{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16242/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16242","id":"gutenberg_16242","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16242","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Apologetic works","Church of England -- Controversial literature","Continuity of the church -- Anglican Communion","Papacy","Popes -- Infallibility"],"text":"Produced by Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries\n(http://www.archive.org/details/toronto), Suzanne Lybarger,\nJeannie Howse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\nat https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n   | Transcriber's Notes: Fixed a few obvious typos in the text: |\n   | actually for actully, origin for orgin; and changed the     |\n   | case of \"sees\" to \"Sees\".                                   |\n   +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n   THE\n   PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY\n\n   BY THE RIGHT REVEREND\n   JOHN S. VAUGHAN, D.D.\n   BISHOP OF SEBASTOPOLIS\n\n   AUTHOR OF \"THOUGHTS FOR ALL TIMES,\" \"DANGERS OF THE DAY\"\n   \"LIFE AFTER DEATH,\" ETC., ETC.\n\n     \"Let us go back to the beginning of the sixteenth century.\n     Either there was a Church of God then in the world, or there\n     was not. If there was not, then the Reformers certainly\n     could not create such a Church. It there was, they as\n     certainly had neither the right to abandon it, nor the power\n     to remodel it.\"--J.K. STONE.\n\n   London\n   SANDS & CO.\n   15 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN\n   EDINBURGH: 21 HANOVER STREET\n\n   ST. LOUIS, Mo., U.S.A.: B. HERDER\n\n   1910\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIt may seem an impertinence on the present writer's part to indite a\npreface to the work of a brother Bishop; and it would be a still\ngreater one to pretend to introduce the Author of this little book to\nthe reading public, to whom he is so well and so favourably known by a\nstately array of preceding volumes. Nevertheless Bishop Vaughan has\nbeen so insistent on my contributing at least a few introductory\nlines, that, for old friendship's sake, I can no longer refuse.\n\nIt is a remarkable and outstanding fact that never before in the\nhistory of the Church has the Roman Papacy, though shorn of every\nvestige of its once formidable temporal might, loomed greater in the\nworld, ruled over such vast multitudes of the faithful, or exercised\na greater moral power than at the present day. Never has the\n_conscious_ unity of the whole world-wide Church with its Visible\nHead--thanks to the marvellous developments of modern means of\ncommunication and transport--been so vivid, so general, so intense as\nin these times. Not only does \"the Pope's writ run,\" as we may say, by\npost and telegraph, and penetrate to the inmost recesses of every part\nof the globe, so that the Holy See is in daily, nay hourly\ncommunication with every bishop and every local Catholic community;\nbut never has there been a time when so many thousands, nay tens of\nthousands of Catholic clergy and laity, even from the remotest lands,\nhave actually seen the Vicar of Christ with their own eyes, heard his\nvoice, received his personal benediction. Well may we say to Pius X.\nas to Leo XIII.: \"Lift up thy eyes round about and see; all these are\ngathered together, they are come to thee; thy sons shall come from\nafar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see\nand abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the\nmultitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the\nGentiles shall come to thee\" (Isaias, lx. 4, 5).\n\nBut not only is the present position of the Papacy thus unique and\nphenomenal in the world; as the Author of this little book shows in\nhis first part, its career across the more than nineteen centuries of\nthe world's chequered history, from Peter to Pius X., is no less\nunique and no less phenomenal. This is a fact which may well rivet the\nattention, not of the Catholic alone, but of every thinking man, be he\nChristian or non-Christian, and which surely calls for some\nexplanation that lies beyond and above that of the ordinary phenomena\nof history. The only possible satisfactory solution of this problem is\nthe one so concisely, yet so simply, set forth in the following\npages.\n\nThe second part is concerned with a more particular aspect of the same\nproblem, in its relation to the Church in this country, and especially\nto that incredible latter-day myth which goes by the name of \"the\nContinuity Theory\". It is difficult to us to realise how such a theory\ncan possibly be held by thoughtful and earnest men and women who have\neven a moderate acquaintance with history. Bishop Vaughan applies more\nthan one touchstone, which, one would imagine, ought to be sufficient\nto prove to any unprejudiced mind the falsity of that theory. Among\nthese, what I may call the \"pallium touchstone,\"--which still bears\nits irrefragable testimony in the arms of the Archbishops of\nCanterbury,[1]--has always appeared to me peculiarly conclusive.[2]\n\nIn the present small volume, Bishop Vaughan adds another to the series\nof popular and instructive books which have made his name a household\nword among Catholic writers. May its success and its utility be as\ngreat as in the case of those which have preceded it.\n\n   [cross] LOUIS CHARLES,\n       _Bishop of Salford_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Not in those of York since 1544, see Woodward's\n_Ecclesiastical Heraldry_, p. 191 and plate XX.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See _The Pallium_, by Fr. Thurston, S.J., (C.T.S.) and\nthe striking list in Baxter's _English Cardinals_, pp. 93-98.]\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe following chapters were not intended originally for publication.\nIf they are now offered to the public in book form, it is only in\nresponse to the expressed request of many, who listened to them when\ndelivered _viva voce_, and who now wish to possess a more permanent\nrecord of what was said.\n\nIn the hope that they may help, in some slight measure at least, to\npromote the sacred cause of truth, we wish them Godspeed.\n\n   [cross] JOHN S. VAUGHAN,\n      _Bishop of Sebastopolis_.\n\n   XAVERIAN COLLEGE,\n   MANCHESTER            _January_, 1910.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAP.                                                            PAGE\n\n    I. GENERAL NOTIONS                                               3\n\n   II. THE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE                                 18\n\n  III. WATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?                                 35\n\n   IV. THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS                                     53\n\n    V. THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY                              69\n\n   VI. THE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY                                87\n\n\n   PART II.\n\n   THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,\n   OR\n   THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.\n\n       I. THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION             107\n\n      II. THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE                                    117\n\n     III. THE AWKWARD DILEMMA                                      130\n\n      IV. KING EDWARD AND THE POPE                                 145\n\n\n\n\nTHE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nGENERAL NOTIONS.\n\n\nNo one who is given to serious reflection, can gaze over the face of\nthe earth at the present day without being struck by the religious\nconfusion that everywhere reigns. Who, indeed, can help being\nstaggered as well as saddened by the extraordinary differences, the\nirreconcilable views, and the diversities of opinion, even upon\nfundamental points, that are found dividing Christians in Protestant\nlands! The number of sects has so multiplied, that an earnest enquirer\nscarcely knows which way to turn, or where to look for the pure\nunadulterated truth. A spiritual darkness hangs over the non-Catholic\nworld; and chaos seems to have come again.\n\nYet, amid this almost universal confusion, one bright and luminous\npath may be easily descried. As a broad highroad runs straight through\nsome tangled forest, so this path runs through the ages, from the time\nof Christ, even to the present day.\n\nWe can trace its course, from its earliest inception in apostolic\ntimes, and then in its development age after age, down to our own day:\nfrom Peter to Gregory, from Gregory to Leo, and from Leo to Pius X.,\nnow gloriously reigning. We refer to the mystical (and one might\nalmost say the miraculous) path trodden by the Popes, each Pontiff\ncarrying in turn, and then handing on to his successor, the glorious\ntorch of divine truth. Though clouds may gather and thunders may roll,\nand tempests may rage, and though the surrounding darkness may grow\ndeeper and deeper, that supernatural light has never failed, nor grown\ndim, nor refused to shed its beams and to illuminate the way.[3]\n\nThe continual persistency of the Papacy, to whom this steadily burning\ntorch of truth has been entrusted, is unquestionably one of the most\ncertain, as it is one of the most startling facts in the whole of\nhistory. It stares us full in the face. It arrests the attention of\neven the least observant. It puzzles the historian. It taxes the\nexplanatory powers of the philosopher, and will remain to the end, a\npermanent difficulty to the scoffer and to the sceptic, and to all\nthose who have not faith. As a fact in history, it is unique: forming\nan extraordinary exception to the law of universal change: a portent,\nand a standing miracle. Its persistence, century after century, in\nspite of fire and sword; of persecution from without, and of treachery\nfrom within; in prosperity, and in adversity; in honour and dishonour;\nwhile kingdoms rise and fall; and while one civilisation yields to a\nhigher, and the very conditions of society shift and change, is deeply\nsignificative, and betokens an inherent strength and vitality that is\nmore than natural and that must be referred to some source greater\nthan itself, yea, to a power far mightier than anything in this\nworld,--_viz._, to the abiding presence and divine support of Christ\nthe Man-God.\n\nVerily, there is but one possible explanation, and that explanation is\nfurnished us, by the words of the promise made by God-incarnate,\n_viz._, \"Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of\nthe world\" (Matt, xxviii. 20). Yes, I, Who am \"the true light which\nenlighteneth every man that cometh into this world\" (John i. 9), \"will\nabide with you for ever, and will lead you into all truth\" (John xvi. 13).\n\nIf but few persons, outside the Catholic Church, realise the force and\nimport of these words, it is because few realise the absolute and\nirresistible power of Him Who gave them utterance. With their lips\nthey profess Christ to be God, but then, strange to relate, they\nproceed to reason and to argue, just as though He were merely\nman--one, that is to say, Who, when He established His Church, did\nnot consider nor bear in mind man's weakness and fickleness, and who\npossessed no power to see the outcome of His own policy, nor the\ndifficulties that it would engender, nor the future multiplication of\nthe faithful, in every part of the world. For, did He know and foresee\nall these things, He _must_ have guarded against them; and this they\n_practically_ deny, by continuing to associate themselves with\nchurches where His promises are in no sense fulfilled, and where His\nmost solemn pledges remain unredeemed. We refer to those churches\nwherein there is no recognised infallible authority; in fact, nothing\nto protect their subjects from the inroads of the world, and from the\nfaults and errors inseparable from the exercise of purely human and\nfallible reason.\n\nThose, however, who can put aside such false notions, and awaken to\nthe real facts, will find the truth growing luminous before their\ngaze. History constrains them to admit that it was Christ Who\nestablished the Church, with its supreme head, and its various\nmembers. But Christ is verily God; of the same nature, and one with\nthe Father, and possessing the same divine attributes. Now, since He\nis God, there is to Him no future, just as there is no past. To him,\nall is equally present. Hence, in establishing a Church, and in\nproviding it with laws and a constitution, He did this, not\ntentatively, not experimentally, not in ignorance of man's needs and\nweaknesses, and folly, but with a most perfect foreknowledge of every\ncircumstance and event, actual and to come. He spoke and ordered and\narranged all things, with His eyes clearly fixed on the most remote\nages, no less than on the present and the actual. _We_ mortals write\nhistory after the characters have already lived and died, and when\nnations have already developed and run their course. But with Christ,\nthe whole history of man, his wars and his conquests, his vices and\nhis virtues, his religious opinions and doctrines, had been already\nwritten and completed, down to the very last line of the very last\nchapter, an eternity before He assumed our nature and founded His\nChurch. It was with this most intimate knowledge before Him, that He\npromised to provide us with a reliable and infallible teacher, who\nshould safeguard His doctrine, and publish the glad tidings of the\nGospel, throughout all time, even unto the consummation of the world.\nSince it is God Who promises, it follows, with all the rigour of\nlogic, that this fearless Witness and living Teacher must be a _fact_,\nnot a _figment_; a stupendous reality, not a mere name; One, in a\nword, possessing and wielding the self-same authority as Himself, and\nto be received and obeyed and accepted as Himself: \"Who heareth you\nheareth Me\" (Luke x. 16).\n\nThis teacher was to be a supreme court of appeal, and a tribunal,\nbefore which every case could be tried, and definitely settled, once\nfor all. And since this tribunal was a divine creation, and invested\nby God Himself with supernatural powers for that specific purpose, it\nmust be fully equipped, and thoroughly competent and equal to its\nwork. For God always adapts means to ends. Hence it can never\nresemble the tribunals existing in man-made churches, which can but\nmutter empty phrases, suggest compromises, and clothe thought in\nwholly ambiguous language--tribunals that dare not commit themselves\nto anything definite and precise. Yea, which utterly fail and break\ndown just at the critical moment, when men are dividing and\ndisagreeing among themselves, and most needing a prompt and clear\ndecision, which may close up the breach and bring them together.\n\nNo! The decisions of the authority set up by Christ are in very\ntruth--just what we expect to find them--_viz._, clear, ringing\nand definite. They divide light from darkness, as by a divine hand;\nand segregate truth from error, as a shepherd separates the sheep from\nthe goats.\n\nChrist promised as much as this, and if He keep not His promise, then\nHe can hold out no claim to be God, for though Heaven and earth may\npass away, God's words shall never pass away. That He did so promise\nis quite evident; and may be proved, first, _explicitly_, and from\nHis own words, and secondly, _implicitly_, from the very necessity of\nthe case; and from the whole history of religious development.\nCardinal Newman, even before his reception into the Church, was so\nfully persuaded of this, that he wrote: \"If Christianity is both\nsocial and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must, humanly\nspeaking, have an infallible expounder.... By the Church of England a\nhollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the\nsects in England an interminable division\" (_Develop._, etc., p. 90).\nIn the Catholic Church alone the need is fully met.\n\nThe Church is established on earth by the direct act of God, and is\nset \"as an army in battle array\". It exists for the express purpose of\ncombating error and repressing evil, in whatever form it may appear;\nand whether it be instigated by the devil, or the world, or the flesh.\nBut, let us ask, Who ever heard of an army without a chief? An army\nwithout a supreme commander is an army without subordination and\nwithout law or order; or rather, it is not an army at all, but a\nrabble, a mob.\n\nThe supreme head of Christ's army--of Christ's Church upon earth, is\nour Sovereign Lord the Pope. Some will not accept his rule, and refuse\nto admit his authority. But this is not only to be expected. It was\nactually foretold. As they cried out, of old, to one even greater than\nthe Pope, \"We will not have this man to reign over us\" (Luke xix. 14),\nso now men of similar spirit repeat the self-same cry, with regard to\nChrist's vicar.\n\nNevertheless, wheresoever his authority is loyally accepted, and where\nsubmission, respect and obedience are shown to him, there results the\norder and harmony and unity promised by Christ: while, on the\ncontrary, where he is not suffered to reign there is disorder, rivalry\nand sects.\n\nTo be able to look forward and to foresee such opposite results would\nperhaps need a prophetic eye, an accurate estimate of human nature,\nand a very nice balancing of cause and effect. It could be the\nprognostication only of a wise, judicious, and observant mind. But we\nare now looking, not forwards, but backwards, and in looking backwards\nthe case is reduced to the greatest simplicity, so that even a child\ncan understand; and \"he that runs may read\".\n\nThe simplest intelligence, if only it will set aside prejudice and\npride, and just attend and watch, will be led, without difficulty, to\nthe following conclusions: firstly, without an altogether special\ndivine support, no authority can claim and exercise _infallibility_ in\nits teaching; and secondly, without such infallibility in its teaching\nno continuous unity can be maintained among vast multitudes of people,\nleast of all concerning dogmas most abstruse, mysteries most sublime\nand incomprehensible, and laws and regulations both galling and\nhumiliating to human arrogance and pride.\n\nIt is precisely because the Catholic Church alone possesses such a\nsupreme and infallible authority that she alone is able to present to\nthe world that which follows directly from it, namely a complete\nunity and cohesion within her own borders.\n\nYes! Strange to say: the Catholic Church to-day stands alone! There is\nno rival to dispute with her, her unique and peerless position. Of all\nthe so-called Christian Churches, throughout the world, so various and\nso numerous, and, in many cases, so modern and so fantastic, there is\nnot a single one that can approach her, even distantly, whether it be\nin (_a_) the breadth of her influence, or in (_b_) the diversity and\ndissimilarity of her adherents, or in (_c_) the number of her\nchildren, or in (_d_) the extent of her conquests, or (_e_) in the\nabsolute unity of her composition.\n\nEven were it possible to unite into one single body the great\nmultitude of warring sects, of which Protestantism is made up, such a\nbody would fall far short of the stature of her who has received the\ngentiles for her inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for\nher possession (Ps. ii. 8), and who has the Holy Ghost abiding with\nher, century after century, in order that she may be \"a witness unto\nChrist, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the\nuttermost parts of the world\" (Acts i. 8). But we cannot, even in\nthought, unite such contradictories, such discordant elements; any\nmore than we can reduce the strident sounds of a multitude of\ncacophonous instruments to one harmonious and beautiful melody.\n\nAnd if the Catholic Church stands thus alone, again we repeat, it is\nbecause no other has received the promise of divine support, or even\ncares to recognise that such a promise was ever made. The Catholic\nChurch has been the only Church not only to exercise, but even to\nclaim the prerogative of infallibility: but she has claimed this from\nthe beginning. Every child born into her fold has been taught to\nprofess and to believe, firstly, that the Catholic Church is the sole\nofficial and God-appointed guardian of the sacred deposit of divine\ntruth, and, secondly, that she, and no other, enunciates to the entire\nworld--to all who have ears to hear--the full revelation of\nChrist--_His truth_; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;\nfulfilling, to the letter, the command of her Divine Master, \"Go into\nthe whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature\" (Mark xvi.\n15).\n\nHow has this been possible? Simply and solely because God, Who\npromised that \"the Spirit of Truth\" (_i.e._, the Holy Ghost) \"should\nabide with her for ever; and should guide her in all truth\" (John xiv.\n16, xvi. 12), keeps His promise. When our Lord promised to \"_be with_\"\nthe teaching Church, in the execution of the divine commission\nassigned to it, \"_always_\" and \"_to the end of the world_,\" that\npromise clearly implied, and was a guarantee, first, that the teaching\nauthority should exist indefectibly to the end of the world; and\nsecondly, that throughout the whole course of its existence it should\nbe divinely guarded and assisted in fulfilling the commission given to\nit, _viz._, in instructing the nations in \"all things whatsoever\nChrist has commanded,\" in other words, that it should be their\ninfallible Guide and Teacher.\n\nVenerable Bede, speaking of the conversion of our own country by\nAugustine and his monks, sent by Pope Gregory the Great, says: \"And\nwhereas he [Pope Gregory] bore the Pontifical power _over all the\nworld_, and was placed over the Churches already reduced to the faith\nof truth, he made our nation, till then given up to idols, the Church\nof Christ\" (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. ii. c. 1). If we will but listen to the\nPope now, he will make it once again \"the Church of Christ,\" instead\nof the Church of the \"Reformation,\" and a true living branch, drawing\nits life from the one vine, instead of a detached and fallen branch,\nwith heresy, like some deadly decay, eating into its very vitals.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 3: No Pope, no matter what may have been his _private_\nconduct, ever promulgated a decree against the purity of faith and\nmorals.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE.\n\n\nThe clear and certain recognition of a great truth is seldom the work\nof a day. We often possess it in a confused and hidden way, before we\ncan detect, to a nicety, its exact nature and limitations. It takes\ntime to declare itself with precision, and, like a plant in its\nrudimentary stages, it may sometimes be mistaken for what it is\nnot--though, once it has reached maturity, we can mistake it no\nlonger. As Cardinal Newman observes: \"An idea grows in the mind by\nremaining there; it becomes familiar and distinct, and is viewed in\nits relations; it leads to other aspects, and these again to\nothers.... Such intellectual processes as are carried on silently and\nspontaneously in the mind of a party or school, of necessity come to\nlight at a later date, and are recognised, and their issues are\nscientifically arranged.\" Consequently, though dogma is unchangeable\nas truth is unchangeable, this immutability does not exclude progress.\nIn the Church, such progress is nothing else than the development of\nthe principles laid down in the beginning by Jesus Christ Himself.\nThus--to take a simple illustration--in three different councils, the\nChurch has declared and proposed three different articles of Faith,\n_viz._, that in Jesus Christ there are (1) two natures, (2) two wills,\nand (3) one only Person. These may seem to some, who cannot look\nbeneath the surface, to be three entirely new doctrines; to be, in\nfact, \"additions to the creed\". In sober truth, they are but\nexpansions of the original doctrine which, in its primitive and\nrevealed form, has been known and taught at all times, that is to say,\nthe doctrine that Christ is, at once, true God and true Man. That one\nstatement really contains the other three; the other three merely give\nus a fuller and a completer grasp of the original one, but tell us\nnothing absolutely new.\n\nIn a similar manner, and by a similar process, we arrive at a clearer\nand more explicit knowledge of other important truths, which were not\nat first universally recognised as being contained in the original\ndeposit. The dogma of Papal infallibility is an instance in point. For\nthough no Catholic ever doubted the genuine infallibility of the\n_Church_, yet in the early centuries, there existed some difference of\nopinion, as to _where_ precisely the infallible authority resided.\nMost Catholics, even then, believed it to be a gift conferred by\nChrist upon Peter himself [who alone is the _rock_], and upon each\nPope who succeeded him in his office, personally and individually, but\nsome were of opinion that, not the Pope by himself, but only \"the\nPope-in-Council,\" that is to say, the Pope supported by a majority of\nBishops, was to be considered infallible. So that, while _all_\nadmitted the _Pope with a majority of the Bishops_, taken together, to\nbe divinely safeguarded from teaching error, yet the prevailing and\ndominant opinion, from the very first, went much further, and ascribed\nthis protection to the Sovereign Pontiff likewise when acting alone\nand unsupported. This is so well known, that even the late Mr.\nGladstone, speaking as an outside observer, and as a mere student of\nhistory, positively brings it as a charge against the Catholic Church\nthat \"the Popes, for well-nigh a thousand years, have kept up, with\ncomparatively little intermission, their claim to dogmatic\ninfallibility\" (_Vat._ p. 28). Still, the point remained unsettled by\nany dogmatic definition, so that, as late as in 1793, Archbishop Troy\nof Dublin did but express the true Catholic view of his own day when\nhe wrote: \"Many Catholics contend that the Pope, when teaching the\nUniversal Church, as their supreme visible head and pastor, as\nsuccessor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises of special assistance\nmade to him by Jesus Christ, is infallible; and that his decrees and\ndecisions in that capacity are to be respected as rules of faith, when\nthey are dogmatical, or confined to doctrinal points of faith and\nmorals. Others,\" the Archbishop goes on to explain, \"deny this, and\nrequire the expressed or tacit acquiescence of the Church assembled or\ndispersed, to stamp infallibility on his dogmatic decrees.\" Then he\nconcludes:--\"_Until the Church shall decide_ upon this question of the\nSchools, either opinion may be adopted by individual Catholics,\nwithout any breach of Catholic communion or peace.\"\n\nThis was how the question stood until 1870. But it stands in that\nposition no longer; for the Church has now spoken--_Roma locuta est,\ncausa finita_. Hence, no Catholic can now deny or call into question\nthe great prerogative of the Vicar of Christ, without suffering\nshipwreck of the faith. At the Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX. and the\nArchbishops and Bishops of the entire Catholic world were gathered\ntogether in Rome, and after earnest prayer and prolonged discussion,\nthey declared that the prerogative of infallibility, which is the very\nsource of Catholic unity, and the very secret of Catholic strength,\nresides in the individual Pope who happens, at the time, to occupy the\nPapal chair, and that when he speaks _ex cathedra_, his definitions\nare infallibly true, and consonant with Catholic revelation, even\nbefore they have been accepted by the hierarchy throughout the world.\nBut here it must be borne in mind that the Pope speaks _ex cathedra_,\nthat is to say, infallibly, only when he speaks:--\n\n     1. As the Universal Teacher.\n\n     2. In the name and with the authority of the Apostles.\n\n     3. On a point of Faith or Morals.\n\n     4. With the purpose of binding every member of the Church to\n        accept and believe his decision.\n\nThus it is clearly seen that from the year 1870 the dogma of _Papal_,\nin contra-distinction to _ecclesiastical_ infallibility, has been\ndefined and raised to an article of faith, the denial of which is\nheresy.\n\nThe doctrine is at once new and yet not new. It is new in the sense\nthat up to the time of the Vatican Council it had never been actually\ndrawn out of the premises that contained it, and set forth before the\nfaithful in a formal definition. On the other hand, it is not new, but\nas old as Christianity, in the sense that it was always contained\nimplicitly in the deposit of faith. Any body of truth that is living\ngrows, and unfolds and becomes more clearly understood and more\nthoroughly grasped, as time wears on. The entire books of Euclid are\nafter all but the outcome of a few axioms and accepted definitions.\nThese axioms help us to build up certain propositions. And one\nproposition, when established, leads to another, till at last we seem\nto have unearthed statements entirely new and original. Yet, they are\ncertainly not really new, for had they not been all along contained\nimplicitly in the few initial facts, it is quite clear they could\nnever have been evolved from them. _Nemo dat, quod non habet._\n\nHence Papal Infallibility is not so much a new truth, or an \"addition\nto the Faith,\" as some heretics would foolishly try to persuade us,\nas a clearer expression and a more exact and detailed presentation of\nwhat was taught from the beginning.\n\nIt is here that the well-known historian, Doellinger, who rejected the\ndefinition, proved himself to be not only a proud rebel but also a\nvery poor logician. Until 1870, he was a practising Catholic, and,\ntherefore, like every other Catholic, he, of course, admitted that the\nPope and the Bishops, speaking collectively, were divinely supported\nand safeguarded from error, when they enunciated to the world any\ndoctrine touching faith or morals. Yet, when the Pope and the Bishops,\nassembled at the Vatican, did so speak collectively, and did\nconjointly issue the decree of Papal Infallibility, he proceeded to\neat his own words, refused to abide by their decision, and was\ndeservedly turned out of the Church of God: being excommunicated by\nthe Archbishop of Munich on the 17th of April, 1871, in virtue of the\ninstructions given by Our Divine Lord Himself, _viz._: \"If he will not\nhear the Church (cast him out, _i.e._), let him be to thee as the\nheathen and publican\" (Matt. xviii. 17). He, and the few misguided men\nthat followed him in his rebellion, and called themselves Old\nCatholics, had been quite ready to believe that the Pope, with the\nBishops, when speaking as one body, were Infallible. In fact, if they\nhad not believed that, they never could have been Catholics at any\ntime. But they did not seem to realise the sufficiently obvious fact\nthat, whether they will it or not, and whether they advert to it or\nnot, it is utterly impossible now to deny the Infallibility of the\nPope personally and alone, without at the same time denying the\nInfallibility of the \"Pope and the Bishops collectively,\" for the\nsimple reason that it is precisely the \"Pope and the Bishops\ncollectively\" who have solemnly and in open session declared that the\nPope enjoys the prerogative of Infallibility in his own individual\nperson. Since the Vatican Council, one is forced by the strict\nrequirements of sound reason to believe, either that the Pope is\nInfallible, or else that there is no Infallibility in the Church at\nall, and that there never had been.\n\nThose who were too proud to submit to the definition followed, of\ncourse, the example of earlier heretics in previous Councils. They\nexcused themselves on the plea that the Council was (_a_) not free, or\nelse (_b_) not sufficiently representative, or, finally, (_c_) not\nunanimous in its decisions. But such utterly unsupported allegations\nserved only to accentuate the weakness of their cause and the\nhopelessness of their position; since it would be difficult, from the\norigin of the Church to the present time, to find any Council so free,\nso representative, and so unanimous.\n\nPope Pius IX. (whom, it seems likely, we shall soon be called upon to\nvenerate as a canonised saint) convened the Vatican Council by the\nBull _AEterni Patris_, published on 29th June, 1868. It summoned all\nthe Archbishops, Bishops, Patriarchs, etc., throughout the Catholic\nworld to meet together in Rome on 8th December of the following year,\n1869. When the appointed day arrived, and the Council was formally\nopened, there were present 719 representatives from all parts of the\nworld, and very soon after, this number was increased to 769. On 18th\nJuly, 1870--a day for ever memorable in the annals of the Church--the\nfourth public session was held, and the constitution _Pater AEternus_,\ncontaining the definition of the Papal Infallibility, was solemnly\npromulgated. Of the 535 who were present on this grand occasion, 533\nvoted for the definition (_placet_) and only two, one from Sicily, the\nother from the United States, voted against it (_non placet_).\nFifty-five Bishops, who fully accepted the doctrine itself, but deemed\nits actual definition at that moment inopportune, simply absented\nthemselves from this session. Finally, the Holy Father, in the\nexercise of his supreme authority, sanctioned the decision of the\nCouncil, and proclaimed officially, _urbi et orbi_ the decrees and the\ncanons of the \"First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ\".\n\nIt may be well here to clothe the Latin words of the Pope and the\nassembled Bishops in an English dress. They are as follows: \"We (the\nSacred Council approving) teach and define that it is a dogma\nrevealed, that the Roman Pontiff, _when_ he speaks _ex cathedra_--that\nis, when discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all\nChristians, by reason of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a\ndoctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole Church--in\nvirtue of the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter,\npossesses that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed\nthat His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith\nor morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the said Sovereign\nPontiff are unalterable of themselves, and not from the consent of the\nChurch. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict\nthis our definition, let him be anathema.\"\n\n\"_Every Bishop in the Catholic world_, however inopportune some may\nhave at one time held the definition to be, submitted to the\nInfallible ruling of the Church,\" says E.S. Purcell. \"A very small and\ninsignificant number of priests and laymen in Germany apostatised and\nset up the Sect of 'Old Catholics'. But all the rest of the Catholic\nworld, true to their faith, accepted, without reserve, the dogma of\nPapal Infallibility.\"[4]\n\nFor over eighteen hundred years the Infallible authority of the\nPope-in-Council had been admitted by all Catholics. And in any great\nemergency or crisis in the Church's history, these Councils were\nactually held, and presided over by the Pope, either in person or by\nhis duly appointed representatives, for the purpose of clearing up and\nadjusting disputed points, or to smite, with a withering anathema, the\nvarious heresies as they arose, century after century. But in the\nmeantime, the Church, which had been planted \"like a grain of mustard\nseed, which is the least of all seeds\" (Mark iv. 31), was fulfilling\nthe prophecy that had been made in regard to her, and \"was shooting\nout great branches\" (Mark iv. 32) and becoming more extended and more\nprolific than all her rivals. She enlarged her boundaries and spread\nfarther and farther over the face of the earth, while the number of\nher children rapidly multiplied in every direction.\n\nIn course of time, the immense continents of America and Australia,\ntogether with New Zealand and Tasmania and other hitherto unknown\nregions, were discovered and thrown open to the influences of human\nindustry and enterprise. And as men and women swarmed into these newly\nacquired lands, the Church accompanied them: and new vicariates and\ndioceses sprang up, and important Sees were formed, which in time, as\nthe populations thickened, became divided and sub-divided into smaller\nSees, till at last the number of Bishops in these once unknown and\ndistant regions rose to several hundreds.\n\nThus the whole condition of things became altered; and the calling\ntogether of an Ecumenical Council--a very simple affair in the\ninfancy of the Church--was becoming daily more and more difficult. Not\nso much, perhaps, by reason of the enormous distances of the dioceses\nfrom the central authority, for modern methods of locomotion have\nalmost annihilated space, but because of the immense increase in the\nnumber of the hierarchy that would have to meet together, whenever a\nCouncil is called.\n\nOn the other hand, with the greater extension of the Church, would\nnaturally come an increased crop of heresies. For, cockle may be sown,\nand weeds may spring up, in any part of the field, and the field is\nnow a hundred times vaster than it was. Now, it is extremely important\nthat as fast as errors arise they should be pointed out, and rooted up\nwithout delay, and before they can breed a pestilence and corrupt a\nwhole neighbourhood. But the complicated machinery of a great\nEcumenical Council, which involves prolonged preparation, considerable\nexpense, and a temporary dislocation in almost every diocese\nthroughout the world, is too cumbersome and slow to be called into\nrequisition whenever a heresy has to be blasted, or whenever a\ndecision has to be made known.\n\nHence we cannot help recognising and admiring the Providence of God\nover His Church, in thus simplifying the process, in these strenuous\ndays, by which His truth is to be maintained and His revelation\nprotected. For the fact--true from the beginning, _viz._, that the\nPope enjoys the prerogative of personal infallibility--is not only a\nprofound truth; but a truth for the first time formally recognised,\ndefined, promulgated and explicitly taught as an article of Divine\nfaith. Consequently, without summoning a thousand Bishops from the\nfour quarters of the globe, the Sovereign Pontiff may now rise in his\nown strength, and proclaim to the entire Church what is, and what is\nnot, consonant with the truths of revelation. This is evident from the\nVatican's definition, which declares that \"THE POPE HAS THAT SAME\nINFALLIBILITY WHICH THE CHURCH HAS\"--\"Romanum Pontificem ea\ninfallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in\ndefinienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit\". Words\nof the Bull, \"PASTOR AETERNUS\".\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 4: See _Life of Cardinal Manning_, vol. ii., p. 452.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nWATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?\n\n\nThe most sacred deposit of Divine Revelation has been committed by\nJesus Christ to the custody of the Church, and century after century\nshe has guarded it with the utmost jealousy and fidelity. Like a loyal\nwatchman, stationed on a lofty tower, the Pope, with anxious eyes,\nscans the length and breadth of the world, and, as the occasion\ndemands, boldly, and fearlessly, and categorically condemns and\nanathematises all who, through pride or cunning, or personal interest\nand ambition, or love of novelty, attempt to falsify or to minimise or\nto distort the teaching of Our Divine Master. Without respect of\npersons, without regard to temporal consequences, without either\nhesitancy or ambiguity, he speaks \"as one having power\" (Matt. vii.\n29). And while, on the one hand, every true Catholic throughout the\nworld, who hears his voice, is intimately conscious that he is hearing\nthe voice of Christ Himself, \"who heareth you, heareth Me\" (Luke x.\n16); so, on the other hand, every true Catholic likewise knows that\nall who refuse to obey his ruling, and who despise his warnings, are\ndespising and disobeying Christ Himself. \"Who despises you, despises\nMe\" (Luke x. 16). Thus, the Sovereign Pontiff, as the infallible\nsource of religious truth, becomes at the same time the strong bond of\nreligious unity: for, just as error divides men from one another, so\ntruth always and necessarily draws them together. In this way the Pope\nbecomes the connecting link which unites over 250,000,000 of men: and\nthe foundation stone (or petros--Peter) of the mystical building\nerected by God-incarnate (\"Upon this rock will I build My Church,\"\nMatt. xvi. 18). He is the foundation, that is to say, which supports\nit, and keeps its various parts together, in one harmonious and\nsymmetrical whole, and against which the angry surges rise, and the\nmuddy waves of error for ever beat, yet ever beat in vain: for \"the\ngates of hell [Satan and his hosts] shall not prevail against it\". Who\ndoubts this denies the most formal and unmistakable promises of the\nEternal Son of God, and makes of Him a liar.\n\nOur non-Catholic friends close their eyes to these patent facts,\nand--with great peril to their salvation--refuse to see even the\nobvious. As the Jews of old were so blinded by their prejudice,\njealousy and hatred of Him, whom they contemptuously styled \"the Son\nof the Carpenter,\" that they steadily refused to consider the justice\nof His claims, and could not (or would not?) bring themselves to\nunderstand how clearly the Scriptures bore witness to His divinity,\nand how marvellously the prophecies and predictions (the words of\nwhich they accepted), were fulfilled in His Divine Person; so now\nProtestants steadily refuse to consider the claims of Her whom they\ncontemptuously style \"the Romish Church,\" and are so prejudiced and\nfull of suspicion, if not of hate, that they too cannot bring\nthemselves to understand how She, like her Divine Founder, bears upon\nher immortal brow the distinctive and unmistakable impress of her\nsupernatural origin and destiny. The Incarnate Son of God, who never\nasks, nor can ask in vain, implored His Heavenly Father, that all His\nfollowers might be one, and why? In order that this marvellous unity\nmight ever be fixed as a seal of authenticity to His Church, and be to\nall men a permanent sign and proof of her genuineness.\n\n\"Father,\" He prayed, grant \"that they may ALL BE ONE, as Thou art in\nMe, and as I am in Thee, that they also may be one in us, THAT THE\nWORLD MAY KNOW that Thou hast sent Me\" (John xvii. 21). Unity, then,\nis undeniably the test and sign-manual attached by Christ to His\nBride, the Church; the presence or absence of which must (if there be\nany truth in God) determine the genuineness or the falsity of every\nclaimant.\n\nNow, this mark is nowhere found outside the One, Holy, Catholic and\nApostolic Church, whose centre is in Rome.\n\nOther Churches not merely do not possess unity. They do not possess so\nmuch as the requisite machinery to produce it, nor even the means of\npreserving it, if produced.\n\nWith us, on the contrary, it flows as naturally and as directly from\nthe recognised Supremacy and Infallibility of the Vicar of Christ as\nlight flows from the sun. It is so manifest that it would seem only\nthe blind can fail to see it: so that one is sometimes puzzled to know\nhow to excuse educated Protestants from the damnable sin of _vincible_\nignorance. Thus, the faithful throughout the entire world are in\nconstant communication with their respective pastors; the pastors, in\ntheir turn, are in direct communication with their respective Bishops,\nand the Bishops, dispersed throughout the length and breadth of\nChristendom, are in close and direct communication with the one\nSupreme and Infallible Ruler, whom the Lord has placed over all His\npossessions; who has been promised immunity from error; and whose\nspecial duty and office is to \"confirm his brethren\" (Luke xxii. 32).\nBy this most simple, yet most practical and effective expedient, the\nvery least and humblest catechumen in China or Australia is as truly\nin touch with the central authority at the Vatican, and as completely\nunder its direction in matters of faith and morals, as the crowned\nheads of Spain or Austria, or as the Archbishops of Paris or Malines.\nCertainly _Digitus Dei est hic_: the finger of God is here. The simple\nfact is, there is always something about the works of God which\nclearly differentiate them from the products of man, however close may\nbe the mere external and surface resemblance. A thousand artists may\ncarve a thousand acorns, so cunningly coloured, and so admirably\ncontrived as to be practically indistinguishable from the genuine\nfruit of the oak. Each of these thousand artists may present me with\nhis manufactured acorn, and may assure me of its genuineness. And,\nalas! I may be quite deceived and taken in; yes, but only _for a\ntime_. When I plant them in the soil, together with the genuine acorn,\nand give them time to develop, the fraud is detected, and the truth\nrevealed. For the real seed proves its worth. How? In the simplest way\npossible, that is to say, by actually doing what it was destined and\ncreated to do. That is, by growing and developing into a majestic oak,\nwhile the false and human imitations fall to pieces, belie all one's\nhopes, and are found to produce neither branch nor leaf nor fruit.\n\nThis is but an illustration of what may be observed equally in the\nspiritual order, although there it is attended by more disastrous\nconsequences. Thus we find hundreds of Churches proclaiming themselves\nto be foundations of God, which Time, the old Justice who tries all\nsuch offenders, soon proves, most unmistakably, to be nothing but the\ncontrivances of man. They may bear a certain external resemblance to\nthe true Church, planted by the Divine Husbandman, but like the\nman-made acorns, they deceive all our expectations, and are wholly\nunable to redeem their promises, or to live up to their pretensions.\n\nFor, while one and all declare with their lips that they possess the\ntruth as revealed by Christ, their glaring divisions, irreconcilable\ndifferences, and internal dissensions emphatically prove that the\ntruth is not in them: and that they have been built, not on the rock,\nbut on the shifting sand, and are the erections, not of God, but of\nfeeble, fickle men.\n\nOn the other hand, the Catholic Church, amid a thousand sects,\nresembles the genuine acorn among the thousand imitations. Not only\ndoes she alone possess the whole truth; but she alone can stand up and\nactually prove this claim to the entire world, by pointing defiantly\nat her marvellous and miraculous unity--a unity so conspicuous, and so\nstriking, and so absolutely unique, that even the hostile and bigoted\nProtestant press can sometimes scarcely refrain from bearing an\nunwilling testimony to it.\n\nWe might give many instances of this, and quote from many sources, but\nlet the following extract from London's leading journal serve as an\nexample. It is no other paper than the _Times_, which makes the\nfollowing admission on occasion of the Vatican Council which opened in\n1869: \"Seven hundred Bishops, more or less, representing all\nChristendom, were seen gathered round one altar and one throne,\npartaking of the same Divine Mystery, and rendering homage, by turns,\nto the same spiritual authority and power. As they put on their\nmitres, or took them off, and as they came to the steps of the altar,\nor the foot of the common spiritual Father, it was IMPOSSIBLE\nnot to feel the UNITY and the power of the Church which they\nrepresented\" (16th Dec., 1869). Here, then, is the most influential\njournal certainly of Great Britain, perhaps of the world, proclaiming\nto its readers far and wide, not simply that the Roman Catholic Church\nis one, but that her oneness is of such a sterling quality, and of so\npronounced a character that it is impossible--mark the word,\nimpossible!--not to feel it. Yet men ask where the Church of God is to\nbe found. They ask for a sign, and lo! when God gives them one they\ncannot see it, nor interpret it, nor make anything out of it: and\nprefer to linger on in what Newman calls \"the cities of confusion,\"\nthan find peace and security in \"the communion of Rome, which is that\nChurch which the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has 'the\nadoption of sons, and the glory and the covenants and the revealed\nlaw, and the service of God and the promises,' and in which the\nAnglican [or any other Protestant] communion, whatever it merits and\ndemerits, whatever the great excellence of individuals in it, has, as\nsuch, no part\". But this is a digression. Let us return to our\nsubject.\n\nThe incontestable value and immense practical importance of the Papal\nprerogative of infallibility have been rendered abundantly manifest\never since its solemn definition nearly forty years ago. In fact,\nalthough the enormous increase of the population of the world has not\nrendered the position of the Sovereign Pontiff any easier, yet he is\nbetter fitted and equipped since the definition to cope promptly and\neffectually with errors and heresies as they arise than he was before.\nWe do not mean that his prerogative of infallibility is invoked upon\nevery trivial occasion--one does not call for a Nasmyth hammer to\nbreak a nut--but it is always there, in reserve, and may be used, on\noccasion, even without summoning an Ecumenical Council, and this is a\nmatter of some consequence. For, though time may bring many changes\ninto the life of man, and may improve his physical condition and\nsurroundings, and add enormously to his comfort, health, and general\ncorporal well-being, it is found to produce no corresponding effect\nupon his corrupt and fallen nature, which asserts itself as vigorously\nnow, after nearly two thousand years of Christianity, as in the past.\nPride and self still sway men's hearts. The spirit of independence and\nself-assertion and egotism, in spite of all efforts at repression,\ncontinue to stalk abroad. And human nature, even to-day, is almost as\nimpatient of restraint, and as unwilling to bear the yoke of\nobedience, as in the time when Gregory resisted Henry of Germany, or\nwhen Pius VII. excommunicated Napoleon. If, even in the Apostolic age,\nwhen the number of the faithful was small and concentrated, there\nwere, nevertheless, men of unsound views--\"wolves in sheep's\nclothing\"--amongst the flock of Christ, how much more likely is this\nto be the case now. If the Apostle St. Paul felt called upon to warn\nhis own beloved disciples against those \"who would not endure sound\ndoctrine,\" and who \"heaped to themselves teachers, having itching\nears,\" and who even \"closed their ears to the truth, in order to\nlisten to fables\" (2 Tim. iv. 1-5), surely we may reasonably expect to\nfind, even in our own generation, many who have fallen, or who are in\ndanger of falling under the pernicious influence of false teachers,\nand who are being seduced and led astray by the plausible, but utterly\nfallacious, reasoning of proud and worldly spirits. It would be easy\nto name several, but they are too well known already to need further\nadvertising here.\n\nThen, she has adversaries without, as well as within. For, though the\nChurch is not _of_ the world, she is _in_ the world. Which is only\nanother way of saying that she is surrounded continually and on all\nsides by powerful, subtle, and unscrupulous foes. \"The world is the\nenemy of God,\" and therefore of His Church. If its votaries cannot\ndestroy her, nor put an end to her charmed life, they hope, at least,\nto defame her character and to blacken her reputation. They seize\nevery opportunity to misrepresent her doctrine, to travesty her\nhistory, and to denounce her as retrograde, old fashioned, and out of\ndate. And, what makes matters worse, the falsest and most mischievous\nallegations are often accompanied by professions of friendship and\nconsideration, and set forth in learned treatises, with an elegance of\nlanguage and an elevation of style calculated to deceive the simple\nand to misguide the unwary. It is Father W. Faber who remarks that,\n\"there is not a new philosophy nor a freshly named science but what\ndeems, in the ignorance of its raw beginnings, that it will either\nexplode the Church as false or set her aside as doting\" (Bl. Sac.\nPrologue). Indeed the world is always striving to withdraw men and\nwomen from their allegiance to the Church, through appeals to its\nsuperior judgment and more enlightened experience; and philosophy and\nhistory and even theology are all pressed into the service, and\nfalsified and misrepresented in such a manner as to give colour to its\ncomplaints and accusations against the Bride of Christ, who, it is\nseriously urged, \"should make concessions and compromises with the\nmodern world, in order to purchase the right to live and to dwell\nwithin it\". What is the consequence? Let the late Cardinal Archbishop\nand the Bishops of England answer. \"Many Catholics,\" they write in\ntheir joint pastoral, \"are consequently in danger of forfeiting not\nonly their faith, but even their independence, by taking for granted\nas venerable and true the halting and disputable judgment of some men\nof letters or of science which may represent no more than the wave of\nsome popular feeling, or the views of some fashionable or dogmatising\nschool. The bold assertions of men of science are received with awe\nand bated breath, the criticisms of an intellectual group of _savants_\nare quoted as though they were rules for a holy life, while the mind\nof the Church and her guidance are barely spoken of with ordinary\npatience.\"\n\nIn a world such as this, with the agents of evil ever active and\nthreatening, with error strewn as thorns about our path at every step,\nand with polished and seductive voices whispering doubt and suggesting\nrebellion and disobedience to men, already too prone to disloyalty,\nand arguing as cunningly as Satan, of old, argued with Eve; in such a\nworld, who, we may well ask, does not see the pressing need as well as\nthe inestimable advantages and security afforded by a living,\nvigilant, responsible and supreme authority, where all who seek, may\nfind an answer to their doubts, and a strength and a firm support in\ntheir weakness?\n\nAnd as surely as the need exists, so surely has God's watchful\nprovidence supplied it, in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, the\nvenerable Vicar of Christ on earth. He is authorised and commissioned\nby Christ Himself \"to feed\" with sound doctrine, both \"the lambs and\nthe sheep\"; and faithfully has he discharged that duty. \"The Pope,\"\nwrites Cardinal Newman, \"is no recluse, no solitary student, no\ndreamer about the past, no doter upon the dead and gone, no projector\nof the visionary. He, for eighteen hundred years, has lived in the\nworld; he has seen all fortunes, he has encountered all adversaries,\nhe has shaped himself for all emergencies. If ever there was a power\non earth who had an eye for the times, who has confined himself to the\npracticable, and has been happy in his anticipations, whose words have\nbeen facts, and whose commands prophecies, such is he, in the history\nof ages, who sits, from generation to generation, in the chair of the\nApostles, as the Vicar of Christ, and the Doctor of His Church.\"\n\n\"These are not the words of rhetoric,\" he continues, \"but of history.\nAll who take part with the Apostle are on the winning side. He has\nlong since given warrants for the confidence which he claims. From the\nfirst, he has looked through the wide world, of which he has the\nburden; and, according to the need of the day, and the inspirations of\nhis Lord, he has set himself, now to one thing, now to another; but to\nall in season, and to nothing in vain.... Ah! What grey hairs are on\nthe head of Judah, whose youth is renewed like the eagle's, whose feet\nare like the feet of harts, and underneath the Everlasting Arms.\"\nWould that our unfortunate countrymen, tossed about by every wind of\ndoctrine, and torn by endless divisions, could be persuaded to set\naside pride and prejudice, and to accept the true principle of\nreligious unity and peace established by God. Then England would\nbecome again, what she was for over a thousand years, _viz._: \"the\nmost faithful daughter of the Church of Rome, and of His Holiness, the\none Sovereign Pontiff and Vicar of Christ upon earth,\" as our Catholic\nforefathers were wont to describe her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE SECTS.\n\n\nA natural tendency is apparent in all men to differ among themselves,\neven concerning subjects which are simple and easily understood;\nwhile, on more difficult and complicated issues, this tendency is, of\ncourse, very much more pronounced. Hence, the well-known proverb:\n\"_Quot homines, tot sententiae_\"--there are as many opinions as there\nare men.\n\nNow, if this is found to be the case in politics, literature, art,\nmusic, and indeed in everything else, except perhaps pure mathematics,\nit is found to be yet more universally the case in questions of\nreligion, since religion is a subject so much more sublime, abstruse,\nand incomprehensible than others, and so full of supernatural and\nmysterious truths, with which no merely human tribunal has any\ncompetency to deal. Then, let me ask, what chance has a man of\narriving at a right decision on the most important of all\nquestions--questions concerning his own eternal salvation--who is\nthrown into the midst of a world where there is no uniformity of view\non spiritual matters, where every variety of opinion is expressed and\ndefended, and where every conceivable form of worship has its fervent\nsupporters and followers.\n\nOr, leaving all others out of account, may we not well ask how the\nvast multitudes even of Catholics, scattered throughout such a world\nas this, are to maintain \"the unity of the Spirit in the bond of\npeace\" (Eph. iv. 3), to preserve the tenets of their creed intact, and\nto discriminate accurately and readily between the teaching of God,\nand the fallacious doctrines of men? In dealing with anxious and angry\ndisputants there is little use to appeal, as Protestants do, to the\nauthority of teachers who have nothing more to commend them than a\nlearning and an intelligence but little better than that of their\ndisciples. Where man differs from man each will prefer his own view,\nand claim that his personal opinion is as deserving of respect and as\nlikely to be right as his adversary's--which is practically what\nobtains among non-Catholics at the present day. Indeed, the only\nsuperhuman and infallible authority on earth recognised by them is the\nBible; and that, alas! has proved a block of stumbling and not a bond\nof union, since, in the hands of unscrupulous men, it may be made to\nprove absolutely anything. The most sacred and fundamental truths,\neven such as the sublime doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity\nof Christ, and the Atonement, have all, at one time or another, been\nvehemently denied _on the authority of the Bible_! The Anglican Bishop\nColenso, in writing to the _Times_, could quote eleven texts of\nScripture to prove that prayer ought not to be offered to Our Divine\nLord! yet, it made no difference. He was allowed to go on teaching\njust as before! No one seemed to care. What is \"pure Gospel\" to Mr.\nBrown is \"deadly error\" to Mr. Green; while \"the fundamental verities\"\nof Mr. Thompson are \"the satanical delusions\" of Mr. Johnson. In fact,\nthere is really less dispute among men as to the interpretation of the\nVedas, of Chinese chronology, or of Egyptian archaeology, than of the\nBible, which, to the eternal dishonour of Protestant commentators, has\nnow almost ceased to have any definite meaning whatever, because every\nimaginable meaning has been defended by some and denied by others. It\nis beyond dispute that the Bible, without an infallible Teacher to\nexplain its true meaning, will be of no use whatsoever as a bond of\nunity.\n\nIf the unity, promised by God-incarnate, is to be secured, the present\ncircumstances of the case, as well as the actual experience of many\ncenturies, prove three conditions to be absolutely necessary, _viz._:\na teacher who is _firstly_ ever living and accessible; _secondly_, who\ncan and will speak clearly and without ambiguity; and _thirdly_, and\nmost essential of all, whose decisions are authoritative and\ndecisive. One, in a word, who can pass sentence and close a\ncontroversy, and whose verdict will be honoured and accepted _as\nfinal_ by all Catholics without hesitation. These three requisites are\nfound in the person of the infallible Head of the Catholic Church, but\nnowhere else.\n\nExperience shows that where, in religion, there is nothing but mere\nhuman learning to guide, however great such learning may be, there\nwill always be room left for some differences of opinion. In such\ncontroversies even the learned and the well read will not all arrange\nthemselves on one side; but will espouse, some one view, and some\nanother. We find this to be the case everywhere. And, since the Church\nof England offers us as striking and as ready an example as any other,\nwe cannot do better than invoke it as both a warning and a witness.\n\nThough her adherents are but a small fraction, compared with\nourselves, and though they are socially and politically far more\nhomogeneous than we Catholics, who are gathered from all the nations\nof the earth, yet even they, in the absence of any universally\nrecognised and infallible head, are split up into a hundred fragments.\n\nSo that, even on the most essential points of doctrine, there is\nabsolutely no true unanimity. This is so undeniable that Anglican\nBishops themselves are found lamenting and wringing their hands over\ntheir \"unhappy divisions\". Still, we wish to be perfectly just, so, in\nillustration of our contention, we will select, not one of those\ninnumerable minor points which it would be easy to bring forward, but\nsome really crucial point of doctrine, the importance of which no man\nin his senses will have the hardihood to deny. Let us say, for\ninstance, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Can we conceive anything\nthat a devout Christian would be more anxious to ascertain than\nwhether Our Divine Lord and Saviour be really and personally and\nsubstantially present under the appearance of bread, or no! Picture to\nyourselves, then, a fervent worshipper entering an Anglican church,\nwhere they are said \"to reserve,\" and kneeling before the Tabernacle.\nJust watch the poor unfortunate man utterly and hopelessly unable to\ndecide whether he is prostrating and pouring out his soul before a\nmere memorial, a simple piece of common bread, or before the Infinite\nCreator of the Universe, the dread King of kings, and Lord of lords,\nin Whose presence the very angels veil their faces, and the strong\npillars of heaven tremble! Imagine a Church where such a state of\nthings is possible! Yet, we have it on the authority of an Anglican\nBishop--and I know not where we shall find a higher authority--that\nthis is indeed the case; as may be gathered from the following words,\ntaken from a \"charge\" by the late Bishop Ryle, which are surely clear\nenough: \"One section of our (_i.e._, Anglican) clergy,\" says the\nBishop, \"maintains that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and another\nmaintains with equal firmness that it is not.... One section maintains\nthat there is a real objective presence of Christ's Body and Blood\nunder the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. The other maintains\nthat there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of the\nbelieving communicant.\"[5] Was such a state of pitiable helplessness\never seen or heard or dreamed of anywhere! And yet this church, please\nto observe, is supposed to be a body sent by God to teach. Heaven\npreserve us from such a teacher. As a further illustration of the\nutter incompetency of the Establishment to perform this primary duty,\nwe may call to mind the strikingly instructive correspondence that was\npublished some years ago between his Grace Archbishop Sumner and Mr.\nMaskell, who very naturally and very rightly sought direction from his\nOrdinary concerning certain points of doctrine, of which he was in\ndoubt.\n\n\"You ask me,\" writes the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell, \"whether you are\nto conclude that you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of\nthe [Anglican] Church to teach any of the doctrines spoken of in your\nfive former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated.\"\n\nHere, then, we have a perfectly fair and straightforward question,\ndeserving an equally clear and straightforward answer: and such as\nwould be given at once if addressed by any Catholic enquirer to _his_\nBishop. But how does the Anglican Archbishop proceed to calm and\ncomfort this helpless, agitated soul, groping painfully in the dark?\nWhat is his Grace's reply? He cannot refer the matter to a Sovereign\nPontiff, for no Pontiff in the Anglican Church is possessed of any\nsovereignty whatsoever. In fact the Archbishop himself has to \"verily\ntestify and declare that His Majesty the King is the only supreme\nGovernor in _spiritual_ and _ecclesiastical_ things as well as\ntemporal,\" etc.[6] Nor dare he solve these troublesome doubts himself:\nfor he is no more infallible than his questioner. Then what does he\ndo? Practically nothing. He throws the whole burden back upon poor\nMr. Maskell, and leaves him to struggle with his doubts as best he\nmay. Thus; though the Church _of God_ was established to \"teach all\nnations,\" and _must_ still be teaching all nations if she exist at\nall; the Church _of England_ seems unable to teach one nation, or even\none man.\n\nBut to continue. The Archbishop begins by putting Mr. Maskell a\nquestion. \"Are they (_i.e._, the doctrines about which he is seeking\ninformation) contained in the Word of God? St. Paul says, 'Preach the\nWord'.... Now whether the doctrines concerning which you inquire are\ncontained in the Word of God, and can be proved thereby, _you have the\nsame means_ of discovering for yourself as I have, and I have no\nspecial authority to declare.\"\n\nDid any one ever witness such an exhibition of ineptitude and\nspiritual asthenia? We can conceive a man rejecting all revelation. It\nis possible even to conceive a man denying the Divinity of Christ. But\nwe know nothing that would ever enable us even to conceive that\nInfinite Wisdom and Infinite Power had established a Church which\ncannot teach, or had sent an ambassador utterly unable to deliver His\nmessage. There is no use for such Church as that. Total silence is\nbetter than incoherent speech. What is the consequence? The\nconsequence is that in the Anglican community endless variations and\ndifferences exist and flourish side by side, not alone in matters\nwhere differences are comparatively of little account, but in even the\nmost momentous and fundamental doctrines, such as the necessity of\nBaptism, the power of Absolution, the nature of the Holy Eucharist,\nthe effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so forth. Were it not\nfor the iron hand of the State, which grasps her firmly, and binds her\nmutually repellent elements together, she must have fallen to pieces\nlong ago. Now, we must beg our readers to consider well, that from the\nvery terms of the institution such a deplorable state of things as we\nhave been contemplating is absolutely impossible and unthinkable in\nthe Church (1) which _God-incarnate_ founded, _for the express\npurpose of handing down His doctrine_, pure and undefiled to the end\nof time; and (2) with which He promised to abide for ever; and (3)\nwhich the Holy Ghost Himself, speaking through St. Paul, declared to\nbe \"the pillar and ground of truth\" (1. Tim. iii. 15). Nevertheless,\nif the Catholic Church, numbering over 250,000,000 of persons, is not\nto fall into the sad plight that has overtaken all the small churches\nthat have gone out from her, she must not only desire unity, as, no\ndoubt, all the sects desire it, but she must have been provided by her\nall-wise Founder with what none of them even profess to possess,\n_viz._, some simple, workable, and effective means of securing it.\nThis means, as practical as it is simple, is no other than one supreme\ncentral and living authority, enjoying full jurisdiction over\nall--that is to say, the authority of Peter, ever living in his See,\nand speaking, now by the lips of Leo, and now by the lips of Pius, but\nalways in the name, and with the authority, and under the guidance of\nHim who, in the plenitude of His divine power, made Peter the\nimmovable rock, against which the gates of hell may indeed expend\ntheir fury, but against which they never have prevailed and never can\nprevail. \"The gates of hell shall not prevail against Thee.\" That any\none can fail to understand the meaning of these inspired words; that\nany one can give them any application save that which they receive in\nthe Catholic Church, is but another illustration of the extraordinary\npower of prejudice and pride to blind the reason and to darken the\nunderstanding.\n\nWithout this final Court of Appeal, set up by the wisdom of God, the\nChurch would disintegrate and fall into pieces to-morrow. To remove\nfrom the Church of Christ the infallibility of the Pope would be like\nremoving the hub from the wheel, the key-stone from the arch, the\ntrunk from the tree, the foundation from the house. For, in each case\nthe result must mean confusion. If such a result could ever have been\ndoubted in the past, it can surely be doubted no longer. The sad\nexperience of the past three hundred years speaks more eloquently than\nany words; and its verdict is conclusive. It proves two things beyond\ndispute. The _first_ is, that even the largest and most heterogeneous\nbody of men may be easily united and kept together, if they can all be\nbrought to recognise and obey one supreme authority; and the _second_\nis, that, even a small and homogeneous body of men will soon divide\nand split up into sections, if they cannot be brought to recognise\nsuch an authority.\n\nFurther, any one looking out over the face of Christendom, with an\nunprejudiced eye, for the realisation of that unity which Christ\npromised to affix to his Church as an infallible sign of authenticity,\nwill find it in the Catholic Communion, but certainly nowhere\nelse--least of all in the Church of England.\n\n\"What,\" asks a well-known writer in unfeigned astonishment, \"what\nopinion is not held within the Established Church? Were not Dr.\nWilberforce and Dr. Colenso, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Baring equally\nBishops of the Church of England? Were not Dr. Pusey and Mr. Jowett\nat the same time her professors; Father Ignatius and Mr. Bellew her\nministers; Archdeacon Denison and Dr. M'Neile her distinguished\nornaments and preachers? Yet their religions differed almost as widely\nas Buddhism from Calvinism, or the philosophy of Aristotle from that\nof Martin Tupper.\" If a Catholic priest were to teach a single\nheretical doctrine, he would be at once cashiered, and turned out of\nthe Church. But \"if an Anglican minister must resign because his\nopinions are at variance with some other Anglican minister, every soul\nof them would have to retire, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down\nto the last licentiate of Durham or St. Bees\".\n\nAs surely as infallibility is the essential prerogative of a divinely\nconstituted Teaching Church, so surely can it exist only in that\ninstitution which alone has always claimed it, both as her gift by\npromise and the sole explanation of her triumphs and her perpetuity.\nIt would be the idlest of dreams to search for it in a fractional part\nof a modern community, like the Church of England, which had always\ndisowned and scoffed at it, and which could account for its own\nexistence ONLY on the plea that the Promises of God had\nsignally failed, and that _it_ alone was able to correct the failure.\n\nMen ask for some sign, by which they may recognise the true Church of\nGod and discriminate it readily from all spurious imitations. God, in\nHis mercy, offers them a sign--namely UNITY. Yet they hesitate and\nhold back, and refuse to guide their tempest-tossed barques by its\nunerring light into the one Haven of Salvation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 5: See Charge, etc., dated November, 1893.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Ang. Ministry_, by Hutton, p. 504.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY.\n\n\n1. The Church of God can be but one; because God is truth: and, truth\ncan be but one. The world may, and (as a matter of fact) does abound\nin false Churches, just as it abounds in false deities; but, this is\nrendered possible only _because they are false_. Two or more true\nChurches involve a contradiction in terms. Such a condition of things\nis as intrinsically absurd, and as unthinkable, as two or more true\nGods--as well talk of two or more multiplication tables! No! There can\nbe but \"One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism\". If several Churches all\nteach the true doctrine of Christ, unmixed with error, they must all\nagree, and, consequently, be virtually one and the self same. There is\nno help for it; and sound reason will not tolerate any other\nconclusion. The \"Branch Theory\" stands self-condemned, if truth be of\nany importance: because it is inconsistent with truth. For, if one\nChurch contradicts the other on any single point of doctrine, then one\nor the other must be false, that is, it must be either asserting what\nChrist denied; or else denying what Christ asserted. They cannot,\nunder any circumstances, be described as _true_ Churches. This is not\nsophistry or subtilty. It is common-sense. Christ promised unity in\npromising truth; since truth is one. Is Christ divided? asks St. Paul.\nNo! Then neither is His Church.\n\n2. How was His truth to be maintained and securely developed, century\nafter century, pure and untainted, and free from all admixture of\nerror? _Humanly_ speaking, the thing was impossible. Then what\n_superhuman_ guarantee did He offer? What was to be our security?\nNothing less than the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost Himself.\n\nSurely, then, we need not be anxious after that! Listen, and remember\nit is to God you are listening. \"The Spirit of Truth shall abide with\nyou for ever\" (John xiv. 17). Non-Catholics do not seem in the least\nto realise what those words mean, or that it is God Himself who\npromises. But, to continue; what is the purpose of this extraordinary\nand enduring presence? Why is it given? What is it for? Well, for the\nexpress purpose of hindering divisions and sects. In order to lead,\nnot to mislead us. How do we know? Because God said so: \"He shall\nguide you into all truth\" (John xvi. 13). And this truth, thus\npermanently secured, was to draw all together into one body. In fact,\nwe have it on Divine authority, that the Church of Christ was to be as\ntruly a single organic whole, in which every part is subject to one\nhead, as is a living human body. The similitude is not of man's\nchoosing, but is inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. \"As the\n(natural) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of\nthat one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.... Now,\nye are the (mystical) Body[7] of Christ\" (1 Cor. xii.).\n\nWhat can be clearer, what more explicit? Now, if the Spirit of Truth,\nthat is to say, the Holy Ghost, _is really_ with the Church (as God\npromised He always would be), and if He is always present for the\n_express purpose of \"guiding her into all truth\"_ (as God promised\nwould be the case), surely this guidance must be a great reality, and\nnot the mere sham that it is everywhere found to be, outside the\nCatholic Church.\n\n3. Consciously or unconsciously, Anglicans and other non-Catholics\nhave for centuries denied the truth of Our Lord's words and have\ncontradicted His clearest statements. In fact, the Church of England,\nin her Book of Homilies, declares that \"clergy and laity, learned and\nunlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children,\nof whole Christendom, were altogether drowned in damnable idolatry by\nthe space of 800 years and more\"! (Hom. on Peril of Idol., part iii.).\nThis is a specimen of the way in which God's promises are set aside,\nand the Bible misinterpreted by outsiders while professing to make it\nthe foundation of their creed. Nor was this the teaching of a few\nirresponsible persons. It was enforced by the whole Anglican Church.\n\"All parsons, vicars, curates, and all others having spiritual cure,\"\nwere \"straitly enjoined\" to read these Homilies Sunday after Sunday\nthroughout the year in every church and chapel of the kingdom. And the\n25th Article declares the second book of Homilies to contain \"a godly\nand wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times\"! Probably this\n\"godly and wholesome doctrine\" is no longer obliged to be read and\ntaught by Anglicans; probably they no longer consider it either\n\"godly\" or \"wholesome,\" but quite the reverse. This we are quite ready\nto admit. But, in the name of common prudence, who, in his senses,\nwould trust the salvation of his immortal soul to a Church that\nteaches a thing is white in one century and black in the next, and\nnever knows its own mind?\n\nHere then let us put two very pertinent questions, for our\nnon-Catholic friends to ponder over, and to answer, if they can.\nFirst: How is it possible for the Church to go astray, if God the Holy\nGhost is really guiding? Second: How is it possible for the Church to\nwander away into _error_, if this same Spirit be leading her into _all\ntruth_? Will some one kindly explain that, without at the same time\ndenying the veracity of God?\n\n4. However, granting the absolute truth of Christ's promises, we may\nnow proceed to inquire in what way this divine and (because divine)\ninfallible guidance into all truth is brought about? Is it by the Holy\nSpirit whispering to each individual priest or to each individual\nBishop? Emphatically not. Why not? Because, if that theory were well\nfounded, then every priest and Bishop would believe and teach\nprecisely the same set of doctrines, without any need of an\ninfallible Pope to guide him. For, clearly, the Spirit of _Truth_\ncould not whisper \"yea\" to one, and \"nay\" to another, nor could He\ndeclare a thing to be \"black\" to one person and \"white\" to his\nneighbour. In fine, we have but two alternatives to choose from. We\nmust confess either that the promises themselves, so solemnly made,\nare lies (which were blasphemy to affirm), or else, that God directs\nHis Church, and safeguards its truth, through its head, or chief\nPastor; just as we regulate and control the members of the physical\nbody through the brain. We must either renounce all belief in Christ\nand His promises, or else admit that His words are actually carried\nout, and that the prayer has been heard which He made for Peter, and\nfor those who should, in turn, exercise Peter's office and functions,\nand should speak in his name. Harken to the narrative, as given by St.\nLuke: \"The Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have\nyou [_observe, the plural number_] that he may sift you as wheat; but\nI have prayed [_not for all, but_] for _thee_, that _thy_ faith fail\nnot: and _thou_, being once converted, confirm thy brethren\" (Luke\nxxii. 32) [_observe the singular number_, \"thee,\" \"thy\" and \"thou\"].\n\nPeter still lives, in the person of Pope Pius X., and _in virtue of\nthat prayer_, and through the omnipotent power of God, Peter still\n\"confirms his brethren,\" and will continue to confirm them in the true\nand pure doctrine of Christ, until the final crack of doom. As the\nvenerable Bishop W.B. Ullathorne wrote to Lady Chatterton, soon after\nthe Vatican Council, _i.e._, 19th November, 1875: \"There is but one\nChurch of Christ, with one truth, taught by one authority, received by\nall, believed by all within its pale; or there is no security for\nfaith. If we examine Our Lord's words and acts, such a Church there\nis. If we follow the inclinations of our fallen nature, ever averse to\nthe control of authority, we there find the reason why so many who\nlove this world, receive not the authority that He planted, to endure\nlike His primal creation, to the end.\"\n\n\"It is pleasant to human pride and independence to be a little god,\nhaving but oneself for an authority, and a light, and a law to\noneself. But does this or does it not contradict the fact that we are\ndependent beings, and that the Lord, He is God? This spirit of\nindependence, with self-sufficiency for its basis, and rebellion for\nits act, is _just what_ Sacred Scripture ascribes to Satan\" (p. 230).\n\nTrue. And it is just the reverse of the disposition that Christ\ndemands from all who wish to enter into His One Fold: for He declares\nwith startling clearness that \"unless we become as little children\"\n(_i.e._, docile, submissive, trustful, etc.) \"we shall not enter into\nthe Kingdom of heaven,\" which is His Church.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n5. Before proceeding further, it may be well here to draw a\ndistinction between the Pope, considered as the _supreme_ ruler, and\nthe Pope, considered as the _infallible_ ruler. The reigning Pontiff,\nwhosoever he may be, is always the Supreme Ruler, the Head of the\nChurch, and the Vicar of Christ; but he is not, on all occasions, nor\nunder all circumstances, the infallible ruler.\n\nTo guard against any mistake as to the meaning of our words, let us\nexplain that infallibility is a gift, but not a gift that the Pope\nexercises every day, nor on every occasion, nor in addressing\nindividuals, nor public audiences, nor is it a prerogative that can be\ninvoked, except under special and indeed we may certainly add, very\nexceptional circumstances. And further--unlike other powers--it can\nnever be delegated to another. The Pope himself is Infallible, but he\ncannot transfer nor communicate his Infallibility, even temporarily or\nfor some special given occasion, to anyone else who may, in other\nrespects, represent him, such as a Legate, Ambassador, or Nuncio.\n\n\"Neither in conversation,\" writes the theologian Billuart, \"nor in\ndiscussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in\nconsulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has\ndefined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations,\nsupposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope\ninfallible.\" He is not infallible as a theologian, or as a priest, or\na Bishop, or a temporal ruler, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his\npolitical views, or even in the government of the Church: but only\nwhen he teaches the Faithful throughout the world, _ex cathedra_, in\nmatters of faith or of morals, that is to say, in matters relating to\nrevealed truth, or to principles of moral conduct.\n\n\"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good\npleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic\ndefinition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to\nthe truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited\nby the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions\nof the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the\nconstitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that\ndoctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that, alongside religious\nsociety, there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical\nHierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested, in\ntheir own domain, with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in\nconscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and\nbelonging to the domain of civil society.\"[8]\n\nFurther, a definition of divine faith must be drawn from the Apostolic\ndeposit of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of\ninfallibility, whether in Pope or Council. Similarly, a precept of\nmorals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be\ndrawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God. The\nPope has no power over the Moral Law, except to assert it, to\ninterpret it and to enforce it.\n\n6. From this, it is at once realised how restricted, after all, is the\ninfallible power of the Pope, in spite of the alarm its definition\nexcited in the Protestant camp, in 1870.\n\nStill, it must be clearly understood that whether speaking _ex\ncathedra_ or not, the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ and the\ndivinely appointed Head of His Church, and that we, as dutiful\nchildren, are bound both to listen to him with the utmost attention\nand respect, and to show him ready and heartfelt obedience. Anyone who\nshould limit his submission to the Pope's infallible utterances is\ntruly a rebel at heart, and no true Catholic.\n\nThe Holy Scripture is far from contemplating the exceptional cases of\ninfallible definitions when it lays down the command: \"Remember them,\nwho have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God,\nwhose faith follow\". And, \"_obey_ them that have the rule over you,\nand _submit_ yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that\nmust give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief\".\nThe margin in the Protestant Version (observes Cardinal Newman) reads\n\"those who are your _guides_,\" and the word may also be translated\n\"leaders\". Well, whether as rulers or as guides and leaders, whichever\nword be right, they are to be _obeyed_.\n\n7. From this it is evident enough that assent is of two kinds. There\nis firstly the assent of Divine Faith; and secondly there is the\nassent of religious obedience. Neither can be dispensed with. Both are\nbinding. All we affirm is that the one is not the other, and that the\nfirst must not be confused with the last. A special kind of assent,\nthat is to say, the _assent of Divine Faith_ must be given to all\nthose doctrines which are proposed to us by the infallible voice of\nthe Church, as taught by Our Lord or the Apostles, and as contained in\nthe original deposit [_fidei Depositum_]. They comprise (_a_) all\nthings whatever which God has directly revealed; and (_b_) whatever\ntruth such revelation implicitly contains.\n\nThese implicit truths are deduced from the original revelation, very\nmuch as any other consequence from its premisses. For example. It is a\ntruth directly revealed, that the _Holy Ghost is God_. But, since God\nis to be adored: the further proposition:--_the Holy Ghost is to be\nadored_; is also contained, though only implicitly, in revelation;\nand is therefore, equally, of faith. So again; that Christ is man, is\na fact of revelation; but the further proposition--Christ has a true\nbody--though not explicitly stated, is implicitly affirmed in the\nfirst proposition. All consequences, such as the above, which are seen\nimmediately and evidently to be contained in the words of revelation,\nmust be accepted as of faith. Other consequences, which are equally\ncontained in the original deposit, but which are not so readily\ndetected and deduced, _must be explicitly_ accepted as of faith, only\nso soon as the Church has publicly and authoritatively declared them\nto be so contained; but not before. Thus, to take an illustration, the\nImmaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is a fact contained from\nthe beginning, implicitly locked up, as it were, in the deposit of\nfaith, left by the Apostles. Were it not so it never could have been\ndefined; for the Church does not invent doctrines. She only transmits\nthem. Yet, this doctrine is not so clearly and so self-evidently\nincluded, and lies not so luminously and unmistakably on the very\nsurface of revelation as to be at once perceptible to all. Hence,\nbefore its actual definition, a Catholic might deny it, or suspend his\njudgment, without censure; whereas, to do either the one or the other,\nafter the Church has solemnly declared the doctrine to be contained in\nthe teaching of Christ and the Apostles, would be nothing short of\nheresy.\n\n\"The Infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope,\" says\nCardinal Newman, \"acts principally or solely in two channels, (_a_) in\ndirect statement of truth, and (_b_) in the condemnation of error. The\nformer takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter\nstigmatises propositions as 'heretical,' 'next to heresy,'\n'erroneous,' and the like\" (p. 136).\n\nThe gift of Infallibility, observes Cardinal Manning, \"extends\n_directly_ to the whole matter of divine truth, and _indirectly_ to\nall truths which, though not revealed, are in such contact with\nrevelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded,\nexpounded, and defended, without an infallible discernment of such\nunrevealed truths\" (_Vatican Decrees_, p. 167).\n\n8. To sum up: Persons who refuse to assent to doctrines which they\nknow to be directly revealed and defined, or which are universally\nheld by the Church as of Catholic Faith, become by that very act\nguilty of heresy, and cut themselves adrift from the mystical Body of\nChrist, and are no longer His members. If, on the other hand, their\nassent is refused only to doctrines closely connected with these\ndogmatic utterances, and which, as such, are proposed for their\nacceptance, they become guilty, if not of actual heresy, then of\nsomething perilously akin to it, and are, at all events, guilty of\nserious sin.\n\nWe may observe, in conclusion, that the Infallibility of Pontifical\ndefinitions, as Father Humphrey so pertinently reminds us, does not\ndepend upon the reigning Pontiff's possession of any real knowledge of\nancient Church history or theology, or philosophy or science, but\n_simply_ and solely upon the assistance of God the Holy Ghost,\nguaranteed to him in his exercise of his function of Chief Pastor, in\nfeeding with divine doctrine the entire flock of God. Our Anglican\nfriends seem penetrated with the utterly false notion of justification\nby scholarship alone; which is as untrue as it is unscriptural.\nIndeed, their justification by scholarship is likely to lead to very\nundesirable and deplorable results.\n\nIn the foregoing chapter we have considered especially the Pope's\nInfallible authority, and the assent and obedience due to it. In our\nnext it remains for us to consider the proper attitude of a loyal\nCatholic towards the Sovereign Pontiff as the supreme ruler and\ngovernor of the Church of God, even when not speaking _ex cathedra_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 7: The word _soma_, observes Mgr. Capel, is never used in\nGreek to express _mere_ association or aggregation (_Catholic_, p.\n13).]\n\n[Footnote 8: From a Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, which _received the\nPope's approbation_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY.\n\n\n1. When the Holy Father speaks _ex cathedra_, and defines any doctrine\nconcerning Faith or Morals, we are bound to receive his teaching with\nthe assent of divine faith: and cannot refuse obedience, without being\nguilty of heresy. By one such wilful act of disobedience we cease to\nbe members of the Church of God, and must be classed with heathens and\npublicans: \"Who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the\nheathen and the publican\" (Matt, xviii. 17).\n\nBut the Holy Father rarely exercises his prerogative of Infallibility,\nand therefore the occasions of these special professions of faith\noccur but seldom--not once, perhaps, during the course of many years.\n\n2. What then, it may be asked, is the proper attitude of a Catholic\ntowards the Pope, at ordinary times?\n\nFor a proper understanding of the answer, it may be well to remind the\ngeneral reader, that the law of God enjoins obedience to all lawfully\nconstituted authority; whether ecclesiastical or civil, and whether\nInfallible or not: further that the Pope, whether speaking _ex\ncathedra_ or not, is always our lawful superior in all matters\nappertaining to religion, not only as regards faith and morals, but\nalso as regards ecclesiastical order and discipline. His jurisdiction,\nor authority to command in these matters, is supreme and universal,\nand carries with it a corresponding right to be obeyed. He is the\nimmediate and supreme representative of God upon earth; and has been\nplaced in that position by God Himself. And since the Primacy is\nneither in whole, nor even in part of human derivation, but comes\ndirectly and immediately from Christ, no man or number of men, whether\nkings or princes or individual Bishops, nor even a whole Council of\nBishops, have any warranty or right to command him in religious or\necclesiastical concerns.[9] The Council of Florence declares that: \"To\nhim, in Blessed Peter, was delivered by Our Lord Jesus Christ the full\npower of ruling and governing the Universal Church\". Now this \"full\npower\" accorded by Christ cannot be limited except by the authority of\nChrist. Though the Pope is not the Sovereign of all the faithful in\nthe _temporal_ order, he is the Sovereign of all Christians in the\n_spiritual_ order. If then--and this is admitted by all--we are bound\nin conscience to obey our temporal sovereign and magistrates and\nmasters, and must submit to the laws of the country, so long as they\ndo not conflict with higher and superior laws, such as the Natural Law\nand the Revealed Law, with still greater reason are we bound to obey\nour spiritual Sovereign and the laws and regulations of the Church.\n\n3. To object that the Pope may possibly make a mistake when not\nspeaking _ex cathedra_ though true, is nothing to the point. For civil\ngovernments are far more liable to fail in this respect, and as a\nmatter of fact, do frequently abuse their power and pass unjust laws,\nand sometimes command what is sinful,[10] yet that fact does not\nmilitate against the soundness of the _general_ proposition that\nlawful superiors are to be obeyed. Nor does it diminish the force of\nSt. Peter's inspired words, in which he bids us be subject, for God's\nsake, \"whether it be to the king, as excelling, or to governors as\nsent by him for the punishment of evil doers ... for such is the will\nof God\" (Peter ii.). Nor does it detract from the truth and validity\nof St. Paul's still more emphatic words: \"Let every soul be subject to\nhigher powers; for there is no power but from God: and those that are\nordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, _resisteth the\nordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves\ndamnation_\" (Rom. xiii.). And again, when writing to Titus he says:\n\"Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey\" (Tit.\niii. 1).\n\nIf the Apostles themselves thus command obedience to the State, even\nto a pagan Government, such as the Roman was at the time they wrote,\nit will scarcely be denied by any Christian that obedience is due to\nthe Church, and to the ecclesiastical government, altogether apart\nfrom any question of infallibility. In fact, though both the civil\ngovernment and the ecclesiastical government are from God, and though\neach is supreme within its own sphere; yet the authority in the case\nof the Church is directly and immediately from God, whereas in the\ncase of the State, it is from God only mediately. This is why the\nform of government, in the case of the State, may vary. It may be at\none time monarchical, and at another republican, and then oligarchic,\nand so forth, whereas the Church must ever be ruled by one Supreme\nPontiff, and be monarchical in its form. Further, it is generally held\nthat even when not speaking _ex cathedra_, \"the Vicar of Christ is\nlargely assisted by God in the fulfilment of his sublime office; that\nhe receives great light and strength to do well the great work\nentrusted to him and imposed upon him, and that he is continually\nguided from above in the government of the Catholic Church.\" [Words of\nFather O'Reilly, S.J., quoted with approval by Cardinal Newman, p.\n140.] And that supplies us with a special and an additional motive for\nprompt obedience.\n\n\"Two powers govern the world,\" wrote Pope Gelasius, to the Greek\nEmperor Anastasius, more than fourteen hundred years ago, \"the\nspiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and the temporal power of\nkings\". These two powers have for their end, one the spiritual\nhappiness of man, here and hereafter, the other the temporal\nprosperity of society in the present world. So that, we may say,\nspeaking generally, the Roman Pontiff has, in spiritual and\necclesiastical matters, the same authority that secular sovereigns and\ntheir Parliaments have in worldly and political matters. They command\nand issue laws not only as regards what is _necessary_ for the welfare\nof their subjects, but also as regards whatever is lawful and\nexpedient. It is not contended that they never make a mistake. It is\nnot asserted that their ruling is necessarily, and in every\nparticular, always wise and discreet, but even inexpedient orders, if\nnot unjust, may be valid and binding, even though they might have been\nbetter non-issued. The principle to guide us is of practical\nsimplicity. As regards both the Church and the State--each in its own\norder--the rule is that obedience is to be yielded. And, in doubtful\ncases the presumption is in favour of authority. If anything were\nordered, which is _clearly seen_ to be contrary to, or incompatible\nwith the Law of God, whether natural or revealed, then, of course, it\nwould possess no binding force, for the Apostle warns us that--\"We\nmust obey God, rather than man\"--but, so long as we remain in a state\nof uncertainty, we are bound to give a properly constituted authority\nthe benefit of the doubt--and submit.\n\n4. With these preliminary explanations and considerations to guide us\nin our interpretation, we will now give the solemn teaching on the\nsubject, as laid down in the third chapter of the _Pastor AEternus_,\ndrawn up and duly promulgated by the Ecumenical Council of the\nVatican; and therefore of supreme authority.\n\n\"We teach and declare that the Roman Church, according to the\ndisposition of the Lord, obtains the princedom of ordinary power over\nall the other Churches; and that this, the Roman Pontiff's power of\njurisdiction, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; towards which\n(power) all the pastors and faithful, of whatever right and dignity,\nwhether each separately or all collectively, are bound by the duty of\nhierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in the things\nwhich pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to\nthe _discipline and government_ (_regimen_) of the Church diffused\nthrough the whole world; so that, unity being preserved with the Roman\nPontiff, as well of communion as of the profession of the same faith,\nthe Church of Christ may be one flock under one pastor. This is the\ndoctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss\nof faith and salvation.\"\n\n\"We also teach and declare that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge\nof the faithful, and that in all causes belonging to ecclesiastical\nexamination recourse can be had to his judgment: and that the judgment\nof the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is\nnot to be called in question, nor is it lawful for any one to judge\nits judgment. Therefore, those wander from the right path of truth who\naffirm that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman\nPontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as to an authority superior to the\nRoman Pontiff.\"\n\n\"If any one, therefore, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only the\noffice of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of\njurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in the things which\npertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the\ndiscipline and government of the Church diffused throughout the whole\nworld, or that he has only the principal place (_potiores partes_),\nand not the whole plenitude of the supreme power, or that this, his\npower, is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all and each of the\nChurches, or over all and each of the pastors and faithful, let him be\nanathema!\"\n\n5. Since the Church is a perfect society, spread throughout the entire\nworld, with one supreme ruler at its head, it follows that it must be\nendowed with all the means requisite for the carrying out of its\nmission. Christ was sent, by His Eternal Father, from Heaven with full\npowers. \"All power is given me in heaven and in earth\"; and these\npowers He handed on to His Church. \"As the Father hath sent Me, so I\nalso send you\" (John xx. 21). Hence the Popes are, to use Scriptural\nphraseology, \"ambassadors for Christ; God, as it were, exhorting by\nthem\" (2 Cor. v. 20); and no Catholic dare contest their power or\njurisdiction.\n\nIndeed, it would have been hopelessly impossible to carry on the\ngovernment of the Church and to maintain unity amongst its\never-increasing numbers, if there were no supreme authority ready to\nassert itself; to correct errors; to resist abuses; and to restrain\nthose who might introduce dissensions and differences. Of this fact,\nthe present deplorable chaotic state of the Anglican and other\nnon-Catholic Churches offers us abundant and forcible illustrations.\nFrom the very first the One True Church has not only taught, but\nruled; not only spoken, but acted. And when any of her subjects have\nproved obstreperous and disobedient, and stubborn in their resistance\nto her orders, she has invariably turned them out of her fold, so that\nthey should not infect and contaminate the good and the loyal. It was\nin this sense that St. Paul, the inspired Apostle, in the very first\ncentury of the Christian era, instructed Titus to construe and\nadminister the law committed to his charge. After warning Titus that\nthere are \"many vain talkers and deceivers,\" St. Paul commands him \"to\nrebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in faith\". He adds\nfurther: \"These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke, _with all\nauthority_\". But this was not all. He was not only to decide who were\nthe \"vain talkers and deceivers\". Nor was he simply \"to exhort and\nrebuke them sharply, and with all authority,\" that they might become\n\"sound in the faith,\" but if they persisted after the first and second\nadmonition, he was also to reject them, and thrust them out of the\nChurch, as heretics. \"Reject a heretic, after the first and second\nadmonition\" (Tit. iii. 10). Now Titus was neither an Apostle nor a\nPope, but a simple Bishop. If then such were the powers invested in\nhim, how much more fully still must this authority be inherent in the\nVicar of Christ himself, who is the supreme head upon earth of the\nentire Church of God.\n\nIt is this prompt amputation of the diseased members, before the\nhideous canker has time to spread, that has kept the Church of God\npure to this day, while heretical bodies have fallen into greater and\ngreater spiritual decay. It is because she fearlessly and resolutely\ninsists upon all her children accepting the truth, the whole truth,\nand nothing but the truth, that she presents to the world, century\nafter century, with miraculous clearness and perspicuity, the Divine\nhall-mark of unity.\n\n6. Outside the true Church of God there is no recognised voice strong\nenough to enforce any uniformity of belief. Though the Pope's\nauthority was acknowledged throughout England for over one thousand\nyears, yet at the time of the so-called Reformation, that Voice of\nGod, speaking through Peter, was admitted no longer. Hence, as\nCardinal Manning most truly observes: \"The old forms of religious\nthought are now passing away in England. The rejection of the Divine\nVoice has let in the flood of opinion; and opinion has generated\nscepticism; and scepticism has brought on contentions without end.\nWhat seemed so solid once, is disintegrated. It is dissolving by the\ninternal action of the principle from which it sprung. The critical\nunbelief of dogma has now reached to the foundation of Christianity,\nand to the veracity of Scripture. Such is the world the Catholic\nChurch Sees before it at this day. The Anglicanism of the Reformation\nis _upon the rocks_, like some tall ship stranded upon the shore, and\ngoing to pieces, by its own weight and the steady action of the sea.\nWe have no need of playing the wreckers. It would be inhumanity to do\nso. God knows that the desires and prayers of Catholics are ever\nascending that all that remains of Christianity in England may be\npreserved, unfolded and perfected into the whole circle of revealed\ntruths, and the unmutilated revelation of the Faith.\n\n\"It is inevitable that if we speak plainly we must give pain and\noffence to those who will not admit the possibility that they are out\nof the Faith and the Church of Jesus Christ. But, if we do not speak\nplainly, woe unto us, for we shall betray our trust and our Master.\nThere is a day coming, when they who have softened down the truth, or\nhave been silent, will have to give account. I had rather be thought\nharsh than be conscious of hiding the light which has been mercifully\nshown to me\" (_Temp. Mission_, etc., p. 215).\n\nIt would be well if all Catholics took to heart these noble words of\nthe great English Cardinal, who was himself once an Archdeacon in the\nAnglican Church. Real charity urges us to set forth the truth in all\nits nakedness and beauty. This must be done, even though it may\nsometimes give pain and cause irritation. If a man be walking in a\ntrance towards the crumbling edge of some ghastly precipice, who--let\nme ask--acts with the greater charity, he who is afraid to interfere,\nand will calmly allow the somnambulist to walk on, till he fall over\ninto the abyss; or he who will shout, and, if need be, roughly shake\nhim from his fatal sleep, and so, perhaps, save him from destruction?\nSurely, to allow a fellow-creature to follow a path of extreme danger,\nfor fear of wounding his susceptibilities and incurring his anger, by\ncandidly pointing out his peril, is the mark, not of a lover of his\nbrethren, but rather of one who loves himself alone.\n\nWe will conclude with the warning of God, given through the inspired\nwriter Ezekiel, the application of which, _positis ponendis_, is\nsufficiently plain: \"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shall surely\ndie; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked\nfrom his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die\nin his iniquity, but his blood I will require at thy hand. Yet _if\nthou warn the wicked_, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from\nhis wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity, but _thou hast delivered\nthy soul_\" (Ezek. iii. 18).\n\n_P.S._--Among the authors quoted in THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY may be\nmentioned the following, as being easily obtainable by English\nreaders: Allnatt, Allies, Bonomelli, Capel, Castelplano, Dering,\nDeviver, Franzelin, Humphrey, Manning, Merry del Val, Meyer, Minges,\nNewman, O'Reilly, Rhodes, Ullathorne, Ward.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 9: \"Da chi dipendera il Pontefice nell' esercizio del suo\npotere Spirituale? Dai Re? Eccovi il gallicanismo parlamentare! Dalle\nmasse dei fedeli? Eccovi il richerianismo, e febronianismo! Dai\nVescovi? Eccovi il gallicanismo teologico\" (_L. di Castelplanio_, p.\n104).]\n\n[Footnote 10: Take for instance, 37 Henry VIII. Chap. 17, which\nrecites that \"the clergy have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but by\nand under the King, who is the _only Supreme Head of the Church_ of\nEngland, to whom _all_ authority and power is _wholly_ given to hear\nand determine all causes ecclesiastical.\"]\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nTHE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.\nOR\nTHE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.\n\n\n   As the First Part of this little treatise is devoted to a\n   consideration of the position of the Pope and the authority\n   which he exercises throughout the Universal Church; so the\n   Second Part is concerned with the position occupied and the\n   authority exercised by the same Sovereign Pontiff in our own\n   country of England, before she was cut off from the\n   Universal Church in the sixteenth century.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION.\n\n\nOne of the greatest glories of the Catholic Church is that she and she\nalone possesses and is able to communicate to others the whole truth\nrevealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of England and other Churches\nthat have gone out from her have, we are thankful to say, carried with\nthem some fragments of Christianity, but the Catholic Church alone\npossesses the whole unadulterated revelation of Jesus Christ. For over\na thousand years, the Church in England formed a part of the great\nUniversal Church, the centre of which is at Rome and the circumference\nof which is everywhere. From the sixth to the sixteenth century the\nChurch in England was a province of that Church, and received her\npower and jurisdiction from the Holy See. It was not until the\nsixteenth century that she apostatised, and was cut off from the stem,\nout of which she had sprung, as a rotten branch is lopped off from a\nhealthy tree. It was not until then that she became a Church apart,\ndistinct from the Church of God, no longer the _Catholic_ Church _in_\nEngland, but henceforth the _National_ Church _of_ England and of\nEngland alone. The pre-\"Reformation\" Church was, as we have said, not\na separate Church, but a part of the one Catholic Church, whereas the\npost-\"Reformation\" Church stands alone, unrecognised by the rest of\nChristendom; hence the one is absolutely distinct from the other. The\ngrand old cathedrals and churches designed, built, and paid for by our\nCatholic ancestors have been forcibly taken possession of, but the\nFaith, the teaching, and the doctrine--in a word, the Church\nitself--is totally distinct. The wolf may slay and devour the sheep\nand may then clothe himself in its fleece, but the wolf is not the\nsheep, and the nature of the one remains totally different from that\nof the other. The proofs of all this are so numerous and so striking\nthat one scarcely knows which to choose, nor where to begin. In the\npresent chapter, we will content ourselves with calling attention to\ncertain points that every one will be able to grasp. It is said that a\nstraw will show which way the wind blows, so things even trivial in\nthemselves will enable any unprejudiced man to see that there must be\nsome radical difference between the Church in England four hundred\nyears ago, and the Church of England to-day. First, let us just look\nround and consider the Catholic Church. It is spread all over the\nworld. It is found in France, in Belgium, in Italy, in Spain, and in\nother countries, all of which recognised the Church in England before\nthe \"Reformation\" as one in faith and doctrine with themselves. They\nfelt themselves united with it in one and the same belief; they taught\nthe same seven Sacraments; they gathered around the same Sacrifice;\nthey acknowledged the same supremacy of the same spiritual head. Now\nthere is no single Catholic country that recognises the Church of\nEngland as anything but heretical and schismatical.\n\nFormerly when any Archbishop of Canterbury travelled abroad he was\nreceived as a brother by the Catholic Bishops all over the Continent.\nHe felt thoroughly at home in the Catholic churches, and offered up\nthe Divine Mysteries at their altars, using the same sacred vessels,\nreading from the same missal, speaking the same language, and feeling\nhimself to be a member of the same spiritual family. Can the present\nArchbishop of Canterbury follow their example? Would the Cardinal\nArchbishop of Paris, for instance, or the Archbishop of Milan receive\nthe Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, as a brother Bishop? Would they\ncause their cathedrals to be thrown open to him? No.\n\nIn vain does the Archbishop of Canterbury of to-day claim continuity\nwith the pre-\"Reformation\" Archbishops. For no one would be found to\nadmit such a claim. It may be said that this is of no great\nimportance. It may not be in itself, but it is the straw which shows\nthe way the wind blows; and clearly proves that the verdict of the\nentire world and the chief centres of Christendom is against\ncontinuity.\n\nLet us take another \"straw\". Before the pseudo-Reformation there were\nCardinals exercising authority in the Church in England. Some of them\neven became famous. There was, for instance, Cardinal Stephen Langton,\nwho was Primate of England, and who brought together the Barons, and\nforced the Great Charter from King John. There, amongst the signatures\nto that famous document we find the name of a Roman Cardinal. From the\ntime of Stephen Langton to the time of Cardinal Fisher in the\nsixteenth century there was a long succession of Cardinals in England,\nall of whom were members of the Church in England. From the time of\nCardinal Robert Pullen to that of Cardinal John Fisher there were no\nfewer than twenty-two Roman Cardinals belonging to that Church. How is\nit that during those thousand years the English Church could have and\nactually did have Cardinals, up to the time of the so-called\nReformation, but never since? How is it that such a thing has ceased\nto be possible? Clearly because it is no longer the same Church.\nBefore, England was a part of the Universal Church; and just as the\nChurch in Italy, France, and Spain, had, and still have, their\nCardinals, so England also was given its share of representation in\nthe Sacred College. We shall realise the inference to be drawn if we\nconsider what a Cardinal is. In the first place, he is one chosen\ndirectly by the Pope; secondly, he is one of the Pope's advisers;\nthirdly, when the Holy Father dies it is he, as a member of the Sacred\nCollege, who has to elect a successor; furthermore, he swears\nallegiance to the Sovereign Pontiff, and on bended knee, with his\nhands on the Holy Gospels, he solemnly declares his adhesion to the\nRoman Catholic Faith. No Anglican of the present day, no Protestant,\nno one who is not an out-and-out Roman Catholic can be, or could ever\nhave been, a Cardinal, yet there were Cardinals here in the Church in\nEngland, and, as we have stated, a long succession of them right up to\nthe time of the pseudo-Reformation. How can there be continuity and\nspiritual identity between the Church _in_ England, which before that\nchange could and did have Cardinals, and the Church _of_ England\nto-day, which can produce nothing of the kind? Cardinals or no\nCardinals is not a matter of great importance in itself, but it is\nanother \"straw\" which clearly shows the completely altered condition\nof things. Let us pass to another point. During the period between the\nsixth and sixteenth centuries there were many canonised saints in the\nChurch in England. I refer to such men as St. Bede, who lived in the\neighth century; to St. Odo of Canterbury; to St. Dunstan, Archbishop\nof Canterbury, in the tenth century; to St. Wolstan of Worcester; to\nSt. Osmond, Bishop of Salisbury in the eleventh century; to St. Thomas\na Becket, in the twelfth century; to St. Richard, Bishop of\nChichester and St. Edmund, in the thirteenth century; and to many\nothers we could mention, whose names are enrolled in the lists of the\nCatholic Church, and who are set up before her children as models of\nvirtue, as the most perfect specimens of sanctity, and as worthy of\nour imitation--all members of the Church in England before the\npseudo-Reformation.[11] How is it that the present Church of England\nhas never canonised any saint? Those to whom I have referred represent\nthe best and truest of the Church in England before the \"Reformation\".\nWe still show them reverence. In many cases we even recite their\noffices and Masses. How, then, can they be members of the same Church\nas the Church of England of to-day, which we know to be a schismatical\nbody, cut off from the unity of Christendom some four hundred years\nago? There has been no saint canonised according to the rite of the\nChurch of England, but if there had been, we would not and could not\nreverence them, for they would be to us outside the Church--aliens,\nheretics, and, from that point of view at all events, unworthy of\nimitation. Let us point out yet another \"straw\" which clearly\nindicates the essential difference between the Church in England\nbefore the \"Reformation\" and the Church of England after it. When the\nyoung King Henry VIII. first came to the throne he, like all his\npredecessors, both kings and queens, was a true Roman Catholic. So\nmuch so, that when a doctrine of the Church was attacked he wrote a\nbook in its defence; in fact, the Pope was so pleased with his zeal\nthat he determined to reward him by conferring on him the title of\n\"Defender of the Faith\". But, in the name of common-sense! Defender of\nwhat Faith? Was it the Protestant faith? Was it the faith professed by\nthe present Church of England? Is it likely, is it possible, that any\nPope would confer such a title on any one who was not in union with\nthe Holy See, and who rejected Catholic doctrine? Such a thing is\nunthinkable. Was the faith of Henry VIII. before the break with Rome\nthe same as that of Edward VII. who on his coronation day declared the\nMass to be false, Transubstantiation to be absurd, and Catholics to be\nidolaters? If not, then what becomes of the continuity theory? The\nfact is that between the Church in England before the sixteenth\ncentury and the Church of England to-day there is no real connection,\nno true resemblance, and those who endeavour to prove the contrary are\nbut falsifying history and throwing dust into the eyes of simple\npeople, and trying to prove what is absolutely and wholly untrue.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 11: As early as 1170 Pope Alexander III. decreed that the\nconsent of the Roman Church was necessary before public honour as a\nsaint could be given to any person. Is it conceivable that such\nconsent would be given by any Pope in the case of one not united to\nRome in the same faith?]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE OATH OF OBEDIENCE.\n\n\nIn order to realise the absolute absurdity of the continuity theory,\nand to see how thoroughly Roman Catholic England was right up to the\n\"Reformation,\" it is enough for us to turn back the hands of the great\nclock of time some few hundred years, and to visit England at any\nperiod during the long interval between the sixth and the sixteenth\ncentury.\n\nOne of the first facts that would strike any observant visitor to our\nshores in those days, would be the attitude of the Church in England\ntowards the Holy See. Every Archbishop, every metropolitan from the\ntime of St. Augustine himself, A.D. 601, up to the sixteenth\ncentury, not merely acknowledged the authority of the Pope, but\nsolemnly swore to show him reverence and obedience. Furthermore, even\nwhen an Archbishop had been appointed and consecrated, he could not\nexercise jurisdiction until he had received the sacred pallium, which\ncame from Rome, and was received as the symbol and token of the\nauthority conferred on him by the supreme Pastor. The pallium itself,\n\"taken from the body of Blessed Peter,\" is a band of lamb's wool, and\nwas worn by each Archbishop as the pledge of unity and of orthodoxy,\nas well as the fetter of loving subjection to the Supreme Pastor of\nthe One Fold, the \"apostolic yoke\" of Catholic obedience.\n\nIn the early Saxon times, long before trains or steamers had been\ninvented, we find Primate after Primate of All England undertaking the\nlong and perilous journey over the sea, and then across the Continent\nof Europe, and over the precipitous and dangerous passes of the Alps,\ndown through the sunny and vine-clad slopes of Italy, in order to\nreceive the pallium in person from the venerable successor of St.\nPeter, in the great Basilica in Rome. But, whether they actually went\nfor it themselves in person, or whether special messengers were sent\nwith it from Rome to England, they always awaited its reception before\nthey considered themselves fully empowered to exercise their\nmetropolitan functions. By way of illustration, it may be interesting\nto consider some special case, and we will then leave the reader to\njudge whether we are dealing with an England that is _Catholic_ or an\nEngland that is _Protestant_; with an England united to the Holy See\nand to the rest of Catholic Europe, or an England independent of the\nHoly See, isolated, and established by Law and Parliament, as it is\nto-day--an England in possession of the truth, which is universal and\nthe same everywhere, or an England clinging to error, which is local,\nnational and circumscribed.\n\nIt does not much matter what name we select; any will answer our\npurpose. Let us then take Simon Langham, as good and honest an English\nname as ever there was. It is the year 1366, some two hundred years\nbefore the Church in England cut itself off from the rest of\nChristendom. The metropolitan See of Canterbury is vacant. The\nwidowed Diocese seeks, at the hands of the Pope, Urban V., a new\nArchbishop. After mature inquiry and consideration the Pope selects\nSimon Langham. And who is he? Who is this distinguished man, now\ncalled to rule over that portion of the one Catholic Church\nrepresented by England? If we study his history we shall find that he\nin no way resembles the typical amiable Anglican Canon of the present\nday, with a wife and children, living within the Cathedral close, but\nthat he is a simple, austere, Benedictine monk. He has been living for\nsome time past in the famous Abbey of Westminster. He was first a\nsimple monk, then he was chosen Prior, and finally Lord Abbot. Some\nyears later, _i.e._, in 1362, he was appointed to the vacant See of\nEly. By whom? Well, in those days the Church was not a mere department\nof the State, so it was not by the Crown. No: nor by the Prime\nMinister, as in the Anglican Church of to-day. But, as history\nrecords, by a special Papal Bull. Thus, at the time we are now\nconsidering, _viz._, 1366, he had been Bishop just four years. Now,\nthe Primatial throne of St. Augustine, as already stated, has become\nvacant, and Simon Langham, the Bishop of Ely, is appointed Archbishop\nof Canterbury, and Lord Primate of England.\n\nAs with all the other Archbishops before the \"Reformation,\" he cannot\nexercise his metropolitan powers till he has received from Rome the\ninsignia of his office, _viz._, the sacred pallium. On this occasion\nthe Archbishop does not go himself to Italy, to receive it from the\nhands of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it is brought by special\nmessengers from Rome to England.\n\nWe may well imagine the interest these visitors from the Eternal City\nwould excite among the population of London. Their dark complexion and\nbright, black eyes, and foreign appearance would, no doubt, attract\nconsiderable attention. Of course they would be made welcome and be\nshown the chief sights of the city. They would greatly admire, for\ninstance, the beauty of Westminster Abbey, and would probably ask its\nhistory. Then they would be told how it originated with St. Edward the\nConfessor. How he had made a vow to go on a pilgrimage to the tomb of\nthe Apostles at Rome, like a loyal Catholic, in order to pay homage to\nthe successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed as head of the\nChurch; how the pious King, finding his kingdom in danger of invasion,\nand his authority threatened, and not daring to absent himself, begged\nthe Pope to release him from his vow; how the Pope at once commuted\nit, and bade him build a church instead, in honour of St. Peter; and\nso forth. Then they would very likely visit the inmates of the Abbey.\nThe Benedictine monks who served the Abbey would entertain them, and\nask after their brethren in Italy. Some of these English monks would\nin all likelihood have been educated at Subiaco, where St. Benedict\nfirst lived, or at Monte Cassino, where he died, and where his body\nstill lies. In any case, these English monks were undoubtedly true\nchildren of St. Benedict, and followed his rule, and were animated by\nhis spirit, and rejoiced to acknowledge him as their founder and\nspiritual father. There was nothing of the modern Anglican, and\nnothing insular about them!\n\nIn the meantime the great day arrives. It is the 4th of November in\nthe year 1366. The bells of the Abbey are ringing a merry peal. The\nFaithful are flocking in to witness the Archbishop receive the\nPallium, the symbol of jurisdiction, and the sign that all spiritual\nauthority emanates from St. Peter, who alone has received the keys,\nand from his rightful successors in the Petrine See of Rome.\n\nIt is a grand ceremony, and we have even to-day, in the old Latin\nrecords, a full account of what took place. Anything more truly Roman\nCatholic, or less like the Anglican Church of the \"Reformation,\" it\nwould be difficult to imagine.\n\nIt was directed by the rubrics, that the Cathedral clergy should be\ncalled together, at an early hour, and that Prime and the rest of the\nDivine Office should be recited, up to the High Mass. Then the\ncross-bearers and torch-bearers and thurifers, and the attendants\ncarrying the Book of the Gospels and other articles of the sanctuary,\nare drawn up in processional order in the chancel. Two and two,\nfollowed by priests and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, they walk\ndown the nave. Then comes the Archbishop himself, robed in full\npontificals, though, out of respect to the Pallium, with bare feet.\nThe rubric on this point is explicit, _viz._, \"nudis pedibus\". Behind\nthe Archbishop come the Prior and the monks wearing copes. In this\norder they all pass through the streets of London to the gate of the\ncity to meet the Papal Commissioner who bears the Pallium. He is\ndressed in an alb and choir-cope, and solemnly carries the Pallium\nenclosed in a costly vessel either of gold or of silver. As soon as\nthe procession meets the Pallium-bearer it turns round, and those who\nissued forth retrace their steps towards the Abbey. Last but one walks\nthe Archbishop, and last of all follows the bearer of the Pallium. On\nreaching the church the Pallium is reverently laid on the high altar.\nThe Archbishop then remains, for some minutes, prostrate in prayer\nbefore the high altar. Then the choir having finished their singing,\nthe Archbishop rises, and turning to the assembled multitude, gives\nthem his blessing. He then approaches the altar, and with his hands\nupon the holy Gospels, takes the following solemn oath.\n\nNow, gentle reader, we are anxious that you should pay particular\nattention to the words of this oath. They may be found in Wilkins'\n_Concilia_ (vol. ii., p. 199), in the original Latin, just as they\nwere uttered by Simon Langham, and other Archbishops, in old Catholic\ndays. We give them translated into English. And, as you read them, ask\nyourselves whether the Archbishops who uttered them were genuine Roman\nCatholics, or merely Parliamentary Bishops of the local and national\nvariety, belonging to the present English Establishment.\n\nWe take our stand in spirit in Westminster Abbey, on the 4th day of\nNovember, 1366, and, in common with the rest of the vast congregation\nwhich fills every available space, we listen to the newly elected\nArchbishop, as in clear, ringing words, with his hands on the Gospels,\nhe swears as follow:--\n\n\"I, Simon Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury, will be from this hour\nhenceforth faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy\nApostolic Roman Church, and to my Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his\ncanonical successors.\"\n\nSurely, some of us would open our eyes pretty wide if we saw the\npresent Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury with his hands on the\nGospels taking that oath. Yet we are assured, _ad nauseam_, that the\nChurch to which Simon Cardinal Langham belonged is the same as the\npresent Church of England, which repudiates the authority of the Pope\naltogether. The same? Well, yes; if light and darkness, and sweetness\nand bitterness, are the same. But let us read the whole of the oath:\n\"I, Simon Langham, will be from this hour henceforth faithful and\nobedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, and to\nmy Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his canonical successors. Neither\nin counsel or consent or in deed, will I take part in aught by which\nthey might suffer loss of life, or limb, or liberty. Their counsel\nwhich they may confide to me, whether by their envoys or their letter,\nI will, to their injury, wittingly disclose to no man. The Roman\nPapacy and the royalty of St. Peter, I will be their helper to defend\nand to maintain, saving my order, against all men. When summoned to a\nSynod I will come, unless hindered by a canonical impediment. The\nLegate of the Apostolic See I will treat honourably in his coming and\ngoing, and will help him in his needs. Every third year I will visit\nthe threshold of the Apostles, either personally or by proxy, unless I\nam dispensed by Apostolic licence. The possessions which pertain to\nthe support of my Archbishopric, I will not sell, nor give away, nor\npledge, nor re-enfeoff, nor alienate in any way, without first\nconsulting the Roman Pontiff. So help me, God, and these God's Holy\nGospels.\"\n\nIf you, who read these lines, had stood by, and listened to this oath,\nwould it leave any doubt in your minds as to the religion of the\nArchbishop? Could you possibly mistake it for the religion of the\npresent Church of England?\n\nWas the present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury chosen and appointed\nby the Pope? Did he take a vow of celibacy? Does the present\nArchbishop acknowledge publicly and officially that he receives his\njurisdiction from the Pope? Did he receive the Pallium from Rome, sent\nby special Papal messengers? Did he stand up and swear on the Gospels\nthat he would be faithful and obedient to his Lord the Pope? Did he\npromise to visit Rome every three years, to give his Lord the Pope an\naccount of his diocese? Nothing of the kind. Yet we are gravely told\nthat there is no break between the Church of St. Anselm, and Simon\nLangham, and of Cardinal Fisher, on the one hand, and the Church of\nthe present Archbishop of Canterbury on the other!\n\nWhy are these good men so exceedingly anxious to prove that black is\nwhite? Why will they assert and re-assert, in every mood and tense,\nthat things most opposite are identical, and things most unlike are\nexactly the same?\n\nWe will deal with that question in the next chapter. All we now affirm\nis that the reason is abundantly clear and evident, though little\ncreditable to these perverters of history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE AWKWARD DILEMMA.\n\n\nIn the whole catalogue of sin, there is hardly one so detestable in\nitself, or so withering in its effects, as the sin of heresy.\nConsequently, though we feel a great love as well as a great interest\nin the Church in England during the thousand years in which she formed\na part of the Church of God, we can have little love for the present\nChurch of England, as by law established, cut off, as she is, from the\nonly true Church, which Christ, the Incarnate God, was pleased in His\ninfinite wisdom to build upon St. Peter, and upon those who should\nsucceed him in his sublime office, and who have received the Divine\nCommission to rule over the entire flock, to hold the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven, and to confirm their brethren to the end of time.\n\nBesides, a careful study of the origin and genesis of the present\nAnglican Establishment is scarcely calculated to predispose any one\nparticularly in its favour. It is not Catholics only who might be\nthought biased upon such a point, but others also who feel this. In\nfact, it is precisely impartial men, unaffected by any interest either\nway, who most fully realise from what a very shady beginning the new\nstate of things arose. As Sir Osborne Morgan puts it, \"Every student\nof English history knows that, if a very bad king had not fallen in\nlove with a very pretty woman, and desired to get divorced from his\nplain and elderly wife, and if he had not compelled a servile\nParliament to carry out his wishes, there would, in all human\nprobability, never have been an Established Church at all.\"\n\nThis gentleman is a Protestant, and the son of a Protestant clergyman,\nso we may be quite sure that he harbours no special leanings towards\nus, yet he speaks impartially as one who has not only read history,\nbut read it without coloured spectacles. Perhaps Lord Macaulay puts\nthe case as bluntly as any one, and we may as well quote him because\nhe, too, was no Catholic, and held no brief for the Church of Rome.\nThis brilliant writer, who was, perhaps, an historian before all\nthings, tells us that the work of the Reformation was the work, not of\nthree saints, nor even of three ordinary decent men, but of three\nnotorious murderers! These are not our words, but Macaulay's, and it\nis not our fault if this is his reading of history. We merely summon\nhim as a Protestant witness. He calmly and deliberately states that\nthe Reformation was \"begun by Henry VIII., the murderer of his wives;\nwas continued by Somerset, the murderer of his brother; and was\ncompleted by Elizabeth, the murderer of her guest\". Not a very\nauspicious beginning, it must be confessed, and scarcely suggestive of\nthe Divine afflatus. Those who planted the Catholic Church used no\nviolence, and did not inflict death. No! on the contrary, they endured\ndeath, and their blood became the seed of the Church. And that is\nquite another story. In former days every one admitted the present\nAnglican Church to be the child of the Reformation. It was, to quote\nthe Protestant historian, Child, \"as completely the creation of Henry\nVIII., Edward's Council, and Elizabeth as Saxon Protestantism was of\nLuther.\" But now? Oh! now, \"nous avons change tout cela,\" and history\nhas received a totally different setting. A certain section of\nAnglicans, in these modern times, are labouring hard to persuade\nthemselves and others that they can trace their Church back to the\ntime of St. Augustine. They will by no means allow that they started\ninto being only in the sixteenth century. In fact, it is quite\npathetic to watch the strenuous efforts they make, and the extravagant\nmeans to which they have recourse, in order to lull themselves into\nthe peaceful enjoyment of so sweet and consoling a delusion.\n\nA delusion which a candid study of past history must sooner or later\nruthlessly dispel, and which has not a shred of foundation in fact to\nsupport it. But we promised to point out WHY, in spite of\nits absolute absurdity, these good men, like the Bishop of London,\npersist in repeating and restating with ever-increasing vehemence that\nthere has been no break in the continuity, and that the present Church\nof England is one with the Church of St. Bede, of St. Dunstan, of St.\nAnselm, of St. Thomas, and of other pre-Reformation heroes; though\nthey must surely know that there is not one amongst these glorious old\nCatholic saints who would not a thousand times sooner have gone to the\nstake and been burnt alive, than have accepted the Thirty-nine\nArticles, or than have joined the present Bishop of London in any of\nhis religious services. Why do Anglicans make such heroic efforts to\nconnect their Church with the past? Why do they advance an impossible\ntheory? Why will they stubbornly affirm what history utterly denies?\nWhy do they assert, and with such emphasis, what no one but they\nthemselves have the hardihood to believe? Why? For precisely the same\nreason that will induce a drowning man to grasp at a straw. In short,\nbecause even if they did not realise it before, they are now\nbeginning to see that their very position depends upon their being\nable to make out some sort of case for continuity. They realise that\nto admit that the Church of England began in the sixteenth century is\nsimply to cut the ground from underneath their feet. Therefore, purely\nin self-defence, they feel themselves constrained to cling to the\ncontinuity theory. It may be absurd, it may be unhistorical, it may be\nimpossible and utterly repudiated by every impartial and honest man.\nThat cannot be helped. Impossible or not impossible; true or false, it\nis necessary for their very existence, so that, just as a drowning man\ncatches at a straw, though it cannot possibly support him, so do these\nmost unfortunate and hardly-pressed men clutch at and cling to the\nhollow theory of continuity. Sometimes, when off their guard, and in a\nless cautious mood, they will confess as much themselves. And what is\nmore, we can provide our readers with an instance of such a\nconfession. Many will well remember a well-known and distinguished\nAnglican divine, named Canon Malcolm MacColl. He died a few years ago,\nand we do not wish to say anything against him. Well, he wrote to _The\nSpectator_ in 1900. His letter may be seen in the issue of 22nd\nDecember for that year. In the course of this letter he makes the\nfollowing admission: he declares that \"to concede that the Church of\nEngland starts from the reign of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth is to\nsurrender the whole ground of controversy with Rome. A Church,\" he\ncontinues, \"which cannot trace its origin beyond the sixteenth century\nis obviously not the Church which Christ founded.\"\n\nThe late Anglican Canon MacColl is, of course, perfectly right, and\nhis inference is strictly logical. A Church, however highly\nrespectable and however richly endowed, which came into existence only\n1,500 years after Christ, came into existence just 1,500 years too\nlate, and cannot by any intellectual manoeuvring or stretching of the\nimagination be identified with the one Church established by Christ\n1,500 years earlier. Consequently every member of the Anglican\ncommunity finds himself, _nolens volens_, impaled on the horns of a\ntruly frightful dilemma. For either he must frankly confess that his\nChurch is not the Church of God, _i.e._, not the True Church, which\n(human nature being what it is) he can hardly be expected to do; or\nelse he must assert that it goes back without any real break to the\ntime of the Apostles; which though absolutely untrue, is the only\nother alternative. In a word, he finds himself in a very tight corner.\nHe knows, unless he is able to persuade himself of the truth of\ncontinuity, the very ground of his faith must slip from under his\nfeet, and that he must give up pretending to be a member of Christ's\nmystical body altogether.\n\nNo wonder there is consternation in the Anglican camp. No wonder that\nsermons are preached, and history is re-edited and facts suppressed,\nand pamphlets are circulated to prove that black is white and that\nbitterness is sweet, and that false is true. No wonder there are shows\nand pageants and other attempts to prove the thing that is not. Poor\ndeluded mortals! It is really pitiable to witness such straining and\nsuch pulling at the cords; as though truth--solid, imperturbable,\neternal truth--could ever be dislodged or forced out of existence! No!\nThey may disguise the truth for a time, they may hide it for a brief\nperiod; just as a child, with a box of matches and a handful of straw,\nmay, for awhile, hide the eternal stars. But as the stars are still\nthere, and will appear again when the smoke has blown away, so will\nthe truth reappear and assert itself, when men grow calm, and put\naside pride and passion and prejudice and self-interest. \"Magna est\nveritas, et prevalebit!\"\n\nIt has been said: \"Mundus vult decipi\"; the world wishes to be\ndeceived; certainly the Anglican world does. But no one else is taken\nin. The Dissenter, the Nonconformist, and others who have no axe to\ngrind, know well that \"fine words butter no parsnips,\" and are far too\nshrewd to be deluded. Why, even the old Catholic cathedrals with\ntheir holy-water stoups, their occasional altars of stone, still\nremaining, their Lady chapels, and their niches for the images of the\nsaints, as ill befit the present occupiers, and their modern English\nservices, as a Court dress befits a clown.\n\nThat the sublime grotesqueness of the whole contention is clearly\nvisible to other besides Catholic eyes is clearly proved by the\noccasional observations of the non-Catholic Press. Here, again, we\nwill offer the gentle reader a specimen. The _Daily News_ is one of\nLondon's big dailies. It has a wide circulation. It is representative\nof a large section of the English people. Let us select a passage from\none of its leaders. Speaking of the arrogance of the Anglican Church,\nwhich, as compared to the Catholic Church, is but a baby, still in\nlong clothes, it gives expression to its views in the following\ncaustic lines. One might almost imagine it were the _Tablet_ or\n_Catholic Times_ that we are about to quote from, but, nothing of the\nkind, it is the Nonconformist organ, the _Daily News_. It writes:\n\"The Anglicans may still persist in patronising the Roman Catholics as\na new set of modern dissidents under the old name. It is the sort of\nvengeance which, under favourable circumstances, the mouse may enjoy\nat the expense of the elephant. If he can mount high enough by\nartificial means, the smallest of created things may contrive to look\ndown on the greatest, and to affect to compassionate his want of\nrange. For purposes of controversy, the Anglican could talk of himself\nas a terrestrial ancient-of-days, and regret the rage for innovation,\nwhich led, not, of course, to his separation from Rome, but to Rome's\nseparation from him! So the pebble, if determined to put a good face\non it, might wonder what had become of the rock, and recite the\nparable of the return of the prodigal to the Atlas Range\"; and so\nforth. The fact is that every unprejudiced man, who has so much as a\nmere bowing acquaintance with the facts of history, knows perfectly\nwell that before the sixteenth century the Church in England was\nunited to the Holy See, and rested where Christ Himself had built it,\n_viz._, on Peter, the rock. Whereas, after the sixteenth century, it\nbecame a State Church, dependent, not on Peter, but upon Parliament,\nand as purely local, national, and English as the British Army or the\nBritish Navy. Bramhall tells us that, \"whatsoever power our laws did\ndivest the Pope of, they invested the King with\" (_Schism Guarded_, p.\n340).\n\nWe dealt in the last chapter with the relation between the\npre-Reformation Archbishops and Metropolitans and the Pope, and we saw\nhow each in turn swore obedience to the Vicar of Christ as his\nspiritual sovereign. We will now conclude the present chapter by\ntranscribing a typical address presented by another representative\nbody of men to the Pope, in past times. It is the year 1427. Now\nChicheley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been accused at Rome of\nsome fault or indiscretion, so the other Bishops of the province met\ntogether for the purpose of defending him. With this end in view,\nthey address a letter to Pope Martin V. It begins as follows:--\n\n\"Most Blessed Father, one and only undoubted Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar\nof Jesus Christ upon earth, with all promptitude of service and\nobedience, kissing most devoutly your blessed feet,\" and so forth.\nThey then proceed to defend their Metropolitan, and in doing so\ndeclare that \"the Archbishop of Canterbury is, Most Blessed Father, a\nmost devoted son of your Holiness and of the Holy Roman Church\". Nay,\nmore; they go on to testify that \"he is so rooted in his loyalty, and\nso unshaken in his allegiance especially to the Roman Church, that it\nis known to the whole world, and ought to be known to the city\n(_i.e._, Rome) that he is the most faithful son of the Church of Rome,\npromoting and securing, with all his strength, the guarantees of her\nliberty\".\n\nNow, what we wish to know is, how in the world can a man be \"the most\nfaithful son of the Church of Rome,\" so rooted in his loyalty to her\nthat \"his allegiance is known to the whole world,\" and yet not be a\nRoman Catholic? The Bishops then add that \"they go down upon their\nknees\" to beseech the Pope's favour for the Archbishop, and in doing\nso declare that they are \"the most humble sons of your Holiness and of\nthe Roman Church\".\n\nThen Archbishop Chicheley follows up their letter, by writing one\nhimself, in which he says: \"Most Blessed Father, kissing most\ndevotedly the ground beneath your feet, with all promptitude of\nservice and obedience, and whatsoever a most humble creature can do\ntowards his lord and master\" (_i.e._, domino et creatori--literally\n\"creator,\" in the sense that the Pope had made or \"created\" him\narchbishop) and so forth. Then he goes on to explain that \"Long before\nnow, were it not for the perils of the journey and the infirmities of\nmy old age, I would have made my way, Most Blessed Father, to your\nfeet, and have accepted most obediently whatsoever your Holiness would\nhave decided\" (see Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 471 and 486). Surely, no\nArchbishop or Bishop could use language of such profound reverence\nand of such perfect loyalty and obedience, unless he recognised the\nPope as the true representative of Christ upon earth, invested with\nHis divine authority (\"To Thee do I give the keys of the Kingdom of\nHeaven\"). There is a whole world of difference between such men and\nthe Anglican Prelates of to-day who take the oath of homage to the\nKing, and say: \"I do hereby declare that your Majesty is the only\nsupreme governor of this your realm, in spiritual and ecclesiastical\nthings, as well as temporal\".\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nKING EDWARD AND THE POPE.\n\n\nIn a previous chapter, we promised to tell of a famous letter written\nby one of our greatest kings to the Pope of his day. Let us then\nintroduce this interesting historical incident without further\npreamble or delay.\n\nThe King of whom we are about to speak is King Edward III., who\nreigned over this land for more than fifty years, that is to say, from\n1327 to 1377. The historian Hume tells us that, in general estimation,\nhis reign was not only one of the longest, but that it was considered\nalso \"one of the most glorious that occurs in the annals of our\nnation\" (vol. ii., p. 297). It is important to remember, further, that\nEdward was no timid weakling, ready to yield to others through\nweakness or fear. Quite the contrary. He was strong, war-like, and\ncourageous. Hume informs us that \"he curbed the licentiousness of the\ngreat; that he made his foremost nobles feel his power, and that they\ndared not even murmur against it, and that his valour and conduct made\nhis knights and warriors successful in most of their enterprises\"\n(_id._, p. 497). Yet, in spite of his strong, independent and man-like\ncharacter--or shall we not rather say because of it?--he ever showed\nhimself to be a most loyal child of the Catholic Church. He considered\nit no indication of weakness to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy\nand jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff, and to subscribe himself as\na most obedient son of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, as we shall now\nproceed to prove, in spite of all the frogs and jackdaws that the\nBishop of London appeals to as witnesses to the contrary.\n\nNow, it so fell out that, in the second decade of his reign, certain\npersons, with perhaps more zeal than discretion, began to lodge sundry\ncomplaints against the King. They carried stories to Rome, and sought\nto prejudice the Pope, Benedict XII., against King Edward. In the\ncourse of time the King got wind of what was going on, and found that\nthe suspicions of the Pope had been raised against him. Now, what did\nEdward do? If he had been a modern Anglican, he would have snapped his\nfingers at the Pope. Forgetful of Our Lord's words, \"Unless you become\nas little children you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven,\" he\nwould have proudly declared that no Pope or foreign Bishop could claim\nany jurisdiction in England, for that he himself was, in his own\nrealm, the supreme authority in things ecclesiastical as well as in\nthings temporal. Such would have been the natural and obvious course\nfor him to have taken. That is to say had he been a modern Anglican.\nBut since he was not a modern Anglican, but a genuine Roman Catholic\nto his very backbone, like all the rest of his kingdom, he did not act\nin that imperious, off-hand way, but was very much distressed and\nconcerned, as a loving son would be, who had incurred the displeasure\nof a generous father. Finally, in the thirteenth year of his reign,\nthat is to say, in 1339, he determined to address a letter to the\nSovereign Pontiff, firstly to protest against these accusations,\nsecondly to assure the Pope of his innocence, and thirdly to beg him\nto take no notice of those who had been calumniating him.\n\nThe document is a very remarkable one, and from the point of view of\ncontinuity (of which it completely disposes) it is of very\nconsiderable interest.\n\nBefore you read it, and ponder over its contents, let me remind you\nthat the writing of a letter in those days was a very serious\nbusiness. There was no post such as we have now, and special couriers\nhad to be despatched from London to Rome. Paper had not as yet been\ninvented, so the message had to be carefully written, by paid scribes,\non vellum or parchment. Further, a letter from a King to the Pope was\nnot a thing to be dashed off on the spur of the moment, but to be\ncarefully thought out, and expressed with great accuracy. The King\nwould summon his advisers, and his Secretary of State, and probably\nconsult some of the Bishops and weigh each word before committing his\nmessage to parchment. In short, the document would represent his own\ndeliberate convictions as well as those of his official advisers and\ncounsellors.\n\nAfter addressing the Pope in the usual respectful and filial way, he\nsays: \"Let not the envious information of our detractors find place in\nthe meek mind of your Holiness, or create any sinister opinion of a\nson\" [observe the King calls himself a son of the Pope], \"who after\nthe manner of his predecessors\" [so previous Kings were as loyal as\nhe] \"shall always firmly persist in amity and obedience to the\nApostolic See. Nay, if any such evil suggestion concerning your son\nshould knock for entrance at your Holiness's ears, let no belief be\nallowed it till the son who is concerned be heard, who trusts and\nalways intends both to say and to prove that each of his actions is\njust before the tribunal of your Holiness, _presiding over every\ncreature, which to deny is to maintain heresy_.\" Nothing could be\nstronger than this last sentence; but we will return to that later.\nThen the King goes on to speak of others, who are dependent upon him,\nand proceeds as follows: \"And further, this we say, adjoining it as a\nfurther evidence of our intention and greater devotion, that if there\nbe any one of our kindred or allies who walks not as he ought in the\nway of _obedience towards the Apostolic See_, we intend to bestow our\ndiligence--and we trust to no little purpose--that leaving his\nwandering course, he may return into the path of duty and walk\nregularly for the future\".\n\nFrom these words it is clear that the King of England, not satisfied\nwith obeying the Pope himself, likewise insisted upon all under his\nauthority obeying him likewise. Indeed, he would have made short work\nof those who should refuse to do so. Then, alluding to some reproach,\nadmonition or censure which he had received from the Pope, he goes on\nto express himself in words strangely out of harmony with the whole\ntone and spirit of modern Anglicanism. They are as follows:--\n\n\"That the Kings of England, our predecessors, those illustrious\nchampions of Christ, those defenders of the Faith, those\" [listen!]\n\"_zealous asserters of the rights of the Holy Roman Church, and devout\nobservers of her commands_, that they or we should deserve this\nunkindness, we neither know nor believe. And though, for this very\nreason many do say--though we say not so--that this aiding of our\nenemies against us, seems neither the act of a father nor of a mother\ntowards us, but rather of a stepmother; yet this notwithstanding, we\nconstantly avow that we are\" [remember, it is still the King of\nEngland speaking], \"and shall continue to be, to your Holiness and to\nyour seat, a devout and humble son, and not a step-son\".\n\nCan any one imagine greater reverence or greater loyalty to the Vicar\nof Christ than is shown forth in these words? Can you, dear readers,\nby any stretch of the imagination, conceive any one who is not a Roman\nCatholic giving vent to such sentiments as are here expressed? Have\nwords lost their plain meaning for the Bishop of London, and for those\nwho (we must in charity suppose, _blindly_) follow him?\n\nThe letter is a long one, and we need not transcribe the whole of it,\nbut we will offer for your consideration just one more paragraph. The\nKing writes: \"Your Holiness best knows the measure of good and just,\nin whose hands are the keys to open and to shut the gates of heaven on\nearth, as the _fulness of your power_ and the excellence of your\njudicature requires.... We being ready to receive information of the\ntruth, from your sacred tribunal, _which is over all_,\" etc.\n\nObserve these words were written over five hundred years ago, long\nbefore the present Anglican Establishment was so much as dreamed of;\nyet, even if King Edward III. had actually foreseen the craze that\nwould seize Anglicans of to-day to prove that he, and his subjects\nwere not loyal Roman Catholics, he could not have expressed his\nCatholicity and his loyalty to the Vicar of Christ in more\nunmistakable or in more explicit terms.\n\nWhom shall we believe? King Edward III. himself, who, in the above\nwords, declares he is a staunch Roman Catholic, and an obedient son of\nthe Pope, ready to defend his rights against all, or the present\nBishop of London, who declares he was not?\n\nThere is one sentence in the King's letter which is especially worthy\nof consideration, as it is so pregnant with meaning. We refer to the\nfollowing: knowing that \"your Holiness presides over every creature,\n_which to deny is heresy_\".\n\nYou will observe that the King not only believes, but that he here\npractically makes an explicit profession of faith in the spiritual\nsupremacy of St. Peter and his successors, the Popes. In fact, he not\nonly admits and confesses the Pope's supremacy to be true, which is\none thing, but he declares it to be a _revealed_ truth, taught by Our\nBlessed Lord Himself, which is a great deal more. How does he do this?\nSuffer us to explain.\n\nTo deny any truth of religion is wrong and sinful, but it is not\nnecessarily and always heretical. Heresy is not the denial of any kind\nof truth: it is the denial only of a special form of truth. It is the\ndenial of those truths which have been taught by Jesus Christ and the\nApostles. But the King explicitly declares in his letter to the Holy\nFather that to deny the Pope's spiritual supremacy over all is not\nonly wrong, not only sinful, but that it is to be guilty of the\nspecially horrible sin of heresy. His words are: \"It is to maintain\nheresy\". Yet Anglicans still fondly cling to the delusion that the\nChurch in England in the time of Edward III. is in unbroken continuity\nwith the Church of England in the time of King Edward VII.!\n\nBut, to continue. It is interesting to note that the Pope, Benedict\nXII., in due course replies to this letter from his \"devout and humble\nson,\" as Edward describes himself. He begins by expressing his\nsatisfaction that His \"most dear Son in Christ King Edward of England\"\nshould thus \"follow the commendable footsteps of your progenitors,\nKings of England who,\" he goes on to say, \"were famous for the fulness\nof their devotion and faith towards God and the Holy Roman Church\".\n\nWill the present Bishop of London, we wonder, be good enough to\nexplain how Pope Benedict XII. could possibly tell a renowned King of\nEngland that his progenitors, that is to say, the Kings of England who\nhad preceded him, were famous--mark the word--\"_famous_ for the\n_fulness_ of their devotion and faith towards God _and the Holy Roman\nChurch_,\" if they were all the while cut off from the Roman Church,\nand denounced as heretics by that Church, if, in short, they were of\none and the same faith as the Anglicans are to-day? We pause for a\nreply. Of course we know that Anglicans are very hard pressed, and in\na quandary, and that some allowance must be made for drowning men when\nthey stretch forth their trembling hands to clutch at straws. But\nreally the claim to continuity, however vital to them, should hardly\nbe put forward in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence of\nits falsity. The ultimate effects of such vain efforts to prove black\nto be white can only be to make them ridiculous, and to discredit them\nin the eyes of honest men.\n\nIn conclusion, we are persuaded that some may feel curious or\ninterested to see and read King Edward's letter for themselves, and in\nits entirety. Some may even wish to satisfy themselves that we are\nstating actual facts, and not romancing; so let us inform any such\npersons that the letter quoted belongs to the thirteenth year of King\nEdward III.'s reign (An. Regni xiii. Ed. Rex III.). The original, if\nnot at the Vatican, should be either at the Record Office or at the\nBritish Museum. The English version, of which we have made use, may be\nfound on pages 126-30 of _The History of Edward III._, by J. Barnes,\nFellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and published in 1688. Had this\nhistory been composed in more modern times, this famous letter to Pope\nBenedict would probably have been quietly suppressed or omitted.\n\nBut in 1688 the theory of continuity had not been invented by the\nfather of lies, to bolster up a lost cause, so the letter actually\nappears in Barnes' History, to tell its own unvarnished tale: and to\nbear its uncompromising testimony to the truth.\n\nIn the meanwhile, time wears on, and the end draws near when each man\nwill have to give an account of his life and conduct to the Supreme\nJudge of the living and the dead. And it will go hard with us if we\nturn our back upon the truth. God is speaking in this England of ours,\nand shedding His light, and many are finding their way back to that\nglorious Faith of which they were cruelly robbed at the \"Reformation\".\n\"To-day, if you shall hear His voice, harden not your hearts,\" but\nlend an attentive ear to His invitation, and pray that you may have\ncourage enough to join hands once again with Bede, and Dunstan,\nAnselm, and Thomas a Becket, and with Edward III. and his royal\npredecessors, all faithful sons of St. Peter and the Holy See, and to\nenter that Church which was built by God Incarnate on Peter, and upon\nno other foundation; which still rests securely upon Peter, and which\n(if there be any truth in God's promises) will continue to rest on\nPeter till the end of time. \"Upon this Rock (Peter) will I build My\nChurch, and the gates of hell (_i.e._, the powers of darkness) shall\nnever prevail against it.\"\n\n\n\n=Also by Rt. Rev. JOHN S. VAUGHAN, D.D.,=\n=Bishop of Sebastopol.=\n=To be had of all Catholic Booksellers.=\n\n\n1. CONCERNING THE HOLY BIBLE: ITS USE AND ABUSE.\n   With a Letter from H.E. Cardinal LOGUE.\n   Pp. xvi.-270. Price 3s. 6d.\n\n   \"It is impossible to take up this delightful volume without\n   desiring to express one's admiration of it.... As to the matter,\n   _it would be well if every Catholic had it at his fingers'\n   ends_, especially in this country.... It has an irresistible\n   charm of style.\"--_The Tablet_.\n\n   H.E. Cardinal LOGUE writes to Bishop Vaughan: \"You are to be\n   congratulated on the success with which you have treated\n   your important subject.\"\n\n   _N.B.--The volume has already been translated into French and\n   Italian, and is now being translated into other foreign\n   languages._\n\n2. EARTH TO HEAVEN. Fourth Edition. Pages 200. Price 2s. 6d. net.\n\n   \"There is a freedom, a freshness, and a new manner of expressing\n   old truths in Bishop Vaughan's writings, which is exceedingly\n   charming.... Better even than their beauty is their\n   suggestiveness,\" etc.--_Tablet_.\n\n3. FAITH AND FOLLY. Second Edition. Pages 502. Price 5s. net.\n\n   \"We know no author who has a happier method of popularising\n   theology.\"--_Catholic Times_.\n\n   \"A candid antagonist will feel respect for the\n   author.\"--_Spectator_.\n\n   \"The author has gifts of happy illustration, of close reasoning,\n   and of clear expression.\"--_Ave Maria_.\n\n   \"An excellent work and a timely one.\"--_The Rosary Magazine_.\n\n   \"We trust 'Faith and Folly' may have a wide\n   circulation.\"--_Dublin Review_.\n\n4. THOUGHTS FOR ALL TIMES. The Eighteenth Edition is now in\n   preparation. Pages 436. Price 5s. net.\n\n   \"Clear and well-written expositions, rich in illustrations and\n   adorned in places with beautiful and sublime\n   language.\"--_Whitehall Review_.\n\n   \"We would be glad to see a copy in every household in the land.\n   It needs only to be known to have its merits appreciated.\"--H.E.\n   Cardinal GIBBONS.\n\n5. LIFE AFTER DEATH. Fourteenth Edition. Pages 245. Price 2s. net.\n\n   \"Popular, luminous, eloquent, and persuasive. It is carefully\n   thought out, and forms a massive argument of great value.\"--_The\n   Gentleman's Journal_.\n\n   \"This work cannot but exercise a pleasing charm over the reader,\n   and serve to hold his attention spell-bound\n   throughout.\"--_Catholic Times_.\n\n6. DANGERS OF THE DAY.\n\n   \"An admirable book. Just what is wanted.\"\n\n7. THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY; and, THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY.\n   Just Published. Price 1s. 6d.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n   \"HOW I CAME TO DO IT; or, How Parson Blackswhite gave up his Vow of\n   Celibacy.\" A Holiday Sketch. Pages 300. 2s. 6d. net. Edited by\n   Monsignor VAUGHAN.\n\n   A PRIEST writes: \"I read this novel, and laughed and\n   laughed till the tears rolled down my cheeks.\"\n\n   _The Lamp_ says: \"It is as instructive as it is amusing, and as\n   amusing as it is instructive.\"\n\n   The well-known French paper _L'Univers_ says: \"Ce livre est\n   charmant, et tres interessant et meriterait d'etre traduit en\n   francais\".\n\n   _How I Came to Do It_ is now being put into French by M. l'abbe\n   P. Secher, with the title _Les Raisons de ma Decision_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"The Purpose of the Papacy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":27440}