, saying. Men and brethren, hearken
unto me: Simon hath declared how God at the first
did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for
his name. And to this agree the words of the proph
ets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will
build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I
will set it up : That the residue of men might seek
after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my
name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth ah these
things. Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is,
that we trouble not them, which from among the Gen
tiles are turned to God : But that we write unto them,
that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sab
bath day." This apostle does speak the language
proper to the future Roman Pontiff : and while Peter,
enquires and explains, he judges and decides; while
the humble and weak Peter (does not Your Eminence
feel offended at the treatment given to Peter by the
same Holy Ghost through Paul's lips?)' does not de
cide or rule upon anything definite, St. James rules
and determines that those of Antioch must be written
to, and dictates exactly the sense in which to write
^ Read Galatians i and ii.

Il6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
to them. WeH, now ! "Aliquando bonus dormitat Ho-
mcrus" (The wisest will commit mistakes). To quote
Chapter xv as a proof of the Pope's personal infalh
bility is. Your Eminence, as ridiculous, as if I were to
quote Louis XIV's bon mot, "L'Etat c'est moi" (I
am the state), to substantiate the principles of the
French Revolution ! Let us close the chapter because
the whole of it is the most explicit condemnation of
the individual infallibility of the Pontiffs. "Then
pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole
church, to send chosen men of their own company to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas sur
named Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the
brethren." Let Cardinal Gibbons comment upon these
words: Peter, as the infallible, does not appear at
all; it is the apostles, the elders, the whole Church
of Jerusalem, who resolve to send ambassadors to
Antioch. Here follows a copy of the resolutions :
"And they wrote letters by them after this manner ;
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch
and Syria and Cilicia:
"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which
went out from us have troubled you with words, sub
verting your souls, saying. Ye must be circumcised,
and keep the law; to whom we gave no such com
mandment :
"It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one
accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved
Barnabas and Paul :
"Men that have hazarded their lives for the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. II7
"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who
shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,
to lay upon you no greater burden than these neces
sary things ;
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and
from blood, and from things strangled, and from for
nication : from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do
well. Fare ye well.
"So when they were dismissed, they came to An
tioch : and when they had gathered the multitude to
gether, they delivered the epistle :
"Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the
consolation." What conclusion does Your Eminence reach, con
sidering that Peter, as the infallible one, should have
been the man to head and sign the letter, but instead,
it is headed and signed by ah ? While the Holy Ghost,
according to Romanism, should have become asso
ciated with Peter only, it joins the whole, and the
name of Peter appears nowhere. When it should have
been Peter's doctrine copied in the letter, it is the
doctrine decided upon and chosen by St. James that
is transcribed and sent. Can a greater denial be given
to the infallibility of the Popes than that thrown out
by the Jerusalem Council? Let us summarize the
doctrine scattered over preceding pages.
If infallibility were a gift made by Christ to Peter,
in a solemn manner, and in the presence of the apos
tles, they and Peter should have been the first to be
lieve in it, and on the solemn occasion of that first
council, it should have appeared and shone resplendent

Il8 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
as the sun, clear as the light of day. But in that
council the said infallibility effectually suffers a first
and total rebuke. Peter instead of playing the char
acter of the infallible, explains and enquires, speaks
first instead of speaking last ; contra, St. James, instead
of speaking as the inferior of Peter, speaks as if he
were the true teacher and judge : it is he who decides
what has to be done and how it is to be done. Finally,
instead of Peter alone confirming the resolution, as he
should do by virtue of his infallible authority, they all
sign together as equal judges, possessing equal power
and jurisdiction. There is nothing, therefore, in Chap
ter XV of the Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate or
corroborate the individual infallibility of the Popes,
but much and a very great deal to deny it in the clear
est and most negative manner. If anyone after read
ing the whole chapter referred to in its entirety, still
beheves that it contains any proof, by which the pre
tended pontifical prerogative of infaHibility can be de
fended, he should not be surprised at his believing
also, any day, that the Pope is not a human being but
some divinity, a belief already entertained by a few,
according to Cardinal Gibbons, a statement which does
him so much harm. We consider the first more irra
tional and illogical than the second. But to continue:
we have two letters from St. Peter himself, three from
St. John, one from St. James, yet another from Jude,
and also the Apocalypse. Do those writings say any
thing concerning that important prerogative ? Is there
any passage in them intimating to the faithful that
Peter and his successors possess the extraordinary
grace of infaHibility? Is it not evident to Your Emi-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. Up
nence that that well designed silence speaks most elo
quently against it? They apprehend and even see be
fore them, the coming heresy, that with its machina
tions and arguments, it may upset everything; but if
they believed that in the "Apostohc See" " there would
always be a trustworthy oracle of the Holy Ghost,
does not Your Eminence think they were under the
obligation to say to their followers : "Though error
and schism supervene, fear not, because when that
happens you will have a sure means, the surest chan
nel, toward the truth ; you will need only to look to the
'Roman See' and there find always a luminous beacon
that through wrecks and disasters can guide you to a
safe port; consult and follow the Roman Pontiff: by
doing so, you will imitate the doctrine of the Holy
Ghost"? If such a prerogative was known to them,
was it not a crime not to teach it, when they could, at
one stroke and forever, have killed all controversy
among the truly faithful, by simply proclaiming the
infaHibihty of the Pontiffs? If this had been a heav
enly gift, was it not their most sacred duty to make
that fact known, for the good of the Church? Your
Eminence's exclamation, made in the midst of the
twentieth century, must have been also the apostles'
exclamation. Oh! what great happiness for Catholi
cism to have an infallible tribunal ! '" always at hand
and for all necessary purposes ! To be always certain
that by following it, we are on the path of truth ! Is
'Acts XX. 29, 30. Matt. vii. IS; xxiv. 5, 11, 24. Mark
xiii. 22. Rom. xvi. 17. Eph. v. 6. Col. ii. 8. Peter ii. i, 2, 3.
'" Read Cardinal Gibbons : The Faith of Our Fathers, the
Supremacy and Infallibility of Popes, specially; page 162.

120 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
it possible to obtain greater consolation or greater
happiness ?
That should have been the first and fundamental
teaching of the apostles, since it was a most neces
sary one to preserve the unity and to destroy every
heresy in its cradle. Therefore, if they remained
silent, that was a terrible argument against infalli
bility. But if, in exchange, the other apostles say nothing
against infallibility, we have St. Paul, whose language
and behavior are uniformly against it. Let us see.
Here, again, we must draw Cardinal Gibbons' atten
tion to the point ; but let him not think that we say so
for oratorical effect. In Europe we entertained such
a high opinion of his practical knowledge and lofty
attainments ; we heard such encomiums from author
ized spokesmen, so daring, according to the best inter
pretation of this adjective, that on our way here, we
imagined we were going to find in his writings the
needed light, solace and encouragement to undertake
our great work of demolishing the Vatican idol, our
profound conviction being that either he must be wiped
out, or the Latin Church will disappear, swallowed
up by him, in the same way as, according to the Bible,
Moloch used to swallow up his victims. For that
reason we feel truly vexed in having to impeach the
man whom we previously admired and applauded.
But our axiom is the one so frequently adduced in
scholasticism, namely: Amicus Plato sed magis arnica
Veritas (a friend to Plato but a greater friend to
truth). Says Cardinal Gibbons: "It matters little
that Peter should think different from Paul, on a ques-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 121
tion that was finally settled by the Church " in favor
of the latter and against the former, because this be
ing a disciplinary matter, Peter might make a mistake
and Paul's censures mean nothing." May we ask,
What can Cardinal Gibbons understand by disciplinary
questions? We are fairly acquainted with the cur
riculum, and our opinion is, that the matter under dis
cussion was something more than a disciplinary one.
The first verse of the famous Chapter xv does not
assume that that question was limited solely to the
circumstantial act of circumcision, but it comprises
also the fulfillment of the entire old law. When Peter
speaks of it, one understands also' that he refers to
the obligation of keeping, or not, all the old law. Paul
explicitly states that the circumcised undertake to keep
the whole law.'- Let Your Eminence read the passages
mentioned and you will see how evident this is. And
that great question of whether or no " the entire law
must be kept. Your Eminence simply calls that ques
tion a mere disciplinary one ! A fine way of evading
the point, indeed! By the same proceeding, any Ro
manist could soon find arguments to prove that the
majesty of the Most Holy Trinity is purely and sim
ply a matter of worship, a subject of discipline. But
let us suppose that the question is nothing more than
a disciplinary one. Does Your Eminence expect with
that to untie the Gordian knot of the objection ? Not
so. Your Eminence. The question remains standing. Is
Your Eminence aware that on matters of general dis-
" Read Cardinal Gibbons : Same book, page 128.
'^Gal. XV. 3.
"Acts XV. I, 10.

122 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
cipline the Pope must also be infaHible ? '* Please
refer to the Romanist authors quoted in the notes, the
flower and the cream of Romanist theology, and you
will see how the infallibility of the Popes includes also
every question on general discipline. And what point
more general can there be, than to determine if all and
every Christian must keep, or need not keep, the law
of Moses ! Can Your Eminence imagine any other
more general disciplinary doctrine? Therefore, even
on the hypothesis of being a disciplinary question,
which we do not admit, according to Roman theology
it would come under the jurisdiction of the pontifical
infallibility, and for that very reason, a single mistake
made by any one Pope could be enough to destroy
the entire structure raised to uphold it. Now what
does the Bible say on this disturbing controversy?
Listen '^ to Paul, the oracle of the Holy Ghost.
"Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but
by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him
from the dead).
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Let us see what Paul, inspired by Jesus Christ, says
about poor Peter.
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which
was preached of me is not after man.
"For I neither received it of man, neither was I
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
"Read Schouppe: Compendium Theologicum de InfallibiU-
tate. Read Cardinal Vives : Same head. Read Casanova and
Hettinger: Same head. Read Jaugey: Head, Infallibility.
'" Galatians.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTEStANTISM. I23
"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I per
secuted the Church of God, and wasted it :
"And profited in the Jews' religion above many my
equals in my own nation, being more exceedingly zeal
ous of the traditions of my fathers. . . .
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
"For, before that certain came from James, he did
eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he
withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which
were of the circumcision.
"And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
in so much that Barnabas also was carried away with
their dissimulation.
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter
before them aH, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the
manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why
compellest thou the GentHes to live as do the Jews?"
Poor Peter! What hast thou come to with all the
infaHibility laid on thy shoulders? Thou art being
whipped round like a top. On the one hand the
impetuous and acrimonious Paul resists thee,'^ and
even injures thee ; and on the other, fearing the censure
of St. James, notwithstanding thy infallibility, thou
goest about crestfallen and timorous. Without doubt
thy infallibility must have been different from thy suc
cessor's, Pius IX, for while thou goest about subdued
by opposite factions, thy successor, adapting a famous
"^Gal. ii. 1 1 -14.

124 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
phrase, says : "I am the Church,'" without me you are
nothing." Whfle thou, Peter, didst now listen to some,
then to others, acknowledging the right of everyone,
thy sublime successor, Pius IX, without consideration
of any kind, as Cromwell dismissed the English Par
liament, says to the full council of venerable heads of
the Church : "If I die, close the doors and go to your
homes." " It seems incredible that Cardinal Gibbons
should take seriously the other indications as to Paul
consulting Peter, when in the same epistle and almost
in the same breath he emphatically says, that he con
siders as three pillars of strength, not St. Paul alone,
but also St. James and St. John, that is to say, that
for Paul there was nothing in Peter, that St. James
and St. John did not have. Let us conclude this long
and tedious matter, by stating what is evident, that
neither Peter nor the apostles knew anything of what
is now a dogma of faith in Romanism, under the name
of papal infallibility.
" Read Encyclical of Pius IX to the Fathers of the Vatican
Council. " Read the same as cited on No. i6.

CHAPTER XI.
DID THE SUB-APOSTOLIC FATHERS BELIEVE IN THE POPE's
INFALLIBILITY?
ACCORDING to Romanistic theology, the truth
of the revelation was entirely closed and termi
nated with the death of the apostles.' From that time
no one can add the smallest thing to the revealed
doctrine. The only thing that can be done is, to de
velop and illustrate the revelations, to corroborate and
synthetize them by reasoning and compilations; but
whoever should venture to add to the truths revealed,
would become guilty of blasphemy and heresy. The
Pope himself, notwithstanding the divine prerogative
of infallibility attributed to him by Romanism, holds
no higher rank in this question than the most ordinary
man.^ Neither the common people nor the learned
teachers nor the venerable bishops, nor the Ecumenical
Councils, nor the sovereign Pontiff can increase the
ensemble of the principles revealed. Having been de
termined for all time by the apostles, so they shall re
main until the end of the world. As a consequence of
this most important doctrine, the following evident
' Read Cardinal Gibbons : Chap. II. Read Schouppe :
Theologia Dogmatica De Revelatione. Read Cardinal Vives:
Same head.
" Cardinal Gibbons : Chap. II. Hettinger : Theologia Fun
damental. Casanova : Same head. Jaugey : Revelacion y
Doctrina de la Iglesia. (125)

126 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
conclusion can be deduced: Suppose that all the Fa
thers together, in a clear and unequivocal manner,
proclaim the infallibility of the Pope ; that by the end
of the first century and the beginning of the second,
this behef were admitted and recognized by all and
everyone ; would that be any gain toward proclaim
ing the infallibility of the Pontiff? No, none what
ever. On the assumption that the apostles themselves
did not believe in such a prerogative, they could not
have transmitted it to their immediate successors, the
Fathers, therefore, on the latter teaching, a purely
human doctrine, instead of a divine one, that teaching
could not be added to the truth of the revelation, since
the latter, by unanimous consent, came to an end at
the very moment of the apostles' death. ^ Consistently
with those shining and fundamental principles, we
might consider the question of infallibility as closed
with the last words of the preceding chapter. We
might say, and our argument would be most correct,
according to Roman theology, if the apostles, far from
believing in the infallibility, ignored it and acted as if
willing to reject it, this was because it did not exist,
and would never have existed. We would rather,
however, out of courtesy to Cardinal Gibbons, accom
pany him in his investigation through the centuries
and question the Fathers with him. We will listen to
what those venerable heads have to say concerning so
singular a privilege. We will enquire into whether
those enlightened teachers are more considerate toward
" Read same author as above and also Melchor Cano : De
Locis Theologicis de Ecclesia. P. Fernandez: Same head.
Hurter : Same head.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I27
infalhbility than were the apostles, who in truth had
for it neither regard nor respect. S. Clement I, fourth
Pope and third successor of Peter, is the first witness
who appears worthy of serious consideration, since
he is a wise and holy Pope. I recall that in my school
days I used to look on this renowned head almost as
an apostle; with simple faith I believed that his testi
mony concerning papal infallibility was most im
pressive and irrefutable. How my views have changed
since reaching mature age ! . How many bitter disillu
sions have I not suffered every time I have had to
apply, instead of the false Roman doctrine, the reason
and conscience given to all by God Almighty, and
according to which we shall be judged! How many
wasted illusions ! How many hopes defrauded ! How
many and what painful shocks to coordinate what
conscience taught in a positive manner, with what the
Roman faith proclaims as infaHible! What a horrible
disenchantment, when, notwithstanding the most su
preme efforts, I beheld issuing forth one with the
other and growing larger and larger every day the
incompatibility on papal questions ! What desolating
conflicts, when there was no other option but to choose
one or the other ! What rending perplexities to realize
that it was necessary, compulsory even, to reject one
of the two, under penalty of losing both ! Alas ! he
who has not experienced this kind of torture, does
not yet know what it is to suffer! He who has not
faced spiritual battles knows not the most fruitful
source of pain and bitterness ! I would rather a thou
sand times disappear from existence than to be seared
again with such a horrible Calvary. For that reason,
10

128 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
every time mention is made of Clement the Roman,
there rushes to my brain in furious confusion a tor
rent of pricking memories. It was the first pillar to
be demolished at my feet, and in his fall I saw the
whole Roman structure totter to the ground. That
is to say: the spiritual home, in which I had grown
and studied, in which I hoped to remain until the
coming of the Lord, in which I had concentrated all
my tenderest affection, and in which I had placed all
my consolation and all my ambitions! The expa
triated suffers nothing in comparison to the anguish
experienced when I was compelled to say : "Loves of
former times, away with ye, ye are not legitimate.
Hopes of former times, ye are false. Joys of yore, ye
also are fictitious." The fate of the shipwrecked
mariner is not sadder for losing his chart and com
pass, and being engulfed, than was mine, to see the
previously shining beacon of pontifical infallibility,
vanish before the advancing darkness which was to
surround and absorb me ; to feel the abyss yawn at my
feet, myself on the brink of plunging into the bottom
less chaos of despair! God Almighty, Thou knowest
that I prevaricate not, nor exaggerate. Thou didst
see more than once the burning and terrible tears of
distress bathe my cheeks! Thou didst witness that
during whole weeks I went about disconsolate, like
a man deprived of reason, without the sustenance of
life or restoring sleep! Blessed be Thou a thousand
times, for Thy help and comfort during that fearful
battle ! Blessed be Thou a thousand times because Thou
didst bring solace to my spirit and peace to my con
science ! Blessed be Thou a thousand times for teach-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I29
ing me to live in Thy universal Church, without any
need of Romanism; to invoke and believe in Thy
name and Thy doctrine, without the fabulous Romish
stories ! And you, kind reader, forgive this short
digression and come with me to listen to Clement the
Roman. What does this enlightened Pope say? Does he
proclaim the personal infallibility of the Roman Pon
tiff? Your Eminence should not forget, that for the
testimony to be admissible, it is necessary for it to
bear directly on the papal individuals, and that it de
clare that infallibility belongs to them, and will re
main with them, in perpetuity to the end of the world.
In accordance with sound judgment, as we go back
ward to the first centuries, we should find that pre
rogative more clearly and brilliantly defined; just as
we get nearer to the spring, the water should be more
transparent and pure, and as we go away from it,
it should be more turbid and less pure. Appealing to
your loyal impartiality as an American, and to your
frank sincerity as a writer, I ask, Is this general law
of history and of judgment observed where infallibility
is concerned? Are the primitive testimonies more ex
plicit or clearer than the secondary, and these in turn
more so than the last ones? And if the opposite is
exactly what does happen (and I do not believe Your
Eminence would venture to deny it), is this not an
almost certainty, that infallibility is one of the many
ecclesiastical myths created by history, and centralized
by the papacy? When the testimony of the Fathers
is taken as a whole, in harmony with the general laws
of historical evolution, we find in it a perfect accord,

130 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and we arrive at the evidence that infallibility is purely
of ecclesiastical origin. St. Clement is the first witness
to this true theory. Neither Catholic conscience, nor
Catholic intelligence, was yet prepared to receive the
enormous weight of a personal infallibility. The ex
ample of the apostles was too fresh in the mind of all,
to be openly falsified. For that reason Clement the
Roman,* disciple of Peter, acts and speaks like that
apostle. Like him, he addresses the Corinthians in
humble language, not with any attitude of authority,
as befitted an infallible Pope, but advising and ex
plaining, instead of ordering and excommunicating.
Let Your Eminence read any of the modern papal
bulls, and compare their style to that of Clement. In
the former you will see flashing the wrathful rays of
infallibility; in the latter the simplicity and humility
of a wise man seeking the truth, which he thinks he
possesses, and whHe so thinking transmits it to others.
But Your Eminence will see nothing that appears as
infallible. Lastly, and this is convincing to Roman
ism, the latter is headed and signed not as if an in
dividual Pontiff were speaking, as he should do if he
believed in personal infallibility, but as an expression
from the whole Roman collectivity, as an echo from
the Roman Church.
I ask Your Eminence, can a clear proof be adduced
that personal infallibility was not believed in in those
times ?
If the first Pope, in a public document and as we
might say now, ex cathedra, instead of resting on his
* Read Clemens Romanus : Letters to the Corinthians, by
Hefele.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I3I
own infallibility, rests on the collectivity of his own
Church, is this not clear proof that he did not believe
himself infallible? St. Clement's testimony proves
nothing in favor of Romanism, but a great deal against
it. Let us examine the second,^ St. Ignatius. This
Father did realize what he was doing. His testimony
could not bear out our theory with greater force. He
is already formulating, not the Roman infalhbility,
which is still too near the apostles, but the first firm
step of the episcopacy. How very unfortunate are
the Romanists who invoke his testimonies ! To intro
duce the letters of St. Ignatius for the purpose of
demonstrating the personal infallibility is for the Ro
manist to commit ecclesiastical suicide. Read care
fully, and it will be seen that he grants the first place
to the Roman Church, not over the whole world, but
over Italy and perhaps over the Occident. In the
eyes of St. Ignatius the episcopacy is developing
toward the metropolitan, and to each metropolitan he
makes the same concession as to Rome.
Poor pontifical infallibility! How badly you come
out of the hands of a writer, who believes there are
so many superior and infallible ones as bishops, prin
cipals or metropolitans ! Away, then, with his testi
mony, since it says nothing about the personal infalli
bility of the Popes, but on the contrary reduces the
Pontiff to a mere patriarch. Closely following these
two, comes St. Irenaeus." This writer appears some-
^ Read St. Ignatius' letter, by Hefele. Read Encyclopedia
Britannica : Head, Popedom.
" Read Migne : Patrologia, writings of St. Irenaeus.

132 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
what contradictory: on the one hand, he praises the
Roman See (not its infallibility, for on that we know
nothing as yet) : on the other, he assails the Popes and
St. Victor rather furiously and roughly, accuses them
of incompetence in passing on matters of general dis
cipline, that is to say, on matters that come fully within
infallibility. Then St. Irenaeus, far from admitting it,
denies it. The fourth witness is Bishop Hippolytus,
of Ponto.^ He seems like the new Paul of the first
centuries. In what bitter language does he censure
the Pontiffs, Zephyrinus and Calixtus ! He calls them
weak, loose, ignorant and ignoble. He threatens them
the same as a modern bishop would any vHlage
priest. It seems to me that when he used such lan
guage and took such liberties with the Popes men
tioned, he must have been far from considering them
as cloaked with the ineffable gift of infallibility.
Those who can reconcile such a behavior with the
belief in an infallible Pontiff, could also, we might say,
reconcile the Koran with the Gospel. One marvels
at the little importance given to such language by
Cardinal Gibbons. Why dispute about things that he
can see for himself? Let Your Eminence venture, by
way of trial, to censure any modern Pope, and let him
do so, not with the roughness employed by St. Irenaeus
against Victor, nor the barbarous discourtesy of Hip
polytus against Zephyrinus and Calixtus, but in meas
ured language and with studied courtesy, and Your
Eminence will soon see appear in the horizon the pon
tifical thunder and lightning, will very promptly be
' Read Migne : Patrologia, writings of St. Hypolitus, Bishop
of Ponto. Encyclopedia Britannica: Head, Popedom.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I33
deprived of hat and see, and as promptly Your Emi
nence's ecclesiastical destruction will follow. If the
pontifical power, after having been so much abused,
still continues to throw out anathemas as objects of
terror, what explosions it would not have caused in
the first centuries when at that time it was buoyant
and young? How in chorus with these holy Fathers
two others appear, who without being holy, are also
apostolic Fathers, and certainly among the most im
portant, one oriental, the other occidental, and both
quoted by Romanism as the strongest pillars of the
Church — Tertulhan and Origen. The first ener
getically reproves the Roman bishop for arrogating
to himself the ostentatious title of chief pontiff.* If
he had believed him infallible, would he have been
guilty of the contradiction of denying to him a title
that in some way referred to his authority? But the
one to feel acrimonious and scoffing is the immortal
Origen, the most learned encyclopedist of Christian-
ism, the one who best understood how to defend it
against the rationalist attacks of that epoch; the man
to whom the Church is most indebted on account of
his monumental writings, and for his inconceivable
labors in its defense. This learned man and apologist,
one of the greatest in the world, notwithstanding his
vast knowledge about ancient times, notwithstanding
his having known how to defend the Church, as no
one better, was in ignorance of what Romanism now
proclaims as its basis and foundation, namely: in
fallibility. And not thinking it important to deal
gravely with a question so arbitrary, he addresses
' Read TertuUian : De Pudicitia.

134 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
himself to the Roman Pontiff, and in somewhat jest
ing language, exclaims : " "If you suppose that Christ
founded His Church on Peter alone, what role do you
assign to the other apostles? What do you concede
to St. James and to St. John, whom Christ also sur
named 'sons of thunder,' to indicate their great im
portance ? " We will close this paragraph by stating,
as no impartial person will deny, that the sub-apostolic
Fathers knew nothing and said nothing about infalli
bility. And the councils? Let us follow Cardinal Gibbons
in the profitable investigation. The very existence of
the councils is the most obvious denial of that of in
fallibility. Why perform such long journeys and take
upon oneself such painful troubles, when the Holy
Ghost considered everything settled by a simple pon
tifical definition? If those wise heads had then be
lieved in what is now an article of faith of the Roman
ists, why grow excited over burning disputes, and
waste so much energy battling against each other,
since by merely exhibiting a simple formula to the
Pontiff, the latter determined the question in a trice
with the sanction of the irrefutable Holy Ghost?
Come, Cardinal Gibbons, let us reason like men and
not Hke Romanists. It is axiomatic in all argument
of a scientific and human order that when an end is
sought and there exist channels of obtaining it, one
long, difficult, laborious and unsafe, the other quick,
easy and secure, every sane man adopts the latter,
and only the mad and unbalanced one inclines to the
former. The essence of this identical principle is
° Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Popedom.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I35
translated in natural and sociological sciences as "the
line of least resistance ;" '" in the philosophical, that
beings must not be multiplied without necessity ; " in
the theological, that one must not have recourse to
supernatural forces, while the natural elements are
sufficient. But our conscience and our spirit are so
impregnated with this principle, that always and on
every occasion we decide what we believe easier in
difficulty; we choose the safe against the unsafe, the
surest against the doubtful. Even when we make a
mistake we keep the law, because our error consists
always, in that we believed we had chosen the easiest,
and it turns out afterward to be otherwise; but if we
asked our spirit why it inclined in a given direction,
rejecting others, it will always adduce the principle
named as the reason. To deny this principle, would
be to deny human rationality and wisdom. Let us
then apply this truth to the question under discussion,
not with a preconceived judgment, but with the pur
pose of discovering the truth. The Fathers, and the
common people of the earlier centuries, worked to
an end, namely: to define the true Catholic doctrine.
They were facing two channels : the one long, difficult
and unsafe, otherwise the councils, but in this way
they saw the councils assembled repeatedly, and the
heretics and their heresies increased ; the other channel
was simple, quick, and safer, to appeal to the Pope.
If those Christians had believed as the Romanists of
the twentieth century believe, in papal infallibility, was
" Read any scientific work on the subject.
" Read Cardinal Gonzalez : Philosophy ; and any other
author on this subject. P. Fernandez: Teologia Dogmatica;
and any other theologian on the subject.

136 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
it not a veritable madness and truly a crime not to
make the appeal ? Could not one single Roman decree
have silenced all disputes, as it would now silence
them to the believers in infallibility? If, then, infaHi
bility would now be fully and completely efficacious to
the believers, does not Your Eminence see as clear as
noonday, that if in bygone times it was not invoked
or had recourse to, it was because in truth there was
not any belief in it? If in the twentieth century in
fallibility suffices to prevent the disruption of the
doctrine (as your own statement),'^ how was it not
sufficient or enough during the centuries nearer to
Christ, when it should have been more vivid and re
splendent? If from Christ down to us the Church,
the whole Church,'^ has believed in infallibility, how is
it that in later centuries it can decide and judge, with
entire submission from the people, whereas in the ear
lier centuries it is neither invoked nor respected in the
manner now practised by Romanism ? If there should
crop up in America divisions in the faith, would not
Your Eminence as the pontifical delegate, apply to the
Roman See in preference to any council? Then, why
did not the old Fathers do as Your Eminence would
do, except because those Fathers did not believe in
what Your Eminence believes? This argument be
comes still stronger when we take into account that
between the fourth and the fifth centuries, such a state
of confusion was reached that St. Jerome himself is
responsible for the assertion that the world was dumb-
" Read Cardinal Gibbons : Chaps. VIII, IX, X and XI.
^ Cardinal Gibbons : Same chapters. Jaugey : Infalibilidad
(Infallibility).

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I37
founded, at having gone to bed Catholic and awakened
Arian, wise and holy men having been drawn into
error by the semi-Arians. If that happens, why did
not the Popes get up and by virtue of their infalli
bility, proclaim such clear and convincing judgments
as those of Pius IX in the Syllabus, of Leo XIII
against Americanism, and that of Pius X against
Modernism? How was it the bishops and the people
did not see that shining beacon that remained burn
ing on the Vatican, according to the Romanists, as
an infallible token ? '* Those not impressed by these
arguments, can be classed in the same category as the
Mahometan, who believes in all innocence that his
prophet took in the moon by his right sleeve, and
brought it out by the left, and when told that the
moon is too large and the sleeve too narrow, exclaims :
"Oh! Allah is great!"
But let us drop the first councils, since we must
bring them up again when dealing with the unity of
the doctrines, and let us now touch upon the worthy
councils of Constance and Basle. The Romanist ser
vility was never more odious and deserving of eternal
censure than when we see it treating with contempt
those two famous and most important councils, in
order to flatter the Popes. '° What assemblies ever
did more good to Christendom than these two vener
able councils? Who saved Latin Europe from Chris-
" Cardinal Vives : Compendium Theologicum Dogmaticum ;
De Infallibilitate.
^ To become acquainted with the state of the Church, read
Baronio, Rohrbacher, Hergenrother: Ecclesiastic History,
centuries XIII and XIV; also Cesar Cantu, on his General
History on the Condition of the Church, centuries XIII and
XIV.

138 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
tian bankruptcy, if not Constance and Basle? While
Christianity was divided among these Pontiffs, the
most subversive, the greatest of all scandals among
ecclesiastical powers, was the order of the day. From
Peiiiscola, residence of Benedict XIII, came excom
munications against Avignon and Rome, the respective
residences of Clement and Gregory. These, in turn,
sent back with interest the anathemas to the stubborn
one at Peniscola.'"
In the midst of all this frightful confusion the peo
ple knew not to whom to look. The College of Car
dinals, the universities, the episcopate kingdoms, re
ligious communities and the common people Hved in
complete subversion. The wicked applied first to one
Pope, then to another, in their endeavors to profit
from all. To some universities and religious com
munities there were three rectors and three superiors.
The Pontiffs, in their eagerness to proselyte, trafficked
in the benefices and ecclesiastic patronages. Coming
down from the heads, corruption carried gangrene
everywhere, over all the ecclesiastic body. All de
scription pales before such a state of things, in Latin
Europe. Yet, the council that terminated such dis
orders, the assemblies that halted those terrible calami
ties, are looked upon with contempt by the proud and
servile Romanist ! Even if Romanism had not been
guilty of a more despicable sin than its scornful con
tempt towards those venerable councils, that alone was
enough to remain branded with ignominious stigma,
like Cain. Far worse than a fratricide is he who
condemns to death those who gave us life, and who
" Read same authors and also Rives and Alzog.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I39
freed us from the inevitable religious hecatomb. And
all, for what reason ? For nothing more than because
when those respectable Fathers saw that the Popes
intended to establish themselves as supreme, and in
faHible over the ecumenic council, they declared the
sovereignty and infallibility of the latter over the
former.'^ But the most wondrous is that whHe deny
ing and affirming the authority of those councils, Ro
manism has caught itself in a blind alley. If the
councH was not above the Popes, how could it dis
miss them, and appoint another that is unanimously
considered by Romanism as legitimate? If on the other
hand it was superior to the Popes, how coordinate
this affirmation with Pius IX's bull already quoted
several times ? Of this hieroglyphic, we hope Cardinal
Gibbons may favor us with a deciphering, while we
continue to affirm that to all sincere and impartial
minds, the councils, as well as the Fathers and the
apostles, deny personal infallibility.
"Read Acts of the Council, already mentioned.

CHAPTER XII.
WILL IT BE POSSIBLE FULLY TO EXPLAIN THE PRIMACY
AND PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY BY SIMPLE
REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL LAWS
OF HISTORY?
WE have seen from the preceding chapters that
the apostles, sub-apostolic Fathers and the first
councils were far from believing in the centralization
of authority now attributed by Romanism to the sov
ereign Pontiff. How is the origin and development
of this mighty prerogative to be explained ? By whom
and how was that stupendous power established and
consolidated? This is a point well cleared up by the
progress of history. In so doing, it not only takes
away from Romanism the probability of the divine
origin, which has so far been entirely left out of all
discussion, but also the pretext for establishing an
authority and a power that is merely human. The
same general law has been followed with the pontifical,
as with any other similar power. The pontificate ap
pears as all other human institutions do, step by step,
and by successive additions, energetically preserved
and enlarged by the despotism of the Popes. History
teaches how the great human empires and monarchies
appear, and disappear, are consolidated and are swept
away, solving the question which certainly has nothing
mysterious or divine about it.
(140)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I4I
The first Church to appear is that at Jerusalem.
Its foundations are most liberal and highly demo
cratic ; mutual charity and respect for the apostles are
the only canons which rule that poor and humble con
gregation.' The apostles dream not of draping them
selves with that show of majesty, nor of exercising
that sovereignty that later will be the ostentatious
features of those calling themselves their successors.
In the first council we see assembled the apostles, the
elders and the common people. The democratic or
ganization still prevails over the aristocratic.
The second church to come forth is that at Antioch.^
Already a new, though slow and insignificant, step is
made; an advance takes places as a result of its dis
putes: the Church of Jerusalem creates the first visit
ing inspectors. This looks like a first step between
elders' and elders, that is to say, between priests and
bishops. There will yet come a period when those two
titles will serve to express one same and sole dignity,
consequently said dignity will frequently be called by
the two names. The distinction is not yet clear, but
the idea is progressing and it will soon take shape and
crystallize. We will find clear evidence in the last
days of St. John, that the bishops are leading and
acting like the heads of their respective churches. The
name of angels apphed to the seven chiefs of the
churches of Asia,' clearly indicates that there existed
already some priests over other priests. The episco-
' Read Acts, first chapters. Read Edw. Gibbon : Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, last chapter of the first vol
ume. "Acts, first chapters, and Chapter xv.
'Read the first verses of Revelation.

142 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
pate is already advancing ; the first step that will later
carry us up to the pontifical summit is already taken.
Soon a second wiH be added, then a third and a fourth,
and the lofty mystic ladder of the pontificate will be
completed. But to compare the first bishops with
the present ones, would be a sad mistake. The latter
are now assuming aristocratic ways ; neither the com
mon people, nor even the canonic, ever take part in
their decisions or resolutions.* Occasionally, out of
mere formality and respect for old age, the latter are
allowed a hearing, but without any obligation to fol
low their counsels : it is the latest theoretical remainder
of the old democracy, practically meaning nothing,
since the bishops retain their fullest liberty to act
against their advice. The original bishops were, on
the contrary, the first aristocratic element to be seen
in the midst of an entirely democratic environment.
The first bishops are the echo of their church ; priests
and common people participate in their councils and
have a voice in their election.^ The original bishop
is a chief, but he is withal democratic and comes of a
democratic community.
The second century will come, and in it St. Ignatius
will make a decided step toward the emancipation of
the episcopate, and will sow the first ideas of the
metropolitan, the second step of the pontifical ladder."
According to him, the episcopate is already a thing
apart, ranking above priests and common people. He
will soon appear as a teacher and judge, capable of
' Bouix : De Jure Canonico ; De Episcopes.
" Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Episcopacy.
" Read St. Ignatius'^ letters, by Hefele ; also Encyclopedia
Britannica : Head, Episcopacy and Bishop.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I43
deciding by himself aH questions that may arise in his
community. But we are still very far from Roman
centralism. We already have aristocratic forms to
rule the congregations, but these are entirely of a
federal character. Each bishopric will govern itself,
without one being subject to the other. The bishop
is the supreme chief of his congregation and is not
under the jurisdiction of any other chief. There may
be churches more or less important than others, ac
cording to the character of their founders or the num
ber of their followers, but each of them will be gov
erned entirely independent of the remainder. It is
the most federative aristocracy that reigns in this
epoch of the Church.
Soon, however, that federative character will par
tially weaken to make room for the monarchic' The
sees, in respect to their founders, or the city where
they are established, appear more worthy of respect
or more suitable to treat ecclesiastical matters, will
claim individual privileges or will consider themselves
above the others, and almost simultaneously the metro
politan and the patriarch appear. Already we have
another link in the great chain that is to encircle the
vast Christian family. In the mystic ladder of the
pontificate, the third step will appear in place. The
fourth and the most important one, will be still easier
to establish. Anyone believing that the metropolitan
and patriarchs appeared clothed in all the privileges
which they enjoyed later, would fall into error.' Just
' Read Eusebius : Ecclesiastic History ; Metropolitans and
Patriarchs. ° Darwin : Evolution of Species. Read Father Arintero :
The Evolution of the Species, and Philosophy.
11

144 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
as in their natural evolution, the species preserve some
atavic traces of their subordinate and lower kinds ; so
also human institutions develop, the larger keeping the
privileges of the inferior, and being equally restricted
by them. But as in nature the traces of the lower
species become lesser and lesser, while the high dis
tinctions predominate and become more and more
typical, so also in historical order, the high dignitaries,
who in the beginning appear almost equal to their im
mediate subalterns, soon become distant from them,
throw off their restrictions and destroy their priv
ileges. For this reason the metropolitan and patriarch,
who appeared as an equal among equals, and who
filled a presidential chair, as respectable as it was
honorable, will soon declare their supreme dignity and
greater jurisdictional power. The same thing hap
pens in respect to conciliar assemblies. While the first
Jerusalem Council " appeared entirely democratic, the
later assemblies, through the predominance of priests
and bishops, asserted their aristocratic tendencies. At
an epoch so far advanced as that of St. Cyprian, in
which the bishops and the metropolitan were already
well defined, the Church had not yet been able to en
tirely shake off the democratic element, for the com
mon people had still a voice in the provincial coun
cils.'" The sketch is now drawn. The Church will not go
back, and just as from democracy it passed on to aris
tocracy, as represented by the bishops, then to mon-
" Acts XV. Eusebius : First Councils.
'" Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
last chapter of the first volume.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I45
archy, as reflected by the metropolitans and patriarchs,
it wiH go on ascending till it reaches the imperial
Caesarism systematized by the Roman Pontiffs. The
mission of the Popes becomes easier and simpler. The
patriarchs have reduced difficulties by taking the
bishoprics under their care, while in turn the bishoprics
have absorbed the priests. The patriarchs being now
monopolized, the whole Church is centralized, and
Roman Caesarism can appear. No great astuteness
is needed to predict the victory for Rome. No Apos
tolic See contains the moral or historic prestige, or
the social elements that seem to surround Rome since
the fourth century, that is to say, from the time the
patriarchate flourishes. If in such conflict Rome were
not victorious, history would contradict itself, but
would fail in its general and evolutive principles.
Let us examine the question through the fairest
critics, and it will be seen that the balance will incline
towards Rome, rather than to any other patriarchate.
At that time the Roman See appears to the eyes of all
believers as sanctified and fecundated by the blood of
innumerable victims, especially by the venerable blood
of Peter and Paul. It is believed that a congregation
taught by such sublime heads must preserve better
than any other the trust of the revelation; that in it
must be found purer traditions, hoHer examples. At
that time Rome appears like a new Jerusalem. Had
not this sacred city been destroyed," had not the com
mon people so often dispersed from it, Jerusalem
could have disputed the primacy with Rome. For
there also reposed the ashes of the illustrious Stephen ;
there ran also the venerable blood of St. James, and

146 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
again there remained the memory of the coming of
the Holy Ghost, the meeting of the first council, and
ever so many other not-to-be-forgotten traditions. But
Jerusalem was almost destroyed by the war, and when
she tried to raise herself she found herself preceded
not only by the Roman patriarchate, but also by the
Oriental patriarchs themselves. There remained, con
sequently, only Rome, and in respect to moral and his
torical prestige, she was in a better position than any
other patriarchate. Which among them could have
shown the tombs of two such venerable apostles as
Peter and Paul? Which among them could head and
sign their writings with these august words : "Thus
received by us from Peter and Paul"? On questions
of dogma and morals, what other words, or what other
names, could be more eloquent?
But here we must determine the scope of our words.
When we speak thus it is not because we believe that
the question of whether Peter was in Rome or not has
been entirely settled. After having read, as we think,
everything of any importance written by the Catholics
on this obscure subject, after having visited every
place supposed to have been sanctified by Peter, and
after having prayed before a venerable tomb, we do not
believe that question so entirely exempt from doubt as
to say that it can be assented to as altogether certain.
In speaking thus, we limit " ourselves to the opinion
prevalent at that epoch and that century, which can be
affirmed as positive, namely, that at that time every
one believed that Peter had been in Rome, and there
" This was the belief of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St.
Basil, St. Chrysostom, etc.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I47
died. If any Romanist believes there is any contra
diction between this categorical affirmation and our
own doubts, we would reply to him: Go to Spain,
compare the most ancient and venerable traditions, ex
amine all their historians from the beginning to the
end of the Middle Ages ; examine foreign historians
of those sarne times, and you will find them all as one,
in affirming that St. James the Elder was there a
long time. The history of Spain, its edifices, its re
ligious worships, are alike saturated with said tradi
tion, and yet what historian would venture in the midst
of the twentieth century, to give out as a certainty
the going of St. James to Spain and his staying
there?" One may state a tradition generally believed of
some known epoch, yet the principle on which it is
based may nevertheless be doubtful; but for our pur
pose we are satisfied that it was so admitted, and in
effect it was so believed in those times. To this moral
and historic prestige, in itself very worthy of con
sideration, must be added another very potent social
reason. With or without the emperors '^ Rome con
tinued to be the head of the empire. There was situ
ated the Roman consulate and the imperial magistracy.
From there the laws emanated. There, converged all
the important means of communication. Rome was
the supreme city in all those centuries.'* This is so
'" Read Natal Alexander : Ecclesiastic History. Baronio,
Rohrbacher, Hergenrother : Ecclesiastical History, about St.
James. ^' Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
" Read Gibbon : Same heading, about Constantine and his
close successors.

148 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
potent a reason that she alone in the long run could
determine centralization. Look, for instance, at Con
stantinople. Her see does not possess the moral or
historic prestige of Rome. No apostle ever established
it, and it was only because the emperor of the Orient
habitually resided there, that Constantinople carried
the other sees immediately after her, and proclaimed
herself superior to the other patriarchates. Add to
Rome this same reason, and you will appreciate that it
was logical and conformable with the general laws of
history that centralization should appear in Rome, and
the patriarchal sees should there by preference become
consolidated. To these two most weighty causes a third must be
added, namely, the question of the appeals. Starting
with the third century, the Orient lives in a continu
ous theological agitation. Dogmatic disputes multi
ply with astounding rapidity, and as a consequence,
excommunications and removals from office follow
each other in great number.'^ There are historical
epochs in which patriarchs and bishops live entirely in
constituted parties, one against the other, bishops and
patriarchs excommunicating and removing from office
each other with frightening ease. Confusion and dis
order invade everything in the Orient, and yet the
Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the Occident, is en
joying the peaceful possession of his pontificate. In
the Occident there were fewer and much less important
heresies. Everything turned toward Rome as a much
"Eusebius: Ecclesiastic History; First Centuries. Fleury,
Rohrbacher and Rivas: Ecclesiastic History about the First
Centuries.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I49
more impartial and venerable center. Consequently
the appeals to Rome became very frequent. Taking
this circumstance as their standing ground, the Roman
ists claim to base upon it their most powerful argu
ment in defense of the Papacy.'"
We have already said that this could in no way
prove the divine origin of such primacy, and we
might, therefore, pass on: nevertheless, we prefer to
dispel the reasons which, as we have seen, do not
emanate from the apostles, and, therefore, do not exist,
but are pretexts. Only through ignorance of history
and lack of theological acumen can Romanism have
attached so much importance to a circumstance that is
merely a historical phenomenon like any other, purely
human. A falling man clings to anything he can, to
recover his footing. In the Orient the fallen ones
were so numerous, had so little faith in their claims
at home, because those that could help them were their
opponents, that one cannot wonder at the great num
ber of their appeals to Rome. As an evident proof
that what we are stating is the truth, the same
phenomenon produces the same effects in the Occident,
although on a smaller scale, because the occasions are
less frequent." Rome condemns Felician and Nova-
tus, and these appeal from Rome to Carthage. St.
Cyprian is condemned in the Occident by the Patri
arch of Rome, and Cyprian, the great Cyprian, whom
'" Read Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers ; Su
premacy, Infallibility of the Popes. Also consult such au
thors as Rohrbacher, Rivas, about the epoch of heresies of
Occident and their insignificant importance.
" Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ;
last chapter of the first volume.

ISO ROMAN CATHOLICISM
some Romanists consider as one of their own, does
not scruple to appeal to the Orient against the Occi
dent. As may be seen, the phenomenon is general,
and for those who know how to read history, it has
no more meaning than that the fallen look to recover
themselves, no matter how. On the other hand here
is a consideration that we venture to submit to the
profound theological learning of Cardinal Gibbons ;
examine the spirit of the appeals and consultations,
and the admissions and answers of the first Popes,
and it will be seen that what principally moves both,
is the belief that the Roman Church keeps less corrupt
the doctrines of the apostles. It seems as if the ex
istence of their memorable bodies was looked upon as
a kind of mystic presendng salt." More than the
personality of the Pope there appears the Roman col
lectivity, the doctrine professed in Rome, the Roman
religious atmosphere. It is not their belief in the ex
istence there, of a person endowed with infaHibility,
which belief will take shape much later, but that in
Rome, owing to the apostolic example, and to the apos
tolic teachings, error becomes less likely. Let us illus
trate this doctrine by some examples. Even now when
the Franciscan desires to revive his spirit he has re
course to Assisi and to Alvernia. He must believe
that there, the surroundings are filled with the spirit
of his patriarch ; that those fathers living where their
chief lived, that those houses inhabited in former times
by him, those craggy grounds over which Francis
walked, those meadows trod by him, that heaven con-
"Read St. Athanasius of Alexandria: St. Ignatius, Patri
arch of Constantinople.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I5t
templated by him, in short, that everything must con
tribute to keep purer and more genuine their spirit.
The Jesuit still repaires to the holy cave of Manresa
to the novitiate of Loyola, and listens with ecstasy to
the marvels related to him of his illustrious father, by
his brothers who live there. He questions and con
sults them, believing that there, better than elsewhere,
must be reflected the legitimate Ignatian spirit. It
may be said that the Franciscan and the Jesuit be
lieve that their brethren are endowed with some ex
traordinary privilege. No, what they do believe is
that in those places better than in others, on account
of the local conditions, it is more difficult to falsify
or lose the genuine spirit of their founders.
Our case is simply analogous. Rome is applied to,
not because it is believed that the Roman Patriarch
possesses any personal virtues that others do not pos
sess, but because the circumstances attending the first
differ from the circumstances surrounding the sec
ond.'" As anyone can see, these two questions are
very distinct: One, to apply to Rome, because there
the true doctrine is believed to be kept ; the other,
to apply tO' Rome, because there exists a Pontiff who
is believed to be gifted with the divine prerogative of
infallibility. To mix up the two questions, and to
pass from one to the other, will be easy to the be
liever, but to the learned, this is prohibited by logic
and by history. Looking into history impartially and
minutely, it is understandable and explainable how
the centraHzation of power should take place in Rome
" Study the body of this chapter on the appeal to Rome in
the first centuries, where this affirmation is well defined.

152 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and under the safeguard of the Occidental patriarch
and for his own benefit. Even more, if there had
not occurred any disagreement between the German
Empire and the Papacy; if the scandalous schisms
of the Occident, that so greatly weakened Roman
prestige, had not issued forth when they did, then
infallibility would have been reached in the fourteenth
century, instead of in the nineteenth.^" Without these
two circumstances, everything would have been bet
ter prepared for it then than in later times, because
of a perfectly accomplished centralization. The mod
ern doctrine about the Pope, being due to the issuance
of the False Decretals, and especially to the writings
of St. Thomas ^' and St. Bonaventure, were success
fully taught everywhere. But these two facts mili
tated so deeply against Roman prestige, especially the
schisms, that not even in the nineteenth century was
it possible to arrive at a peaceful and universal agree
ment. Anyone knowing well what occurred at the Vatican
Council, will have still another proof of how very
human was the said prerogative, and how true are the
principles that led us to combat it. For the common
people, who generally know by halves or not at all,
the things ecclesiastical, the Vatican Council conceives
something like a pastoral idyl, similar to the Apostles'
Cenacle when the Holy Ghost descended ; and as if in
the most solemn moments, given to voting and defini-
'"Read Rohrbacher, Baronio, Riv.s, Alzog, in reference to
the schisms of Occident and differences between the Empire
and the Papacy.
^ St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure : About the Pope ; spe
cially the latter.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 1 53
tion, there supervened a terrible storm, the thunder
sounded with a crash and clamor seldom heard in
Rome, and as the lightning with its sinister brilliancy
illumined the timorous and pallid faces of the reverend
members of the Council, they have claimed to see an
other proof that that was a manifest symbol of the
visible presence of the Holy Ghost.^^ How many
clergymen believe it was so! In our numerous ex
cursions about towns and villages, we have heard such
tales narrated with sincere candor and enjoyment by
wearers of the cassock. History relates that when John
Huss ^' found himself close to the blaze in which he
was to die, he saw coming a poor old woman panting
and hurrying to throw a small bundle of wood on the
flames. That unfortunate man, -worthy of a better
name, then exclaimed: O sancta simplicitas! (O holy
simplicity!) That is what the true historian should
answer to those innocent enthusiasts, in their earnest
ness to see in the lightning and in the thunder the
beneficent presence of the Holy Ghost. If it were said
that the outer storm were symbolical of the storm
within; if it were said that the atmospheric com
motions wc e but a pale reflection of the moral con
vulsions tl.at inwardly agitated the members of the
Council, one would have not perhaps a historical con
clusion, but a rhetorical figure to depict graphically
the eventful, turbulent and stormy Vatican Council ! ^*
As history goes, the bishops might be classified by
^^ Mateos Gagos : Chronicles of the Vatican Council. Cua-
drado: About the Vatican Council.
^Castelar: Revolucion Religiosa; Ejecucion de St. Juan
de Huss.
'^ Mateos, Gagos and Cuadrado : Same hea Is.

154 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
nationalities.^^ The Germans opposed definition with
all their strength. They were followed by more than
half the Austrians and Hungarians. All the French,
without exception, not only avoided the definition but
headed the opposition and organized the fight against
it. As an ornament to this great army there were the
American prelates, who also were unanimous in their
resistance to dogmatic definition. The Spaniards, to
a man, were in favor of it. Though it may not be
very flattering to say so, the love of truth in the
Spaniard is above false patriotism. How different
was the Spanish Episcopate of Trent from the Vati
can ! ^" That episcopate, with a fortitude that does
it honor, with a profound and practical wisdom that
ennobles it, faces the Vaticanists and tells them : Your
abuses and exaggerations are the cause of the Protest
ant reform. Our principal task must be to correct
you, and mend you first, and afterward to resolve the
dogmatic questions. And so great was the persistence
cf the Spanish episcopate, and so great the resistance
of the Vaticanists (of whom it may be said in pass
ing that it flatters them greatly to correct others, but
they never submit to self-correction), that the Council
of Trent was near breaking away and producing a
schism. What a great change for the worse has taken
place in the language of the Spanish episcopate at the
Vatican, compared with the language employed by the
immortal Bishop of the Canaries, Melchor Cano.^'
'' Same authors and heads mentioned.
^¦^ Rivas: Lecciones de Historia Eclesiastica (Ecclesiastic
History's Teachings) ; the same head. Hergenrother : Same
head. ¦"Read the manuscripts referring to Philip II, National

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 155
He was the illustrious author of the best modern
theological treatise, the first who knew how to pre
sent religion in a systematized form, the science of
history, philosophy and theology.^' This author, who
was also one of the most learned theologians of the
sixteenth century, used to say to the king, Philip II,
one of the most fervent and pious of monarchs : "We
cured Babylon, but she did not heal (Curavimus Baby-
lonem et non est sanata). Let us give her up!"
"Babylon" is the Vatican ; reform is the cure at
tempted at Trent; the result is that the Vatican re
mains as before. And, continued that learned author,
in his official report "The Vatican could only be cor
rected by famine. Its epicurean dignitaries are more
sensitive to physical pain than to the evils of the
faith. Let no one send one cent of money to Rome.
Let the monarchy take the proceeds of the annats, or
yearly income, benefices, patronages, and so forth, and
Your Majesty will see how promptly Rome softens
and enters on the right road." And he would stiH
add something by saying that the Pope without his
cap on, could also be slapped.^"
Many other weighty declarations are made in the
same report by that most energetic of bishops and
wisest of theologians of the sixteenth century to the
greatest believer and most pious of kings. What a
difference between the language of one and that of
Library of Spain ; also can be read, Menendez Pelavos :
Heterodoxos, which is a complete extract.
^ Menendez Pelayo : Lugares Teologicos, which is the first
of its class.
™ These and other affirmations can be read in the same
author and book cited on 28.

156 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the other, between one's conduct and the other's, and
— why not say it? — ^between one kind of learning and
the other! The Spanish bishops were followed by
nearly all the Italians, the South American, and by
small numbers from other places.^" So that on one
side, sound independence is represented by the Ameri
cans ; historic and exegetical theology by the Germans ;
sociological philosophy and practical sense are mir
rored by French and Austrians; and facing them
servile Italians, poorly educated Spaniards, and hum
ble people from the south and other places.
Alas! Had not Jesuitism played so important a
role, had not that Jesuitism, which never bends before
the Pope, nor before Congregations when they resolve
anything against it, displayed so much energy, we
should not have yet an infallible Pope ! And to those
who are incapable of divining the diabolical Jesuitical
machinations their conduct must appear false and con
tradictory ; but it was highly practical for the purposes
they have conceived, and constantly pursue, namely:
absolute predominance over the other orders, and
vengeance against the episcopate, that did them so
much harm by their expulsion.^' They began by re-
^ Mateos Gagos: Cronicas del Concilio Vaticano (Chroni
cles of the Vatican Council).
°' Concerning this point see report of the Spanish Episco
pate, opposed to the Jesuits in answer to some questions of
Minister Aranda. Some portions of it may be seen in the
Spanish Heterodox, by Mr. Menendez Palayo. In the nu
merous disputes that Jesuitism had with the Papacy, the for
mer always ignored the latter. For instance, on the all-impor
tant question concerning the venerable Palafox, Rome decided
in favor of the latter, but even now Jesuitism continues vili
fying him. On the abominable and scandalous questions be
tween St. Joseph, of Calazans, and Father Piedra Santa,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 157
stricting the time of the meetings, to limit the duration
of the addresses, so that the opposition had only the
shortest time possible at their disposal. The flattery
of the Papists, and promises to them became visibly
conspicuous, as did the scorn and hidden threats
against the opponents : ^^ rumors went the length of
saying that the Pope was willing to decree infallibility
with the council or without it ; it was even said that if
infallibility was not voted for, by a certain date, a
papal bull would be issued proclaiming it, and dis
solving the council. What was the opposition to do
under those circumstances? Proclaim the schism?
Declare itself in open rebellion? That would have
caused an immense evil. There was no other decj-
rous remedy, but an energetic, though dumb, protest,
and such a step was taken.''^ The more conspicuous
members of the council commenced to depart one by
one, so as not to soil their hands by affixing their
signatures to what was contrary to their convictions,
and they awaited the event in their respective dioceses,
announcing to them the finalization of the catastrophe.
Jesuit, Rome decided in favor of the former, but even now
Jesuitism seeks to pall the judgment by endeavoring to be
atify a man who acted as a veritable monster of iniquity. On
the memorable questions of idolatrous worship, and that of
Cardinal Noris, notwithstanding Benedict XIV's threats of
excommunication against the obstinate Jesuits, the latter even
now claim to have right with them. In the last political con
troversies among the Spaniards the General of the Jesuits
deceived Leo XIII by agreeing to and signing a public docu
ment which he afterward commanded his subordinates to
disobey. Consult The Jesuits at Home, by the learned ex-
Jesuit, Father Mir; Beatification and Canonization Process,
by St. Joseph of Calazans, and Crisis of the Order of Jesuits,
by Pey Ordeix.
'" Mateos Gagos' previously mentioned work.
"^ Same author and head.

158 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Three other bishops raised a protest after the act had
been signed, by saying that they could not believe in
a dogma that seemed to them false, but their protest
was not heard, not respected. The Pope approved
what had been done and thundered the most tremen
dous excommunications against those who had not im
mediately submitted to the infallibility.^* There you
have, kind reader, the historical and ecclesiastical
origin of what is called infallibility. In the next
chapter you will see explained the dangers it contains
for the Church itself. In this chapter you will have
seen that it is a thing entirely human, commenced by
social necessities and consummated by the uncon
trollable eagerness of the Popes to command, trampling
under foot the independence of the concHiar Fathers,
and the liberty of the Church, in order to obtain it.
"* Pius IX : Bull promulgating the Council.

CHAPTER XIII.
BEWILDERING AND FATAL CONDITION OF THE ROMAN
CHURCH, SUBSEQUENT TO THE PONTIFICAL
INFALLIBILITY.
AS His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons can see, by
the title of this chapter, far from believing that
the infallibilty is of any advantage to the Church,
we consider it not only anti-biblical and anti-historical,
as demonstrated in the preceding chapters, but also
anti-social and rash in the highest degree. Such
rashness can destroy all the religious edifice, and de
molish at one stroke the whole of religion.
We are aware of the weight of such an assertion,
and without the potent reasons in our possession mak
ing it possible to demonstrate such an assertion, we
certainly would not venture to launch it forth. The
Pope is as much subject to human infirmities as any
plain mortal.' Sin may invade his conscience, as any
other Christian conscience. Now, among the sins that
a Pope may commit, is the sin of heresy and infidelity :
that is to say, a Pope can be as heretical as any other
Christian.^ I know there are authors who deny " such
^ Read Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers. Hettin
ger and Casanova : Fundamental Theology ; head, Infalli
bility of the Popes. Perrone, Schouppe, Hurter: Theology;
same head.
^ S. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio : Pope. Cardinal Vives ; Com
pendium of Canon Law, on the election of Pope. Jaugey:
Same work; head, Pope.
° Augustine P. Fernandez: Teologia Dogmatica, about the
12 (159)

l6o ROMAN CATHOLICISM
a possibility, but they are few in number and of little
importance. The apotheosis of the Pontiff has not
been reached yet, although, as we shall see later, the
road has already commenced to be opened. However
distasteful this may appear to Romanists, the flower
and the most select Roman authors proclaim, that
heresy may be incurred by any Pope, and also that a
Pope may be unfaithful. And if such a case super
vened. Cardinal Gibbons, what means has Romanism
to avoid total ruin and self-destruction? The Roman
ists are wont to answer with charming candor, with
astounding simplicity: "Ah! in such a case he would
cease to be Pope, in such a case he would be ex
pelled from the Church." * But how can he be ex
pelled and by whom? According to your doctrine
the Pope is unimpeachable ; ^ neither a bishop nor
an assembly of bishops; neither the cardinal, nor a
meeting of cardinals; neither the Church singly nor
an ecumenic council of churches, can resolve anything
about the inviolable person of the Pontiff.' If the
whole of them are something with him, without him
they are nothing, absolutely nothing. Can nothing
ness rise, and judge him, who is something? If the
Pope is a heretic, and as such, wishes to destroy the
Infallibility of the Pope. The Romans thought so much of
this work that they published a special edition and recom
mended it very strongly in Spain.
' Read S. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio. Cardinal Vives : On
the subject of the Pope.
° Cardinal Vives : Compendium of Canon Law. Bertier :
Compendium of Theology ; the Pope. Vives : Dogmatic The
ology; The Pope.
' Read Encyclical of Pius IX to the Fathers of the Vatican
Council. Also read Casanova, Fernandez, Jaugey, speaking
of the Pope.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. l6l
Church, by what means does Romanism expect to save
itself from the final catastrophe? We do not know
whether Your Eminence has ever pondered over this
serious question; but we can assure Your Eminence,
that it occurred to us at the moment we had thorough
ly grasped the subject of infallibility and its conse
quences, and found no satisfactory answer.
To expect the intervention of Providence by some
miracle, may be a very simple matter for the illiterate
believer; but this is anti-rational and anti-theological
for anyone who looks upon things with impartial and
scientific judgment. God might answer to afflicted
Romanism: "Fearest thou the idol thou didst raise
without my consent shall fall on thy shoulders?
Fearest thou that its fall will crush thee? Thou
shouldst have thought before, as thou couldst have
done with the help of my Holy Books and thy own
reason." It is anti-theological because theology bars
the miracle, if there is no need of it. And again we
ask. If such a case supervenes, what means has Roman
ism to avoid its total ruin? To believe that the
Church can throw off the Pope, is the greatest of
absurdities and contradictions.^ To suppose that this
Pope wishes to go of his own accord, before he is
thrown out, is the most foolish simplicity and a con
tradiction of history.* Why, there is no one who
clings to his home as does the Pope to his See. Ex-
' Besides the latter authors, read Ferraris, Bouix : who dem
onstrated that not a legal way could be found.
° Read Rohrbacher, Baronio, Rivas and Cesar Cantu, regard
ing the schisms of the Occidents, and you can see how hard
the great many antipodes fought for their See. The old
saying of John Huss is well applied here, in which he states
"They look like three mad dogs fighting for a bone."

l62 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
cepting one who history tells us was deceived, and
abdicated, and expiated his foolishness in a dungeon
where his successor lodged him, otherwise a Pope to
be removed would have to be swept out of the Vatican
as is done with obnoxious insects. But who would be
the first to hold the broom and dare say : "At him !"
There exists a fable well known in all civilized
nations and translated almost in every language, that
fits our case. Wishing to be freed from the butchery
caused by a cat, among certain rats it occurred to a
very old rat who knew the cat well, that the best
thing to do would be to attach a bell to the cat. All
thought the idea excellent. They received the sugges
tion with frantic rejoicing ; but when a third rat reap
peared with the bell, and put the question, "Which one
of you dare attach the bell to the cat?" they all with
drew sad and crestfallen, with the final result that the
cat ended by exterminating them all. That is also the
question in the hypothesis, that the Pope falls into
heresy. Who will dare attach the bell to the cat?
Who will dare cry out : "The Pope is a heretic ! Out
with him"? None of the rats in the fable dared, be
cause it meant certain death; none of the common
people will dare, because each one of them knows that
his moral death will immediately be decreed, and that
if the Pope enjoyed temporal power beside excom
munication, he would expiate his insolence at the
stake, as happened to Savonarola " for denouncing
as he did the crimes of a Pope which were an affront
against humanity and well known to the general
public. Granting, therefore, infallibility, Romanism
° Read Rivas about Savonarola.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 163
has no remedy but to perish, if ever a heretic Pope
should occupy Peter's chair, and as this is possible,
the danger of destruction which threatens Romanism
since the passage of infallibility is also probable.
Again, no Pope '" is exempt from human infirmities ;
among these, there is partial insanity and there is total
madness. If this supervenes, what is to be done with
an insane or mad Pope ? Shall he continue managing
and governing the Church ? Can Your Eminence con
ceive the holiest and greatest institution in the hands
of a madman? Is it understandable that the supreme
head of the whole Church, who appoints cardinals and
bishops, who binds and unbinds, according to justice
and charity all the weightiest questions, can perform
so complex, grave and august a mission, being mad,
insane or decrepit? And if that accident happens"
and you gentlemen, including Your Eminence, under
stand and admit such a possibility, what must be done
with an insane and mad Pope? He shaH be dismissed
and another shall be elected. But how and by whom?
Have you not raised the Pope above all human judg
ment? Why appeal afterward to that very Church
that you have tied hand and foot, and delivered to
the Pope, as if it were a plain thing that he can un
make and dash to pieces ? '^ In such cases there is
"Read any of the authors- mentioned on the subject of In
fallibility. " Read the authors above mentioned, and specially Cardinal
Antonelli, on his written statement to Pope Pius VI. He
clearly states that Clement XIV was insane. Cardinal Paca
was of the same opinion, and he adds that Pius VII was also
in danger of becoming insane. This was also the opinion of
Cardinal Gonsalbi.
'^ Read Encyclical of Pius IX to the Fathers of the Vatican
Council.

164 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
no remedy whatsoever, according to your doctrine,
except to stand by the insane Pope, and put up with
his madness. To say anything else would be to con
tradict yourselves, and to demolish what it has cost
you so much to construct.
Therefore, infallibility, instead of being so inesti
mable a boon as Your Eminence believes, is a most
grave danger, it is the sword of Damocles forever
threatening to fall upon Romanism and to kill it. Let
us suppose another thing, that the Pontiff be stricken
with a general paralysis, which unfits him for per
forming any rational act. What is to be done then
with the Pope? Would he have to be sent to some
papal infirmary while another is put in his place?
Would he be given, as is done with the Bishops, an
assistant ? But how and by whom ? Where '* is there
record of the Church possessing such privileges since
it has entirely capitulated before the Pope, since the
latter has wrested from it all the rights it might in
voke ? Let us go further : Imagine that the Pope, as
happens sometimes with some prelates, lives to such
an age that it may become physiologically impossible
for him to think and reason sensibly and rationally, or
that he enters his dotage. What must we do with him ?
Shall his ramblings be respected as mandates from
heaven? Who will dare deny that any of these com
mon accidents may overtake the Pope, especially the
last accident? Some evil tongues say that in his last
days, Leo XIII had already commenced to be irrational,
as generally happens to old people at his age. If
" Comment : The Encyclical of Pius IX and the canon of
the Vatican Council.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I65
heresy supervene, madness, paralysis or dotage, what
will be done with the prerogative of infallibility?
Shall we continue believing that a heretic who is out
of the Church, must manage the Church? That a
madman who is incapable of performing any rational
act, can be at the head of the most universal and com
plicated government? That a paral)4ic, with general
paralysis, unfit to perform any act, can guide the
greatest and most difficult of human government?
Shall we quietly trust to one who raves on matters
as delicate as are those of our conscience, and the
weightiest questions as are those of our faith?
And if the thought alone of this arouses us, we
ask again: What means has Romanism to deliver
itself from the immense and irrefutable evils that an
accident of this nature, a probable one according to
Romanism's own'* teachings, may bring to it? We
believe we know the best Roman theologians and
canonists, and we answer frankly that there is no ade
quate reply to this question. We respectfully chal
lenge Your Eminence to give us a satisfactory one if
it exists. If there is none, we repeat, What shall we
reply to heresy, and to error, when we find ourselves
in any of these conditions, as unfortunate as they are
probable? Shall we cross our arms (before heresy
and error) and say to them: "Alas! now that our
Pope has turned heretic, or become insane, we cannot
infallibly disprove thee; but wait until there rises a
faithful Pope or a sane one and then thou shalt be
punished with the most terrible excommunications;
"Read the authors already mentioned on the subject of the
Pope.

l66 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
then we shall have the sanction of the Holy Ghost,
and with this thou shalt be attacked and vanquished
by the supreme Pontiff?" If during any of these
periods great conflicts and important cases should
come up, matters entirely assumed by the pontificate,'^
will the litigants dare trust their business to a raving
maniac? Because according to Romanism the lower
dignitaries are forbidden, under severe punishments,
to decide grave questions. Would the party losing
the case submit and consider the judgment as binding,
if he has the knowledge that his case was decided by
an irrational person ? Ah ! that would be the greatest
of absurdities, that would be to ignore the human
heart, that would be to entirely forget the history of
mankind! And let it not be forgotten, that just as
the Pope is liable to each and all of those accidents,
he may remain affiicted by them for years and years!
How many times have we not seen paralytics in that
lamentable condition, who lived for ten or fifteen years
and even longer! How many times have we not seen
madmen passing the greatest part of their lives in
that horrible condition? How often has not an old
man lived many years after having entered his dotage ?
What, then, shall the Church do during all that time?
Shall it live in continual anarchy ? Shall it learn to^ do
without infallibility? And what about the grave cases
that may come up, the heresies that may arise, and
other matters requiring immediate attention? Who
will take a leading place in the Church to decide them ?
" Leo XIII : Encyclical on the Unity of the Church. Car
dinal Vives : Compendium on Canon Law ; head, Rights of
the Pope. Bouix : Canon Law, volume. Pope.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 167
Who will venture to decide matters demanding an
urgent solution? Alas, Cardinal Gibbons, Cardinal
Gibbons ! Infallibility may appear at first sight an
excellent recourse; but looked into profoundly and
minutely, it is a frightful and terrible calamity that
may destroy everything. Do not believe that these
words come from a sectarian! They come from a
deeply afflicted soul, that sees the Church rolling down
to the abyss ; they come from a mind profoundly con
vinced that those who defined infallibility as a gift
from heaven, digged the grave in which to bury the
Roman Church, and woe to us if we do not hasten to
fill the hole! If we do not soon, and that with all
energy of our spirit, it will be too late when one of
those accidents occurs.
We are now going to- present a fact that will demon
strate to Your Eminence how the complete power
granted to the Pontiffs by infallibility, is not only
censured by the lukewarm Catholics and denied by
the heretics, but that it causes also the constant worry
of the wisest and purest men of piety. Does Your
Eminence doubt that one of the Catholic bodies, most
worthy of consideration for its wisdom and piety, is
the German Center ? '" Which of the world's political
Catholic bodies has accomplished more victories in be
half of the Church than the German Center? Which
other body has worked more wisely in defense of the
Catholic faith ? ''' Anyone knowing something about
Theology, Exegesis, History, Canonical Law, Apolo-
" Read the work translated from German into Spanish ;
namely: German Center and German Catholics.
" You can find this by consulting any modern Catholic Bib
liography.

l68 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
getics, Sociology, etc., is aware that nearly all that is
best, originate from Germany, and from members be
longing individually to the German Center. Aye, with
in that Center, the flower and the cream of Catholic
wisdom, there was formed a secret society composed
of the best and most praiseworthy of that excellent
group. And is Your Eminence aware of the principal
aim of that secret society, and the weightiest oath the
members of it took? Well, let Your Eminence won
der, for their principal aim, their weightiest oath was
an undertaking to restrict and to disable the power
granted to the Pontiff by the definition of infallibility.
We are dealing with a most grave matter, necessary
to be corroborated by undoubted and trustworthy testi
mony. The journal that conveyed to astonished
Europe the news that such a society existed was El
Osservatore Romano,^^ written in the Vatican under
the direction and inspection of the Pope. That journal
asserted that personages of the highest lineage, both
civil and ecclesiastical, praiseworthy for their wisdom
and virtue, were the parties compromised, and it went
on to say that Pope Pius X was so grieved in making
sure of the existence of that society, and becoming
acquainted with some of its members, that he sickened
and took to his bed! That editorial was reproduced
in Spain by such inspired reviews as Razon y Fe of
the Jesuits, and La Ciudad de Dios of the Augus-
tines. This occurred about the middle of the year 1907.
" Read the reviews, Razon y Fe and La Ciudad de Dios. In
the numbers previously indicated you will find the citation of
the Roman observatories.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 169
Let Your Eminence add to this the example of Car
dinal Newman,'" who circumscribed infallibility to the
extent of denying it to documents like the Syllabus.
Add also the example given by yourselves with your
"Americanism," "" a chapter of which sought to re
strict the practice of infallibility as much as possible,
showing profound tact and foresight. Take into ac
count the recent petition from a large portion of the
Italian, English and French clergy against the last
condemnation of Modernism by Pius X. Connect all
these facts and manifestations and you will see how
infallibility, instead of bringing about the much de
sired peace and unity, is a veritable cause of anxiety
and horror.
If it were our purpose to write a work of scandal
we could adduce many more declarations on the sub
ject from the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries and
many other references from most important person
ages. Your Eminence would then see how in the
soundest Catholic conscience there exists a genuine
yearning to correct by any possible means this Vati-
canist error. Alas, if you would but approach nearer
to the center ! If you would but hoist the flag of res
toration! What an immense good you would do to
Christianity! The black clouds already closing over
our heads would at once disperse, and you would pave
the way to facilitate the fraternal union of all Chris
tian societies and congregations !
Not only are there difficulties relating to personal
infallibility with the infirmities inherent to all human
"Read Jaugey: Head, Syllabus.
^ Leo XIII : Encyclical on Americanism.

170 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
beings, but there are also worse evils, when we con
sider the papal election in the same connection. Let
us suppose that the friction between the Vatican and
the Italian government should become more acute,
that the socialist party which is rapidly gaining
ground, should rise into power, that it should take
possession of the Vatican, and close the doors on the
death of any Pope. Which cardinals would elect the
next Pope? The Spanish in their country? The
French in theirs ? Would the others accept an election
made by their fellow-collegians at any other place
outside of Rome and Italy? If this did occur there is
no doubt that Christianity would go back to the sad
days of scandalous schisms of the Occident. And
who, knowing the onward march of societies and
peoples, would venture to deny that this may occur?
Let us take yet another hypothesis : that the cardinals,
tired of carrying on their shoulders the enormous
weight of the Papacy, decided not to elect a Pope,
either because they could not agree or because the
majority were of the opinion that no Pope should be
elected, how would the Church stand in such a case?
According to the bull of Pius IX we should have no
Church competent to decide the most insignificant
question, except as to his successor, and on the hy
pothesis we are discussing we should have no Pope.
What remedy should we have under those circum
stances, except to submit to the insult and mockery
of outsiders and bow with shame, to lower our heads
and say: "We made a mistake; we thought that by
infallibility we could save the Church, instead of which
infallibility kills it ; we thought that with that privilege

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. X7I
we protected it against the inconstancies of time, the
onslaughts of the wicked, but, alas! our dream has
vanished Hke smoke before the wind, and its disap
pearance leaves us in a situation a thousand times
worse than before, in a danger incomparably sadder" ?
Let Your Eminence examine the numerous contingen
cies that may arise, compare the examples presented
and connect the whole without regard to persons, ex
cepting Christ and the truth, and Your Eminence will
see how much more dangerous our situation has be
come since the passage of infallibility, than the liberal
and democratic situation of the Baptists, who in the
midst of divisions and subdivisions will always have
the Gospel to guide them, and to be their standard
and beacon, as a center and basis of future unions.
For them it will always be of little moment, if part of
them should go astray and be lost; Christ's great
federation will always subsist; but with us once the
supreme head is removed through any of the con
tingencies mentioned, we have lost everything forever.
Therefore, instead of our Caesarism and centralism
being a thing of envy, it is our greatest evil and our
greatest danger. Against the abuses of liberty, is
liberty itself; against the abuses of a despot, there is
no other remedy but revolution — a lasting revolution
until those abuses are demolished and the Church re
stored to its primitive liberty, true life and independ
ence. And though such a revolution were not called
for, by the dangers that infallibility itself contains, we
should be forced into it by the captious assaults of
Romanism. Let not Your Eminence think that infaHibility is the

172 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
end.2' It is already rumored that in extreme cases
the Pope may elect his successor.^^ Other cardinals
go further and say that he may do so in ordinary
cases. We are also assured by some eminent theolo
gians ^' that not only "ex-cathedra" but whenever he
opens his mouth he is infallible. Pray refer. Cardinal
Gibbons, to the footnotes and you will see by the
references that this matter is a serious one. If the
flag of protest is not raised soon, and energetically,
when we least expect we shall awake under an heredi
tary Pope, impeccable and divine, possessing all the
attributes and perfections of a deity.
May God inspire His (Hiurch and save her from
the most ignominious of deaths — despotism!
^ Read Suarez : On the Pope. He and S. Alfonso both claim
that in extreme cases the popes can elect their successor and
such election would have to be recognized.
'^Read Cardinal Vives, who is considered as the Roman
contemporary oracle, who states that if the Pope can elect his
successor in extreme cases, then he can do likewise in ordi
nary cases.
^ Read P. Fernandez : Del Escorial. This author maintained
already that the Pope is infallible always, in every one of his
words, and that he cannot even be in error in a single con
versation.

CHAPTER XIV.
CAN THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES BE UPHELD
IN THE MIDST OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?
IN order to give an adequate answer to the question
that heads this chapter, it is necessary to explain
some theories concerning the origin of public govern
ment. In this way only, shall we keep on the straight
path and arrive at conclusions of undoubted legal cer
tainty. It would matter little to allege the antiquity
of the temporal power of the Papacy, the legality of
its acquisition, the honesty of its administration, if all
these reasons had no meaning in the new theories on
law, and if the Papacy should so understand it, when
deciding international questions analogous to its own,
by taking into account only those new theories on law.
We shall not therefore, in our exposition of this
weighty question, follow the road taken by Cardinal
Gibbons, because we consider antiquated and useless
any demonstration of the legality of that power; but
we shall bear in mind his reasons for deciding whether
that power should be restored or not. Here is a sketch
of the synthesis of our reply: Modem public law
denies temporal power to the Papacy; if the Papacy
tried to claim it, the Papacy would be guilty of abuse
and tyranny; this doctrine can be corroborated by
doctrinal resolutions of the Holy See. On the other
hand history demonstrates in a clear manner that the
(173)

174 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
exercise of that power causes the most serious evils
to the Church, which it should oppose even in the im
probable case that the people wished to be ruled again
by the Pontiffs. We shall conclude by answering the
reasons alleged by Romanists.
In ancient and modern times two theories have
been, and still are, the fundamental basis of public
government: the divine right of kings or chiefs of
states, and, the sovereignty of the people.'
In the times of the great European monarchies, the
first theory prevailed to such a degree that to oppose
it was considered high treason.
Two schools sprang up advocating the first theory;
one entirely Caesarist in character and almost des
potic, which maintained that the power of the kings
was transmitted to them directly and immediately
from God, without any intervention whatsoever of
the people, nor authority on the part of the people to
add to the power of the kings or to take anything
from it.^
According to the authors of this theory, the king's
power was equal to the present power of the Popes,
the only difference being that the former had to gov
ern a nation temporally, while the latter governed the
Church spiritually.
Both authorities, however, were equally sovereign
and of immediate divine origin. Neither sovereign
could be removed by the people, and both were abso-
'Read the famous Italian Jesuit Taparelli, his fundamental
books : Representative Governments and Natural Law.
" Read the immortal Spanish philosopher Balmes, his monu
mental book: Protestantism compared with Catholicism,
chapters on the Origin of the Temporal Power.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 17S
lute and independent in their governments. Accord
ing to the authors of that theory the people had no
standing and could not take any part in settling gov
ernmental questions. The persons and the property
of the nation were in the nature of a gift from God
to the kings, as a complement of the power granted
to them to be used as they considered just and com
formable with the common good.^ Another theory
supposed that the power was divine but indirect,
through the election and intervention of the people.
According to this school, God conferred His divine
power upon whomsoever the people elected. The
designation was not an immediate one from God, but
was through the choice of the people.* So far as
concerns the scope of the power granted by God to
the kings, and the keeping of the people in bondage
by the king or chief of states, the two theories became
identical. For both, the king commanded in the name
of God, and not as a delegate of the people; for both,
the king was master of the lives and properties of the
people without having to render account of his acts
to anyone, except to God, whose delegate he was.
For either, it was sacrilegious to rise against the
kings, although the latter might be monsters of wick
edness and tyrants of the people. Any further knowl
edge required on these theories and schools can be
had by reading the authors and books mentioned in
the footnotes.
" Read Mendive : Natural Law. Zigliara and Gonzalez :
Ethics and Natural Law. Jaugey: His work already men
tioned, head, Origin of Power.
' Read Balmes : Book and head mentioned before. Jaugey :
head, Autoridad, Rey, Origen del Poder.
13

176 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
In the sixteenth century, a Jesuit, the iHustrious
and learned Father Mariana, was the first within the
Catholic school to raise the standard of national
sovereignty.^ His short work produced a general
commotion. It was condemned by the University and
by the Parliament of Paris. It was burnt in public
by the executioner, and the author would have met
the same fate, had they come upon him. The Jesuits,
who were always the staunchest defenders of the
theory of divine rights," on seeing that their irrational
theory had been substituted for the more harmoni
ous and philosophical one of national sovereignty, and
beholding the Catholics scorn their old theory as anti-
humanitarian, and anti-social, and themselves take
refuge under the contemporary theory of national
sovereignty, endeavored to exhume Father Mariana
from the oblivion to which he had by them been
relegated, in order to come out as the first supporters
of so popular and triumphant a doctrine.'' If within
that powerful order of Jesuits there existed that his
torical code of honor and shame, proper to every
honest organization, it should remain silent and en
dure its defeat with resignation and in secret. As
the Augustines say, speaking of Luther, He came
from amongst us, but he was not one of us, so it
may be said of Father Mariana concerning the Jes-
" Read the famous work of Mariana : De Rege et Regis
Institutione. ° For over a century they were the confessors of nearly all
of the royal families of Europe. You can also read Suarez,
Bellarmine, and Sanchez, on this doctrine.
'The Jesuit P. Garzon: Title, La Democracia and Father
Mariana.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I77
uits. He came from amongst you, but he was not
one of you. How could he be one of you, since you,
unable to stifle his spirit, or weaken his iron will,
imprisoned him like a criminal to end his life ? "
How could he be one of you, since he was the first
to denounce you before the world as hypocrites and
deceivers? How could he be one of you, since he
was the first to declare that yours was the most de
testable religious order, that your morals were those
of the brothel, that your government was worthy
of Nero; that from your commercial aspiration, you
were not a holy order, but a company of mun
dane traders; that for your fraudulent bankruptcies,
many of you deserved to be in irons and in prison,
etc. ? " And mind, he knew well ! Having been re
ceived personally by your own father and founder,
he well knew what your illustrious head taught and
what your actions were; he knew, as no one, better,
what the famous order of Jesuits should be, and what
you already were, when you took charge of your
famous Father C. Acuaviva.'" No, a thousand times
no! That illustrious head was not one of you; he
was of us, he was a member of that phalanx which
* Read the Jesuits' History on that epoch.
" P. Mariana : Title, Defectos y Enfermedades de la Com-
pania de Jesus (The Defects and Diseases of the Order of
Jesuits) at that epoch. You can also read the information of
the Jesuit F. Ribadeneira, which is kept in the archives of the
Spanish Academy of Languages.
'° More recent information regarding the Order of Jesuits
can be obtained by reading the eminent Jesuit M. Mir: title,
Los Jesuitas por dentro y un Barrido hacia fuera (The Jesuits
inside and a sweeping outside). It will be very appropriate to
read also the famous editor and Catholic priest Pey Ordeix:
title. Crisis de la Compania de Jesus (Crisis of the Order of
Jesuits).

178 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
is always ready to fight against all inhuman despot
ism ; to unmask every trafficking hypocrisy ; to banish
every degrading doctrine, though it may bear the
stamp of the fisherman or the signet of a crown.
Father Mariana was then the first to establish within
Catholicism the national sovereignty in the face of
the despotism of the so-called divine right of kings.
But in order to avoid confusion, we must explain
the idea of national sovereignty according to the
Catholic thesis. The authors on modern law under
stand by sovereignty that the people must not only
elect their own governing heads, but that the people
are themselves the source of all law, and the ones to
determine by their enactments or statutes, what is
licit and what is iHicit, what is just and what is un
just. Non-Catholic authors understand that human
reason and human liberty are self-sufficient, and are
in no need of any connection with another superior
reason, or of any regard for another law transcendent
to human nature." Catholics cannot proclaim such
a kind of sovereignty without contradicting them
selves.'^ They believe in a King of kings, in a sover
eign of whom all other sovereigns are subjects — God.
They believe that this King has impressed in our con
sciences a universal law called the eternal law of God.
They believe that neither kings nor people can attempt
anything against the sovereignty of God, nor against
His eternal law; that this is the standard to which
all laws must conform ; that no law that is not founded
" Read Azcarate : Lecciones de Derecho Publico. Kant :
Practical Reason. Ahrens, and Olozaga: on Public Rights.
" Cardinal Zigliara and Cardinal Gonzalez : Ethics.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I79
directly or indirectly on the eternal law of God can
have any compulsory force, and that it ceases to be
law if it contradicts the eternal law of God. It is
evident that national sovereignty as understood by
Catholics, and as understood by non-Catholics, pre
sents fundamental differences concerning its origin,
its scope, and its finality. But for our purpose it is
necessary only to elucidate the point bearing upon the
election of a form of government. On this question
both theories agree: the two proclaim that a nation
can choose the form of government it deems best ; '^
both affirm that the nation is above the government,
and that it is free to alter its form and even to change
it. Consistently with these principles, they consider
that a government is the more legitimate the more
distant it is from the people, or the more it wants to
govern the people against the national will. This
doctrine, already generally taught in universities and
Catholic schools, is the one that has inspired the latest
international relations between the public government
of Europe and the Pontificate.'* Practically the latter
has already given up all historic questions on legiti
macy. It has declared the present governments of
France and of Spain good, according to the state
ment of those nations by their collective will. The
Pontificate has done something more, thereby calling
for praise: it has succeeded in killing the legitimist
'" Read Taparelli : His work above mentioned. Jaugey :
Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe.
"Read several encyclicals of Leo XIII to the French and
Spanish on this subject. Read Leo XIII on his numerous pil
grimages preceded by Cardinal Sanz Fores, and Cardinal
Sancha, then Archbishop of Valencia. Read the later pam
phlet approved by Rome.

l8o ROMAN CATHOLICISM
pretensions of both nations, by teaching them the
theory of national sovereignty, and by practicing it,
going even so far as to consider as rebellious those
opposing it.'^ Pius IX himself went the length of
proclaiming this doctrine, convoking parliaments to
govern the Patrimony of St. Peter. Therefore, it
may be affirmed as incontrovertible that at the present
time all questions of public domain must be decided
by the sovereign people, and that this doctrine has not
only the support of the Catholic schools, but also the
sanction of the sovereign Pontiffs, who by their teach
ing and example inculcate it in the Catholic nations.
Having thus established the question, and it must
not be established otherwise, Cardinal Gibbons, what
should be asked is not whether that domain of the
Pontiff is really very ancient, whether it was initiated
by Constantine and consummated by Pepin and Char
lemagne; whether the Popes were or were not de
fenders of the Roman region ; and whether they called
in or sent away the barbarians ; all those reasons and
many other simHar ones should be set aside, by such
a good ecclesiastic philosopher, by merely answering.
Extra questionem vagaris (You are wandering from
the questions). What should be asked is this: Do
the Italian people wish now to be governed by the
Pope, or not? If so, then the House of Piedmont
would be a tyrant ; if not, the Pontificate would be a
despot for claiming the power.'" Here Cardinal Gib
bons, with ingeniousness that from the lips of an
" Read Balmes : Pamphlet on the measures taken by
Pius IX.
" Cardinal Gibbons :' Faith of Our Fathers, head, Tem
poral Power of the Popes.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. l8l
American savant is astounding, exclaims : "A plebis
cite that took place under the bayonets of Piedmont
cannot be good." " Are we to understand that if it
had taken place under the bayonets and anathemas of
the Vatican it would have been more spontaneous
and free? Come, Cardinal Gibbons, let us be impar
tial and foHow the example of Christ: what is, is,'*
and what is not, is not, fall who may. Would Your
Eminence have a convincing example of the Italian
people's affection for government by the Church?
Please read the result of one of the last elections.
From the Pope down to the youngest acolyte, they all
worked like heroes. Cardinals, archbishops, bishops,
curates and friars went from place to place, wrote
and worked, promised and threatened, and what was
the result ? — that of the Latin fable "mons parturiens"
and the "ridiculus mus." '" They obtained nothing.
Your Eminence. Anyone who has walked from one
end of Italy to^ the other, anyone who has taken the
opinion not only of the public but of many clergymen,
bishops and even cardinals, comes to the profound
conviction that they would rather have the Sultan of
Morocco rule them than the Pope. For the purpose
of strengthening his thesis. Cardinal Gibbons has re
course to an unusual theory. He says : ^" Since the
papal patrimony comes from all the Catholic peoples,
the vote should be asked of all those peoples. Ad
mirable, Cardinal; only, if your argument has any
" Cardinal Gibbons : Same book, same head.
" Matt. V. 37. James v. 12.
" Read any of the Italian Catholic newspapers regarding the
last Italian elections.
"Read Cardinal Gibbons as above.

l82 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
force, it is not aimed against Piedmont, but against
the Vatican.
Let us assume the reason alleged to be a good one,
that in effect every Catholic has a voice and a vote in
what concerns and belongs to the patrimony of St.
Peter, that said patrimony is not tangible without the
universal approval of Catholics. Alas ! Cardinal Gib
bons ! Does Your Eminence forget ecclesiastical his
tory? Is Your Eminence unaware that the Pontifi
cate always played ducks and drakes with St. Peter's
patrimony, now selling, now exchanging, sometimes
giving away portions of it, without ever consider
ing that particular right of the Catholic Church ? ^'
Therefore, if such a right did exist, those to trample
upon and annul it were the Pontiffs, who, during a
period extending over many hundreds of years, never
allowed the universal Church to interfere. That argu
ment, therefore, instead of injuring the House of
Piedmont, hurts only the Pontificate, for it covers it
with the most odious of ridicules, with the ridicule of
despotism. It remains then demonstrated that, ac
cording to the contemporary doctrine taught by Cath
olic doctors and practiced by the Pontiff in encyclical
addresses to Frenchmen and Spaniards, the people
have the right to elect any sovereign they please ; and
for that reason, the present sovereign being an Italian
elected by the people, the duty of the Pontiff is to
keep silent and confine himself within the Vatican
until called out by the people. If he did or attempted
to do anything else, he should be condemned by his
'"Read Baronio, Hergenrother, Rohrbacher, Natal Alex
ander, about the Popes, centuries XIV, XV, XVI.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 183
own doctrine and example as a despot and a tyrant.^^
And we are already entering on the second point.
Let us suppose that the Roman people should again
call on the Pope to govern them. Would it be ex
pedient for the Church to allow the Pontiff again to
be temporal king? Here indeed would we invoke
the universal vote of the Church and ask for its in
terdict. Here indeed would we call to mind the sad
teaching of history, for all to shout in one mighty
blare: We do not wish any Pope to be king, for he
would cease to be Sacred Pontiff and become a mun
dane prince. The scholastics say that "contra facta
non valent argumenta" (against facts there is no ar
gument) ; authentic facts of history show that tem
poral power has always been fatal to the Church,
theoretical arguments count for nothing. We shall
see later that they are futile and unsubstantial. The
effects of temporal power have resulted in: Loose
ness of habits in ^' the Vatican ; scandalous schisms
that have perverted Europe; bloody wars between
princes and princes, between these and the Papacy;
scandalous sales of ecclesiastical property, or the ces
sion of it to spurious sons or to nephews of ques
tionable legitimacy; degrading nepotism, an affront
of the Papacy to all of cultured Europe ; the perpetua
tion of schism in the Orient and of separation from
the Reformationists ; and finally, the sight of some
Popes riding^* at the head of their soldiers, ordering
^"Read the Encyclical already mentioned of Leo XIII.
^ Read the Catholic historians, such as Rivas, Alzog and
Cesar Cantu, on the subject.
"^Read any of the many authors on the Pontificate of
Julius II.

184 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
bayonet charges, and scaling walls like any private.
All the things that have scandalized the Roman Church
since the cession of Pepin, have been caused entirely
by the temporal power, or it has been their strongest
contributing cause.
I would respectfully challenge His Eminence to
mention a single epoch, a single century in which that
cursed power has not done more harm than good.
And if this is true — and to deny it, amounts to deny
ing history — why attempt the restoration of an order
of things that is so calamitous to the Church? Only
for two causes would I, as a clergyman, take up
arms : to defend my country in case of invasion by
the foreigner — for I believe the man is a degenerate
who does not love his country; and to defend my
Church, for I believe that not to do so would be
equivalent to not loving the Church. And before
replying to the reasons, I venture to make one or two
remarks concerning two hints, thrown out by Car
dinal Gibbons.
In speaking of Constantine, he appears to suggest
that the latter went away from Rome in order to leave
to the Pope greater freedom in his jurisdiction.^''
This is contrary to history,^" which mentions two
causes for that step : the first, to be nearer to the bar
barians in order to prevent their continuous incur
sions, the second, to get away from Rome, whose
revolts, especially those of the Pretorian soldiers,
filled him with terror. In this he followed the ex-
" Read Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers.
" Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
epoch during the empire of Diocletian and Constantine.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 185
ample of his predecessor, the diplomat Diocletian. To
add the reason that it was to leave to the Pope
greater freedom may be very flattering to Romanism,
but history denies it. Rome was under a civil gov
ernment during Constantine's empire and under those
of his immediate successors. The Pope enjoyed re
ligious liberty, as did the pagan Pontiff; but that he
exercised any civil dominion over the city, we have
not seen in any author worthy of credit, and we do
not believe in the existence of any such testimony.
We hope Cardinal Gibbons wiH kindly refer us to
one. His second hint would have caused us immoderate
hilarity, if we were not dealing with such a serious
subject. Says Cardinal Gibbons : " The Pope is sin
gle, he has no sons, his office is not hereditary, and he
has no interest in making any person rich. It requires
some simpleness to utter such words right in the
twentieth century and amidst the American people.
The extent of historical culture which the Catho
lics of America may possess, is not known to us, al
though our sacerdotal ministry has been exercised in
this country. Sufficient data to form any judgment
whatever on this point have not been obtained, for it
is but a few months that we have resided in this
region. But we can assure you. Cardinal Gibbons,
that your words, spoken with such honest simplicity,
would cause universal sneering in Europe and even
in Rome. Those who have studied canon law are
familiar with a Latin saying which may be translated
thus : "God deprived clergymen of sons, but the devil
" Read Cardinal Gibbons, already mentioned.

1 86 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
gave them nephews." No doubt the ecclesiastical
history read by Your Eminence has omissions not
made in mine. In that way only can we understand
the false statement made with so much simplicity.
Are we to believe that. Your Eminence has not read
in every serious ecclesiastical work that nepotism,^*
more or less legitimate, is one of the stains that most
sully the aspect of the Pontiff? Have not your ears
ever been struck by the illustrious names of the
Farneses, the Colonnas, the Medicis, and others, around
which there multiply and dance a countless number
of nephews and nieces, who live and aggrandize at
the expense of St. Peter's patrimony; who are trans
formed from mere laborers or merchants into counts,
marquises, dukes, princes and even queens, and all
that, thanks to their more or less legitimate uncles,
the Pontiffs? Are we to believe that Your Eminence
is not aware that Paul IV,^" not to mention many
others, risks the patrimony of St. Peter, involves him
self in a war with Spain for the only purpose of hav
ing one of his nieces, the notorious Catherine de
Medici, reach the throne of France? Are we to be
lieve that Your Eminence thinks that the Borgias had
neither sons nor nephews, nor had to impair the patri
mony of St. Peter to enrich them? Are we to believe
that Your Eminence is not aware that Alexander VI '"
the shrewdest of the Borgias, boasted of having chil-
^ Read on this subject any of the above mentioned authors.
^ Read Castelar : Historia de la Revolucion Religiosa, Pon
tificate of Paul IV. This author maintains that said niece
was his own daughter.
•"Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, head, Alex
ander VI. A famous and brilliant investigation on this Pope,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 187
dren, that he did not conceal their relationship behind
the false one of nephew, and that to leave them as
princes he thought St. Peter's money and the pontifi
cal estates were not enough? Many still more strik
ing scandals might be quoted, but it is so repugnant
to lower oneself to such polemics, especially when the
foregoing is more than sufficient to prove again how
calamitous is the temporal power, and how ridiculous
it is to use certain arguments, under cover of ap
parent candor and simplicity. Such proceedings ex
pose one to universal mockery.
Let us now hear the arguments alleged in favor of
temporal power. The Pope, says Cardinal Gibbons,^'
must be free to receive his faithful; he must be free
to communicate with them: this is incompatible with
the Pope being the subject of another power, there
fore he must be king. Let us examine the efficacy
of these two arguments. We are dealing with a
theoretical question, not with a practical one, and we
must look to history for an answer. If the argument
were true for the future, it must have been true in
the past. If in the past it was not sufficient, we must
not invoke it under equal or worse conditions, nor
must we invoke it as certain for the future. What
does history say? That the most degrading slavery
for the Church commenced with temporal power.
That then less "' than ever could the Pontiff live con
tented in Rome. That he was expelled and impris
oned on innumerable occasions, on questions arising
'^ Read Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, head.
Temporal Power.
"' Read any of the historians above cited.

1 88 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
out of his temporal power ; ^^ that first the Holy Ro
man Empire, then the most (Christian princes of
France, again the Catholic kings of Spain, kept him
moving from place to place, all on account of the
temporal power; and that his much-dreamed-of liber
ty does not show anywhere.^* If then, in a thousand
years we have seen that the temporal power instead
of bringing about pontifical liberty rather complicates
it, who would venture reasonably to invoke it? If,
at the time when emperors and kings gloried in their
belief in Christ's religion, the temporal power was a
bait to enslave the Pontiff, does Your Eminence be
lieve that he would be left in peace, now that kings
and princes take little stock in religious questions?
Besides, when the Papacy has had temporal power,
it has found it nearly always necessary to ally itself
with some particular prince, as history witnesses,^'
and is not this contrary to that liberty and independ
ence so much longed for? If during the glorious
time of the American independence the Pope had ap
peared as the ally of England, and had helped her,
how would the American Catholics have received his
doctrine and his mandates? For the Church, ever
since she possessed temporal power, was nearly always
allied with some, while she appeared as the enemy of
others.^" Sometimes she appeared allied with the
German Empire, and then the Church was looked
upon with disfavor by the Italian States; on other
occasions she was allied with the latter, and then the
disfavor came from Germany. Just as soon as she
83 84 SB 86 jjg^j (.j^g ^^^^ authorltics mentioned above.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 189
appeared the friend of France, the Spaniards looked
on the Pope as their enemy; and when she appeared
friendly to Spain, France ignored the Pope and in
sulted him. We might adduce many other reasons
to prove the same thing; but those we have men
tioned are sufficient to proclaim that now in the twen
tieth century neither can the Pope claim any right to
temporal dominion, nor should the Church favor his
acceptance of it, were it offered to him.

CHAPTER XV.
NOTES OF THE CHURCH.
IN the first chapters of this work, we have shown
the way to become acquainted with the doctrines
of the Church, and in later chapters we have ex
pounded its organization. We shall now examine
the characteristics that should be exhibited by that
Church to distinguish it as legitimate and Divine. In
our exposition, we shall adopt the Catholic theory.
We shall explain those characteristics as Romanism
explains them; we shall next apply them to the Ro
man (Thurch, and it will be seen once more that either
those attributes are without meaning, or that if they
have any, the so-called Protestant sects possess them
the same as the Roman Church, and some of them to
better advantage and with more reason than Roman
ism. The latter in this matter, adopts a captious mode
of arguing, and ambiguous language. It proclaims '
its notes as it believes to have found them right in the
twentieth century, it examines its own present condi
tion, and then, proudly addressing the other Christian
groups, says: You are not one like myself, you are
not holy as I am; you are not apostolic Hke me; you
are not visible as I am: therefore you are either
schismatic or heretical; you are not the trae Church,
' See Bertier : Notes of the Church. Cardinal Vives : Same
head. Jaugey: Same head.
(190)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I9I
this I alone can be, I who possess exclusively all the
characteristics, all the distinctive notes, and the true
ones. We could at once dispute to Romanism the
efficacy it attributes to that collection of character
istics chosen by itself as a distinction from the others,
and as proclaiming itself true and Divine. We could
reply by asking: Where, and in what part of the
evangelic or apostolic writings, hast thou found that
the Church should possess those visible attributes, and
that they should have the importance thou dost assign
to them? We have the profound conviction that a
discussion based on this ground would leave Roman
ism in a very bad plight. But our procedure wfll be
different; we are going to reply to Romanism: We
admit thy characteristic notes as good; we are going
to examine thee on those very notes, and if thou dost
not appear cloaked in the robes of those fascinating
distinctive marks which thou deniest to the others; if
thy notes are not fulfilled in thyself except approxi
mately as they are fulfilled in the others ; if this should
happen, then thou wouldst have no right to call thy
self the only true one, nor to dub the others with the
insulting epithet of false. We will observe in our dis
cussion an inverse order to the one mentioned above.
There we begin with unity and end with visibility;
here we will begin with visibility and end with unity.
Should the Church be visible? The Roman answers,
Yes,^ a large number of Protestants answer. No,'
" Consult the authors mentioned, also Hettinger, and Casa
nova's Fundamental Theology: Head, Characteristic Notes of
the Church. Hurter, and Perrone: Same head.
" Read Encyclopedia Britannica : Heads, Calvin, Presbyte
rians, Luther, Lutherans.
14

192 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
but if we determine the meaning of the affirmation of
the ones, and of the negation of the others, it will be
seen that both affirm the same thing: the visibility
denied by Protestantism is also denied by Romanism,
and the visibility admitted by the former is identical
with the latter's, in strict theology. If the ones affirm
and the others deny, it is because the question is badly
put, and when affirming the Catholics refer to a point
different from that denied by the Reformists. Let us
analyze that visibility and it will be seen how they
agree. Let us ask the Reformists, Why do you deny
that the Church is visible? They answer. Because it
is the meeting of the elect, and no one knows their
number except God.* Let us ask the Catholics, Does
anyone know the number of the elect, and they
also answer, No.^ Nobody knows them, nobody sees
them, therefore both give the same answer. Let us
follow this concordant process. Ask a Catholic, What
principally constitutes the Church? And he will an
swer you, The soul " which lives in the grace and
friendship of God, in vivifying union with Christ.
Put this question to a Reformist, Of what does the
Church principally consist ? And he will answer you '
the same: In living within the restoration produced
by Christ and incorporated with Him by justification.
Upon these two affirmations, ask from both. Is the
Church visible? and you will hear with pleased aston
ishment both the Roman and the Protestant answer
* See Encyclopedia Britannica under heads mentioned.
^ Consult any Roman theologians mentioned above, under
head : Number of the Predestinated.
" Same Catholic authors, heads. Soul, and Church.
' See Encyclopedia Britannica : Heads, Luther, and Calvin.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I93
with one mind that it is not.* The Roman says that
nobody knows or sees the number of the elect; no
body knows or sees what principally constitutes the
Church, the grace and the union with Christ; because
nobody can affirm without incurring heresy whether
it is odious or lovable. Then to what is visibility re
duced? Why, answers Romanism, it becomes reduced
to an outward manifestation of faith and to the re
ception of the sacraments. Ask a Reformist to define
the Church " and you will observe with pleased sur
prise that his definition agrees with the visibility
claimed by the Catholic. Let it not be said that the
Catholic adds, "and obedience to the Pope," because
he answers this, when he is asked about the constitu
tion of the Church, not when speaking of its visi
bility ; '" for he knows, if he is well read, that many
times, and during long years it has not been known
which of the many anti-popes was the legitimate one,
and, as in the present and in coming centuries the
same thing may happen as in the past, he has to limit
his visibility tO' the same thing defined by Protestant
ism about the Church. You see then that while one
denies and the other affirms, both, when properly
questioned, confess belief in the same truth. On the
other hand although this question is theological, the
Roman does not look upon it as dogmatic. If he
should maintain that the Church is not visible, he
' See Catholic theologians before mentioned, head, Grace.
* See any of the definitions of the Reformed Churches, espe
cially of the Anglican Methodists and Episcopalians.
'" See Catholic authors already mentioned under Definition
of the Church.

194 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
would not be guilty of heresy," since this doctrine
has not been defined as dogmatic. It does not
make, therefore, a marked line of separation between
Protestants and Romans : consequently, in accordance
with the principles previously laid down, we must
not delay longer on this question. There is another
note, Apostolicity. This, according to some Roman
theologians, covers two things: that the doctrine of
the apostles is taught, and that the sacerdotal and
episcopal orders come without interruption from the
apostles.'^ In the chapters referring to the Pope, and
to the Bible, we have seen that Romanism is already
getting away from the apostolic doctrine; we shall
see the same thing in speaking of many sacraments
and of many Roman precepts. Just now we shall
deal only with the second proposition, that of apos
tolic succession.
We have never been able to understand the efficacy
attributed by Romanism to this characteristic note,
because if it were as great as they claim, instead of
helping them it would go against them, and be in
favor of the Oriental Church. Which is the only
apostolic Church that according to tradition conserves
Romanism ? Rome alone. The Orientals keep a large
number : '^ Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Samaria,
Athens, etc., etc. Is apostolic succession as important
as you say? In that case, capitulate before the Greek
" See Catholic authors already mentioned under Visibility
of the Church.
"See Catholic authors already mentioned under Apostolic
ity, and consult also Schouppe and Casanova.
" Consult the historians : Baronio, Rohrbacher, Hergen
rother, Natal Alexander and Rivas : About the Apostles.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I95
Church. You have only one Church, while the Greeks
possess them without number; you possess your or
ders as coming from Peter and Paul, and they pos
sess theirs as coming from Peter, Paul, St. James,
St. John, etc., etc. Is that characteristic a token of
security and certainty? Then, why do you condemn
the Greek Church? Is not that characteristic a token
that the Greek Church is legitimate and true? In
that case it helps you less. If apostolic succession
from the Twelve is not enough, according to you,
for the Greek Church to call itself apostolic, how
can the succession from two out of twelve be suf
ficient for you to contentedly call yourselves apostolic?
Is not the whole larger than a part? Do you not
realize that to exaggerate these things is to uncover
your weak point, and to prove that the schismatics
are more a true Church than yourselves? But let us
put aside not only the reasons of the Romanists which
we have shown not to have any foundation, but also
even the most insignificant pretext. Say they: our
orders come to us from Peter and Paul by an un
broken chain, therefore they are apostolic. I do not
suppose there is any Catholic so simple, nor so illiter
ate, as to believe that it is the apostles in person who
at the present time ordain and consecrate, therefore
those words mean that, now nearly one thousand
nine hundred years ago, the apostles ordained their
disciples, and these their successors, and so on till
Pius X. Now then, who sent the missionaries to the
nations that are at present separated from Rome?
The bishops, the apostles' successors. Who ordained
them? The episcopate, successor to the apostles.

196 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Therefore on this side the linking takes place in an
identical manner. The ones are as apostolic as the
others. Perhaps some inveterate Romanist may say:
But according to a bull of Leo XIII '* priestly orders
are null among Protestants, because there was an in
terruption later. In the first place it may be answered
that the document is not infallible, even for Catholics,
it is simply another opinion in the matter, it is the
testimony of a doctor in theology, that may be worth
something according to the weight of the reasons al
leged, and no more. Without claiming by our hypo
thetical affirmation, to deaden in any way the ordina
tion of Protestants, we will assume the Romanists'
reason to be good, and we will ask them this : Then,
according to your doctrine, if a Greek or Roman
bishop who suffered no interruption ordains the
Protestants a second time, would the latter become
as apostolic as yourselves? In that case strange is
the note you invoke to declare yourselves sole and
true, when at any moment they fancy they can prove
to you that, even on the face of your own doctrine,
they are equally apostolic with you. But some one
may reply: but from the moment there was an inter
ruption, there was an apostolic break, impossible to
repair. Misfortune seems to follow in the wake of
Romanism in choosing its objections. Then during
the schisms that at one time or another lasted one
hundred years, what became of your apostolic tradi
tion? If all the Popes ordained, which among them
was the legitimate successor of the apostles? If the
ones excommunicated the others which of them was
" Leo XIII : Encyclical on Protestant Orders.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I97
the mysterious ring that linked with Peter? And
when the Council of Constance removes them all,
which was the link that continued the chain? There
fore if those interruptions did not destroy your apos
tolicity, how are we to suppose that it is destroyed
in the others? But why tarry over a question that
in substance can mean nothing to them, since it exists
more nearly without interruption in the Churches that
Romanism confesses not to be the true ones? There
fore according to the Roman doctrine, the question
of apostolicity is like Bernard's sword, that neither
pricks nor cuts: it is a scarecrow to frighten the un
wary and fascinate old women. But for anyone ac
quainted with ecclesiastical history, it is an amphi
bology without sense. Let us see if they are more
fortunate in catholicity.
Here Romanism does look happy, just like a child
wearing new shoes. It examines its latest statistics,
consults maps, and on seeing that its followers are
reckoned by the hundreds of millions ; on considering
that its missionaries are traveling over all the seas,
and that its priests are celebrating their high functions
in all parts of the world, filled with arrogant satis
faction it exclaims : You see that I am Catholic, that
is to say universal; you see how my doctrine is
professed by the subjects of every nation, by the
people of every race. Roman theologians, we have
agreed that catholicity is a distinguishing note of the
Church, and not alone in the twentieth century, but
also in the first centuries. Are we to believe that in
the first centuries you had ministers in China, in India
and in Japan? Are we to believe that your famous

198 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
missionaries, before the discovery of America, had
already evangelized it? Are we to believe that
Oceania was already your patrimony before it be
longed to England? Here is the captious way the
Romanist answers : Ah ! you are a set of ignorants ; '^
my catholicity in strict theology does not mean that
ever since the first centuries my religion was preached
all over the world, but that my doctrine is of so ex
pansive a nature that it possesses efficacy and poten
tiality to diffuse and spread itself everywhere. An
admirable deduction ! A portentous discovery ! Then
that prerogative has made a fine show ! If by cath
olicity we are to understand that you are in power
and possess the necessary efficacy to have your dogma
and your morals believed and practised all over
the world, you may take that characteristic off your
standard as a distinctive mark, because any congre
gation, even any secret society, like Free Masonry
for instance, possesses that potentiality and efficacy.
Protestantism is of yesterday compared with your an
tiquity, but it has translated the Bible into more lan
guages than you have. It reckons scarcely a few
centuries of existence, as a separate organization, yet
it has missionaries and churches in almost every place
where you have them. That is to say, in these hun
dred years it has covered the road that it has taken
you the trifle of twenty centuries to cover. Therefore
the effectiveness and its probability have turned out to
be more energetic and far-reaching than yours. They
therefore also show themselves more Catholic than
'" See Hettinger, and Casanova under head, Catholicity.
Jaugey: Same head.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. I99
you. To be quite frank, it becomes wearisome and
dull to speak on such empty nonsense. Let us close
this insipid question by proclaiming that visibility, in
voked by Romanism as a distinctive mark of the true
Church, does not help in any way, because in strict
theology its visibility is identical with the Protestant
visibiHty; that the other note dubbed apostolicity, if
it proves anything, should prove, not that they are the
true Church, but that the Orientals are such; that
catholicity instead of being the exclusive mark of Ro
manism is an attribute general to all assemblies of
honest men, professing a doctrine and understanding
that its diffusion is for the good of mankind. It re
sults, then, that such notes do not in any way prove
that Romanism is the true Church. We have only
two notes left, sanctity and unity. These are well
worthy of serious treatment and for that reason we
will devote to them the following two chapters.

CHAPTER XVI.
SANCTITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH.
THIS is one of the prerogatives that the Roman
Church invokes with greater show of truth than
any other. With what an innocent satisfaction it
contemplates its churches, overflowing with saints !
With what triumphant cheerfulness it acknowledges
its flock of holy men, and proudly exclaims: There
you have our people, our family, there you have our
order! What sect can boast of evangelical apostles
like the seraph from Alverna, St. Francis of Assisi?
What religious congregation can present such meek
and penitent prelates as Charles Borromeo, or as the
wise and sweet Francis of Sales? What Christian
profession can exhibit men as illustrious and quiet as
St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio, and a St. Philip de
Neri ? ' In what other group of Christians take place
the marvels and divine gifts that each century, each
season and every day we see in the great Roman
community? On the other hand, there is no grant so
captivating and sweet as this one, nor one more in
tensely seductive than this sublime prerogative. It
might be said, that ninety per cent of the Protestants
recently converted to Roman Catholicism have been
' See Jaugey : Head, Sanctity of the Church. See same
text irr Hettinger's and Casanova's Fundamental Theologies.
Also same text in Hurler's and Father Fernandez' Dogmatic
Theologies. (200)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 20I
dazzled into conversion by that charming ornament.
Read the ^ writings of the two illustrious Protest
ants, Cardinal Newman and Father Faber, at the time
of their conversion, and also of the three important
groups recently converted here in North America, and
it will be seen that in reality what most impresses
and moves them is the so-called sanctity which they
believe glitters in the Roman Church. We can assert
that what principally induced us to write this short
work was our desire to clear up this view. It was to
sound a cry of warning to the Protestants, not to be
misled by such fleeting gleams nor take for genuine,
divine light that which is only a mere will-o'-the-wisp,
and which, moth-like, perishes by being burned in its
false blaze. Here more than in any other discussion
we shall endeavor to take our stand on the most
genuine Romanist doctrine ; here with greater severity
than anywhere else, will we draw aside that halluci
nating curtain to enable the Protestant to realize the
sad and degrading littleness of the sanctity in which
the Roman Church lives. We feel sure that the kind
reader who peruses this work will be horrified and un
willing to enter a society in which, if anything appears
true according to Romanism, it is that damnation and
hell are the final end of the Christian people. We feel
certain that the most decisive argument concerning
the error in which Romanism lives and into which it
has plunged its followers, is to invoke and falsely to
^Read the life of Father Faber; also the writings of Car
dinal Newman immediately before, and after his conversion.
Letters from the Celibate Congregation converted this year
to Catholicism. Letter signed by some Episcopalian ministers,
on becoming converted to Catholicism, this year at Baltimore.

202 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
assume a sanctity that does not exist except in the
most rare and questionable cases, while the masses
and the large majority of Roman Christians, if their
doctrine is true, live in a state of damnation and are
manifestly wicked. There is no point on which the
harsh language of Christ can be better applied to Ro
manism than this specious question of sanctity, when
He said, speaking of the Pharisees: "Whited sepul
chres without, but within, bones, decomposition and
corruption." ^ Fear not, most excellent Cardinal Gib
bons, that in order to demonstrate our thesis we may
have to descend to the mud of scandal. Our aim is
to write a serious work, and we wish to keep within
the august serenity of ideas and the honest field of
reason. And pray do not believe that we should
be lacking in abundant and trustworthy material if
we wished for any. Your Eminence, who knows
the inside of the Church, will be able to determine
whether I, who have acted as apostolic missionary
during many years, who have been judge on ecclesi
astical questions, instructing counsel in numerous
sensational ecclesiastical trials, visiting clergyman of
various convents of friars and nuns, who have pre
pared for spiritual exercise some two thousand clerics,
many prebendaries and some bishops — Your Emi
nence, I repeat, who must know the ins and outs of
the Church, will be able to deduce whether or not
I possess an intimate acquaintance with the Roman
conscience and its collective form, whether or not I
know of scandals to bring the blush to the face of the
greatest libertine, and crimes enough to write a book
' Matt, xxiii. 27. Luke xi. 44.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2O3
as entertaining and voluminous as the work of the
famous observer and police chief of Paris, Goron !
Your modest eyes, unaccustomed to read about the
celibacy of the Popes, and your chaste ears, accus
tomed to hear that they had neither sons nor nephews,
will have no reproach to address to me.* I will apply
to your theology, to your morals, to your statistics,
to substantiate my thesis. To him who came away
from his own home, where he could float on plenty,
but now lives almost in penury, who has scorned
lucrative ecclesiastical offices in Spain and in America
and would prefer hard manual labor, and the scanti
ness of poverty rather than betray his loyalty to his
conscience, the role of scandalous libeler would be
most ill-fitting even though he could prove the scan
dal. I live very far apart from Roman fanaticism and
from the calumnies of many sects; my ambition is to
proclaim the truth at any cost; my aim is to find out
if it be possible to bring about harmony and peace
among the numerous Christian congregations, depriv
ing Romanism of its inveterate haughtiness and its
traditional hypocrisies; and the final result will be to
say to the crowd of European clergymen that I have
next to me, the famous words of Melchior Cano : ^
"Curavimus Babylonem et non est sanata, derelin-
quemus earn" (We cured Babylon but she did not
heal, let us give her up). Let us abandon her and
endeavor to join our brethren to fight the big battle
against Romanism; and if as I hope, the Reformists
* Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter on Temporal Power of the
Popes. ^MS. report of Melchior Cano: Preserved in the National
Library at Madrid, under heads : MS. referring to Philip II.

204 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
receive my words in all sincerity and sympathy, then
Your Eminence will see how my voice, instead of
preaching in a desert, will be the voice to call in hun
dreds, and projiably thousands, who are anxiously
waiting for one courageously to raise high the stand
ard, to surround and follow him." Let us, then, take
up our subject. The Roman doctrine divides the
Church into two groups, the body and the soul.' By
the body of the Church is meant those who having
once entered it through baptism, have not left it on
account of any anathema or notorious heresy. It
calls the soul of the Church, those who live in a state
of grace, and who being free of mortal sin, are clothed
in supernatural charity. It is evident that when the
Church speaks of sanctity, it refers to the latter and
not to the former. In the Roman doctrine anyone
living in mortal sin is a dead member, and everything
he does while in that lamentable condition is entirely
useless in the eyes of heaven. Furthermore, all his
good deeds performed before sinning die with his sin
and are lost, with only this difference, that whatever
good he did before sinning and lost with the sin, is
not entirely dead but only dulled, and can revive (we
trast the reader will pardon the expression, which is
classical within Romanism), whereas what is done
while in sin, however great, remains dead for ever.
° Read the works of the famous Catholic priest Pey Ordeix,
and it will be seen that in Spain the number of secular and
regular clergymen who are anxious to leave Romanism is
very large.
' Consult the following theologians : Perrone, Hurter, Het
tinger, Casanova, Bertier, Schouppe, Cardinal Vives, under
text. Body and Soul of the Church.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 205
Let US illustrate this doctrine by a few examples.*
Suppose a most austere man, having spent all his life
in the most complete innocence, who has done much
penance, but who in the last years of his life takes a
fancy to eat meat during one of the days of vigil, or
fasting, imposed by the Church. Well, that man lost
all he did. If that man does not confess, and is not
absolved of his sin, he will be as much damned as a
man who spent all his life steeped in vice. Nothing
would it avail him to have passed many years in
angel-like innocence; his long fasts will not save him,
nor his trying privations, however keen and numerous.
One single mouthful of meat on days prescribed by
the Church as fasting days effaces all, kills every
thing, leaves him in the lamentable situation of a
reprobate. Take another case : if one fails to observe
any of the countless minutiae ordered by the Church,
though he gives alms liberally to the poor, dresses in
haircloth, shuns the world, and shuts himself up in
the most isolated deserts; or devotes his life to the
wellbeing of mankind, either attending to the sick in
hospitals, or teaching — it avails him nothing. Do
you think it would help him in any way? Well, in
Catholic theology he has done nothing, absolutely
nothing, neither toward reaching heaven nor to free
himself from hell." All his deeds are entirely fruit
less, entirely dead, in the supernatural order. So as
to understand the gravity of these assertions, and
" Read any of the innumerable works on Catholic Morals,
under Mortal Sin.
" See Gury : Head, Moral Cases, and the works on Morals
by Elbel and Esporer : Head, Practical Cases of Mortal Sin.

206 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the deplorable condition in which the Roman Catho
lic remains, as regards the Protestant, it is necessary
to go over, if only slightly, the almost countless ac
cumulation of precepts that Romanism has added to
those imposed by the Gospels. The Roman Catholic
has so many individuals to reckon with, who can
fling him to hell with as many injunctions as superior
hierarchical officers can dictate.'" To the truths and
precepts of Christ and his Apostles, may be added
the so-called commandments of the Church, and the
constitutional encyclicals and addresses of the Popes;
then comes an endless series of resolutions from the
so-called Sacred Congregations; these are accompan
ied by the dogmatic and moral decrees of the uni
versal councils ; and as part of a given diocese, the
Church has to obey what the bishop orders in his
pastorals, what he prescribes in his synodical laws."
And if this were not enough, one must still listen to
the moralists, who with a spirit entirely rabbinical and
with minutiae of details quite pharisaical, will investi
gate the inmost thought,'^ the slightest emotions, the
most innocent social recreations, to find out every
where the cursed germ of sin, the motive, to condemn.
But what most appals and degrades the unfortu
nate Catholic people, is the knowledge that all this
compels them under penalty of eternal punishment.
'° Consult any of the canonical works under head, Legis
lators and Superiors. On Canonical Law, Bouix may be con
sulted and on Morals, Cardinal Vives.
" Same authorities.
" See any of the works on Morals approved by Romanism
and their exhaustive exaggeration will become apparent. We
recommend especially Concina's Moral Theology.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2O7
Anyone eating meat on Friday runs the same risk
of condemnation '^ as one denying the mystery of
the Holy Trinity. He who does not attend mass on
days of precept is in the same danger of reproba
tion as if he denied the divinity of Christ. He who
reads the Bible translated into his own language is
guilty of a mortal sin,'* that can plunge him into
hell just the same as if he had committed the most
heinous crime. While speaking of this question we
must ask our kind reader to allow us to correct some
of Cardinal Gibbons' words. In the chapter quoted
in the footnote,'" this prelate speaks as if all the faith
ful were allowed to read the Bible. We cannot get
over your unspeakable simplicity, Cardinal Gibbons.
Is Your Eminence unaware of the innumerable pro
hibitions issued by the Roman Pontiffs? Is Your
Eminence unaware of the latest rule of the Index
published and sanctioned by Leo XIII? Is Your
Eminence unaware of rules V, VI, VII and VIII of
said Index,'" by which it allows theologians only to
read the Bible? and even these under certain condi
tions? Is not Your Eminence aware that the simple,
faithful person who reads a Bible not approved and
annotated by the Church commits a grave sin accord
ing to the Roman doctrine? Do the American Catho
lics enjoy, perhaps, some special privilege? If this
exists, why does not Your Eminence mention it ? And
"All the Catholic moralists without exception on Absti
nence. " By-laws of the Index, promulgated by Leo XIII under
the gravest of censures.
" Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, chap, viii, espe
cially pages 116 and 117.
"" By-laws of the Index, already mentioned.
15

208 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
if it does not exist, why does Your Eminence speak in
a manner likely to lead the faithful into error, and
non-believers into mistakes?
But to continue. It has been shown that Roman
Catholics, in order to attain their salvation, must ob
serve an almost indefinite ensemble of precepts that
the Roman Church has added to the easy, simple and
pure morals of Christ.'^ It has also been shown
that the Pope over all the Church, the bishops in
their respective dioceses, '^ and even the simple su
perior in all his community, and the common abbess
among her nuns, are invested with a power to con
demn, similar to that of Christ. They all think
themselves authorized to say to poor humanity: If
thou dost not obey my commandments, the redemp
tion will not avail thee anything; if thou dost not ful
fill the smallest of my precepts, the blood of Christ
is useless to thee.'" Can any slavery be more appal
ling? Can any greater aberration be conceived than
to suppose that the first puppet can add anything to
the divine law of Christ, and frustrate His universal
and complete redemption? The Gospels relate that
when Christ saw the innovations added to the law
by the scribes and Pharisees, and on contemplating
that the unfortunate people could not carry so heavy
"All the Romanist canonists and moralists without any
exception. " In Mexico, for instance, the bishopric reproves as a very
grave and reserved sin, fathers sending their sons to gov
ernment schools. Read the synodal by-laws of the diocese
of Puebla, and Leo XIII's encyclical condemning the non-
Catholic schools.
"Any of the Catholic canonists or moralists before men
tioned.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2p9
a load. He turned to them in holy ire and exclaimed :
Race of vipers, hypocrites, you have made the ob
servance of my holy law impossible. You wicked men,
under cover of your human traditions, you have in
validated the divine law.^" Anyone reading the Ro
man moral law and familiar with its rabbinical minu
tiae; anyone capable of comparing the teaching of
the Synagogue with the teaching of Romanism, will
see that Christ's words are applicable to the latter
with even greater reason than to the former, and
that the deplorable consequences which this has pro
duced are identical in both congregations. As the
Israelites did not observe the law because they could
not, so in the same \vay the Catholics do not and
cannot observe the laws imposed by Romanism.
We are now on the capital point of our discussion,
and we beg the reader to examine our reasons with
all possible impartiality and seriousness.
One of the most fundamental precepts of Roman
ism and one of the practices most indispensable to
sanctification and salvation is the annual confession.
It may be affirmed according to Romanism that any
one not observing this precept is outside of sanctity,
and is in imminent danger of damnation. Now then :
what do ecclesiastical statistics say concerning the
reception of this sacrament ? " We will limit our
selves to Spain, and to two dioceses whose statisti
cal data we take from such a reliable authority as
•"Read Matt. xv. 3-15. Mark vii. i-ii. Luke xi. 38, 46.
Matt, xxiii.
'''Anyone may consult for pleasure any of the private sta
tistics in the dioceses where they are kept, on this subject.
It will be seen that the reality is still sadder.

2 ID ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Cardinal Sancha, the present Primate of that coun
try; we will add to these data many others belong
ing to many important peoples and dioceses. Let it
not be forgotten that Spain is considered as one of
the most godly nations on earth. Anyone traveling
it from north to south and east to west; anyone
counting the number of its convents of nuns and com
munities of friars; anyone contemplating the num
ber of its cathedrals, sumptuous temples, venerable
sanctuaries, devout and pious crosses planted in val
leys and on hilltops, in villages, towns, and cities,
will understand that the mother of Teresa de Jesus
and Ignatius Loyola, Domingo de Guzman and St.
Joseph of Calasanze, is not in vain called the pious
and fervent Roman. Therefore the statistical data
gathered in Spain may be applied to other Latin
countries with the certainty that in the latter they
will not be found more favorable, but entirely the
contrary. Look, then, at the information collected by
Cardinal Sancha in Madrid and in, Valencia, in which
dioceses he was prelate.^^ In Madrid, the number
of men who confess annually does not reach five per
cent, and in Valencia they do not exceed twelve per
cent. Although the north of Spain is somewhat bet
ter than the center and the east, we have against
these the south and the west, which are still worse
than the east and the center. In some large cities
like Barcelona and Alicante the figures are still
lower.^^ There are dioceses like Cadiz where the men
scarcely ever confess.^* Comparing and connecting
'^ Statistical information by His Eminence Seiior Sancha.
'^ ^ Consult the prelates and clergy of the mentioned city.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 211
all the data and endeavoring to favor rather than to
diminish the figures, it may be reckoned that at most
ten per cent confess annually. Supposing that they
all make good confessions, which, given the numer
ous rules imposed by Romanism, is a moral impossi
bility,^" we should find that barely ten per cent enter
the soul of the Church, if only momentarily, and
remain, if but for a few days, in a state of grace and
are in a capacity to be sanctified. But as the ma
jority of them, say without exaggeration ninety per
cent, will not confess again for another year, and
within a few short weeks will have once more in
curred mortal sin, and will be dead members of the
Church, we shall be compelled to deduct from that
ten per cent living habitually incorporated with Christ
and in a state of grace, another nine, who having
incurred mortal sin for failing to keep some of the
innumerable precepts of the Church have lost their
communication with Christ, and their share of the
divine grace which is supposed to be deposited in
the Church. Anyone having acted as missionary
and lenten confessor knows that the data given are
rather exaggerated in favor of Romanism, than
against it. Taking this broad information as a basis,
let us suppose that all the Catholic countries in the
^ Read the numerical and specific distinction of sins, and
it will be seen how it is almost morally impossible for the
¦faithful to confess properly. Consult Elbel, and Gury, under
Practical Cases, in this matter. From this doctrine it is de
duced that ordinarily speaking Christians not only live in a
state of mortal sin, but that the majority of them commit
millions of grave sins in the course of the year. Just for
pleasure, reckon up on the basis of the Roman doctrine, and
it will be seen there is no exaggeration.

212 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
world can be equalized to Spain, by which we do
not think we do any harm to Romanism, since the
majority of nations are in a more deplorable condi
tion. Let us add up the numerous millions of Ro
man Catholics, and let us suppose that they reach two
hundred and fifty million, which would be in favor
of the number. According to our information and
the Roman Morals, two hundred and forty-eight mil
lion five hundred thousand live in a habitual state of
reprobation, are dead members of Christ, do not
ordinarily share in the gifts of grace. Only one
million five hundred thousand live with probabilities,
not of extraordinary sanctity, but of probable salva
tion. For the others it is not wise to hope, because
according to Roman authorities those who habitu
ally live in sin are certain to be condemned. Is it
not then the greatest of sarcasms for the Church to
call itself holy? Is it not the greatest falsity to apply
to itself the mark of sanctity, when according to its
own morals ninety-nine per cent live in a state of
condemnation, are members of Satan and future citi
zens of hell? What matters it that now and again
there appears an enlightened head noted by his vir
tues, if all around him there exist hundreds of mil
lions of reprobates and future damned ones? Will
the sands of Sahara cease to be called arid deserts,
though now and again we may meet a small oasis?
Can you call a garden flowery in which one milHon
five hundred thousand rose bushes show small buds
by the side of two hundred and forty-eight million
five hundred thousand decayed and dried-up rose
bushes? Would you call a nation wholesome, where

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 2I3
side by side with one million five hundred thousand
healthy ones there lay devoured by leprosy two hun
dred and forty-eight million five hundred thousand
wretches? Would you venture to call a nation civil
ized containing one million five hundred thousand
who can read and write and two hundred and forty-
eight million five hundred thousand who can neither
read nor write, nor are even on the way to learn?
And would you dare to call your congregation and
Church holy when according to your own doctrine
the proportion between good and bad is one million
five hundred thousand of the first, against two hun
dred and forty-eight million five hundred thousand of
the second? Do you intend to sneer at logic and
mankind? Have you lost all points of honor and
shame ?
Some Roman may perhaps reply: The calculations
are badly made: thou speakest of men only, and in
the Church there are also women and children among
whom the same proportion should not be adopted.
We attempt the correction; but even that does not
alter thy deplorable and appalling situation. Dost
thou, Pharisaical Roman, ignore that from twelve on
the child, according to thy strict doctrine, ordinarily
lives in mortal sin more frequently than mature man?
And between that age and his cradle, is his innocence
perchance the fruit of thy doctrine? the effect of
nature? Are there not also children in other con
gregations — innocent and good children according
to thy doctrine? Therefore thy correction does not
help thee, because thou proclaimest a distinct sanc
tity from that existing in all the other Christian sects.

214 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and this is common to all. Let us suppose that
through the greater frequency of the sacraments, the
proportion is trebled in women. Does that enable
thee to modify to any appreciable extent thy scan
dalous and appalling figures? Would the addition of
another million five hundred thousand individuals to
the figure given destroy the frightful disproportion
that should make thee blush if thou hadst any sense
of shame in thee? But let us generalize further. Ac
cording to the Romanist not only those who habitu
ally live in mortal sin, are separated from Christ,
but the Greeks and Protestants, the unfaithful and
idolaters, all those who do not belong to his con
gregation and Church are on the road to damnation.
It is true that some theologians now and then ven
ture timidly to proclaim that good faith may save
them; but those who make the assertion surround
their statement with so many conditions, and are so
reticent, that it may well be affirmed that according
to Romanism only from among themselves must
come the chosen of heaven.^" Can a greater mock
ery of Christ's redemption be conceived? So that out
of the one thousand four hundred million souls, ap
proximately, that live in the world, about three to
four millions only would be saved! Is not that equal
to proclaiming that the coming of Christ has been in
jurious to mankind? Could it not be asserted that
in the ancient Synagogue the number of the elected
was greater than in the great Christian family? Is
not this a diminishing of Christ and a ridicule of
His holy work? To proclaim that Christ is God and
°'' Bertier, Perrone, Vives: De Vera Religione.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 215
the Son of God, that He descended from heaven and
took human nature to save mankind, and to make
out later that only, your hypocrites and a few saints
are saved and that the thousands of millions of the
earth's inhabitants must go down to hell, is not that
placing Christ's work at the feet of Belial, and pro
claiming that the creation of the world is the great
est mistake, the most awful crime? Even if Ro
manism did not have fifty thousand weak points,
would not this affirmation be more than enough to
condemn it as absurd and ridiculous? The Roman
may argue that if only in friars and monks, clergy
men, bishops and cardinals there exists a number
incomparably greater, how can the proportion be so
low? Dost not thou grant sanctity even to these? he
may say. When we speak of ecclesiastical celibacy,
we will adduce sufficient data to qualify the sanc
tity of these venerable heads, and the famous Roman
sanctity will appear stained in blacker colors. And
if to theological guilt we wished to add social wick
edness, what nations present criminal statistics more
appalling than the Latin countries, ordinarily Ro
man Catholic ? In what ^' countries does public mo
rality occupy a higher level than among the Saxon
peoples, ordinarily Protestant? Whence come the
majority of assassins of presidents and kings if not
from holy Romanism? What society appears, ac
cording to statistics, involved in revolution and in
capable of self-government, of an honest existence
¦" Consult the work recently published by the learned Ital
ian anthropologist and sociologist, Julio Ferri, entitled : De
cadence of the Latin peoples and its causes.

2l6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
or of showing the mutual regard due to others, if
not Romanism? In what countries is opposition to
the principle of authority proverbial, the same as
venality in the administration of justice, and corrup
tion among high officials, if not within Romanism?
In what nations can it be almost declared that pub
lic justice is a lie, the law a myth and wealth and
nobility synonymous with impunity and looseness, if
not in the holy society of Romanism? We should
obtain the same result if from theological death,
symbolized by sin, and from social wickedness, rep
resented by public insubordination and corruption,
we wished to pass on to physical and intellectual mis
ery. What a scandal! What a shame! The Anglo-
Saxon people, as we might say, freed themselves only
a few centuries ago from the Roman Church, it is
scarcely three hundred years since they trod down
their degrading tutelage; when they reaHzed this
great act, they were, in the eyes of Romanism, in
ferior to us. Let their culture and ours be exam
ined ^* now, their healthiness and mortality, and our
healthiness and mortality, their intense progress in
all the orders of civilization compared with our
frightful decadence. There is only one Latin nation
that can with decorum stand side by side with the
Anglo-Saxon, and that is France; but alas! in that
nation, before the Vatican Council, the clergy was
the standard-bearer against Vaticanism. It is more
than one hundred years that the governments of that
nation have been fighting hard against the Papacy.
It may be said that the profession of Romanism is a
^ The same as the last preceding reference.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 217
sure stigma of ruin, decadence and death. When we
come to the Inquisition and religious liberty, we will
expound these opinions. Let us finish, therefore, by
declaring that the note of sanctity fits Romanism as
the note of civilized nations fits Morocco, as the note
of health would fit a lazaretto, and that the Protes
tant who should leave his congregation in search of
Roman sanctity, would be as stupid as the American
who left his country in search of a greater civiliza
tion, and went to look for it among the Riff tribes.

CHAPTER XVII.
UNITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH.
THE unity within her fold is the feature on which
the Roman Church most insistently prides her
self, in order thereby to reproach the Protestant con
gregation as being false, at the same time proclaim
ing that she is the only true Church. There are no
words that rise more frequently to the lips of Ro
manists than the famous sentence of the great Bos
suet, who, speaking of Protestantism, said: "You
change, therefore you are not the truth, because a
truth is one and immutable." '
How self-complacently Romanism looks upon its
pretended unity, while eyeing askance what it arro
gantly terms the variations and subdivisions in the
Protestant Church.^ The Romanist speaks here as
if his victory were assured, entire, and complete.
There is no Roman theologian who does not point to
this unity as the touchstone whereby to distinguish
the false from the true.^ The Romanists are so com
pletely fascinated by the splendors of their pretended
unity, that they believe themselves to be a kind of
angelic choir, which has always sung the same
' Bossuet : History of Protestant Changes.
^Jaugey: Apologetic Dictionary of Faith, head, Notes of
the Church. (Cardinal Gibbons : Unity of the Church. Per
rone, Schouppe, Bertier, etc., etc. : Same head.
' Hettinger, Casanova : Fundamental Theology : Unity of
the Church.(218)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 219
praises to the Almighty, from Adam to the patriarchs,
from the patriarchs to Moses, from Moses to the
Synagogue, from the Synagogue to Christ, from
Christ to the feudal castles, and from the feudal cas
tles to Pius X.* The infatuation of victory blinds
them so that they do not see themselves as they ac
tually are. Ignoring history, they do not understand
that that which they now call unity, was in former
times a state of chaos and diversity ; " that their doc
trine, far from having been an unbroken, harmoni
ous symphony, so to speak, has been, is now, and
will continue to be, a medley of discordant and inhar
monious notes; that their so highly vaunted preroga
tive is neither more nor less than the consummation
of a law of sociology and evolution which has found
its fulfillment within Romanism," as it is fulfilled in
every social organism; with the exception that Ro
manism, with its exaggerations, has falsified and per
verted a movement, which if rightly directed would
have been the fruitful source of true progress, the
perdurable basis for a true Christian federation.
Let us now consider the question more closely.
If, given the Roman doctrines, you understand by
unity the absorbing centralism of the Vatican, then
we will let you enjoy this precious gift; keep it for
yourself, for sooner or later it will end with you.
As, for the Romanists,' God contains in an eminent
* Balmes : Protestantism Compared with Catholicism. Au-
gusto Nicolas : Study on Christianism.
° History of the Church, by Eusebius. Ideas of the early
centuries, by Rivas.
" Edw. Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
book I, last chapter.
'Jaugey: Head, Pope and Church.

220 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
degree all things within himself, and as Christ is the
entire Redemption, so the Papacy contains in an emi
nent degree the Church, and is, in case of necessity,
the entire Church. Such a ' unity, far from being
recommendable, is pernicious and retrogressive.* As
in the Roman empire one of the principal causes of
its dissolution and downfall was imperial centralism;
as in the great European monarchies, Spain and
France, decadence was chiefly brought about by kings
like Louis XIV, who went so far as to say, "I am the
state," and Philip II, who set aside laws so decen
tralizing as those of Aragon; therefore centralization
as found in the Roman Church, is the sign of an im
pending downfall.
We, for our part, prefer a union in decentraliza
tion as found in the United States of America, a
union which, while opposing undue disintegration,
lays no hands on the prerogatives peculiar to each one
of the states; a union as we find it in the apostolic
college," where the members were free to believe each
in his own way, in that which had not been laid down
by Christ,'" although they all believed in the same
Christ and in the same Gospel; a union like that
which was observed in the primitive apostolic
churches: though they all formed one Church, as re
gards the body of the doctrine, they had, neverthe
less, each a certain sovereignty, and were in a sense
like a federation."
' History of Spain under Philip II, by La Fuente.
° Acts of the Apostles, especially chapter xv.
'° St. Paul's Epistles, especially that to the Galatians.
" Epistles of St. Ignatius Martyr. Fleury : History of the
Church in the Early Centuries.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 221
And now see how the first equivocation of Roman
ism appears. Contemplating itself in this our twen
tieth century, seeing itself in possession of a body of
doctrines firmly welded together, a well defined hier
archy, a multitude of conclusions and the fruit of
time and experience ; forgetting the turbulent days of
its infancy, the changes through which it passed in
its childhood, the extravagances of its youth, and
utterly regardless of the laws of history, it derides
reformationism because it sees therein precisely the
same phenomena which accompanied a historical evo
lution. Protestantism may ask, in order to dampen the ju
bilation with which Romanism is filled over its vaunt
ed unity: Did you possess the body of formulated
doctrines as you have it now, in the first centuries of
your existence ? '^ Was your unity established and
confirmed in those centuries in which saints like St.
Irenaeus believed, and died believing, in the millen
nium? Was your unity of doctrine clearly defined
in those centuries when your masters and wise men
were Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertulhan,''
whom you subsequently condemned? Was your de
lightful unity defined and established in that epoch
when saints were warring with saints, and when St.
Jerome said that the Catholic world was astonished
to see itself Arian? Did your unity appear as com
plete as now in those days when Polycarp and Cyp-
" History of the Church, by Eusebius.
'^ Read the historians Hergenrother, Baronio, Rohrbacher,
etc., etc., on Origen and TertuUian.

222 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
rian resisted their Popes, the first courteously and the
other rudely, but both with freedom and energy ? '*
If, then, you required centuries and centuries, in
order to arrive where you stand now, why do you
forget your own history, demanding that Protestant
ism shall be undivided when in the first centuries you
were rent by as many doubts and divisions as we
show now? When Protestantism shall have lived
as many centuries as you have, it is very possible that
we shall have the true Christian unity, without hav
ing arrived at your Caesaristic centralism. From this
evidence cannot Protestantism with equal grace and
force ask Romanism the famous Bossuetian question,
"Have you not changed? therefore you are not the
truth, because the truth is one and immutable."
Protestantism is all the more justified in so speak
ing, if we remember that in history the great unified
bodies appear subsequent to the partial disinte
grations.'^ The great monarchies, centers of national
unity, were founded upon feudalism, the basis of na
tional disintegration. The beginning of unity fol
lowed as a necessary social reaction upon the exag
gerated defects of division. We are firmly convinced
that sooner or later all the Christian congregations
will become united in the evolution of Protestantism.
The important point here is that when this concen-
trative movement begins. Protestantism should be
careful not to imitate the absorbing centralization
" Read the historians mentioned, on the dispute on the cele
bration of Easter etc., between St. Polycarp and the Roman
Pope, and disputes between St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen.
" Consult any well-known European historian on the forma
tion of Monarchies.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 223
of the Roman Church, but should seek its inspiration
in the grand example of the American social order.
And here is one of the reasons that upset the entire
prestige of the great Roman unity. It is worth the
trouble that we examine it closely, for it is one of the
points on which Romanism pretends to found its le
gitimacy, and to justify its condemnation of Reform
ism. And in order to make our point clearer we
shall examine the insidious conduct of Romanism.
Romanism, when addressing those that it calls
sects, refers to its unity as a thing not only complete
and consummated, but also indispensable for sal
vation. Such is the language it uses with outsiders ;
but, as we shall see, its speech is entirely different
when addressing those within the fold. In order to
define our thought more clearly in regard to this
all-important question, we shall refer to two histori
cal examples, both recent and well-known. Before
the Council of the Vatican, Gallicanism had a legiti
mate existence of its own.'" Who would dare to con
demn such eminent men as Bossuet, Fenelon, Massil-
lon, Dupanloup and others? Yet these men did not
believe in the Roman unity as it is laid down by the
Council of the Vatican. If the unity had been com
plete and necessary for salvation, such as the Church
proclaims it in the twentieth century, these men, and
with them all France, would have been living with
out the Church, and would have condemned them
selves. Who would dare to say that they did ? Hence
" Read the work attributed to Bossuet, Chapters on Decla
ration of the French Church; also Fleury: History of the
Church. 16

224 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
this unity is neither a complete thing nor is it nec
essary, as Romanism holds it to be. Take the other
instance. Pius X has just condemned Modernism.
This condemnation extends to a number of doctrinal
conclusions which were believed by men eminent in
letters and high dignitaries of the Church." It is
enough to mention only one. Cardinal Newman, who
held such divergent views, according to his opponents.
Shall we say that all these writers and pious men
were living without the Church? Far from it; it
would be extreme and irrational.
The only thing we can say in the face of these
facts, is that the unity of the Church is an edifice
in construction and not a finished product. There
fore the Roman Church, if she were not so proud,
should say at any given date of history: This is my
unity at the present moment, but who knows if to
morrow I shall not be obliged to condemn many of
the opinions now held by my children, in which I
find at this moment nothing reprehensible? Hence
unity is a variable thing, which increases and dimin
ishes in the course of time. Perhaps the Romanist
does not find the word "diminishes" logical but we
shall demonstrate that it is legitimate.
The Romanist has a body of doctrine which is com
posed of tenets that are definitely defined as dogmas,
and others which, although not defined, yet form
a part of its unity, if they are universally taught and
" Petitions of many Italian clergymen to Piux X relating
to Modernism. Same petitions translated into English and
presented to the same Pope by many English Catholic clergy.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 225
believed by all the Romanists collectively.'* If we
can show that many of these tenets, after having been
professed by the entire Roman congregation as doc
trines of the Church, ceased to be believed, it could
be said with the strictest logic that the object of the
unity was diminished. Many facts could be cited in
support of this contention, but we confine ourselves
to three concrete instances: one Biblical, one canoni
cal and the third moral.
In the Middle Ages,'" and at the time of Peter the
Lombard, St. Thomas, Bonaventure and Scotus, any
person who did not believe that the first chapter of
Genesis recorded a historical fact, and that when God
spoke of days. He meant a period of twenty-four
hours, would have departed from the unity of the
doctrine. And the same may be said as regards the
Deluge, the Tower of Babel and other Bible stories.
Yet these tenets "" did not pertain to the unity of
the Church, and now most, if not all, of the theolo
gians interpret them differently from the ancients. Let
us now take the second example.
Anyone who in the beginning of the Middle Ages
did not believe that the Pope had absolute and direct
power over the princes, would have departed from
the unity of the doctrine.^' Yet Bellarmine, in the
" Bertier, Cardinal Vives : Theology, head. Of the doctrine
of the Church. Hurter, Schouppe : Same head.
"Read any of the expositions by reputed authors of those
times, especially St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.
¦" Consult Genesis, by the most learned Dominican, Father
Arintero, where he expounds the numerous modern theories
and speaks on the ancient ones.
"" Consult on this point St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

226 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
sixteenth century ^^ dared to deny this direct power ;
and although his work gave rise to factions and was
considered scandalous because it attacked beliefs and
affirmations then current, yet his opinion gradually
gained ground and is now one of the most current
among the canonists.^'
And finally, the third instance : it was held to be
an axiom of morals that every person who had to
partake daily of the communion should abstain from
venial sins, it being considered disrespectful to the sac
raments that persons ordinarily indulging in certain
venial sins should have permission to continue their
practices during that period. A glance at the classi
cal codes of ethics of Romanism,^* will show that this
was a doctrine of the universal Roman Church. But
according to the latest decrees of Pope Pius X on
frequent communion, there is now no obligation either
to believe in or to practice this doctrine.^^ Thousands
of other instances like these might be cited in the
course of the evolution of the doctrines of the
Church. There is no doubt that now the principle
of unity is applied more strictly than formerly, for
the Roman of the twentieth century, who is obliged to
believe in the Immaculate Conception, the infallibility
^Cardinal Bellarmine: Of the Pope.
^ Bouix: Of the Pope. He expounds the ancient and mod
ern theories concerning the power of the Pope.
"^ Consult Benedict XIV, St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio, Bil
luart, Elbel, Esporer, etc., etc. : On Frequent Communion.
''^ Documents emanating from the Sacred Congregation and
approved by Piux X: On Frequent Communion; The Com
munion of Children and of the Sick.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 227
of the Pope, and other dogmas that were disputable
and attacked in the nineteenth century.^"
It has therefore been sufficiently demonstrated that
the unity proclaimed by Romanism is not a perma
nent and complete entity, but an entity in the proc
ess of construction, which is increased or diminished.
And we have thereby demolished its chief affirmation,
that it is now what it always has been, and that it
will be to-morrow what it was yesterday, and is now.
And its grandeur based on this identity of perma
nence wiH vanish like a mist. For this vaunted unity
is neither more nor less than a step in constructive
evolution, analogous to that which is seen in every
Christian congregation ; with this sole difference, that
Romanism is already ancient and stands with the fruits
of an experience of two thousand years behind it,
which has, however, not always gone to the mark;
while Protestantism still in the enjoyment of evan
gelic and apostolic liberty, stands in the midst of con
genial and vital expansions of a youth brimful with
life. We might end our chapter here, since according
to the logic of theology, if the unity is not perma
nent and identical with itself, it cannot prove any
thing in favor of Romanism, or against Protestant
ism. But we shall further upset, not some reasons,
since none of these can any longer be maintained,
but every argument brought forward by Romanism.
We shall do with Romanism what the eminent and
'"' Consult any Dominican writer on the first, and any
French author on the second, of the beginning of last century.

228 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
learned Father Mir did with Jesuitism ; " prove that
it is Romanism within, and a turning about, outside.
The material here is most abundant, but we shall con
fine ourselves to the chief point, and then the reader
may see for himself that the so-called unity is the most
exceeding of falsehoods, and the most crafty of hy
pocrisies. Let us glance briefly at the Roman phil
osophy, its dogmatic theology and code of ethics, its
canonical law, and its sacred books, and it will ap
pear as clear as daylight that its specious unity shines
by its absence. Let us begin with the first.^*
Philosophy is a body of affirmations on the universe,
man and God. Let us see what Romanism believes
on these three points and what the nature of its be
lief is. Can the universe be eternal? Yes, say the
Thomists.^" No, reply the Scotists, scandalized.'"
Don't you see, say the Thomists, that God is eternal
and God could create from the time that he was, that
is to say, from eternity? Don't you see, argue the
Scotists, that with such affirmations you yield ground
to materialism, and cut the support from under the
demonstration of a personal God? The Church hears
these polemics, and is silent. First break in the unity !
What are the constitutive elements of bodies?
" The work of this learned Jesuit is entitled, Jesuitismo
por Dentro 6 un Barrido hacia Fuera (Jesuitism at Home, or
A Cleaning Out).
^ For the benefit of readers, it may be said that the follow
ers of the School of St. Thomas, are called "Thomists," and
those of the School of Franciscans and others are known as
"Scotists." ^ Cardinals Zigliara and Gonzalez : Cosmology : Metaphys
ical Studies on St. Thomas by the latter.
"" Duppascheir and Frassen : Cosmology.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 229
Scholasticism replies : "' matter first, and then sub
stantial form. Tongiorgi,'2 Palmieri, and with them
countless number of Romanist philosophers reply:
atoms of distinct shapes and dimensions. Don't you
see, says scholasticism, that with this view you resus
citate the doctrines of Epicuras and Democritus, and
yield ground to degrading materialism? Don't you
see, reply the others, that without this theory the
Catholic doctrine cannot be harmonized with the ap
proved conclusions of modern chemistry? The
Church hears them and is silent, and we have the
second break in the unity.
We come upon the same controversies, as regards
the principle of individualization,'' the concept of
extension, and so forth,'* all questions in which both
parties hurl at each other the gentle epithet of here
tic."* But let us pass on to the next point. What is
the single form of man? The rational soul, says
Thomism.'" Scotism replies, the corporeal form first,
and then the rational soul." Don't you see, argues
Thomism, that this theory upsets the unity of man?
Don't you see, replies Scotism, that your view con
tradicts the discoveries of the science of biology ? The
" Constitution of the Bodies : Cosmology, by Cardinals
Zigliara and Gonzalez.
^ Constitution of the Bodies : Cosmology by Tongiorgi and
Palmieri. ¦" The Thomist school against the Scotist on these questions.
" The Cartesian school denies extension.
"^ Cardinal Gonzalez and others affirm the facts about Car-
tesianism, which denies extension as an essential property of
bodies. " Cardinals Zigliara and Gonzalez : Man's Form.
" Frassen and Duppascheir : Bodily Form.

230 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Church hears them and is silent, and the confusion
increases. What constitutes the independent personality of
man? All the schools reply, that which is presup
posed, or the hypostasis. But is this hypostasis some
thing positive, or is it purely negative? It is some
thing positive,'* cry the Thomists at the top of their
voices. That cannot be, the Scotists reply furiously.
Don't you see that negation cannot produce anything?
say the Thomists. But don't you see, that if
the thing presupposed is something positive, reply
the Scotists, Christ was not a complete man, like the
rest of mankind, because He lacked one perfection,
every time that the presupposition of human was not
given to him ? Here again they hand out to each other
the Christian epithet of heretic, and the Church hears
them, and is silent, and the confusion continues to
increase.'" We might add the intricate questions of the soul
and its attributes,*" which some differentiate, while
others regard it as one and the same thing, and they
caress each other's ears with such affectionate words
as : You are pantheists, and. You are rationalists.
Let us end the philosophical part of the discussion
with the following question: What is the metaphysi
cal constitutive element of God? The Thomists say,
" Frassen and Duppascheir : About Hypostasis.
"^The Scotists are wont to affirm the Thomists' theory
heretical, because the latter deny something to Christ.
^"Consult both the Dominican and the Scotist authors, be
cause the first assume a real distinction, and the second only
a formal one. Here Cardinal Gonzalez qualifies the Scotist
doctrine as Pantheistic.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 23I
perfect intelligence. That is not so, reply the Scot
ists, it is the quality of existing of Himself. Can
God be demonstrated by reason, without recourse to
faith? Yes, says Thomism.*' No, replies Scotism.*^
And in the midst of this idle talk they bandy about
the epithets atheist, rationalist, to the point of ex
haustion. We might add a whole string of other
plihosophical theses, in the discussion of which the in
ternal dissensions of Romanism are entirely mani
fest ; but the examples cited above are more than suf
ficient to show, that if phUosophy consists in defining
the three terms. Universe, Man and God, and there
be such discrepancies in the answers of the Roman
ists, then they do not possess a unified philosophy.
The Church hears and is silent. The break in unity
is complete. Let us pass now to dogmatic theology.
How many entities are there in the mystery of the
Holy Trinity ? Four, say Suarez *' and some other
theologians ; three, say Thomism ** and Scotism.
Don't you see, say the first, that if you do not sup
pose that the Divine Essence has an existence apart,
you cannot distinguish the reality of the persons?
Don't you see, reply the second, that to admit four
entities is almost equal to saying that there are four
persons, which is heretical? So between flinging the
edifying epithets of irrational, and heretic, the mys-
" See the Dominican authors already mentioned, under
Theodicy. *^ Consult Scotus : Quolibetical Questions.
" See Suarez.
" Consult any Thomist author of repute, and compare with
any Scotist writer.

232 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
tery of the Trinity is up in the air, and the Roman
unity lies prone on the ground.
What distinction is there between the contrasting
attributes and the persons, and what between the
latter and the Essence? Only a virtual one, says
Thomism.*' No, sir, it is real, exclaims Scotism.*"
Don't you see, the Thomists protest frantically,*' that
to admit real distinctions is to suppose that God is a
composite being, but composition excludes simplicity,
and a God who is not simple would not be a God at
all? Don't you see, the Scotists reply furiously, that
not to admit these distinctions is to suppose that the
mystery of the Holy Trinity is a compound of contra
dictions, and irrationalities? And between the dis
cussions of one, and the apostrophes of the other, and
the silence of the Church, the unity disappears in
mysteries as deep as that of the Trinity.
Is there such a thing as predestination? There is,
they all answer unanimously, and it is eternal.*' How
does God verify from eternity the predestination of
his chosen ones? in looking to their merits, or irre
spective of them? In looking to their merits, says
Jesuitism.*" Irrespective of them °" says Thomism,
together with nearly all the other Romanist theolo
gians. Don't you see, say the first, that you thereby
"^ See Billuart, under Thomist Theology: Divine Attri
butes. " Frassen, and Sgambatti : Dogmatic Theology ; Divine
Attributes. " Compare Billuart with Frassen and Sgambatti, on the
same theological question.
" Any Roman theologist, for this truth is a dogma of faith.
*" Consult the famous Jesuit, Father Molina : On The
Science of God; and Tournely, on the same title.
"" Billuart and Cardinal Noris : On Predestination.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 233
turn predestination into an arbitrary, irrational, and
even unjust act?"' Don't you see, reply the others,
that to suppose that predestination is dependent on
the merits of the chosen is to suppose that the infinite
is to depend on the finite, and that the creatures are
the impelling cause of the knowledge of God, which
would be equivalent to denying God ? '^ And here the
reader may listen to a string of edifying civilities.
You are Pelagians, says Thomism to Jesuitism." You
are Calvinists, the latter replies. The Jesuits in their
audacity go so far as to condemn even St. Augustine
and St. Thomas ; in serious books approved by their
authorities, and hierarchies, they make such bold
statements as this: If I should follow St. Augustine
I should be more of a Calvinist than Calvin."** We
beg the reader to read some of the books we have in
dicated in the footnotes, and he will see with what
a Christian charity they call each other heretics. But
let us go on.
How is predestination effected? By means of suf
ficing grace, which man makes efficacious by his co-
" Consult Molina and Tournely : On Predestination.
'^^ Billuart and Cardinal Noris : Same subject.
^ Billuart : On Answer to the Objections of the Jesuits.
°'We recommend a small book entitled Historic de las
Ideas Regalistas (History of Regalist Ideas in Spain), by
the learned Augustine, Father Miguelez. In this book will
be found many testimonials of the readiness with which the
Jesuits condemned as heretical the Augustines and Domini
cans. There it will be seen that they entered Cardinal Noris
in the Index, flatly ignoring the positive and oft-repeated
formal orders from Benedict XIV. This is the kind of obe
dience frequently practiced by Jesuitism when it is not to its
advantage to obey.

234 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
operation, says Jesuitism.^^ False, and false again,
replies Thomism; predestination is effected by means
of grace physically predeterminate and practically ir
resistible.^" That view is immoral, argues Jesuit
ism, it is fatahstic, it is to proclaim the Koran and
Mohammed.'*' And your view, replies Thomism, is
anti-Biblical, anti-rational and atheistic, because it
denies the wisdom of God, which is perfect in itself;
because it supposes that the immutability of the Di
vine decrees is relaxed in favor of human contin
gencies and human variableness.^' How does God
know future acts performed by free will? Because
He sees them in themselves, as if they were actually
present, says Jesuitism.^" Untrue and error, replies
Thomism."" God sees them in his own Essence, be
cause He determines that they shall be, and in virtue
of this determination they are, and He so knows
them. This is to deny human liberty, Jesuitism cries
furiously."' And your view denies the Divine Wis
dom, Thomism answers angrily."^ And in the midst
of this infernal quarreling, which has now lasted more
than three centuries, this rubbish of affirmation and
negation, history demonstrates with the clarity of
daylight, that on the most fundamental dogmas of
revelation the supercilious Romanist possesses neither
"^ See Molina and Tournely. See documents referring to
the Congregation of "Auxiliis."
°'' Billuart : On Predestination.
°' Read Father Miguelez' short work.
"* Billuart : Answer to the Objections, etc.
™ Molina and Tournely : On the Science of God.
"" Billuart : Same head.
"'Tournely: Answer to the Objections.
"'^Billuart: Answer to the Objections.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 235
a well-defined doctrine, nor a complete unity. We
should come upon the same strictures should we ex
amine the substance and form of confession,"' the
sacrament of marriage, and so forth. But the above
references are sufficient to show that there is no unity,
as regards the principal tenets of the Roman theology.
Is there unity in the Roman code of ethics? What
a jumble of conflicting answers this topic calls forth.
There is hardly a question in connection with it,
which does not give rise to a multitude of opinions.
Take up almost any Catholic book on ethics, and open
it at any chapter you please, and you will always
find this same refrain : This is the doctrine of St.
Alphonsus,"* but St. Bonaventure, or St. Thomas, up
holds the opposite view ; Billuart thinks thus, but El
bel is of another mind; this is condemned by some as
a grievous sin, but others deny it to be so."" The con
fusion of Babel is as nothing compared with the con-
"' Discussions between Thomists and Scotists on this point.
On dogmas so well established as eternal punishment in hell,
there is no unity. Many notable writers maintain that the
punishment of the senses is not eternal. The reader can as
certain this for himself by reading the study of the best re
puted Romanist orator of that time, Father Monsabre, on
this subject: "Father Monsabre's conferences": Hell and
the Eternity of Its Punishments.
°*Read, for instance, Concina on Moral Theology, Cardinal
Vives : Head, Systems, where it will be seen that the trifling
number of seven is required, namely: Absolute Tutiorisrn,
Moderate Tutiorism, Probabiliorism, Equiprobabilism, Simple
Probabilism, Moderate Probabilism, Laxism.
°° For instance, whether or not a minor under seven years
is subject to the laws of the Church. Some affirm that he is
under penalty of a grave sin if he has sufficient knowledge,
and others deny it, even if he has such a knowledge. Those
over sixty years are in the same case as regards fasting and
abstinence, with the same diversity of opinions.

236 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
fusion rioting within the Roman code of ethics.""
And it has given currency to the following highly
significant proverb: "If you lose your purse pray to
God that it may not fall into the hands of a moralist,
for if this should happen he would find grounds for
keeping it and soothing his conscience." As this di
versity of opinions on moral questions is evident both
to Romanists and Protestants, we shall pass on to
the canonical law. He who does not believe us may
read some of the authors we have quoted, and he
will see for himself that there cannot possibly be a
greater division and confusion of opinion than that
found in the Roman code of morals.
The lamentable thing about all this is, not that there
are diversities of opinion, but that this should happen
in the science which for Romanism is the one that
points the way to heaven and to hell ; "' and the poor,
faithful one is often and often perplexed and fright
ened, because at every step they say to him: Don't
go there, because that way leads to hell. Never mind
what he says, advises another teacher; that way leads
surely to heaven; and where the believer least ex
pects it, a third moralist comes up to him and says,
"' In matters so grave as restitution, there are cases in
which some compel under penalty of a grave sin, what others
approve as licit, for example : Thou hast positive doubts
as to whether thou didst give or not the compensation due?
Then according to St. Alfonso thou art no longer compelled
to make restitution, but according to other authorities like
Concina, Billuart, etc., thou art compelled under penalty of
mortal sin.
°' Besides the above named, let us read the following au
thors : Gury, Lenkhul, Alcina, Genicot, Salmaticenses, Elbel,
etc., etc. Look up any section, and in all of them the reader
will find an infinity of opinions, many of them condemning
as grave sin what others declare to be lawful or right.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 237
The other two are deceiving you,"' for this road leads
neither to heaven nor to hell, but to purgatory."" You
may imagine the state of mind of the simple believer,
in the midst of this jumble of advice, leaving him
not knowing where to turn. If we had in mind to
write a humorous book or to create a scandal, what a
wealth of material we should find in Roman ethics!
But let us pass on to the canonical law.
Is there unity in the canonical law? As little as
elsewhere. Ask if the bishops receive their power
directly from Christ or from the Pope, and some will
tell you one thing and others the opposite.'" Ask
what kind of power the Pope has over the princes,
and some will say that it is absolute and direct, and
others that it is restricted and mediate; while there
are still others who will say, that it is neither of the
two. Ask if the Pope has any obligations toward
the Concordats, in the manner of a bilateral contract,
and you will meet some who say that the Pope is un
der no obligation, while others consider him as being
semi-obligated and others who say that he is as much
obligated as the temporal princes," and so forth.
"' Cardinal Vives : Compendium on Morals, "Introduction.''
"'' In cases, so grave as to whether absolution must be given
or not. For example: In the case of a sin of a certain
nature (if the penitent ignores the privacy of same) he may
be absolved by any clergyman, according to some, and accord
ing to others, he cannot be so absolved unless the priest is
authorized to make the reservation, the bishops and Pope
being the sole authorities. Read St. Alfonso and Cardinal
Vives on "Reservation."
'° Bouix : Of the Bishop.
" Bouix : Canonical Law : Of the Pope, under Concordats.
Also (Cardinal Tarquinius, Caballari and Craisson, same head.

238 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Hence we find as little of the famous doctrinal unity
in the canonical law as elsewhere.
Is there unity in the way of interpreting the Sa
cred Books? Here, as in ethics, there is an astound
ing diversity of opinions, which contradicts the pre
tended unity of which the Roman Church is so proud.
Of what does inspiration consist? Some say that it
is something positive which moves the writer.'^ Oth
ers, say, no, that is not so, it is solely something pre
servative, simply the approbation of the Holy Ghost,
the writer being as free in redacting his books as any
profane writer. What does inspiration cover? It cov
ers each and every one of the things " contained in
the Scriptures, say some. It covers solely the pas
sages referring to dogma or to ethics, say others.
That is not so, protests a third group of interpreters,
it covers each and every one of the sentences. No,
sir, add yet others, it covers each and every one of
the words, and even the accents and commas, if
there are any.'* And after all this jungle and confu
sion of opinions, which argues a condition far from
the precious unity held out by the Roman Church,
all these learned interpreters say to the bewildered
reader: "But do not apply our words to any of the
versions which we possess.'^ When we speak of in
spiration and what it implies, we are referring ex
clusively to the primitive text, that which was writ-
'^ Read Jansen : On Inspiration. Vigouroux : Biblical
Manual. Cornely : Lessons on Exegesis ; same head.
'" Same authorities and heads. Also Jaugey : Apologetic
Dictionary of Faith, heads, Inspiration and Exegesis.
'* Same authors and heads. Also Patrizi and Lazaro.
'" Same authors and heads. Also Leo XIII : Encyclical on
the study of Holy Scripture.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTA^fTlSM. 239
ten and dictated by the inspired men; and as we do
not possess any of these precious texts, you may im
agine that we have said nothing; you may beheve
that we are talking fooHshness, until one of these
genuine primitive codices shall come to light." And
since they know, and the reader is not ignorant of the
fact, that it is morally impossible that this should
happen, the result is, that after all this mess of opin
ions, after all this trouble taken in listening to the
Roman doctors, it all goes up into smoke, and we are
finally left even without the Sacred Books. For as
they are talking solely of texts, and books which do
not exist, and are not referring to those which we
now possess, the reader may exclaim, in examining
the latter: Oh, if I only knew that this text were
identical with the primitive text, I should have the
assurance that what it contains has been revealed in
some way, that is, in agreement with the multiplicity
of opinions indicated above. But who will assure me
that the translator is not erring? Who will assure
me that the copyists are not making mistakes? The
Roman is therefore confronted with a cleverly
wrought fabric of exegetical doctrines, but is, strictly
speaking, without a Bible to which to apply them.
Perhaps, objects the Roman, you are exaggerating;
here you have the version called the Vulgate, which
was declared authentic at the Tridentine Council.'"
Therefore we have a Bible, and therefore you are ex
aggerating. But softly, Mr. Roman, we shall soon
examine the authenticity of your Vulgate, according
to your own and most sane doctrine, and then you
'" See Trent Council : Biblical Canon.
17

240 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
will see that our assertions are unassailable, and we
can prove to you that with all this noise and confu
sion, the Bible has slipped away from our hands, and
we have been left without the divine Word.
You say that the Vulgate was declared authentic.
Very well. Let us see what your Popes, your cardi
nals, your bishops, your theologians and your exe
getes say about this alleged authenticity. Listen to
them. This authenticity refers solely to the Latin
versions, that is to say, that this version is the least
faulty among all the Latin versions. But is it genuine
and truly exact ? " Why ! No ! Don't you see that
since that Council it has been revised and emended
by the Pontiffs? What, then, is the meaning of this
pretty word "authenticity"? You know very well,
that it is the least faulty of the Latin versions, and
you may also consult the Greek versions, especially
the Septuagint, which is more accurate in many pas
sages than our Vulgate." And we can at least go to
our Vulgate with the assurance of not finding any
error there. If that were so, it could not have been
corrected, and yet it has been corrected and continues
to be corrected. But will the ambiguities at least be
of slight importance? There are some. Hear what
the best exegetes think about this. Some say there
is no error in the Vulgate in all the passages that
refer to dogma and to morals. Others, more cautious,
assure us : there is nothing false in our Vulgate in
" Cornely : Compendium of Exegesis : under theory about
the Vulgate. Apologetic Dictionary of the Faith, under Vul
gate. See especially, Cardinal Gonzalez' work: La Biblia y
la Ciencia (The Bible and Science), on the Vulgate.
'" Same authors and heads.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 24I
the passages referring to dogma and to morals, but
there may be deficiency and inexactitude. Let us ex
plain these terms, as they are weighty.
Take the case that in the original text there was a
dogma presenting two aspects, and that the Vulgate
speaks of the one and not of the other.'" Or that in
the original text there are indicated more motives
and reasons, which are not all touched upon in the
Vulgate. Hence it may be deficient and inexact, not
because it includes a falsehood, but because it has
omitted something. Then come other exegetes still
more cautious, who say, that there are scientific er
rors in the Vulgate, relating to astronomy, history,
sociology and so forth, and you may therefore deny
that it is authentic. And finally there is the most radi
cal and most implacable fraction of exegetes, which
includes cardinals as eminent in exegesis as Vercel-
lone, who say, in the coolest way imaginable, that
there are scientific, moral, and dogmatic errors in the
Vulgate.'" And so we are enlightened ! This is the limit of
mockery and sarcasm. We laugh boisterously at the
divisions within Protestantism, while we ourselves,
with our distinctions and heterogeneity of opinion,
have arrived at the point of practically denying that
the Bible, which is the basis of all that is spiritual,
is genuine. We deride the Protestants because some
confess and others do not; because some are bap
tized in one way and others in another ; because some
™ Cornely : Work and head mentioned.
*" Consult especially The Bible and Science of Cardinal
Gonzalez.

242 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
adore the Sacrament and others deny this adoration;
while we ourselves, with our divisions, practically
deny the authenticity of the Bible, which is the only
basis for baptism, confession and the Sacrament. Is
this not the height of hypocrisy, of inconsequence,
and of stupidity?
Oh, if Romanism were not so haughty, if it were
at times a little more humble, since it cannot preserve
unity, neither in philosophy nor in theology, neither in
liturgy " nor in the canonical law, and not even in
the Sacred Scripture! Instead of loudly vaunting
itself of that which it does not now possess, has not
possessed, and will never possess, it should unfold the
banner of union, not on the strength of its fictitious
unity, which does not exist, but on the strength of that
which Protestantism also proclaims, namely, on the
basis of the fundamental dogmas; because it has all
the more reasons for doing so as Protestantism is
proclaiming this up to a certain point. Ask it : what
things shall a Christian believe, in order that he may
be saved ? And it answers : In the existence '^ of a
personal God who rewards the good and punishes the
bad; in the mystery of the Holy Trinity; in the Di
vinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption of Christ.
Nothing more, nothing less.
This, then, is the banner, the fundamental banner
*' See Cardinal Gibbons, article on "Liturgy," Encyclopedia
Britannica. We would rather not add anything to lengthen
the chapter, but read the article mentioned, and it will be seen
that more serious differences exist among Catholics, than be
tween Romanists and many Protestant congregations.
"''St. Alfonso: On what must be known of the means to
salvation. Cardinal Vives, Bertier, etc., are of the same opin
ion.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 243
of true unity. Here we have the program of union,
the device of the new crusaders. Here we have the
truths which should serve us as our watchwords, to
fight, not among ourselves, but against advancing im
piety, against rationalism which is invading every field
of thought, against anti-Christianism which is threat
ening to take hold of us. History tells us that the
Greek emperors were more interested in discussing
minute questions of theology than in providing for
the defence of their empire, and when they least
thought of it the Turk came and planted the standard
of the Crescent above the standard of the Cross. Far
be from us that which has become proverbial, the
Byzantine questions; far be from us domestic theo
logical minutiae. The Turk stands at the gates ; his
terrible artillery is rumbling in the air ; his light cav
alry is appearing everywhere; the body of his army
is advancing with the trumpets of attack. He who en
rolls under the standard we have indicated is of us ;
if he call himself a Greek, he is of us ; if he call him
self a Russian, he is of us ; if he call himself a Prot-
testant, he is our brother; and if he wishes to be a
Roman, he is also our brother.
Sweet Jesus, save us, because we perish. Inspire
us with Thy charity and union, that we may be one
single fold, all Thy sons with one single pastor, Thy
divine and sovereign authority.

; ' CHAPTER XVIII.
ECCLESIASTICAL CELIBACY.
IN taking up the subject of ecclesiastical celibacy,
we must clearly outline our thesis, so as not to
carry confusion into the examination of this most im
portant point. We will say right here that the mandate
of celibacy is not of Divine origin ; that the free
choice of celibacy is recommendable in many cases;
that the obligation of celibacy, as a precept, should be
abolished for the good of the Church itself. But we
shall not stop to prove the two first assertions. They
are so self-evident that merely to explain them will
carry conviction to the minds of our readers. Let
Cardinal Gibbons say what he will ' of the example
of Christ and His Apostles ; of the practice of the men
of apostolic periods ; of the testimony of St. Jerome
and of thousands of others that could be brought
forward: in this twentieth century we believe that
the precept of celibacy is not divine, nor quasi-divine,
as many believed in the Middle Ages, but is purely
and exclusively of ecclesiastical origin. We will add
to the many witnesses cited in the notes ^ a further
' Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, Celibacy.
" Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, head, Celibato
Ecclesiastico. The American review. The Catholic World,
April and May, 1908. Hettinger, Casanova, Cardinal Vives,
etc., etc. ; among the canonists consult Bouix.
(244)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 245
reason that cannot be gainsaid by any Roman theolo
gian, not even by Cardinal Gibbons.
What course does the Church pursue now, with
reference to the priests of the Greek Catholic Church ?
As Cardinal Gibbons admits,' it authorizes the pres
byter to live with his wife, and the children born of
this union are as legitimate as those of any other mar
riage under the canonical law. Very well. If celi
bacy were a divine institution the Church could not
authorize it without transgressing against her ortho
doxy.* Does she authorize it? Then it is evident
that such authorization is within her province, and it
is therefore a purely ecclesiastical precept. To deny
either of these two affirmations would be heretical for
the Romanist ; hence it is beyond a doubt that celibacy
is of human origin.
Our second assertion is equally self-evident. And on
this point we agree heart and soul with the doctrine
of Cardinal Gibbons. We believe that the celibate
minister who can lead an immaculate, clean life can
do infinitely more and better work than the married
minister. A man who is truly a celibate, zealous and
wise, can do wonders in converting souls, and can
perform miracles in the moral uplift of nations. To
deny this truth would be to deny history, and to mis
conceive the most fundamental laws of human nature.
We do not believe that there is any noteworthy
Protestant who will deny this truth. A Protestant
minister, working for the salvation of souls, who is
' British Encyclopedia Vol. 28, page 608, this article is signed
by Cardinal Gibbons.
* Jaugey : head, Potestad Dispensativa de la Iglesia.

246 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
unmarried and of a truly immaculate life, can do far
more, and achieve better results than his colleague.
The father and husband must of necessity devote a
great part of his life, both at home and abroad, to
his children and his wife ; while the minister to whom
Heaven has granted the gift of perfect chastity, will
dedicate his life entirely to his flock and to humanity.
The extraordinary sanctity with which some Roman
men seem to be clothed is due chiefly to this angelic
virtue. But this is not the question, Cardinal Gibbons. The
question is whether an obligation shall continue to
be imposed which is not fulfilled and which is the
cause of numberless evils and of terrible scandals.
This really is the sore and delicate spot. If we do
not go into details here, we do not prove our state
ment ; and if we do go into details we shall be obliged
to touch upon common street scandals, from which
we flee so strenuously. We shall touch upon the mat
ter lightly, following the ancient maxim : "I-ntelli-
genti pauca," and merely glancing at the most com
promising points.
Is celibacy observed at the present time within Ro
manism? Let us see how the ecclesiastical vocation
is determined in the Latin nations, which will give
us a weighty argument to the contrary. More than
ninety per cent of the future priests are the sons of
parents in moderate circumstances. We speak of
Europe, and chiefly of Spain.'* Being the sons of
pious mothers, the latter are ordinarily the first to
° Please investigate facts about seminaries as I have done
in many of them in Spain,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 247
decide upon their son's future life and to suggest the
religious vocation." At the age of ten the boy, in
fluenced .by his mother, is filled with the idea that
there is no profession so worthy, so holy, so fruitful
of results, and so easy as that of a priest. It must be
remembered that the Latin boy is much more im
pressionable than the American boy.' At this age,
when violent passions are unknown, when the physical
development is far from being completed, the boy
starts out upon the ecclesiastical career. He enters
the seminary, and now the period of privations and
sacrifices begins for his parents. During the first year
the boy seems to prosper and to get good hold of his
profession. The retirement, the silence, the prayers,
and so forth, and above all, the latent condition of
his passions and his complete ignorance of the world,
bring it about that this choice of a profession, which
began as a fixed idea on the part of the mother, has
assumed the same character in the mind of the son,
who now believes himself to be called to the priest
hood. But the boy soon meets with his first disHlu-
sionments, when he is between fifteen and twenty years
of age.' The bad example of some companions, the
first flutterings of the heart in this age of passion and
love, the voice of nature which is awakening, calling
the boy with a power that is superior to grace, all
these things are whispering to the youth that per-
" Investigate the origin of the vocation and the truth will
become known.
'Do not confound the boy of the Spanish Colonies with
the boy from Spain proper (the climates are different).
" According to my observations, such 15 the ?ase in more
than seventy per cent.

248 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
petual chastity is very difficult. But what shall he do?
Turn elsewhere? This his directors counsel him to
do, when he confesses freely to them. But how shall
he go about it? At the first word his father says to
him with an angry frown : "That is impossible, you
shall die first." Don't you know that for you we
have mortgaged half our patrimony? Is it thus that
you pay us for the sacrifices which we have made
for you?" Then his mother comes, with tears and
kisses, going to the length of throwing herself at the
feet of her son, imploring him to persevere.'" What
shaH this boy do in the face of this harrowing situa
tion? Many times he gives in, thinking that with a
little more precaution he may be chaste; he thinks in
good faith that he has reformed completely, and be
tween the caresses of his mother and the approbation
of his father, he offers once again to continue in his
sacerdotal career. Unhappy boy! Soon he will be
convinced that his passions are stronger than his good
intentions. But now he can no longer retract ; for al
though he has not yet taken his vows, the obligations
made by his family are for him more weighty even
than his vows. To be chaste is morally impossible;
and it is equally impossible to retract. What shall he
do in this grievous conflict?
Ah, Your Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, do not think
that some sectarian is speaking to you. A man is
speaking to you who has visited more seminaries than
there are in North America ; who has lived more than
° This is the most frequent and common language.
" This is a very frequent act. In many cases I have been
a personal witness.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 249
twenty-five years among priests and seminarists, who
has heard thousands of general confessions. See what
ordinarily happens; it is horrible, but it is true. The
youth makes a compact with vice, and he makes it
under the most horrible conditions, as a hypocrite and
vow-breaker. For fear that his disorderly life may
become known, he practises secret vices, he becomes
the most crafty hypocrite. He goes to ordinary con
fessions sacrilegiously, fearing that otherwise he may
be suspended by his order; and it is only when he
meets with the monk, when he retires to some convent
for spiritual exercise, that he dares to be explicit in
his confessions. Our professional dignity forbids us
to go more into details; but we can assure the reader
that there have been seminaries that were closed be
cause the majority of the inmates (there were about
two hundred) had become contaminated with the
plague of Pentapolis. And we know a number of
seminaries, that should likewise be closed, because
the vice of Sodom corrodes the majority of its inhabi
tants. Intelligenti pauca.
What can be expected of youths who prepare them
selves under these conditions to take holy orders?
What ecclesiastical or gentlemanly honor can be ex
pected of youths who enter the priesthood degraded
as gentlemen, and sacrilegious as priests? We are
morally convinced that if a society could be formed
with the object of indemnifying the parents for the
expenses they incurred for their boys, and that if some
dignified office were given to the seminarists, ninety
per cent of them would abandon their career between

250 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
the ages of twenty and twenty-five." But as there
is no such society, the youths enter the priesthood in
the most detestable of conditions. WHl the ordina
tion which they receive, in the majority of cases
against the express mandate of their last confessor,
make them any better? We will answer in a few
veiled words.
In our large and varied experience with multitudes
of youths, we can swear as a priest and affirm as a
gentleman, that the youths are not bettered. And on
the same terms we can assure the reader that we
have heard the same views expressed in intimate con
versations with many eminent Spaniards, Frenchmen,
and Italians.-'^ And whenever we have asked any
Jesuit Father, any Franciscan or Capuchin, and other
priests who have visited some dioceses, devoting their
time to work among the priests, we have received the
same answer. It may be said that among the priests
there is no conviction so general and deep-seated as
this. With the knowledge that we are handling fire, we
will cite an example and give a reason which we think
is overwhelming. Engaged in missionary work in one
of the largest dioceses of Spain," which is considered
one of the best, we received various informations on
" My long experience and over one thousand cases au
thorizes me to formulate such proportion.
^^ I can assure you as a gentleman that I can set forth over
thirty testimonies of illustrious prelates, and more than fifty
notable missionaries.
'^ I do not consider it proper to publish the name of the
diocese, nor of the Provisor, but these can be secured by
Cardinal Gibbons or any Catholic prelate, who takes the pains
to write to the publishers, who will gladly produce same,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 25I
the infraction of Benedict XIV's Bulla Sacramentum
Poenitentiae. Returning twice consecutively to the
same place to preach, we observed with a sorrowful
surprise that this most grave of abuses continued,
and that the Palace did not seem to take any note of
it. Authorized and commissioned by one of the peni
tents to hand in a denunciation personally, and hav
ing complied with the ritual ordinances, we went upon
our errand. The Provisor to whom we carried our
complaint, and who honored us with his intimate
friendship, answered us with tears in his eyes, as we
will confirm under oath : "Oh, Father, I do not know
what we shall do, for nearly, if not all, are doing the
same thing; and on the other hand I have just re
ceived orders from Rome, that we shall be lenient on
this matter."
We stood dumbfounded at hearing such revela
tions : in the first place, although from our own ex
perience we could assert that celibacy was not ob
served, we had never come across the like of this de
grading and horrible corruption; and in the second
place, if Rome understood that the abuse was so great
as to call for a degree of tolerance, we knew that this
was not the remedy, but something else much more
emphatic. We went about for a long time pondering,
doubting that such a monstrous order could have come
from Rome, which is wont to be so cautious in such
matters. We asked many bishops; they all gave us
the same answer, and when Cardinals like Vives pro
mulgate such orders and such doctrine, then we ceased
to doubt.'* And now, Cardinal Gibbons, a brief com-
'* Cardinal Vives : Compendium juris Canonici.

252 ROMAN CATHOLICISM ¦
mentary, but in such a way that outsiders shall not
understand it.
The last thing the Catholic priest loses is the de
corum of the confessional. It may be said that he
who once loses it there, thereby falls into the way of
losing it habitually elsewhere. When abuses of the
nature of those penalized by Benedict XIV become
general, to the point that men like the Provisor to
whom we have referred speak of them as he did, and
when Rome issues orders like those we quoted with
out translating,'^ it may be asserted that celibacy has
ceased to be a general custom among the priests.
Anyone who examines this question and yet persists
in believing the contrary, would, we verily think, per
sist in believing the priests to be chaste, even though
he saw the vow of celibacy publicly broken in the
streets and market places.
What are the consequences of this most lamentable
slackening of morals ? Alas ! for the priest they are
the most sinister and deplorable. What peace can
there be in the mind of the priest, who knows that
he is committing a horrible sacrilege every time he
absolves another, that he is committing the same sin
every time he celebrates, and every time he admin
isters the Holy Communion? How can he speak of
heaven when his conscience is smirched with sacri
leges which are not committed even in hell? How
can he preach virtue when he knows himself to be a
cesspool of horrible vices? How can he speak with
energy and unction of God's justice and providence,
^ Prima vice vigiletur, secunda vigiletur attentius, tertia
procedatur. (Edition, 1905.)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 253
when he knows that if they exist, he is the first of evil
doers and reprobates? The final consequence of celi
bacy for the priest is hypocrisy, despair, or incre
dulity. We are so firmly convinced of these distinte-
grating consequences that if Romanism must continue
as it is now, we should prefer a thousand times that
our beloved Spain would turn Protestant; for in that
case it would at least preserve the faith of Christ,
which it has now very nearly lost.
The people being thus abandoned, as it were, by
the clergy, the decadence in faith and customs among
them in consequence is frightful. To speak of Cath
olic progress among the Latin people is to betray one's
ignorance of the state of their collective conscience.
In Latin Europe there are inheritances and Catholic
atavisms, but the Catholic individualities as such, are
disappearing and coming to an end with a steadiness
of progression that must cause the gravest appre
hensions. A nation like Spain '" continues Catholic
because its antecedents were such, because the national
and family customs are such, but the Catholic spirit
and the individual Catholic sentiment no longer exist.
How can persons call themselves Catholic who do not
go to confession or take the Communion even once
a year? How can persons call themselves Catholics
in the Roman sense, who do not fast or go to mass
on the prescribed days, or believe in the infalli
bility of the Pope? who speak of priests, monks and
nuns, only to deride them?
Does the reader want more data than those we have
named? Look at the results obtained by Catholic
" You can consult many of the Pastorales.

254 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
work of a collective and national character." Catho
lic congresses are convened, and adjourn without
having arrived at any particular results. A Cathohc
periodical is launched, and it dies without having
obtained any subscriptions." Circles for Catholic
work are organized, and they disappear without hav
ing achieved any results. A Catholic party is pro
jected, and it does not get any further than the elec
tion of a deputy, and so forth.'"
Does Your Eminence know why Protestantism
does not progress there? Because, in addition to the
national atavism, they are not very prudent in the
election of persons,^" generally placing in high posi
tion in their Church some convert from Catholicism
who has been expelled for some gross scandal. The
Catholic priest is quick to take advantage of this,
and points to Luther's marriage with a nun, saying
that this is not religion, but matrimony of monks
and priests, and the poor faithful, one who does not
know the first thing about Protestantism, believes it
to be worse than his own religion, although he sees
the abuses in his own Church and the scandals of his
own pastors. On the day when Protestantism shall
seriously undertake to discuss its doctrines, when the
people shall see ministers as honorable as we have
" Read Sarda and Salvany about this Congress.
" The Catholic Movements.
"Mr. Urquijo.
'^ Compare the subscriptions of the non-Catholic newspapers
such as The Liberal, The Impartial, Heraldo de Madrid, El
Motin, Las Dominicales, etc., etc., with the Catholic ones,
such as the Correo Espanol, Siglo Futuro, etc., etc., and you
will find that for each subscriber of the latter the former
has one hundred.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 255
seen them in this nation, congregations as serious as
those we see established here everywhere; on the day
when the Spanish people can convince itself that
Protestantism far from denying every religion, as the
priest preaches, affirms the Divinity of Christ and not
the infallibility of the Pope, the efficacy of the re
demption and not the indulgences, the invocation of
Christ and not the cult of the saints — on that day
Romanism will disappear to a large extent from the
most Roman nation of Europe. We know our peo
ple well enough to affirm this positively.
Perhaps the Romanist will say: but with such a
dispensation the Roman clergy will lose the aureole
of its prestige. Why? Is this dispensation the same
as the obligation? If the obligation to remain celi
bate is removed, and the priest be free to marry, then
he can still elect to remain a celibate. And are not
those who cannot practice this supernatural virtue,
led on a more secure path by such a concession?
Does not St. Paul tell us, that it is better to marry
than to follow one's passions without it? Do you
think that celibacy would cease with such a dispensa
tion? If so you would thereby admit that immorality
within the Church is universal, and that this reform
should be introduced. But do not fear that with this
step, the few men who now by nature or by grace
continue truly celibate will not remain so. And their
example, besides edifying the others, would make it
possible for the Church to castigate severely the guilty
ones. Since, then, celibacy is not observed, and the Roman
18

256 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Church knows it, she should modify this law as she
has modified many of her other laws, leaving the
Roman priest free, just as she leaves the Greek priest
free. She would thereby preserve celibate those who
can now be so, and could compel those who indulge
in abuses to live up to their obligations.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE INQUISITION AND ROMANISM.
AS a writer and as a Spaniard I cannot remain in
silence after reading Chapter XVIII of Car
dinal Gibbons' work. Either I cannot read, or Car
dinal Gibbons thinks that religious persecution had its
home chiefly in Spain, and that its measures were
hatched in the tenebrous courts of Austria.' My poor
country ! How those who, in all decorousness, should
defend you, mock at you for that which you deemed
most sacred ! You were the manikin of Romanism,^
and in its murderous attacks on liberty, you permitted
yourself to be its hangman. Mockery and disdain
are your reward. Ah! you listened to the accursed
siren of the Vatican; you thought that her enchanting
voice was the voice of Heaven; that her counsels and
doctrine were beneficent and saving; to your own
detriment you favored them and helped them to the
limit of your ability. And those who formerly praised
you, calling you the right arm of the Church,' now
heap abuse upon you, in the same way and for the
' Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, Chap. XVIII.
' Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Inquisition. You will see
that the Catholic Kings obstructed and delayed all acts con
cerning those matters. Read Mariana and Fuente: On the
Inquisition. Read Canovas del Castillo, the illustrious Span
ish statistician : His great book entitled Casa de Austria (The
House of Austria).
"Title given by many Popes to the House of Austria. (2S7)

258 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
same things for which they formerly applauded you !
You listened obediently to the Pope when he said to
you: In the name of God, whose Vicar I am on
earth, arise and march against my enemies. And
you unwarily did spiH the blood of your children in
torrents, and did squander the millions of your treas
ury ! * Oh, if you had only trodden Romanism under
foot as England did,^ had despised it as France de
spised it," then perhaps your beautiful flag would still
be flying over your vast possessions in America, over
your beautiful European pearls, and perhaps you
might have continued as one of the most powerful
nations of the world ! But you associated yourself
with Romanism, and it wrought your ruin, and as if
that were not enough, it now heaps upon you scorn
and derision ! Take this lesson to heart once and for
aH time, my beloved Spain; cast away bravely this
poisonous viper, which, winding around your body,
has held you from exerting your full strength; rise
up from the earth where you have fallen because of
your excessive complacency to Romanism. Remem
ber what you once were, before Romanism took hold
of you, for then you may again recover a great part
of your fallen grandeur.
No, Cardinal Gibbons, religious persecution is not
really the product of Spain; this monstrosity could
not have been brought forth elsewhere but in Rome.
This terrifying tribunal could not be the work of any
¦¦Read La Fuente, Mariana, Gebhart, Canovas del Castillo:
On the War of Germany, England and Flanders.
° During the reign of Henry VIII.
° Proclaiming the famous Gallican Liberties.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 259
one else but the Popes. I can never read Chapter
XVIII of Cardinal Gibbons' work without being re
minded of an anecdote told of Leo XIII. It is said
that after the death of the famous historian Cesar
Cantu,' some blamed him for not always having de
fended the Roman Church, and Leo XIII replied
energetically : "He did not always defend the Roman
Church, but he always defended that which he be
lieved to be true, and that is his greatest merit, and,"
added Leo, with an air of disdain, "a group of Cath
olic historians is now appearing who if it had to re
dact the Gospels would suppress Judas' sale of Christ
and Peter's negation, in order not to scandalize the
faithful ; if calumniations deserve censure, it is equally
reprehensible to conceal the truth, on the pretext of
defending the Church."
With all due respect to the Cardinal's scarlet, it
seems to me that Chapter XVIII of Cardinal Gibbons'
work should be signed not by an American cardinal,
but by one of those prejudiced Roman writers whom
Leo XIII derided. Neither the pontifical tiara nor
the cardinal's hat authorizes the wearer to misrepre
sent facts or falsify history, in order that Romanism
may be freed from the reproach of having been for
good or evil, more or less instrumental in creating
and upholding the tribunal of the Inquisition. To
shift the consequences of this tribunal now upon the
temporal rulers, seems to us as ridiculous and irra
tional as to lay the responsibility for the executions
of the present day upon the hangmen who kill in the
'Anecdote referring to the European Newspaper.

26o ROMAN CATHOLICISM
name of the law the victims handed over to them by
the courts.
What would be Your Eminence's opinion of a con
temporary writer who, in speaking of the rivers of
blood shed during the Russo-Japanese war, should
foolishly upbraid the poor soldiers, saying to them:
Villains, evil-doers ! why did you take up your bayo
nets, why did you discharge your guns? It is you
who have caused such desolation and ruin, not the
Czar of Russia, nor the Mikado, because they re
mained quietly in their palaces. Would this be
rational or just? Again we find the language of
Your Eminence's in the following passages as irra
tional as that of the preceding chapter, when you
practically say: "Why are you scolding the peace
ful and venerable shepherds of the Church? Why do
you blame Romanism for the blazing stakes of the
Inquisition ? This was not their work, but that of the
rulers, and more especially of the Spanish rulers."
To your assertion you could add without opening any
book, Auctoritate qua fungor (By my authority). We
reply that we will prove the contrary on historical
grounds. The tribunal of the Inquisition is solely and entire
ly the work of the Popes. Through them it came to
life, through them it grew and flourished.' They, not
the rulers, pronounced the sentences ; they, and not the
rulers, condemned to the stake and to death. The
' See the end of this Chapter for a complete account, from
history, of one of the Inquisition's autos da fe — the public
judicial announcement and execution of its sentences.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 26I
rulers " were neither more nor less than the hangmen
and soldiers who executed the orders of the Popes.
Nay more, the rulers, including those of Spain, in
time refused this hangman's office.'" For when the
thunders of the Vatican lost their destructive force,
when the rulers became convinced that the Roman
excommunications might be set at naught like the
impotent decrees of a decadent despotism, does Your
Eminence know what they then did, against the out
cries of Rome? They suppressed this tribunal; and
now the Inquisition, as such, exists only at Rome, to
the shame of humanity and the confusion of Cardinal
Gibbons. So that. Cardinal, the rulers had no part
whatever in its glorious or ignoble establishment;
all the glory of that belongs to Rome. And Rome
had no part whatever in the praiseworthy or blam
able act of abolishing it; this is exclusively the work
of the rulers.
But let us come down to the facts. When did this
so-called Holy Tribunal of the Inquisition appear
and whence did it come? Not long ago the writer
met aboard a steamer an Englishman, who, like Car
dinal Gibbons, held forth as follows : "Oh, cruel Spain ;
there stood the cradle of the Inquisition, there num
berless men were burned." "Sir," I asked him, "what
Spanish ruler was the father of this ignoble creature?"
"PhHip II," he replied. "Oh, no, sir, you are mis
taken by not less than three hundred years." Con
fused by my answer, he said, "Then perhaps he abol-
" Read the Jesuit Ricardo Capa : Head, The Spanish In
quisition. '° Read Cadiz Cort, and Ferdinand VII : Decree.

262 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
ished it." "Again you are mistaken, and by more
than three hundred years." When I came to this
country and read the famous Chapter XVIII, of Car
dinal Gibbons' book, I could not help thinking that
this Englishman might very well be the disciple of
Cardinal Gibbons. But this cardinal speaks so un
certainly, with so little regard to history, that any
one who reads his Chapter XVIII might think that
we are the originators of this horrible creature. No,
Cardinal, the Spaniards are not the fathers of that
ignoble thing. This sanguinary Roman matron had
already attained to a good size when she came to our
hearths. Her scythe and her stake had already
mowed down and burned many thousands of un
happy Christians. Therefore we did not originate it,
nor did we instruct her in her cruel artifices. Let us
hear the testimony of history.
The Inquisition originated in Languedoc " between
1200 and 1216. Its natural and legitimate, not adopted,
father, was Pope Innocent III, who instituted the first
inquisitors, Guy and Regmer, whom he authorized,
by virtue of his all-inclusive power of binding and
loosing, to seize the property of heretics, including
presumably therein the Popes ; to take away their es
tates from princes, and to behead and burn those
whose beliefs were prejudicial to Romanism. His
tory tells us '^ that the first inquisitors were worthy
" Read Encyclopedia Britannica : Head, Inquisition. Hefele :
History of the Inquisition. Before this epoch there were al
ready inquisitors, but they appear as episcopal functionaries,
and as a part of the episcopal ministry; only since Innocent
III does this tribunal appear as existing independently.
^ Read Zorrilla : Historia de los Frailes y sus Conventos.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 263
of their name. Once, when they did not care to take
the trouble of investigating the accusation brought
before them, they ordered a general butchery, and
when protestations were made that among the victims
were true followers of Rome, they replied, as not the
most sanguinary of the Roman emperors would have
replied : "No matter, these will go to heaven."
Your Eminence will see therefore that the father
land where stood the cradle of the Inquisition is not
Spain; that its natural and legitimate father, whom
we have surely traced, is not found among the Span
ish rulers. And history further tells us that when
this tribunal was brought into Spain, it provoked
riots among the people," protests from the bishops,
and even difficulties with the kings, who regarded the
inquisitors as an invasion from Rome into their
states. If only they had been less obedient to Roman
ism ! If only they had feared the poverty and depopu
lation of their states more than the pontifical thun
ders, then Spain would not be in the condition in
which she now is. She would not have furnished any
pretext — for there are no just grounds, as we shall
see further on — for the haughty disdain with which
Your Eminence is treating her now.
Did the tribunal of the Inquisition change in char
acter when it was transplanted into Spain? Did it
cease to be a pontifical institution, being transformed
instead into a royal one? Anyone who has read ec
clesiastical history even superficially, or is but slightly
'° Mariana, La Fuente : History of Spain. Canovas del
Castillo : Casa de Austria. Father Ricardo Capa : The Span
ish Inquisition. Encyclopedia Britannica : Inquisition.

264 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
acquainted with the history of the Inquisition, can
assert roundly and without hesitation, that this tri
bunal continued to be exclusively pontifical. Let us
cite some facts which will no longer leave room for
the least doubt.'* Who appointed the inquisitors?
The Pope, not the rulers. Who had power to restrict
or to amplify their functions? The Pope, and not
the rulers. To whom were the inquisitors subject in
the exercise of their terrible power? To the Pope,
and not to the ralers. And now the most convincing
proof: To whom could the poor victim appeal? To
the Pope, not to the rulers." Woe to them if they
had listened to such appeals ! Therefore a tribunal
whose judges are appointed exclusively by the Popes,
whose power is derived from the Popes, and the exer
cise of whose functions depends solely on the Popes,
is entirely and absolutely a papal tribunal. If the
kings could not intervene in anything, neither in the
appointment of its officers nor in its jurisdiction, if
they had no power to modify or to alter any of its
workings, interfere with any of its sentences or listen
to appeals from its judgment, how can anyone call it
a royal tribunal? This is as illogical and irrational
as it would be to attribute to the Spanish rulers the
dictum of infallibility because their ambassadors were
present at the Council of the Vatican. A httle more
" Besides the authors mentioned consult Emerie : Rules of
the Inquisition Tribunal. Torquemada : Head, Instruction.
All the above statements on this subject can be read in in
numerable briefs, in existence in different archives. Ours is a
copy from the Sacraments Autos which took place during the
reign of Charles II.
'"Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe; head, Inqui
sition.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 265
impartiality, Cardinal, if you please, and a little more
seriousness — especially when it comes to a question
of making statements that cast discredit upon a na
tion, whose greatest errors were committed not be
cause it was Spanish, but because it was Roman. If
not for the sake of truth, which everyone who writes
for publication should respect, then at least for the
sake of gratitude Your Eminence should have been
more exact and truthful.
Perhaps some Romanist will say — and Cardinal
Gibbons seems to incline to such a view — : We do not
deny that the Inquisition in its origin and jurisdiction
was a pontifical institution, yet it was not the Pontiff
who sentenced and executed, it was the state and the
rulers; therefore they, and not the Pontiff, must be
held to account for the numbers upon numbers of un
happy men who perished through it. This second as
sertion is as anti-historical, irrational and illogical as
the first. Let us now penetrate into the tenebrous,
subterraneous workings of the inquisitorial courts,
let us accompany the victims from the time that they
fell into the claws of the Inquisition up to the mo
ment when they breathed their last sigh in the midst
of the most horrible torments, roasted at the stake.
As we have seen that this tribunal was a wholly pon
tifical institution as regards its powers and jurisdic
tion, so we shall now see that it preserves the same
character as regards its sentences and their execution.
Who opened and conducted the process? The in
quisitors, who were the ministers of the Pope, not
public officials dependent on the king. Who heard the

266 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
pleadings of the culprit '" and the excuses he made in
his own behalf? The inquisitor, judging in the name
of the Pope, and not the magistrates judging in the
name of the king. Who ordered the preHminary tor
ments in order to extract forced confessions? Who
applied the torments of tongues, and burning candles,
the iron collars and the rack?" Look at these. Car
dinal — ^the inquisitors, in the name of the Pope, not
the hangman of the nation, in the name of the king.
Who carried out these inhuman orders ? The inquisi
torial officials, not the functionaries of the king.
Where were the culprits kept imprisoned during their
trial? In the prisons of the Inquisition, which were
dependencies of the Pope, not in the royal prisons su
bordinate to the king. Therefore the person who
opens and conducts the process, who attends to all
the accessories and preliminaries of the case, includ
ing the extraction of confessions on the rack, is the
Pope, through his ministers, and not the king through
his functionaries.
Who pronounces the sentence? We find over
whelming evidence in history to the effect that the
passing of the sentence depended exclusively on the
Pope and not on the king. Who absolved or con
demned the culprit? The inquisitors," judges with
papal jurisdiction, and not the secular judges under
" Read Emerie ; also Torquemada : His rules and instruc
tions. Also the innumerable appointments given by Popes
from Innocent III to Leo XII, and you will see how the
inquisitors are always and in every case, functionaries of the
Popes, from whom they take orders exclusively to judge cases.
"Besides the authors mentioned on this subject, investi
gate and read any Auto Sacramental process, in existence.
'* Read same authors cited in note 16.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 267
the king's jurisdiction. Who determined whether or
not the property of the culprit should be confiscated,
and whether such confiscation should be absolute or
only partial? (Look at this question, Cardinal.'") The
tribunal of the Inquisition, which judged in the name
of the Pope, not any secular tribunal depending on the
king. Who decreed whether the punishment' should
be imprisonment or the galleys, whether it should be
for a set period or for life? Tell us, Cardinal Gib
bons. The tribunal of the Inquisition, with the ap
proval of the Pope, not some tribunal subject to the
king. And finally who decided whether the culprit
should die by the hands of the hangman or should
be burnt alive? Mark well. Cardinal.^" The Inquisi
tion's ministers, functionaries and judges, in the name
of the Pope, and not any person who obeyed the sig
nals or mandates of the king. Therefore the condem
nation to prison or rope, to the galleys or the fire was
pronounced by the pontifical power and not by the
royal power.^' Very well, then. If the rulers had no
power of intervention, neither at the beginning nor
during the trial, nor any voice in the final judgment,
how can the rulers be taxed with such monstrosities?
Could the king perchance absolve anyone who had
been condemned by the Inquisition? No, a thousand
times no. Could the king commute or ameliorate the
punishment which 'the Inquisition had imposed? No,
a thousand times no. Could the king put off the pun-
'" Read, besides authors cited. History of Spain, by Gebhart.
^ Add to the authors cited. La Fuente : History of Spain.
^' Read any of the many Sacramental Autos.

268 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
ishment which the Inquisition had inflicted?^* No,
a thousand times no. What, then, had the king to do
with these cases? He was, as we have said before,
the executioner who finally killed the victims which
the court of the Inquisition handed over to him.
When Your Eminence can demonstrate that the ex
ecutioners of to-day are responsible for the executions
which they carry out by order and in the name of the
law, then Your Eminence can also assert that the rul
ers and not the Popes are the ones who are respon
sible for the crimes of the Inquisition ; but since Your
Eminence cannot demonstrate such a monstrosity, it
is maintained that the Inquisition was a tribunal purely
ecclesiastical in its origin, in its development, and in
each and every one of its sentences. Whoever seeks
sincerely for the truth will not fail to find such men
and such witnesses.
Is Your Eminence ignorant of the fact ^' that the
Pope was king of a large part of Italy? Does Your
Eminence not know, that in the Papal State also here
tics were hanged and burned? Did the Spanish rul
ers pronounce these sentences there? Were Giordano
Bruno, Cagliostro, and the thousands of other vic
tims who were burned in the Papal State, also exe
cuted in Spain and by the Spanish rulers ? ^* No,
Cardinal Gibbons ! Be a little more serious. No his-
^ Read any of the many Sacramental Autos. Only the
Pope could delay any punishment and allow any appeals ; and
many a time, according to the Jesuit Father, Ricardo Capa,
a case was postponed if the accused was a rich man and will
ing to pay the Pope for it.
^ Read Rohrbacher, Alzog, Rivas : Ecclesiastical History.
" Read any Roman historian, and add Csesar Cantu : Reli
gious Persecution in Italy.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 269
tory should ever be written except with the view of
telling the truth, although it may be hard and may
cost dear. He who does not possess the requisite
strength of character had better be silent.
In further proof of our assertion, history tells us
that even after the tribunal of the Inquisition had
been disestablished in all the other European states,
it continued in Rome; when the temporal power dis
appeared, it still subsisted in so far and in such a
manner as it could under the circumstances.^'* So that
in this twentieth century there exists at Rome the
Tribunal of the Holy OflSce; and if it does not now
order heretics to be hanged or burned, this is not be
cause Romanism does not believe that it can hang or
burn, and that such means are legitimate or conven
ient, but because no temporal power would support
it in such insane and inhuman projects. But if Ro
manism should again come into its ancient prestige
and power, then, as formerly, and to-morrow as yes
terday, it would decree these terrible hecatombs which
now fill with horror the illiterate Romanists who at
tribute them to the temporal rulers, in ignorance or
denial of history. We shall again refer to this point
when we take up the Romanist thesis. And we will
close this chapter now by asserting that all the glory
or ignominy which belongs to the Inquisition must be
attributed solely and exclusively to the gentle power
and paternal government of the Roman Pontiffs.^"
""Read the actual Rules of the Holy Tribunal of the In
quisition, or Santo Oficio; both names are applied to the
same. '"' A Typical Auto Da Fe.— I believe that nothing can bet
ter demonstrate the permanent character of the horrible

270 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Romanist Tribunal of the Inquisition than the report we
transcribe, literally translated, of one of its autos da fe.
I beg the reader to peruse it carefully and sincerely, as it is
enough in itself to prove to a certainty that the kings have
nothing to do with the decisions or jurisdiction of the In
quisition.REPORT OF THE GENERAL AUTO DA FE HELD IN MADRID ON THE
3OTH DAY OF JUNE, 1680, ATTENDED BY KING CHARLES II
AND HIS CONSORT DNA. MARIE LUISA DE BOURBON.
"It being remembered by the king that he had heard that
his august father, Philip IV, had attended with extreme delec
tation of spirit and Christian jubilation, the general auto da
fe celebrated in this royal city in 1632, he had on many oc
casions signified to various persons of his esteem and con
fidence how much it would please him to witness a spectacle
of this kind, the more so as he was recently married, and
wished to provide to his young and beloved spouse, beside
the worldly entertainments and pleasures which the kings of
the world have to attend, the mystic enjoyments and moral
amusements that our true and only religion provides to pure
souls, that observe its precepts to become firmer each day in
the sound foundations of faith.
"The General Inquisitor of Spain and President of the
Supreme Council of the Inquisition, Don Diego Sarmiento
Valladares, Bishop of Oviedo, knowing from its origin the
monarch's desire, said to him one day, that having on hand
many finished cases and plenty of culprits already sentenced
in the prisons, both of Toledo and of Madrid, the Council
had decided to hold an auto da fe in the before-mentioned
city of Toledo, and invited him to attend in order to, by this
means, gratify his desire. The king having a.ccepted the offer
with effusion, declared to the inquisitor-general how much
better it would be to hold the auto da fe as on previous occa
sions, in the Plaza Mayor (principal square) of Madrid,
avoiding in this way the expense and the trouble that the
journey must occasion to the royal person as well as to the
humblest official taking part in the auto. The Supreme Coun
cil having met and become aware of His Majesty's desires,
it was unanimously voted that the auto take place in Madrid.
The inquisitor-general invited the Duke of Medinaceli to
carry the standard of the Faith in the solemn procession of
the Cruz Verde (green cross), and His Excellency accepted
with pleasure, giving evidence of his religiousness and of his
great love and respect for the Inquisition.
"Preparations were therefore commenced for that impor
tant event by appointing special commissioners from among

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 27I
the inquisitors, each charged with the different matters re
quired for the best order and brilliancy of the performance.
The inquisition at Toledo was advised, so that eight days be
fore the celebration of the auto the inquisitors should come
to Madrid with their officers and families and sentenced cul
prits. Notice was given to the high brother of the Congrega
tion of St. Peter the Martyr, and to the members of the Holy
Office, to which all people belonged, from the highest nobility
of Castile to the humblest workman, and whose attendance
is so necessary for the better order of all public acts per
formed by the courts of justice. The Fraternity at once as
sembled and after a few sittings, everything that pertained to
its office, was resolved and agreed upon.
"On Thursday, the 30th of May, in the year 1680, the auto
was published, and the beautiful standard of the Congrega
tion, which was of crimson silk richly embroidered in gold,
was placed in the main balcony of the inn and residence be
longing to the very illustrious bishop and inquisitor-general
in Torija Street. The front of the house was ornamented
with elaborate bunting, and in the windows close to the bal
cony from which waved the standard, there had been placed
kettle-drums and bugles, that from time to time announced in
harmonious echoes the solemn function that was being pre
pared. Within a short time the officers of the Congregation
of St. Peter the Martyr assembled, as well as the commis
sioners, notaries and constables from the court then convened,
and between five and six o'clock in the evening, the procession
started. The officers rode in pairs upon horses showily
caparisoned, headed on the right by Manuel Ignacio Novalles,
high constable of the Congregation, and by his side Marcos
de Ondategui, a minister of the Holy Office, both carrying
their wands raised. Behind the cavalcade followed the stand
ard of the Faith, carried by Juan de Navascue's minister of
the Holy Office, and the oldest steward of the Congregation,
while Luis Roman and Juan Romero, as being the oldest
deputies of said Congregation, bore the tassels. Many devout
people, though strangers to the institution, went along with
the officers. Among them were some titled people and gentle
men of the Orders who considered themselves highly hon
ored by carrying over their vestments the insignia of the In
quisition; and the procession was closed up by Sebastian de
Lara, knight of Santiago, high constable of the court of
Toledo, and Caspar Peinado Tanega, oldest secretary of the
Tribunal of this royal city. The first warning was sounded
at the door of the Inquisitor-General by the town crier, who
repeated what was being read to him from a paper previously
prepared by Lucas Lopez de Moya, officer of the Holy Office,
notary of the same, and a resident of this town.
19

272 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"The contents of the same were as follows: 'Know all
residents and neighbors of this town of Madrid, royal resi
dence of His Majesty, existing in and inhabiting the same,
that the Holy Office of the Inquisition of the city and king
dom of Toledo will celebrate a general auto da fe in the
Plaza Mayor (principal square) of Madrid, on Sunday, the
30th of June, of the present year, and that all those who at
tend the said auto, or help in it, will be granted all the graces
and indulgences given by the High Pontiffs, and this is hereby
commanded to be made public, so that it may become known
to everyone.'
"The retinue started from the house of the Inquisitor-
General toward the small square of Dna. Maria de Aragon,
and passing through that of Encarnacion and the Tesoro
Street, it went on to the Plaza de Palacio (palace square),
in front of which the second cry was sounded, while their
Majesties were at the glass window watching the procession
with great satisfaction. (And here,we must note a circumstance
that speaks for the religiousness of the monarch, and it is
that having gone to visit, as was his wont, his august mother
in the Buen Retiro, he advanced the hour of his return to
the palace, so as to be present when the procession passed).
The third cry was given near the Church of St. Mary, facing
the queen mother's palace. The fourth was sounded at the
gate of Guadalajara, and the crowd here collected of people,
carriages, and horses, was so great that there were many
crushings. The retinue was falling into such disorder that it
had to be rearranged in the Calle Mayor (principal street),
which occurrence brought about the promulgation of an edict,
that on the day of any subsequent autos, to avoid a repeti
tion of the disorder, no carriages or horses should circulate
about the streets through which the procession had to pass.
"The fifth blare was sounded at the Puerta del Sol (Sun
Gate), the sixth, at the small square of Anton Martin, the
seventh at the Plaza Mayor (principal square) and the eighth,
at that of San Domingo (Holy Sunday), the brilliant retinue
continuing afterward by the Calle Ancha de San Barnardo
(St. Barnard Broad Street), Flor Street, and Inquisition
Street, passing in front of the royal tribunal and returning to
the house of the Inquisitor-General, in order to put back the
standard in the place from which it had been taken.
"The inquisitor Fernando Villegas having been commis
sioned to erect an amphitheater on which the auto da fe was
to be represented, entrusted the plans to Jose del Olmo,
Grand Master of the city of Madrid, who immediately drew
up the plans which he submitted to the commissioner. These
having been approved, he applied to His Majesty for the let-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 273
ter ordering the municipality to proceed with the construc
tion, as was in effect done, the king decreeing an order on
June 6th commanding that the scaffolding stands and fenc
ings necessary for the occasion be erected without delay, and
recommending great promptitude on account of the urgency
of the case.
"The municipality appointed two commissioners to do the
work, and having agreed with the designer, Jose del Olmo,
they proceeded to get the material, and to engage hands with
all haste. It was a wonder that a building of such dimensions
could be finished in so short a time, for it was commenced
on June 23d and completed the 28th.
"It is true that quite a number of workmen labored day
and night, and by relays so that the work should not suffer
any interruption, but it is also true that enthusiasm helped
the numbers, for the workmen did not stop even -to eat, and
instead of complaining of fatigue, they encouraged one an
other by such exclamations uttered in the tenderest voice as :
'Long live God ! . . . Let us toil without rest to His honor
and glory, and if there is not enough wood for the work, we
will pull down our houses to supply it.'
"While the work of constructing the amphitheatre pro
ceeded, the enlisting of the company of soldiers of the Faith
was going on ; these soldiers were recruited from among
mechanics, and enlisted only for these occasions, when they
served under the Inquisitor-General, and only while the auto
festivities lasted. The company consisted of two hundred and
fifty men; Francisco Saludo was appointed captain, and Juan
Dominguez ensign, the military drill being entrusted to Pedro
de Castro, adjutant to the quartermaster-general of Spain.
The company had its guardroom in the house of the royal
tribunal. Inquisition Street.
"The work was completed on the 28th day of June, and
was by the grand master delivered to the town commission
ers, who found it right and conformable to law, and who in
turn delivered it to the commissioners of the Inquisition, who
also were satisfied.
"On the evening of the said day of June 28th, the company
of soldiers of the Faith marched in orderly fashion as far as
the Puerta de Alcala (Alcala Gate). There the mayor, mar
quis of Ugena, had several bundles of dried wood ready;
each soldier taking one, and shouldering it, marched back to
the small square of Palacio, where they halted. The captain,
taking up a small bundle, suitably adorned with ribbons and
tinsel, placed it on his buckler; and going up to His Majesty's
room, handed it to the Duke of Pastrana, for presentation to
his sovereign, who taking it in his own hand showed it to
the queen, tendering it back to the Duke, who in turn handed

274 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
it to the captain, saying that the king commanded him to take
it in his name, and to see that it was the first to be thrown
on the blaze. The captain descended with the bundle of wood,
as he had ascended, and facing his troop he placed it in his
bungalow; the soldiers imitating him, hung their bundles on
their lances and muskets and walked to the brazier, keeping
separate the king's bundle in order to do as he had ordered;
and leaving a sufficient guard behind to take care of it, they
returned to their barracks.
"In order to enjoy the sight of the performance, and par
ticipate in the graces, privileges, and indulgences granted by
many chief Pontiffs to the brotherhood of St. Peter the Mar
tyr, many were the persons of all ranks and conditions who
in those days joined the Holy Office.
"At three o'clock in the afternoon of June 2gth, all parties
qualified, including notaries, councilors, familiars, and other
ministers of the Holy Office were convoked in the church of
the college of Dna. Maria de Aragon, in whose principal
chapel were to be found the green and the white crosses,
surrounded with lights and ornaments. The procession started
at five o'clock, headed by Francisco Portero de Vargas, Mayor
of Madrid; Andres Valenzuela, knight of Calatrava, and
other gentlemen, all of them of the Holy Office.
"The soldiers of the Faith were lined up in the square, and
on the crosses coming out of the church, the ensign saluted
by a waving of the flag, and the troop fired a salvo of
musketry. The standard of the Faith was brought out by
the Duke of Medinaceli; its tassels were carried by the
Marquis of Cogollado, the first-born of His Eminence, and
Melchior de Guzman, also first-born of the Marquis of Vil-
lamanriqua. The standard was of double taffeta, crimson in
color, with silver laces and gold tassels and cords, and bore
on it, beautifully worked, the royal arms and those of the
Inquisition, made expressly for this occasion, and paid for
by the Duke, who later presented it to the Brotherhood of
St. Peter the Martyr. After the crosses followed the reli
gious communities, to wit: Capuchins, Recollects, Trinita
rians, Carmelites, St. Augustine, St. Francis and St. Domingo.
"Then the white cross was brought out accompanied by the
ministers, familiars, and notaries, with their badges of of
fice on their breast, and carrying white wax candles with the
insignia of St. Peter the Martyr in their hands, the eldest
steward of the congregation carrying the cross.
"The green cross, which was covered by a black veil, was
carried alternately by the provincial Father of the Sacred
Order of Preachers of the province of Spain, and the most
reverend Prior of Atocha, assisted by six other religious

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 275
fathers. Ahead of them marched the musicians of the royal
chapel singing the psalm of Miserere.
"By order of Don Antonio Zembrano, eldest inquisitor of
the royal court, assisted by Secretary Fernando Alvarez
Valdes, the different classes of prisoners were separated and
lodged in special compartments, excepting those condemned to
be handed over to the criminal courts, who remained in their
respective cells.
"At about ten o'clock p.m., after the prisoners had been pro
vided with supper, the said Zembrano entered to notify the
prisoners of their sentence of death, which read as follows:
Brethren, devout and learned men have tried your cases and
found your crimes so great and so wicked that as a punish
ment, and example, it has been decided that you must die :
you are warned to get ready and be reconciled so that you
may die in a becoming manner; I leave with you two godly
men. "Twenty-three culprits were notified of the sentence of
death; two religious men and two familiars were allotted
to each, and these kept guard throughout the night. As the
plight of the ones was so bitter, and the work of the others so
painful, the commissioners responsible for the unforeseen ex
penses supplied abundant provisions of chocolate, biscuits,
sweetmeats and wines to help those who could not be other
wise consoled.
"The Tribunal sat all night for the benefit of those wishing
their services. Two women condemned to be handed over to
the criminal court asked for a hearing; the Tribunal with its
accustomed piety, granted it and ordered them to come up.
Having heard their pleadings the execution of their sentences
was suspended for the time being.
"On June 30th, at three o'clock in the morning, the prison
ers began to be supplied with the white linen used on such
solemn occasions, and by five o'clock they had all taken
breakfast and were ready to leave. Two sealed papers were
handed to each of the court jailers, Pedro Santos and Jose
del Olmo. One contained the instructions to form the pro
cession, and the other the list by which the prisoners were to
be called, and have the sentence read to them.
"During the night all places were closed along the route to
be taken by the procession of the condemned, and platforms
and stands were erected on which the people took their places
in great numbers, the more comfortably to see it pass. The
attendance from the surrounding towns and villages, at
tracted by the report of the novelty, was very great.
"The soldiers of the Faith began to come out at seven in
the morning. After them came the cross of St. Martin's
parish, covered by a black veil and surrounded by twelve

276 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
clergymen in surplices, preceding one hundred and twenty
culprits, men and women, each having two religious guards
at their side.
"Then came the images of thirty-four condemned culprits,
some dead, others fugitives from the criminal courts. Some
of those carrying the images wore cuirasses, and others had
in their hands small urns with bones of the condemned. Only
two wore the convict garments of the Inquisition, but they
all carried on their breast placards bearing their names in
large letters.
"Eleven were guilty of recantation by lying, trickery, super-
stitition, or because they had married twice, or celebrated
mass without being priests, and other similar crimes. Some
carried cone-hoods and others ropes around their necks, with
as many knots as the lashes they were to receive, and all car
ried extinguished yellow wax candles in their hands.
"Fifty-four were reconciled judaizants with convict gar
ments half crossed, and also extinguished candles.
"Lastly there were twenty-one culprits condemned to be
handed over to the criminal courts, wearing cone-hoods and
capes of flames. Twelve of them who were obstinate, carried
infernal dragons painted to represent the flames, and were
handcuffed and gagged. These were condemned to the flames.
The procession of culprits was closed by Sebastian Lara,
head constable of Toledo. Then came the Tribunal, pre
ceding the Brotherhood of St. Peter the Martyr; two stew
ards from these carried each small coffers handsomely lined
and locked, one of which contained the indictments, and the
other the sentences, of the accused.
"The town of Madrid, with all its officers and depend
ants, attended the function in a body.
"Next followed the standard of the Faith, of crimson
damask, with the arms of His Majesty and those of the
Holy Office embroidered upon it, and the march was closed
by the halberdiers of the Marquis Malpica, himself heading
it on horseback.
"The procession passed in front of the house of the inquisi
torial guard, Encarnacion Street, Canos del Peral (Peral
Conduits), the small square of Santa Catarina de los Donados
(St. Catherine of the lay brothers and sisters), the small
Descalzas (barefeet) Square, St. Martin Street to St. Gines;
Bordadores (embroiderers) Street, Calle Mayor (principal
street), and Boteros to the main square, where the king and
queen were already occupying the canopied throne on their
balcony, while in stands were the councilors, tribunals, cor
porations, grandees, titles, and other invited noted persons.
"Quiet was restored after a momentary disorder, the cul
prits were led by the soldiers of the Faith and the familiar^

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 277
to their respective places, the statues were arranged on ele
vated points on the platform to enable everyone to see them.
The general public and the actors occupied their respective
places amidst a profound and religious silence, as the solemn
act was commenced with His Majesty's assent.
"The Inquisitor-General, wearing the pontifical robes and
assisted by the corresponding clergymen, ascended the box
of the king and queen to take their oaths, namely: that they
would defend the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, that
they would not embarrass the clergy nor dispute the rights of
the Holy Office, and that they would help with all their
strength and powerful resources, to extirpate heresy, to pun
ish its authors and propagators, and never at any time permit
mixture of worships, nor rites foreign to the true and indis
putable dogmas of the Catholic belief.
"The king very readily and without reserve of any kind
gave the oath that so well agreed with his own pious inclina
tions. "Descending from His Majesty's balcony, the Inquisitor-
General, aided by his assistants and familiars, again approached
the altar where everything was already prepared for the sol
emn high mass that he had to celebrate, dressed in pontifical
attire, as he was then. He left the Gospel book on the side
table near the altar and the august sacrifice was commenced:
it was the mass of St. Paul's conversion, and it was cele
brated with as much devotion as it was heard.
"When the hour for the sermon arrived, there ascended to
the pulpit of the Holy Ghost to pronounce it, the Reverend
Father Thomas Navarro, of the (Jrder of Preachers.
"The sermon, which had for text the verse of the psalm :
Exsurge, Domine, judica causam tuam (Arise, Lord, and judge
thy cause), was a brilliant apology of the Roman Catholic Apos
tolic Christian religion, the only true one, praising its beau
ties, its advantages, and the happiness that its observance pro
vides; and a condemnation of the idolatries, heresies, sects,
and errors, of all times and of all peoples, which he exam
ined with rare erudition and knowledge; and he wound up
by exhorting the sovereign there present, upon the necessity
of not permitting his faithful followers to have any kind of
commerce or intercourse with heretics, not even as a measure
of public utility, so as to avoid the great evils and troubles
that have overcome other kingdoms, where truth and error
are allowed to coexist.
"At the conclusion of the sermon the very illustrious In
quisitor-General rang the hand-bell as a signal to begin read
ing the cases and sentences of the accused, which took place
in the following manner :
"On the two desks facing the cages for the culprits, the

278 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Stewards of St. Peter the Martyr placed the two small cof
fers containing the cases and the sentences ; two notaries
from the Tribunal came up to read them and to make the
sentences known, and another one went on calling the con
demned from the list given to him by Jose del Olmo. This
last, and Pedro Santos, as jailer of the Holy Office, were there
to bring and take away the convicts. On hearing the con
demned person's name called the jailers went to look for him
on the scaffolding where they all were, and, making him get
on the platform he was placed in one of the cages, and after
reading to him the case and the sentence, he was taken out
and returned to his place to make room for a new one. The
number was very large, and in order to save time, one notary
read the case and another the sentence. The convicts them
selves had lists in duplicate and it was arranged that before
having done with one, they had the next ready and thus it
was possible to finish in a shorter time than it could have
been feasible by a slower process.
"The first man to come out in public was Manuel Diaz, a
native of the island of Sardinia, his offence being judaization.
He appeared in the cage with his yellow cape and St. An
drew's cross.
"After him, those indicted for judaization were dispatched
in the briefest time possible, being condemned according to
their crime to a longer or a shorter term of imprisonment,
to perpetual confinement, deportation, the lash, public infamy,
to rowing the king's galleys, or to wear the garments of peni
tent convicts, besides the confiscation of their property to
meet the Tribunal's expenses.
"Then came the turn of those condemned to be dealt with
by the criminal courts, the obstinate and impenitent, both in
person as in statue, and the nineteen condemned to die by
the garrote or in the flames were also properly disposed of;
because although they were twenty-one, while the cases were
being read, a man and a woman belonging to the obstinate
repented and wished to confess, begging through the religious
man that ministered to them, to be heard : this being granted,
they were taken down to the room intended for the purpose
and were heard by the commissioner inquisitor, who, having
found cause for so doing, suspended their sentence, sub con-
ditione (conditionally) upon its being again examined into
as to its merits. Ordering the convict garments to be removed
from them, the commissioners returned again to the scaffold
ing without these convicts amid the acclamations of the peo
ple who rejoiced over acts of justice, and applauded any dis
play of clemency.
"Having finished the reading of the case and sentence, to
each convict, the latter returned to the place whence he had

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 279
come; but the impenitents who had relapsed into error were
taken down to the place intended for a secret cell, where or
dinary justice already awaited them to carry out the execu
tion of the sentence.
"When everyone had been disposed of, the commissioner in
quisitor whose duty it was 'relaxed' them, that is to say, de
livered them over to the sheriff and constables to take them to
the place of execution, begging of them to show the convicts
all possible mercy while carrying out the terrible ends of
justice. "Immediately the mournful convoy started for the spot where
the brazier awaited, taking the shortest way to the Fuencarral
Gate. One-third of the company of soldiers of the Faith
walked in front; while the unhappy convicts surrounded by
the constables, each accompanied by two godly men, followed
them. The convicts were encouraged to die penitent, but
without showing the least repentance the obstinate ones walked
to the scaffold with altered features, high color and flashing
looks, that appeared to throw out fire, sure signs of their
eternal damnation, in great contrast with the meekness and
repose of the reconciled ones, who went quickly forth to
satisfy the public vengeance. The procession was closed by
Don Fernando Alvarez Valdes, Secretary to the Tribunal,
who had to testify to the execution of the sentences. A nu
merous crowd followed the convicts, moved as usual by curi
osity to witness that spectacle.
"In good time the Tribunal had called upon ordinary jus
tice to have ready twenty stakes, and pillows, to apply the
garrote, and a sufficient number of ministers and execution
ers to promptly perform that fatal duty; and justice ful
filled the order with so much haste that when the procession
of convicts reached the burning place the twenty stakes called
for were already in position.
"Bound to them, and with the loops around their necks,
those who were condemned to that penalty were suffocated,
while the obstinate were set on fire and consumed to death,
giving out visible signs of horror and despair.
"On lighting the bonfire, the bundle of wood that the cap
tain and soldiers of the Faith had offered to His Majesty,
and which the latter had ordered him to take in his name, was
solemnly thrown into it.
"When the executions were concluded, the bodies of the
garroted were thrown into the flames to be consumed, but this
operation was not over until nine o'clock the following morn
ing. "Meanwhile, the reading of cases and sentences continued
at the Plaza Mayor, and when that was over the Very Illus
trious Inquisitor-General proceeded in person to receive of the

280 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
convicts and now repentant practitioners of Judaism, the
abjuration'of their errors, admitting them once more within
the fold of the Catholic Church.
"Abjuration takes place in three ways: de Uvi, de ve-
hementi, and in forma. The first is where against the ac
cused there are only some well-founded indications that he
belongs to some judaical or Mohammedan sect, and that he
observes their rites. The abjuration de vehementi is done
when there exist against the party proved charges implying
guilt, and the abjuration in forma is when the accused is
fully convicted of error or heretical apostasy but without
sufficient cause to apply the death penalty, at least in what
concerns crimes against the faith.
"When the abjurations were finished, it was already late
into the night, for which reason the square was illuminated,
especially the royal balcony, with a multitude of large wax
tapers; this was continued till they had burnt out, and then
the musicians of the royal chapel sang a Te Deum,_thus end
ing that solemn function at nearly nine o'clock at night.
"Such was the conclusion of that celebrated day of tri
umph for religion and of horror for impiety, a day in which
all vied with one another in Christian humility and religious
enthusiasm. Even His Majesty the King, zealous defender
of the Catholic faith, who because of his exalted position, is
relieved from certain particulars, wished, as the least of his
vassals, to spend the day in the complete practice of virtue,
and remained with his royal family in the balcony from eight
o'clock in the morning until nine at night, without partak
ing of food beyond some slight refreshments necessary dur
ing summer.
"The very illustrious bishop and Inquisitor-General was so
fatigued by that day's labor that he did not even want to take
off his apostolic vestments, and dressed as he was, his famil
iars and servants took him home in his magnificent sedan
chair, made of crimson velvet with beautiful gold ornaments,
and lighted by his pages with numerous white wax tapers.
"On their Majesties' rising to leave everybody did the same,
and in a short time the square was emptied. The reconciled
prisoners were taken back to their cells, where the pious
Tribunal had an abundant supper awaiting them. The green
cross was taken in procession to St. Thomas College, and
there it remained between lights until the following day,
when it was solemnly carried to the Convent of Santo Do
mingo, and placed against one of the pillars of the church.
"After all the bodies of the convicts had been burnt, the
soldiers of the Faith removed the white cross from its ped
estal and took it to St. Martin's parish, at whose gate the
community was waiting. After visiting the cemetery where

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 28I
a responsory for the souls of the reconciled dead was re
peated, the white cross was placed in the sacristy side by side
with the one existing there^ and whicli had been used in the
auto of 1632.
"On VVednesday, July 3d, the sentence of the Tribunal
was carried out against several culprits, who had been con
demned to the lash, or to public degradation (several women
among them), and on the fourth, there were taken in gal
leys to the home of correction at Toledo, those who had to
suffer the penalty of temporary or perpetual confinement,
and be instructed in the knowledge and practice of the Chris
tian doctrine.
"The same day and over various routes, those sentenced
to rowing on the king's galleys and to banishment from the
kingdom, were taken to their respective destinations.
"The object for which the company of the soldiers of the
Faith had been called being now fulfilled, the company was
disbanded, each one of its members receiving the gratuity
that the Tribunal used to provide for such cases, besides giv
ing them, through the very illustrious Inquisitor-General, the
episcopal benediction."
As His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons can see, the kings of
Spain, notwithstanding their absolute power in other matters,
notwithstanding their prerogative over lives and property,
under the Inquisition could not even decide for themselves
the place where the auto da fe is to be celebrated. It is
the pontifical Tribunal that resolves this. The first cry is
not sounded before the royal palace, but before the house
containing the Pope's delegate. Finally, I would venture to
call Your Eminence's attention to the oath demanded from
the king not to interfere, nor to restrain in any way what
ever the jurisdiction of said Tribunal. Would royal func
tionaries and dependents on royal favor, venture to ask for
such an oath? Anyone who cannot see in all this the Rom
anist character pure and exclusive, might as well deny the
existence of the sun in full daylight.
The words of such historians as Ranke and Hefele can be
and must be understood only as applying to the intervention
exercised by princes regarding the adjudication of property
seized by said Tribunal, but anyone confusing one question
with another, and believing that said Tribunal is a royal one,
would as soon take bishops and curates for civil ministers,
since they are in the pay of the government, and the latter
appoints its controllers to 'make the payments. By that way
of reasoning all public governments would soon be able to
demonstrate that the Pope to the last curate, are mere civil
functionaries rather than ecclesiastics.
Concerning the other words that Your Eminence says

282 ROMAN CATPIOLICISM
emanate from King Ferdinand, I cannot get over my aston
ishment at so enlightened an authority as Your Eminence
venturing to make the statement. If I were to follow your
example I could demonstrate that the Pope was the subject
and slave of the German Empire. Is Your Eminence perhaps
unaware that during many years the emperors exacted that
the election of the Popes, to be legitimate, _ should first be
approved by them? Does Your Eminence think that because
a prince believes and says that certain ri.ghts are his, he can
at once rest assured that it is so and that Rome agrees to it?
Fine reasoning, indeed, is Your Eminence's. Pity the Roman
Church if that were so. I cannot get over my astonishment
at such method of discussing, nor at Cardinals of the Holy
Romanism having recourse to arguments so contradictory.
No, Your Eminence, a thousand times, no. That kings may
or may not claim supposed rights does not prove in any
manner that such rights are royal, or that Romanism believes
them to be so. Your Eminence might prove it, not by copy
ing words from kings, but words and writings from the
Popes. Does your Eminence know of any bull, encyclical,
decree, etc., by virtue of which the Pontiffs declare that they
cede one atom of the jurisdiction of that Tribunal? I be
lieve I know something about the sanguinary and dark his
tory of said Tribunal, and up to the present I have found
only excommunications, and threats of excommunication,
against princes who forbade, or restrained, or did not help
the said Romanist Tribunal, but I have found absolutely noth
ing by virtue of which they renounce, even now, that tre
mendously inhuman and fatal power. And as there is noth
ing I know of to the contrary, I should be wanting in truth,
patriotism and loyalty, if I did not proclaim opce more that
said Tribunal was not strictly Spanish, but Romanist; not
monarchical, but pontifical.

CHAPTER XX.
JUSTIFICATION, ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES.
THE subject of justification leads us into one of
the most abstruse and intricate theological ques
tions. It not only stands as a dividing barrier be
tween Protestants and Romanists, but it is also the
cause of discord among the Protestants as well as
among Catholics themselves. And the most astound
ing thing in this burning dispute is, that when rightly
considered, the opinions regarding it held by both
these parties are identical.
The Romanist in speaking of redemption and all
that it implies, and in speaking of grace and all its
effects, proclaims practically the same doctrine, which
scandalizes him so much when promulgated by the
Protestant. Let us examine it. Roman theology
says, that the redemption of Christ was single, uni
versal, most abundant and all-sufficient.' They right
ly say, that one single act, one single tear of Christ,
the most insignificant drop of His blood shed for
us, contains efficacy sufficient to save not only the
rational beings who inhabit this planet, but also thou
sands and millions of worlds that might be inhabited
like ours, and which might even be worse than ours.^
' St. Thomas, Billuart, Casanovas, Hurter : De Deo Re-
demptore. " The same authors mentioned, and add Cardinal Vives,
Bertier: Compendio de Teologia, same head. (283)

284 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
They all hold that the redemption considered by itself
is single, universal, most abundant, and all-sufficient,
hence Romanism and the great majority of the Re
formist congregations believe the same thing as re
gards the efficacy and abundance of the redemption.^
Let us proceed further. Ask a Romanist if a man
can arrive at justification by himself, by his own
works and merits. By no means, they unanimously
answer.* Justification, being a supernatural gift,
comes from heaven, and is granted by Christ. For
Romanism, man with all his works and merits is a
complete nonentity, not meriting grace, nor able to
obtain it.^ It is God who must prepare him for it,
who must actually aid him, and who only can justify
and sanctify him. Pelagianism was condemned as a
heresy, not only because it denied, strictly speaking,
original sin, but because it held that man could rise
to the supernatural order of justification and sancti
fication without the aid of inner grace. Semipelagian-
ism was also condemned as being heretical, because it
demanded only preparatory or initial grace, but not
continuous or habitual grace." For Romanism, man
stands in the same relation to the supernatural grace
of justification as a corpse stands in relation to the
vital operations. What can a corpse do in the vital
'Read Methodist Armor: On the Redemption. All the
Protestants (except the Calvinists) support the jame thesis.
* The same Catholic authors above mentioned : Head, De la
Gracia. Add Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, head,
Gracia. ^ Same Catholic authors mentioned : Heads, Gracia, and
Merito. ° Read Baronio, Rohrbacher and Rivas : On Pelagianism
and Semipelagianism.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 285
human order? Nothing. So with man, who, while
living under natural laws, is as powerless as a corpse
to raise himself to the supernatural order of grace.
Man, instead of being the coactor with grace, is
merely as a receptacle in which grace works the won
ders of justification. This being a most grave ques
tion, it needs to be elucidated with proofs and ex
amples. Ask a Roman: What sanctifies the penitent? The
fasting, disciplining, sackcloth, prayers, and so forth,
or the grace that moved, and by virtue of which
movement he conceived the thought of fasting, and
continuing to fast, the thought of disciphning him
self, and thus continued to discipline himself, and so
forth ? ^ You will see that they all answer without
hesitation: grace, and not the fasting nor the dis
cipline, and so forth ; and in such a way, that if grace
should depart from those exercises, everything would
be fruitless and entirely useless.* Let us examine
this question still more closely, and we shall find the
only center for union, where both systems may con
verge and be coordinated.
In justification and its derivations there appear, so
to speak, two subjects, and also two classes of opera
tions: the former consisting of Christ, justifying,
sanctifying and glorifying, and man receiving in him
self the justification, sanctification, and glorification;
the latter consisting of the acts of grace, divine and
supernatural and the acts of man, purely human and
' P. Fernandez, Schouppe, Perrone : Heads, Merit and
Grace. * Elbel, Esporer, Gury: On Mortal Sin.

286 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
natural. To which of these two agents, and to which
quality of operations, must be ascribed justification,
sanctification and glorification? Solely tO' Christ and
to His grace. To assert the contrary would be a
philosophical absurdity, and a theological error, not
only according to the Protestant doctrine, but also ac
cording to the Catholic doctrine. Romanism clearly
and emphatically proclaims two tenets : justification
is a supernatural gift not only quoad modum, as they
teach," but also quoad substantiam, and therefore jus
tification and its derivatives are operations transcend
ing human nature. But to suppose, on the one hand,
that justification, sanctification and glorification are
of a distinct order and at the same time superior to
nature, and then to assert that among these orders
(supernatural and natural) there is proportion and
correlativity, would be a philosophical absurdity. If
the first is superior and transcendent, the second could
never influence, augment or diminish the amplitude or
intensity of the latter.'" When we speak of coopera
tion between two agents, or two orders of things, we
must have in the first place, proportion and correl
ativity between them; and here we have neither:
For on one side there is the infinite, Christ, and on
the other, the finite, the creature; on the one side
there is something supernatural, justification, and in
the other, something natural, the work of man.
But above all, it is a theological error. If man
" Bertier : On Grace.
'" Perrone : On the Natural and Supernatural. Jaugey :
Head, Supernatural Order.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 287
could bring it about, by his works, that justification
were increased, then we could assert both that grace
is not a free gift — which is heretical — and that grace
does not proceed solely and exclusively from Christ,
which is also heresy. We could also assert that some
grace is obtained mediately, or through the coopera
tion of man, an assertion that would involve the de
struction of the fundamental principles of Roman
theology." Moreover, if we did not conceive faith
to be the only basis of our justification, then we should
fall into the Romanist absurdity. Faith, they say, is a
divine and supernatural gift ; '^ but without works, it
is formless and dead. They cannot deny that it is
a supernatural and divine gift without falling into
contradiction and heresy; and to suppose that it is
formless and dead, is to assert that there are super
natural gifts which are dead gifts, and a supernatural
grace which is formless grace. Let us examine this
concept closely, for it demonstrates better than any
other argument, the absurdity of the Romanist posi
tion. Every supernatural gift elevates man and brings
him nearer to God ; '^ just as grievous sin lowers and
removes him further from God. We speak according
to Romanism. Very well, then. If faith is a super
natural gift, elevating man and bringing him nearer
"Read any of the authors mentioned under head, Grace.
They all affirm that grace is a free gift, which can only be
granted by Christ.
'^Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe. Canon of the
Vatican Council : De Fide. Any author of the above men
tioned, speaking on Faith.
'" Perrone, Hurter : On Faith. Add any of the mentioned
authors when they speak on Faith.
20

288 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
to God, and if, as they suppose, faith could be sin
without works, then we have the proposition, that faith
elevates and does not elevate, that it brings nearer
to God and does not bring nearer to God. And
further, that between God elevating man and bring
ing him nearer to Himself, and man not cooperating
with works, man would have greater power to sep
arate himself from God, than God would have to draw
man nearer to Himself. In order to understand the
force of this argument we must bear in mind that we
suppose man to be associated with the divine help,
since we also suppose he is believing in and assenting
to faith. Similarly we should have this monstrosity
in the Roman doctrine : God communicating with man
by means of supernatural faith, and man separated
completely from God, since we suppose him to be
in a state of grave sin; God conceding the majority
of his virtues, and man receiving this virtue, and man
nevertheless, as we suppose him to be in a state of
grave sin, incapable of receiving either grace or any
other divine gift.'* Moreover, if we examine the num
ber of Biblical passages bearing on this point, we shall
see that there is hardly any other truth which the
Bible inculcates more often than this : that faith is suf
ficient for justification. "Whosoever liveth and believ
eth in me shall never die." "This is the will of him
that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting life." "This is
life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." "He
'* Read and study the above-mentioned authors under head.
Faith and Mortal Sin, especially Cardinal Vives.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 289
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned." '^ It may be said
that there is no truth more frequently inculcated in the
Gospel, than that faith justifies and saves. Let us
hear what St. Paul says, Romans iv. 1-16:
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father,
as pertaining to flesh, hath found?
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath
whereof to glory; but not before God.
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reck
oned of grace, but of debt.
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of
the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works,
"Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for
given, and whose sins are covered.
"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not
impute sin.
"Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumci
sion only, or upon the uncircumcision also ? for we say
that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous
ness. "How was it then reckoned? when he was in cir
cumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumci
sion but in uncircumcision.
'"John xi. 25, 26; vi. 35, 40; xvii. 3. I John v. 10-13.
Mark xvi. 16. Acts xvi. 31, 32.

290 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of
all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
"And the father of circumcision to them who are
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in
the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which
he had being yet uncircumcised.
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the
world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through
the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
"For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is
made void, and the promise made of none effect:
"Because the law worketh wrath : for where no law
is, there is no transgression.
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace ;
to the end the promise might be sure to aU the seed;
not to that only which is of the law, but to that also
which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father
of us aU."
Romans iii. 27, 28: "Where is boasting then?
It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but
by the law of faith."
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans xi. 6: "And if by grace, then is it no
more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace : other
wise work is no more work."
We might cite many other passages to the same
effect, but these are more than sufficient to prove that

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 29I
according to the theology of the Bible faith justifies
and saves, without the work of man.
But the differences appear still more marked in
practice. Here the Romanists exclaim, scandalized:
The Protestant doctrine is demoralizing.'" To pro
claim that works are not necessary for justification,
is the same as to proclaim the glorification of vice;
it is to place the evildoer alongside of the saint. And
what especially excites the Romanist, is the words at
tributed to Luther : " Pecca fortiter et crede fortius
(Sin grievously and believe more firmly). Here the
Romanists close their chaste ears, and indignantly
heap terrible imprecations upon the demoralizing Re
formist doctrine.
If we were a Protestant we should reply as fol
lows: This doctrine is not ours, it is the doctrine of
the Gospels, of St. Paul.'* The Evangelists, and not
we, proclaim these things; they are the ones who
teach that faith justifies, that works do not justify;
that faith saves, that works do not save. We merely
echo their teaching; we are the echo of their divine
voice, and if you call us demoralizing and subversive,
you apply these terms to those from whom we learned,
to the Book that taught us. You even call Christ
Himself subversive; you call St. Paul a demoralizer;
therefore you are heretics and blasphemers, accord
ing to your own Roman doctrine.
But as we are not yet a Protestant, we will answer
according to the scholastic theology, which is the of-
"¦ Bertier : On Justification.
" Perrone, Hurter, P. Fernandez : On Justification.
" Read the biblical passages cited in this chapter.

292 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
ficial theology for Romanism. Does Luther's doc
trine scandalize you? Do you believe that it is de
moralizing and subversive, not to affirm the necessity
. of works for justification? Then permit us a few
slight observations. Who are your favorite masters
in questions of theology and of grace? St. Augus
tine, you answer, who is therefore called the "Eagle"
among the holy fathers ; St. Thomas, who is called
the "Sun" among the theologians. They are our prin
cipal doctors, their systems are our systems, which
are taught by preference in the Gregorian Univer
sity '" under the immediate supervision of the Popes
in Rome ; in the ecclesiastical seminaries under the
supervision of the bishops, and everywhere else.^"
And what do these eminent doctors teach in regard
to predestination ? Hear them :
They say : ^' that God, from eternity, without re
gard to the merits of anyone, that is to say, with
out regard to their works, predestined for heaven
those whom it pleased Him so to predestinate, with
out considering in any way either their merits or
their works. They say that those whom God pre
destined were also sanctified by Him, and not by their
(man's) works; and that those who were sanctified,
by God, not by their works, were also glorified by
His will and not by their works or merits. ^^ He did
'° Consult the texts of the Gregorian University, Rome.
" Please examine : The texts of the seminaries and re
ligious Orders (exception made of some Jesuits), on such
questions as Grace and Predestination. The teachings of
St. Thomas and St. Augustine are followed.
" Billuart : Teologia Dogmatica : De la Predestinacion.
Cardinal Noris : Same head.
'^ Same authors mentioned in 23, under the same head.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 293
not sanctify those that He did not predestine, and
those that are not sanctified are infallibly condemned.''^
If your principal doctors teach these things, if this
is the doctrine most general in your Church, why
then are you scandalized by Luther's words? Well
may the words of the Lord be applied to you : Hypo
crite,'^* you see the mote in your brother's eye and
do not see the beam in your own. False physician,
you who undertake to cure others, cure yourself first.
Are your own theological doctrines perhaps less para
lyzing to every good work ? May not some one say :
"If God predestined me, He did it without consider
ing or looking at my good works, and if He conceded
to me such a grace, then I may rest in peace, since I
shall infallibly receive sanctification and glorification.
And on the contrary, if God did not remember me, if
I had no part in the sovereign and eternal election,
then farewell forever all hope." It avails little that
they say to me, that God will concede to me sufficient
grace, if they assure me at the same time that He
will irremissibly and infallibly condemn me. Such
reasoning must confound the wisest mind, render in
sane the most saintly, and permit the greatest evil
doer to live in absolute tranquillity. While Luther's
phrase, Pecca fortiter et crede fortius, may be under
stood in the most radical sense we think that it must
be differently interpreted, as we shall show further
on. You may sin on condition that your faith be
greater than your sin; but there is the relation of
"^ Billuart and Noris, and in general all the Augustinian or
Dominican authors. Read especially P. Fernandez for the
first assertion, and for the second one, read P. Weis.
"Matt. vii. 3, 4. Luke vi. 41, 42.

294 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
comparative and superlative between fortiter and for
tius, while the Augustinian and Thomistic systems
hold that neither the good nor the evil is of any
influence in God's eternal election. When God pre
destines. His choice is not determined by good works,
nor does He cast aside because of evil deeds. ^^ He
does this because it so pleases Him, and He is guided
absolutely by his free volition. This view places the
good and the evil on the same plane, and ranges the
evildoer alongside of the saint. We beg the kind
reader to look over some of the authors that we have
cited in the footnotes, and he will see that we do
not exaggerate, but state in even milder terms the
Romanistic doctrine of Predestination. We think,
however, that Luther's words must be interpreted dif
ferently. We believe that the interpretation which we Cath
olics give to the daring words of St. Augustine is
that which should be given to Luther's words. St.
Augustine says : ^" Ama et fac quod vellis etiam
peccatum (Love and do that which you like, even
sin). Can these words be interpreted as being an
invitation to sin? Not in the least. The saint means
to say that the love of God is the principal thing, and
it is so important, that he who loves would find it
impossible to displease God; then if it were possible
that he could sin while loving, the love would persist,
while the sin would not be a formal, but a material
offense. The saint says furthermore in another pas-
"^ Consult any author above mentioned, and the reader will
see how much they insist on this question.
^' Roman Breviary Lessons.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 295
sage : God so greatly abhors pride, and loves humility
so much, that the latter pleases Him even when it
sins, and the former displeases Him even in sanctity.^^
These words must be interpreted analogously to those
above, namely: if it were possible that pride could
consort with sanctity, this union would be blamable,
while sin united with perfect humility would be esti
mable. In the same way we should interpret Lu
ther's words : not as an invitation to sin, but as a
hyperbole exalting faith, as if we .should say: Be
lieve more and more, for if you do so, then sin and
faith may be made compatible, and the latter wHl
triumph over the former.
If we pass from theory to practice, from theology
to morals, we come across a maxim of Christ, who
says repeatedly: Do not look to the words but to
the works, for the tree is known by its fruit. If this
were done, then we should hasten at once to embrace
Reformism. What were the present Reformi-st na
tions while they still were Romanist, with respect to
the others? Who will gainsay that we were greatly
superior to them in everything,^* in literature, phi
losophy, theology, exegesis, social culture and so
forth? And what has happened since then? The
Romanist nations ^" have declined more and more, so
that now many of them are spoken of as dead nations,
while the Reformist nations are steadily advancing
in knowledge, in morality and in general progress.
" Roman Breviary Lessons.
^ Read Erasmus' Letters at the epoch when Spain was con
sidered one of the most cultured nations.
" Julio Ferri : Decadence of the Latin Countries and Its
Causes.

296 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
For anyone at all acquainted with contemporaneous
statistics, this is a terrible argument against Roman
ism and most favorable to Reformism. Oh, if only
there were not so much sophism and prejudice! If
these were not darkening the serenity of every re
ligious discussion, the progress of Protestantism in
Latin Europe would be much more rapid and ef
fective. We may say, speaking of ourselves, that convinced
of the falsehood of many of the Roman tenets, which
we have set forth in this book, we began to study
Protestantism with the eagerness of one expecting at
any moment to come across terrible revelations of
scandal and corruption. We had been accustomed to
read and hear in books and conversations '" of the
abominable sacrileges of the founders of Protestant
ism, their corrupt lives, their dissolute customs, their
lack of religion, and their open impiety. But we
were astonished and agreeably disappointed when, on
visiting some Protestant congregations, we observed
the order and devotion of the people, the unction and
fervor of their preachers, and above all, the love that
many Protestants profess for Christ, and the fervent
adoration with which they regard and read the Holy
Books. Oh, how willingly we would exchange the
whole mass of Romanist beliefs, and practices, for
these two things only: love and faith in Christ, and
respect and obedience to the Holy Books. These two
things would be sufficient to restore faith in the super-
'" Read any Roman author when he speaks about Protest
antism.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 297
natural, and all the other things combined could not
prevent it from being lost entirely.
We are astonished to see that Protestants are tak
ing the lead in questions in -syhich Romanists ought to
lead, judging from appearances. When we began to
study the great question of the prohibition of the sale
of alcoholic beverages in the several states, we re
member how forcibly we were struck to observe in
how many of them Protestants had triumphed, and
were about to triumph in others, over the passivity
and even the opposition of Catholics.^' Who would
believe this? we asked ourselves. If we should relate
this in Europe, it would be held to be a calumny, and
yet we read it in credible periodicals, that while all
the Reformist preachers of cities as important as New
Orleans were urgent in favor of prohibition,*^ declara
tions appeared by Cardinal Gibbons in favor of the
continuation of the public sale of alcoholic beverages.
Who would have thought such a thing, we exclaimed,
that the representatives of error and of corruption
of morals, according to Romanism, should rise up
against the sale of alcoholic beverages, while the dele
gates of the Pope, and the representative of Roman
ism in America, should appear in its favor.
To the reader we will say that on this question we
confine ourselves to relating tendencies, without un
dertaking to judge of their respective merits. This
is an intricate question, involving interests as great
" An interview with His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, on
the liquor question, was published by the Associated Press
papers. " New Orleans newspapers.

298 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and complex as public morals, and the people's pros
perity, and we do not possess sufficient data to take
the liberty, in however humble a way, of formulating
a correct opinion. We simply and sincerely state the
impression produced upon us by a controversy which,
at first sight, appeared to us as though the roles had
been changed. The relaxation of morals with which
Romanism charges Protestantism is found neither in
its social tendencies nor in its customs, but on the
contrary the visible prosperity of the nations, in which
they are more widely spread, is very apparent. And
on the other hand, as we have seen above in its theo
ries, they appear biblical, and very similar to true
Romanism in such fundamental questions as Justifi
cation. Closely connected with this question and as a corol
lary to it, we have another point of controversy be
tween Reformists and Romanists, namely, the invoca
tion and worship of saints. If we examine this ques
tion with strict regard to the Bible and to theology,
the decision is in favor of Protestantism. While we
have in the Holy Books passages which disapprove in
no uncertain language of this practice, the allusions
that appear favorable to it are obscure, and by no
means as clear as is the emphatic denunciation of it.
If we were a Protestant we could easily answer the
series of witnesses in favor of it, brought forward by
Cardinal Gibbons, as follows : His Eminence under
takes to demonstrate that the invocation of saints,
and especially of angels, is clearly found in the Old
Testament ; ** in another chapter His Eminence in-
'" Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, Chapter XIII.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 299
clines to the belief that before the condemnation of
Christ the Synagogue possessed ** the gift of sure-
ness, and a kind of infallibility like that which Roman
ism ascribes to the ruHng Pope. Therefore if these
passages mean anything, and the Synagogue pos
sessed this prerogative of sureness and infallibility,
then saints and angels should have been made the ob
jects of pubhc and official worship and invocation dur
ing the life of the Synagogue. As Your Eminence
sees, the argument is legitimate; both premises are
from Your Eminence : the first, the texts ; the second,
your statement in your book. Only the conclusion is
ours, we admit ; but it may also be attributed to Your
Eminence, since it is contained in your premises. And
now we ask you: Does Cardinal Gibbons know the
ritual prescriptions of the ancient Law? Has he read
the worship offered to God in the great Temple? We
ask, with all the respect due His Eminence if he will
kindly indicate to us in what part of the Temple ap
peared, either in sculpture or paint, the images of
angels or saints? In what ritual law is their invoca
tion prescribed? In what pubhc acts or feasts did
the people come together to implore their protection
and aid? With our small knowledge of the Bible
and of history we have found no indication of of
ficial and public worship such as Romanism practices.
If we were a Protestant, Cardinal, we should reply to
you : Your Eminence appeals to the Old Testament
and the Synagogue. Very well. We also appeal to
these witnesses, and we should be glad to have you
•" Cardinal Gibbons: Faith of Our Fathers, Chapters VII,
VIII, IX.

300 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
prove to us, by the ritual practices of Judaism, that
we are wrong.
Now let us pass from the Old to the New Testa
ment, and we shall find that the invocation and wor
ship of the saints is both anti-evangelical and anti-
theological. One of the most clearly and definitely defined en
deavors of Christ is to purify His new worship from
the Jewish formalism, to remove all barriers between
man and God, and to proclaim the direct invocation
of God by every man, and the more intimate and spir
itual this invocation, the better. You will see this
clearly, if you read His conversation with the Samari
tan woman.*" He inculcated the idea that God is
with us, that whenever we ask Him He gives, when
ever we knock at His door He opens, whenever we
pray to Him He hears us.*" And as if He had not
sufficiently set forth His doctrine of intimate and im
mediate communication with God, and to leave no
doubt whatever. He excludes every other interven
tion and invocation. Do not call anyone good or holy
except God, because He only is good ; do not call any
one father, or master, or intercessor, except God, for
He only is your intercessor, master, and father.*^
There are two ideas that stand forth in this teaching
of Christ: direct communication between the faithful
and God, and that such communication shall not be
made with the noisy wordiness with which the Phari
sees sought God.
°°John iv. 21-24.
'"' Matt. vii. 7. John xiv. 23.
"Matt, xxiii. 8-10.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 30I
This is the Christian thesis, and the Roman thesis
has apparently taken upon itself the task of destroy
ing it, in both senses.
We ask Your Eminence to look around in the Ro
man world ; count, if you can, the temples, sanctuaries
and relics of the saints, and if this is not sufficient
proof, then look at the Roman Missal and Breviary.
And here it seems as if Romanism had undertaken to
contradict Christ more brazenly than anywhere else.
The worship and invocation of saints take up more
than nine-tenths of its prayers, orations and worship ;
of its temples, sanctuaries and images. Count, if
Your Eminence can, the multitude of prayers, peti
tions, litanies, rosaries, and so forth, which Roman
ism approves, encourages and rewards. If the loud
prayers of the hypocritical Pharisees disgusted Him,**
we believe that if He should enter now into some
Roman congregation He would again take up the
scourge, and drive out those who pretended with
such practices to call themselves His sons and faith
ful. The invocation of saints appears still more ridicu
lous and absurd if we pass from the Gospels to the
ology and history. Roman theology teaches that
there is no other mediator but Christ.*" Because of
our great respect for the honor and dignity of woman
hood, we have refrained, when dealing with the in
vocation of saints, from mentioning anything con
nected with the attributes given by Romanism to the
¦"Matt. vi. 7-
°° Hurter, Perrone, Billuart, Cardinal Vives : De Deo Re-
demptore.

302 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
life, mediation and power of Mary, Mother of Jesus.
If there is no other, why then invoke the saints?
Here the Romanists find themselves in a tight place.
Seeking an analogy in political life, which is absurd
and even blasphemous, they say: Although the king
is the state, in absolute monarchies *" he nevertheless
has his ministers, as delegates, and very often it is
easier to obtain something through the mediation of
his ministers, than by going to the king himself.
Let us examine briefly, this great and almost blas
phemous necessity. The king, being a person with
human limitations, needs his delegates to help him.
But is not God omnipotent? Is His omnipotence such
that it can grow weary, or that it cannot deal with all
things ? Do you not proclaim *' that God is not only
the creator and conserver of all things, but that He
also works in them and with them, more than they
can by themselves ? Does not your theology teach *^
that from the nebulse to man, God is the prime mover,
and the chief cause, of all that happens in the uni
verse? Do you not say that God cooperates in the
gravitation of inert bodies, vegetates in the plants,
feels in the beast, thinks and desires in man, to such
a point that all these movements are even more of
God than of the creatures themselves, and therefore
you call these latter, secondary causes? If then,**
*° St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio : On the Invocation of Saints.
" St. Thomas, Billuart, Hurter, P. Fernandez, Perrone : De
Deo Conservatore.
" Billuart, St. Thomas, Hurter, etc., etc. : Del Concurso
Divino. Cardinals Gonzalez and Zigliara : Teodicia, Del
Concurso Divino.
"The Catholic priests when answering objections put to
them, by unbelievers ; read especially : Billuart and Perrone.

CAPITULATING SEFORfi PROTESTANTISM. 303
you answer the impious, when he objects that it would
be too much work for God to do all this, that far
from being so, God does all this without the least
trouble and with absolute facility, why do you have
recourse to the theory of delegates in dealing with
man and his salvation? Moreover, the king cannot
always know the minds of his vassals, nor are the
latter always sufficiently eloquent to plead their own
cause; and besides, the king looks to the person, that
is to say, he is partial. For all these reasons people
find it convenient to go to his friends and favorites.
But, my Roman friends, is your God as ignorant as
many kings are wont to be? Is your God also among
those who let themselves be seduced by fine words?
Is your God also an accepter of persons, partial and
unjust? Don't you see that by appealing to this par
tiality as a good thing you blaspheme the other divine
attributes? No, neither the intervention nor the wor
ship of saints finds a good support in good theology.
Only from the point of view of history, we would
admit, not the invocation and worship of saints, but
the retelling of their lives, with due approbations, to
serve as examples to later men. But this does not
mean that temples should be built in their honor, nor
pictures painted of them with aureoles, nor should
they be invested with a power which is absurd and
anti-theological. To commemorate them, it is suffi
cient to know their lives, and to preserve pictures of
them and things that once belonged to them, but with
out ascribing to either of these a power and virtue
which are contrary to faith. Respect, gratitude, and
admiration are admissible, and great moralizing
21

304 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
agencies; but invocation, adoration and worship cor
rupt the faith and are detrimental to the character of
the worshiper. Do not confound one thing with
another. Therefore the example cited by Cardinal
Gibbons in his chapter seems to us very inexact.**
Does Your Eminence think that this secular respect
and admiration are identical with the Roman cult and
invocation? If this were so, we would beg to ask
His Eminence to review his theological studies and
reread the Roman Liturgy. Then he could refer to
a multitude of acts and practices, he could speak of
innumerable miracles and relics which are the great
est laughing-stock of the religion, and among its
blackest abuses.*^ But as it is not within our design
to tread the byways of scandal, we wHl end this chap
ter in proclaiming, that if faith is sufficient for justi
fication, then the worship and invocation of saints
are neither necessary nor fitting to conserve it.
" Cardinal Gibbons : Chapter XIV, pp. 215, 216.
'^ Those wishing to read on this subject a very interesting
book, full of historical testimonies, can secure the work of
Roberto Roberts : Title, Cachivaches de Antano.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE SACRAMENTS.
IN agreement with the principles laid down, we shall
discuss only two of the sacraments : confession
and the Eucharist. We shall not speak of baptism,
because both Protestants and Romanists recognize and
observe it almost in the same way. Of the other four
sacraments we shall say a few words at the end, in
order to indicate the fundamental principles in which
Romanism pretends to found them.
The most important of all the sacraments, accord
ing to the Roman doctrine, is that of confession.
There is none on the observance of which it insists
with greater obstinacy, nor which it strives more as
siduously to deduce from the Gospels. Unfortunately
for its endeavors, the more progress is made in the
study of exegesis and antiquity, and the more closely
the primitive witnesses cited by Romanism are ex
amined in the light of these studies, the more their
testimony loses in value.' In order to interpret cor
rectly certain Biblical passages, we must bear in mind
that the Hebrew people observed a kind of confession
in their way.^ "Confess your sins to God; be sorry
^Jaugey: Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, head. Auricu
lar Confession. Encyclopedia Britannica : Heads, Penance,
Confession. ^Matt. iii. 2, 6, 7, 8. (305)

306 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
for them; rend your hearts by penitence," etc., etc. —
sentences like these occur frequently in the Bible.
When our Saviour appeared, John the Baptist was
preaching the baptism of penitence on the banks of
the Jordan.* This desire to confess their sins to God
and to repent of them was moreover a part of the
ritual recognized by the mass of the pious Israelites.
Jesus Christ then approved of and encouraged this
regenerative impulse. What He says in regard to
confession and repentance of sin must be understood
as John the Baptist understood it, and therefore as
in those days the pious Israelites understood it.* If
Jesus Christ had intended any innovation in this mat
ter He would have so expressed Himself, clearly and
forcibly, as He always does when He wishes to pro
claim doctrines that are new or not believed in by
His contemporaries.' If no mention is made of it,
this is a clear indication that on this point He did not
teach or demand more than John preached and taught.
This view is further supported by history. Had
auricular confession been a divine precept, in the apos
tolic and sub-apostolic epoch, we should frequently
find it recommended. Take the sacraments of bap
tism and the Eucharist: there is not an apostle or an
apostolic father of the apostolic period who does not
speak of them. But why are they silent as to auricu
lar confession?" Is this not the strongest possible
argument against its existence? And the argument
'Mark i. 4, 15.
* Luke iii. 23.
° Consult the Gospels as to Charity and Eucharist.
" Jaugey : Diccionario Apologetico de la Fe, head, Auricu
lar Confession.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 307
is still further strengthened if we add that the first
words which we find on confession refer to another
kind, and not to auricular confession.' There are a
multitude of witnesses with regard to public confes
sion, both in the Orient and in Europe, namely, the
councils and the Fathers, in the first century, who tell
us of confession ; why, then, do we not find among
them any clear and definite reference to auricular con
fession? Had it been general and obligatory, had it
been observed by all the faithful, how could we ac
count for this premeditated silence? And that our
authorities are silent on this point will be admitted
by anyone who has made even a cursory study of
the tradition and the history of the sub-apostolic
period.* Moreover, the language of St. Augustine
and St. Chrysostom shows beyond a doubt that auricu
lar confession did not exist in the first centuries. For
if it had existed as a divine precept, the language
of these holy Fathers would have to be interpreted as
being opposed to it, a supposition that would be of
fensive and almost blasphemous."
It is therefore evident to every impartial historian,
that confession, like celibacy and the doctrine of in
fallibility, is of pure ecclesiastical origin. And again,
the Roman Church is contradicting herself. Roman
ism teaches that contrition wipes out the sins before
' Same work, head. Public Confession. Read the Catholic
historians Eusebius, Rohrbacher, Fleury and Rivas : On pub
lic confession.
°Read Migne: Apostolic Fathers. Jaugey: Heads, Con
fession, Penance.
"Encyclopedia Britannica; Heads, Confession, Penance,

308 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
absolution by the priest.'" Do not say to me here
that this is conditional on the vow or the intention
of confessing them; for the best and sanest theolo
gians do not hold such a vow to be explicitly made,"
but reduce it to the simple intention of complying
with some other condition imposed, and therefore
they themselves proclaim that no such obligation as
a divine precept exists, and that the simple confession
or an expression of detestation of the sin, uttered be
fore God with true sorrow for having committed it,
is sufficient.
There being, as we have seen, no Divine precept
such as the sacrament of confession, the Church
would undertake a reform for its own benefit by
abolishing this obligation. It is one of the most ob
jectionable practices for the faithful. The majority
of those who separate from the Roman Church do so
because of this humiliating precept. It may be ar
gued by the Romanist that those who leave the Church
because of confession do so because they wish to con
tinue in sin and could not do so if required to confess.
In rebuttal it is enough to say that the vast majority
who renounce the Church do so, because they are
satisfied that the confessional is but another of the
ecclesiastical sophistries for retaining power over the
minds of the masses who do not investigate for them
selves, and are either content to remain in subjection
or are made so through fear and superstition. And
those who do not separate themselves do not comply
_ '" Jaugey : Heads, Contrition, Confession, Penance. Ber
tier : Theological Compendium, speaking about contrition.
" Same authors and heads.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 309
with it, as we have seen in a previous chapter. It
may be said in general that it has fallen into disuse.
On the other hand it involves great dangers, where
no benefits appear. The practice of confession is one
of the most inimical to celibacy. The priest is not
made of brass, as Job says, nor is he an angel,"^ as
unfortunately we all know. And how could a man
remain chaste, who by virtue of his office constantly
hears the most inciting references, and" is brought in
contact with scenes most likely to inflame even the
least ardent imaginatic;i ? On the part of the faithful
no reform is to be seen. The Latin nations are on the
whole more immoral than the Anglo-Saxon. When
ever the faithful shall accustom themselves to confess
to God and to feel true repentance for their sins, then
their desire to depart from evil will become more
firm, and their repentance more effective and lasting.
The false hope that sin is forgiven in the act of ab
solution, and the absurd assurance that it remains
forgiven after the penitent has risen from kneelirr
before the priest, dull the pangs of conscience and kill
the sorrow for sin. But when the believer, the true
believer, finds God standing between his conscience
and his sin, then he will feel that he is not forgiven
until he has truly atoned for it, and a deeply felt sor
row has wiped it out. If we add to this argument
the further statement that in some dioceses, and as far
as may be seen, everywhere in general, in view of
the latest doctrine of the Church, the confessional is
in many cases a menace to honesty, not only the
"Job vi. 12.

3IO ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Church but even the governments ought to ask and
work for its abolishment.
The other sacrament in regard to which there are
grave differences is that of the Eucharist. Speaking
with the sincerity for which I have always striven,
I may say that if the passages of the Bible referring
to it are to be taken literally, there is no point in
which Romanism is apparently more right than on
this. Some passages seem to indicate definitely that
we are not dealing here with symbolism or metaphor
of any kind, but that the body and the blood of Je
sus Christ is received materially and bit by bit, not in
a spiritual sense, but in a real and physical sense.
But if we collate all those passages, if we bear in
mind the general symbolism of the Bible, and above
all, if we consider the contradictions and absurdities
involved in such a doctrine, then we shall clearly see
that they can be interpreted only in a spiritual sense.
Let us begin with St. John. This evangelist reports
as follows: Chapter vi. 35-61.
"I am the living bread which came down from
heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever : and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world.
"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, say
ing, How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?
"Then Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say
unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life; and I wiH rai.':.e him up at the last
day.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 3II
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.
"As the living Father hath sent me, and I Hve by
the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live
by me.
"This is that bread which came down from heaven :
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he
that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
"These things said he in the synagogue, as he
taught in Capernaum.
"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had
heard this, said, This is an hard saying: who can
hear it?
"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples
munnured at it, he said unto them. Doth this of
fend you?"
If this entire passage is to be taken literally, then we
are asked to believe that from that moment the faithful
were to eat of the flesh of Christ and to drink of His
divine blood, because the Evangelist also speaks of
the present in many of his affirmations : "This is the
bread which came down from heaven" ; "whoso eateth
my body, and drinketh my blood," etc. To interpret
this passage literally would be contradictory to Ro
man tradition '* and many other passages of the Gos
pels, and the Apostolic writings, which indicate that
this sacrament was instituted on the night of the Last
'° Hurter, Schouppe, Bertier, Cardinal Vives : When they
speak about the eucharistic institution.

312 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Supper.'* Therefore we cannot give to that passage
a strictly literal sense. Furthermore, St. John, among
the Biblical writers, is the one most addicted to meta
phorical and symbolical language. He tells us that
Christ calls Himself the Way,'' the Life, the Shepherd,
the Door, etc. If we consider the last words quoted
from that chapter, we see clearly that he does not
speak of His material body and blood, since He says
that the flesh does not serve for anything, and further :
"My words are spirit and life." Hence we must un
derstand them as meaning something spiritual, and
not material.
Let us now turn to St. Paul. His words are those
which are quoted by the Church at the feast of Cor
pus Christi^ — I Corinthians xi : 20-30 :
"When ye come together therefore into one place,
this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
"For in eating every one taketh before other his
own supper: and one is hungry, and another is
drunken. "What ! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ?
or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them
that -have not ? What shall I say to you ? Shall I
praise you in this? I praise you not.
"For I received of the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same
night in which he was betrayed took bread:
"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
"St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark, when they speak
about the Holy Supper. St. Paul, I Corinthians xi. 23, 24.
John IV. 13, 14; X. iiS; xi. 25; xv. 1-6.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 3I3
said. Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for
you: this do in remembrance of me.
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when
he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament
in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re
membrance of me.
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty
of the body and blood of the Lord.
"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat
of that bread, and drink of that cup.
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eat
eth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord's body.
"For this cause many are weak and sickly among
you, and many sleep."
At first sight it might seem that these words can
be interpreted only in the Romanistic sense, since the
Apostle affirms that he who eats and drinks unworth
ily, sins against the body and blood of Christ. But
if this chapter is closely examined, we shall find that
there is perhaps no passage which is a better denial
of the Roman dogma of transubstantiation. From the
context it appears that the primitive Christians came
together to eat and drink, each one his own food and
his own wine. And what caused the indignation of
St. Paul was, not that they brought their food and
drink into the Church, but that thereby they broke up
equality and fraternity ; that they did not wait for one
another, and that some ate much and well, while

314 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
others ate scantily and poorly, that some drank to
the extent of becoming intoxicated, while others re
mained thirsty. If the sacrament had been previously
consecrated by the priest, and if this primitive peo
ple had believed in transubstantiation, then such
abuses would not have seemed likely, such a short
time after Paul's preaching. This entire passage
clearly indicates that in those primitive times, the
Eucharist was in the nature of a meal in common, a
token of unity and charity, in the belief that, through
the promise of Christ, this meal had a spiritual grace,
imparted to it by Him. This interpretation becomes
still more clear if we read verses 16 and 17 of the
preceding chapter. In these verses also St. Paul,
while he affirms that the bread is the body of Christ,
and the cup is His blood, at the same time indicates
clearly that this must not be understood in a material
sense, but as being symbolical of collectivity and
union, body and congregation being here synonymous,
as are body, bread and faithful. I beg the reader
please to read carefully and impartially the passages
indicated in St. John and St. Paul, and he will per
ceive that their signification is clearly spiritual and
mystical, and not concrete and material.
However, that which most forcibly induces us to
believe that Romanism is in error, is the series of
absurdities which foHows upon the admission of the
doctrine of transubstantiation. Let us examine this
doctrine in the Hght of scholastic theology and phi
losophy. It is held as an axiom '" among the Roman
" Jaugey : Head, Mysteries. F. Camara's Answer to Drap-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. ^li,
apologists, that no mystery, however incomprehensible
it may be for human reason, may involve any mani
fest contradiction with itself. Since the one God
is the author of nature and of grace, both orders of
truths proceed from the same origin, and it is there
fore impossible that they should contradict each
other." From this conclusion they deduce that ev
erything which clearly contradicts reason must be
thrown out. Let us examine the doctrine of transub
stantiation in the light of this truth. According to
Romanism, when Christ instituted the Eucharist, on
the night of the Last Supper, He Himself gave the
first ccinmunion to the apostles.'* Both of these truths
are believed without qualification by Romanism. Very
well. Christ was then mortal, individual, and en
dowed with human feelings. If during this commun
ion the bread was transformed into the body of Christ
and the wine into his blood, then they were of ne
cessity transformed into such material as Christ was
composed of at that subhme moment; consequently
the apostles had to eat and drink, each and every one
of the living mortal and sensitive flesh and blood of
this same Christ. The great and grave contradictions
involved in this supposition will be apparent to every
one. God, notwithstanding His omnipotence, cannot
make a thing to be one only, and at the same time
per, chapter. Mysteries. Cardinal Gonzalez : The Bible and
Science. " Father Mir : Head, Harmony between Faith and Reason.
Father Mendive : Faith Indicated in the Natural and Super
natural Order. Canons of the Vatican Council : On Faith
and Reason.
'"St. Matthew, St. Luke, St. Mark, and St. Paul, same
chapter as mentioned in note 14 above.

3l6 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
and under the same conditions two or more things
also, for this involves a contradiction; and according
to the theologians, a contradiction cannot be real
ized ; '" not because God has not the power to bring
it to pass, but the thing cannot be done, as it would
involve its own annihilation.
Let us elucidate this profound theological doctrine
by analogous clearer doctrines. When Romanism
speaks mystically of persons ^" who appear at the
same time in two different places, it feels obliged
to say in explanation that in one of these places this
person is not present in reality, but the apparition
seen is merely some moral image of it, since it is re
pugnant tO' reason that one single individual should
resolve himself into two separate individuals at the
same time.
In speaking of the mystery of the Holy Trinity,^'
Romanism says that there is no contradiction, for, al
though it may appear that there are three and one,
neither the word one as such refers to the three, nor
the word three as such refers to the number one ; but
the concepts in virtue of which we make our state
ments regarding the one and three, are different.
In the case under consideration, however, this rea
soning does not apply: Christ was at that moment a
man as such, like any other man, a single, definite in
dividual, and all his members held the same relation,
'" Read Cardinals Zigliara and Gonzalez : Teodicea, on the
Impossible. Granclaude, Mendive : Teodicea, same head.
Jaugey: Head, Impossible.
^ Escaramelli : Obras Misticas : De las Apariciones.
^ Perrone : On the Mystery of the Virgin Mary ; On the
Answers to the Objections. Jaugey: Head, Trinity.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 317
as single, definite parts of his body. As a definite
personality He did not have more eyes than we have,
or more arms, more hearts, etc. If the transubstantia
tion took place at the Last Supper, how could all the
apostles present receive him equally and completely?
Do not point here to the omnipotence of God, for as
we have seen above, God does not bring about contra
dictions, and therefore, would not make Christ at
the same time into one and thirteen definite physi
cal personalities, even supposing that only the twelve
apostles were present on that occasion to partake of
the Last Supper.
Furthermore, if the doctrine of Romanism be true,
and Christ on that occasion was mortal and percep
tible by the senses, and His body not yet endowed
with the glorious gifts it now possesses, then the apos
tles would receive His body and blood as Christ pos
sessed them at the time, that is to say, solid flesh ex
tended in space, as any other body ; for if Romanism
says that they took it in a spiritual and supernatural
way, and not the physical and external body before
them, then Romanism capitulates to Protestantism,
which holds that Christ is present morally and spir
itually, though truly and concretely. I beg the reader
to examine carefully these arguments, and he wiH see
that it is against reason to believe that the apostles
could receive the material flesh and blood of Christ in
that Holy Communion.
The same objection, as leading to no conclusion,
can be applied to the doctrine, after the resurrection
and glorification of Christ; for although His divine
body possesses the glorious gifts, it exists individually

3l8 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
as one. The comparisons that some Romanists bring
forward, as for instance, that the sun ^^ although be
ing a single object, is yet seen by us all completely
and entirely, and that the voice, although an entity,
may be heard entirely by a multitude of persons, are
not worthy of the consideration of anyone with even
a small knowledge of philosophy. For those are ex
amples of vibration, where every wave leads back to
an initial impulse; but we are dealing with an entirely
different question, of how a body existing as a physi
cal unity — never forget that — can be partaken of en
tirely and at the same time by millions of men. If
this is not a manifest contradiction, then we do not
know what may be called contradiction.
We meet with the same difficulties when we con
sider the act and the disappearance of the sacrament.
In the act there appears annihilation,^* since the bread
and the wine return to nothing, a supposition which
contradicts the general principle that God creates or
annihilates nothing; and it follows therefrom, ac
cording to Romanism, that the body and the blood of
Christ disappear when the sacramental elements of
bread and wine disappear.^* So that these being mere
accidences, determine the subsistence or disappearance
of the body and blood of Christ. In order the better
to see the series of philosophical absurdities to which
this reasoning leads, it must be remembered that these
"^ Father Manuel Malo : Eucharistic Manual.
^ Cardinal Vives, Bertier, Hurter, etc., etc. : On the Eu
charist. " Billuart, Perrone, P. Fernandez, etc., etc. : On Transub
stantiation.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 319
elements are not the subject in which the body "" and
blood of Christ is contained, since that body and
blood are received with the corresponding supposition
that they are Christ.
Moreover, these elements remain without subject,
and one of the most hotly discussed questions ^* in the
Romanist theology is to assign the corresponding sub
ject to these elements. If this entire doctrine is ex
amined impartially and critically, it will be seen that
such transubstantiation cannot be admitted either on
Biblical, theological or philosophical grounds.
About the other four sacraments it is hardly worth
while to say anything.^' Romanism bases the sacra
ment of marriage of the fact that Jesus was present at
the marriage of Cana, and further by His words : Quod
Deus conjunxit, homo non separet (That which God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder). But
the various views held agree neither as to the form,
nor the minister, nor even as to the constituent es
sentials, as some hold that Christ instituted it when
He was present at the marriage of Cana ; others, when
He uttered the above words, and others again after the
Resurrection. The sacraments of confirmation and
of extreme unction are based on those passages in
the Acts of the Apostles, in- which it is said that the
apostles laid their hands on those who had already
been baptized; and on the words of St. James, who
'^ Cardinal Vives, Bertier, Hurter, etc., etc : On the Eu
charist. "' Billuart, Casanova : On the Eucharist. Jaugey : Head,
Eucharist. "Cardinal Vives, Bertier, Hurter, etc., etc.: De Deo Re-
demptore. 32

320 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
commands the apostles to anoint and pray for the sick.
But as these are not necessary for salvation, accord
ing to Romanism, they cannot be considered as a
practical obstacle to the union of Romanists and
Protestants. The sacrament of ordination being ad
mitted by Protestants as an ecclesiastical institution,
at least in its main features, it would matter little to
change the name in preserving the thing.

CHAPTER XXII.
PURGATORY AND THE MASS.
AMONG the Romanist doctrines there is none, per
haps, which seems to have less foundation, either
on Biblical grounds or for theologic reasons, than that
of purgatory. Being as it is a purely ecclesiastical in
vention, it partakes of the qualities of its origin. It is
a heterogeneous mixture of affirmations, so discor
dant and contradictory, even for Romanism, that it is
sufficient to gather together the opinions of the prin
cipal saints and the foremost theologians in order to
be convinced that not even Romanism knows what to
make out of this dogma.' We shall first formulate
here the dogma of purgatory, and then we shall refute
the slight biblical grounds on which it pretends to
found its existence.
Is there a purgatory? Romanism proclaims as an
article of faith it does exist, at the Councils of Flor
ence and Trent.^ And here we come upon the first
stumbling-block. Romanism admits that it can pro
claim as a dogma only that which is found clearly
stated in the Bible or that which has been unwaver
ingly and unanimously handed down by Romanist tra-

'Read Bertier: Theological Compendium; head, Purga-
(321)

tory. ' Consult the Canons of said Council.

322 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
dition as a truth received from the apostles.* The
slight biblical foundation, as we shall see, does not
authorize Romanism to establish an entire dogma
like that of purgatory. Is it authorized to do so by
tradition? Tradition is very far from being unani
mous and unwavering on this point. A sub-apostolic
father like St. Irenaeus denies its existence. As wise
a Father as St. Augustine, living at the advanced pe
riod of the fifth century, speaks of the existence of pur
gatory as something admissible and probable but not
an assured dogmatic truth.* And here we have one of
the greatest inconsistencies of Romanism. It cannot
but confess that the depository of revelation was
closed with the apostles.^ When accused by Reform
ism that it has introduced innovations, proclaiming
dogmas which are not found in the Bible, Romanism
says very self-complacently: Although they are not
found in the Bible, we have received them as coming
from the apostles through unanimous and uninter
rupted tradition. And when it is confronted with
testimony to the contrary by men like Origen, Tertul
han, St. Augustine and others on this and similar
questions, it exclaims : Ah, if these men did not think
as we do, there are others who did, and that is suffi
cient. We see here that the unity and uninterrupted-
' Read Councils of Trent and Vatican, head, De Traditione.
Perrone : De Vera Religione. Hettinger, Hurter : Theology,
same head.
*Read St. Augustine's comments on I Corinthians iii. 15.
The'se are his words : "Such a belief (as the existence of ex
piatory purgatory) is not incredible, but its existence is cer
tainly discussable," (Incredibile non est utrum ita sit quaeri
potest). 'Jaugey: Head, Revelation. Cardinal Vives, Hurter, Per
rone, etc. : Same head.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 323
ness to which Romanism appeals is not the unity and
uninterruptedness taught by logic and proclaimed by
sane criticism, but a kind of puppet with a multiplicity
of heads, which Romanism exhibits to its faithful,
discovering to them now one face and now another,
like the exhibits of a wandering showman. This pro
cedure is very convenient, but it is far from being
rational and serious.
Our statement gains further in strength, if we bear
in mind that both St. Augustine and Origen were
deeply versed in the entire Catholic doctrine. Who
would dare to cast a doubt upon the profound knowl
edge of all matters pertaining to Catholicism of wise
men Hke St. Augustine? Who was more at home in
the Bible and in tradition than he? And if he, who
knew so well both these sources of truth, did not pro
claim the existence of purgatory as something certain
and dogmatic, this was a clear indication that the doc
trine of purgatory, as such, did not proceed from the
apostles. And if it did not proceed from the apostles,
how can an opinion like this develop and be trans
formed into a dogma?
Here the Romanists are getting into a blind alley.
They admit that infallibility is neither an inspiration
nor authorizes an innovation." This prerogative au
thorizes Romanism to promulgate as dogmas, those
truths alone which are clearly contained in the deposi
tory of revelation, namely, the Gospels. How, then,
can an opinion develop and be transformed into an un-
° Cardinal Gibbons : Faith of Our Fathers, The Pope's In
fallibility. Casanova, Hettinger, Hurler, Perrone, Schouppe:
Same head.

324 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
assailable and dogmatic doctrine? On the promulga
tion of the infallible Pope? No, because infallibility
is neither inspiration nor innovation. Through tra
dition? No, because v/itnesses as authoritative as
St. Augustine hold that this doctrine is not a certainty
but is merely an opinion.'' Do not say to us here that
other holy fathers believe in it as a certainty ; for aside
from declaring thereby that the testimony of the
others is better and worth more than that of St. Au
gustine — a statement that could not stand before seri
ous criticism — we should arrive at the admission that
the tradition is neither unanimous nor continuous, a
statement that would cut the supports from under the
fundamental principles of the tradition. Therefore,
if Romanism thinks that it is sufficient if some be
lieve — while others may hold different views — in or
der that the tradition may be called unanimous and
uninterrupted, then it may happen that some day we
may meet with a Pope ready to expound to us the
dogma of millenarianism, since there were saints like
Irenaeus who believed in it and held it to have been
derived from the apostles.* Such a mode of argument
is far from the seriousness demanded by trae criti
cism, and the directness demanded by logic. This kind
of weathercock tradition, which means one thing for
one party and another thing for another, which is
not one but many, which is continuous according to
one concept and interrupted according to another, may
serve to build card houses, but not to establish so
' Same authority and head as note 4.
' Read Baronio and Rohrbacher : On St. Irenaeus ; St.
Irenaeus himself can be read in Migne.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 325
serious a matter as a dogma of faith. But let us pro
ceed with our discussion. What does Romanism know
about purgatory? The kind reader may now prepare
to witness a show of moving pictures, for I can find
no better term to describe the heterogeneous mass of
opinions regarding this unfortunate but lucrative
dogma in the Roman theology. Let us examine it
more closely. Is there a place in the universe for pur
gatory, distinct from hell and heaven? There is
none, answer some, except that hell itself serves both
for the lost and for the elect who there purge them
selves of their sins." Yes, it does exist, answer others,
and it is a place intermediate between heaven and
hell.'" That is not so, say yet others, since there is
neither a heaven nor a hell, nor a purgatory. There is
no special place except as it pleases God to appoint
one where the soul shall suffer for its sins, and it
might be that God would assign to the soul its own
hearth and its own habitation as the place where to
expiate its sins." And between these conflicting af
firmations and negations the Romanist is more in the
dark as to the location of purgatory, than is the Prot
estant, who does not weary himself with seeking for
it, because he knows that it does not exist.
What do souls suffer in purgatory? Oh, answer
some, the most horrible punishments, the same kinds
of punishment as the lost, but alleviated by the hope
" S. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio : Obras Dogmaticas, vol. vii,
p. 266.
" The majority of Roman Theologians agree that this opin
ion is called "common opinion."
" St. Thomas, St. Francis de Sales, Sta. Catalina de Bo-
lonia are of the same opinion.

326 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
that they will come to an end in time.'^ That is not
so, answer others, these are not the punishments of
hell, but analogous to them, yet terrible.'* It is neither
the one nor the other, say the third disputants ; for the
souls in purgatory there is no punishment of the flesh,
there is neither fire nor any other sensible pain, but
only the pain of being condemned, the unutterable
longing to possess God.'*
Choose whichever opinion most appeals to you, for
not only are they all Romanist, but also with each
one you may say that Romanism knows as little about
the kinds of punishments as it does about the place.
What are the relations of the souls in purgatory to
us? Oh, excellent, say some, as they can see us and
we can see them, they can hear us and we can take
them for our mediators with God.'^ Do not believe
that, say others, they can neither be seen nor can they
see. Do not call upon them, for since they cannot
plead for themselves, neither can they plead for you.'*
Thus between the affirmations of some, and the de
nials of others, the believer does not get any definite
information, theoretically. I say theoretically, for in
practice all the disputants dwell on the benefits which
the souls derive from their sufferings in purgatory,
and how grateful these souls are to the faithful who
pray for them, especially if such prayer takes the
'^This is the opinion of St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio and
others. " This is the opinion of nearly all theologians.
'* St. Francis de Sales, Sta. Catalina de Bolonia, and the
majority of Greek writers, are of this opinion.
^ St. Alfonso Ma. de Ligorio and others.
'" St, Thomas and others,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 327
form of responses and masses; as these are generally
paid for, they are the most beneficial and commend
able practices. And there we come upon the most
knotty point of the question. What relation is there
between the souls in purgatory, God, the sacrifices and
prayers? For anyone well versed in Roman theology
the answer is a kind of hieroglyphic which can hardly
be deciphered theoretically as far as ideas are con
cerned; but practically and as regards actions it is a
most abundant spring at which the thirsty Romanist
may quaff in deep draughts.
Roman theology teaches that death ends the period
for performing meritorious acts.'^ The souls, there
fore, can do nothing meritorious; yet they practice
in a heroic degree the virtues of faith, hope and char
ity. This means that although these most sublime
virtues are practiced in a real way, such practice does
not carry with it the reward which, Romanism teaches,
elsewhere always accompanies every supernatural act
performed through grace.'* The souls can do nothing
meritorious ; and yet, according to the strict rules of
justice, they deserve that their sentence should end.'"
They can do nothing meritorious, and yet the merits
of others may be applied to them. Anyone capable of
coordinating this entire series of incoherencies could
carry off the first prize in any international riddle
contest. But let us go a step further and see how the
" Casanova, Hettinger, Hurter, Perrone, Schouppe in their
respective Theologies; head, De Novissimis.
Any Roman author speaking of the souls in purgatory.
" Read any Roman author regarding the satisfaction of the
souls in purgatory.

328 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
Roman doctrine not only blasphemes the justice of
God, but also robs men of their worldly goods.
Ask Romanism : Do the sacrifices which the faith
ful pay to you in order that you may apply them for
the benefit of the souls in purgatory, help them for
certain or not? If they do then the wicked and the
rich who have left many pious bequests before their
death, or whose heirs pay for many masses and re
sponses, go quickly to heaven; while the poor and the
humble, who cannot leave anything for the benefit of
their souls, are forced to remain for a longer time in
purgatory. This is to say that the eternal justice of
God is bought and sold as radishes are bought and
sold in the market place. Can there be any greater
blasphemy of the righteousness and impartiality of the
infinite justice of the Eternal One? And if the sacri
fices are of no special benefit to the individual soul for
whom they are made, then why deceive faithful ones,
impressing upon them the efficacy of particular inten
tions when applied to a special soul? Why insist so
strongly that it is most helpful to say a mass for the
liberation of one single soul? In both of these cases
Romanism is again caught in a blind alley. In the
first it tramples upon Divine justice, and in the sec
ond it deceives the faithful. It does not avail here to
appeal to the doctrine of St. Thomas,^" who holds that
the sacrifices are applied as God wills it, for the diffi
culty is not thereby removed. If the individual sac
rifices benefit in particular the faithful in whose name
they are made, then the rich are favored, and a slur
'"Read St, Thomas on this subject,

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 329
is cast upon the justice of God. If they do not bene
fit the designated souls, then your sincerity and hon
esty with the: faithful is at fault. Therefore instead
of preaching so much on the excellency of the sacrifice
of the mass for the liberation of the souls, you should
say to the faithful: You pay in order that the soul
in which you are interested may be redeemed; but
honesty compels us to say that the sacrifice in which
you believe may not be applied according to your in
tentions. It may be applied elsewhere, for the divi
sion of the gift rests with God only.
The doctrine of purgatory appears still more ridicu
lous if we examine the sacrifice of the mass itself.
The Romanists say, that the sacrifice of Christ on
the cross was sufficient for the redemption of this
world and thousands and millions of other worlds. If
that be the case, why repeat a sacrifice which has been
sufficiently completed? Why assume that thousands
and millions of priests repeat the sacrifice of the
cross in a bloodless rite, when the first sacrifice was
everlasting and sufficient and nothing can be added
to it? Oh, if it were not for the stipend of the masses,
if this sacrifice were not one of the most general and
prolific sources of income of hungry Romanism, it
certainly would not fasten upon a practice opposed to
the Bible and to reason. Read St. Paul '^ and you
will see that there is no other priest but Christ and no
other sacrifice but that of His passion. But it was
deemed expedient to have the faithful contribute the
mass money, and so there was formulated an entire
^Hebrews ix. 15, 25-27; vii. 27; x. 10,

33© ROMAN CATHOLICISM
theology, dealing with the second redemption and the
second sacrifice. And proclaiming that all and each
of the masses have an infinite efficacy and therefore
a single one of them is sufficient for the liberation of
all the souls, ^^ Romanism invented the series of three,
seven and thirty masses to be applied to the liberation
of a soul. And when asked for the reason of this con
tradiction, it replies that the application rests with God
and is not within the power of the faithful nor the
priest.^* Let us examine for a moment the patent theological
contradiction involved in this doctrine. According to
the Romanists not only is the mass efficacious in it
self, but it is also infinitely extensive in application.
Very well, then : if its entire efficacy applies, then one
single mass would be an all-sufficient sacrifice for the
liberation of all the souls. ^* And if God does not ap
ply it all, how can we reasonably explain why He pre
serves for Himself a part of its efficacy? What ra
tional or humanitarian objects are obtained by such
restrictions ?
Furthermore we come upon the following philo
sophical contradiction : Something infinite, from which
a part is taken away, produces one of the two follow
ing alternatives : first. If after a part taken away from
the infinite it remain still infinite, then, if the part
taken from it is added again, we would have the in
finite plus the part added to it ; or second, if after you
^ Bertier, Vives, Schouppe and other Roman authors, when
speaking on the sacrifice of the mass.
" This is the opinion of nearly all the followers of St.
Thomas' school.
" Read Bertier on the sacrifice of the mass.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 33I
take a part away from the infinite the remainder be
comes then finite, you will have the deduction that the
infinite can be constituted by aggregating parts of
finite thing, and neither of these two assumptions
is admitted in good, sound, philosophical reasoning.^"
Nor will it avail to say that although the efficacy is
infinite it can be applied finitely, since the capacity of
the souls to whom it is applied is wanting. Such an
affirmation leaves the difficulty unsolved, since the effi
cacy of one single mass completely absorbs, as we
have said, the power of reception which the souls pos
sess. Let not the Romanist deceive himself. Be his
answer what it will, purgatory and the mass appear,
even within his own philosophy and theology, as a
mixture of incoherencies and absurdities.
Ah, if all the faithful would act as the author saw,
not a year and a half ago, a simple Mexican Indian
act, then this absurd business would soon cease. This
Indian came with a serious face to a priest and asked
him to say mass and make various responses for one
of his relatives. The priest inquiring of what class
he wished them, the Indian replied that they should
be of the best. Then the priest, in anticipation of a
good fee, solemnly chanted the mass and the re
sponses. When he had finished, the Indian came to
him again and asked: "Well, Father, do you think
that the mass and the responses have helped my rela
tive?" The priest, thinking that the more he exag
gerated, the larger the fee would be, extolled to him
the infinite efficacy of the mass and the great good that
=" Cardinal Gfenzalez and Zigliara: On the conception of
the Infinite. Jaugey: Same head.

332 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
was done by the responses. Greatly rejoiced to hear
this, the Indian continued : "Then you think. Father,
that my relative has gone to heaven?" "You may
piously believe that," replied the priest. "In that case.
Father, many thanks, and may all go weU with you;
for if he has left purgatory, it matters little if I pay
you or not, and if he should return to purgatory he
would be a great fool. So good-bye." With that he
left, not paying a cent.^" If those who pay should
disappear, then those who take the money would soon
cease to perform service.
The following are the texts on which Romanism
pretends to found the doctrine of purgatory. A pas
sage in Maccabees, where it is said that Judas Macca-
baeus gave money to the temple in order that the
priests might offer sacrifices for the soldiers who had
fallen in one of his battles. Quando lex non distinguit,
neque nos distinguere debemus (If the law does not
make a distinction, we cannot). The author who
wrote those words did not apply them to purgatory,
but to the general resurrection. He says distinctly that
Judas Maccabaeus, in making his donation, showed
clearly that he was really thinking of the resurrection.
Therefore, even if Protestantism believed this passage
to be inspired, it could interpret the same in a sense
contrary to Romanism.
The other passage is the one saying that certain sins
cannot be forgiven, either in this or in the other life,
and it seems incredible that Romanism should dare
to cite it in favor of its doctrine of purgatory. When
*¦ This happened in the Diocese of Puebla, Mexico, where
I was present and witnessed the incident.

Capitulating before protestantism. 333
this text is held up as contradicting the all-inclusive
power of absolution to forgive all sins, Romanism re
plies: this text is a hyperbole, to indicate that there
are some sins which are greater than others, and
some the gravest of all ; it must not be taken literally.
We admit this interpretation, and we think that it is
a good one to support us in saying once again that no
appeal to the Bible, or tradition, or theology, can
demonstrate the existence of purgatory.

CHAPTER XXIII.
THE ROMAN DOCTRINE AND MAN IN HIS TRIPLE ASPECT
 RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL.
THERE are two general ways in which Roman
ism may be studied. One of these, which is
partial and incomplete, we might call the Roman hy
pothesis.' This undertakes to conciliate Romanism
with other creeds, rather than to expound fully and
frankly its doctrine; seeking the limits to which it
may go without too manifestly confusing the believer
in his faith, and what in given and determined cases
the nations may demand. The other method, which
we might call the Romanist thesis, studies its doctrines
in their entire extent and significance, expounding
the aims and ideals of Romanism, its true spirit, its
complete life and history. As the expositors of this
doctrine, we should fall short of the truth if we did
not proceed according to the second method.
What, then, does the Roman thesis teach in regard
to the religious, scientific and social liberty of a man?
Far from agreeing with Cardinal Gibbons in his
Chapter XVII, we think, on the contrary, that liberty
in these directions is incompatible with the Romanist
thesis, that the affirmation of the latter necessarily in
volves the negation of the former. And here is our
answer in full :
True religious Hberty is incompatible with the Ro
man thesis ; scientific Hberty is condemned by Roman-
' Social Sovereignty of Christ, by the Jesuit Father Kamieri;
under Roman Thesis and Hypothesis.
(334)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 335
ism; political liberty is fighting openly with the Ro
manistic beliefs. We are fully conscious of the grav
ity of our three protestations, and we should never
have dared to utter them, did we not believe that we
could base them on testimony as indubitable as that of
the first three Popes, who according to the Roman be
lief, as a dogina of faith, were infallible.
Religious liberty means that everyone is free to
choose that form of religion which his conscience
dictates to him. This liberty presupposes the sacred
inviolability of every individual conscience. What
does Romanism think in regard to this innate and
sovereign prerogative? All men may be divided into
two classes : those who are faithful to Romanism, and
those who are not. For both of these two groups the
affirmations of the Roman Church are final and op
posed to liberty. That Church says in general, refer
ring to humanity at large : '^ "Liberty of conscience
is an abominable liberty; the Hberty of each one to
choose his own religion is a Hberty of perdition.* Ev
ery man born on this planet has the sacred obligation
of being subject to me.* I alone am the true one. I
alone am divine ; outside of me there is no salvation. °
^ Syllabus of Pius IX : Encyclical of Leo XIII, under
Libertas. On account of the gravity of the matters discussed
in this chapter, we consider it is our duty to literally copy
many testimonials translated into English and which we will
reproduce in Latin in the appendix. "We condemn the doc
trine that teaches that every man has the right to choose his
religion and form of worship, and that the State must re
spect such a right" (Syllabus).
" The same documents.
'Jaugey: Heads, Religion, Church. Cardinal Gonzalez and
Zigliara : head. Theodicy on Religion.
"Bertier, Cardinal Vives, Perrone: On the True Religion.
23

336 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
As aU men are obliged to seek their salvation, it is
therefore the duty of aU to obey me." When you dis
cuss the liberty of conscience with a Roman Catholic,
be careful to speak in general terms, lest you fall into
heresies." When Romanists express themselves in
these terms, they refer to the other religions and not
to their own, nor to the obligation with which every
man is born to profess Romanism. The Church says
to the incredulous, to the heretic, and to the infidel:
"You are free to leave your profession and to adopt
mine." But if the incredulous, the heretic, and the in
fidel should ask: Are we, or are we not free to em
brace Romanism ? ^ the Church would answer : "You
are not free, but you are under the obhgation to be
lieve in me and to obey." Therefore in the Roman
sense liberty to choose one's religion does not exist,
but instead is the absolute obligation to become a Ro
man. Therefore, when you read in His Eminence
Cardinal (jibbons' book, at the beginning of Chapter
XVII, where he speaks of the sacred and inviolable
character of the righteous conscience, you should sub
stitute the word Roman for the word righteous; and
where he says that every act which infringes upon this
liberty of conscience is called religious intolerance,
you should understand him to mean, if that intoler
ance proceeds from the non-Romanists, for they may
assail that conscience as we have said above, and will
state again.
Only thus may the words of His Eminence Cardinal
' Pius IX, Syllabus.
' Cardinal Vives : On the necessity of Religion. Jaugey :
Head, Religion. Herzier : On the True Religion.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 337
Gibbons be explained in an orthodox sense ; and if not
explained thus, they would even be heretical, unless
he has in mind physical liberty, which would be like
taking up the radish by the leaves ; for if he is talking
of physical liberty, then we are free to make ourselves
into Moors, and he himself into a Jew, if he so
chooses. But this sort of reasoning is not serious nor
fitting for theologians. In theology, when we speak
of religious liberty, we mean moral liberty, not that
of the physical act. The Roman thesis, then, denies
religious liberty to those outside of the faith, the mo
ment it proclaims that they were- born, not free, but
with the obligation to believe in the Roman Church
and to obey her.
For the faithful the slavery is much greater. On
the one hand the Church concedes to reason the power
to demonstrate the most fundamental truths ; * she
proclaims again and again the rational and scientific
character of her doctrine; but iH advised is he who
should think that she would thereby concede any lib
erty to him. This is what she affirms: he who dares
to doubt, or to think that he may independently inves
tigate the Catholic doctrine in order to find out
whether he shall believe or not, according to the sci
entific result of his investigations, shall be excom
municated." Moreover, among the faithful, the child
is baptized within a few days of its birth, and there
fore the possibility of a free investigation is excluded.
No investigation before baptism — since that is impos
sible at that age; and none after baptism — since that
'Canons of the Vatican Council: On Reason and Faith.
"The same.

338 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
would mean excommunication. To speak of religious
liberty within Romanism under such circumstances,
is the height of absurdity and the most biting sarcasm.
And here history enters as a terrible witness. What
caused the horrible butcheries of the Middle Ages, if
not the negation of this truth? Who equipped the
arm of Spain, the all-powerful ruler of that time, for
its long and bloody campaigns in Germany and Flan
ders, if not Romanism, which denied that trath?
What caused the butcheries on the night of St. Bar
tholomew, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
if not the Romanist doctrine regarding that truth?
What lighted the fires of the Inquisition, and led the
specter of death all over Europe, if not just that tenet
of Romanism, that religious liberty does not exist?
Therefore to proclaim in the twentieth century that
Romanism believed or now believes in religious lib
erty is both anti-historical and anti-theological.
Does scientific liberty exist? Here the Vatican
claws advance still further in order to strangle human
thought. It may be maintained that from Origen '"
to Bacon," from Bacon to Galileo,'^ from Galileo to
Darwin, from Darwin to Charcot '* there has appeared
no savant of any kind, nor any truly scientific system,
which has not been anathematized by Romanism. As
'° One of the greatest savants of history of ancient times.
He was condemned by the Church.
"This illustrious Franciscan was imprisoned and perse
cuted. Do not confound him with Bacon (Lord Verulam).
^ He was condemned by the Roman Inquisition.
" Hypnotism was denounced many times as diabolical, by
the sacred Congregations. See Cardinal Vives : Moral Com
pendium, under Hypnotism. Also Father Franco: Hypno
tism in Style.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 339
our object here is merely to set forth the kind of lib
erty which Romanism concedes to science at the pres
ent moment, we shall confine our illustrations to the
latest Roman teachings.
Is philosophy free to pursue its investigations ? No,
the Syllabus condemns such liberty. Is geology
free ? '* No, Pope Pius IX has condemned such Hb
erty. Are the sciences free to follow their methods and
conclusions? No, for Romanism is afraid of them,
and has condemned their independence and liberty."
The Romanist synthesis regarding science is as fol
lows : Philosopher, you may freely investigate phil
osophical problems, on condition that you never deny
any of my conclusions ; for if that should happen I
should condemn you. Geologist, you may penetrate
in your studies into the recondite and mysterious se
crets of the earth £tnd life, following the flight of the
centuries, but only on condition that your conclusions
should not be in opposition to mine, for if you do not
succeed thus, I shall anathematize you. Savant, who
ever you may be, you are free to follow your chemical
or physical or biological or psychical studies, but on
condition that your chemistry and your physics and
your biology and your psychology do not discredit the
affirmations which I teach elsewhere in regard to these
sciences ; for if you do I shall excommunicate you.
Now you see, modern savant, what judgment
awaits '" you, if you do not resign yourself to be as
'* Read Pius IX : Syllabus ; and Pius X : Bull condemning
Modernism, which condemns the doctrine which maintains
that the Church must leave philosophy free to amend itself,
'"The same.
'° Same authors and heads,

340 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
an acolyte of Romanism, if you are not disposed to be
a kind of page to the Papacy, if, in studying the
fossil you are not ready to decipher its riddles in
agreement with Romanism; if in taking up the bal
ances you do not make a profession of faith that you
will not look for anything which may be at odds with
Romanism; if in adjusting the telescope you do not
direct it with the intention of passing by that to which
Romanism is opposed; if in studying the great prob
lems of life and evolution you do not resign yourself
to throw out all that Romanism throws out — far from
being free, your endeavors will be condemned as he
retical by Romanism. Can there be a greater degra
dation of scientific liberty? Does it not mean to take
away his liberty, if the savant is compelled before
proceeding with his scientific demonstration, to be
lieve in certain predetermined truths that have not
yet been demonstrated? Is not science enslaved and
shackeled in its august and humanitarian mission, if
the scientist is compelled, before proceeding with his
studies, to make profession of Romanist faith, and en
joined during his investigations never to lose sight of
the Romanist canons, throwing out all that is opposed ,
to them? Scientific liberty is incompatible with the
present doctrine of Romanism. Who can doubt that,
when he reads the two most important documents of
the Papacy, the SyHabus of Pius IX and the bull of
Pius X condemning Modernism?
Is there, at least, political liberty? Here we meet
with the most horrible tyrannies. Whoever knows in
timately the Romanist doctrine on this point, must be
astonished that any people loving their liberty and in-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 34I
dependence dare to profess Romanism. For Roman
ism there is only one sovereign Lord, entirely indepen
dent, namely God, the Supreme Maker of all things,
and another Lord equally sovereign and independent,
because he is His representative on earth, namely the
Pope.''' All the others, great and small, nobles and
plebeians, kings and vassals, are subject to the Pope,
who may rule over them with a power compared with
which ancient Roman imperialism and the autocracy
of the czar, are as mere shadows.
We are aware of the gravity of our affirmations,
and we shall demonstrate them. Romanism, in order
to make itself entirely independent of every other
ruler and power, reasons as follows '* : That society is
the most perfect, which has the highest aim in view
and the most perfect means of attaining it. It so
happens that I, Romanism, alone have the highest of
all aims in view, and I attain to it by the most perfect
and extraordinary means; therefore I am the most
perfect of all societies, and the most independent. No
power or society of any kind can exist above me or
beside me ; therefore they are all inferior to me ; there
fore I can rule over them all ; all are obliged to obey
me, but I am not obliged to obey anyone. The first
" Apologetic Dictionary of the Faith ; heads. Pope, Church,
and State. Bertier, Cardinal Vives : Compendium of The
ology and Canonical Law: Same heads.
"Cardinal Zigliara: On Ethics of Society. Cardinal Gon
zalez : On same. Bertier, Cardinal Vives : On Rights of the
Church. Just because the aim of the Church is supernatural
and its power supreme, it follows that no other power can
hinder or restrain the liberty, rights, privileges, etc., of the
Church. — Syllabus and Leo XIII Encyclical. Therefore, all
the baptized, though heretics or schismatics, are subject to the
(Church by which they can be constrained. — Cardinal Vives.

342 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
conclusion to be drawn from its profession of abso
lute perfection and sovereign independence is this:
my subjects are obliged to obey me before obeying
any other power; my functionaries depend entirely
on me and not on any other power. Let us examine
both conclusions, because they both bear grave con
sequences. The Roman Catholic, be he American, French,
Spanish, English, etc., is obliged, in case of a conflict
between any of the powers and the Pope, to obey the
latter and not his own native ruler.'" If it were
within the limits of possibility that a struggle could
arise between the President of America, and the then
ruling Pope, every Roman Catholic would be obliged
to side with the latter against the former. The Ro
man Catholic can yield to his own ruler only condi
tional obedience, for absolute obedience he has already
yielded to the Roman Pontiff, the head of Christi
anity.^" Whenever it suits him he can release the Ro
man Catholic from his oath of allegiance to his own
ruler, and can depose the latter, if a Catholic, and put
some one else in his place.^' Read the bulls quoted,
'" Cardinal Vives : Compendium of Canonical Law, Rights
of the Church and of the Pope. Pius IX : Syllabus. Bertier :
Compendium of Theology, Rights of the Church in relation
to the State, and generally all Roman authors. "In case of
disagreement or conflict, it is for the Church to resolve, and
the State can do nothing against her." — Syllabus.
™ Compendium of Canonical Law, Rights of the Church and
of the Pope; same Cardinal, compendium on Morals, under
head, Liberalism. Sarda and Salvany : Under head, "Liberal
ism is a Sin" (approved by the sacred Congregations).
^The best known bull, entitled In Coena Domini (The
Lord's Supper), still in force. See Gregory VII's bull, which
in part says : "Act in such a manner, I beg of you all [speak
ing of the Bishops], that the whole world shall know, that

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 343
and look into history. There is no nation in Europe
which has not suffered numberless times from this
papal invasion. England twice or three times before
Henry VIII; Germany more than six times; Italy
countless times in all its states ; France, on more than
one occasion; the Spanish states numberless times,
the sufferers being now Navarre, then Aragon, then
Castile. ^^ It may be said that this is one of the fa
vorite prerogatives of Romanism. If it does not exer
cise this power now, that is not because it has re
nounced it, but because it can no longer exercise it.^*
We challenge every Romanist to cite a single docu
ment contradicting this statement, and we refer in our
notes to many that assume this power to be still in
force. Accordingly, if Romanism, instead of being in
a state of decadence, were progressing and acquiring
fresh predominance, it would exercise, as formerly,
its power of releasing its faithful from their oaths of
allegiance to their own sovereigns, sowing insubor
dination and discord among the peoples whenever it
suited the Church's convenience.
We leave it to the good sense of the American peo
ple to judge of the consequences that follow from this
truth: every nation where there are Romanists has
if you can bind and unbind even in heaven, you can also do
so on earth, take away and give empires, kingdoms, prince
doms, dukedoms, marquisates, earldoms and baronies, and
that you can depose all of them, according to their merits,
you can grant such dignities and honors to whom you may
deem worthy."
^The historians Baronio, Rohrbacher, Rivas, Alzog: On
the Popes' excommunications of princes ; and it will be seen,
that in numerous instances they exercised that tremendous
and abusive power.
"^ Leo XIII: EncycHcals.

344 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
subjects who are more vassal to the pope than to their
own kings or presidents. The consequences of the
independence of the Roman functionaries are still
more grave: they must not only be independent of
every other power in the exercise of their ministry,
but they also cannot be touched in any way.^* The
kings cannot insist on their fulfilling the duties of
common citizens. Innumerable times the Popes have
excommunicated princes who have sought to compel
the clergy to bear the general burdens, or to do mili
tary service.^'' Complementary to this civic indepen
dence, Romanism has proclaimed the ecclesiastical
edict, in virtue of which a cleric who has committed a
crime of whatever nature, be it even adultery, robbery
or murder, cannot be brought under the jurisdiction
of the civil court. ^" The faithful who accuses him, and
the magistrate who judges him, are both excommuni-
^ Pius IX : Syllabus. Cardinal Vives : Compendium of
Canonical Law. Rights of the Church and of the Pope :
"The Church and the ecclesiastics enjoy privileges of exemp
tion or immunity that no civil authority can lessen or arro
gate to itself." — Syllabus.
^ Same documents ; Compendium on Morals, by Cardinal
Vives and Bertier : On Excommunications : Clergymen are
exempted from military service. "We excommunicate anyone
usurping any part of the property or rights belonging to
ecclesiastics": besides read the nth and 12th of the most
severe excommunications, called anathemas, reserved to the
Pope. '° Jaugey : Head, Ecclesiastical Privileges. Cardinal Vives :
Works already mentioned. Ferraris : Same head. Canonical
Encyclopedia : Same head. "It belongs to ecclesiastical privi
lege, to decide all cases, whether criminal or civil, concerning
clerics.. We condemn the doctrine that maintains that such
privileges can be restrained or assumed by governments. —
Syllabus. We excommunicate by anathema anyone accusing a
cleric before a civil tribunal, and the judge who will hear and
decide the case." — Standing excommunication by Pius IX.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 345
cated." And as if this degree of independence were
not sufficient, it is also made to cover all ecclesiastical
property, and the ruler, be he king or president, who
should demand tribute, would be declared excom
municated as a usurper of ecclesiastical property.
And then there is that famous right of refuge, in
virtue of which the criminal who seeks the shelter of a
church, or convent, cannot be judged by the civil pow
ers, however great his crime, and any person who
should undertake to violate the sacred asylum, by
dragging forth the criminal, would be excommuni
cated.^* Let His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons tell us
if this is not the pith and essence of Romanism; in
the notes are cited proofs. But what kind of govern
ment is possible for the civic powers, with all these
Romanist abuses and usurpations?
If we examine the form of government adopted by
Romanism, and the latitude allowed to it, the tyranny
appears still more glaring. Romanism says : "As I am
a society perfect in myself, I have the power to casti-
" Read about excommunications in force in any Treatise
on Morals.
^ Cardinal Vives : Compendium on Morals, under Excom
munications. Bertier : Same work and head. Bouix : Canon
ical Law, Rights of Asylum (Protection). Jaugey: Under
Rights of Asylum (Protection). "All Churches, even though
not consecrated, its porticos and aisles, nay, the spot on
which the foundation stone is placed, the bishop's oratory,
enjoy the privilege of refuge; the bishop's palace; the cu
rate's home and the clergy's as well as the belfries and the
cemeteries also, enjoy the same privilege if they are within
thirty steps of the Church. When the Host is being carried
through the streets, the procession also enjoys the privilege
of refuge or asylum. The civil powers cannot deny nor even
curtail such privilege, and this now must be considered as
standing, though the liberal sects may protest against it." —
Cardinal Vives.

346 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
gate, not only with spiritual castigations, but also with
temporal punishments." ^" The power caHed by them
that "of the sword," cannot be denied to the Church,
and according to that power, it can not only present
the victims to the arm of the secular law, but it can
also imprison, exile, and kiH them through the power
which it possesses. We cite some documents for the
benefit of Your Eminence.*" And in virtue of the
latest Romanist utterances the Pope is, in case of
necessity, the entire Church.
The Pope may imprison, exile and kill, and his de
crees are unalterable and without appeal.*' As, ac
cording to Romanism, the Pope stands above the ec
clesiastical laws and procedures, he may imprison,
exile and kill, without regard to the laws of the
Church, for he stands above them; without regard to
any rules of procedure, for he stands above them;
without any regard to natural rights, for he alone is
the authentic interpreter, and no one can interfere
" Bertier : Compendium of Theology of the Church. Car
dinal Vives : Compendium of Theology and of Canonical
Law, same head.
*• Bertier : Of the Church. Cardinal Vives : Rights of the
Church and of the Pope. Ferraris : Canonical Encyclopedia :
Under Church, and Pope. Bouix : Canonical Law, on the
Church and on the Pope. St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure :
On the rights of the Pope and of the Church. Bull, In Coena
Domini (The Lord's Supper), and Gregory VII's bull.
"' Cardinal Vives : Compendium of Canonical Law, Rights
of the Pope. The Church can by herself impose temporal
penalties, as deportation, imprisonment, etc. — Bertier. Further
more, she can inflict the death penalty, but such a preroga
tive is invested only in the Pope and in the General Councils.
According to Tarquin and many other doctors of divinity,
anyone venturing to deny it would incur the gravest censures.

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 347
with him.*^ Can anything more horrible and atrocious
be imagined?
His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons need not say to us,
that although the Popes have such a power, they will
never do these things, for history teHs us that more
than one Pope has been a close second to the abom
inable tyrants.** Moreover, for a philosopher, it is
sufficient that the doctrine is derogatory to human
dignity, in order to denounce it. See to what state our
liberty has been reduced, when the despot of the Vati
can, if he so chooses, has power to imprison, exile and
kill us, without regard to human or divine law. And
this power is all-inclusive, reaching from Your Emi
nence, Cardinal of the Holy Church, down to me, her
simple priest ; ** from the most powerful monarch
down to the most humble subject.
The state of slavery is still more absolute, if, instead
of considering ourselves as individuals, we consider
ourselves as communities and nations. There cannot
be anything more sarcastic and hypocritical than the
amphibologous language in which Leo XIII promises
sovereignty to the secular princes. In the first place
the Pope *^ is very careful not to renounce any of the
ecclesiastical prerogatives indicated above, such as the
privilege of decrees, the right of refuge, exemption
from taxation of Church property, and from civic du-
^ Bertier : Compendium of Theology, under heads, the
Church, and the Pope.
°° Read the life of Alexander VI by Jaugey, in his Apolo
getic Dictionary of Faith.
" Cardinal Vives : Compendium of Canonical Law, under
Rights of the Pope.
" Leo XIII : Encyclical Immortale Dei Libertas Sapientise
Christianae.

348 Roman Catholicism
ties on the part of functionaries of the Church, where
by he considerably curtails the sovereignty of the
states. He has further been careful not to declare
annuHed the right of releasing subjects from their
oaths of allegiance, nor has he renounced the power
to depose the kings, in a case of necessity, their power
thereby remaining conditional and not being sover
eign. We see how the small power conceded to
princes is still further shorn by Romanism, so as to
make it laughable and ridiculous. Romanism affirms
that the individuals not only as such, but also collec
tively as nations, shall believe in the Roman faith.*"
Governments are, with respect to the Pope, like any
single one of the faithful. Similarly the kings are,
according to ecclesiastical laws, nothing more than
vassals, simple believers. Romanism further says
that while the ecclesiastical legislative power is abso
lutely free and sovereign, the secular power must
submit to it,*^ and this means the downfall of legis
lative sovereignty. Romanism proclaims,** that the
instruction of the people is one of the first necessities
'" Pius IX : Syllabus. Cardinal Vives : Works mentioned
above. "We condemn the doctrine that denies that nations
and kings are not amenable to ecclesiastical jurisdiction." —
Cardinals Zigliara and Gonzalez : Ethics of Society.
" Cardinal Vives : Compendium of Canonical Law, Rights
of the Pope, and of the Church. Pius IX : Syllabus. On
questions of jurisdiction and morals, and on mixed questions,
it is for the Church, and not for the State, to decide them.
^ Same authors and heads. "We condemn the doctrine that
teaches that the State is free and independent to organize
public education in Schools, Institutes, and Universities. The
drawing of plans, the selection of text-books and of pro
fessors, are things belonging to the Church, and not to the
State. The bishops, even at the risk of contradicting the
governments, must watch over and correct the doctrines and

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 349
of the state, and as the Church believes herself to be
the depository of all truth, she claims the monopoly of
instructor, and demands, not only the liberty of teach
ing the clergy in her seminaries, but also the exclus
ive liberty of organizing, as she sees fit, the public
schools, institutions and universities. According to
Romanism, the instruction of the people is the duty,
not of the state, but of the Church. It is not the prov
ince of the state, but of the Church to make the plans
and programs.*" Romanism is drawing its chains of
iron tighter and tighter, saying to the secular princes,
in regard to moral and mixed questions : I, as the su
perior, must decide them.*" And as the Church, in
virtue of her sovereignty, claims the power to decide
what questions are mixed and what are moral, all
other powers must therefore be under her jurisdic
tion.*' And in order that there may be no escape,
either for the simple faithful or for the prince, Ro
manism condemns the doctrine of the separation of
Church and state, and also of the free Church within
the free state.*^
the professorships. The bishops must ask the teachers for an
account of their opinions and doctrines, even though by so
doing they go against the public authorities." — Syllabus.
^°Same authors and heads. See Bertier on the rights of
the Church, and Hurter, on same head. In Mexico the
bishop even considers it a reserved sin to send children to
government schools. See the Council of Pueblo, where re
sides Archbishop Ibarra, reputed as the most learned man in
the neighboring republic.
*° Same authors previously mentioned. Leo XIII : En
cyclicals previously mentioned.
"Same authors already mentioned. "It is not for the
State to dictate to the Church, but for the Church to dictate
to the State which of the laws are just and which unjust."—
Syllabus. *^Pius IX: Syllabus. Cardinal Vives: Rights of the

350 SOMAN CATHOLICISM
It proclaims that the state and the Church must live
together, for thereby, on the grounds stated above, the
state will remain entirely subject to the Church. Per
haps some candid reader will exclaim with astonish
ment: That is impossible, that is not done, either in
America or in Europe. But let me tell you, Romanist,
be you American or European, all this is so much the
doctrine of the Roman Church, that if you should dare
to deny any of the rights here mentioned you would
fall into a grievous sin, and would be excommuni
cated by Romanism. Do you know why these things
are not tolerated in any state? Because they are so
absurd, so contrary to the sovereignty and liberty of
nations, that there is hardly any ruler, who with or
without the permission of the Pope, with or without
the papal excommunication, has not trodden under
foot such exorbitant rights, which legally or illegally
are found in the Roman hypothesis, not the Roman
thesis. But do not forget, Roman believer, that you,
as a faithful one, must believe in the Roman thesis,
must believe in the HHmitable sovereignty of the Pope ;
that he has the power to depose rulers ; to release
their subjects from their oaths of allegiance; that these
functionaries are exempt from public charges and of
fices ; that the churches and convents shall be places of
refuge where criminals may seek shelter, in order to
escape from the secular law ; that the Church, and not
the ^tate, shall take charge of the instruction of the
Church. "We condemn the doctrine that teaches that the
L.iate must be free within a free Church. We condemn the
other doctrine that teaches that the State must live separate
from the Church or the Church separate from the State."

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 35 1
people, etc. You must believe all these things, for
Romanism teaches them and demands them as the
fundamental rights of its society. And as you must
believe this, since it is the Roman thesis, we say to
you, supported by evidence clear as noonday light,
that neither the sovereignty of the nations nor civic
liberty are compatible with the degrading Roman
thesis. 24

EPILOGUE.
Having reached our journey's end, we can now cast
a retrospective glance upon this work as a whole and
summarize it in the following few brief clauses:
I. Official Romanism attempts to interpose itself
like a mischievous penumbra between heaven and
earth; between God and man; treading on the most
rudimentary principles of sane criticism ; spurning the
most general laws of good exegesis; usurping facul
ties with which neither the Bible nor apostolic his
tory is endowed, and proclaiming that the Sacred
Scripture is an enigma incumbent upon it alone to
decipher. : * ¦-¦},
2. The first step having been taken by imposing the
interpretation of the Sacred Writings, it has promul
gated new dogmas which, like those of purgatory and
infallibility, are repugnant to the Divine Word and to
apostolical and early church history; it has instituted
such sacraments as auricular confession and the Eu
charist, which were neither believed in the first cen
tury nor should be beheved as taught now. It up
holds the mass, obligatory celibacy, and an infinite
number of other obligations which are abusive dis
turbers of the general conscience and the chief cause
of the decadence of religion. Finally, it has concen
trated in the hands of the Roman Pontiffs a power
so unlimited, so anti-biblical, so irrational and so anti
social that, besides entirely nullifying the Church, it
(352)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 353
has made it incompatible with scientific and civil lib
erties, as well as with the sovereignty of the people.
Union, therefore, with official Romanism as a basis,
would be neither practical nor beneficial. Would it
not be possible to erect an arch (such as I have at
tempted to outline in this book) or upon some foun
dation more evangelical, rational and humanitarian?
Although I, alone, formulate the question, I feel that I
am echoing the sentiments of thousands and millions
of Romanists who, not daring to face the ire of the
Vatican, think in silence as I think in public, and hope,
as I hope, that there will arise a safe formula which,
in some manner, will unite us against official Roman
ism and impiety in the defense of Christ and his
Church. 25

APPENDIX.
CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON FREE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT,
CONSIDERING MAN AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND
AS A SOCIAL BEING.
The Syllabus condemns: "Libertatem conscientise
et cultum esse propium cujuscumque hominis jus
quod lege proclamari et asseri debet in omni recte con-
stituta societate et jus civibus inhaere ad omnimodam
libertatem nuUa vel ecclesiastica, vel civile auctoritate
coarctandam quo suos conceptus quoscumque sive
voce sive typis sive alia ac declarare valeant." Car
dinal Vives, one of the most renowned Romanists,
commenting on the encyclical of Leo XIII says : "Er
go damnanda indifferentia politica quoad cultum di-
vinum. . . . Igitur indifferentissimus civilis per ab-
surdum est deliramentum et pessima machinatio."
Have you heard the above, American people? For the
Romanists your august Constitution, which declares
for free religious liberty, is an absurd and detestable
one. Let us now hear the Vatican Council:
"Si quis dixerit . . . ut catholici justam Causam
habere possint fidem quam sub Ecclesia magisterio
jam insceperunt, assensu suspense in dubium vocan-
di donee demonstrationem scientificam credibihtatis et
veritatis fidei absolverint, anathema sit." The Ro
manists, not satisfied with denying the moral liberties
in their individual and collective aspects further pro-
(354)

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 355
claim compulsory religion. Let us hear again the
Romanist echo. Cardinal Vives: "Catholicis certum
fixumque est, tolerandos non esse homines a Catho-
lica veritate alienos, eosque meritis quoque poenis esse
coercendo. Ecclesia ipsa potest poenas inflixere et de
facto inflixit bonorum proscriptiones, flagellationes
exilium carceres etiam per episcopos qui habere sua
tribunalia et suos carceres." Vide Syllabus prope 31
Imo Ecclesia potest sicut quascumque societas per-
fecta uti gladio temporali. . . . Ea potestate uti possunt
sunt Papa et Concilium Generals. . . . "Juxta car-
dinalem Tarquinium non desunt doctores qui gravis-
simam censuram infligunt his qui hoc jus denegant Ec
clesiae." — Bertier. We hope that Cardinal Gibbons will
coordinate his affirmation mentioned in Chapter XVII
of his book, regarding religious liberty, with the above
passages, in which the Romanists so emphatically deny
it.
ROMAN DOCTRINE ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.
Romanism proclaims itself above and superior to
any government. Hear Cardinal Vives: "Cum finis
Ecclesiae sit supernaturalis et potestas ejus suprema,
sequitur nullam humanam potestatem Ecclesiae liber
tatem jura praerogativas impedire aut minuere posse."
Also Leo XIII's Encyclicals.
The first step being taken, they consider all of their
functionaries exempt from any obedience to the civil
power, as follows: "Ecclesiae et personae ecclesiasticae
jure propio immunitatis privilegio gaudent, quod
numquam a jure civili ortum habuit. Igitur, absque
naturalis juris aequitatis violatione nequit abrogari ea

356 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
personalis immunitas qua clerici ab onere subeundae
exercendaeque militiae eximuntur : nee progressus prae-
textu nee forma liberioris regiminis in societate con-
stituta jus habet laica potestas postulandi immunita
tis ecclesiasticae abrogatione." — Syllabus.
Notwithstanding the above statement, they still
claim the stupendous asylum privilege, as follows:
"Ecclesiae omnes, etiamque consecratae non sunt,
earumque porticus et atria, quin et locus in quo, primo
lapide jacto, ecclesia aedificanda est, itemque oratoria
Episcopi, auctoritate constituta, asyli jure fruuntur:
idemque episcopi palatium et domus in qua parochus
habitat, et domus canonicales et sodalitiorum, quae eo
rum ecclesiis conjunctae sunt, turris campanaria quae
intra passus triginta ab ecclesia distat, xenodochia et
coemeteria eodem jure fruuntur. Processio in hono
rem S. S. Eucharistiae gaudet jure asyli; ibi enim est
Ecclesia, ubi est Christus Jesus." — Cardinal Vives.
(Edition, 1905). They advance and subsequently
deny the legislative sovereignty: "Potestas ecclesias
tica potestati civili, non vero civilis ecclesiasticae in-
dicare potest quid justum vel injustum in suis legibus,
vel decretis."- — Syllabus. The civil law contrary to
the ecclesiastical should be considered void: "Consti-
tutiones contra canones, et decreta praesulum romano-
rum, vel bonos mores, nullius sunt momenti." — Car
dinal Vives and others. With more and more restric
tions they yet claim that on mixed and legal ques
tions the Church should be the judge: "In quaes-
tionibus jurisdictionis inter ecclesiasticam et civilem
potestatem dirimendis, nequaquam principes et reges
et rerumpublicarum, praesides superiores sunt Eccle-

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 357
siae ; sed ipsae a Sancta Sede Romana sunt definiendae."
— Syllabus and Encyclicals of Leo XIII. Going still
further by denying to the state the right of teaching,
let us now hear what the Syllabus condemns : "Totum
scholarum publicarum regimen, in quibus juventus
christianae alicujus Reipublicae instituitur, episcopali-
bus dumtaxat seminariis aliqua ratione exceptis,
potest ac debet attribui auctoritati civili, et ita qui-
dem attribui, ut nullum alii cuicumque auctoritati
recognoBcatur jus immiscendi se in disciplina schola
rum, in regimine studiorum, in graduum collatione, in
delectu aut approbatione magistrorum." "Immo Status
civilis non habet jus, quando aperit scholas eligendi
magistros, praescribendi methodos et doctrinas, sed jus
istud competit Ecclesiae quae sola habet jus erigendi
per S. Pontificem Universitates studiorum." — Bertier.
Romanists persist in denying to the state the right to
separate from the Church : "Ecclesia a Statu Status-
que ab Ecclesia subjugandus est." The Syllabus has
condemned this doctrine. In conclusion the Church
claims to itself the abusive right and stupid preroga
tive of releasing subjects from the oath of fidelity,
and also the right to depose rulers. Let us hear
the theologians and Popes : "Pontifex Romanus . . .
in omnes reges christianos habet potestatem indirec-
tam jure divino, ita ut possit illos non pro libitu,
sed necessitate finis spiritualis attingendi, poenis
coercere et etiam deponere, ut defacto deposuit aflti-
quitus. Quidam non attribuunt Ecclesiae nisi po
testatem directivam, qua possit solvere casus consci-
entias tum principum, tum populorum; sed haec sen
tentia deserenda videtur. Alii plures cum Bellarmino

3S8 ROMAN CATHOLICISM
tuentur Pontificem non habere directe et immediate
illam potestatem temporalem sed solam spiritualem;
tamen ratione spiritualis habere certam indirecte po
testatem quamdam eamque summam in temporalibus.
"Quae Bellarmini opinio de indirecta potestate Romae
aegre tunc audita fuit." — Cardinal Vives. "S. Grego-
rius P. P. VII in fini Const. Beate Petre 7 Martii 1080,
qua Henricum Imperatorem deposuit, B BB. Apos-
tolos Petrum et Paulum invocans concludit: "Agite
nunc quaeso patres et principes sanctissimi, ut omnis
mundus intelligat et cognoscat, quia si potestis in
coelo ligare et solvere, potestis in terra imperia, regna,
principatus, marchias, ducatus, comitatus, ea omnium
hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere unicuique et
concedere. Vos enim patriarchatus, primatus, archie-
piscopatus, episcopatus frequenter tulistis pravis et in-
dignis, et religiosis viris dedistis. Si enim spiritualia
judicatis, quid de saecularibus vos posse credendum
est? Et si Angelos dominatis omnibus supervis prin-
cipibus judicabitis, quid de illorum servis facere potes
tis? Addiscant nunc reges et omnes saeculi principes,
quanto vos estis, quid potestis ; et timeant parvipendere
jussionem Ecclesiae vestrae et in -praedicto Henrico tam
cito judicium vestram exercete ut omnes sciant, quia
non fortuita sed vestra potestate cadet. Confundan-
tur utinam ad pcenitentiam ut spiritus sit salvus in
die Domini."
If notwithstanding the statements and evidences
shown throughout this appendix, there still remain
some credulous enough to believe that the religious
freedom as well as the sovereignty of any nation
could not be impaired under Romanist beliefs and

CAPITULATING BEFORE PROTESTANTISM. 359
rules, such, then, in my opinion could believe the most
extravagant narratives regardless of their absurdity.
Possessing, as I do, such an exalted opinion of the
legal and ethical sentiment of this country, I feel mor
ally convinced that Providence has designed to this
greatest of nations the august mission of not only es
tablishing the sovereignty of true liberty upon such' a
solid basis as she has, but also of assisting others less
fortunate than herself, in securing their legitimate
emancipation. So certain I am of this that when the
true Americans awaken, and realize the great danger
of losing their civil and religious liberties, they will
rise in their might and vigorously and energetically
protest against the pernicious advance of Romanism,
of which every step forward is an encroachment upon
their civil liberties.

ERRATA AND ADDENDA.
Chapter VIII, page TJ, line 7 : For "join'' read "imitate."
Chapter XI, page 132, footnote 7 : For "St. Hypolytus"
read "Hippolytus."
Chapter XIII, page 168, footnote 18: For "Roman ob
servatories" read "Osservatore Romano."
Chapter XIV, page 187, lines 18, 19: In the clause, "We
are dealing with a theoretical question, not with a practical
one," transpose "theoretical" and "practical," and read, "We
are dealing with a practical question, not with a theoretical
one. Chapter II, page 11 : When I speak about three Popes at
the same time, each claiming to be the true head of the
Church, it should be added that the epoch during which this
condition was most marked was in the days of (Gregory XII,
Benedict XIII and Alexander V.

ill

KKyf.^fi^ LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 6893