{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_27435/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_27435","id":"gutenberg_27435","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27435","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Controversial literature","Catholic Church -- Doctrines"],"text":"The Faith of Our Fathers\n\n             Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the\n\n                        Church Founded by Our Lord\n\n                               Jesus Christ\n\n                                    By\n\n                          James Cardinal Gibbons\n\n                         Archbishop of Baltimore\n\n           Ninety-third Carefully Revised and Enlarged Edition\n\n                           John Murphy Company\n\n                                Publishers\n\n                         Baltimore, MD. New York\n\n                         R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd.\n\n              10 Paternoster Row, London, and at Manchester.\n\n                          Birmingham and Glasgow\n\n                                   1917\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface To The Eleventh Edition.\nPreface To The Forty-Seventh Edition.\nPreface.\nPreface To Eighty-Third Revised Edition.\nIntroduction.\nChapter I. The Blessed Trinity, The Incarnation, Etc.\nChapter II. The Unity Of The Church.\nChapter III. The Holiness Of The Church.\nChapter IV. Catholicity.\nChapter V. Apostolicity.\nChapter VI. Perpetuity Of The Church.\nChapter VII. Infallible Authority Of The Church.\nChapter VIII. The Church And The Bible.\nChapter IX. The Primacy Of Peter.\nChapter X. The Supremacy Of The Popes.\nChapter XI. Infallibility Of The Popes.\nChapter XII. Temporal Power Of The Popes.\n   I. How The Popes Acquired Temporal Power.\n   II. The Validity And Justice Of Their Title.\n   III. What The Popes Have Done For Rome.\nChapter XIII. The Invocation Of Saints.\nChapter XIV. The Blessed Virgin Mary.\n   I. Is It Lawful To Honor Her?\n   II. Is It Lawful To Invoke Her?\n   III. Is It Lawful To Imitate Her As A Model?\nChapter XV. Sacred Images.\nChapter XVI. Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.\nChapter XVII. Civil And Religious Liberty.\nChapter XVIII. Charges of Religious Persecution.\n   I. The Spanish Inquisition.\n   II. What About The Massacre Of St. Bartholomew?\n   III. Mary, Queen of England.\nChapter XIX. Grace\u2014The Sacraments\u2014Original Sin\u2014Baptism\u2014Its Necessity\u2014Its\nEffects\u2014Manner Of Baptizing.\nChapter XX. The Sacrament Of Confirmation.\nChapter XXI. The Holy Eucharist.\nChapter XXII. Communion Under One Kind.\nChapter XXIII. The Sacrifice Of The Mass.\nChapter XXIV. The Use Of Religious Ceremonies Dictated By Right Reason.\nChapter XXV. Ceremonials Of The Mass.\nChapter XXVI. The Sacrament Of Penance.\n   I. The Divine Institution Of The Sacrament Of Penance.\n   II. On The Relative Morality Of Catholic And Protestant Countries.\nChapter XXVII. Indulgences.\nChapter XXVIII. Extreme Unction.\nChapter XXIX. The Priesthood.\nChapter XXX. Celibacy Of The Clergy.\nChapter XXXI. Matrimony.\nIndex.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION.\n\n\n                       _Affectionately Dedicated_\n                                 To The\n                            Clergy and Laity\n                                 Of The\n                  Archdiocese And Province Of Baltimore.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION.\n\n\nThe first edition of \u201cThe Faith of Our Fathers\u201d was issued in December,\n1876. From that time to the present fifty thousand copies of the work have\nbeen disposed of in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland,\nand in the British Colonies of Oceanica.\n\nThis gratifying result has surpassed the author\u2019s most sanguine\nexpectations, and is a consoling evidence that the investigation of\nreligious truths is not wholly neglected even in this iron age, so\nengrossed by material considerations.\n\nBesides carefully revising the book, the author has profited by the kind\nsuggestion of some friends, and inserted a chapter on the prerogatives and\nsanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which, it is hoped, will be not less\nacceptable to his readers than the other portions of the work.\n\nHe is also happy to announce that German editions have been published both\nin this country and in Germany.\n\nHe takes this occasion to return his hearty thanks to the editors of the\nCatholic periodicals, as well as of the secular press, for their favorable\nnotices, which have no doubt contributed much to the large circulation of\nthe book.\n\nBALTIMORE,\n_Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas_, 1879.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FORTY-SEVENTH EDITION.\n\n\nIt is very gratifying to the author to note the large increase in the sale\nof \u201cThe Faith of Our Fathers.\u201d Apart from personal considerations, it is\npleasing to know that the popular interest in the Catholic Church and\nwhatever pertains to her doctrines and discipline, is growing more\nwidespread and earnest.\n\nSince 1879, when the eleventh revised edition was given to the public,\nthere have been thirty-five editions, and the number of copies sold\nreaches nearly a quarter of a million.\n\nThis desire to understand the teachings of the Church of our Fathers is\nnot confined to our own country. It is manifest in other lands, as shown\nby the translations that have been made of this exposition of Catholic\nbelief into French, German, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian and Swedish.\n\nIn the hope that they will add to the usefulness of the book, several\npassages upon doctrinal subjects have been inserted.\n\nWith these few remarks, the forty-seventh edition of \u201cThe Faith of Our\nFathers\u201d is presented to the sincere and earnest seeker after religious\ntruth by\n\nTHE AUTHOR\n_Feast of St. Anselm_, 1895.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe object of this little volume is to present in a plain and practical\nform an exposition and vindication of the principal tenets of the Catholic\nChurch. It was thought sufficient to devote but a brief space to such\nCatholic doctrines and practices as are happily admitted by Protestants,\nwhile those that are controverted by them are more elaborately elucidated.\n\nThe work was compiled by the author during the uncertain hours which he\ncould spare from the more active duties of the ministry. It substantially\nembodies the instructions and discourses delivered by him before mixed\ncongregations in Virginia and North Carolina.\n\nHe has often felt that the salutary influence of such instructions,\nespecially on the occasion of a mission in the rural districts, would be\nmuch augmented if they were supplemented by books or tracts circulated\namong the people, and which could be read and pondered at leisure.\n\nAs his chief aim has been to bring home the truths of the Catholic faith\nto our separated brethren, who generally accept the Scripture as the only\nsource of authority in religious matters, he has endeavored to fortify his\nstatements by abundant reference to the sacred text. He has thought\nproper, however, to add frequent quotations from the early Fathers, whose\ntestimony, at least as witnesses of the faith of their times, must be\naccepted even by those who call in question their personal authority.\n\nThough the writer has sought to be exact in all his assertions, an\noccasional inaccuracy may have inadvertently crept in. Any emendations\nwhich the venerated Prelates or Clergy may deign to propose will be\ngratefully attended to in a subsequent edition.\n\nRICHMOND, _November_ 21st, 1876.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO EIGHTY-THIRD REVISED EDITION.\n\n\nThe new edition of \u201cThe Faith of Our Fathers\u201d has been carefully revised,\nand enriched with several pages of important matter.\n\nIt is gratifying to note that since the first edition appeared, in 1876,\nup to the present time, fourteen hundred thousand copies have been\npublished, and the circulation of the book is constantly increasing.\n\nThe work has also been translated into nearly all the languages of Europe.\n\nBALTIMORE,\n_May_ 1st, 1917.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nMY DEAR READER:\u2014Perhaps this is the first time in your life that you have\nhandled a book in which the doctrines of the Catholic Church are expounded\nby one of her own sons. You have, no doubt, heard and read many things\nregarding our Church; but has not your information come from teachers\njustly liable to suspicion? You asked for bread, and they gave you a\nstone. You asked for fish, and they reached you a serpent. Instead of the\nbread of truth, they extended to you the serpent of falsehood. Hence,\nwithout intending to be unjust, is not your mind biased against us because\nyou listened to false witnesses? This, at least, is the case with\nthousands of my countrymen whom I have met in the brief course of my\nmissionary career. The Catholic Church is persistently misrepresented by\nthe most powerful vehicles of information.\n\nShe is assailed in romances of the stamp of Maria Monk, and in pictorial\npapers. It is true that the falsehood of those illustrated periodicals has\nbeen fully exposed. But the antidote often comes too late to counteract\nthe poison. I have seen a picture representing Columbus trying to\ndemonstrate the practicability of his design to discover a new Continent\nbefore certain monks who are shaking their fists and gnashing their teeth\nat him. It matters not to the artist that Columbus could probably never\nhave undertaken his voyage and discovery, as the explorer himself avows,\nwere it not for the benevolent zeal of the monks, Antonio de Marchena and\nJuan Perez, and other ecclesiastics, as well as for the munificence of\nQueen Isabella and the Spanish Court.\n\nThe Church is misrepresented in so-called Histories like Foxe\u2019s Book of\nMartyrs. It is true that he has been successfully refuted by Lingard and\nGairdner. But, how many have read the fictitious narratives of Foxe, who\nhave never perused a page of Lingard or Gairdner? In a large portion of\nthe press, and in pamphlets, and especially in the pulpit, which should be\nconsecrated to truth and charity, she is the victim of the foulest\nslanders. Upon her fair and heavenly brow her enemies put a hideous mask,\nand in that guise they exhibit her to the insults and mockery of the\npublic; just as Jesus, her Spouse, was treated when, clothed with a\nscarlet cloak and crowned with thorns, He was mocked by a thoughtless\nrabble.\n\nThey are afraid to tell the truth of her, for\n\n\n    \u201cTruth has such a face and such a mien,\n    As to be loved needs only to be seen.\u201d(1)\n\n\nIt is not uncommon for a dialogue like the following to take place between\na Protestant Minister and a convert to the Catholic Church:\n\nMINISTER.\u2014You cannot deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches gross\nerrors\u2014the worship of images, for instance.\n\nCONVERT.\u2014I admit no such charge, for I have been taught no such doctrines.\n\nMINISTER.\u2014But the Priest who instructed you did not teach you all. He held\nback some points which he knew would be objectionable to you.\n\nCONVERT.\u2014He withheld nothing; for I am in possession of books treating\nfully of all Catholic doctrines.\n\nMINISTER.\u2014Deluded soul! Don\u2019t you know that in Europe they are taught\ndifferently?\n\nCONVERT.\u2014That cannot be, for the Church teaches the same creed all over\nthe world, and most of the doctrinal books which I read, were originally\npublished in Europe.\n\nYet ministers who make these slanderous statements are surprised if we\nfeel indignant, and accuse us of being too sensitive. We have been\nvilified so long, that they think we have no right to complain.\n\nWe cannot exaggerate the offense of those who thus wilfully malign the\nChurch. There is a commandment which says: \u201cThou shalt not bear false\nwitness against thy neighbor.\u201d\n\nIf it is a sin to bear false testimony against one individual, how can we\ncharacterize the crime of those who calumniate three hundred millions of\nhuman beings, by attributing to them doctrines and practices which they\nrepudiate and abhor. I do not wonder that the Church is hated by those who\nlearn what she is from her enemies. It is natural for an honest man to\nloathe an institution whose history he believes to be marked by bloodshed,\ncrime and fraud.\n\nHad I been educated as they were, and surrounded by an atmosphere hostile\nto the Church, perhaps I should be unfortunate enough to be breathing\nvengeance against her today, instead of consecrating my life to her\ndefence.\n\nIt is not of their hostility that I complain, but because the judgment\nthey have formed of her is based upon the reckless assertions of her\nenemies, and not upon those of impartial witnesses.\n\nSuppose that I wanted to obtain a correct estimate of the Southern people,\nwould it be fair in me to select, as my only sources of information,\ncertain Northern and Eastern periodicals which, during our Civil War, were\nbitterly opposed to the race and institutions of the South? Those papers\nhave represented you as men who always appeal to the sword and pistol,\ninstead of the law, to vindicate your private grievances. They heaped\naccusations against you which I will not here repeat. Instead of taking\nthese publications as the basis of my information, it was my duty to come\namong you; to live with you; to read your life by studying your public and\nprivate character. This I have done, and I here cheerfully bear witness to\nyour many excellent traits of mind and heart.\n\nNow I ask you to give to the Catholic Church the same measure of fairness\nwhich you reasonably demand of me when judging of Southern character. Ask\nnot her enemies what she is, for they are blinded by passion; ask not her\nungrateful, renegade children, for you never heard a son speaking well of\nthe mother whom he had abandoned and despised.\n\nStudy her history in the pages of truth. Examine her creed. Read her\nauthorized catechisms and doctrinal books. You will find them everywhere\non the shelves of booksellers, in the libraries of her clergy, on the\ntables of Catholic families.\n\nThere is no Freemasonry in the Catholic Church; she has no secrets to keep\nback. She has not one set of doctrines for Bishops and Priests, and\nanother for the laity. She has not one creed for the initiated and another\nfor outsiders. Everything in the Catholic Church is open and above board.\nShe has the same doctrines for all\u2014for the Pope and the peasant.\n\nShould not I be better qualified to present to you the Church\u2019s creed than\nthe unfriendly witnesses whom I have mentioned?\n\nI have imbibed her doctrine with my mother\u2019s milk. I have made her history\nand theology the study of my life. What motive can I have in misleading\nyou? Not temporal reward, since I seek not your money, but your soul, for\nwhich Jesus Christ died. I could not hope for an eternal reward by\ndeceiving you, for I would thereby purchase for myself eternal\ncondemnation by gaining proselytes at the expense of truth.\n\nThis, friendly reader, is my only motive. I feel in the depth of my heart\nthat, in possessing Catholic faith, I hold a treasure compared with which\nall things earthly are but dross. Instead of wishing to bury this treasure\nin my breast, I long to share it with you, especially as I lose no part of\nmy spiritual riches by communicating them to others.\n\nIt is to me a duty and a labor of love to speak the truth concerning my\nvenerable Mother, so much maligned in our days. Were a tithe of the\naccusations which are brought against her true, I would not be attached to\nher ministry, nor even to her communion, for a single day. I know these\ncharges to be false. The longer I know her, the more I admire and venerate\nher. Every day she develops before me new spiritual charms.\n\nAh! my dear friend, if you saw her as her children see her, she would no\nlonger appear to you as typified by the woman of Babylon. She would be\nrevealed to you, \u201cBright as the sun, fair as the moon;\u201d with the beauty of\nHeaven stamped upon her brow, glorious \u201cas an army in battle array.\u201d You\nwould love her, you would cling to her and embrace her. With her children,\nyou would rise up in reverence \u201cand call her blessed.\u201d\n\nConsider what you lose and what you gain in embracing the Catholic\nreligion.\n\nYour loss is nothing in comparison with your gain. You do not surrender\nyour manhood or your dignity or independence or reasoning powers. You give\nup none of those revealed truths which you may possess already. The only\nrestraint imposed upon you is the restraint of the Gospel, and to this you\nwill not reasonably object.\n\nYou gain everything that is worth having. You acquire a full and connected\nknowledge of God\u2019s revelation. You get possession of the whole truth as it\nis in Jesus. You no longer see it in fragments, but reflected before you\nin all its beauty, as in a polished mirror. While others are outside\ncriticising the architecture of the temple, you are inside worshiping the\ndivine Architect and saying devoutly with the Psalmist: \u201cI have loved O\nLord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth.\u201d\nWhile others from without find in the stained-glass windows only blurred\nand confused figures without symmetry or attraction or meaning, you from\nwithin, are gazing with silent rapture on God\u2019s glorified saints, with\ntheir outlines clearly defined on the windows, and all illuminated with\nthe sunlight of heaven. Your knowledge of the truth is not only complete\nand harmonious, but it becomes fixed and steady. You exchange opinion for\ncertainty. You are no longer \u201ctossed about by every wind of doctrine,\u201d but\nyou are firmly grounded on the rock of truth. Then you enjoy that profound\npeace which springs from the conscious possession of the truth.\n\nIn coming to the Church, you are not entering a strange place, but you are\nreturning to your Father\u2019s home. The house and furniture may look odd to\nyou, but it is just the same as your forefathers left it three hundred\nyears ago. In coming back to the Church, you worship where your fathers\nworshiped before you, you kneel before the altar at which they knelt, you\nreceive the Sacraments which they received, and respect the authority of\nthe clergy whom they venerated. You come back like the Prodigal Son to the\nhome of your father and mother. The garment of joy is placed upon you, the\nbanquet of love is set before you, and you receive the kiss of peace as a\npledge of your filiation and adoption. One hearty embrace of your tender\nMother will compensate you for all the sacrifices you may have made, and\nyou will exclaim with the penitent Augustine: \u201cToo late have I known thee,\nO Beauty, ever ancient and ever new, too late have I loved thee.\u201d Should\nthe perusal of this book bring one soul to the knowledge of the Church, my\nlabor will be amply rewarded.\n\nRemember that nothing is so essential as the salvation of your immortal\nsoul, \u201cfor what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose\nhis own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?\u201d(2) Let\nnot, therefore, the fear of offending friends and relatives, the\npersecution of men, the loss of earthly possessions, nor any other\ntemporal calamity, deter you from investigating and embracing the true\nreligion. \u201cFor our present tribulation, which is momentary and light,\nworketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.\u201d(3)\n\nMay God give you light to see the truth, and, having seen it, may He give\nyou courage and strength to follow it!\n\n\n\n\n\n                                Chapter I.\n\n\nTHE BLESSED TRINITY, THE INCARNATION, ETC.\n\n\nThe Catholic Church teaches that there is but one God, who is infinite in\nknowledge, in power, in goodness, and in every other perfection; who\ncreated all things by His omnipotence, and governs them by His Providence.\n\nIn this one God there are three distinct Persons,\u2014the Father, the Son, and\nthe Holy Ghost, who are perfectly equal to each other.\n\nWe believe that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is\nperfect God and perfect Man. He is God, for He \u201cis over all things, God\nblessed forever.\u201d(4) \u201cHe is God of the substance of the Father, begotten\nbefore time; and He is Man of the substance of His Mother, born in\ntime.\u201d(5) Out of love for us, and in order to rescue us from the miseries\nentailed upon us by the disobedience of our first parents, the Divine Word\ndescended from heaven, and became Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by\nthe operation of the Holy Ghost. He was born on Christmas day, in a stable\nat Bethlehem.\n\nAfter having led a life of obscurity for about thirty years, chiefly at\nNazareth, He commenced His public career. He associated with Him a number\nof men who are named Apostles, whom He instructed in the doctrines of the\nreligion which He established.\n\nFor three years He went about doing good, giving sight to the blind,\nhearing to the deaf, healing all kinds of diseases, raising the dead to\nlife, and preaching throughout Judea the new Gospel of peace.(6)\n\nOn Good Friday He was crucified on Mount Calvary, and thus purchased for\nus redemption by His death. Hence Jesus exclusively bears the titles of\n_Savior_ and _Redeemer_, because \u201cthere is no other name under heaven\ngiven to men whereby we must be saved.\u201d(7) \u201cHe was wounded for our\niniquities; He was bruised for our sins, ... and by His bruises we are\nhealed.\u201d(8)\n\nWe are commanded by Jesus, suffering and dying for us, to imitate Him by\nthe crucifixion of our flesh, and by acts of daily mortification. \u201cIf\nanyone,\u201d He says, \u201cwill come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up\nhis cross daily and follow Me.\u201d(9)\n\nHence we abstain from the use of flesh meat on Friday\u2014the day consecrated\nto our Savior\u2019s sufferings\u2014not because the eating of flesh meat is sinful\nin itself, but as an act of salutary mortification. Loving children would\nbe prompted by filial tenderness to commemorate the anniversary of their\nfather\u2019s death rather by prayer and fasting than by feasting. Even so we\nabstain on Fridays from flesh meat that we may in a small measure testify\nour practical sympathy for our dear Lord by the mortification of our body,\nendeavoring, like St. Paul, \u201cto bear about in our body the mortification\nof Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our\nbodies.\u201d(10)\n\nThe Cross is held in the highest reverence by Catholics, because it was\nthe instrument of our Savior\u2019s crucifixion. It surmounts our churches and\nadorns our sanctuaries. We venerate it as the emblem of our salvation.\n\u201cFar be it from me,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cto glory save in the cross of our\nLord Jesus Christ.\u201d(11) We do not, of course, attach any intrinsic virtue\nto the Cross; this would be sinful and idolatrous. Our veneration is\nreferred to Him who died upon it.\n\nIt is also a very ancient and pious practice for the faithful to make on\ntheir person the sign of the Cross, saying at the same time: \u201cIn the name\nof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d Tertullian, who\nlived in the second century of the Christian era, says: \u201cIn all our\nactions, when we come in or go out, when we dress, when we wash, at our\nmeals, before retiring to sleep, ... we form on our foreheads the sign of\nthe cross. These practices are not commanded by a formal law of Scripture;\nbut tradition teaches them, custom confirms them, faith observes\nthem.\u201d(12) By the sign of the cross we make a profession of our faith in\nthe Trinity and the Incarnation, and perform a most salutary act of\nreligion.\n\nWe believe that on Easter Sunday Jesus Christ manifested His divine power\nby raising Himself to life, and that having spent forty days on earth,\nafter His resurrection, instructing His disciples, He ascended to heaven\nfrom the Mount of Olives.\n\nOn the Feast of Pentecost, or Whitsunday, ten days after His Ascension,\nour Savior sent, as He had promised, His Holy Spirit to His disciples,\nwhile they were assembled together in prayer. The Holy Ghost purified\ntheir hearts from sin, and imparted to them a full knowledge of those\ndoctrines of salvation which they were instructed to preach. On the same\nFeast of Pentecost the Apostles commenced their sublime mission, from\nwhich day, accordingly, we date the active life of the Catholic Church.\n\nOur Redeemer gave the most ample authority to the Apostles to teach in His\nname; commanding them to \u201cpreach the Gospel to every creature,\u201d(13) and\ndirecting all, under the most severe penalties, to hear and obey them: \u201cHe\nthat heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me. And\nHe that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.\u201d(14)\n\nAnd lest we should be mistaken in distinguishing between the true Church\nand false sects, which our Lord predicted would arise, He was pleased to\nstamp upon His Church certain shining marks, by which every sincere\ninquirer could easily recognize her as His only Spouse. The principal\nmarks or characteristics of the true Church are, her Unity, Sanctity,\nCatholicity, and Apostolicity,(15) to which may be added the Infallibility\nof her teaching and the Perpetuity of her existence.\n\nI shall treat successively of these marks.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter II.\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nBy unity is meant that the members of the true Church must be united in\nthe belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and in the acknowledgment\nof the authority of the same pastors. Heresy and schism are opposed to\nChristian unity. By heresy, a man rejects one or more articles of the\nChristian faith. By schism, he spurns the authority of his spiritual\nsuperiors. That our Savior requires this unity of faith and government in\nHis members is evident from various passages of Holy Writ. In His\nadmirable prayer immediately before His passion He says: \u201cI pray for them\nalso who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one,\nas Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us;\nthat the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,\u201d(16) because the unity\nof the Church is the most luminous evidence of the Divine mission of\nChrist. Jesus prayed that His followers may be united in the bond of a\ncommon faith, as He and His Father are united in essence, and certainly\nthe prayer of Jesus is always heard.\n\nSt. Paul ranks schism and heresy with the crimes of murder and idolatry,\nand he declares that the authors of sects shall not possess the Kingdom of\nGod.(17) He also addresses a letter to the Ephesians from his prison in\nRome, and if the words of the Apostle should always command our homage,\nwith how much reverence are they to be received when he writes in chains\nfrom the Imperial City! In this Epistle he insists upon unity of faith in\nthe following emphatic language: \u201cBe careful to keep the unity of the\nSpirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit, as you are called in\none hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and\nFather of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.\u201d(18) As\nyou all, he says, worship one God, and not many gods; as you acknowledge\nthe same Divine Mediator of redemption, and not many mediators; as you are\nsanctified by the same Divine Spirit, and not by many spirits; as you all\nhope for the same heaven, and not different heavens, so must you all\nprofess the same faith.\n\nUnity of government is not less essential to the Church of Christ than\nunity of doctrine. Our Divine Saviour never speaks of His Churches, but of\nHis _Church_. He does not say: \u201cUpon this rock I will build my Churches,\u201d\nbut \u201cupon this rock I will build My Church,\u201d(19) from which words we must\nconclude that it never was His intention to establish or to sanction\nvarious conflicting denominations, but one corporate body, with all the\nmembers united under one visible Head; for as the Church is a visible\nbody, it must have a visible head.\n\nThe Church is called a kingdom: \u201cHe shall reign over the house of Jacob\nforever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end.\u201d(20) Now in every\nwell-regulated kingdom there is but _one king, one form of government, one\nuniform body of laws_, which all are obliged to observe. In like manner,\nin Christ\u2019s spiritual kingdom, there must be one Chief to whom all owe\nspiritual allegiance; one form of ecclesiastical government; one uniform\nbody of laws which all Christians are bound to observe; for, \u201cevery\nkingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate.\u201d(21)\n\nOur Savior calls His Church a sheepfold. \u201cAnd there shall be made one fold\nand one shepherd.\u201d(22) What more beautiful or fitting illustration of\nunity can we have than that which is suggested by a sheepfold? All the\nsheep of a flock cling together. If they are momentarily separated, they\nare impatient till reunited. They follow in the same path. They feed on\nthe same pastures. They obey the same shepherd, and fly from the voice of\nstrangers. So did our Lord intend that all the sheep of His fold should be\nnourished by the same sacraments and the same bread of life; that they\nshould follow the same rule of faith as their guide to heaven; that they\nshould listen to the voice of one Chief Pastor, and that they should\ncarefully shun false teachers.\n\nHis Church is compared to a human body. \u201cAs in one body we have many\nmembers, but all the members have not the same office; so we, being many,\nare one body in Christ, and every one members one of the other.\u201d(23) In\none body there are many members, all inseparably connected with the head.\nThe head commands and the foot instantly moves, the hand is raised and the\nlips open. Even so our Lord ordained that His Church, composed of many\nmembers, should be all united to one supreme visible Head, whom they are\nbound to obey.\n\nThe Church is compared to a vine. \u201cI am the Vine, ye the branches; he that\nabideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for without Me ye\ncan do nothing.\u201d(24) All the branches of a vine, though spreading far and\nwide, are necessarily connected with the main stem, and from its sap they\nare nourished. In like manner, our Saviour will have all the saplings of\nHis Vineyard connected with the main stem, and all draw their nourishment\nfrom the parent stock.\n\nThe Church, in fine, is called in Scripture by the beautiful title of\nbride or spouse of Christ,(25) and the Christian law admits only of one\nwife.\n\nIn fact, our common sense alone, apart from revelation, is sufficient to\nconvince us that God could not be the author of various opposing systems\nof religion. God is essentially one. He is Truth itself. How could the God\nof truth affirm, for instance, to one body of Christians that there are\nthree persons in God, and to another there is only one person in God? How\ncould He say to one individual that Jesus Christ is God, and to another\nthat He is only man? How can He tell me that the punishments of the wicked\nare eternal, and tell another that they are not eternal? One of these\ncontradictory statements must be false. \u201cGod is not the God of dissension,\nbut of peace.\u201d(26)\n\nI see perfect harmony in the laws which govern the physical world that we\ninhabit. I see a marvelous unity in our planetary system. Each planet\nmoves in its own sphere, and all are controlled by the central Sun.\n\nWhy should there not be also harmony and concord in that spiritual world,\nthe Church of God, the grandest conception of His omnipotence, and the\nmost bounteous manifestation of His goodness and love for mankind!\n\nHence, it is clear that Jesus Christ intended that His Church should have\none common doctrine which all Christians are bound to believe, and one\nuniform government to which all should be loyally attached.\n\nWith all due respect for my dissenting brethren, truth compels me to say\nthat this unity of doctrine and government is not to be found in the\nProtestant sects, taken collectively or separately. That the various\nProtestant denominations differ from one another not only in minor\ndetails, but in most essential principles of faith, is evident to every\none conversant with the doctrines of the different Creeds. The\nmultiplicity of sects in this country, with their mutual recriminations,\nis the scandal of Christianity, and the greatest obstacle to the\nconversion of the heathen. Not only does sect differ from sect, but each\nparticular denomination is divided into two or more independent or\nconflicting branches.\n\nIn the State of North Carolina we have several Baptist denominations, each\nhaving its own distinctive appellation. There is also the Methodist Church\nNorth and the Methodist Church South. There was the Old and the New School\nPresbyterian Church. And even in the Episcopal Communion, which is the\nmost conservative body outside the Catholic Church, there is the\nritualistic, or high church, and the low church. Nay, if you question\nclosely the individual members composing any one fraction of these\ndenominations, you will not rarely find them giving a contradictory view\nof their tenets of religion.\n\nProtestants differ from one another not only in doctrine, but in the form\nof ecclesiastical government and discipline. The church of England\nacknowledges the reigning Sovereign as its Spiritual Head. Some\ndenominations recognize Deacons, Priests, and Bishops as an essential part\nof their hierarchy; while the great majority of Protestants reject such\ntitles altogether.\n\nWhere, then, shall we find this essential unity of faith and government? I\nanswer, confidently, nowhere save in the Catholic Church.\n\nThe number of Catholics in the world is computed at three hundred\nmillions. They have all \u201cone Lord, one faith, one baptism,\u201d one creed.\nThey receive the same sacraments, they worship at the same altar, and pay\nspiritual allegiance to one common Head. Should a Catholic be so\nunfortunate as contumaciously to deny a single article of faith, or\nwithdraw from the communion of his legitimate pastors, he ceases to be a\nmember of the Church, and is cut off like a withered branch. The Church\nhad rather sever her right hand than allow any member to corrode her\nvitals. It was thus she excommunicated Henry VIII. because he persisted in\nviolating the sacred law of marriage, although she foresaw that the\nlustful monarch would involve a nation in his spiritual ruin. She\nanathematized, more recently, Dr. D\u00f6llinger, though the prestige of his\nname threatened to engender a schism in Germany. She says to her children:\n\u201cYou may espouse any political party you choose; with this I have no\nconcern.\u201d But as soon as they trench on matters of faith she cries out:\n\u201cHitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no farther; and here thou shalt\nbreak thy swelling waves\u201d(27) of discord. The temple of faith is the\nasylum of peace, concord and unity.\n\nHow sublime and consoling is the thought that whithersoever a Catholic\ngoes over the broad world, whether he enters his Church in Pekin or in\nMelbourne, in London, or Dublin, or Paris, or Rome, or New York, or San\nFrancisco, he is sure to hear the self-same doctrine preached, to assist\nat the same sacrifice, and to partake of the same sacraments.\n\nThis is not all. Her Creed is now identical with what it was in past ages.\nThe same Gospel of peace that Jesus Christ preached on the Mount; the same\ndoctrine that St. Peter preached at Antioch and Rome; St. Paul at Ephesus;\nSt. John Chrysostom at Constantinople; St. Augustine in Hippo; St. Ambrose\nin Milan; St. Remigius in France; St. Boniface in Germany; St. Athanasius\nin Alexandria; the same doctrine that St. Patrick introduced into Ireland;\nthat St. Augustine brought into England, and St. Pelagius into Scotland,\nand that Columbus brought to this American Continent, and this is the\ndoctrine that is ever preached in the Catholic Church throughout the\nglobe, from January till December\u2014\u201cJesus Christ yesterday, and today, and\nthe same forever.\u201d(28)\n\nThe same admirable unity that exists in matters of faith is also\nestablished in the government of the Church. All the members of the vast\nbody of Catholic Christians are as intimately united to one visible Chief\nas the members of the human body are joined to the head. The faithful of\neach Parish are subject to their immediate Pastor. Each Pastor is\nsubordinate to his Bishop, and each Bishop of Christendom acknowledges the\njurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, and Head\nof the Catholic Church.\n\nBut it may be asked, is not this unity of faith impaired by those\ndoctrinal definitions which the Church has promulgated from time to time?\nWe answer: No new dogma, unknown to the Apostles, not contained in the\nprimitive Christian revelation, can be admitted. (John xiv. 26; xv. 15;\nxvi. 13.) For the Apostles received the whole deposit of God\u2019s word,\naccording to the promise of our Lord: \u201cWhen He shall come, the Spirit of\ntruth, He shall teach you all truth.\u201d And so the Church proposes the\ndoctrines of faith, such as came from the lips of Christ, and as the Holy\nSpirit taught them to the Apostles at the birth of the Christian\nlaw\u2014doctrines which know neither variation nor decay.\n\nHence, whenever it has been defined that any point of doctrine pertained\nto the Catholic faith, it was always understood that this was equivalent\nto the declaration that the doctrine in question had been revealed to the\nApostles, and had come down to us from them, either by Scripture or\ntradition. And as the acts of all the Councils, and the history of every\ndefinition of faith evidently show, it was never contended that a _new\nrevelation_ had been made, but every inquiry was directed to this one\npoint\u2014whether the doctrine in question was contained in the Sacred\nScriptures or in the Apostolic traditions.\n\nA revealed truth frequently has a very extensive scope, and is directed\nagainst error under its many changing forms. Nor is it necessary that\nthose who receive this revelation in the first instance should be\nexplicitly acquainted with its full import, or cognizant of all its\nbearings. Truth never changes; it is the same now, yesterday, and forever,\n_in itself_; but our relations towards truth may change, for that which is\nhidden from us today may become known to us tomorrow. \u201cIt often happens,\u201d\nsays St. Augustine, \u201cthat when it becomes necessary to defend certain\npoints of Catholic doctrine against the insidious attacks of heretics they\nare more carefully studied, they become _more clearly understood_, they\nare _more earnestly inculcated_; and so the very questions raised by\nheretics give occasion to a more thorough knowledge of the subject in\nquestion.\u201d(29)\n\nLet us illustrate this. In the Apostolic revelation and preaching some\ntruths might have been contained _implicitly_, _e.g._, in the doctrine\nthat grace is necessary for every salutary work, it is implicitly asserted\nthat the assistance of grace is required for the inception of every good\nand salutary work. This was denied by the semi-Pelagians, and their error\nwas condemned by an explicit definition. And so in other matters, as the\nrising controversies or new errors gave occasion for it, there were more\n_explicit_ declarations of what was formerly _implicitly_ believed. In the\ndoctrine of the supreme power of Peter, as the visible foundation of the\nChurch, we have the _implied_ assertion of many rights and duties which\nbelong to the centre of unity. In the revelation of the super-eminent\ndignity and purity of the Blessed Virgin there is implied her exemption\nfrom original sin, etc., etc.\n\nSo, too, in the beginning many truths might have been proposed somewhat\n_obscurely_ or _less clearly_; they might have been _less urgently\ninsisted upon_, because there was no heresy, no contrary teaching to\nrender a more explicit declaration necessary. Now, a doctrine which is\n_implicitly, less clearly, not so earnestly_ proposed, may be overlooked,\nmisunderstood, called in question; consequently, it may happen that some\narticles are now universally believed in the Church, in regard to which\ndoubts and controversies existed in former ages, even within the bosom of\nthe Church. \u201cThose who err in belief do but serve to bring out more\nclearly the soundness of those who believe rightly. For there are many\nthings which _lay hidden in the Scriptures_, and when heretics were cut\noff they vexed the Church of God with disputes; then the hidden things\nwere _brought to light_, and the will of God was made known.\u201d (St.\nAugustine on the 54th Psalm, No. 22.)\n\nThis kind of _progress in faith_ we can and do admit; but the truth is not\nchanged thereby. As Albertus Magnus says: \u201cIt would be more correct to\nstyle this the progress of the believer in the faith than of the faith in\nthe believer.\u201d\n\nTo show that this kind of progress is to be admitted only two things are\nto be proved: 1: That some divinely revealed truths should be contained in\nthe Apostolic teaching _implicitly, less clearly explained, less urgently\npressed_. And this can be denied only by those who hold that the Bible is\nthe only rule of Faith, that it is clear in every part, and could be\nreadily understood by all from the beginning. This point I shall consider\nfarther on in this work. 2. That the Church can, in process of time, as\noccasions arise, _declare, explain, urge_. This is proved not only from\nthe Scriptures and the Fathers, but even from the conduct of Protestants\nthemselves, who often boast of the care and assiduity with which they\n\u201csearch the Scriptures,\u201d and study out their meaning, even now that so\nmany Commentaries on the sacred Text have been published. And why? To\nobtain more light; to understand better what is revealed. It would appear\nfrom this that the only question which could arise on this point is, not\nabout the possibility of arriving by degrees at a clearer understanding of\nthe true sense of revelation, as circumstances may call for successive\ndevelopments, but about the authority of the Church to propose and to\ndetermine that sense. So that, after all, we are always brought back to\nthe only real point of division and dispute between those who are not\nCatholics and ourselves, namely, to the authority of the Church, of which\nI shall have more to say hereafter. I cannot conclude better than by\nquoting the words of St. Vincent of Lerins: \u201cLet us take care that it be\nwith us in matters of religion, which affect our souls, as it is with\nmaterial bodies, which, as time goes on, pass through successive phases of\ngrowth and development and multiply their years, but yet remain always the\nsame individual bodies as they were in the beginning.... It very properly\nfollows from the nature of things that, with a perfect agreement and\nconsistency between the beginnings and the final results, when we reap the\nharvest of dogmatic truth which has sprung from the seeds of doctrine sown\nin the spring-time of the Church\u2019s existence, we should find no\nsubstantial difference between the grain which was first planted and that\nwhich we now gather. For though the germs of the early faith have in some\nrespects been evolved in the course of time, and still receive nourishment\nand culture, yet nothing in them that is substantial can ever suffer\nchange. The Church of Christ is a faithful and ever watchful guardian of\nthe dogmas which have been committed to her charge. In this sacred deposit\nshe changes nothing, she takes nothing from it, she adds nothing to it.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter III.\n\n\nTHE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nHoliness is also a mark of the true Church; for in the Creed we say, \u201cI\nbelieve in the _holy_ Catholic Church.\u201d\n\nEvery society is founded for a special object. One society is formed with\nthe view of cultivating social intercourse among its members; a second is\norganized to advance their temporal interests; and a third for the purpose\nof promoting literary pursuits. The Catholic Church is a society founded\nby our Lord Jesus Christ for the sanctification of its members; hence, St.\nPeter calls the Christians of his time \u201ca chosen generation, a royal\npriesthood, _a holy nation_, a purchased people.\u201d(30)\n\nThe example of our Divine Founder, Jesus Christ, the sublime moral lessons\nHe has taught us, the Sacraments He has instituted\u2014all tend to our\nsanctification. They all concentre themselves in our soul, like so many\nheavenly rays, to enlighten and inflame it with the fire of devotion.\n\nWhen the Church speaks to us of the attributes of our Lord, of His justice\nand mercy and sanctity and truth, her object is not merely to extol the\nDivine perfections, but also to exhort us to imitate them, and to be like\nHim, just and merciful, holy and truthful. Behold the sublime Model that\nis placed before us! It is not man, nor angel, nor archangel, but Jesus\nChrist, the Son of God, \u201cwho is the brightness of His glory, and the\nfigure of His substance.\u201d(31) The Church places His image over our altars,\nadmonishing us to \u201clook and do according to the pattern shown on the\nMount.\u201d(32) And from that height He seems to say to us: \u201cBe ye holy, for I\nthe Lord your God am holy.\u201d(33) \u201cBe ye perfect, even as your heavenly\nFather is perfect.\u201d(34) \u201cBe ye followers of God as most dear\nchildren.\u201d(35)\n\nWe are invited to lead holy lives, not only because our Divine Founder,\nJesus Christ, was holy, but also because we bear His sweet and venerable\nname. We are called _Christians_. That is a name we would not exchange for\nall the high-sounding titles of Prince or Emperor. We are justly proud of\nthis appellation of _Christian_; but we are reminded that it has annexed\nto it a corresponding obligation. It is not an idle name, but one full of\nsolemn significance; for a Christian, as the very name implies, is a\nfollower or disciple of Christ\u2014one who walks in the footsteps of his\nMaster by observing His precepts; who reproduces in his own life the\ncharacter and virtues of his Divine Model. In a word, a Christian is\nanother Christ. It would, therefore, be a contradiction in terms, if a\nChristian had nothing in common with his Lord except the name. The\ndisciple should imitate his Master, the soldier should imitate his\nCommander, and the members should be like the Head.\n\nThe Church constantly allures her children to holiness by placing before\ntheir minds the Incarnation, life and death of our Savior. What appeals\nmore forcibly to a life of piety than the contemplation of Jesus born in a\nstable, living an humble life in Nazareth, dying on a cross, that His\nblood might purify us? If He sent forth Apostles to preach the Gospel to\nthe whole world; if in His name temples are built in every nation, and\nmissionaries are sent to the extremities of the globe, all this is done\nthat we may be Saints. \u201cGod,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cgave some Apostles, and some\nProphets, and others Evangelists, and others Pastors and Doctors, for the\nperfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building\nup of the body of Christ, until we all meet unto the unity of faith and of\nthe knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man.\u201d(36)\n\nThe moral law which the Catholic Church inculcates on her children is the\nhighest and holiest standard of perfection ever presented to any people,\nand furnishes the strongest incentives to virtue.\n\nThe same Divine precepts delivered through Moses to the Jews, on Mount\nSinai, the same salutary warnings which the Prophets uttered throughout\nJudea, the same sublime and consoling lessons of morality which Jesus gave\non the Mount\u2014these are the lessons which the Church teaches from January\ntill December. The Catholic preacher does not amuse his audience with\nspeculative topics or political harangues, or any other subjects of a\ntransitory nature. He preaches only \u201cChrist, and Him crucified.\u201d\n\nThis code of Divine precepts is enforced with as much zeal by the Church\nas was the Decalogue of old by Moses, when he said: \u201cThese words, which I\ncommand thee this day, shall be in thy heart; and thou shalt tell them to\nthy children; and thou shalt meditate upon them, sitting in thy house, and\nwalking on thy journey, sleeping and rising.\u201d(37)\n\nThe first lesson taught to children in our Sunday-schools is their duty to\nknow, love and serve God, and thus to be Saints; for if they know, love\nand serve God aright they shall be Saints indeed. Their tender minds are\ninstructed in this great truth that though they had the riches of Dives,\nand the glory and pleasures of Solomon, and yet fail to be righteous, they\nhave missed their vocation, and are \u201cwretched, and miserable, and poor,\nand blind, and naked.\u201d(38) \u201cFor, what doth it profit a man, if he gain the\nwhole world and lose his own soul?\u201d(39) On the contrary though they are as\npoor as Lazarus, and as miserable as Job in the days of his adversity,\nthey are assured that their condition is a happy one in the sight of God,\nif they live up to the maxims of the Gospel.\n\nThe Church quickens the zeal of her children for holiness of life by\nimpressing on their minds the rigor of God\u2019s judgments, who \u201cwill bring to\nlight the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the\nhearts,\u201d by reminding them of the terrors of Hell and of the sweet joys of\nHeaven.\n\nNot only are Catholics instructed in church on Sundays but they are\nexhorted to peruse the Word of God, and manuals of devotion, at home. The\nsaints whose lives are there recorded serve like bright stars to guide\nthem over the stormy ocean of life to the shores of eternity; while the\nhistory of those who have fallen from grace stands like a beacon light,\nwarning them to shun the rocks against which a Solomon and a Judas made\nshipwreck of their souls.\n\nOur books of piety are adapted to every want of the human soul, and are a\nfruitful source of sanctification. Who can read without spiritual profit\nsuch works as the almost inspired _Following of Christ_ by Thomas \u00e0\nKempis; the _Christian Perfection_ of Rodriguez; the _Spiritual Combat_ of\nScupoli; the writings of St. Francis de Sales, and a countless host of\nother ascetical authors?\n\nYou will search in vain outside the Catholic Church for writers comparable\nin unction and healthy piety to such as I have mentioned. Compare, for\ninstance, _Kempis_ with _Bunyan\u2019s Pilgrim\u2019s Progress_, or _Butler\u2019s Lives\nof the Saints_ with _Foxe\u2019s Book of Martyrs_. You lay down _Butler_ with a\nsweet and tranquil devotion, and with a profound admiration for the\nChristian heroes whose lives he records; while you put aside _Foxe_ with a\ntroubled mind and a sense of vindictive bitterness. I do not speak of the\n_Book of Common Prayer_, because the best part of it is a translation from\nour Missal. Protestants also publish _Kempis_, though sometimes in a\nmutilated form; every passage in the original being carefully omitted\nwhich alludes to Catholic doctrines and practices.\n\nA distinguished Episcopal clergyman of Baltimore once avowed to me that\nhis favorite books of devotion were our standard works of piety. In saying\nthis, he paid a merited and graceful tribute to the superiority of\nCatholic spiritual literature.\n\nThe Church gives us not only the most pressing motives, but also the most\npotent means for our sanctification. These means are furnished by prayer\nand the Sacraments. She exhorts us to frequent communion with God by\nprayer and meditation, and so imperative is this obligation in our eyes\nthat we would justly hold ourselves guilty of grave dereliction of duty if\nwe neglected for a considerable time the practice of morning and evening\nprayer.\n\nThe most abundant source of graces is also found in the seven Sacraments\nof the Church. Our soul is bathed in the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ at\nthe font of Baptism, from which we come forth \u201cnew creatures.\u201d We are then\nand there incorporated with Christ, becoming \u201cbone of His bone and flesh\nof His flesh;\u201d \u201cfor as many of you,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cas have been\nbaptized in Christ have put on Christ.\u201d(40) And as the Holy Ghost is\ninseparable from Christ, our bodies are made the temples of the Spirit of\nGod and our souls His Sanctuary. \u201cChrist loved the Church and delivered\nHimself up for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of\nwater, in the word of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious\nChurch, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should\nbe holy and without blemish.\u201d(41)\n\nIn Confirmation we receive new graces and new strength to battle against\nthe temptations of life.\n\nIn the Eucharist we are fed with the living Bread which cometh down from\nHeaven.\n\nIn Penance are washed away the stains we have contracted after Baptism.\n\nAre we called to the Sacred Ministry, or to the married state, we find in\nthe Sacraments of Orders and Matrimony ample graces corresponding with the\ncondition of life which we have embraced.\n\nAnd our last illness is consoled by Extreme Unction, wherein we receive\nthe Divine succor necessary to fortify and purify us before departing from\nthis world.\n\nIn a word, the Church, like a watchful mother, accompanies us from the\ncradle to the grave, supplying us at each step with the medicine of life\nand immortality.\n\nAs the Church offers to her children the strongest motives and the most\npowerful means for attaining to sanctity of life, so does she reap among\nthem the most abundant fruits of holiness. In every age and country she is\nthe fruitful mother of saints. Our Ecclesiastical calendar is not confined\nto the names of the twelve Apostles. It is emblazoned with the lists of\nheroic Martyrs who \u201cwere stoned, and cut asunder, and put to death by the\nsword;\u201d(42) of innumerable Confessors and Hermits who left all things and\nfollowed Christ; of spotless virgins who preserved their chastity for the\nKingdom of Heaven\u2019s sake. Every day in the year is consecrated in our\nMartyrology to a large number of Saints.\n\nAnd in our own times, in every quarter of the globe and in every\ndepartment of life, the Church continues to raise up Saints worthy of the\nprimitive days of Christianity.\n\nIf we seek for _Apostles_, we find them conspicuously among the Bishops of\nGermany, who are now displaying in prison and in exile a serene heroism\nworthy of Peter and Paul.\n\nEvery year records the tortures of Catholic missioners who die _Martyrs_\nto the Faith in China, Corea, and other Pagan countries.\n\nAmong her _confessors_ are numbered those devoted priests who, abandoning\nhome and family ties, annually go forth to preach the Gospel in foreign\nlands. Their worldly possessions are often confined to a few books of\ndevotion and their modest apparel.\n\nAnd who is a stranger to her consecrated _virgins_, those sisters of\nvarious Orders who in every large city of Christendom are daily reclaiming\ndegraded women from a life of shame, and bringing them back to the sweet\ninfluences of religion; who snatch the abandoned offspring of sin from\ntemporal and spiritual death, and make them pious and useful members of\nsociety, becoming more than mothers to them; who rescue children from\nignorance, and instill into their minds the knowledge and love of God.\n\nWe can point to numberless saints also among the laity. I dare assert that\nin almost every congregation in the Catholic world, men and women are to\nbe found who exhibit a fervent piety and a zeal for religion which render\nthem worthy of being named after the _Annas_, _the Aquilas_ and the\n_Priscillas_ of the New Testament. They attract not indeed the admiration\nof the public, because true piety is unostentatious and seeks a \u201clife\nhidden with Christ in God.\u201d(43)\n\nIt must not be imagined that, in proclaiming the sanctity of the Church, I\nam attempting to prove that all Catholics are holy. I am sorry to confess\nthat corruption of morals is too often found among professing Catholics.\nWe cannot close our eyes to the painful fact that too many of them, far\nfrom living up to the teachings of their Church, are sources of melancholy\nscandal. \u201cIt must be that scandals come, but woe to him by whom the\nscandal cometh.\u201d I also admit that the sin of Catholics is more heinous in\nthe sight of God than that of their separated brethren, because they abuse\nmore grace.\n\nBut it should be borne in mind that neither God nor His Church forces any\nman\u2019s conscience. To all He says by the mouth of His Prophet: \u201cBehold I\nset before you the way of life and the way of death.\u201d (Jer. xxi. 8.) The\nchoice rests with yourselves.\n\nIt is easy to explain why so many disedifying members are always found\nclinging to the robes of the Church, their spiritual Mother, and why she\nnever shakes them off nor disowns them as her children. The Church is\nanimated by the spirit of her Founder, Jesus Christ. He \u201ccame into this\nworld to save sinners.\u201d(44) He \u201ccame not to call the just but sinners to\nrepentance.\u201d He was the Friend of Publicans and Sinners that He might make\nthem the friends of God. And they clung to Him, knowing His compassion for\nthem.\n\nThe Church, walking in the footsteps of her Divine Spouse, never\nrepudiates sinners nor cuts them off from her fold, no matter how grievous\nor notorious may be their moral delinquencies; not because she connives at\ntheir sin, but because she wishes to reclaim them. She bids them never to\ndespair, and tries, at least, to weaken their passions, if she cannot\naltogether reform their lives.\n\nMindful also of the words of our Lord: \u201cThe poor have the Gospel preached\nto them,\u201d(45) the Church has a tender compassion for the victims of\npoverty, which has its train of peculiar temptations and infirmities.\nHence, the poor and the sinners cling to the Church, as they clung to our\nLord during His mortal life.\n\nWe know, on the other hand, that sinners who are guilty of gross crimes\nwhich shock public decency are virtually excommunicated from Protestant\nCommunions. And as for the poor, the public press often complains that\nlittle or no provision is made for them in Protestant Churches. A\ngentleman informed me that he never saw a poor person enter an Episcopal\nChurch which was contiguous to his residence.\n\nThese excluded sinners and victims of penury either abandon Christianity\naltogether, or find refuge in the bosom of their true Mother, the Catholic\nChurch, who, like her Divine Spouse, claims the afflicted as her most\ncherished inheritance. The parables descriptive of this Church which our\nLord employed also clearly teach us that the good and bad shall be joined\ntogether in the Church as long as her earthly mission lasts. The kingdom\nof God is like a field in which the cockle is allowed to grow up with the\ngood seed until the harvest-time;(46) it is like a net which encloses good\nfish and bad until the hour of separation comes.(47) So, too, the Church\nis that great house(48) in which there are not only vessels of gold and\nsilver, but also of wood and clay.\n\nThe Fathers repeat the teaching of Scripture. St. Jerome says: \u201cThe ark of\nNoah was a type of the Church. As every kind of animal was in that, so in\nthis there are men of every race and character. As in that were the\nleopard and the kids, the wolf and the lambs, so in this there are to be\nfound the just and the sinful\u2014that is, vessels of gold and silver along\nwith those of wood and clay.\u201d(49)\n\nSt. Gregory the Great writes: \u201cBecause in it (the Church) the good are\nmingled with the bad, the reprobate with the elect, it is rightly declared\nto be similar to the wise and the foolish virgins.\u201d(50)\n\nListen to St. Augustine: \u201cLet the mind recall the threshing-floor\ncontaining straw and wheat; the nets in which are inclosed good and bad\nfish; the ark of Noah in which were clean and unclean animals, and you\nwill see that the Church from now until the judgment day _contains not\nonly sheep and oxen_\u2014that is, saintly laymen and holy ministers\u2014_but also\nthe beasts of the field_.... For the beasts of the field are men who take\ndelight in carnal pleasures, _the field being that broad way which leads\nto perdition_.\u201d(51)\n\nThe occasional scandals existing among members of the Church do not\ninvalidate or impair her claim to the title of sanctity. The spots on the\nsun do not mar his brightness. Neither do the moral stains of some members\nsully the brilliancy of her \u201cwho cometh forth as the morning star, fair as\nthe moon, bright as the sun.\u201d(52) The cockle that grows amidst the wheat\ndoes not destroy the beauty of the ripened harvest. The sanctity of Jesus\nwas not sullied by the presence of Judas in the Apostolic College. Neither\ncan the moral corruption of a few disciples tarnish the holiness of the\nChurch. St. Paul calls the Church of Corinth a congregation of Saints,(53)\nthough he reproves some scandalous members among them.(54)\n\nIt cannot be denied that corruption of morals prevailed in the sixteenth\ncentury to such an extent as to call for a sweeping reformation, and that\nlaxity of discipline invaded even the sanctuary.\n\nBut how was this reformation of morals to be effected? Was it to be\naccomplished by a force operating inside the Church, or outside? I answer\nthat the proper way of carrying out this reformation was by battling\nagainst iniquity within the Church; for there was not a single weapon\nwhich men could use in waging war with vice outside the Church, which they\ncould not wield with more effective power when fighting under the\nauthority of the Church. The true weapons of an Apostle, at all times,\nhave been personal virtue, prayer, preaching, and the Sacraments. Every\ngenuine reformer had those weapons at his disposal within the Church.\n\nShe possesses, at all times, not only the principle of undying vitality,\nbut, besides, all the elements of reformation, and all the means of\nsanctification. With the weapons I have named she purified morals in the\nfirst century, and with the same weapons she went to work with a right\ngood will, and effected a moral reformation in the sixteenth century. She\nwas the only effectual spiritual reformer of that age.\n\nWhat was the Council of Trent but a great reforming tribunal? Most of its\ndecrees are directed to the reformation of abuses among the clergy and the\nlaity, and the salutary fruits of its legislation are reaped even to this\nday.\n\nSt. Charles Borromeo, the nephew of a reigning Pope, was the greatest\nreformer of his time. His whole Episcopal career was spent in elevating\nthe morals of his clergy and people. Bartholomew, Archbishop of Braga, in\nPortugal, preached an incessant crusade against iniquity in high and low\nplaces. St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Alphonsus, with their companions,\nwere conspicuous and successful reformers throughout Europe. St. Philip\nNeri was called the modern Apostle of Rome because of his happy efforts in\ndethroning vice in that city. All these Catholic Apostles preach by\nexample as well as by word.\n\nHow do Luther and Calvin, and Zuinglius and Knox, and Henry VIII. compare\nwith these genuine and saintly reformers, both as to their moral character\nand the fruit or their labors? The private lives of these pseudo-reformers\nwere stained by cruelty, rapine, and licentiousness; and as the result of\ntheir propagandism, history records civil wars, and bloodshed, and bitter\nreligious strife, and the dismemberment of Christianity into a thousand\nsects.\n\nInstead of co-operating with the lawful authorities in extinguishing the\nflames which the passions of men had enkindled in the city of God, these\nfaithless citizens fly from the citadel which they had vowed to defend;\nthen joining the enemy, they hasten back to fan the conflagration, and to\nincrease the commotion. And they overturn the very altars before which\nthey previously sacrificed as consecrated priests.(55) They sanctioned\nrebellion by undermining the principle of authority.\n\nWhat a noble opportunity they lost of earning for themselves immortal\nhonors from God and man! If, instead of raising the standard of revolt,\nthey had waged war upon their own passions, and fought with the Catholic\nreformers against impiety, they would be hailed as true soldiers of the\ncross. They would be welcomed by the Pope, the Bishops and clergy, and by\nall good men. They might be honored today on our altars, and might have a\nniche in our temples, side by side with those of Charles Borromeo and\nIgnatius Loyola; and instead of a divided army of Christians, we should\nbehold today a united Christendom, spreading itself irresistibly from\nnation to nation, and bringing all kingdoms to the knowledge of Jesus\nChrist.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter IV.\n\n\nCATHOLICITY.\n\n\nThat Catholicity is a prominent note of the Church is evident from the\nApostles\u2019 Creed, which says: \u201cI believe in the Holy _Catholic_ Church.\u201d\nThe word _Catholic_, or Universal, signifies that the true Church is not\ncircumscribed in its extent, like human empires, nor confined to one race\nof people, like the Jewish Church, but that she is diffused over every\nnation of the globe, and counts her children among all tribes and peoples\nand tongues of the earth.\n\nThis glorious Church is foreshadowed by the Psalmist, when he sings: \u201cAll\nthe ends of the earth shall be converted to the Lord, and all the kindreds\nof the Gentiles shall adore in His sight; for the kingdom is the Lord\u2019s,\nand He shall have dominion over the nations.\u201d(56) The Prophet Malachy saw\nin the distant future this world-wide Church, when he wrote: \u201cFrom the\nrising of the sun, to the going down, My name is great among the Gentiles;\nand in _every place_ there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a\nclean oblation; for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of\nHosts.\u201d(57)\n\nWhen our Savior gave commission to his Apostles He assigned to them the\nwhole world as the theatre of their labors, and the entire human race,\nwithout regard to language, color, or nationality, as the audience to whom\nthey were to preach. Unlike the religion of the Jewish people, which was\nnational, or that of the Mohammedans, which is local, the Catholic\nreligion was to be cosmopolitan, embracing all nations and all countries.\nThis is evident from the following passages: \u201cGo ye, therefore, and teach\n_all nations_.\u201d(58) \u201cGo ye into the _whole world_, and preach the Gospel\nto every creature.\u201d(59) \u201cYe shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and\nin all Judea, and Samaria, and even _to the uttermost part of the\nearth_.\u201d(60)\n\nThese prophecies declaring that the Church was to be world-wide and to\nembrace even the Gentile nations may not strike us today as especially\nremarkable, accustomed as we are now to meet with Christian civilization\neverywhere, and to see the nations of the world bound so closely together\nby social and commercial relations. But we must remember that when they\nwere uttered the true God was known and adored only in an obscure, almost\nisolated, corner of the earth, while triumphant idolatry was the otherwise\nuniversal religion of the world.\n\nThe prophecies were fulfilled. The Apostles scattered themselves over the\nsurface of the earth, preaching the Gospel of Christ. \u201cTheir sound,\u201d says\nSt. Paul, \u201cwent over all the earth and their words unto the ends of the\nwhole world.\u201d(61) Within thirty years after our Savior\u2019s Crucifixion the\nApostle of the Gentiles was able to say to the Romans: \u201cI give thanks to\nmy God through Jesus Christ because your faith is spoken of in the entire\nworld\u201d(62)\u2014spoken of assuredly by those who were in sympathy and communion\nwith the faith of the Romans.\n\nSt. Justin, Martyr, was able to say, about one hundred years after Christ,\nthat there was no race of men, whether Barbarians or Greeks, or any other\npeople of what name soever, among whom the name of Jesus Christ was not\ninvoked.\n\nSt. Irenaeus, writing at the end of the second century, tells us that the\nreligion so marvelously propagated throughout the whole world was not a\nvague, ever-changing form of Christianity, but that \u201cthis faith and\ndoctrine and tradition preached throughout the globe is as uniform as if\nthe Church consisted of one family, possessing one soul, one heart, and as\nif she had but one mouth. For, though the languages of the world are\ndissimilar, her doctrine is the same. The churches founded in Germany, in\nthe Celtic nations, in the East in Egypt, in Lybia, and in the centres of\ncivilization, do not differ from each other; but as the sun gives the same\nlight throughout the world, so does the light of faith shine everywhere\nthe same and enlighten all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the\ntruth.\u201d(63)\n\n\u201cWe are but of yesterday,\u201d says Tertullian, \u201cand already have we filled\nyour cities, towns, islands, your council halls and camps ... the palace,\nsenate, forum; we have left you only the temples.\u201d(64)\n\nClement of Alexandria, at the end of the second century, writes: \u201cThe word\nof our Master did not remain in Judea, as philosophy remained in Greece,\nbut has been poured out over the whole world, persuading Greeks and\nBarbarians alike, race by race, village by village, every city, whole\nhouses and hearers one by one\u2014nay, not a few of the philosophers\nthemselves.\u201d\n\nAnd Origen, in the early part of the next century, observes: \u201cIn all\nGreece, and in all barbarous races within our world, there are tens of\nthousands who have left their national law and customary gods for the law\nof Moses and the Word of Jesus Christ, though to adhere to that law is to\nincur the hatred of idolaters and the risk of death besides to have\nembraced that Word; and considering how, in so few years, in spite of the\nattack made on us, even to the loss of life or property, and with no great\nstore of teachers, the preaching of that Word has found its way into every\npart of the world, so that Greek and Barbarian, wise and unwise, adhere to\nthe religion of Jesus, doubtless it is a work greater than any work of\nman.\u201d\n\nThis Catholicity, or universality, is not to be found in any, or in all,\nof the combined communions separated from the Roman Catholic Church.\n\nThe Schismatic churches of the East have no claim to this title because\nthey are confined within the Turkish and Russian dominions, and number not\nmore than sixty million souls.\n\nThe Protestant churches, even taken collectively, (as separate communions\nthey are a mere handful) are too insignificant in point of numbers, and\ntoo circumscribed in their territorial extent, to have any pretensions to\nthe title of Catholic. All the Protestant denominations are estimated at\nsixty-five million, or less than one-fifth of those who bear the Christian\nname. They repudiate, moreover, and protest against the name of Catholic,\nthough they continue to say in the Apostles\u2019 Creed \u201cI believe in the Holy\nCatholic Church.\u201d\n\nThat the Roman Catholic Church alone deserves the name of _Catholic_ is so\nevident that it is ridiculous to deny it. Ours is the only Church which\nadopts this name as her official title. We have possession, which is\nnine-tenths of the law. We have exclusively borne this glorious\nappellation in troubled times, when the assumption of this venerable title\nexposed us to insult, persecution and death; and to attempt to deprive us\nof it at this late hour, would be as fruitless as the efforts of the\nFrench Revolutionists who sought to uproot all traces of the old\ncivilization by assigning new names to the days and seasons of the year.\n\nPassion and prejudice and bad manners may affix to us the epithets of\n_Romish_ and _Papist_ and _Ultramontane_, but the calm, dispassionate\nmind, of whatever faith, all the world, over, knows us only by the name of\n_Catholic_. There is a power in this name and an enthusiasm aroused by it\nakin to the patriotism awakened by the flag of one\u2019s country.\n\nSo great is the charm attached to the name of Catholic that a portion of\nthe Episcopal body sometimes usurp the title of _Catholic_, though in\ntheir official books they are named _Protestant Episcopalians_. If they\nthink that they have any just claim to the name of _Catholic_, why not\ncome out openly and write it on the title-pages of their Bibles and\nPrayer-Books? Afraid of going so far, they gratify their vanity by\nprivately calling themselves Catholic. But the delusion is so transparent\nthat the attempt must provoke a smile even among themselves.\n\nShould a stranger ask them to direct him to the Catholic Church they would\ninstinctively point out to him the Roman Catholic Church.\n\nThe sectarians of the fourth and fifth centuries, as St. Augustine tells\nus, used to attempt the same pious fraud, but signally failed:\n\n\u201cWe must hold fast to the Christian religion and to the communion of that\nChurch which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by those\nwho belong to her, but also by all her enemies. Whether they will it or\nnot the very heretics themselves and followers of schism, when they\nconverse, not with their own but with outsiders, call that only Catholic\nwhich is really Catholic. For they cannot be understood unless they\ndistinguish her by that name, by which she is known throughout the whole\nearth.\u201d(65)\n\nWe possess not only the name, but also the reality. A single illustration\nwill suffice to exhibit in a strong light the widespread dominion of the\nCatholic Church and her just claims to the title of _Catholic_. Take the\nEcumenical Council of the Vatican, opened in 1869 and presided over by\nPope Pius IX. Of the thousand Bishops and upwards now comprising the\nhierarchy of the Catholic Church, nearly eight hundred attended the\nopening session, the rest being unavoidably absent. All parts of the\nhabitable globe were represented at the Council.\n\nThe Bishops assembled from Great Britain, Ireland, France, Germany,\nSwitzerland and from almost every nation and principality in Europe. They\nmet from Canada, the United States, Mexico and South America, and from the\nislands of the Atlantic and the Pacific. They were gathered together from\ndifferent parts of Africa and Oceanica. They went from the banks of the\nTigris and Euphrates, the cradle of the human race, and from the banks of\nthe Jordan, the cradle of Christianity. They traveled to Rome from Mossul,\nbuilt near ancient Nineveh, and from Bagdad, founded on the ruins of\nBabylon. They flocked from Damascus and Mount Libanus and from the Holy\nLand, sanctified by the footprints of our blessed Redeemer.\n\nThose Bishops belonged to every form of government, from the republic to\nthe most absolute monarchy.(66) Their faces were marked by almost every\nshade and color that distinguished the human family. They spoke every\ncivilized language under the sun. Kneeling together in the same great\nCouncil-Hall, truly could those Prelates exclaim, in the language of the\nApocalypse: \u201cThou hast redeemed us, O Lord, to God in Thy blood, out of\nevery tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.\u201d(67)\n\nWhat the Catholic Church lost by the religious revolution of the sixteenth\ncentury in the old world she has more than regained by the immense\naccessions to her ranks in the East and West Indies, in North and South\nAmerica.\n\nNever, in her long history, was she numerically so strong as she is at the\npresent moment, when her children amount to about three hundred millions,\nor double the number of those who bear the name of Christians outside of\nher communion.\n\nIn her alone is literally fulfilled the magnificent prophecy of Malachy;\nfor in every clime, and in every nation under the sun, are erected\nthousands of Catholic altars upon which the \u201cclean oblation\u201d(68) is daily\noffered up to the Most High.\n\nIt is said, with truth, that the sun never sets on British dominions. It\nmay also be affirmed, with equal assurance, that wherever the British\ndrum-beat sounds, aye, and wherever the English language is spoken, there\nyou will find the English-speaking Catholic Missionary planting the\ncross\u2014the symbol of salvation\u2014side by side with the banner of St. George.\n\nQuite recently a number of European emigrants arrived in Richmond. They\nwere strangers to our country, to our customs and to our language. Every\nobject that met their eye sadly reminded them that they were far from\ntheir own sunny Italy. But when they saw the cross surmounting our\nCathedral they hastened to it with a joyful step. I saw and heard a group\nof them giving earnest expression to their deep emotions. Entering this\nsacred temple, they felt that they had found an oasis in the desert. Once\nmore they were at home. They found one familiar spot in a strange land.\nThey stood in the church of their fathers, in the home of their childhood;\nand they seemed to say in their hearts, as a tear trickled down their\nsun-burnt cheeks, \u201cHow lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of Hosts! My\nsoul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my\nflesh have rejoiced in the living God.\u201d(69) They saw around them the\npaintings of familiar Saints whom they had been accustomed to reverence\nfrom their youth. They saw the baptismal font and the confessionals. They\nbeheld the altar and the altar-rails where they received their Maker. They\nobserved the Priest at the altar in his sacred vestments. They saw a\nmultitude of worshipers kneeling around them, and they felt in their heart\nof hearts that they were once more among brothers and sisters, with whom\nthey had \u201cone Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.\u201d\n\nEverywhere a Catholic is at home. Secret societies, of whatever name, form\nbut a weak and counterfeit bond of union compared with the genuine\nfellowship created by Catholic faith, hope and charity.\n\nThe Roman Catholic Church, then, exclusively merits the title of Catholic,\nbecause her children abound in every part of the globe and comprise the\nvast majority of the Christian family.\n\nGod forbid that I should write these lines, or that my Catholic readers\nshould peruse them in a boasting and vaunting spirit. God estimates men\nnot by their numbers, but by their intrinsic worth. It is no credit to us\nto belong to the body of the Church Catholic if we are not united to the\nsoul of the Church by a life of faith, hope and charity. It will avail us\nnothing to be citizens of that Kingdom of Christ which encircles the\nglobe, unless the Kingdom of God is within us by the reign of the Holy\nSpirit in our hearts.\n\nOne righteous soul that reflects the beauty and perfections of the Lord,\nis more precious in His sight than the mass of humanity that has no\nspiritual life, and is dead to the inspirations of grace.\n\nThe Patriarch Abraham was dearer to Jehovah than all the inhabitants of\nthe corrupt city of Sodom.\n\nElias was of greater worth before the Almighty than the four hundred\nprophets of Baal who ate at the table of Jezabel.\n\nThe Apostles with the little band of disciples that were assembled in\nJerusalem after our Lord\u2019s ascension, were more esteemed by Him than the\ngreat Roman Empire, which was seated in darkness and the shadow of death.\n\nWhile we rejoice, then, in the inestimable blessing of being incorporated\nin the visible body of the Catholic Church, whose spiritual treasures are\ninexhaustible, let us rejoice still more that we have not received that\nblessing in vain.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                Chapter V.\n\n\nAPOSTOLICITY.\n\n\nThe true Church must be Apostolical. Hence in the Creed framed in the\nfirst Ecumenical Council of Nic\u00e6a, in the year 325, we find these words:\n\u201cI believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and _Apostolic_ Church.\u201d\n\nThis attribute or note of the Church implies that the true Church must\nalways teach the identical doctrines once delivered by the Apostles, and\nthat her ministers must derive their powers from the Apostles by an\nuninterrupted succession.\n\nConsequently, no church can claim to be the true one whose doctrines\ndiffer from those of the Apostles, or whose ministers are unable to trace,\nby an unbroken chain, their authority to an Apostolic source; just as our\nMinister to England can exercise no authority in that country unless he is\nduly commissioned by our Government and represents its views.\n\nThe Church, says St. Paul, is \u201cbuilt upon the foundation of the\nApostles,\u201d(70) so that the doctrine which it propagates must be based on\nApostolic teachings. Hence St. Paul says to the Galatians: \u201cThough an\nangel from heaven preach a Gospel to you beside that which we have\npreached to you, let him be anathema.\u201d(71) The same Apostle gives this\nadmonition to Timothy: \u201cThe things which thou hast heard from me before\nmany witnesses the _same_ commend to faithful men who shall be fit to\nteach others also.\u201d(72) Timothy must transmit to his disciples only such\ndoctrines as he heard from the lips of his Master.\n\nNot only is it required that ministers of the Gospel should conform their\nteaching to the doctrine of the Apostles, but also that these ministers\nshould be ordained and commissioned by the Apostles or their legitimate\nsuccessors. \u201cNeither doth any man,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201ctake the honor to\nhimself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.\u201d(73) This text\nevidently condemns all self-constituted preachers and reformers; for, \u201chow\nshall they preach, unless they be sent?\u201d(74) _Sent_, of course, by\nlegitimate authority, and not directed by their own caprice. Hence, we\nfind that those who succeeded the Apostles were ordained and commissioned\nby them to preach, and that no others were permitted to exercise this\nfunction. Thus we are told that Paul and Barnabas \u201chad ordained for them\npriests in every church.\u201d(75) And the Apostle says to Titus: \u201cFor this\ncause I left thee in Crete, ... that thou shouldst ordain Priests in every\ncity, as I also appointed thee.\u201d(76) Even St. Paul himself, though\nmiraculously called and instructed by God, had hands imposed on him,(77)\nlest others should be tempted by his example to preach without Apostolic\nwarrant.\n\nTo discover, therefore, the Church of Christ among the various conflicting\nclaimants we have to inquire, first, which church teaches whole and entire\nthose doctrines that were taught by the Apostles; second, what ministers\ncan trace back, in an unbroken line, their missionary powers to the\nApostles.\n\nThe Catholic Church _alone_ teaches doctrines which are _in all respects_\nidentical with those of the first teachers of the Gospel. The following\nparallel lines exhibit some examples of the departure of the Protestant\nbodies from the primitive teachings of Christianity, and the faithful\nadhesion of the Catholic Church to them.\n\nApostolic Church.         Catholic Church.          Protestant Churches.\n\n1. Our Savior gives       The Catholic Church       All other Christian\npre-eminence to Peter     gives the primacy of      communions practically\nover the other            honor and jurisdiction    deny Peter\u2019s supremacy\nApostles: \u201cI will give    to Peter and to his       over the other\nto thee the keys of the   successors.               Apostles.\nkingdom of heaven.\u201d(78)\n\u201cConfirm thy\nbrethren.\u201d(79) \u201cFeed My\nlambs; feed My\nsheep.\u201d(80)\n\n2. The Apostolic Church   The Catholic Church       All the Protestant\nclaimed to be             alone, of all the         churches repudiate the\ninfallible in her         Christian communions,     claim of infallibility.\nteachings. Hence the      claims to exercise the    They deny that such a\nApostles spoke with       prerogative of            gift is possessed by\nunerring authority, and   infallibility in her      any teachers of\ntheir words were          teaching. Her ministers   religion. The ministers\nreceived not as human     always speak from the     pronounce no\nopinions, but as Divine   pulpit as having          authoritative\ntruths. \u201cWhen you have    authority, and the        doctrines, but advance\nreceived from us the      faithful receive with     opinions as embodying\nword of God, you          implicit confidence       their private\nreceived it not as the    what the Church           interpretation of the\nword of men, but (as it   teaches, without once     Scripture. And their\nis indeed) the word of    questioning her           hearers are never\nGod.\u201d(81) \u201cIt hath        veracity.                 required to believe\nseemed good to the Holy                             them, but are expected\nGhost and to us,\u201d say                               to draw their own\nthe assembled Apostles,                             conclusions from the\n\u201cto lay no further                                  Bible.\nburden upon you than\nthese necessary\nthings.\u201d(82) \u201cThough an\nangel from heaven\npreach a gospel to you\nbesides that which we\nhave preached to you,\nlet him be\nanathema.\u201d(83)\n\n3. Our Savior enjoins     The Church prescribes     Protestants have no law\nand prescribes rules      fasting to the faithful   prescribing fasts,\nfor fasting: \u201cWhen thou   at stated seasons,        though some may fast\nfastest, anoint thy       particularly during       from private devotion.\nhead and wash thy face,   Lent. A Catholic priest   They even try to cast\nthat thou appear not to   is always fasting when    ridicule on fasting as\nmen to fast ... and thy   he officiates at the      a work of\nFather, who seeth in      altar. He breaks his      supererogation,\nsecret, will repay        fast only after he says   detracting from the\nthee.\u201d(84) The Apostles   Mass. When Bishops        merits of Christ.\nfasted before engaging    ordain Priests they are   Neither candidates for\nin sacred functions:      always fasting, as well   ordination, nor the\n\u201cThey ministered to the   as the candidates for     ministers who ordain\nLord, and fasted.\u201d(85)    ordination.               them, ever fast on such\n\u201cAnd when they ordained                             occasions.\nPriests in every city,\nthey prayed with\nfasting.\u201d(86)\n\n4. \u201cLet women,\u201d says      The Catholic Church       Women, especially in\nthe Apostle, \u201ckeep        never permits women to    this country, publicly\nsilence in the            preach in the house of    preach in Methodist and\nchurches. For, it is      God.                      other churches with the\nnot permitted them to                               sanction of the church\nspeak ... It is a shame                             elders.\nfor a woman to speak in\nthe church.\u201d(87)\n\n5. St. Peter and St.      Every Catholic Bishop,    No denomination\nJohn confirmed the        as a successor of the     performs the ceremony\nnewly baptized in         Apostles, likewise        of imposing hands in\nSamaria: \u201cThey laid       imposes hands on          this country except\nhands on them and they    baptized persons in the   Episcopalians, and even\nreceived the Holy         Sacrament of              they do not recognize\nGhost.\u201d(88)               Confirmation, by which    Confirmation as a\n                          they receive the Holy     Sacrament.\n                          Ghost.\n\n6. Our Savior and His     The Catholic Church       The Protestant churches\nApostles taught that      teaches, with our Lord    (except, perhaps, a few\nthe Eucharist contains    and His Apostles, that    Ritualists) condemn the\nthe Body and Blood of     the Eucharist contains    doctrine of the Real\nChrist: \u201cTake ye, and     really and indeed the     Presence as idolatrous,\neat; this is My           Body and Blood of Jesus   and say that, in\nBody.... Drink ye all     Christ under the          partaking of the\nof this, for this is my   appearance of bread and   communion, we receive a\nBlood.\u201d(89) \u201cThe          wine.                     memorial of Christ.\nchalice of benediction\nwhich we bless, is it\nnot the communion of\nthe Blood of Christ;\nand the bread which we\nbreak, is it not the\nparticipation of the\nBody of the Lord?\u201d(90)\n\n7. The Apostles were      The Bishops and Priests   Protestants affirm, on\nempowered by our Savior   of the Catholic Church,   the contrary, that God\nto forgive sins:\u2014\u201cWhose   as the inheritors of      delegates to no man the\nsins ye shall forgive,    Apostolic prerogatives,   power of pardoning sin.\nthey are forgiven.\u201d(91)   profess to exercise the\n\u201cGod,\u201d says St. Paul,     ministry of\n\u201chath given to us the     reconciliation, and to\nministry of               forgive sins in the\nreconciliation.\u201d(92)      name of Christ.\n\n8. Regarding the sick,    One of the most           No such ceremony as\nSt. James gives this      ordinary duties of a      that of anointing the\ninstruction: \u201cIs any      Catholic Priest is to     sick is practised by\nman sick among you, let   anoint the sick in the    any Protestant\nhim bring in the          Sacrament of Extreme      denomination,\npriests of the Church,    Unction. If a man is      notwithstanding the\nand let them pray over    sick among us he is       Apostle\u2019s injunction.\nhim, anointing him with   careful to call in the\noil in the name of the    Priest of the Church,\nLord.\u201d(93)                that he may anoint him\n                          with oil in the name of\n                          the Lord.\n\n9. Of marriage our        Literally following the   The Protestant\nSavior says: \u201cWhoever     Apostle\u2019s injunction,     churches, as is well\nshall put away his wife   the Catholic Church       known, have so far\nand marry another         forbids the husband and   relaxed this rigorous\ncommitteth adultery       wife to separate from     law of the Gospel as to\nagainst her. And if the   one another; or, if       allow divorced persons\nwife shall put away her   they separate, neither    to remarry. And divorce\nhusband and be married    of them can marry again   _a vinculo_ is granted\nto another she            during the life of the    on various and even\ncommitteth                other.                    trifling pretenses.\nadultery.\u201d(94) And\nagain St. Paul says:\n\u201cTo them that are\nmarried ... the Lord\ncommandeth that the\nwife depart not from\nher husband, and if she\ndepart that she remain\nunmarried.... And let\nnot the husband put\naway his wife.\u201d(95)\n\n10. Our Lord recommends   Like the Apostle and      All the ministers of\nnot only by word, but     his Master, the           other denominations,\nby His example, to        Catholic clergy bind      with very rare\nsouls aiming at           themselves to a life of   exceptions, marry. And\nperfection, the state     perpetual chastity. The   far from inculcating\nof perpetual virginity.   inmates of our convents   the Apostolic counsel\nSt. Paul also exhorts     of men and women          of celibacy to any of\nthe Corinthians by        voluntarily consecrate    their flock, they more\ncounsel and his own       their virginity to God.   than insinuate that the\nexample to the same                                 virtue of perpetual\nangelic virtue: \u201cHe                                 chastity, though\nthat giveth his virgin                              recommended by St.\nin marriage,\u201d he says,                              Paul, is impracticable.\n\u201cdoeth well. And he\nthat giveth her not\ndoeth better.\u201d(96)\n\nWe now leave the reader to judge for himself which Church enforces the\ndoctrines of the Apostles in all their pristine vigor.\n\nTo show that the Catholic Church is the only lineal descendant of the\nApostles it is sufficient to demonstrate that she alone can trace her\npedigree, generation after generation, to the Apostles, while the origin\nof all other Christian communities can be referred to a comparatively\nmodern date.\n\nThe most influential Christian sects existing in this country at the\npresent time are the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians\nand Baptists. The other Protestant denominations are comparatively\ninsignificant in point of numbers, and are for the most part offshoots\nfrom the Christian communities just named.\n\nMartin Luther, a Saxon monk, was the founder of the church which bears his\nname. He was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, in 1483, and died in 1546.\n\nThe Anglican or Episcopal Church owes its origin to Henry VIII. of\nEngland. The immediate cause of his renunciation of the Roman Church was\nthe refusal of Pope Clement to grant him a divorce from his lawful wife,\nCatharine of Aragon, that he might be free to be joined in wedlock to Anne\nBoleyn. In order to legalize his divorce from his virtuous queen the\nlicentious monarch divorced himself and his kingdom from the spiritual\nsupremacy of the Pope.\n\n\u201cThere is a close relationship,\u201d says D\u2019Aubign\u00e9, \u201cbetween these two\ndivorces,\u201d meaning Henry\u2019s divorce from his wife and England\u2019s divorce\nfrom the Church. Yes, there is the relationship of cause and effect.\n\nBishop Short, an Anglican historian, candidly admits that \u201cthe existence\nof the Church of England as a distinct body, and her final separation from\nRome, may _be dated_ from the period of the divorce.\u201d(97)\n\nThe Book of Homilies, in the language of fulsome praise, calls Henry \u201cthe\ntrue and faithful minister,\u201d and gives him the credit for having abolished\nin England the Papal supremacy and established the new order of\nthings.(98)\n\nJohn Wesley is the acknowledged founder of the Methodist Church. Methodism\ndates from the year 1729, and its cradle was the Oxford University in\nEngland. John and Charles Wesley were students at Oxford. They gathered\naround them a number of young men who devoted themselves to the frequent\nreading of the Holy Scriptures and to prayer. Their methodical and exact\nmode of life obtained for them the name of _Methodists_. The Methodist\nChurch in this country is the offspring of a colony sent hither from\nEngland.\n\nAs it would be tedious to give even a succinct history of each sect, I\nshall content myself with presenting a tabular statement exhibiting the\nname and founder of each denomination, the place and date of its origin,\nand the names of the authors from whom I quote. My authorities in every\ninstance are Protestants.\n\nName of         Place          Founder.        Year.     Authority\nSect.           of                                       Quoted.\n                Origin.\nAnabaptists     Germany        Nicolas         1521      Vincent\n                               Stork                     L.\n                                                         Milner,\n                                                         \u201cReligious\n                                                         Denominations.\u201d\nBaptists        Rhode          Roger           1639      \u201cThe Book of\n                Island         Williams                  Religions\u201d by\n                                                         John Hayward.\nFree-Will       New            Benj.           1780      Ibid.\nBaptists        Hampshire      Randall\nFree            New York       Benijah         Close     Rev. A. D.\nCommunion                      Corp            of        Williams in\nBaptists                                       18th      \u201cHistory of all\n                                               century   Denominations.\u201d\nSeventh-Day     United         General         1833      W. B. Gillett,\nBaptists        States         Conference                Ibid.\nCampbellites,   Virginia       Alex.           1813      \u201cBook of\nor                             Campbell                  Religions.\u201d\nChristians\nMethodist       England        John            1739      Rev. Nathan\nEpiscopal                      Wesley                    Bangs in\n                                                         \u201cHistory of all\n                                                         Denominations.\u201d\nReformed        Vermont        Branch of       1814      Ibid.\nMethodist                      the Meth.\n                               Episcopal\n                               Church\nMethodist       New York       Do.             1820      Rev. W. M.\nSociety                                                  Stilwell, Ibid.\nMethodist       Baltimore      Do.             1830      James R.\nProtestant                                               Williams, Ibid.\nTrue Wesleyan   New York       Delegates       1843      J. Timberman,\nMethodist                      from                      Ibid.\n                               Methodist\n                               denominations\nPresbyterian    Scotland       General         1560      John M. Krebs,\n(Old School)                   Assembly                  Ibid.\nPresbyterian    Philadelphia   General         1840      Joel Parker, D.\n(New School)                   Assembly                  D., Ibid.\nEpiscopalian    England        Henry VIII      1534      Macaulay and\n                                                         other English\n                                                         Historians.\nLutheran        Germany        Martin Luther   1524      S. S. Schmucker\n                                                         in \u201cHistory of\n                                                         all\n                                                         Denominations.\u201d\nUnitarian       Germany        Celatius        About     Alvan Lamson,\nCongrega-                                      1540      Ibid.\ntionalists\nCongrega-       England        Robert Browne   1583      E. W. Andrews,\ntionalists                                               Ibid.\nQuakers         England        George Fox      1647      English\n                                                         Historians.\nDo              America        William Penn    1681      American\n                                                         Historians.\nCatholic        Jerusalem      Jesus           33        New Testament.\nChurch\n\nFrom this brief historical tableau we find that all the Christian _sects_\nnow existing in the United States had their origin since the year 1500.\nConsequently, the oldest body of Christians among us, outside the Catholic\nChurch, is not yet four centuries old. They all, therefore, come fifteen\ncenturies too late to have any pretensions to be called the Apostolic\nChurch.\n\nBut I may be told: \u201cThough our public history as Protestants dates from\nthe Reformation, we can trace our origin back to the Apostles.\u201d This I say\nis impossible. First of all, the very name you bear betrays your recent\nbirth; for who ever heard of a Baptist or an Episcopal, or any other\nProtestant church, prior to the Reformation? Nor can you say: \u201cWe existed\nin every age as an invisible church.\u201d Your concealment, indeed, was so\ncomplete that no man can tell, to this day, where you lay hid for sixteen\ncenturies. But even if you did exist you could not claim to be the Church\nof Christ; for our Lord predicted that His Church should ever be as a city\nplaced upon the mountain top, that all might see it, and that its\nministers should preach the truths of salvation from the watch-towers\nthereof, that all might hear them.\n\nIt is equally in vain to tell me that you were allied in faith to the\nvarious Christian sects that went out from the Catholic Church from age to\nage; for these sects proclaimed doctrines diametrically opposed to one\nanother, and the true Church must be one in faith. And besides, the less\nrelationship you claim with many of these seceders the better for you, as\nthey all advocated errors against Christian truth, and some of them\ndisseminated principles at variance with _decency_ and morality.\n\nThe Catholic Church, on the contrary, can easily vindicate the title of\nApostolic, because she derives her origin from the Apostles. Every Priest\nand Bishop can trace his genealogy to the first disciples of Christ with\nas much facility as the most remote branch of a vine can be traced to the\nmain stem.\n\nAll the Catholic Clergy in the United States, for instance, were ordained\nonly by Bishops who are in active communion with the See of Rome. These\nBishops themselves received their commissions from the Bishop of Rome. The\npresent Bishop of Rome, Pius IX., is the successor of Gregory XVI., who\nsucceeded Pius VIII., who was the successor of Leo XII. And thus we go\nback from century to century till we come to Peter, the first Bishop of\nRome, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ. Like the Evangelist\nLuke, who traces the genealogy of our Savior back to Adam and to God, we\ncan trace the pedigree of Pius IX. to Peter and to Christ. There is not a\nlink wanting in the chain which binds the humblest Priest in the land to\nthe Prince of the Apostles. And although on a few occasions there happened\nto be two or even three claimants for the chair of Peter, these\ncounter-claims could no more affect the validity of the legitimate Pope\nthan the struggle of two contestants for the Presidency could invalidate\nthe title of the recognized Chief Magistrate.\n\nIt was by pursuing this line of argument that the early Fathers\ndemonstrated the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church, and refuted the\npretensions of contemporary sectaries. St. Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian and St.\nAugustine give catalogues of the Bishops of Rome who flourished up to\ntheir respective times, with whom it was their happiness to be in\ncommunion, and then they challenged their opponents to trace their lineage\nto the Apostolic See. \u201cLet them,\u201d says Tertullian, in the second century,\n\u201cproduce the origin of their church. Let them exhibit the succession of\ntheir Bishops, so that the first of them may appear to have been ordained\nby an _Apostle, or by an apostolic man who was in communion with the\nApostles_.\u201d(99)\n\nAnd if the Fathers of the fifth century considered it a powerful argument\nin their favor that they could refer to an uninterrupted line of fifty\nBishops who occupied the See of Rome, how much stronger is the argument to\nus who can now exhibit five times that number of Roman Pontiffs who have\nsat in the chair of Peter! I would affectionately repeat to my separated\nbrethren what Augustine said to the Donatists of his time: \u201cCome to us,\nbrethren if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. We are afflicted in\nbeholding you lying cut off from it. Count over the Bishops from the very\nSee of St. Peter, and mark, in this list of Fathers, how one succeeded the\nother. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not\nprevail.\u201d(100)\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter VI.\n\n\nPERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nPerpetuity, or duration till the end of time, is one of the most striking\nmarks of the Church. By perpetuity is not meant merely that Christianity\nin one form or another was always to exist, but that the Church was to\nremain forever in its _integrity_, clothed with _all_ those attributes\nwhich God gave it in the beginning. For, if the Church lost any of her\nessential characteristics, such as her unity and sanctity, which our Lord\nimparted to her at the commencement of her existence, she could not be\nsaid to be perpetual because she would not be the same Institution.\n\nThe unceasing duration of the Church of Christ is frequently foretold in\nSacred Scripture. The Angel Gabriel announces to Mary that Christ \u201cshall\nreign over the house of Jacob _forever_, and of his kingdom _there shall\nbe no end_.\u201d(101) Our Savior said to Peter: \u201cThou art Peter, and upon this\nrock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail\nagainst it.\u201d(102) Our blessed Lord clearly intimates here that the Church\nis destined to be assailed always, but to be overcome, never.\n\nIn the last words recorded of our Redeemer in the Gospel of St. Matthew\nthe same prediction is strongly repeated, and the reason of the Church\u2019s\nindefectibility is fully expressed: \u201cGo ye, teach all nations, ... and\nbehold I am with you _all days_, even _to the consummation_ of the\nworld.\u201d(103) This sentence contains three important declarations:\nFirst\u2014The presence of Christ with His Church\u2014\u201cBehold, I am with you.\u201d\nSecond\u2014His constant presence, without an interval of one day\u2019s absence\u2014\u201cI\nam with you all days.\u201d Third\u2014His perpetual presence to the end of the\nworld, and consequently the perpetual duration of the Church\u2014\u201cEven to the\nconsummation of the world.\u201d\n\nHence it follows that the true Church must have existed from the\nbeginning; it must have had not one day\u2019s interval of suspended animation,\nor separation from Christ, and must live to the end of time.\n\nNone of the Christian Communions outside the Catholic Church can have any\nreasonable claim to _Perpetuity_, since, as we have seen in the preceding\nchapter, they are all(104) of recent origin.\n\nThe indestructibility of the Catholic Church is truly marvellous and well\ncalculated to excite the admiration of every reflecting mind, when we\nconsider the number and variety, and the formidable power of the enemies\nwith whom she had to contend from her very birth to the present time; this\nfact alone stamps divinity on her brow.\n\nThe Church has been constantly engaged in a double warfare, one foreign,\nthe other domestic\u2014in foreign war against Paganism and infidelity; in\ncivil strife against heresy and schism fomented by her own rebellious\nchildren.\n\nFrom the day of Pentecost till the victory of Constantine the Great over\nMaxentius, embracing a period of about two hundred and eighty years, the\nChurch underwent a series of ten persecutions unparalleled for atrocity in\nthe annals of history. Every torture that malice could invent was resorted\nto, that every vestige of Christianity might be eradicated.\n_\u201c__Christianos ad leones,__\u201d__ the Christians to the lions_, was the\npopular war-cry.\n\nThey were clothed in the skins of wild beasts, and thus exposed to be\ndevoured by dogs. They were covered with pitch and set on fire to serve as\nlamp-posts to the streets of Rome. To justify such atrocities, and to\nsmother all sentiments of compassion, these persecutors accused their\ninnocent victims of the most appalling crimes.\n\nFor three centuries the Christians were obliged to worship God in the\nsecrecy of their chambers, or in the Roman catacombs, which are still\npreserved to attest the undying fortitude of the martyrs and the enormity\nof their sufferings.\n\nAnd yet Pagan Rome, before whose standard the mightiest nations quailed,\nwas unable to crush the infant Church or arrest her progress. In a short\ntime we find this colossal Empire going to pieces, and the Head of the\nCatholic Church dispensing laws to Christendom in the very city from which\nthe imperial C\u00e6sars had promulgated their edicts against Christianity!\n\nDuring the fifth and sixth centuries the Goths and Vandals, the Huns,\nVisigoths, Lombards and other immense tribes of Barbarians came down like\na torrent from the North, invading the fairest portions of Southern\nEurope. They dismembered the Roman Empire and swept away nearly every\ntrace of the old Roman civilization. They plundered cities, leveled\nchurches and left ruin and desolation after them. Yet, though conquering\nfor awhile, they were conquered in turn by submitting to the sweet yoke of\nthe Gospel. And thus, as even the infidel Gibbon observes, \u201cThe progress\nof Christianity has been marked by two glorious and decisive victories\nover the learned and luxurious citizens of the Roman Empire and over the\nwarlike Barbarians of Scythia and Germany, who subverted the empire and\nembraced the religion of the Romans.\u201d(105)\n\nMohamedanism took its rise in the seventh century in Arabia, and made\nrapid conquests in Asia. In the fifteenth century Constantinople was\ncaptured by the followers of the false prophet, who even threatened to\nsubject all Europe to their sway. For nine centuries Mohamedanism\ncontinued to be a standing menace to christendom, till the final issue\ncame when it was to be decided once for all whether Christianity and\ncivilization on the one hand, or Mohamedanism and infidelity on the other,\nshould rule the destinies of Europe and the world.\n\nAt the earnest solicitation of the Pope, the kingdom of Spain and the\nrepublic of Venice formed an offensive league against the Turks, who were\nsignally defeated in the battle of Lepanto, in 1571. And if the Cross,\ninstead of the Crescent, surmounts the cities of Europe today, it is\nindebted for this priceless blessing to the vigilance of the Roman\nPontiffs.\n\nAnother adversary more formidable and dangerous than those I have\nmentioned threatened the overthrow of the Church in the fourth and fifth\ncenturies. I speak of the great heresy of Arius, which was followed by\nthose of Nestorius and Eutyches.\n\nThe Arian schism, soon after its rise, spread rapidly through Europe,\nNorthern Africa and portions of Asia. It received the support of immense\nmultitudes, and flourished for awhile under the fostering care of several\nsuccessive emperors. Catholic Bishops were banished from their sees, and\ntheir places were filled by Arian intruders. The Church which survived the\nsword of Paganism seemed for awhile to yield to the poison of Arianism.\nBut after a short career of prosperity this gigantic sect became weakened\nby intestine divisions, and was finally swept away by other errors which\ncame following in its footsteps.\n\nYou are already familiar with the great religious revolution of the\nsixteenth century, which spread like a tornado over Northern Europe and\nthreatened, if that were possible, to engulf the bark of Peter. More than\nhalf of Germany followed the new Gospel of Martin Luther. Switzerland\nsubmitted to the doctrines of Zuinglius. The faith was lost in Sweden\nthrough the influence of its king, Gustavus Vasa. Denmark conformed to the\nnew creed through the intrigues of King Christian II. Catholicity was also\ncrushed out in Norway, England and Scotland. Calvinism in the sixteenth\ncentury and Voltaireism in the eighteenth had gained such a foothold in\nFrance that the faith of that glorious Catholic nation twice trembled in\nthe balance. Ireland alone, of all the nations of Northern Europe,\nremained faithful to the ancient Church.\n\nLet us now calmly survey the field after the din and smoke of battle have\npassed away. Let us examine the condition of the old Church after having\npassed through those deadly conflicts. We see her numerically stronger\ntoday than at any previous period of her history. The losses she sustained\nin the old world are more than compensated by her acquisitions in the new.\nShe has already recovered a good portion of the ground wrested from her in\nthe sixteenth century. She numbers now about three hundred million\nadherents. She exists today not an effete institution, but in all the\nintegrity and fulness of life, with her organism unimpaired, more united,\nmore compact and more vigorous than ever she was before.\n\nThe so-called Reformation of the sixteenth century bears many points of\nresemblance to the great Arian heresy. Both schisms originated with\nPriests impatient of the yoke of the Gospel, fond of novelty and ambitious\nfor notoriety. Both were nursed and sustained by the reigning Powers, and\nwere augmented by large accessions of proselytes. Both spread for awhile\nwith the irresistible force of a violent hurricane, till its fury was\nspent. Both subsequently became subdivided into various bodies. The\nextinction of Protestantism would complete the parallel.\n\nIn this connection a remark of De Maistre is worth quoting: \u201cIf\nProtestantism bears always the same name, though its belief has been\nperpetually shifting, it is because its name is purely negative and means\nonly the denial of Catholicity, so that the less it believes, and the more\nit protests, the more consistently Protestant it will be. Since, then, its\nname becomes continually truer, it must subsist until it perishes, just as\nan ulcer disappears with the last atom of the flesh which it has been\neating away.\u201d(106)\n\nBut similar causes will produce similar results. As both revolutions were\nthe offspring of rebellion; as both have been marked by the same vigorous\nyouth, the same precocious manhood, the same premature decay and\ndismemberment of parts; so we are not rash in predicting that the\ndissolution which long since visited the former is destined, sooner or\nlater, to overtake the latter. But the Catholic Church, because she is the\nwork of God, is always \u201crenewing her strength, like the eagle\u2019s.\u201d(107) You\nask for a miracle, as the Jews asked our Saviour for a sign. You ask the\nChurch to prove her divine mission by a miraculous agency. Is not her very\nsurvival the greatest of prodigies? If you beheld some fair bride with all\nthe weakness of humanity upon her, cast into a prison and starved and\ntrampled upon, hacked and tortured, her blood sprinkled upon her dungeon\nwalls, and if you saw her again emerging from her prison, in all the bloom\nand freshness of youth, and surviving for years and centuries beyond the\nspan of human life, continuing to be the joyful mother of children, would\nyou not call that scene a miracle?\n\nAnd is not this a picture of our Mother, the Church? Has she not passed\nthrough all these vicissitudes? Has she not tasted the bitterness of\nprison in every age? Has not her blood been shed in every clime?\n\nAnd yet in her latter days, she is as fair as ever, and the nursing mother\nof children. Are not civil governments and institutions mortal as well as\nmen? Why should the Republic of the Church be an exception to the law of\ndecay and death? If this is not a miracle, I know not what a miracle is.\n\nIf Augustin, that profound Christian philosopher, could employ this\nargument in the fifth century, with how much more force may it be used\ntoday, fifteen hundred years after his time!\n\nBut far be it from us to ascribe to any human cause this marvelous\nsurvival of the Church.\n\nHer indestructibility is not due, as some suppose, to her wonderful\norganization, or to the far-reaching policy of her Pontiffs, or to the\nlearning and wisdom of her teachers. If she has survived, it is not\nbecause of human wisdom, but often in spite of human folly. Her permanence\nis due not to the arm of the flesh, but to the finger of God. \u201cNot to us,\nO Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give glory.\u201d\n\nI would now ask this question of all that are hostile to the Catholic\nChurch and that are plotting her destruction: How can you hope to overturn\nan institution which for more than nineteen centuries has successfully\nresisted all the combined assaults of the world, of men, and of the powers\nof darkness? What means will you employ to encompass her ruin?\n\nI. Is it the power of Kings, and Emperors, and Prime Ministers? They have\ntried in vain to crush her, from the days of the Roman C\u00e6sars to those of\nthe former Chancellor of Germany.\n\nMany persons labor under the erroneous impression that the crowned heads\nof Europe have been the unvarying supporters of the Church, and that if\ntheir protection were withdrawn she would soon collapse. So far from the\nChurch being sheltered behind earthly thrones, her worst enemies have\nbeen, with some honorable exceptions, so-called Christian Princes who were\nnominal children of the Church. They chafed under her salutary discipline;\nthey wished to be rid of her yoke, because she alone, in time of\noppression, had the power and the courage to stand by the rights of the\npeople, and place her breast as a wall of brass against the encroachments\nof their rulers. With calm confidence we can say with the Psalmist: \u201cWhy\nhave the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of\nthe earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and\nagainst his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away\ntheir yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them and the\nLord shall deride them.\u201d(108)\n\nII. Can the immense resources and organized power of rival religious\nbodies succeed in absorbing her and in bringing her to naught? I am not\ndisposed to undervalue this power. Against any human force it would be\nirresistible. But if the colossal strength, and incomparable machinery of\nthe Roman Empire could not prevent the establishment of the Church; if\nArianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism could not check her development, how\ncan modern organizations stop her progress now, when in the fulness of her\nstrength?\n\nIt is easier to preserve what is created, than to create anew.\n\nIII. But we have been told: \u201cTake from the Pope his Temporal power and the\nChurch is doomed to destruction. This is the secret of her strength; strip\nher of this, and, like Samson shorn of his hair, she will betray all the\nweakness of a poor mortal. Then this brilliant luminary will wax pale and\nshe will sink below the horizon, never more to rise again.\u201d\n\nFor more than seven centuries after the establishment of the Church the\nPopes had no sovereign territorial jurisdiction. How could she have\noutlived that period, if the temporal power were essential to her\nperpetuity? And even since 1870 the Pope has been deprived of his\ntemporalities. This loss, however, does not bring a wrinkle on the fair\nbrow of the Church, nor does it retard one inch her onward march.\n\nIV. Is she unable to cope with modern inventions and the mechanical\nprogress of the nineteenth century? We are often told so; but far from\nhiding our head, like the ostrich in the sand, at the approach of these\ninventions we hail them as messengers of God, and will use them as\nProvidential instruments for the further propagation of the faith.\n\nIf we succeeded so well before, when we had no ships but frail canoes, no\ncompass but our eyes; when we had no roads but eternal snows, virgin\nforests and trackless deserts; when we had no guide save faith, and hope,\nand God\u2014if even then we succeeded so well in carrying the Gospel to the\nconfines of the earth, how much more can we do now by the aid of\ntelegraph, steamships and railroads?\n\nYes, O men of genius, we bless your inventions; we bless you, ye modern\ndiscoveries; and we will impress you into the service of the Church and\nsay: \u201cFire and heat bless the Lord. Lightnings and clouds bless the Lord;\nall ye works of the Lord bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all\nforever.\u201d(109)\n\nThe utility of modern inventions to the Church has lately been manifested\nin a conspicuous manner. The Pope called a council of all the Bishops of\nthe world. Without the aid of steam it would have been almost impossible\nfor them to assemble; by its aid they were able to meet from the uttermost\nbounds of the earth.\n\nV. But may not the light of the Church grow pale and be extinguished\nbefore the intellectual blaze of the nineteenth century? Has she not much\nto fear from literature, the arts and sciences? She has always been the\nPatroness of literature, and the fostering Mother of the arts and\nsciences. She founded and endowed nearly all the great universities of\nEurope.\n\nNot to mention those of the continent, a bare catalogue of which would\ncover a large space, I may allude to the Universities of Oxford and\nCambridge, the two most famous seats of learning in England, which were\nestablished under Catholic auspices centuries before the Reformation.\n\nThe Church also founded three of the four universities now existing in\nScotland, viz: St. Andrew\u2019s in 1411, Glasgow in 1450 and Aberdeen in 1494.\n\nWithout her we should be deprived to-day of the priceless treasures of\nancient literature; for, in preserving the languages of Greece and Rome\nfrom destruction, she rescued classical writers of those countries from\noblivion. Hallam justly observes that, were it not for the diligent labors\nof the monks in the Middle Ages, our knowledge of the history of ancient\nGreece and Rome would be as vague today as our information regarding the\nPyramids of Egypt.\n\nAnd as for works of art, there are more valuable monuments of art\ncontained in the single museum of the Vatican than are to be found in all\nour country. Artists are obliged to go to Rome to consult their best\nmodels. Our churches are not only temples of worship, but depositories of\nsacred art. For our intellectual progress we are in no small measure\nindebted to the much-abused Middle Ages. Tyndall has the candor to observe\nthat \u201cThe nineteenth century strikes its roots into the centuries gone by\nand draws nutriment from them.\u201d(110)\n\nVI. Is it liberty that will destroy the Church? The Church breathes freely\nand expands with giant growth, where true liberty is found. She is always\ncramped in her operations wherever despotism casts its dark shadow.\nNowhere does she enjoy more independence than here; nowhere is she more\nvigorous and more prosperous.\n\nChildren of the Church, fear nothing, happen what will to her. Christ is\nwith her and therefore she cannot sink. C\u00e6sar, in crossing the Adriatic,\nsaid to the troubled oarsman: \u201cQuid times? C\u00e6sarem vehis.\u201d What C\u00e6sar said\nin presumption Jesus says with truth: What fearest thou? Christ is in the\nship. Are we not positive that the sun will rise tomorrow and next day,\nand so on to the end of the world? Why? Because God so ordained when He\nestablished it in the heavens; and because it has never failed to run its\ncourse from the beginning. Has not Christ promised that the Church should\nalways enlighten the world? Has He not, so far, fulfilled His promise\nconcerning His Church? Has she not gone steadily on her course amid storm\nand sunshine? The fulfilment of the past is the best security for the\nfuture.\n\nAmid the continual changes in human institutions she is the one\nInstitution that never changes. Amid the universal ruins of earthly\nmonuments she is the one monument that stands proudly pre-eminent. Not a\nstone in this building falls to the ground. Amid the general destruction\nof kingdoms her kingdom is never destroyed. Ever ancient and ever new,\ntime writes no wrinkles on her Divine brow.\n\nThe Church has seen the birth of every government of Europe, and it is not\nat all improbable that she shall also witness the death of them all and\nchant their requiem. She was more than fourteen hundred years old when\nColumbus discovered our continent, and the foundation of our Republic is\nbut as yesterday to her.\n\nShe calmly looked on while the Goths and the Visigoths, the Huns and the\nSaxons swept like a torrent over Europe, subverting dynasties. She has\nseen monarchies changed into republics, and republics consolidated into\nempires\u2014all this has she witnessed, while her own Divine Constitution has\nremained unaltered. Of Her we can truly say in the words of the Psalmist:\n\u201cThey shall perish, but thou remainest; and all of them shall grow old as\na garment. And as a vesture Thou shalt change them, and they shall be\nchanged. But thou art always the self-same, and thy years shalt not fail.\nThe children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be\ndirected forever.\u201d(111) God forbid that we should ascribe to any human\ncause this marvellous survival of the Church. Her indestructibility is not\ndue, as some suppose, to her wonderful organization, or to the\nfar-reaching policy of her Pontiffs, or to the learning and wisdom of her\nteachers. If she has survived, it is not because of human wisdom, but\noften in spite of human folly. Her permanence is due not to the arm of the\nflesh, but to the finger of God.\n\nIn the brightest days of the Republic of Pagan Rome the Roman said with\npride: \u201cI am a Roman citizen.\u201d This was his noblest title. He was proud of\nthe Republic, because it was venerable in years, powerful in the number of\nits citizens, and distinguished for the wisdom of its statesmen. What a\nsubject of greater glory to be a citizen of the Republic of the Church\nwhich has lasted for nineteen centuries, and will continue till time shall\nbe no more; which counts her millions of children in every clime; which\nnumbers her heroes and her martyrs by the thousand; which associates you\nwith the Apostles and Saints. \u201cYou are no more strangers and foreigners,\nbut you are fellow-citizens with the Saints and the domestics of God,\nbuilt upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ\nHimself being the chief cornerstone.\u201d(112) Though separated from earthly\nrelatives and parents, you need never be separated from her. She is ever\nwith us to comfort us. She says to us what her Divine Spouse said to His\nApostles: \u201cBehold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the\nworld.\u201d(113)\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter VII.\n\n\nINFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nThe Church has authority from God to teach regarding faith and morals, and\nin her teaching she is preserved from error by the special guidance of the\nHoly Ghost.\n\nThe prerogative of infallibility is clearly deduced from the attributes of\nthe Church already mentioned. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and\nApostolic. Preaching the same creed everywhere and at all times; teaching\nholiness and truth, she is, of course, essentially unerring in her\ndoctrine; for what is one, holy or unchangeable must be infallibly true.\n\nThat the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age is denied by no\nChristian. We never question the truth of the Apostles\u2019 declarations;(114)\nthey were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first\ncentury. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first\ncentury. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of\nthe nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by\nthose of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that\nthis unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as\nthe Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to\nbaptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to\nthem the no less essential gift of infallibility.\n\nGod loves us as much as He loved the primitive Christians; Christ died for\nus as well as for them and we have as much need of unerring teachers as\nthey had.\n\nIt will not suffice to tell me: \u201cWe have an infallible Scripture as a\nsubstitute for an infallible apostolate of the first century,\u201d for an\ninfallible book is of no use to me without an infallible interpreter, as\nthe history of Protestantism too clearly demonstrates.\n\nBut besides these presumptive arguments, we have positive evidence from\nScripture that the Church cannot err in her teachings. Our blessed Lord,\nin constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says to him: \u201cThou art\nPeter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell\nshall not prevail against it.\u201d(115) Christ makes here a solemn prediction\nthat no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell into error the\ngates of hell have certainly prevailed against her.\n\nThe Reformers of the sixteenth century affirm that the Church did fall\ninto error; that the gates of hell did prevail against her; that from the\nsixth to the sixteenth century she was a sink of iniquity. The Book of\nHomilies of the Church of England says that the Church \u201clay buried in\ndamnable idolatry for eight hundred years or more.\u201d The personal veracity\nof our Savior and of the Reformers is here at issue, for our Lord makes a\nstatement which they contradict. Who is to be believed, Jesus or the\nReformers?\n\nIf the prediction of our Savior about the preservation of His Church from\nerror be false, then Jesus Christ is not God, since God cannot lie. He is\nnot even a prophet, since He predicted falsehood. Nay, He is an impostor,\nand all Christianity is a miserable failure and a huge deception, since it\nrests on a false Prophet.\n\nBut if Jesus predicted the truth when He declared that the gates of hell\nshould not prevail against His Church\u2014and who dare deny it?\u2014then the\nChurch never has and never could have fallen from the truth; then the\nCatholic Church is infallible, for she alone claims that prerogative, and\nshe is the only Church that is acknowledged to have existed from the\nbeginning. Truly is Jesus that wise Architect mentioned in the Gospel,\n\u201cwho built his house upon a rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came,\nand the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it\nwas founded upon a rock.\u201d(116)\n\nJesus sends forth the Apostles with plenipotentiary powers to preach the\nGospel. \u201cAs the Father,\u201d He says, \u201chath sent Me, I also send you.\u201d(117)\n\u201cGoing therefore, teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things\nwhatsoever I have commanded you.\u201d(118) \u201cPreach the Gospel to every\ncreature.\u201d(119) \u201cYe shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all\nJudea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.\u201d(120)\n\nThis commission evidently applies not to the Apostles only, but also to\ntheir successors, to the end of time, since it was utterly impossible for\nthe Apostles personally to preach to the whole world.\n\nNot only does our Lord empower His Apostles to preach the Gospel, but He\ncommands, and under the most severe penalties, those to whom they preach\nto listen and obey. \u201cWhosoever will not receive you, nor hear your words,\ngoing forth from that house or city, shake the dust from your feet. Amen,\nI say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and\nGomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city.\u201d(121) \u201cIf he will not\nhear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.\u201d(122)\n\u201cHe that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be\ncondemned.\u201d(123) \u201cHe that heareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you\ndespiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.\u201d(124)\n\nFrom these passages we see, on the one hand, that the Apostles and their\nsuccessors have received full powers to announce the Gospel; and on the\nother, that their hearers are obliged to listen with docility and to obey\nnot merely by an external compliance, but also by an internal assent of\nthe intellect. If, therefore, the Catholic Church could preach error,\nwould not God Himself be responsible for the error? And could not the\nfaithful soul say to God with all reverence and truth: Thou hast commanded\nme, O Lord, to hear Thy Church; if I am deceived by obeying her, Thou art\nthe cause of my error?\n\nBut we may rest assured that an all-wise Providence who commands His\nChurch to speak in His name will so guide her in the path of truth that\nshe shall never lead into error those that follow her teachings.\n\nBut as this privilege of Infallibility was a very extraordinary favor, our\nSavior confers it on the rulers of His Church in language which removes\nall doubt from the sincere inquirer, and under circumstances which add to\nthe majesty of His word. Shortly before His death Jesus consoles His\ndisciples by this promise: \u201cI will ask the Father, and He shall give you\nanother Paraclete, _that He may abide with you forever_.... But when He,\nthe Spirit of truth, shall come, _He will teach you all truth_.\u201d(125)\n\nThe following text of the same import forms the concluding words recorded\nof our Savior in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel: \u201cAll power is given to Me in heaven\nand on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, ... teaching them\nto observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am\nwith you all days, even to the consummation of the world.\u201d(126)\n\nHe begins by asserting His own Divine authority and mission. \u201cAll power is\ngiven,\u201d etc. That power He then delegates to His Apostles and to their\nsuccessors: \u201cGo ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\u201d etc. He does not\ninstruct them to scatter Bibles broadcast over the earth, but to teach by\nword of mouth. \u201cAnd behold!\u201d Our Savior never arrests the attention of His\nhearers by using the interjection, _behold_, unless when He has something\nunusually solemn and extraordinary to communicate. An important\nannouncement is sure to follow this word. \u201cBehold, I am with you.\u201d These\nwords, \u201c_I am with you_,\u201d are frequently addressed in Sacred Scripture by\nthe Almighty to His Prophets and Patriarchs, and they always imply a\nspecial presence and a particular supervision of the Deity.(127) They\nconvey the same meaning in the present instance. Christ says equivalently\nI who \u201cam the way, the truth and the life,\u201d will protect you from error\nand will guide you in your speech. I will be with you, not merely during\n_your_ natural lives, not for a century only, but all days, at all times,\nwithout intermission, even to the end of the world.\n\nThese words of Jesus Christ establish two important facts: First\u2014A promise\nto guard His Church from error. Second\u2014A promise that His presence with\nthe Church will be continuous, without any interval of absence, to the\nconsummation of the world.\n\nAnd this is also the sentiment of the Apostle of the Gentiles writing to\nthe Ephesians: God \u201cgave some indeed Apostles, and some Prophets, and some\nEvangelists, and others Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the\nSaints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of\nChrist, until we all meet in the unity of faith, ... that we may no more\nbe children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine, by the wickedness of men, in craft, by which they lie in wait to\ndeceive.\u201d(128)\n\nNotwithstanding these plain declarations of Scripture, some persons think\nit an unwarrantable assumption for the Church to claim infallibility. But\nmark the consequences that follow from denying it.\n\nIf your church is not infallible it is liable to err, for there is no\nmedium between infallibility and liability to error. If your church and\nher ministers are fallible in their doctrinal teachings, as they admit,\nthey may be preaching falsehood to you, instead of truth. If so, you are\nin doubt whether you are listening to truth or falsehood. If you are in\ndoubt you can have no faith, for faith excludes doubt, and in that state\nyou displease God, for \u201cwithout faith it is impossible to please\nGod.\u201d(129) Faith and infallibility must go hand in hand. The one cannot\nexist without the other. There can be no faith in the hearer unless there\nis unerring authority in the speaker\u2014an authority founded upon such\ncertain knowledge as precludes the possibility of falling into error on\nhis part, and including such unquestioned veracity as to prevent his\ndeceiving him who accepts his word.\n\nYou admit infallible certainty in the physical sciences; why should you\ndeny it in the science of salvation? The astronomer can predict with\naccuracy a hundred years beforehand an eclipse of the sun or moon. He can\ntell what point in the heavens a planet will reach on a given day. The\nmariner, guided by his compass, knows, amid the raging storm and the\ndarkness of the night, that he is steering his course directly to the city\nof his destination; and is not an infallible guide as necessary to conduct\nyou to the city of God in heaven? Is it not, moreover, a blessing and a\nconsolation that, amid the ever-changing views of men, amid the conflict\nof human opinion and the tumultuous waves of human passion, there is one\nvoice heard above the din and uproar, crying in clear, unerring tones:\n\u201cThus saith the Lord?\u201d\n\nIt is very strange that the Catholic Church must apologize to the world\nfor simply declaring that she speaks the truth, the whole truth, and\nnothing but the truth.\n\nThe Roman Pantheon was dedicated to all the gods of the Empire, and their\nname was legion. Formidable also in numbers are the Founders of the\nreligious sects existing in our country. A Pantheon as vast as Westminster\nAbbey would hardly be spacious enough to contain life-sized statues for\ntheir accommodation.\n\nIf you were to confront those figures, and to ask them, one by one, to\ngive an account of the faith they had professed, and if they were endowed\nwith the gift of speech, you would find that no two of them were in entire\naccord, but that they all differed among themselves on some fundamental\nprinciple of revelation.\n\nWould you not be acting very unwisely and be hazarding your soul\u2019s\nsalvation in submitting to the teachings of so many discordant and\nconflicting oracles.\n\nChildren of the Catholic Church, give thanks to God that you are members\nof that Communion, which proclaims year after year the one same and\nunalterable message of truth, peace and love, and that you are preserved\nfrom all errors in faith, and from all illusion in the practice of virtue.\nYou are happily strangers to those interior conflicts, to those perplexing\ndoubts and to that frightful uncertainty which distracts the souls of\nthose whose private judgment is their only guide, who are \u201cever learning\nand never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.\u201d(130) You are not, like\nothers, drifting helplessly over the ocean of uncertainty and \u201ccarried\nabout by every wind of doctrine.\u201d You are not as \u201cblind men led by blind\nguides.\u201d You are not like those who are in the midst of a spiritual desert\nintersected by various by-paths, not knowing which to pursue; but you are\non that high road spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, which is so \u201cstraight a\nway that fools shall not err therein.\u201d(131) You are a part of that\nuniversal Communion which has no \u201cHigh Church\u201d and \u201cLow Church;\u201d no \u201cNew\nSchool\u201d and \u201cOld School,\u201d for you all belong to that School which is \u201cever\nancient and ever new.\u201d You enjoy that profound peace and tranquillity\nwhich springs from the conscious possession of the whole truth. Well may\nyou exclaim: \u201cBehold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell\ntogether in unity.\u201d(132)\n\nGive thanks, moreover, to God that you belong to a Church which has also a\nkeen sense to detect and expose those moral shams, those pious frauds,\nthose socialistic schemes which are so often undertaken in this country\nostensibly in the name of religion and morality, but which, in reality,\nare subversive of morality and order, which are the offspring of\nfanaticism, and serve as a mask to hide the most debasing passions.\nNeither Mormons nor Millerites, nor the advocates of free love or of\nwomen\u2019s rights, so called, find any recruits in the Catholic Church. She\nwill never suffer her children to be ensnared by these impostures, how\nspecious soever they may be.\n\nFrom what has been said in the preceding pages, it follows that the\nCatholic Church cannot be reformed. I do not mean, of course, that the\nPastors of the Church are personally impeccable or not subject to sin.\nEvery teacher in the Church, from the Pope down to the humblest Priest, is\nliable at any moment, like any of the faithful, to fall from grace and to\nstand in need of moral reformation. We all carry \u201cthis treasure (of\ninnocence) in earthen vessels.\u201d\n\nMy meaning is that the Church is not susceptible of being reformed in her\ndoctrines. The Church is the work of an Incarnate God. Like all God\u2019s\nworks, it is perfect. It is, therefore, incapable of reform. Is it not the\nheight of presumption for men to attempt to improve upon the work of God?\nIs it not ridiculous for the Luthers, the Calvins, the Knoxes and the\nHenries and a thousand lesser lights to be offering their amendments to\nthe Constitution of the Church, as if it were a human Institution?\n\nOur Lord Himself has never ceased to rule personally over His Church. It\nis time enough for little men to take charge of the Ship when the great\nCaptain abandons the helm.\n\nA Protestant gentleman of very liberal education remarked to me, before\nthe opening of the late Ecumenical Council: \u201cI am assured, sir, by a\nfriend, in confidence, that, at a secret Conclave of Bishops recently held\nin Rome it was resolved that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception would\nbe reconsidered and abolished at the approaching General Council; in fact,\nthat the definition was a mistake, and that the blunder of 1854 would be\nrepaired in 1869.\u201d I told him, of course, that no such question could be\nentertained in the Council; that the doctrinal decrees of the Church were\nirrevocable, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined\nonce and forever.\n\nIf only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a\ndoctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance\nwould be the death blow of her claim to infallibility. But it is a\nmarvelous fact worthy of record that in the whole history of the Church,\nfrom the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary example can be\nadduced to show that any Pope or General Council ever revoked a decree of\nfaith or morals enacted by any preceding Pontiff or Council. Her record in\nthe past ought to be a sufficient warrant that she will tolerate no\ndoctrinal variations in the future.\n\nIf, as we have seen, the Church has authority from God to teach, and if\nshe teaches nothing but the truth, is it not the duty of all Christians to\nhear her voice and obey her commands? She is the organ of the Holy Ghost.\nShe is the Representative of Jesus Christ, who has said to her: \u201cHe that\nheareth you heareth Me; he that despiseth you despiseth Me.\u201d She is the\nMistress of truth. It is the property of the human mind to embrace truth\nwherever it finds it. It would, therefore, be not only an act of\nirreverence, but of sheer folly, to disobey the voice of this\never-truthful Mother.\n\nIf a citizen is bound to obey the laws of his country, though these laws\nmay not in all respects be conformable to strict justice; if a child is\nbound by natural and divine law to obey his mother, though she may\nsometimes err in her judgments, how much more strictly are not we obliged\nto be docile to the teachings of the Catholic Church, our Mother, whose\nadmonitions are always just, whose precepts are immutable!\n\n\u201cFor twenty years,\u201d observed a recently converted Minister of the\nProtestant Church, \u201cI fought and struggled against the Church with all the\nenergy of my will. But when I became a Catholic all my doubts ended, my\ninquiries ceased. I became as a little child, and rushed like a lisping\nbabe into the arms of my mother.\u201d By Baptism Christians become children of\nthe Church, no matter who pours upon them the regenerating waters. If she\nis our Mother, where is our love and obedience? When the infant seeks\nnourishment at its mother\u2019s breast it does not analyze its food. When it\nreceives instructions from its mother\u2019s lips it never doubts, but\ninstinctively believes. When the mother stretches forth her hand the child\nfollows unhesitatingly. The Christian should have for his spiritual Mother\nall the simplicity, all the credulity, I might say, of a child, guided by\nthe instincts of faith. \u201cUnless ye become,\u201d says our Lord, \u201cas little\nchildren, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.\u201d(133) \u201cAs\nnew-born babes, desire the rational milk without guile; that thereby you\nmay grow unto salvation.\u201d(134) In her nourishment there is no poison; in\nher doctrines there is no guile.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter VIII.\n\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.\n\n\nThe Church, as we have just seen, is the only Divinely constituted teacher\nof Revelation.\n\nNow, the Scripture is the great depository of the Word of God. Therefore,\nthe Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the\nBible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous if each\nindividual could interpret the Bible for himself.\n\nThat God never intended the Bible to be the Christian\u2019s rule of faith,\nindependently of the living authority of the Church, will be the subject\nof this chapter.\n\nNo nation ever had a greater veneration for the Bible than the Jewish\npeople. The Holy Scripture was their pride and their glory. It was their\nnational song in time of peace; it was their meditation and solace in time\nof tribulation and exile. And yet the Jews never dreamed of settling their\nreligious controversies by a private appeal to the Word of God.\n\nWhenever any religious dispute arose among the people it was decided by\nthe High Priest and the Sanhedrim, which was a council consisting of\nseventy-two civil and ecclesiastical judges. The sentence of the High\nPriest and of his associate judges was to be obeyed under penalty of\ndeath. \u201cIf thou perceive,\u201d says the Book of Deuteronomy, \u201cthat there be\namong you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, ... thou shalt come to\nthe Priests of the Levitical race and to the judge, ... and they shall\nshow thee the truth of the judgment.... And thou shalt follow their\nsentence; neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the\nleft.... But he that will ... refuse to obey the commandment of the\nPriest, ... that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from\nIsrael.\u201d(135)\n\nFrom this clear sentence you perceive that God does not refer the Jews for\nthe settlement of their controversies to the letter of the law, but to the\nliving authority of the ecclesiastical tribunal which He had expressly\nestablished for that purpose.\n\nHence, the Priests were required to be intimately acquainted with the\nSacred Scripture, because they were the depositaries of God\u2019s law, and\nwere its expounders to the people. \u201cThe lips of the Priest shall keep\nknowledge, and they (the people) shall seek the law at his mouth, because\nhe is the angel (or messenger) of the Lord of hosts.\u201d(136)\n\nAnd, in fact, very few of the children of Israel, except the Priests, were\nin possession of the Divine Books. The holy manuscript was rare and\nprecious. And what provision did God make that all the people might have\nan opportunity of hearing the Scriptures? Did He command the sacred volume\nto be multiplied? No; but He ordered the _Priests_ and the _Levites_ to be\ndistributed through the different tribes, that they might always be at\nhand to instruct the people in the knowledge of the law. The Jews were\neven forbidden to read certain portions of the Scripture till they had\nreached the age of thirty years.\n\nDoes our Savior reverse this state of things when He comes on earth? Does\nHe tell the Jews to be their own guides in the study of the Scriptures? By\nno means; but He commands them to obey their constituted teachers, no\nmatter how disedifying might be their private lives. \u201cThen said Jesus to\nthe multitudes and to His disciples: The Scribes and Pharisees sit upon\nthe chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you,\nobserve and do.\u201d(137)\n\nIt is true our Lord said on one occasion \u201cSearch the Scriptures, for you\n_think_ in them to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give\ntestimony to Me.\u201d(138) This passage is triumphantly quoted as an argument\nin favor of private interpretation. But it proves nothing of the kind.\nMany learned commentators, ancient and modern, express the verb in the\nindicative mood: \u201cYe search the Scriptures.\u201d At all events, our Savior\nspeaks here only of the Old Testament because the New Testament was not\nyet written. He addresses not the multitude, but the Pharisees, who were\nthe teachers of the law, and reproaches them for not admitting His\nDivinity. \u201cYou have,\u201d He says, \u201cthe Scriptures in your hands; why then do\nyou not recognize Me as the Messiah, since they give testimony that I am\nthe Son of God?\u201d He refers them to the Scriptures for a proof of His\nDivinity, not as to a source from which they were to derive all knowledge\nin regard to the truths of revelation.\n\nBesides, He did not rest the proof of His Divinity upon the _sole_\ntestimony of Scripture. For He showed it First\u2014By the testimony of John\nthe Baptist (v. 33), who had said, \u201cBehold the Lamb of God; behold Him who\ntaketh away the sins of the world.\u201d See also John i. 34.\n\nSecond\u2014By the miracles which He wrought (v. 36).\n\nThird\u2014By the testimony of the Father (v. 37), when He said: \u201cThis is my\nbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.\u201d Matt. iii. 16; Luke\nix. 35.\n\nFourth\u2014By the Scriptures of the Old Testament; as if He were to say, \u201cIf\nyou are unwilling to receive these three proofs, though they are most\ncogent, at least you cannot reject the testimony of the Scriptures, of\nwhich you boast so much.\u201d\n\nFinally, in this very passage our Lord is explaining the sense of Holy\nWrit; therefore, its true meaning is not left to the private\ninterpretation of every chance reader. It is, therefore, a grave\nperversion of the sacred text to adduce these words in vindication of\nprivate interpretation of the Scriptures.\n\nBut when our Redeemer abolished the Old Law and established His Church,\ndid He intend that His Gospel should be disseminated by the circulation of\nthe Bible, or by the living voice of His disciples? This is a vital\nquestion. I answer most emphatically, that it was by preaching alone that\nHe intended to convert the nations, and by preaching alone they were\nconverted. No nation has ever yet been converted by the agency of Bible\nAssociations.\n\nJesus Himself never wrote a line of Scripture. He never once commanded His\nApostles to write a word,(139) or even to circulate the Scriptures already\nexisting. When He sends them on their Apostolic errand, He says: \u201cGo\n_teach_ all nations.\u201d(140) \u201c_Preach_ the Gospel to every creature.\u201d(141)\n\u201cHe that heareth you heareth Me.\u201d(142) And we find the Apostles acting in\nstrict accordance with these instructions.\n\nOf the twelve Apostles, the seventy-two disciples, and early followers of\nour Lord only eight have left us any of their sacred writings. And the\nGospels and Epistles were addressed to particular persons or particular\nchurches. They were written on the occasion of some emergency, just as\nBishops issue Pastoral letters to correct abuses which may spring up in\nthe Church, or to lay down some rules of conduct for the faithful. The\nApostles are never reported to have circulated a single volume of the Holy\nScripture, but \u201cthey going forth, _preached_ everywhere, the Lord\nco-operating with them.\u201d(143)\n\nThus we see that in the Old and the New Dispensation the people were to be\nguided by a living authority, and not by their private interpretation of\nthe Scriptures.\n\nIndeed, until the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, it was a\nthing unheard of from the beginning of the world, that people should be\ngoverned by the dead letter of the law either in civil or ecclesiastical\naffairs. How are your civil affairs regulated in this State, for instance?\nCertainly not in accordance with your personal interpretation of the laws\nof Virginia, but in accordance with decisions which are rendered by the\nconstituted judges of the State.\n\nNow what the civil code is to the citizen, the Scripture is to the\nChristian. The Word of God, as well as the civil law, must have an\ninterpreter, by whose decision we are obliged to abide.\n\nWe often hear the shibboleth: \u201cThe Bible, and the Bible only, must be your\nguide.\u201d Why, then, do you go to the useless expense of building fine\nchurches and Sabbath-schools? What is the use of your preaching sermons\nand catechizing the young, if the Bible at home is a sufficient guide for\nyour people? The fact is, you reverend gentlemen contradict in practice\nwhat you so vehemently advance in theory. Do not tell me that the Bible is\nall-sufficient; or, if you believe it is self-sufficient, cease your\ninstructions. Stand not between the people and the Scriptures.\n\nI will address myself now in a friendly spirit to a non-Catholic, and will\nproceed to show him that he cannot consistently accept the silent Book of\nScripture as his sufficient guide.\n\nA copy of the sacred volume is handed to you by your minister, who says:\n\u201cTake this book; you will find it all-sufficient for your salvation.\u201d But\nhere a serious difficulty awaits you at the very threshold of your\ninvestigations. What assurance have you that the book he hands you is the\n_inspired_ Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing\nintrinsic evidences of inspiration? It may, for ought you know, contain\nmore than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God. We\nmust not suppose that the Bible was always, as it is now, a compact book,\nbound in a neat form. It was for several centuries in scattered fragments,\nspread over different parts of Christendom. Meanwhile, many spurious\nbooks, under the name of Scripture, were circulated among the faithful.\nThere was, for instance, the spurious Gospel of St. Peter; there was also\nthe Gospel of St. James and of St. Matthias.\n\nThe Catholic Church, in the plenitude of her authority, in the third\nCouncil of Carthage, (A. D. 397,) separated the chaff from the wheat, and\ndeclared what Books were Canonical, and what were apocryphal. Even to this\nday the Christian sects do not agree among themselves as to what books are\nto be accepted as genuine. Some Christians of continental Europe do not\nrecognize the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke because these Evangelists\nwere not among the Apostles. Luther used to call the Epistle of St. James\na letter of straw.\n\nBut even when you are assured that the Bible contains the Word of God, and\nnothing but the Word of God, how do you know that the translation is\nfaithful? The Books of Scripture were originally written in Hebrew and\nGreek, and you have only the translation. Before you are certain that the\ntranslation is faithful you must study the Hebrew and Greek languages, and\nthen compare the translation with the original. How few are capable of\nthis gigantic undertaking!\n\nIndeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to\nreceive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole\nGuardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years.\n\nBut after having ascertained to your satisfaction that the translation is\nfaithful, still the Scriptures can never serve as a complete Rule of Faith\nand a complete guide to heaven independently of an authorized, living\ninterpreter.\n\nA competent guide, such as our Lord intended for us, must have three\ncharacteristics. It must be within the reach of everyone; it must be clear\nand intelligible; it must be able to satisfy us on all questions relating\nto faith and morals.\n\nFirst\u2014A complete guide of salvation must be within the reach of every\ninquirer after truth; for, God \u201cwishes all men to be saved, and to come to\nthe knowledge of the truth;\u201d(144) and therefore He must have placed within\nthe reach of everyone the means of arriving at the truth. Now, it is clear\nthat the Scriptures could not at any period have been accessible to\neveryone.\n\nThey could not have been accessible _to the primitive Christians_, because\nthey were not all written for a long time after the establishment of\nChristianity. The Christian religion was founded in the year 33. St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel, the first part of the New Testament ever written, did\nnot appear till eight years after. The Church was established about twenty\nyears when St. Luke wrote his Gospel. And St. John\u2019s Gospel did not come\nto light till toward the end of the first century. For many years after\nthe Gospels and Epistles were written the knowledge of them was confined\nto the churches to which they were addressed. It was not till the close of\nthe fourth century that the Church framed her Canon of Scripture and\ndeclared the Bible, as we now possess it, to be the genuine Word of God.\nAnd this was the golden age of Christianity! The most perfect Christians\nlived and died and went to heaven before the most important parts of the\nScriptures were written. And what would have become of them if the Bible\nalone had been their guide?\n\nThe art of printing was not invented till the fifteenth century (1440).\nHow utterly impossible it was to supply everyone with a copy of the\nScriptures _from the fourth to the fifteenth century_! During that long\nperiod Bibles had to be copied with the pen. There were but a few hundred\nof them in the Christian world, and these were in the hands of the clergy\nand the learned. \u201cAccording to the Protestant system, the art of printing\nwould have been much more necessary to the Apostles than the gift of\ntongues. It was well for Luther that he did not come into the world until\na century after the immortal invention of Guttenberg. A hundred years\nearlier his idea of directing two hundred and fifty million men to read\nthe Bible would have been received with shouts of laughter, and would\ninevitably have caused his removal from the pulpit of Wittenberg to a\nhospital for the insane.\u201d(145)\n\nAnd even _at the present day_, with all the aid of steam printing presses,\nwith all the Bible Associations extending through this country and\nEngland, and supported at enormous expense, it taxes all their energies to\nsupply every missionary country with Bibles printed in the languages of\nthe tribes and peoples for whom they are intended.\n\nBut even if the Bible were at all times accessible to everyone, how many\nmillions exist in every age and country, not excepting our own age of\nboasted enlightenment, who are not accessible to the Bible because they\nare incapable of reading the Word of God! Hence, the doctrine of private\ninterpretation would render many men\u2019s salvation not only difficult, but\nimpossible.\n\nSecond\u2014A competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all,\nso that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions\nit contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is\nfull of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even\nfor the learned. St. Peter himself informs us that in the Epistles of St.\nPaul there are \u201ccertain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned\nand the unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own\ndestruction.\u201d(146) And consequently he tells us elsewhere \u201cthat no\nprophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.\u201d(147)\n\nWe read in the Acts of the Apostles that a certain man was riding in his\nchariot, reading the Book of Isaiah, and being asked by St. Philip whether\nhe understood the meaning of the prophecy he replied: \u201cHow can I\nunderstand unless some man show me?\u201d(148) admitting, by these modest\nwords, that he did not pretend of himself to interpret the Scriptures.\n\nThe Fathers of the Church, though many of them spent their whole lives in\nthe study of the Scriptures, are unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book\nfull of knotty difficulties. And yet we find in our days pedants, with a\nmere smattering of Biblical knowledge, who see no obscurity at all in the\nWord of God, and who presume to expound it from Genesis to Revelation.\n\u201cFools rush in where angels fear to tread.\u201d\n\nDoes not the conduct of the Reformers conclusively show the utter folly of\ninterpreting the Scriptures by private judgment? As soon as they rejected\nthe oracle of the Church, and set up their own private judgment as the\nhighest standard of authority, they could hardly agree among themselves on\nthe meaning of a single important text. The Bible became in their hands a\ncomplete Babel. The sons of Noe attempted in their pride to ascend to\nheaven by building the tower of Babel, and their scheme ended in the\nconfusion and multiplication of tongues. The children of the Reformation\nendeavored in their conceit to lead men to heaven by the private\ninterpretation of the Bible, and their efforts led to the confusion and\nthe multiplication of religions. Let me give you one example out of a\nthousand. These words of the Gospel, \u201cThis is My Body,\u201d were understood\nonly in one sense before the Reformation. The new lights of the sixteenth\ncentury gave no fewer than eighty different meanings to these four simple\nwords, and since their time the number of interpretations has increased to\nover a hundred.\n\nNo one will deny that in our days there exists a vast multitude of sects,\nwhich are daily multiplying. No one will deny(149) that this multiplying\nof creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way of\nthe conversion of heathen nations. No one can deny that these divisions in\nthe Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of\nprivate judgment. Every new-fledged divine, with a superficial education,\nimagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new\nreligion, and he is ambitious of handing down his fame to posterity by\nstamping his name on a new sect. And every one of these champions of\nmodern creeds appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his\never-changing doctrines.\n\nThus, one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is but\none Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a\nTrinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove\nfrom the Holy Book that Jesus Christ is not God. Others will appeal to the\nsame text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the\nauthority of Scripture that infant baptism is not necessary for salvation,\nwhile others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand,\nwill teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are\nonly two. Some will declare that the inspired Word does not preach the\neternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly\nvindicates that dogma. Do not clergymen appear every day in the pulpit,\nand on the authority of the Book of Revelation point out to us with\npainful accuracy the year and the day on which this world is to come to an\nend? And when their prophecy fails of execution they coolly put off our\ndestruction to another time.\n\nVery recently several hundred Mormon women presented a petition to the\ngovernment at Washington protesting against any interference with their\nabominable polygamy and they insist that their cherished system is\nsustained by the Word of God.\n\nSuch is the legitimate fruit of private interpretation! Our civil\ngovernment is run not by private judgment, but by the constituted\nauthorities. No one in his senses would allow our laws to be interpreted,\nand war to be declared by sensational journals, or by any private\nindividuals. Why not apply the same principle to the interpretation of the\nBible and the government of the Church?\n\nWould it not be extremely hazardous to make a long voyage in a ship in\nwhich the officers and crew are fiercely contending among themselves about\nthe manner of explaining the compass and of steering their course? How\nmuch more dangerous is it to trust to contending captains in the journey\nto heaven! Nothing short of an infallible authority should satisfy you\nwhen it is a question of steering your course to eternity. On this vital\npoint there should be no conflict of opinion among those that guide you.\nThere should be no conjecture. But there must be always someone at the\nhelm whose voice gives assurance amid the fiercest storms that _all is\nwell_.\n\nThird\u2014A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to\ninstruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures\nalone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe,\nnor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to\npractice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to\nsanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work?\nIs not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred\nduties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you\nwill not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The\nScriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we\nnever sanctify.\n\nThe Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles\ninculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by\nthe inspired writers.(150) For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy\nGhost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible.\n\nWe must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures _alone_ cannot be a\nsufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be\nwithin the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves\nclear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and\nbecause they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.\n\nGod forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude from what\nI have said that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the\nScriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the\nenemy of the Bible! Good God! What monstrous ingratitude! What base\ncalumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the\nVirgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast as to\naccuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out of existence the\nWord of God. As well might you charge the patriotic statesman with\nattempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to\nprotect it from being mutilated by unprincipled demagogues.\n\nFor fifteen centuries the Church was the sole guardian and depository of\nthe Bible, and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent\nher, during that long period, from tearing it in shreds and scattering it\nto the winds? She could have thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural\nmother would have thrown away her off-spring, and who would have been the\nwiser?\n\nWhat has become of those millions of once famous books written in past\nages? They have nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient\nliterature, the Bible stands almost a solitary monument like the Pyramids\nof Egypt amid the surrounding wastes. That venerable Volume has survived\nthe wars and revolutions and the barbaric invasions of fifteen centuries.\nWho rescued it from destruction? The Catholic Church. Without her\nfostering care the New Testament would probably be as little known today\nas \u201cthe Book of the days of the kings of Israel.\u201d(151)\n\nLittle do we imagine, in our age of steam printing, how much labor it cost\nthe Church to preserve and perpetuate the Sacred Scriptures. Learned\nmonks, who are now abused in their graves by thoughtless men, were\nconstantly employed in copying with the pen the Holy Bible. When one monk\ndied at his post another took his place, watching like a faithful sentinel\nover the treasure of God\u2019s Word.\n\nLet me give you a few plain facts to show the pains which the Church has\ntaken to perpetuate the Scriptures.\n\nThe Canon of the Bible, as we have seen, was framed in the fourth century.\nIn that same century Pope Damasus commanded a new and complete translation\nof the Scriptures to be made into the Latin language, which was then the\nliving tongue not only of Rome and Italy, but of the civilized world.\n\nIf the Popes were afraid that the Bible should see the light, this was a\nsingular way of manifesting their fear.\n\nThe task of preparing a new edition of the Scriptures was assigned to St.\nJerome, the most learned Hebrew scholar of his time. This new translation\nwas disseminated throughout Christendom, and on that account was called\nthe _Vulgate_, or popular edition.\n\nIn the sixth and seventh centuries the modern languages of Europe began to\nspring up like so many shoots from the parent Latin stock. The Scriptures,\nalso, soon found their way into these languages. The Venerable Bede, who\nlived in England in the eighth century, and whose name is profoundly\nreverenced in that country, translated the Sacred Scriptures into Saxon,\nwhich was then the language of England. He died while dictating the last\nverses of St. John\u2019s Gospel.\n\nThomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a funeral discourse on Queen\nAnne, consort of Richard II., pronounced in 1394, praises her for her\ndiligence in reading the four Gospels. The Head of the Church of England\ncould not condemn in others what he commended in the queen.\n\nSir Thomas More affirms that, before the days of Wycliffe, there was an\nEnglish version of the Scriptures, \u201cby good and godly people with devotion\nand soberness well and reverently read.\u201d(152)\n\nIf partial restrictions began to be placed on the circulation of the Bible\nin England in the fifteenth century, these restrictions were occasioned by\nthe conduct of Wycliffe and his followers, who not only issued a new\ntranslation, on which they engrafted their novelties of doctrine, but also\nsought to explain the sacred text in a sense foreign to the received\ninterpretation of tradition.\n\nWhile laboring to diffuse the Word of God it is the duty, as well as the\nright of the Church, as the guardian of faith, to see that the faithful\nare not misled by unsound editions.\n\nPrinting was invented in the fifteenth century, and almost a hundred years\nlater came the Reformation. It is often triumphantly said, and I suppose\nthere are some who, even at the present day, are ignorant enough to\nbelieve the assertion, that the first edition of the Bible ever published\nafter the invention of printing was the edition of Martin Luther. The fact\nis, that before Luther put his pen to paper, no fewer than fifty-six\neditions of the Scriptures had appeared on the continent of Europe, not to\nspeak of those printed in Great Britain. Of those editions, twenty-one\nwere published in German, one in Spanish, four in French, twenty-one in\nItalian, five in Flemish and four in Bohemian.\n\nComing down to our own times, if you open an English Catholic Bible you\nwill find in the preface a letter of Pope Pius VI., in which he strongly\nrecommends the pious reading of the Holy Scriptures. A Pope\u2019s letter is\nthe most weighty authority in the Church. You will also find in Haydock\u2019s\nBible the letters of the Bishops of the United States, in which they\nexpress the hope that this splendid edition would have a wide circulation\namong their flocks.\n\nThese facts ought, I think, to convince every candid mind that the Church,\nfar from being opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, does all she can\nto encourage their perusal.\n\nA gentleman of North Carolina lately informed me that the first time he\nentered a Catholic bookstore he was surprised at witnessing on the shelves\nan imposing array of Bibles for sale. Up to that moment he had believed\nthe unfounded charge that Catholics were forbidden to read the Scriptures.\nHe has since embraced the Catholic faith.\n\nAnd perhaps I may be permitted here to record my personal experiences\nduring a long course of study. I speak of myself, not because my case is\nexceptional, but, on the contrary, because my example will serve to\nillustrate the system pursued toward ecclesiastical students in all\ncolleges throughout the Catholic world in reference to the Holy\nScriptures.\n\nIn our course of Humanities we listened every day to the reading of the\nBible. When we were advanced to the higher branches of Philosophy and\nTheology the study of the Sacred Scriptures formed an important part of\nour education. We read, besides, every day a chapter of the New Testament,\nnot standing or sitting, but on our knees, and then reverently kissed the\ninspired page. We listened at our meals each day to selections from the\nBible, and we always carried about with us a copy of the New Testament.\n\nSo familiar, indeed, were the students with the sacred Volume that many of\nthem, on listening to a few verses, could tell from what portion of the\nScriptures you were reading. The only dread we were taught to have of the\nScriptures was that of reading them without fear and reverence.\n\nAnd after his ordination every Priest is obliged in conscience to devote\nupwards of an hour each day to the perusal of the Word of God. I am not\naware that clergymen of other denominations are bound by the same duty.\n\nWhat is good for the clergy must be good, also, for the laity. Be assured\nthat if you become a Catholic you will never be forbidden to read the\nBible. It is our earnest wish that every word of the Gospel may be\nimprinted on your memory and on your heart.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter IX.\n\n\nTHE PRIMACY OF PETER.\n\n\nThe Catholic Church teaches also, that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the\nfirst place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole\nChurch, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the\nPopes, or Bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter.\nConsequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among\nthe clergy and the laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where\nPeter rules in the person of his successor.\n\nBefore coming to any direct proofs on this subject I may state that, in\nthe Old Law, the High Priest appointed by Almighty God filled an office\nanalogous to that of Pope in the New Law. In the Jewish Church there were\nPriests and Levites ordained to minister at the altar; and there was,\nalso, a supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, with the High Priest at its head.\nAll matters of religious controversy were referred to this tribunal and in\nthe last resort to the High Priest, whose decision was enforced under pain\nof death. \u201cIf there be a hard matter in judgment between blood and blood,\ncause and cause, leprosy and leprosy, ... thou shalt come to the Priests\nof the Levitical race and to the judge, ... and they shall show thee true\njudgment. And thou shalt do whatever they say who preside in the place\nwhich the Lord shall choose, and thou shalt follow their sentence. And\nthou shalt not decline to the right hand, or to the left.... But he that\n... will refuse to obey the commandment of the Priest, who ministereth at\nthe time, ... that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from\nIsrael.\u201d(153)\n\nFrom this passage it is evident that in the Hebrew Church the High Priest\nhad the highest jurisdiction in religious matters. By this means unity of\nfaith and worship was preserved among the people of God.\n\nNow the Jewish synagogue, as St. Paul testifies, was the type and figure\nof the Christian Church; for \u201call these things happened to them (the Jews)\nin figure.\u201d(154) We must, therefore, find in the Church of Christ a\nspiritual judge, exercising the same supreme authority as the High Priest\nwielded in the Old Law. For if a supreme Pontiff was necessary, in the\nMosaic dispensation, to maintain purity and uniformity of worship, the\nsame dignitary is equally necessary now to preserve unity of faith.\n\nEvery well-regulated civil government has an acknowledged head. The\nPresident is the head of the United States Government. Queen Victoria is\nthe ruler of Great Britain. The Sultan sways the Turkish Empire. If these\nnations had no authorized leader to govern them they would be reduced to\nthe condition of a mere mob, and anarchy, confusion and civil war would\ninevitably follow, as recently happened to France after the fall of\nNapoleon III.\n\nEven in every well-ordered family, domestic peace requires that someone\npreside.\n\nNow, the Church of Christ is a visible society\u2014that is, a society composed\nof human beings. She has, it is true, a spiritual end in view; but having\nto deal with men, she must have a government as well as every other\norganized society. This government, at least in its essential elements,\nour Lord must have established for His Church. For was He not as wise as\nhuman legislators? And shall we suppose that, of all lawgivers, the Wisdom\nIncarnate alone left His Kingdom on earth to be governed without a head?\n\nBut someone will tell me: \u201cWe do not deny that the Church has a head. God\nhimself is its Ruler.\u201d This is evading the real question. Is not God the\nRuler of all governments? \u201cBy Me,\u201d He says, \u201ckings reign, and lawgivers\ndecree just things.\u201d(155) He is the recognized Head of our Republic, and\nof every Christian family in the land; but, nevertheless, there is always\npresiding over the country a visible chief, who represents God on earth.\n\nIn like manner the Church, besides an invisible Head in heaven, must have\na visible head on earth. The body and members of the Church are visible;\nwhy not also the Head? The Church without a supreme Ruler would be like an\narmy without a general, a navy without an admiral, a sheep-fold without a\nshepherd, or like a human body without a head.\n\nThe Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church deny that\nPeter received any authority over the other Apostles, and hence they\nreject the supremacy of the Pope.\n\nThe absence from the Protestant communions of a Divinely appointed,\nvisible Head is to them an endless source of weakness and dissension. It\nis an insuperable barrier against any hope of a permanent reunion among\nthemselves, because they are left without a common rallying centre or\nbasis of union and are placed in an unhappy state of schism.\n\nThe existence, on the contrary, of a supreme judge of controversy in the\nCatholic Church is the secret of her admirable unity. This is the keystone\nthat binds together and strengthens the imperishable arch of faith.\n\nFrom the very fact, then, of the existence of a supreme Head in the Jewish\nChurch; from the fact that a Head is always necessary for civil\ngovernment, for families and corporations; from the fact, especially, that\na visible Head is essential to the maintenance of unity in the Church,\nwhile the absence of a Head necessarily leads to anarchy, we are forced to\nconclude, even though positive evidence were wanting, that, in the\nestablishment of His Church, it must have entered into the mind of the\nDivine Lawgiver to place over it a primate invested with superior judicial\npowers.\n\nBut have we any positive proof that Christ did appoint a supreme Ruler\nover His Church? To those, indeed, who read the Scriptures with the single\neye of pure intention the most abundant evidence of this fact is\nfurnished. To my mind the New Testament establishes no doctrine, unless it\nsatisfies every candid reader that our Lord gave plenipotentiary powers to\nPeter to govern the whole Church. In this chapter I shall speak of the\nPromise, the Institution, and the exercise of Peter\u2019s Primacy, as recorded\nin the New Testament. The next chapter shall be devoted to its perpetuity\nin the Popes.\n\n_Promise of the Primacy._ Our Saviour, on a certain occasion, asked His\ndisciples, saying: \u201cWhom do men say that the Son of Man is? And they said:\nSome say that Thou art John the Baptist; and others, Elias; and others,\nJeremiah, or one of the Prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do ye say\nthat I am?\u201d Peter, as usual, is the leader and spokesman. \u201cSimon Peter\nanswering, said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus\nanswering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and\nblood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven. And I\nsay to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My\nChurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will\ngive to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt\nbind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt\nloose on earth shall be loosed also heaven.\u201d(156) Here we find Peter\nconfessing the Divinity of Christ, and in reward for that confession he is\nhonored with the promise of the Primacy.\n\nOur Savior, by the words \u201cthou art Peter,\u201d clearly alludes to the new name\nwhich He Himself had conferred upon Simon, when He received him into the\nnumber of His followers (John i. 42); and He now reveals the reason for\nthe change of name, which was to insinuate the honor He was to confer on\nhim, by appointing him President of the Christian Republic; just as God,\nin the Old Law, changed Abram\u2019s name to Abraham, when He chose him to be\nthe father of a mighty nation.\n\nThe word _Peter_, in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which our Savior spoke,\nmeans _a rock_. The sentence runs thus in that language: _\u201c__Thou art a\nrock, and on this rock I will build My Church.__\u201d_ Indeed, all respectable\nProtestant commentators have now abandoned, and even ridicule, the\nabsurdity of applying the word _rock_ to anyone but to Peter; as the\nsentence can bear no other construction, unless our Lord\u2019s good grammar\nand common sense are called in question.\n\nJesus, our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on\nPeter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its\nfoundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand,\nfor it is not the work of God. This is plain. Would to God that all would\nsee it aright and with eyes free from prejudice.\n\nHe continues: \u201cAnd I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,\u201d\netc. In ancient times, and particularly among the Hebrew people, keys were\nan emblem of jurisdiction. To affirm that a man had received the keys of a\ncity was equivalent to the assertion that he had been appointed its\ngovernor. In the Book of Revelation our Savior says that He has \u201cthe keys\nof death and of hell,\u201d(157) which means that He is endowed with power over\ndeath and hell. In fact, even to this day does not the presentation of\nkeys convey among ourselves the idea of authority? If the proprietor of a\nhouse, on leaving it for the summer, says to any friend: \u201cHere are the\nkeys of my house,\u201d would not this simple declaration, without a word of\nexplanation, convey the idea, \u201cI give you full control of my house; you\nmay admit or exclude whom you please; you represent me in my absence?\u201d Let\nus now apply this interpretation to our Redeemer\u2019s words. When He says to\nPeter: \u201cI will give to thee the keys,\u201d etc., He evidently means: I will\ngive the supreme authority over My Church, which is the citadel of faith,\nMy earthly Jerusalem. Thou and thy successors shall be My visible\nrepresentatives to the end of time. And be it remembered that to Peter\nalone, and to no other Apostle, were these solemn words addressed.\n\n_Fulfillment of the Promise._ The promise which our Redeemer made of\ncreating Peter the supreme ruler of His Church is fulfilled in the\nfollowing passage: \u201cJesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest\nthou Me more than these? He saith to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I\nlove Thee. He saith to him: Feed My lambs. He saith to him again: Simon,\nson of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that\nI love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My lambs. He saith to him the third\ntime: Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved because He had\nsaid to him the third time: Lovest thou Me? And he said to Him: Lord, Thou\nknowest all things. Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said to him: Feed My\nsheep.\u201d(158)\n\nThese words were addressed by our Lord to Peter after His resurrection.\nThe whole sheep-fold of Christ is confided to him, without any exception\nor limitation. Peter has jurisdiction not only over the lambs\u2014the weak and\ntender portion of the flock\u2014by which are understood the faithful; but also\nover the sheep, _i.e._, the Pastors themselves, who hold the same\nrelations to their congregations that the sheep hold to the lambs, because\nthey bring forth unto Jesus Christ, and nourish the spiritual lambs of the\nfold. To other Pastors a certain portion of the flock is assigned; to\nPeter the entire fold; for, never did Jesus say to any other Apostle or\nBishop what He said to Peter: Feed My whole flock.\n\nCandid reader, do you not profess to be a member of Christ\u2019s flock? Yes,\nyou answer. Do you take your spiritual food from Peter and his successor,\nand do you hear the voice of Peter, or have you wandered into the fold of\nstrangers who spurn Peter\u2019s voice? Ponder well this momentous question.\nFor if Peter is authorized to feed the lambs of Christ\u2019s flock, the lambs\nshould hear Peter\u2019s voice.\n\n_Exercise of the Primacy._ In the Acts of the Apostles, which contain\nalmost the only Scripture narrative that exists of the Apostles subsequent\nto our Lord\u2019s ascension, St. Peter appears before us, like Saul among the\ntribes, standing head and shoulders over his brethren by the prominent\npart he takes in every ministerial duty.\n\nThe first twelve chapters of the Acts are devoted to Peter and to some of\nthe other Apostles, the remaining chapters being chiefly occupied with the\nlabors of the Apostles of the Gentiles. In that brief historical fragment,\nas well as in the Gospels, the name of Peter is everywhere pre-eminent.\n\nPeter\u2019s name always stands first in the list of the Apostles, while Judas\nIscariot is invariably mentioned last.(159) Peter is even called by St.\nMatthew _the first Apostle_. Now Peter was first neither in age nor in\npriority of election, his elder brother Andrew having been chosen before\nhim. The meaning, therefore, of the expression must be that Peter was\nfirst not only in rank and honor, but also in authority.\n\nPeter is the first Apostle who performed a miracle.(160) He is the first\nto address the Jews in Jerusalem while his Apostolic brethren stand\nrespectfully around him, upon which occasion he converts three thousand\nsouls.(161)\n\nPeter is the first to make converts from the Gentile world in the persons\nof Cornelius and his friends.(162)\n\nWhen there is question of electing a successor to Judas Peter _alone\nspeaks_. He points out to the Apostles and disciples the duty of choosing\nanother to succeed the traitor. The Apostles silently acquiesce in the\ninstructions of their leader.(163)\n\nIn the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter is the first whose sentiments\nare recorded. Before his discourse \u201cthere was much disputing.\u201d But when he\nhad ceased to speak \u201call the multitude held their peace.\u201d(164)\n\nSt. James and the other Apostles concur in the sentiments of Peter without\na single dissenting voice.\n\nSt. James is cast into prison by Herod and afterward beheaded. He was one\nof the three most favored Apostles. He was the cousin of our Lord and\nbrother of St. John. He was most dear to the faithful. Yet no\nextraordinary efforts are made by the faithful to rescue him from death.\n\nPeter is imprisoned about the same time. The whole Church is aroused.\nPrayers for his deliverance ascend to heaven, not only from Jerusalem but\nalso from every Christian family in the land.(165)\n\nThe army of the Lord can afford to lose a chieftain in the person of\nJames, but it cannot yet spare the commander-in-chief. The enemies of the\nChurch had hoped that the destruction of the chief shepherd would involve\nthe dispersion of the whole flock; therefore they redoubled their fury\nagainst the Prince of the Apostles, just as her modern enemies concentrate\ntheir shafts against the Pope, his successor. Does not this incident\neloquently proclaim Peter\u2019s superior authority? In fact Peter figures so\nconspicuously in every page that his Primacy is not only admissible, but\nis forced on the judgment of the impartial reader.\n\nWhat are the principal objections advanced against the Primacy of Peter?\nThey are chiefly, I may say exclusively, confined to the three following:\nFirst\u2014That our Lord rebuked Peter. Second\u2014That St. Paul criticised his\nconduct on a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline. The Apostle of\nthe Gentiles blames St. Peter because he withdrew for a time from the\nsociety of the Gentile converts, for fear of scandalizing the\nnewly-converted Jews.(166) Third\u2014That the supremacy of Peter conflicts\nwith the supreme dominion of Christ.\n\nFor my part I cannot see how these objections can invalidate the claims of\nPeter. Was not Jesus Peter\u2019s superior? May not a superior rebuke his\nservant without infringing on the servant\u2019s prerogatives?\n\nAnd why could not St. Paul censure the conduct of St. Peter without\nquestioning that superior\u2019s authority? It is not a very uncommon thing for\necclesiastics occupying an inferior position in the Church to admonish\neven the Pope. St. Bernard, though only a monk, wrote a work in which,\nwith Apostolic freedom, he administers counsel to Pope Eugenius III., and\ncautions him against the dangers to which his eminent position exposes\nhim. Yet no man had more reverence for any Pope than Bernard had for this\ngreat Pontiff. Cannot our Governor animadvert upon the President\u2019s conduct\nwithout impairing the President\u2019s jurisdiction?\n\nNay, from this very circumstance, I draw a confirming evidence of Peter\u2019s\nsupremacy. St. Paul mentions it as a fact worthy of record that he\nactually _withstood Peter to his face_. Do you think it would be worth\nrecording if Paul had rebuked James or John or Barnabas? By no means. If\none brother rebukes another, the matter excites no special attention. But\nif a son rebukes his father, or if a Priest rebukes his Bishop to his\nface, we understand why he would consider it a fact worth relating. Hence,\nwhen St. Paul goes to the trouble of telling us that he took exception to\nPeter\u2019s conduct, he mentions it as an extraordinary exercise of Apostolic\nfreedom, and leaves on our mind the obvious inference that Peter was his\nsuperior.\n\nIn the very same Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul plainly insinuates St.\nPeter\u2019s superior rank. \u201cI went,\u201d he says, \u201cto Jerusalem to see Peter, and\nI tarried with him fifteen days.\u201d(167) Saints Chrysostom and Ambrose tell\nus that this was not an idle visit of ceremony, but that the object of St.\nPaul in making the journey was to testify his respect and honor for the\nchief of the Apostles. St. Jerome observes in a humorous vein that \u201cPaul\nwent not to behold Peter\u2019s eyes, his cheeks or his countenance, whether he\nwas thin or stout, with nose straight or twisted, covered with hair or\nbald, not to observe the outward man, _but to show honor to the first\nApostle_.\u201d\n\nThere are others who pretend, in spite of our Lord\u2019s declaration to the\ncontrary, that loyalty to Peter is disloyalty to Christ, and that, by\nacknowledging Peter as the rock on which the Church is built, we set our\nSavior aside. So far from this being the case, we acknowledge Jesus Christ\nas the \u201cchief cornerstone,\u201d as well as the Divine Architect of the\nbuilding.\n\nThe true test of loyalty to Jesus is not only to worship Him, but to\nvenerate even the representatives whom He has chosen. Will anyone pretend\nto say that my obedience to the Governor\u2019s appointee is a mark of\ndisrespect to the Governor himself? I think our State Executive would have\nlittle faith in the allegiance of any citizen who would say to him:\n\u201cGovernor, I honor you personally, but your official\u2019s order I shall\ndisregard.\u201d\n\nSt. Peter is called the first Bishop of Rome because he transferred his\nsee from Antioch to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.\n\nWe are not surprised that modern skepticism, which rejects the Divinity of\nChrist and denies even the existence of God, should call in question the\nfact that St. Peter lived and died in Rome.\n\nThe reason commonly alleged for disputing this well-attested event is that\nthe Acts of the Apostles make no mention of Peter\u2019s labors and martyrdom\nin Rome. For the same reason we might deny that St. Paul was beheaded in\nRome; that St. John died in Ephesus, and that St. Andrew was crucified.\nThe Scripture is silent regarding these historical records, and yet they\nare denied by no one.\n\nThe intrinsic evidence of St. Peter\u2019s first Epistle, the testimony of his\nimmediate successors in the ministry, as well as the avowal of eminent\nProtestant commentators, all concur in fixing the See of Peter in Rome.\n\n\u201cBabylon,\u201d from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood by\nlearned annotators, Protestant and Catholic, to refer to Rome\u2014the word\nBabylon being symbolical of the corruption then prevailing in the city of\nthe C\u00e6sars.\n\nClement, the fourth Bishop of Rome, who is mentioned in terms of praise by\nSt. Paul; St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died in 105; Iren\u00e6us,\nOrigen, St. Jerome, Eusebius, the great historian, and other eminent\nwriters testify to St. Peter\u2019s residence in Rome, while no ancient\necclesiastical writer has ever contradicted the statement.\n\nJohn Calvin, a witness above suspicion; Cave, an able Anglican critic;\nGrotius and other distinguished Protestant writers, do not hesitate to\nre-echo the unanimous voice of Catholic tradition.\n\nIndeed, no historical fact will escape the shafts of incredulity, if St.\nPeter\u2019s residence and glorious martyrdom in Rome are called in question.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                Chapter X.\n\n\nTHE SUPREMACY OF THE POPES.\n\n\nThe Church did not die with Peter. It was destined to continue till the\nend of time; consequently, whatever official prerogatives were conferred\non Peter were not to cease at his death, but were to be handed down to his\nsuccessors from generation to generation. The Church is in all ages as\nmuch in need of a Supreme Ruler as it was in the days of the Apostles.\nNay, more; as the Church is now more widely diffused than it was then, and\nis ruled by frailer men, it is more than ever in need of a central power\nto preserve its unity of faith and uniformity of discipline.\n\nWhatever privileges, therefore, were conferred on Peter which may be\nconsidered essential to the government of the Church are inherited by the\nBishops of Rome, as successors of the Prince of the Apostles; just as the\nconstitutional powers given to George Washington have devolved on the\npresent incumbent of the Presidential chair.\n\nPeter, it is true, besides the prerogatives inherent in his office,\npossessed also the gift of inspiration and the power of working miracles.\nThese two latter gifts are not claimed by the Pope, as they were personal\nto Peter and by no means essential to the government of the Church. God\nacts toward His Church as we deal with a tender sapling. When we first\nplant it we water it and soften the clay about its roots. But when it\ntakes deep root we leave it to the care of Nature\u2019s laws. In like manner,\nwhen Christ first planted His Church He nourished its infancy by\nmiraculous agency; but when it grew to be a tree of fair proportions He\nleft it to be governed by the general laws of His Providence.\n\nFrom what I have said you can easily infer that the arguments in favor of\nPeter\u2019s Primacy have equal weight in demonstrating the supremacy of the\nPopes.\n\nAs the present question, however, is a subject of vast importance, I shall\nendeavor to show, from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes\nhave always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise supreme\njurisdiction not only in the Western Church till the Reformation, but also\nthroughout the Eastern Church till the great schism of the ninth century.\n\nFirst\u2014Take the question of _appeals_. An appeal is never made from a\nsuperior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to another of\nco-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from Washington to Richmond,\nbut from Richmond to Washington. Now, if we find the See of Rome from the\nfoundation of Christianity entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from\nthe Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final and\nirrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the\nchurches is an undeniable fact.\n\nLet me give you a few illustrations:\n\nTo begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter,\nand who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some\ndissension and scandal having occurred in the church of Corinth, the\nmatter is brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises his\nsupreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and admonition to the\nCorinthians. And so great was the reverence entertained for these Epistles\nby the faithful of Corinth that, for a century later, it was customary to\nhave them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal\nto Rome, far away in the West, and not to Ephesus, so near home in the\nEast, where the Apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the\njurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal.\n\nAbout the year 190 the question regarding the proper day for celebrating\nEaster was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The\nEastern Church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the Jews\nkept the Passover, while in the West it was observed then, as it is now,\non the first Sunday after the full moon of the vernal equinox. St. Victor\ndirects the Eastern churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to\nthe practice of the West, and his instructions are universally followed.\n\nSt. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was martyred in 258.\n\nFrom his appeals to Pope St. Cornelius and to Pope St. Stephen, especially\non the subject of baptism, from his writings and correspondence, as well\nas from the whole tenor of his administration, it is quite evident that\nCyprian, as well as the African Episcopate, upheld the supremacy of the\nBishop of Rome.\n\nDionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third century, having\nheard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred on some points of faith,\ndemands an explanation of the suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his\nsuperior, promptly vindicates his own orthodoxy.\n\nSt. Athanasius, the great patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth\ncentury to Pope Julius I. from an unjust decision rendered against him by\nthe Oriental Bishops, and the Pope(168) reverses the sentence of the\nEastern Council.\n\nSt. Basil, Archbishop of C\u00e6sarea, in the same century has recourse in his\nafflictions to the protection of Pope Damasus.\n\nSt. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning\nof the fifth century to Pope Innocent I. for a redress of grievances\ninflicted on him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia\nof Constantinople.\n\nSt. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius, also,\nappeals to the same Pontiff, who takes the side of Cyril.\n\nIn a Synod held in 444, St. Hilary, Archbishop of Arles, in Gaul, deposed\nCelidonius, Bishop of Besancon, on the ground of an alleged canonical\nimpediment to his consecration. The Bishop appealed to the Holy See, and\nboth he and the Metropolitan personally repaired to Rome, to submit their\ncause to the judgment of Pope Leo the Great. After a careful\ninvestigation, the Pontiff declared the sentence of the Synod invalid,\nrevoked the censure, and restored the deposed Prelate to his See.\n\nThe same Pontiff also rebuked Hilary for having irregularly deposed\nProjectus from his See.\n\nThe judicial authority of the Pope is emphasized from the circumstance\nthat Hilary was not an arrogant or a rebellious churchman, but an edifying\nand a zealous Prelate. He is revered by the whole Church as a canonized\nSaint, and after his death, Leo refers to him as Hilary of _happy memory_.\n\nTheodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned\nby the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo in the\nfollowing touching language: \u201cI await the decision of your Apostolic See,\nand I supplicate your Holiness to succor me, who invoke your righteous and\njust tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my\nteaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles.... I beseech you not to\nscorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs.... Above all, I entreat\nyou to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for\nI await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined\nagainst me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the\nrighteous judgment of our God and Savior. To me, as Almighty God is my\nJudge, honor and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been\ncaused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued\nfrom diverse heresies, considering _the See_ which has condemned me,\nsuspect that perhaps I really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of\ndistinguishing accuracy of doctrine.\u201d(169) Leo declared the deposition\ninvalid and Theodoret was restored to his See.\n\nJohn, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch\nof that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of the\nPatriarch.\n\nIn 859 Photius addressed a letter to Pope Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff\nto confirm his election to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In\nconsequence of the Pope\u2019s conscientious refusal Photius broke off from the\ncommunion of the Catholic Church and became the author of the Greek\nschism.\n\nHere are a few examples taken at random from Church History. We see\nPrelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning occupying the\nhighest position in the Eastern Church, and consequently far removed from\nthe local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early\nChurch from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the\nsupreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not constitute superior\njurisdiction, I have yet to learn what superior authority means.\n\nSecond\u2014Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of _the\nFathers_ of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has ever called\nin question the faith of such men as Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian,\nAugustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Leo. They were the acknowledged guardians\nof pure doctrine, and the living representatives \u201cof the faith once\ndelivered to the Saints.\u201d They were to the Church in their generation what\nPeter and Paul and James were to the Church in its infancy. We\ninstinctively consult them about the faith of those times; for, to whom\nshall we go for the Words of eternal life, if not to them?\n\nNow, the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to the Bishops\nof Rome as their superiors. The limited space I have allowed myself in\nthis little volume will not permit me to give any extracts from their\nwritings. The reader who may be unacquainted with the original language of\nthe Fathers, or who has not their writings at hand, is referred to a work\nentitled, \u201cFaith of Catholics,\u201d where he will find, in an English\ntranslation, copious extracts from their writings vindicating the Primacy\nof the Popes.\n\nThird\u2014_Ecumenical Councils_ afford another eloquent vindication of Papal\nsupremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an assemblage of Prelates\nrepresenting the whole Catholic Church. A General Council is to the Church\nwhat the Executive and Legislative bodies in Washington are to the United\nStates.\n\nUp to the present time nineteen Ecumenical Councils have been convened,\nincluding the Council of the Vatican. The last eleven were held in the\nWest, and the first eight in the East. I shall pass over the Western\nCouncils, as no one denies that they were subject to the authority of the\nPope.\n\nI shall speak briefly of the important influence which the Holy See\nexercised in the eight Oriental Councils.\n\nThe first General Council was held in Nic\u00e6a, in 325; the second, in\nConstantinople, 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the fourth, in\nChalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in 553; the sixth in the\nsame city, in 680; the seventh, in Nic\u00e6a, in 787, and the eighth, in\nConstantinople, in 869.\n\nThe Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least consented to\ntheir convocation; they presided by their legates over all of them, except\nthe first and second Councils of Constantinople, and they confirmed all\nthese eight by their authority. Before becoming a law the Acts of the\nCouncils required the Pope\u2019s signature, just as our Congressional\nproceedings require the President\u2019s signature before they acquire the\nforce of law.\n\nIs not this a striking illustration of the Primacy? The Pope convenes,\nrules and sanctions the Synods, not by courtesy, but by right. A dignitary\nwho calls an assembly together, who presides over its deliberations, whose\nsignature is essential for confirming its Acts has surely a higher\nauthority than the other members.\n\nFourth\u2014I shall refer to one more historical point in support of the Pope\u2019s\njurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most remarkable fact that\n_every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity since the\ndays of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries\nwho were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by\nBishops in open communion with that See_. This historical fact admits of\nno exception. Let me particularize.\n\nIreland\u2019s Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St.\nCelestine, in the fifth century.\n\nSt. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff,\nCelestine.\n\nThe Anglo-Saxons received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine\nmonk, as all historians, Catholic and non-Catholic, testify. Who empowered\nAugustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of the sixth century.\n\nSt. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth\ncentury. He was in active communion with the See of Peter.\n\nFlanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who\nacknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope.\n\nGermany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is\npopularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He\nwas commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the eighth\ncentury, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff.\n\nIn the ninth century two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius,\nevangelized Russia, Sclavonia, Moravia and other parts of Northern Europe.\nThey recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I. and of his\nsuccessors, Adrian II. and John VIII.\n\nIn the eleventh century Norway was converted by missionaries introduced\nfrom England by the Norwegian King, St. Olave.\n\nThe conversion of Sweden was consummated in the same century by the\nBritish Apostles Saints Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations\nimmediately after their conversion commenced to pay Romescot, or a small\nannual tribute to the Holy See\u2014a clear evidence that they were in\ncommunion with the Chair of Peter.(170)\n\nAll the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the\nReformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic\nMissionaries, because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief.\n\nPassing from Europe to Asia and America, it is undeniable that St. Francis\nXavier and the other Evangelists who, in the sixteenth century, extended\nthe Kingdom of Jesus Christ through India and Japan, were in communion\nwith the Holy See; and that those Apostles who, in the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, converted the aboriginal tribes of South America\nand Mexico received their commission from the Chair of Peter.\n\nBut you will say: The people of the United States profess to be a\nChristian nation. Do you also claim them? Most certainly; for, even those\nAmerican Christians who are unhappily severed from the Catholic Church are\nprimarily indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel to missionaries in\ncommunion with the Holy See.\n\nThe white races of North America are descended from England, Ireland,\nScotland and the nations of Continental Europe. Those European nations\nhaving been converted by missionaries in subjection to the Holy See, it\nfollows that, from whatever part of Europe you are descended, whatever may\nbe your particular creed, you are indebted to the Church of Rome for your\nknowledge of Christianity.\n\nDo not these facts demonstrate the Primacy of the Pope? The Apostles of\nEurope and of other countries received their authority from Rome. Is not\nthe power that sends an ambassador greater than he who is sent?\n\nThus we see that the name of the Pope is indelibly marked on every page of\necclesiastical history. The Sovereign Pontiff ever stands before us as\ncommander-in-chief in the grand army of the Church. Do the bishops of the\nEast feel themselves aggrieved at home by their Patriarchs or civil\nRulers? They look for redress to Rome, as to the star of their hope. Are\nthe Fathers and Doctors of the early Church consulted? With one voice they\nall pay homage to the Bishop of Rome as to their spiritual Prince. Is an\nEcumenical Council to be convened in the East or West? The Pope is its\nleading spirit. Are new nations to be converted to the faith? There is the\nHoly Father clothing the missionaries with authority, and giving his\nblessing to the work. Are new errors to be condemned in any part of the\nglobe? All eyes turn toward the oracle of Rome to await his anathema, and\nhis solemn judgment reverberates throughout the length and breath of the\nChristian world.\n\nYou might as well shut out the light of day and the air of heaven from\nyour daily walks as exclude the Pope from his legitimate sphere in the\nhierarchy of the Church. The history of the United States with the\nPresidents left out would be more intelligible than the history of the\nChurch to the exclusion of the Vicar of Christ. How, I ask, could such\nauthority endure so long if it were a usurpation?\n\nBut you will tell me: \u201cThe supremacy of the Pope has been disputed in many\nages.\u201d So has the authority of God been called in question\u2014nay, His very\nexistence has been denied; for, \u201cthe fool hath said in his heart there is\nno God.\u201d(171) Does this denial destroy the existence and dominion of God?\nHas not parental authority been impugned from the beginning? But by whom?\nBy unruly children. Was David no longer king because Absalom said so?\n\nIt is thus also with the Popes. Their parental sway has been opposed only\nby their undutiful sons who grew impatient of the Gospel yoke. Photius,\nthe leader of the Greek schism, was an obedient son of the Pope until\nNicholas refused to recognize his usurped authority. Henry VIII. was a\nstout defender of the Pope\u2019s supremacy until Clement VII. refused to\nlegalize his adultery. Luther professed a most abject submission to the\nPope till Leo X. condemned him.\n\nYou cannot, my dear reader, be a loyal citizen of the United States while\nyou deny the constitutional authority of the President. You have seen that\nthe Bishop of Rome is appointed not by man, but by Jesus Christ, President\nof the Christian commonwealth. You cannot, therefore, be a true citizen of\nthe Republic of the Church so long as you spurn the legitimate supremacy\nof its Divinely constituted Chief. \u201cHe that is not with Me is against Me,\u201d\nsays our Lord, \u201cand he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.\u201d How can you\nbe with Christ if you are against His Vicar?\n\nThe great evil of our times is the unhappy division existing among the\nprofessors of Christianity, and from thousands of hearts a yearning cry\ngoes forth for unity of faith and union of churches.\n\nIt was, no doubt, with this laudable view that the Evangelical Alliance\nassembled in New York in the fall of 1873. The representatives of the\ndifferent religious communions hoped to effect a reunion. But they\nsignally and lamentably failed. Indeed, the only result which followed\nfrom the alliance was the creation of a new sect under the auspices of Dr.\nCummins. That reverend gentleman, with the characteristic modesty of all\nreligious reformers, was determined to have a hand in improving the work\nof Jesus Christ; and, like the other reformers, he said, with those who\nbuilt the tower of Babel: \u201cLet us make our name famous before\u201d(172) our\ndust is scattered to the wind.\n\nThe Alliance failed, because its members had no common platform to stand\non. There was no voice in that assembly that could say with authority:\n\u201cThus saith the Lord.\u201d\n\nI heartily join in this prayer for Christian unity, and gladly would\nsurrender my life for such a consummation. But I tell you that Jesus\nChrist has pointed out the only means by which this unity can be\nmaintained, viz: the recognition of Peter and his successors as the Head\nof the Church. Build upon this foundation and you will not erect a tower\nof Babel, nor build upon sand. If all Christian sects were united with the\ncentre of unity, then the scattered hosts of Christendom would form an\narmy which atheism and infidelity could not long withstand. Then, indeed,\nall could exclaim with Balaam: \u201cHow beautiful are thy tabernacles, O\nJacob, and thy tents, O Israel!\u201d(173)\n\nLet us pray that the day may be hastened when religious dissensions will\ncease; when all Christians will advance with united front, under one\ncommon leader, to plant the cross in every region and win new kingdoms to\nJesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XI.\n\n\nINFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES.\n\n\nAs the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strangely misapprehended by our\nseparated brethren, because it is grievously misrepresented by those who\nprofess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, I shall begin by\nstating what Infallibility does not mean, and shall then explain what it\nreally is.\n\nFirst\u2014The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are\ninspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and we\naccept their writings as the revealed Word of God.\n\nNo Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed\nwith Divine revelation properly so called.\n\n\u201cFor the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order\nthat they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that,\nunder His assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fidelity\nexplain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by the\nApostles.\u201d(174)\n\nSecond\u2014Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or\nspecially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with\nfew exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honored as\nmartyrs. Seventy-nine out of the two hundred and fifty-nine that sat on\nthe chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their\nholiness.\n\nThe avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes with\nimmorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought\nagainst them, we have forty-three virtuous to one bad Pope, while there\nwas a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.\n\nBut although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so\nunfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of\nitself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for\nthe preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment;\nfor, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High\nPriests of the Old Law.\n\nThe present illustrious Pontiff is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has\nalready filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of thirty\nyears, \u201ca spectacle to the world, to angels and to men,\u201d and no man can\npoint out a stain upon his moral character.\n\nAnd yet Pius IX., like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week.\nEach morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar,\n\u201cI confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned\nexceedingly in thought, word and deed.\u201d And at the Offertory of the Mass\nhe says: \u201cReceive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation\nwhich I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offences and\nnegligences.\u201d\n\nWith these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of\nthe Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as\nto proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth,\nthat Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can\nbenefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.\n\nThird\u2014Bear in mind, also, that this Divine assistance is guaranteed to the\nPope not in his capacity as private teacher, but only in his official\ncapacity, when he judges of faith and morals as Head of the Church. If a\nPope, for instance, like Benedict XIV. were to write a treatise on Canon\nLaw his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any Doctor of\nthe Church.\n\nFourth\u2014Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to\nquestions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences,\nsuch as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the\nfalse name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth.(175) It\ndoes not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the\nplanets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form\nof government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to\nvote.\n\nThe Pope\u2019s Infallibility, therefore, does not in any way trespass on civil\nauthority; for the Pope\u2019s jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, while\nthe duty of the State is to provide for the temporal welfare of its\nsubjects.\n\nWhat, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility? It simply means that\nthe Pope, as successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, by virtue of\nthe promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved from error of judgment when he\npromulgates to the Church a decision on faith or morals.\n\nThe Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker of the Divine law; he\nis only its expounder. He is not the author of revelation, but only its\ninterpreter. All revelation came from God alone through His inspired\nministers, and it was complete in the beginning of the Church. The Holy\nFather has no more authority than you or I to break one iota of the\nScripture, and he is equally with us the servant of the Divine law.\n\nIn a word, the Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, though in a more\neminent degree, what the Supreme Court is to the United States. We have an\ninstrument called the Constitution of the United States, which is the\ncharter of our civil rights and liberties. If a controversy arise\nregarding a constitutional clause, the question is referred in the last\nresort, to the Supreme Court at Washington. The Chief Justice, with his\nassociate judges, examines into the case and then pronounces judgment upon\nit; and this decision is final, irrevocable and practically infallible.\n\nIf there were no such court to settle constitutional questions, the\nConstitution itself would soon become a dead letter. Every litigant would\nconscientiously decide the dispute in his own favor and anarchy,\nseparation and civil war would soon follow. But by means of this Supreme\nCourt disputes are ended, and the political union of the States is\nperpetuated. There would have been no civil war in 1861 had our domestic\nquarrel been submitted to the legitimate action of our highest court of\njudicature, instead of being left to the arbitrament of the sword.\n\nThe revealed Word of God is the constitution of the Church. This is the\n_Magna Charta_ of our Christian liberties. The Pope is the official\nguardian of our religious constitution, as the Chief Justice is the\nguardian of our civil constitution.\n\nWhen a dispute arises in the Church regarding the sense of Scripture the\nsubject is referred to the Pope for final adjudication. The Sovereign\nPontiff, before deciding the case, gathers around him his venerable\ncolleagues, the Cardinals of the Church; or he calls a council of his\nassociate judges of faith, the Bishops of Christendom; or he has recourse\nto other lights which the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then, after\nmature and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judgment and his sentence\nis final, irrevocable and infallible.\n\nIf the Catholic Church were not fortified by this Divinely-established\nsupreme tribunal, she would be broken up, like the sects around her, into\na thousand fragments and religious anarchy would soon follow. But by means\nof this infallible court her marvellous unity is preserved throughout the\nworld. This doctrine is the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith, and,\nfar from arousing opposition, it ought to command the unqualified\nadmiration of every reflecting mind.\n\nThese explanations being premised, let us now briefly consider the grounds\nof the doctrine itself.\n\nThe following passages of the Gospel, spoken at different times, were\naddressed exclusively to Peter: \u201cThou art Peter; and on this rock I will\nbuild My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.\u201d(176)\n\u201cI, the Supreme Architect of the universe,\u201d says our Savior, \u201cwill\nestablish a Church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the\nfoundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock of truth that the\nwinds and storms of error shall not prevail against it. Thou, O Peter,\nshalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou\nshalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken, because thou shalt\nrest on Me, the rock of truth.\u201d The Church, of which Peter is the\nfoundation, is declared to be impregnable\u2014that is, proof against error.\nHow can you suppose an immovable edifice built on a tottering foundation?\nFor it is not the building that sustains the foundation, but it is the\nfoundation that supports the building.\n\n\u201cAnd I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.\u201d(177) Thou\nshalt hold the keys of truth with which to open to the faithful the\ntreasures of heavenly science. \u201cWhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall\nbe bound also in Heaven.\u201d(178) The judgment which thou shalt pronounce on\nearth I will ratify in heaven. Surely the God of Truth is incapable of\nsanctioning an untruthful judgment.\n\n\u201cBehold, Satan hath desired to have you (My Apostles), that he may sift\n_you_ as wheat. But I have prayed for _thee_ (Peter) that thy faith fail\nnot; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.\u201d(179) It is\nworthy of note that Jesus prays only for Peter. And why for Peter in\nparticular? Because on his shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church.\nOur Lord prays for two things: First\u2014That the faith of Peter and of his\nsuccessors might not fail. Second\u2014That Peter would confirm his brethren in\nthe faith, \u201cin order,\u201d as St. Leo says, \u201cthat the strength given by Christ\nto Peter should descend on the Apostles.\u201d\n\nWe know that the prayer of Jesus is always heard. Therefore the faith of\nPeter will always be firm. He was destined to be the oracle which all were\nto consult. Hence we always find him the prominent figure among the\nApostles, the first to speak, the first to act on every occasion. He was\nto be the guiding star that was to lead the rest of the faithful in the\npath of truth. He was to be in the hierarchy of the Church what the sun is\nin the planetary system\u2014the centre around which all would revolve. And is\nit not a beautiful spectacle, in harmony with our ideas of God\u2019s\nprovidence, to behold in His Church a counterpart of the starry system\nabove us? There every planet moves in obedience to a uniform law, all are\nregulated by one great luminary. So, in the spiritual order, we see every\nmember of the Church governed by one law, controlled by one voice, and\nthat voice subject to God.\n\n\u201cFeed My lambs; feed My sheep.\u201d(180) Peter is appointed by our Lord the\nuniversal shepherd of His flock\u2014of the sheep and of the lambs\u2014that is,\nshepherd of the Bishops and Priests as well as of the people. The Bishops\nare shepherds, in reference to their flocks; they are sheep, in reference\nto the Pope, who is the shepherd of shepherds. The Pope, as shepherd, must\nfeed the flock not with the poison of error, but with the healthy food of\nsound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers\npernicious food to his flock.\n\nAmong the General Councils of the Church already held I shall mention only\nthree, as the acts of these Councils are amply sufficient to vindicate the\nunerring character of the See of Rome and the Roman Pontiffs. I wish also\nto call your attention to three facts: First\u2014That none of these Councils\nwere held in Rome; Second\u2014That one of them assembled in the East, viz: in\nConstantinople; and, Third\u2014That in every one of them the Oriental and the\nWestern Bishops met for the purpose of reunion.\n\nThe Eighth General Council, held in Constantinople in 869, contains the\nfollowing solemn profession of faith: \u201cSalvation primarily depends upon\nguarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pass over the words\nof our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, \u2018Thou art Peter, and on this rock I\nwill build My Church,\u2019 what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the\nApostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate,\nand holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated\nfrom this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion\nwhich the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true\nsolidity of the Christian religion.\u201d\n\nThis Council clearly declares that _immaculate doctrine_ has always _been\npreserved and preached in the Roman See_. But how could this be said of\nher, if the Roman See ever fell into error, and how could that See be\npreserved from error, if the Roman Pontiffs presiding over it ever erred\nin faith?\n\nIn the Second General Council of Lyons (1274), the Greek Bishops made the\nfollowing profession of faith: \u201cThe holy Roman Church possesses full\nprimacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which\nprimacy, with the plenitude of power, she truly and humbly acknowledges to\nhave received from our Lord Himself, in the person of Blessed Peter,\nPrince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and\nas the Roman See, above all others, is bound to defend the truth of faith,\nso, also, _if any questions on faith arise, they ought to be defined by\nher judgment_.\u201d\n\nHere the Council of Lyons avows that the Roman Pontiffs have the power to\ndetermine definitely, and without appeal, any questions of faith which may\narise in the Church; in other words, the Council acknowledges them to be\nthe supreme and infallible arbiters of faith.\n\n\u201cWe define,\u201d says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were\npresent the Bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, \u201cwe define that the\nRoman Pontiff is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the\nApostles, and _the true Vicar of Christ, the Head_ of the whole Church,\nthe Father and Doctor of all Christians, and we declare that to him, in\nthe person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Savior, full\npower to feed, rule and govern the universal Church.\u201d\n\nThe Pope is here called the _true Vicar_ or representative of Christ in\nthis lower kingdom of His Church militant\u2014that is, the Pope is the organ\nof our Savior, and speaks His sentiments in faith and morals. But if the\nPope erred in faith and morals he would no longer be Christ\u2019s Vicar and\ntrue representative. Our minister in England, for instance, would not\ntruly represent our Government if he was not the organ of its sentiments.\nThe Roman Pontiff is called the _Head_ of the whole Church\u2014that is, the\nvisible Head. Now the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is infallible.\nIt is, as St. Paul says, \u201cwithout spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.\u201d But\nhow can you suppose an infallible body with a fallible head? How can an\nerring head conduct a body in the unerring ways of truth and justice?\n\nHe is declared by the same Council to be the _Father_ and _Doctor_ of all\nChristians. How can you expect an unerring family under an erring Father?\nThe Pope is called the universal teacher or doctor. Teacher of what? Of\ntruth, not of error. Error is to the mind what poison is to the body. You\ndo not call poison food; neither can you call error doctrine. The Pope, as\nuniversal teacher, must always give to the faithful not the poisonous food\nof error, but the sound aliment of pure doctrine.\n\nIn fine, the Pope is also styled the _Chief Pilot_ of the Church. It was\nnot without a mysterious significance that our Lord entered Peter\u2019s bark\ninstead of that of any of the other Apostles. This bark, our Lord has\npledged Himself, shall never sink nor depart from her true course. How can\nyou imagine a stormproof, never-varying bark under the charge of a\nfallible Pilot?\n\nBut did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal\nInfallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not\nthe Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always\nunchangeable in her teaching?\n\nThe Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one.\nIt formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been\naccepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in\nthe deposit of revelation.\n\nI may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When\nthe Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question,\nhis decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new\ndoctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the\nConstitution.\n\nIn like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree\nis nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the\ndecision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.\n\nThe course pursued by the Church, regarding the infallibility of the Pope\nwas practiced by her in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our\nSavior was acknowledged to be God from the beginning of the Church. Yet\nHis Divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nic\u00e6a in the\nfourth century, and it would not have been defined even then had it not\nbeen denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the\nbelief in the Divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?\n\nThe following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of God\nfrom the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils\npromulgated doctrines or condemned errors they always transmitted their\ndecrees to Rome for confirmation or rejection. What Rome approved, the\nuniversal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.\n\nThus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St.\nCyprian, of Carthage, and of a council of African bishops regarding a\nquestion of baptism.\n\nPope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns the Pelagian heresy,\nin reference to which St. Augustine wrote this memorable sentence: \u201cThe\nacts of two councils were sent to the Apostolic See, whence an answer was\nreturned. The _question is ended_. Would to God that the error also had\nceased.\u201d\n\nIn the fourteenth century Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of Wycliffe.\n\nPope Leo X., in the sixteenth, anathematizes Luther.\n\nInnocent X., in the seventeenth, at the solicitation of the French\nEpiscopate, condemns the subtle errors of the Jansenists, and in the\nnineteenth century Pius IX. promulgates the doctrine of the Immaculate\nConception.\n\nHere we find the Popes in various ages condemning heresies and proclaiming\ndoctrines of faith; and they could not in a stronger manner assert their\ninfallibility than by so defining doctrines of faith and condemning\nerrors. We also behold the Church of Christendom ever saying Amen to the\ndecisions of the Bishops of Rome. Hence it is evident that, in every age,\nthe Church recognized the Popes as infallible teachers.\n\nEvery independent government must have a supreme tribunal regularly\nsitting to interpret its laws, and to decide cases of controversy likely\nto arise. Thus we have in Washington the Supreme Court of the United\nStates.\n\nNow the Catholic Church is a complete and independent organization, as\ncomplete in its spiritual sphere as the United States Government is in the\ntemporal order. The Church has its own laws, its own autonomy and\ngovernment.\n\nThe Church, therefore, like civil powers, must have a permanent and\nstationary supreme tribunal to interpret its laws and to determine cases\nof religious controversy.\n\nWhat constitutes this permanent supreme court of the Church? Does it\nconsist of the Bishops assembled in General Council? No; because this is\nnot an ordinary but an extraordinary tribunal which meets, on an average,\nonly once in a hundred years.\n\nIs it composed of the Bishops scattered throughout the world? By no means,\nbecause it would be impracticable to consult all the Bishops of\nChristendom upon every issue that might arise in the Church. The poison of\nerror would easily spread through the body of the Church before a decision\ncould be rendered by the Prelates dispersed throughout the globe. The\nPope, then, as Head of the Catholic Church, constitutes, with just reason,\nthis supreme tribunal.\n\nAnd as the office of the Church is to guide men into all truth, and to\npreserve them from all error, it follows that he who is appointed to watch\nover the constitution of the Church must be infallible, or exempt from\nerror in his official capacity as judge of faith and morals. The\nprerogatives of the Pope must be commensurate with the nature of the\nconstitution which he has to uphold. The constitution is Divine and must\nhave a Divinely protected interpreter.\n\nBut you will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be\nconferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His\nApostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of\nworking miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouth-piece\ncommunicating God\u2019s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the\ncustodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it\nimpossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?\nFor, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than\nthe Pope who preserves it from error.\n\nIf, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter\nwould be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He\nwithdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He\nshould designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.\n\nA Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal\nInfallibility, recently used the following language: \u201cFor my part, I have\nan infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.\u201d\nThis assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand\nthe test of sound criticism.\n\nLet us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either\nyou are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is\ncorrect or you are not.\n\nIf you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course\nfor every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny\nto the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own\nPope.\n\nIf you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of\nthe whole Bible\u2014and this is a privilege you do not claim\u2014then, I ask, of\nwhat use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an\ninfallible interpreter?\n\nIf God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do\nyou not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be\nmost unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving\nhim a means of ascertaining its precise import?\n\nDo you not reduce God\u2019s word to a bundle of contradictions, like the\nleaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of\nevery inquirer?\n\nOf the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does\nnot each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each\nmember draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in\nthe mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this\nvariety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: \u201cAn\ninfallible Bible is enough for me,\u201d and does it not proclaim the absolute\nnecessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to\ndrink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched\nlips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the\nmedium of your interpretation?\n\nHow satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic\nteaching on this subject!\n\nAccording to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child,\nis the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who\nwill expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its\ndifficulties.\n\nHere are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that\nwill communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without\nsediment of error.\n\nHere is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over\nit a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one \u201cto whom I have given the keys\nof the Kingdom of Heaven,\u201d who will preserve that Constitution inviolate,\nand will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions\nof men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XII.\n\n\nTEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES.\n\n\n\n\nI. How The Popes Acquired Temporal Power.\n\n\nFor the clearer understanding of the origin and the gradual growth of the\nTemporal Power of the Popes, we may divide the history of the Church into\nthree great epochs.\n\nThe first embraces the period which elapsed from the establishment of the\nChurch to the days of Constantine the Great, in the fourth century; the\nsecond, from Constantine to Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor in the\nyear 800; the third, from Charlemagne to the present time.\n\nWhen St. Peter, the first Pope in the long, unbroken line of Sovereign\nPontiffs, entered Italy and Rome he did not possess a foot of ground which\nhe could call his own. He could say with his Divine Master: \u201cThe foxes\nhave holes and the birds of the air nests, but the Son of Man hath not\nwhereon to lay his head.\u201d(181) The Apostle died as he had lived, a poor\nman, having nothing at his death save the affections of a grateful people.\n\nBut, although the Prince of the Apostles owned nothing that he could call\nhis personal property, he received from the faithful large donations to be\ndistributed among the needy. For in the Acts of the Apostles we are told\nthat \u201cneither was anyone among them (the faithful) needy; for as many as\nwere owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the\nthings which they sold and laid them before the feet of the Apostles, and\ndistribution was made to everyone according as he had need.\u201d(182) Such was\nthe filial attachment of the early Christians towards the Pontiffs of the\nChurch; such was the confidence reposed in their personal integrity, and\nin their discretion in dispensing the charity of the faithful.\n\nDuring the first three hundred years the Pastors of the Church were\ngenerally incapable of holding real estate in Rome; for Christianity was\nyet a proscribed religion, and the faithful were exposed to the most\nviolent and unrelenting persecutions that have ever darkened the annals of\nhistory.\n\nThe Christians of Rome worshiped for the most part in the catacombs. These\ncatacombs are subterranean chambers and passages under the city of Rome.\nThey extend for miles in different directions, and are visited to this day\nby thousands of strangers. Here the primitive Christians prayed together,\nhere they encouraged one another to martyrdom, here they died and were\nburied; so that these caverns served at the same time as temples of\nworship for the living and as tombs for the dead.\n\nAt last Constantine the Great brought peace to the Church. The long night\nof Pagan persecution was succeeded by the bright dawn of religious\nliberty, and as our Blessed Savior rose triumphant from the grave, after\nhaving lain there for three days, so did our early brethren in the faith\nemerge from the tombs of the catacombs, after having been buried, as it\nwere, in the bowels of the earth for three centuries.\n\nConstantine gave to the Roman Church munificent donations of money and\nreal estate, which were augmented by additional grants contributed by\nsubsequent emperors. Hence the patrimony of the Roman Pontiffs soon became\nvery considerable. Voltaire himself tells us that the wealth which the\nPopes acquired was spent not in satisfying their own avarice and ambition,\nbut in the most laudable works of charity and religion. They expended\ntheir patrimony, he says, in sending missionaries to evangelize Pagan\nEurope, in giving hospitality to exiled Bishops at Rome and in feeding the\npoor. And I may here add that succeeding Popes have generously imitated\nthe munificence of the early Pontiffs.\n\nAn event occurred in the reign of Constantine which paved the way for the\npartial jurisdiction which the Roman Pontiffs commenced to enjoy over\nRome, and which they continued to exercise till they obtained full\nsovereignty in the days of King Pepin of France.\n\nIn the year 327 the Emperor Constantine transferred the seat of empire\nfrom Rome to Constantinople, the present capital of Turkey. The city was\nnamed after Constantine, who founded it. A subsequent emperor appointed a\ngovernor, or exarch, to rule Italy, who resided in the city of Ravenna.\nThis new system, as is manifest, did not work well. The Emperor of\nConstantinople referred all matters to his deputy in Ravenna, and the\ndeputy was more anxious to conciliate the Emperor than to satisfy the\npeople of Rome. Italy and Rome were then in a political condition\nanalogous to that in which the Irish were placed for several centuries.\n\nAbandoned to itself, Rome became a tempting prey to those numerous hordes\nof Barbarians from the North that then devastated Italy. The city was\nsuccessively attacked by the Goths under Alaric, and by the Vandals under\nGenseric, and was threatened by the Huns under Attila. Unable to obtain\nassistance from the Emperor in the East, or the Governor at Ravenna, the\ncitizens of Rome looked up to the Popes as their only Governors and\nprotectors, and their only salvation in the dangers which threatened them.\nThe confidence which they reposed in the Pontiffs was not misplaced. The\nPopes were not only devoted spiritual Fathers, but firm and valiant civil\nGovernors. When Attila, who was surnamed \u201cthe Scourge of God,\u201d approached\nthe city with an army of 500,000 men, Pope Leo the Great went out to meet\nhim unattended by troops. His mild eloquence disarmed the indomitable\nchieftain and induced him to retrace his steps. Thus he saved the city\nfrom pillage and the people from destruction. The same Pope Leo also\nconfronted Genseric, the leader of the Vandals; and although he could not\nthis time protect Rome from the plunder of the soldiers he saved the lives\nof the citizens from slaughter. Such acts as these were naturally\ncalculated to bind the Roman people more strongly to the Popes and to\nalienate them from their nominal rulers.\n\nIn the early part of the eighth century Leo Isauricus, one of the\nsuccessors of Constantine on the imperial throne, not content with his\ncivil authority, endeavored, like Henry VIII., to usurp spiritual\njurisdiction, and, like the same English monarch, sought to rob the people\nof their time-honored sacred traditions. A civil ruler dabbling in\nreligion is as reprehensible as a clergyman dabbling in politics. Both\nrender themselves odious as well as ridiculous. The Emperor commanded all\npaintings of our Savior and His saints to be removed from the churches on\nthe assumption that such an exhibition was an act of idolatry. Pope\nGregory II. wrote to the Emperor an energetic remonstrance, reminding him\nthat \u201cdogmas of faith are to be interpreted by the Pontiffs of the Church\nand not by emperors,\u201d and begging him to spare the sacred paintings. But\nthe Pope\u2019s remonstrance and entreaties were in vain. This conduct of the\nEmperor tended to widen still more the breach between himself and the\nRoman people.\n\nSoon after an event occurred which abolished forever the authority of the\nByzantine Emperors in Italy, and established on a sure and lasting basis\nthe temporal sovereignty of the Popes.\n\nIn 754 Astolphus, King of the Lombards, invaded Italy, captured some\nItalian cities and threatened to advance on Rome.\n\nPope Stephen III.,(183) who then ruled the Church, sent an urgent appeal\nto the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, successor of Leo the Isaurian,\nimploring him to come to the relief of Rome and his Italian provinces. The\nEmperor manifested his usual apathy and indifference and received the\nmessage with coldness and neglect.\n\nIn this emergency Stephen, who sees that no time is to be lost, crosses\nthe Alps in person, approaches Pepin, King of France, and begs that\npowerful monarch to protect the Italian people, who were utterly abandoned\nby those that ought to be their defenders. The pious King, after paying\nhis homage to the Pope, sets out for Italy with his army, defeats the\ninvading Lombards and places the Pope at the head of the conquered\nprovinces.\n\nCharlemagne, the successor of Pepin, not only confirms the grant of his\nfather, but increases the temporal domain of the Pope by donating him some\nadditional provinces.\n\nThis small piece of territory the Roman Pontiffs continued to govern from\nthat time till 1870, with the exception of brief intervals of foreign\nusurpation. And certainly, if ever any Prince merited the appellation of\nlegitimate sovereign, that title is eminently deserved by the Bishops of\nRome.\n\n\n\n\nII. The Validity And Justice Of Their Title.\n\n\nThere are three titles which render the tenure of a Prince honest and\nincontestable, viz., _long possession, legitimate acquisition_ and _a just\nuse of the original grant confided to him_. The Bishop of Rome possessed\nhis temporality by all these titles.\n\nFirst\u2014The temporal dominion of the Pope is most ancient in point of time.\nHe commenced, as we have seen, to enjoy full sovereignty about the middle\nof the eighth century. The Pope was, consequently, a temporal ruler for\nupwards of 1,100 years. The Papal dynasty is, therefore, the oldest in\nEurope, and probably in the world. The Pope was the temporal ruler of Rome\nfour hundred years before England subjugated Ireland, and seven hundred\nbefore the first European pressed his foot on the American continent.\n\nSecond\u2014His civil authority was established not by the sword of conquest,\nnor the violence of usurpation. He did not mount the throne upon the ruins\nof outraged liberties or violated treaties; but he was called to rule by\nthe unanimous voice of a grateful people. Always the devoted spiritual\nFather of Rome, he providentially became its civil defender; and the\ntemporal power he had possessed already by popular suffrage was ratified\nand sanctioned by the sovereign act of the Frankish monarch. In a word,\nthe ship of state was in danger of being engulfed beneath the fierce waves\nof foreign invasion. The captain, meantime, folded his arms and abandoned\nthe ship to her fate. The Pope was called to the helm in the emergency,\nand he saved the vessel from shipwreck and the people from destruction.\nHence, even Gibbon, the English historian, who cannot be suspected of\npartiality, has the candor to use the following language in discussing\nthis subject: \u201cTheir (the Pope\u2019s) temporal dominion is now confirmed by\nthe reverence of a thousand years, and their noblest title is the free\nchoice of a people whom they had redeemed from slavery.\u201d\n\nThird\u2014What is the use or advantage of the temporal power? This is well\nworth considering, as many have erroneous notions on the subject.\n\nThe object is not to aggrandize or enrich the Pope. He ascends the Papal\nchair generally an old man, when human passion and human ambition, if any\ndid exist, are on the wane. His personal expenses do not exceed a few\ndollars a day. He eats alone and very abstemiously. He has no wife, no\nchildren to enrich with the spoils of office, as he is an unmarried man.\nThe Popedom is not hereditary, like the sovereignty of England, but\nelective, like the office of our President, and the Holy Father is\nsucceeded by a Pontiff to whom he was bound by no family ties. What\npersonal motive, therefore, can he have in desiring temporal sovereignty?\nI am sure, indeed, that if the Holy Father were to consult his own taste\nand feelings, he would much rather be free from the trammels of civil\ngovernment. But he has higher interests to subserve. He must vindicate the\neternal laws of justice which have been violated in his own person.\n\nAs the Popes were not actuated by a love of gain in possessing temporal\ndominion, neither had they any desire to enlarge their territory, small as\nit was. The temporalities of the Pope were not much larger than the State\nof Maryland before he was deprived of them by Victor Emmanuel a few years\nago.\n\nAnd this is the little slice of land which Victor Emmanuel wrested from\nthe Holy Father. This is the vineyard which the modern King Achab wrung\nfrom the unoffending Naboth. But the Pontiff answers, like Naboth of old:\n\u201cThe Lord be merciful to me, and not let me give thee the inheritance of\nmy fathers.\u201d(184)\n\nThis is the little ewe-lamb which the modern David has snatched from\nUriah, its legitimate owner. The royal shepherd of Piedmont had already\nseized all the other lambs and sheep of his neighbors; but he was not\nsatisfied till he added to his fold the solitary, tender lamb of the Pope.\nLet him take care, however, that the prophecy denounced by Nathan against\nDavid fall not upon himself and his posterity: \u201cWhy, therefore, hast thou\ndespised the word of the Lord, to do evil in My sight? Therefore the sword\nshall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised Me. Behold,\nI will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house.\u201d(185)\n\nWhile the patrimony of the Pope was large enough to secure his\nindependence, it was too small to provoke the fear and jealousy of foreign\npowers. The authority of the Roman Pontiffs in the Middle Ages was almost\nunbounded. Had they wished then, they could easily have increased their\nterritory; yet they were content with what Providence placed originally in\ntheir hands.(186)\n\nThe sole end of the temporal power has been to secure for the Pope\nindependence and freedom in the government of the Church. The Holy Father\nmust be either a sovereign or a subject. There is no medium. If a subject,\nhe might become either the pliant creature, if God would so permit, of his\nroyal master, like the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, who, as\nGibbon observed, was \u201ca domestic slave under the eye of his master, at\nwhose nod he passed from the convent to the throne, and from the throne to\nthe convent.\u201d And, indeed, the Oriental schismatic Bishops are as\nsubservient now as they were then to their temporal rulers. Or, what is\nfar more probable, the Pope might become a virtual prisoner in his own\nhouse, as the present illustrious Pontiff is at this moment.\n\nThe Pope is the representative of Christ on earth. His office requires him\nto be in constant communication with prelates in every country in the\nworld. Should the kingdom of Italy be embroiled in a war with any European\nPower\u2014with Germany, for instance\u2014it would be difficult, if not impossible,\nfor the Holy Father and the German Bishops to confer with each other, and\nreligion would suffer from the interruption of intercourse between the\nHead and the members.\n\nThe interests of Christianity demand that the Vicar of the Prince of Peace\nshould possess one spot of territory which would be held inviolable, so\nthat all nations and peoples could at all times, in war, as well as in\npeace, freely correspond with him. Nothing can be more revolting to our\nfeelings than that the spiritual government of the Church should be\nconstantly hampered by the hostile aggressions of ambitious rulers, an\neventuality always likely to occur so long as the Pope remains the subject\nof any earthly potentate.(187)\n\nBut we are told that the Roman people, by a _plebiscitum_, or popular\nvote, expressed their desire to be annexed to the Piedmontese Government.\nTo this I answer, in the first place, that we ought to know what\nimportance to attach to elections held under the shadow of the bayonet. It\nis well known that the Roman _plebiscitum_ was undertaken by the authority\nand guided by the inspiration of the Italian troops. It is equally\nnotorious that the numerous stragglers who accompanied the Italian army to\nRome legalized the gigantic fraud of their master, as well as their own\npetty thefts, by voting in favor of annexation.\n\nIn the second place, the Roman people, even had they so desired, had no\nright to transfer, by _their_ suffrage, the Patrimony of St. Peter to\nVictor Emmanuel. They could not give what did not belong to them. The\nPapal territory was granted to the Popes in trust, for the use and benefit\nof the Church\u2014that is, for the use and benefit of the Catholics of\nChristendom. The Catholic world, therefore, and not merely a handful of\nRoman subjects, must give its consent before such a transfer can be\ndeclared legitimate. Rome is to Catholic Christendom what Washington is to\nthe United States. As the citizens of Washington have no power, without\nthe concurrence of the United States, to annex their city to Maryland or\nVirginia, neither can the citizens of Rome hand over their city to the\nKingdom of Piedmont without the acquiescence of the faithful dispersed\nthroughout the world.\n\nWe protest, therefore, against the occupation of Rome by foreign troops as\na high-handed act of injustice, and a gross violation of the Commandment,\n\u201cThou shalt not steal.\u201d\n\nWe protest against it as a royal outrage, calculated to shock the public\nsense of honesty, and to weaken the sacred right of public and private\nproperty.\n\nWe protest against it as an unjustifiable violation of solemn treaties.\n\nWe protest, in fine, against the spoliation as an impious sacrilege,\nbecause it is an unholy seizure of ecclesiastical property, and an\nattempt, as far as human agencies can accomplish it, to trammel and\nembarrass the free action of the Head of the Church.\n\n\n\n\nIII. What The Popes Have Done For Rome.\n\n\nAlthough the temporal power of the Pope is a subject which concerns the\nuniversal Church, no nation has more reason to lament the loss of the Holy\nFather\u2019s temporalities than the Italians themselves, and particularly the\ninhabitants of Rome.\n\nIt is the residence of the Popes in Rome that has contributed to her\nmaterial and religious grandeur. The Pontiffs have made her the Centre of\nChristendom, the Queen of religion, the Mistress of arts and sciences, the\nDepository of sacred learning.\n\nBy their creative and conservative spirit they have saved the illustrious\nmonuments of the past, and, side by side with these, they have raised up\nChristian temples which surpass those of Pagan antiquity. In looking today\nat these old Roman monuments we know not which to admire more\u2014the genius\nof those who designed and erected them, or the fostering care of the Popes\nwho have preserved from destruction the venerable ruins. The residence of\nthe Popes in Rome has made her what she is truly called, \u201c_The Eternal\nCity_.\u201d\n\nLet the Popes leave Rome forever, and in five years grass will be growing\non its streets.\n\nSuch was the case at the return of the Pope, in 1418, from Avignon, which\nhad been the seat of the Sovereign Pontiffs during the preceding century.\nOn the Pope\u2019s return the city of Rome had a population of only 17,000(188)\nand Avignon, which, during the residence of the Popes in the fourteenth\ncentury contained a population of 100,000, has now a population of only\n36,407 inhabitants. Such, also, was the case in the beginning of the\npresent century, when Pius VII. was an exile for four years from Rome, and\na prisoner of the first Napoleon, in Grenoble, Savona and Fontainebleau.\nGrass then grew on the streets of Rome, and the city lost one-half of its\npopulation.\n\nRome has naturally no commercial attractions. It is only the presence of\nthe Pope that keeps up her trade. Let the Popes abandon Rome, and her\nchurches will soon be without worshipers; her artists without employment.\nHer glorious monuments will perish. Science and art and sacred literature\nwill take their flight and perch upon some more favored spot. The hundred\nthousand and more strangers who annually flock to Rome from different\nparts of the world will shake off the dust from their feet and seek more\ncongenial cities.\n\nLet the Popes withdraw from Rome, and it may become almost as desolate as\nJerusalem and Antioch are today.\n\nPeter preached his first sermons in Jerusalem, but he did not select it as\nhis See; and Jerusalem is today a Mahometan city, with its sacred places\nprofaned by the foot of the Mussulman.\n\nPeter occupied for a time the city of Antioch as his first See. But, in\nthe mysterious providence of God, he abandoned Antioch and repaired to\nRome; and now, little remains of the ancient Antioch of Peter\u2019s day except\ncolossal ruins.\n\nHad the Popes remained in Antioch, Syria would now very probably be,\ninstead of Europe, the centre of Christianity and civilization. The\nimmortal Dome of St. Peter\u2019s would, doubtless, overshadow the banks of the\nOrontes instead of the Tiber; and Antioch, not Rome, would be the focus of\nart, science, and sacred literature, and would be called today \u201cThe\nEternal City.\u201d\n\nOur present(189) beloved Pontiff, Pius IX., I need not inform you, is now\ntreated with indignity in his own city. In his declining years, as well as\nin the early days of his Pontificate, he is made to drink deep of the\nchalice of affliction. His name is dear to us all. To many of us it is a\nname familiar from our youth; for thirty-one years have now elapsed since\nhe first assumed the reins of government; and it is a noteworthy fact\nthat, since the days of Peter, no Pope has ever reigned so long as Pius\nIX.\n\nThe Pope in every age, like his Divine Master, has his period of\npersecution and his period of peace. Like Him, he has his days of sorrow\nand his days of joy, his days of humiliation and death, his days of\nexaltation and glory. Like Jesus Christ, he is one day greeted with\nacclamations as king, and another day crucified by his enemies.\n\nBut never does the Holy Father exhibit his title as Vicar of Christ more\nstrikingly than in the midst of tribulations. If he did not suffer, he\nwould bear no resemblance to his Divine Model and Master; and never does\nhe more worthily deserve the filial homage of his children than when he is\nheavily laden with the cross.\n\nI envy neither the heart nor the head of those men who are now gloating\nwith fiendish joy over the calamities of the Pope; who are heaping insults\nand calumnies on his venerable head, while he is in the hands of his\nenemies,(190) and who are confidently predicting the downfall of the\nPapacy, from the present situation of the Head of the Church, as if the\ntemporary privation of his dominions involved their irrevocable loss; or,\nas if even the perpetual destruction of the temporal power involved the\ndestruction of the spiritual supremacy itself. \u201cThe Papacy,\u201d they say, \u201cis\ngone. Its glory is vanished. Its sun is set. It is sunk below the horizon,\nnever to rise again.\u201d Ill-boding prophets, will you never profit by the\nlessons of history? Have not numbers of Popes before Pius IX. been\nforcibly ejected from their See, and have they not been reinstated in\ntheir temporal authority? What has happened so often before may and will\nhappen again.\n\nFor our part we have every confidence that ere long the clouds which now\novershadow the civil throne of the Pope will be removed by the breath of a\nrighteous God, and that his temporal power will be re-established on a\nmore permanent basis than ever.\n\nBut whatever be the fate of the Pope\u2019s temporalities, we have no fears for\nthe spiritual throne of the Papacy. The Pontiffs have received their\nearthly dominion from man, and what man gives man may take away. But the\nspiritual supremacy the Bishops of Rome have from God, and no man can\ndestroy it. That Divine charter of their prerogatives, \u201cThou art Peter,\nand on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not\nprevail against it,\u201d(191) will ever shine forth as brightly as the sun,\nand it is as far as the sun above the reach of human aggression.\n\nThe Holy Father may live and die in the catacombs, as the early Pontiffs\ndid for the first three centuries. He may be dragged from his See and\nperish in exile, like the Martins, the Gregories and the Piuses. He may\nwander a penniless pilgrim, like Peter himself. Rome itself may sink\nbeneath the Mediterranean; but the chair of Peter will stand, and Peter\nwill live in his successors.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XIII.\n\n\nTHE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.\n\n\nChristians of most denominations are accustomed to recite the following\narticle contained in the Apostles\u2019 Creed: \u201cI believe in the communion of\nSaints.\u201d There are many, I fear, who have these words frequently on their\nlips, without an adequate knowledge of the precious meaning which they\nconvey.\n\nThe true and obvious sense of the words quoted from the Creed is, that\nbetween the children of God, whether reigning in heaven or sojourning on\nearth, there exists an intercommunion, or spiritual communication by\nprayer; and, consequently, that our friends who have entered into their\nrest are mindful of us in their petitions to God.\n\nIn the exposition of her Creed the Catholic Church weighs her words in the\nscales of the sanctuary with as much precision as a banker weighs his\ngold. With regard to the Invocation of Saints the Church simply declares\nthat it is \u201cuseful and salutary\u201d to ask their prayers. There are\nexpressions addressed to the Saints in some popular books of devotion\nwhich, to critical readers, may seem extravagant. But they are only the\nwarm language of affection and poetry, to be regulated by our standard of\nfaith; and notice that all the prayers of the Church end with the formula:\n\u201cThrough our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d sufficiently indicating her belief that\nChrist is the Mediator of salvation. A heart tenderly attached to the\nSaints will give vent to its feelings in the language of hyperbole, just\nas an enthusiastic lover will call his future bride his adorable queen,\nwithout any intention of worshiping her as a goddess. This reflection\nshould be borne in mind while reading such passages.\n\nI might easily show, by voluminous quotations from ecclesiastical writers\nof the first ages of the Church, how conformable to the teaching of\nantiquity is the Catholic practice of invoking the intercession of the\nSaints. But as you, dear reader, may not be disposed to attach adequate\nimportance to the writings of the Fathers, I shall confine myself to the\ntestimony of Holy Scripture.\n\nYou will readily admit that it is a salutary custom to ask the prayers of\nthe blessed in heaven, provided you have no doubt that they can _hear_\nyour prayers, and that they have the _power_ and the _will_ to assist you.\nNow the Scriptures amply demonstrate the knowledge, the influence and the\nlove of the Saints in our regard.\n\nFirst\u2014It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Angels and Saints\nreigning with God see and hear in the same manner that we see and hear on\nearth, or that knowledge is communicated to them as it is communicated to\nus. While we are confined in the prison of the body, we see only with our\neyes and hear with our ears; hence our faculties of vision and hearing are\nvery limited. Compared with the heavenly inhabitants, we are like a man in\na darksome cell through which a dim ray of light penetrates. He observes\nbut few objects, and these very obscurely. But as soon as our soul is\nfreed from the body, soaring heavenward like a bird released from its\ncage, its vision is at once marvelously enlarged. It requires neither eyes\nto see nor ears to hear, but beholds all things in God as in a mirror. \u201cWe\nnow,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201csee through a glass darkly; but then face to\nface. Now, I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.\u201d(192)\nIn our day we know what wonderful facility we have in communicating with\nour friends at a distance. A message to Berlin or Rome with the answer,\nwhich a century ago would require sixty days in transmission, can now be\naccomplished in sixty minutes.\n\nI can hold a conversation with an acquaintance in San Francisco, three\nthousand miles away, and can talk to him as easily and expeditiously as if\nhe were closeted with me here in Baltimore.\n\nNay more, we can distinctly recognize one another by the sound of our\nvoice.\n\nIf a scientist had predicted such events, a hundred years past, he would\nbe regarded as demented. And yet he would not be a visionary, but a\nprophet.\n\nLet us not be unwise in measuring Divine power by our finite reason.\n\nIf such revelations are made in the natural order, what may we not expect\nin the supernatural world? If science gives us such rapid and easy means\nof corresponding with our fellow beings on foreign shores, what methods\nmay not the God of Sciences employ to enable us to communicate with our\nbrethren on the shores of eternity?\n\n\u201cThere are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in\nyour philosophy.\u201d\n\nThat the spirits of the just in heaven are clearly conversant with our\naffairs on earth is manifest from the following passages of Holy Writ. The\nvenerable Patriarch Jacob, when on his deathbed, prayed thus for his two\ngrandchildren: \u201cMay the angel that delivereth me from all evils bless\nthese boys!\u201d(193) Here we see a holy Patriarch\u2014one singularly favored by\nAlmighty God, and enlightened by many supernatural visions, the father of\nJehovah\u2019s chosen people\u2014asking the angel in heaven to obtain a blessing\nfor his grandchildren. And surely we cannot suppose that he would be so\nignorant as to pray to one that could not hear him.\n\nThe angel Raphael, after having disclosed himself to Tobias, said to him:\n\u201cWhen thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave\nthy dinner, I offered thy prayer to the Lord.\u201d(194) How could the angel,\nif he were ignorant of these petitions, have presented to God the prayers\nof Tobias?\n\nTo pass from the Old to the New Testament, our Savior declares that \u201cthere\nshall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.\u201d(195)\nThen the angels are glad whenever you repent of your sins. Now, what is\nrepentance? It is a change of heart. It is an interior operation of the\nwill. The saints, therefore, are acquainted\u2014we know not how\u2014not only with\nyour actions and words, but even with your very thoughts.\n\nAnd when St. Paul says that \u201cwe are made a spectacle to the world, to\nangels, and to men,\u201d(196) what does he mean, unless that as our actions\nare seen by men even so they are visible to the angels in heaven?\n\nThe examples I have quoted refer, it is true, to the angels. But our Lord\ndeclares that the saints in heaven shall be like the angelic spirits, by\npossessing the same knowledge, enjoying the same happiness.(197)\n\nWe read in the Gospel that Dives, while suffering in the place of the\nreprobates, earnestly besought Abraham to cool his burning thirst. And\nAbraham, in his abode of rest after death, was able to listen and reply to\nhim. Now, if communication could exist between the souls of the just and\nof the reprobate, how much easier is it to suppose that interchange of\nthought can exist between the saints in heaven and their brethren on\nearth?\n\nThese few instances are sufficient to convince you that the spirits in\nheaven hear our prayers.\n\nSecond\u2014We have, also, abundant testimony from Scripture to show that the\nsaints assist us by their prayers. Almighty God threatened the inhabitants\nof Sodom and Gomorrha with utter destruction on account of their crimes\nand abominations. Abraham interposes in their behalf and, in response to\nhis prayer, God consents to spare those cities if only ten just men are\nfound therein. Here the avenging hand of God is suspended and the fire of\nHis wrath withheld, through the efficacy of the prayers of a single\nman.(198)\n\nWe read in the Book of Exodus that when the Amalekites were about to wage\nwar on the children of Israel Moses, the great servant and Prophet of the\nLord, went upon a mountain to pray for the success of his people; and the\nScriptures inform us that whenever Moses raised his hands in prayer the\nIsraelites were victorious, but when he ceased to pray Amalek conquered.\nCould the power of intercessory prayer be manifested in a more striking\nmanner? The silent prayer of Moses on the mountain was more formidable to\nthe Amalekites than the sword of Josue and his armed hosts fighting in the\nvalley.(199)\n\nWhen the same Hebrew people were banished from their native country and\ncarried into exile in Babylon, so great was their confidence in the\nprayers of their brethren in Jerusalem that they sent them the following\nmessage, together with a sum of money, that sacrifice might be offered up\nfor them in the holy city: \u201cPray ye for us to the Lord our God, for we\nhave sinned against the Lord our God.\u201d(200)\n\nWhen the friends of Job had excited the indignation of the Almighty in\nconsequence of their vain speech, God, instead of directly granting them\nthe pardon which they sought, commanded them to invoke the intercession of\nJob: \u201cGo,\u201d He says, \u201cto My servant Job and offer for yourselves a\nholocaust, and My servant Job will pray for you and his face will I\naccept.\u201d(201) Nor did they appeal to Job in vain; for, \u201cthe Lord was\nturned at the penance of Job when he prayed for his friends.\u201d(202) In this\ninstance we not only see the value of intercessory prayer, but we find God\nsanctioning it by His own authority.\n\nBut of all the sacred writers there is none that reposes greater\nconfidence in the prayers of his brethren than St. Paul, although no one\nhad a better knowledge than he of the infinite merits of our Savior\u2019s\nPassion, and no one could have more endeared himself to God by his\npersonal labors. In his Epistles St. Paul repeatedly asks for himself the\nprayers of his disciples. If he wishes to be delivered from the hands of\nthe unbelievers of Judea, and his ministry to be successful in Jerusalem,\nhe asks the Romans to obtain these favors for him. If he desires the grace\nof preaching with profit the Gospel to the Gentiles, he invokes the\nintercession of the Ephesians.\n\nNay, is it not a common practice among ourselves, and even among our\ndissenting brethren, to ask the prayers of one another? When a father is\nabout to leave his house on a long journey the instinct of piety prompts\nhim to say to his wife and children: \u201cRemember me in your prayers.\u201d\n\nNow I ask you, if our friends, though sinners, can aid us by their\nprayers, why cannot our friends, the saints of God, be able to assist us\nalso? If Abraham and Moses and Job exercised so much influence with the\nAlmighty while they lived in the flesh, is their power with God diminished\nnow that they reign with Him in heaven?\n\nWe are moved by the children of Israel sending their pious petitions to\ntheir brethren in Jerusalem. They recalled to mind, no doubt, what the\nLord said to Solomon after he had completed the temple: \u201cMy eyes shall be\nopen and My ears attentive to the prayer of him that shall pray in this\nplace.\u201d(203) If the supplications of those that prayed in the earthly\nJerusalem were so efficacious, what will God refuse to those who pray to\nHim face to face in the heavenly Jerusalem?\n\nThird\u2014But you will ask, are the saints in heaven so interested in our\nwelfare as to be mindful of us in their prayers? Or, are they so much\nabsorbed in the contemplation of God, and in the enjoyment of celestial\nbliss, as to be altogether regardless of their friends on earth? Far from\nus the suspicion that the saints reigning with God ever forget us. In\nheaven, charity is triumphant. And how can the saints have love, and yet\nbe unmindful of their brethren on earth? If they have one desire greater\nthan another, it is to see us one day wearing the crowns that await us in\nheaven. If they were capable of experiencing sorrow, their grief would\nspring from the consideration that we do not always walk in their\nfootsteps here, so as to make sure our election to eternal glory\nhereafter.\n\nThe Hebrew people believed, like us, that the saints after death were\noccupied in praying for us. We read in the Book of Maccabees that Judas\nMaccabeus, the night before he engaged in battle with the army of the\nimpious Nicanor, had a supernatural dream, or vision, in which he beheld\nOnias, the High-Priest, and the prophet Jeremiah, both of whom had been\nlong dead. Onias appeared to him with outstretched arms, praying for the\npeople of God. Pointing to Jeremiah, he said to Judas Maccabeus: \u201cThis is\na lover of his brethren and the people of Israel. This is he that prayeth\nmuch for the people and for all the holy city, Jeremiah, the Prophet of\nGod.\u201d(204) Then Jeremiah, as is related in the sequel of the vision,\nhanded a sword to Judas, with which the prophet predicted that Judas would\nconquer his enemies. The soldiers, animated by the relation of Judas,\nfought with invincible courage and overcame the enemy. The Book of\nMaccabees, though not admitted by our dissenting brethren to be inspired,\nmust, at least, be acknowledged by them to be a faithful historical\nrecord. It is manifest, therefore, from this narrative that the Hebrew\npeople believed that the saints in heaven pray for their brethren on\nearth.\n\nSt. John in his Revelation describes the Saints before the throne of God\npraying for their earthly brethren: \u201cThe four and twenty ancients fell\ndown before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full\nof odors, which are the prayers of the saints.\u201d(205)\n\nThe prophet Zachariah records a prayer that was offered by the angel for\nthe people of God, and the favorable answer which came from heaven: \u201cHow\nlong, O Lord, wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of\nJuda, with which Thou hast been angry?... And the Lord answered the angel\n... good words, comfortable words.\u201d(206)\n\nNor can we be surprised to learn that the angels labor for our salvation,\nsince we are told by St. Peter that \u201cthe devil goeth about like a roaring\nlion, seeking whom he may devour;\u201d for, if hate impels the demons to ruin\nus, surely love must inspire the angels to help us in securing the crown\nof glory. And if the angels, though of a different nature from ours, are\nso mindful of us, how much more interest do the saints manifest in our\nwelfare, who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh?\n\nTo ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to\nHoly Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature. The\nCatholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors,\nwhile the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in denying the Communion of\nSaints, not only inflicted a deadly wound on the Creed, but also severed\nthe tenderest chords of the human heart. They broke asunder the holy ties\nthat unite earth with heaven\u2014the soul in the flesh with the soul released\nfrom the flesh. If my brother leaves me to cross the seas I believe that\nhe continues to pray for me. And when he crosses the narrow sea of death\nand lands on the shores of eternity, why should he not pray for me still?\nWhat does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and moves and has\nits being. It thinks and wills and remembers and loves. The dross of sin\nand selfishness and hatred are burned by the salutary fires of contrition,\nand nothing remains but the pure gold of charity.\n\nO far be from us the dreary thought that death cuts off our friends\nentirely from us! Far be from us the heartless creed which declares a\nperpetual divorce between us and the just in heaven! Do not imagine when\nyou lose a father or mother, a tender sister or brother, who die in the\npeace of Christ, that they are forgetful of you. The love they bore you on\nearth is purified and intensified in heaven. Or if your innocent child,\nregenerated in the waters of baptism, is snatched from you by death, be\nassured that, though separated from you in body, that child is with you in\nspirit and is repaying you a thousand-fold for the natural life it\nreceived from you. Be convinced that the golden link of prayer binds you\nto that angelic infant, and that it is continually offering its fervent\npetitions at the throne of God for you, that you may both be reunited in\nheaven. But I hear men cry out with Pharisaical assurance, \u201cYou dishonor\nGod, sir, in praying to the saints. You make void the mediatorship of\nJesus Christ. You put the creature above the Creator.\u201d How utterly\ngroundless is this objection! We do not dishonor God in praying to the\nsaints. We should, indeed, dishonor Him if we consulted the saints\n_independently_ of God. But such is not our practice. The Catholic Church\nteaches, on the contrary, that God alone is the Giver of all good gifts;\nthat He is the Source of all blessings, the Fountain of all goodness. She\nteaches that whatever happiness or glory or _influence_ the saints\npossess, all comes from God. As the moon borrows her light from the sun,\nso do the blessed borrow their light from Jesus, \u201cthe Sun of Justice, the\none Mediator (of redemption) of God and men.\u201d(207) Hence, when we address\nthe saints, we beg them to pray for us through the merits of Jesus Christ,\nwhile we ask Jesus to help up through His own merits.\n\nBut what is the use of praying to the saints, since God can hear us. If it\nis vain and useless to pray to the saints because God can hear us, then\nJacob was wrong in praying to the angel; the friends of Job were wrong in\nasking him to pray for them, though God commanded them to invoke Job\u2019s\nintercession; the Jews exiled in Babylon were wrong in asking their\nbrethren in Jerusalem to pray for them; St. Paul was wrong in beseeching\nhis friends to pray for him; then we are all wrong in praying for each\nother. You deem it useful and pious to ask your pastor to pray for you. Is\nit not, at least, equally useful for me to invoke the prayers of St. Paul,\nsince I am convinced that he can hear me?\n\nGod forbid that our supplications to our Father in heaven should diminish\nin proportion as our prayers to the Saints increase; for, after all, we\nmust remember that, while the Church declares it necessary for salvation\nto pray to God, she merely asserts that it is \u201cgood and useful to invoke\nthe saints.\u201d(208) To ask the prayers of the saints, far from being\nuseless, is most profitable. By invoking their intercession, instead of\none we have many praying for us. To our own tepid petitions we unite the\nfervent supplications of the blessed and \u201cthe Lord will hear the prayers\nof the just.\u201d(209) To the petitions of us, poor pilgrims in this vale of\ntears, are united those of the citizens of heaven. We ask them to pray to\ntheir God and to our God, to their Father and to our Father, that we may\none day share their delights in that blessed country in company with our\ncommon Redeemer, Jesus Christ, with whom to live is to reign.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XIV.\n\n\nIS IT LAWFUL TO HONOR THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AS A SAINT, TO INVOKE HER AS\nAN INTERCESSOR, AND TO IMITATE HER AS A MODEL.\n\n\n\n\nI. Is It Lawful To Honor Her?\n\n\nThe sincere adorers and lovers of our Lord Jesus Christ look with\nreverence on every object with which He was associated, and they conceive\nan affection for every person that was near and dear to Him on earth. The\ncloser the intimacy of those persons with our Savior, the holier do they\nappear in our estimation, just as those planets which revolve the nearest\naround the sun partake most of its light and heat.\n\nThere is something hallowed to the eye of the Christian in the very soil\nof Judea, because it was pressed by the footprints of our Blessed\nRedeemer. With what reverent steps we would enter the cave of Bethlehem\nbecause _there_ was born the Savior of the world. With what religious\ndemeanor we would tread the streets of Nazareth when we remembered that\n_there_ were spent the days of His boyhood. What profound religious awe\nwould fill our hearts on ascending Mount Calvary, where He paid by his\nblood the ransom of our souls.\n\nBut if the _lifeless_ soil claims so much reverence, how much more\nveneration would be enkindled in our hearts for the _living_ persons who\nwere the friends and associates of our Savior on earth! We know that He\nexercised a certain salutary and magnetic influence on those whom He\napproached. \u201cAll the multitude sought to touch Him, for virtue went out\nfrom Him and healed all,\u201d(210) as happened to the woman who had been\ntroubled with an issue of blood.(211)\n\nWe would seem, indeed, to draw near to Jesus, if we had the happiness of\nonly conversing with the Samaritan woman, or of eating at the table of\nZaccheus, or of being entertained by Nicodemus. But if we were admitted\ninto the inner circle of His friends\u2014of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, for\ninstance\u2014the Baptist or the Apostles, we would be conscious that in their\ncompany we were drawing still nearer to Jesus and imbibing somewhat of\nthat spirit which they must have largely received from their familiar\nrelations with Him.\n\nNow, if the land of Judea is looked upon as hallowed ground because Jesus\ndwelt there; if the Apostles were considered as models of holiness because\nthey were the chosen companions and pupils of our Lord in His latter\nyears, how peerless must have been the sanctity of Mary, who gave Him\nbirth, whose breast was His pillow, who nursed and clothed Him in infancy,\nwho guided His early steps, who accompanied Him in His exile to Egypt and\nback, who abode with Him from infancy to boyhood, from boyhood to manhood,\nwho during all that time listened to the words of wisdom which fell from\nHis lips, who was the first to embrace Him at His birth, and the last to\nreceive His dying breath on Calvary. This sentiment is so natural to us\nthat we find it bursting forth spontaneously from the lips of the woman of\nthe Gospel, who, hearing the words of Jesus full of wisdom and sanctity,\nlifted up her voice and said to Him: \u201cBlessed is the womb that bore Thee\nand the paps that gave Thee suck.\u201d\n\nIt is in accordance with the economy of Divine Providence that, whenever\nGod designs any person for some important work, He bestows on that person\nthe graces and dispositions necessary for faithfully discharging it.\n\nWhen Moses was called by heaven to be the leader of the Hebrew people he\nhesitated to assume the formidable office on the plea of \u201cimpediment and\nslowness of tongue.\u201d But Jehovah reassured him by promising to qualify him\nfor the sublime functions assigned to him: \u201cI will be in thy mouth, and I\nwill teach thee what thou shalt speak.\u201d(212)\n\nThe Prophet Jeremiah was sanctified from his very birth because he was\ndestined to be the herald of God\u2019s law to the children of Israel: \u201cBefore\nI formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee, and before thou\ncamest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.\u201d(213)\n\n\u201cElizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost,\u201d(214) that she might be worthy\nto be the hostess of our Lord during the three months that Mary dwelt\nunder her roof.\n\nJohn the Baptist was \u201cfilled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother\u2019s\nwomb.\u201d(215) \u201cHe was a burning and a shining light\u201d(216) because he was\nchosen to prepare the way of the Lord.\n\nThe Apostles received the plenitude of grace; they were endowed with the\ngift of tongue and other privileges(217) before they commenced the work of\nthe ministry. Hence St. Paul says: \u201cOur sufficiency is from God, who hath\nmade us _fit_ ministers of the New Testament.\u201d(218)\n\nNow of all who have participated in the ministry of the Redemption there\nis none who filled any position so exalted, so sacred, as is the\nincommunicable office of Mother of Jesus; and there is no one,\nconsequently, that _needed_ so high a degree of holiness as she did.\n\nFor, if God thus sanctified His Prophets and Apostles as being destined to\nbe the bearers of the Word of life, how much more sanctified must Mary\nhave been, who was to bear the Lord and \u201cAuthor of life.\u201d(219) If John was\nso holy because he was chosen as the pioneer to prepare the way of the\nLord, how much more holy was she who ushered Him into the world. If\nholiness became John\u2019s mother, surely a greater holiness became the mother\nof John\u2019s Master. If God said to His Priests of old: \u201cBe ye clean, you\nthat carry the vessels of the Lord;\u201d(220) nay, if the vessels themselves\nused in the divine service and churches are set apart by special\nconsecration, we cannot conceive Mary to have been ever profaned by sin,\nwho was the chosen vessel of election, even the Mother of God.\n\nWhen we call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God, we assert our belief in\ntwo things: First\u2014That her Son, Jesus Christ, is true man, else she were\nnot a _mother_. Second\u2014That He is true God, else she were not the _Mother\nof God_. In other words, we affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed\nTrinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is from all eternity\nbegotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fulness of\ntime again begotten, by being born of the Virgin, thus taking to Himself,\nfrom her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance with hers.\n\nBut it may be said the Blessed Virgin is not the Mother of the Divinity.\nShe had not, and she could not have, any part in the generation of the\nWord of God, for that generation is eternal; her maternity is temporal. He\nis her Creator; she is His creature. Style her, if you will, the Mother of\nthe man Jesus or even of the human nature of the Son of God, but not the\nMother of God.\n\nI shall answer this objection by putting a question. Did the mother who\nbore us have any part in the production of our _soul_? Was not this nobler\npart of our being the work of God alone? And yet who would for a moment\ndream of saying \u201cthe mother of my body,\u201d and not \u201c_my_ mother?\u201d\n\nThe comparison teaches us that the terms parent and child, mother and son,\nrefer to the persons and not to the parts or elements of which the persons\nare composed. Hence no one says: \u201cThe mother of my _body_,\u201d \u201cthe mother of\nmy _soul_;\u201d but in all propriety \u201cmy mother,\u201d the mother of me who live\nand breathe, think and act, _one_ in my personality, though uniting in it\na soul directly created by God, and a material body directly derived from\nthe maternal womb. In like manner, as far as the sublime mystery of the\nIncarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the Blessed Virgin,\nunder the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second\nPerson of the Adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the\nsame substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His Mother.\n\nIt is in this sense that the title of _Mother of God_, denied by\nNestorius, was vindicated to her by the General Council of Ephesus, in\n431; in this sense, and in no other, has the Church called her by that\ntitle.\n\nHence, by immediate and necessary consequence, follow her surpassing\ndignity and excellence, and her special relationship and affinity, not\nonly with her Divine Son, but also with the Father and the Holy Ghost.\n\nMary, as Wordsworth beautifully expressed it, united in her person \u201ca\nmother\u2019s love with maiden purity.\u201d The Church teaches us that she was\nalways a Virgin\u2014a Virgin before her espousals, during her married life and\nafter her spouse\u2019s death. \u201cThe Angel Gabriel was sent from God ... to a\nVirgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, ... and the Virgin\u2019s name\nwas Mary.\u201d(221)\n\nThat she remained a Virgin till after the birth of Jesus is expressly\nstated in the Gospel.(222) It is not less certain that she continued in\nthe same state during the remainder of her days; for in the Apostles\u2019 and\nthe Nicene Creed she is called a Virgin, and that epithet cannot be\nrestricted to the time of our Saviour\u2019s birth. It must be referred to her\nwhole life, inasmuch as both creeds were compiled long after she had\npassed away.\n\nThe Canon of the Mass, which is very probably of Apostolic antiquity,\nspeaks of her as the \u201cglorious _ever Virgin_,\u201d and in this sentiment all\nCatholic tradition concurs.\n\nThere is a propriety which suggests itself to every Christian in Mary\u2019s\nremaining a Virgin after the birth of Jesus, for, as Bishop Bull of the\nProtestant Episcopal Church of England remarks, \u201cIt cannot with decency be\nimagined that the most holy vessel which was once consecrated to be a\nreceptacle of the Deity should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by\nhuman use.\u201d The learned Grotius, Calvin and other eminent Protestant\nwriters hold the same view.\n\nThe doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is now combated by\nProtestants, as it was in the early days of the Church by Helvidius and\nJovinian, on the following grounds:\n\nFirst\u2014The Evangelist says that \u201cJoseph took unto him his wife, and he knew\nher not _till_ she brought forth her first-born son.\u201d(223) This sentence\nsuggests to dissenters that other children besides Jesus were born to\nMary. But the qualifying word _till_ by no means implies that the chaste\nunion which had subsisted between Mary and Joseph up to the birth of our\nLord was subsequently altered. The Protestant Hooker justly complains of\nthe early heretics as having \u201cabused greatly these words of Matthew,\ngathering against the honor of the Blessed Virgin, that a thing denied\nwith special circumstance doth import an opposite affirmation when once\nthat circumstance is expired.\u201d(224) To express Hooker\u2019s idea in plainer\nwords, when a thing is said not to have occurred until another event had\nhappened, it does not necessarily follow that it did occur after that\nevent took place.\n\nThe Scripture says that the raven went forth from the ark, \u201cand did not\nreturn _till_ the waters were dried up upon the earth\u201d(225)\u2014that is, it\nnever returned. \u201cSamuel saw Saul no more _till_ the day of his\ndeath.\u201d(226) He did not, of course, see him after death. \u201cThe Lord said to\nmy Lord: Sit thou at my right hand _until_ I make thy enemies thy\nfootstool.\u201d(227) These words apply to our Savior, who did not cease to sit\nat the right of God after His enemies were subdued.\n\nSecond\u2014But Jesus is called Mary\u2019s _first-born_ Son, and does not a\nfirst-born always imply the subsequent birth of other children to the same\nmother? By no means; for the name of first-born was given to the first son\nof every Jewish mother, whether other children followed or not. We find\nthis epithet applied to Machir, for instance, who was the only son of\nManasses.(228)\n\nThird\u2014But is not mention frequently made of the brethren of Jesus?(229)\nFortunately the Gospels themselves will enable us to trace the maternity\nof those who are called His brothers, not to the Blessed Virgin, but to\nanother Mary. St. Matthew mentions, by name, James and Joseph among the\nbrethren of Jesus;(230) and the same Evangelist and also St. Mark tell us\nthat among those who were present at the Crucifixion were Mary Magdalen\nand Mary the mother of James and Joseph.(231) And St. John, who narrates\nwith more detail the circumstances of the Crucifixion, informs us who this\nsecond Mary was, for he says that there stood by the cross of Jesus His\nmother and His Mother\u2019s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.(232)\nThere is no doubt that Mary of Cleophas is identical with Mary, who is\ncalled by Matthew and Mark the mother of James and Joseph. And as Mary of\nCleophas was the kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, James and Joseph are\ncalled the brothers of Jesus, in conformity with the Hebrew practice of\ngiving that appellation to cousins or near relations. Abraham, for\ninstance, was the uncle of Lot, yet he calls him brother.(233)\n\nMary is exalted above all other women, not only because she united \u201ca\nmother\u2019s love with maiden purity,\u201d but also because she was conceived\nwithout original sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is thus\nexpressed by the Church: \u201cWe define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the\nfirst moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of\nAlmighty God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the\nhuman race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin.\u201d(234)\n\nUnlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never\nsubject to sin, even in the first moment of its infusion into the body.\nShe alone was exempt from the original taint. This immunity of Mary from\noriginal sin is exclusively due to the merits of Christ, as the Church\nexpressly declares. She needed a Redeemer as well as the rest of the human\nrace and therefore was \u201credeemed, but in a more sublime manner.\u201d(235) Mary\nis as much indebted to the precious blood of Jesus for having been\n_preserved_ as we are for having been _cleansed_ from original sin.\n\nAlthough the Immaculate Conception was not formulated into a dogma of\nfaith till 1854, it is at least implied in Holy Scripture. It is in strict\nharmony with the place which Mary holds in the economy of Redemption, and\nhas virtually received the pious assent of the faithful from the earliest\ndays of the Church.\n\nIn Genesis we read: \u201cI will put enmities between thee and the woman, and\nthy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head.\u201d(236) All Catholic\ncommentators, ancient and modern, recognize in the Seed, the Woman and the\nserpent types of our Savior, of Mary and the devil. God here declares that\nthe enmity of the Seed and that of the Woman toward the tempter were to be\nidentical. Now the enmity of Christ, or the Seed, toward the evil one was\nabsolute and perpetual. Therefore the enmity of Mary, or the Woman, toward\nthe devil never admitted of any momentary reconciliation which would have\nexisted if she were ever subject to original sin.\n\nIt is worthy of note that as three characters appear on the scene of our\nfall\u2014Adam, Eve and the rebellious Angel\u2014so three corresponding personages\nfigure in our redemption\u2014Jesus Christ, who is the second Adam;(237) Mary,\nthe second Eve, and the Archangel Gabriel. The second Adam was\nimmeasurably superior to the first, Gabriel was superior to the fallen\nAngel, and hence we are warranted by analogy to conclude that Mary was\nsuperior to Eve. But if she had been created in original sin, instead of\nbeing superior, she would be inferior to Eve, who was certainly created\nimmaculate. We cannot conceive that the mother of Cain was created\nsuperior to the mother of Jesus. It would have been unworthy of a God of\ninfinite purity to have been born of a woman that was even for an instant\nunder the dominion of Satan.\n\nThe liturgies of the Church, being the established formularies of her\npublic worship, are among the most authoritative documents that can be\nadduced in favor of any religious practice.\n\nIn the liturgy ascribed to St. James, Mary is commemorated as \u201cour most\nholy, immaculate and most glorious Lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin\nMary.\u201d(238)\n\nIn the Maronite Ritual she is invoked as \u201cour holy, praiseworthy and\nimmaculate Lady.\u201d(239)\n\nIn the Alexandrian liturgy of St. Basil, she is addressed as \u201cmost holy,\nmost glorious, immaculate.\u201d(240)\n\nThe Feast of Mary\u2019s Conception commenced to be celebrated in the East in\nthe fifth, and in the West in the seventh centuries. It was not introduced\ninto Rome till probably towards the end of the fourteenth century. Though\nRome is always the first that is called on to sanction a new festival, she\nis often the last to take part in it. She is the first that is expected to\ngive the key-note, but frequently the last to join in the festive song.\nWhile she is silent, the notes are faint and uncertain; when her voice\njoins in the chant, the song of praise becomes constant and universal.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary for me to add that the introduction of the\nfestival of the Conception after the lapse of so many centuries from the\nfoundation of Christianity no more implies a novelty of doctrine than the\nerection of a monument in 1875 to Arminius, the German hero who flourished\nin the first century, would be an evidence of his recent exploits. The\nFeast of the Blessed Trinity was not introduced till the fifth century,\nthough it commemorates a fundamental mystery of the Christian religion.\n\nIt is interesting to us to know that the Immaculate Conception of Mary has\nbeen interwoven in the earliest history of our own country. The ship that\nfirst bore Columbus to America was named Mary of the Conception. This\ncelebrated navigator gave the same name to the second island which he\ndiscovered. The first chapel erected in Quebec, when that city was founded\nin the early part of the seventeenth century was dedicated to God under\nthe invocation of Mary Immaculate.\n\nIn view of these three great prerogatives of Mary\u2014her divine maternity,\nher perpetual virginity and her Immaculate Conception\u2014we are prepared to\nfind her blessedness often and expressly declared in Holy Scripture.\n\nThe Archangel Gabriel is sent to her from heaven to announce to her the\nhappy tidings that she was destined to be the mother of the world\u2019s\nRedeemer. No greater favor was ever before or since conferred on woman,\nwhether we consider the dignity of the messenger, or the momentous\ncharacter of the message, or the terms of respect in which it is conveyed.\n\n\u201cThe Angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee called\nNazareth to a virgin ... and the virgin\u2019s name was Mary. And the Angel\nbeing come in said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;\nblessed art thou among women. Who, having heard, was troubled at his\nsaying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.\nAnd the Angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with\nGod. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son,\nand thou shalt call his name Jesus.... The Holy Ghost shall come upon\nthee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee, and therefore,\nalso, the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of\nGod.\u201d(241) The Almighty does not send to Mary, a prophet or priest, or any\nother earthly ambassador, nor even one of the lower choirs of angels, but\nHe commissions an Archangel to confer with her.\n\n_\u201c__Hail full of grace!__\u201d_ Gabriel does not congratulate her on her\npersonal charms, though she is the fairest daughter of Israel. He does not\npraise her for her exalted ancestry, though she is descended from the\nKings of Juda. But he commends her because she is the chosen child of\nbenediction. He admires the hidden virtues of her soul, brighter than the\nsun, fairer than the moon, purer than angels, he sees before him,\n\n\n    \u201cOur tainted nature\u2019s solitary boast,\u201d\n\n\none that alone escaped the taint of Adam\u2019s disobedience.\n\nAs the precious diamond reflects various colors according as it is exposed\nto the sun\u2019s rays, so did the soul of Mary, from the moment that the \u201cSun\nof Justice\u201d shone upon her, exhibit every grace that was prompted by the\noccasion.\n\nSt. Stephen and the Apostles were also said to be full of the Spirit of\nGod. By this, however, we are not to understand that the same measure of\ngrace was imparted to them which was given to Mary. On each one it is\nbestowed according to his merits and needs. \u201cOne is the glory of the sun,\nanother the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars, for\nstar differeth from star in glory;\u201d(242) and as Mary\u2019s office of Mother of\nGod immeasurably surpassed in dignity that of the proto-martyr and of the\nApostles, so did her grace superabound over theirs.\n\n_\u201c__The Lord is with thee.__\u201d_ \u201cHe exists in His creatures in different\nways; in those that are endowed with reason in one way, in irrational\ncreatures in another. His irrational creatures have no means of\napprehending or possessing Him. All rational creatures may indeed\napprehend Him by knowledge, but only the good by love. Only in the good\ndoes He so exist as to be with them as well as in them; with them by a\ncertain harmony and agreement of will, and in this way God is with all His\nSaints. But He is with Mary in a yet more special manner, for in her there\nwas so great an agreement and union with God that not her will only, but\nher very flesh was to be united to him.\u201d(243)\n\n_\u201c__Blessed art Thou among women.__\u201d_ The same expression is applied to\ntwo other women in the Holy Scripture\u2014viz., to Jahel and Judith. The\nformer was called blessed after she had slain Sisara,(244) and the latter\nafter she had slain Holofernes,(245) both of whom had been enemies of\nGod\u2019s people. In this respect these two women are true types of Mary, who\nwas chosen by God to crush the head of the serpent, the infernal enemy of\nmankind. And if they deserved the title of blessed for being the\ninstruments of God in rescuing Israel from temporal calamities, how much\nmore does Mary merit that appellation, who co-operated so actively in the\nsalvation of the human race!\n\nThe Evangelist proceeds: \u201cAnd Mary, rising up in those days, went ... into\na city of Juda; and she entered into the house of Zachary and saluted\nElizabeth. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of\nMary the infant leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy\nGhost, and she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou\namong women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to\nme that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as soon as\nthe voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb\nleaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those\nthings shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.\u201d(246)\n\nThere is joy in Mary\u2019s heart in being chosen to become the mother of the\nworld\u2019s Redeemer. She wishes by her visit to communicate that joy to her\ncousin. The Sun of Justice is shining within her. She desires to diffuse\nHis rays through Elizabeth\u2019s household. She is laden with spiritual\ntreasures. She must share them with her kinswoman, especially as she is\nnone the poorer in making others richer.\n\nThe usual order of salutation is here reversed. Age pays reverence to\nyouth. A lady who is revered by the whole community honors a lowly maiden.\nAn inspired matron expresses her astonishment that her young kinswoman\nshould deign to visit her. She extols Mary\u2019s faith and calls her blessed.\nShe blends the praise of Mary with the praise of Mary\u2019s Son, and even the\ninfant John testifies his reverential joy by leaping in his mother\u2019s womb.\nAnd we are informed that during this interview Elizabeth was filled with\nthe Holy Ghost, to remind us that the veneration she paid to her cousin\nwas not prompted by her own feelings, but was dictated by the Spirit of\nGod.\n\nThen Mary breaks out into that sublime canticle, the Magnificat: \u201cMy soul\ndoth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior,\nbecause He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid, for behold from\nhenceforth all generations shall call me blessed.\u201d(247) On these words I\nshall pause to make one reflection.\n\nThe Holy Ghost, through the organ of Mary\u2019s chaste lips, prophesies that\nall generations shall call her blessed, with evident approval of the\npraise she should receive.\n\nWhat a daring prophecy is this! Among the wonderful predictions recorded\nin Holy Scripture, I can recall none that more strongly commands my\nadmiration. Here is a modest, retiring maiden, living in an obscure\nvillage in a remote quarter of the civilized world, openly announcing that\nevery age till the end of time, should pronounce her hallowed. We have no\nreason to question this prophecy, for it is recorded in the inspired pages\nof the Gospel. And we know also without the shadow of a doubt that the\nprophecy has been literally fulfilled. For, in every epoch, and in every\nChristian land from the rising to the setting sun, her _Magnificat_ has\ndaily resounded.\n\nNow the Catholic is the only Church whose children, generation after\ngeneration, from the first to the present century, have pronounced her\nblessed; of all Christians in this land, they alone contribute to the\nfulfilment of the prophecy.\n\nTherefore, it is only Catholics that earn the approval of Heaven by\nfulfilling the prediction of the Holy Ghost.\n\nProtestants not only concede that we bless the name of Mary, but they even\nreproach us with being too lavish in our praises of her.\n\nOn the other hand, they are careful to exclude themselves from the\n\u201cgenerations\u201d that were destined to call her blessed, for, in speaking of\nher, they almost invariably withhold from her the title of _blessed_,\nprefering to call her _the Virgin_, or _Mary the Virgin_, or _the Mother\nof Jesus_. And while Protestant churches will resound with the praises of\nSarah and Rebecca and Rachel, of Miriam and Ruth, of Esther and Judith of\nthe Old Testament, and of Elizabeth and Anna, of Magdalen and Martha of\nthe New, the name of Mary the Mother of Jesus is uttered with bated\nbreath, lest the sound of her name should make the preacher liable to the\ncharge of superstition.\n\nThe piety of a mother usually sheds additional lustre on the son, and the\nhalo that encircles her brow is reflected upon his. The more the mother is\nextolled, the greater honor redounds to the son. And if this is true of\nall men who do not choose their mothers, how much more strictly may it be\naffirmed of Him who chose His own Mother, and made her Himself such as He\nwould have her, so that all the glories of His Mother are essentially His\nown. And yet we daily see ministers of the Gospel ignoring Mary\u2019s exalted\nvirtues and unexampled privileges and parading her alleged imperfections;\nnay, sinfulness, as if her Son were dishonored by the piety, and took\ndelight in the defamation of His Mother.\n\nSuch defamers might learn a lesson from one who made little profession of\nChristianity.\n\n\n    \u201cIs thy name Mary, maiden fair?\n      Such should, methinks, its music be.\n    The sweetest name that mortals bear,\n      Were best befitting thee.\n    And she to whom it once was given\n    _Was half of earth and half of heaven_.\u201d(248)\n\n\nOnce more the title of _blessed_, is given to Mary. On one occasion a\ncertain woman, lifting up her voice, said to Jesus: \u201cBlessed is the womb\nthat bore thee and the paps that gave thee suck.\u201d(249) It is true that our\nLord replied: \u201cYea, rather (or yea, likewise), blessed are they who hear\nthe word of God and keep it.\u201d It would be an unwarrantable perversion of\nthe sacred text to infer from this reply that Jesus intended to detract\nfrom the praise bestowed on His Mother. His words may be thus correctly\nparaphrased: She is blessed indeed in being the chosen instrument of My\nincarnation, but more blessed in keeping My word. Let others be comforted\nin knowing that though they cannot share with My Mother in the privilege\nof her maternity, they can participate with her in the blessed reward of\nthem who hear My word and keep it.\n\nIn the preceding passages we have seen Mary declared blessed on four\ndifferent occasions, and hence, in proclaiming her blessedness, far from\npaying her unmerited honor, we are but re-echoing the Gospel verdict of\nsaint and angel and of the Spirit of God Himself.\n\nWordsworth, though not nurtured within the bosom of the Catholic Church,\nconceives a true appreciation of Mary\u2019s incomparable holiness in the\nfollowing beautiful lines:\n\n\n    \u201cMother! whose virgin bosom was uncrossed\n    With the least shade of thought to sin allied;\n    Woman! above all women glorified,\n    Our tainted nature\u2019s solitary boast;\n    Purer than foam on central ocean tost,\n    Brighter than eastern skies at daybreak strewn\n    With fancied roses, than the unblemished moon\n    Before her wane begins on heaven\u2019s blue coast,\n    Thy image falls to earth. Yet some, I ween,\n    Not unforgiven, the suppliant knee might bend\n    As to a visible power, in which did blend\n    All that was mixed and reconciled in thee\n    Of mother\u2019s love with maiden purity,\n    Of high with low, celestial with serene.\u201d\n\n\nTo honor one who has been the subject of divine, angelic and saintly\npanegyric is to use a privilege, and the privilege is heightened into a\nsacred duty when we remember that the spirit of prophecy foretold that she\nshould ever be the unceasing theme of Christian eulogy as long as\nChristianity itself would exist.\n\n\u201cHonor he is worthy of, whom the king hath a mind to honor.\u201d(250) The King\nof kings hath honored Mary; His divine Son did not disdain to be subject\nto her, therefore should we honor her, especially as the honor we pay to\nher redounds to God, the source of all glory. The Royal Prophet, than whom\nno man paid higher praise to God, esteemed the friends of God worthy of\nall honor: \u201cTo me Thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly\nhonorable.\u201d(251) Now the dearest friends of God are they who most\nfaithfully keep His precepts: \u201cYou are My friends, if you do the things\nthat I command you.\u201d(252) Who fulfilled the divine precepts better than\nMary, who kept all the words of her Son, pondering them in her heart? \u201cIf\nany man minister to me,\u201d says our Savior, \u201chim will My Father honor.\u201d(253)\nWho ministered more constantly to Jesus than Mary, who discharged towards\nHim all the offices of a tender mother?\n\nHeroes and statesmen may receive the highest military and civic honors\nwhich a nation can bestow without being suspected of invading the domain\nof the glory which is due to God. Now is not heroic sanctity more worthy\nof admiration than civil service and military exploits, inasmuch as\nreligion ranks higher than patriotism and valor? And yet the admirers of\nMary\u2019s exalted virtues can scarcely celebrate her praises without being\naccused in certain quarters of Mariolatry.\n\nWhen a nation wishes to celebrate the memory of its distinguished men its\nadmiration is not confined to words, but vents itself in a thousand\ndifferent shapes. See in how many ways we honor the memory of Washington.\nMonuments on which his good deeds are recorded are erected to his name.\nThe grounds in which his remains repose on the banks of the Potomac are\nkept in order by a volunteer band of devoted ladies, who adorn the place\nwith flowers. And this cherished spot is annually visited by thousands of\npilgrims from the most remote sections of the country. These visitors will\neagerly snatch a flower or a leaf from a shrub growing near Washington\u2019s\ntomb, or will strive even to clip off a little shred from one of his\ngarments, still preserved in the old mansion, to bear home with them as\nprecious relics.\n\nI have always observed when traveling on the missions up and down the\nPotomac, that whenever the steamer came to the point opposite Mount Vernon\nthe bell was tolled, and every eye was directed toward Washington\u2019s grave.\n\nThe 22nd of February, Washington\u2019s birthday, is kept as a national\nholiday, at least in certain portions of the country. I well remember that\nformerly military and fire companies paraded the streets, and that\npatriotic speeches recounting the heroic deeds of the first President were\ndelivered, the festivities of the day closing with a social banquet.\n\nAs the citizens of the United States manifest in divers ways their\nadmiration for Washington, so do the citizens of the republic of the\nChurch love to exhibit in corresponding forms their veneration for the\nMother of Jesus.\n\nMonuments and statues are erected to her. Thrice each day\u2014at morn, noon\nand even\u2014the Angelus bells are rung, to recall to our mind the Incarnation\nof our Lord, and the participation of Mary in this great mystery of love.\n\nHer shrines are tastefully adorned by pious hands and visited by devoted\nchildren, who wear her relics or any object which bears her image, or\nwhich is associated with her name.\n\nHer natal day and other days of the year, sacred to her memory, are\nappropriately commemorated by processions, by participation in the banquet\nof the Eucharist, and by sermons enlarging on her virtues and\nprerogatives.\n\nAs no one was ever suspected of loving his country and her institutions\nless because of his revering Washington, so no one can reasonably suppose\nthat our homage to God is diminished by our fostering reverence for Mary.\nAs our object in eulogizing Washington is not so much to honor the man as\nto vindicate those principles of which he was the champion and exponent,\nand to express our gratitude to God for the blessings bestowed on our\ncountry through him, even so our motive in commemorating Mary\u2019s name is\nnot merely to praise her, but still more to keep us in perpetual\nremembrance of our Lord\u2019s Incarnation, and to show our thankfulness to Him\nfor the blessings wrought through that great mystery in which she was so\nprominent a figure. There is not a grain of incense offered to Mary which\ndoes not ascend to the throne of God Himself.\n\nExperience sufficiently demonstrates that the better we understand the\npart which Mary has taken in the work of redemption, the more enlightened\nbecomes our knowledge of our Redeemer Himself, and that the greater our\nlove for her, the deeper and broader is our devotion to Him; while\nexperience also testifies that our Savior\u2019s attributes become more\nconfused and warped in the minds of a people in proportion as they ignore\nMary\u2019s relations to Him.\n\nThe defender of a beleaguered citadel concentrates his forces on the outer\nfortifications and towers, knowing well that the capture of these outworks\nwould endanger the citadel itself, and that _their_ safety involves _its_\nsecurity.\n\nJesus Christ is the citadel of our faith, the stronghold of our soul\u2019s\naffections. Mary is called the \u201cTower of David,\u201d and the gate of Sion\nwhich the Lord loveth more than all the tabernacles of Jacob,(254) and\nwhich He entered at His Incarnation.\n\nSo intimately is this living gate of Sion connected with Jesus, the Temple\nof our faith, that no one has ever assailed the former without invading\nthe latter. The Nestorian would have Mary to be only an ordinary mother\nbecause he would have Christ to be a mere man.\n\nHence, if we rush to the defence of the gate of Sion, it is because we are\nmore zealous for the city of God. If we stand as sentinels around the\ntower of David, it is because we are more earnest in protecting Jerusalem\nfrom invasion. If we forbid profane hands to touch the ark of the\ncovenant, it is because we are anxious to guard from profanation the Lord\nof the ark. If we are so solicitous about Mary\u2019s honor, it is because \u201cthe\nlove of Christ\u201d presseth us. If we will not permit a single wreath to be\nsnatched from her fair brow, it is because we are unwilling that a single\nfeature of Christ\u2019s sacred humanity should be obscured, and because we\nwish that He should ever shine forth in all the splendor of His glory, and\nclothed in all the panoply of His perfections.\n\nBut you will ask: Why do you so often blend together the worship of God\nand the veneration of the Blessed Virgin? Why such exclamations as\n_Blessed be Jesus and Mary_? Why do you so often repeat in succession the\nLord\u2019s prayer and the Angelical salutation? Is not this practice\ncalculated to level all distinctions between the Creator and His creature,\nand to excite the displeasure of a God ever jealous of His glory?\n\nThose who make this objection should remember that the praises of the Lord\nand of His Saints are frequently combined in Holy Scripture itself.\n\nWitness Judith. On returning from the tent of Holofernes, she sang:\n\u201c_Praise ye the Lord, our God_, who hath not forsaken them that hope in\nHim, _and by me His handmaid_, He hath fulfilled His mercy which He\npromised to the house of Israel.... And Ozias, the prince of the people of\nIsrael, said to her: _Blessed art thou, O daughter_, by the Lord the Most\nHigh God, above all women upon the earth, _Blessed be the Lord_ who made\nheaven and earth ... because He hath so magnified thy name this day, that\nthy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men.\u201d(255)\n\nWitness Ecclesiasticus. After glorifying God for His mighty works, he\nimmediately sounds the praises of Enoch and Noe, of Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, of Moses and Aaron, of Samuel and Nathan, of David and Josias, of\nIsaiah and Jeremiah, and other kings and prophets of Israel.(256)\n\nElizabeth, in the same breath, exclaims: \u201cBlessed art thou among women,\nand blessed is the fruit of thy womb.\u201d(257)\n\nAnd Mary herself, under the inspiration of Heaven, cries out: \u201cMy soul\n_doth magnify the Lord_, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior....\nFor, behold from henceforth all generations _shall call me blessed_.\u201d(258)\n\nHere are the names of Creator and creature interwoven like threads of gold\nand silver in the same woof, without provoking the jealousy of God.\n\nGod jealous of the honor paid to Mary! Will a father be jealous of the\nhonor paid to his child, especially of a child who reflects his own image\nand likeness, and exhibits those virtues which he had inculcated on her\ntender mind? And is not Mary God\u2019s child of predilection? Will an\narchitect be envious of the praise bestowed on a magnificent temple which\nhis genius planned and reared? Is not the living temple of Mary\u2019s heart\nthe work of the Supreme Architect? Must she not say with all of God\u2019s\ncreatures: \u201cThy hands (O Lord) have made me and formed me.\u201d Is it not He\nwho has adorned that living temple with those rare beauties which we so\nmuch admire? Has she not declared so when she exclaimed: \u201cHe that is\nmighty hath done great things to me, and holy is His name!\u201d(259)\n\nGod jealous of the honor paid to Mary! As well might we imagine that the\nsun, if endowed with intelligence, would be jealous of the mellow, golden\ncloud which encircles him, which reflects his brightness and presents in\nbolder light his inaccessible splendor. As well imagine that the same\nluminary would be jealous of our admiration for the beautiful rose, whose\nopening petals and rich color and delicious fragrance are the fruit of his\nbeneficent rays.\n\nHence in uniting Mary\u2019s praise with that of Jesus we are strictly\nimitating the sacred Text. We are imitating Joachim, the High Priest, and\nthe people of God in Bethulia, who unite the praises of Judith with the\npraises of Jehovah.\n\nWe are imitating the sacred writer of Ecclesiasticus who, after extolling\nGod for His mighty works, sounds the praises of Enoch and Noe, of Abraham,\nIsaac and Jacob, of David and Josiah, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and other\nKings and Prophets of Israel.\n\nWe are imitating Elizabeth, who exclaimed in one breath: \u201cBlessed art thou\n(Mary) among women and blessed is (Jesus) the fruit of thy womb.\u201d\n\nAnd as no one ever suspected that the encomiums pronounced on Judith and\nthe virtuous Kings and Prophets of Israel detracted from God\u2019s honor, so\nneither do we lessen His glory in exalting the Blessed Virgin. I find\nJesus and Mary together at the manger, together in Egypt, together in\nNazareth, together in the temple, together at the cross. I find their\nnames side by side in the Apostles\u2019 and the Nicene Creed. It is fitting\nthat both should find a place in my heart, and that both names should\noften flow successively from my lips. Inseparable in life and in death,\nthey should not be divorced in my prayer. \u201cWhat God hath joined together,\nlet not man put asunder.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nII. Is It Lawful To Invoke Her?\n\n\nThe Church exhorts her children not only to honor the Blessed Virgin, but\nalso to invoke her intercession. It is evident from Scripture that the\nAngels and Saints in heaven can hear our prayers and that they have the\npower and the will to help us.(260) Now, if the angels are conversant with\nwhat happens on earth; if the Prophets, even while clothed in the flesh,\nhad a clear vision of things which were transpiring at a great distance\nfrom them; if they could penetrate into the future and fortell events\nwhich were then hidden in the womb of time, shall we believe that God\nwithholds a knowledge of our prayers from Mary, who is justly styled the\nQueen of Angels and Saints? For, as Mary\u2019s sanctity surpasses that of all\nother mortals, her knowledge must be proportionately greater than theirs,\nsince knowledge constitutes one of the sources of celestial bliss.\n\nIf Stephen, while his soul was still in the prison of the body, \u201c_saw_ the\nglory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God;\u201d(261) if Paul\n\u201c_heard_ secret words\u201d(262) spoken in paradise, is it surprising that Mary\nhears and sees us, now that she is elevated to heaven and stands \u201cface to\nface\u201d before God, the perfect Mirror of all knowledge? It is as easy for\nGod to enable His Saints to see things terrestrial from heaven as things\ncelestial from earth.\n\nThe influence of Mary\u2019s intercession exceeds that of the angels,\npatriarchs and prophets in the same degree that her sanctity surpasses\ntheirs. If our heavenly Father listens so propitiously to the voice of His\nservants, what will He refuse to her who is His chosen daughter of\npredilection, chosen among thousands to be the Mother of His beloved Son?\nIf we ourselves, though sinners, can help one another by our prayers, how\nirresistible must be the intercession of Mary, who never grieved Almighty\nGod by sin, who never tarnished her white robe of innocence by the least\ndefilement, from the first moment of her existence till she was received\nby triumphant angels into heaven.\n\nIn speaking of the patronage of the Blessed Virgin, we must never lose\nsight of her title of Mother of our Redeemer nor of the great privileges\nwhich that prerogative implies. Mary was the Mother of Jesus. She\nexercised toward Him all the influence that a prudent mother has over an\naffectionate child. \u201cJesus,\u201d says the Gospel, \u201cwas subject to\nthem\u201d(263)\u2014that is, to Mary and Joseph. We find this obedience of our Lord\ntoward His Mother forcibly exemplified at the marriage feast of Cana. Her\nwishes are delicately expressed in these words: \u201cThey have no wine.\u201d He\ninstantly obeys her by changing water into wine, though the time for\nexercising His public ministry and for working wonders had not yet\narrived.\n\nNow, Mary has never forfeited in heaven the title of Mother of Jesus. She\nis still His Mother, and while adoring Him as her God she still retains\nher maternal relations, and He exercises toward her that loving\nwillingness to grant her request which the best of sons entertains for the\nbest of mothers.\n\nNever does Jesus appear to us so amiable and endearing as when we see Him\nnestled in the arms of His Mother. We love to contemplate Him, and artists\nlove to represent Him, in that situation. It appears to me that had we\nlived in Jerusalem in His day and recognized, like Simeon, the Lord of\nmajesty in the form of an Infant, and had we a favor to ask Him, we would\npresent it through Mary\u2019s hands while the Divine eyes of the Babe were\ngazing on her sweet countenance. And even so now. Never will our prayers\nfind a readier acceptance than when offered through her.\n\nIn invoking Our Lady\u2019s patronage we are actuated by a triple sense of the\nmajesty of God, our own unworthiness and of Mary\u2019s incomparable influence\nwith her Heavenly Father. Conscious of our natural lowliness and sins, we\nhave frequent recourse to her intercession in the assured hope of being\nmore favorably heard.\n\n\n    \u201cAnd even as children who have much offended\n    A too indulgent father, in great shame,\n    Penitent, and yet not daring unattended\n    To go into his presence, at the gate\n    Speak to their sister and confiding wait\n    Till she goes in before and intercedes;\n    So men, repenting of their evil deeds,\n    And yet not venturing rashly to draw near\n    With their requests, an angry Father\u2019s ear,\n    Offer to her their prayers and their confession,\n    And she in heaven for them makes intercession.\u201d(264)\n\n\nDo you ask me, is Mary willing to assist you? Does she really take an\ninterest in your welfare? Or is she so much absorbed by the fruition of\nGod as to be indifferent to our miseries? \u201cCan a woman forget her infant\nso as not to have pity on the fruit of her womb?\u201d(265) Even so Mary will\nnot forget us.\n\nThe love she bears us, her children by adoption, can be estimated only by\nher love for her Son by nature. It was Mary that nursed the Infant Savior.\nIt was her hands that clothed Him. It was her breast that sheltered Him\nfrom the rude storm and from the persecution of Herod. She it was that\nwiped the stains from His brow when taken down from the cross. Now we are\nthe brothers of Jesus. He is not ashamed, says the Apostle, to call us His\nbrethren.(266) Neither is Mary ashamed to call us her children by\nadoption. At the foot of the cross she adopted us in the person of St.\nJohn. She is anxious to minister to our souls as she ministered to the\ncorporal wants of her Son. She would be the instrument of God in feeding\nus with Divine grace, in clothing us with the garments of innocence, in\nsheltering us from the storms of temptations, in wiping away the stains of\nsin from our soul.\n\nIf the angels, though of a different nature from ours, have so much\nsympathy for us as to rejoice in our conversion,(267) how great must be\nthe interest manifested toward us by Mary, who is of a common nature with\nus, descended from the same primitive parents, being bone of our bone, and\nflesh of our flesh, and who once trod the thorny path of life that we now\ntread!\n\nThough not of the household of the faith, Edgar A. Poe did not disdain to\ninvoke Our Lady\u2019s intercession, and to acknowledge the influence of her\npatronage in heaven.\n\n\n    \u201cAt morn\u2014at noon\u2014at twilight dim\u2014\n    Maria! thou hast heard my hymn;\n    In joy and woe\u2014in good and ill\u2014\n    Mother of God, be with me still!\n    When the hours flew brightly by,\n    And not a cloud obscured the sky,\n    My soul, lest it should truant be,\n    Thy grace did guide to thine and thee;\n    Now, when storms of fate o\u2019ercast\n    Darkly my present and my past,\n    Let my future radiant shine,\n    With sweet hopes of thee and thine.\u201d\n\n\nSome persons not only object to the invocation of Mary as being\nunprofitable, but they even affect to be scandalized at the confidence we\nrepose in her intercession, on the groundless assumption that by praying\nto her we ignore and dishonor God, and that we put the creature on a level\nwith the Creator.\n\nEvery Catholic child knows from the catechism that to give to any creature\nthe supreme honor due to God alone is idolatry. How can we be said to\ndishonor God, or bring Him down to a level with His creature by invoking\nMary, since we acknowledge her to be a pure creature indebted like\nourselves to Him for every gift and influence that she possesses? This is\nimplied in the very form of our petitions.\n\nWhen we address our prayers to her we say: _Pray for us sinners_, implying\nby these words that she herself is a petitioner at the throne of Divine\nmercy. To God we say: _Give us our daily bread_, thereby acknowledging Him\nto be the source of all bounty.\n\nThis principle being kept in view, how can we be justly accused of\nslighting God\u2019s majesty by invoking the intercession of His handmaid?\n\nIf a beggar asks and receives alms from me through my servant, should I be\noffended at the blessings which he invokes upon her? Far from it. I accept\nthem as intended for myself, because she bestowed what was mine, and with\nmy consent.\n\nOur Lord says to His Apostles: \u201cI dispose to you a kingdom, that you may\neat and drink at My table in My kingdom and may sit upon thrones, judging\nthe twelve tribes of Israel.\u201d(268) And St. Paul says: \u201cKnow you not that\nwe shall judge angels, how much more things of this world?\u201d(269) If the\nApostles may sit at the table of the Lord in heaven without prejudice to\nHis majesty, surely Our Lady can stand as an advocate before Him without\ninfringing on His rights. If they can exercise the dread prerogative of\njudges of angels and of men without trespassing on the Divine judgeship of\nJesus, surely Mary can fulfill the more modest function of intercessor\nwith her Son without intruding on His supreme mediatorship, for higher is\nthe office of judge than that of advocate. And yet, while no one is ever\nstartled at the power given to the Apostles, many are impatient of the\nlesser privilege claimed for Mary.\n\n\n\n\nIII. Is It Lawful To Imitate Her As A Model?\n\n\nBut while the exalted privileges of Mary render her worthy of our\nveneration, while her saintly influence renders her worthy of our\ninvocation, her personal life is constantly held up to us as a pattern\nworthy of our imitation. If she occupies so prominent a place in our\npulpits, this prominence is less due to her prerogatives as a mother, or\nto her intercession as a patroness, than to her example as a Saint.\n\nAfter our Lord Jesus Christ, no one has ever exercised so salutary and so\ndominant an influence as the Blessed Virgin on society, on the family and\non the individual.\n\nThe Mother of Jesus exercises throughout the Christian commonwealth that\nhallowing influence which a good mother wields over the Christian family.\n\nWhat temple or chapel, how rude soever it may be, is not adorned with a\npainting or a statue of the Madonna? What house is not embellished with an\nimage of Mary? What Catholic child is a stranger to her familiar face?\n\nThe priest and the layman, the scholar and the illiterate, the prince and\nthe peasant, the mother and the maid, acknowledge her benign sway.\n\nAnd if Christianity is so fruitful in comparison with Paganism, in\nconjugal fidelity, in female purity and in the respect paid to womanhood,\nthese blessings are in no small measure due to the force of Mary\u2019s\nall-pervading influence and example. Ever since the Son of God chose a\nwoman to be His mother man looks up to woman with a homage akin to\nveneration.\n\nThe poet Longfellow pays the following tribute to Mary\u2019s sanctifying\ninfluence:\n\n\n    \u201cThis is indeed the blessed Mary\u2019s land,\n    Virgin and mother of our dear Redeemer!\n    All hearts are touched and softened at her name\n    Alike the bandit with the bloody hand,\n    The priest, the prince, the scholar and the peasant\n    The man of deeds, the visionary dreamer\n    Pay homage to her as one ever present!\n\n    And if our faith had given us nothing more\n    Than this example of all womanhood,\n    So mild, so merciful, so strong, so good,\n    So patient, peaceful, loyal, loving, pure,\n    This were enough to prove it higher and truer\n    Than all the creeds the world had known before.\u201d(270)\n\n\nSt. Ambrose gives us the following beautiful picture of Mary\u2019s life before\nher espousals: \u201cLet the life,\u201d he says, \u201cof the Blessed Mary be ever\npresent to you in which, as in a mirror, the beauty of chastity and the\nform of virtue shine forth. She was a virgin not only in body, but in\nmind, who never sullied the pure affection of her heart by unworthy\nfeelings. She was humble of heart, serious in her conversation, fonder of\nreading than of speaking. She placed her confidence rather in the prayer\nof the poor than in the uncertain riches of this world. She was ever\nintent on her occupation, ... and accustomed to make God rather than man\nthe witness of her thoughts. She injured no one, wished well to all,\nreverenced age, yielded not to envy, avoided all boasting, followed the\ndictates of reason and loved virtue. When did she sadden her parents even\nby a look?... There was nothing forward in her looks, bold in her words or\nunbecoming in her actions. Her carriage was not abrupt, her gait not\nindolent, her voice not petulant, so that her very appearance was the\npicture of her mind and the figure of piety.\u201d\n\nHer life as a spouse and as a mother was a counterpart of her earlier\nyears. The Gospel relates one little circumstance which amply suffices to\ndemonstrate Mary\u2019s super-eminent holiness of life, and to exhibit her as a\nbeautiful pattern to those who are called to rule a household. The\nEvangelist tells us that Jesus \u201cwas subject to them\u201d(271)\u2014that is, to Mary\nand Joseph. He obeyed all her commands, fulfilled her behests, complied\nwith her smallest injunctions; in a word, He discharged toward her all the\nfilial observances which a dutiful son exercises toward a prudent mother.\nThese relations continued from His childhood to His public life, nor did\nthey cease even then.\n\nNow Jesus being the Son of God, \u201cthe brightness of His glory and the\nfigure of His substance,\u201d(272) could not sin. He was incapable of\nfulfilling an unrighteous precept. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from\nthese facts is, that Mary never sinned by commanding, as Jesus could not\nsin by obeying; that all her precepts and counsels were stamped with the\nseal of Divine approbation, and that the Son never fulfilled any\ninjunction of His earthly Mother which was not ratified by His Eternal\nFather in heaven.\n\nSuch is the beautiful portrait which the Church holds up to the\ncontemplation of her children, that studying it they may admire the\noriginal, admiring they may love, loving they may imitate, and thus become\nmore dear to God by being made \u201cconformable to the image of His Son,\u201d(273)\nof whom Mary is the most perfect mirror.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XV.\n\n\nSACRED IMAGES.\n\n\nThe veneration of the images of Christ and His Saints is a cherished\ndevotion in the Catholic Church, and this practice will be vindicated in\nthe following lines.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that the making of holy images was not so general\namong the Jews as it is among us, because the Hebrews themselves were\nprone to idolatry, and because they were surrounded by idolatrous people,\nwho might misconstrue the purpose for which the images were intended. For\nthe same prudential reasons the primitive Christians were very cautious in\nmaking images, and very circumspect in exposing them to the gaze of the\nheathen among whom they lived, lest Christian images should be confounded\nwith Pagan idols.\n\nThe catacombs of Rome, to which the faithful alone were admitted,\nabounded, however, in sacred emblems and pious representations, which are\npreserved even to this day and attest the practice of the early Christian\nChurch. We see there painted on the walls or on vases of glass the Dove,\nthe emblem of the Holy Ghost, Christ carrying His cross, or bearing on His\nshoulders the lost sheep. We meet also the Lamb, an anchor and a\nship\u2014appropriate types of our Lord, of hope and of the Church.\n\nThe first crusade against images was waged in the eighth century by Leo\nthe Isaurian, Emperor of Constantinople. He commanded the paintings of our\nLord and His Saints to be torn down from the church walls and burned. He\neven invaded the sanctuary of home, and snatched thence the sacred emblems\nwhich adorned private residences. He caused statues of bronze, silver and\ngold to be melted down and conveniently converted them into coins, upon\nwhich his own image was stamped. Like Henry VIII. and Cromwell, this royal\nIconoclast affected to be moved by a zeal for purity of worship, while\navarice was the real motive of his action.\n\nThe Emperor commanded the learned librarians of his imperial library to\ngive public approbation to his decrees against images, and when those\nconscientious men refused to endorse his course they were all confined in\nthe imperial library, the building was set on fire and thirty thousand\nvolumes, the splendid basilica which contained them, innumerable paintings\nand the librarians themselves were involved in one common destruction.\n\nConstantine Copronymus prosecuted the vandalism of Leo, his predecessor.\nStephen, an intrepid monk, presented to the Emperor a coin bearing that\ntyrant\u2019s effigy, with these words: \u201cSire, whose image is this?\u201d \u201cIt is\nmine,\u201d replied the Emperor. The monk then threw down the piece of money\nand trampled it. He was instantly seized by the imperial attendants and\nsoon after put to a painful death. \u201cAlas!\u201d cried the holy man to the\nEmperor, \u201cif I am punished for dishonoring the image of a mortal monarch,\nwhat punishment do they deserve who burn the image of Jesus Christ?\u201d\n\nThe demolition of images was revived by the Reformers of the sixteenth\ncentury. Paintings and statues were ruthlessly destroyed, chiefly in the\nBritish Isles, Germany and Holland, under the pretext that the making of\nthem was idolatrous. But as the Iconoclasts of the eighth century had no\nscruple about appropriating to their own use the gold and silver of the\nstatues which they melted, neither had the Iconoclasts of the sixteenth\ncentury any hesitation in confiscating and worshiping in the idolatrous\nchurches whose statues and paintings they broke and disfigured.\n\nA stranger who visits some of the desecrated Catholic churches of Great\nBritain and the Continent which are now used as Protestant temples cannot\nfail to notice the mutilated statues of the Saints still standing in their\nniches.\n\nThis barbaric warfare against religious memorials was not only a grievous\nsacrilege, but an outrage against the fine arts; and had the destroying\nangels extended their ravages over Europe the immortal works of Michael\nAngelo and Raphael would be lost to us today.\n\nThe doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding the use of sacred images is\nclearly and fully expressed by the General Council of Trent in the\nfollowing words: \u201cThe images of Christ, and of His Virgin Mother, and of\nother Saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches; and a\ndue honor and veneration is to be given to them; not that any divinity or\nvirtue is believed to be in them for which they are to be honored, or that\nany prayer is to be made to them, or that any confidence is to be placed\nin them, as was formerly done by the heathens, who placed their hopes in\nidols; but because the honor which is given them is referred to the\noriginals which they represent, so that by the images which we kiss, and\nbefore which we uncover our heads or kneel, we adore Christ and venerate\nHis Saints, whose likeness they represent.\u201d(274)\n\nEvery Catholic child clearly comprehends the essential difference which\nexists between a Pagan idol and a Christian image. The Pagans looked upon\nan idol as a god endowed with intelligence and the other attributes of the\nDeity. They were therefore idolaters, or _image worshipers_. Catholic\nChristians know that a holy image has no intelligence or power to hear and\nhelp them. They pay it a relative respect\u2014that is, their reverence for the\ncopy is proportioned to the veneration which they entertain for the\nheavenly original to which it is also referred.\n\nFor the sake of my Protestant readers I may here quote their own great\nLeibnitz on the reverence paid to sacred images. He says, in his _Systema\nTheologicum_, p. 142: \u201cThough we speak of the honor paid to images, yet\nthis is only a manner of speaking, which really means that we honor not\nthe senseless thing which is incapable of understanding such honor, but\nthe prototype, which receives honor through its representation, according\nto the teaching of the Council of Trent. It is in this sense, I take it,\nthat scholastic writers have spoken of the same worship being paid to\nimages of Christ as to Christ our Lord Himself; for the act which is\ncalled the worship of an image is really the worship of Christ Himself,\nthrough and in the presence of the image and by occasion of it; by the\ninclination of the body toward it as to Christ Himself, as rendering Him\nmore manifestly present, and raising the mind more actively to the\ncontemplation of Him. Certainly, no sane man thinks, under such\ncircumstances, of praying in this wise: \u2018Give me, O image, what I ask; to\nthee, O marble or wood, I give thanks;\u2019 but \u2018Thee, O Lord, I adore; to\nThee I give thanks and sing songs of praise.\u2019 Given, then, that there is\nno other veneration of images than that which means veneration of their\nprototype, there is surely no more idolatry in it than there is in the\nrespect shown in the utterance of the Most Holy Names of God and Christ;\nfor, after all, names are but signs or symbols, and even as such inferior\nto images, for they represent much less vividly. So that when there is\nquestion of honoring images, this is to be understood in the same way as\nwhen it is said that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend, or that\nthe name of the Lord is blessed, or that glory be given to His Name. Thus,\nthe bowing before an image outside of us is no more to be reprehended than\nthe worshiping before an external image in our own minds; for the external\nimage does but serve the purpose of expressing visibly that which is\ninternal.\u201d\n\nIn the Book of Exodus we read: \u201cThou shalt not make to thyself a graven\nthing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the\nearth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.\nThou shalt not adore them nor serve them.\u201d(275) Protestants contend that\nthese words contain an absolute prohibition against the making of images,\nwhile the Catholic Church insists that the commandment referred to merely\nprohibits us from worshiping them as gods.\n\nThe text cannot mean the absolute prohibition of making images; for in\nthat case God would contradict Himself by commanding in one part of\nScripture what He condemns in another. In Exodus (xxv. 18), for instance,\nHe commands two cherubim of beaten gold to be made and placed on each side\nof the oracle; and in Numbers (xxi. 8) He commands Moses to make a brazen\nserpent, and to set it up for a sign, that \u201cwhosoever being struck by the\nfiery serpents shall look upon it, shall live.\u201d Are not cherubim and\nserpents the likenesses of creatures in heaven above, in the earth beneath\nand in the waters under the earth? for cherubim dwell in heaven and\nserpents are found on land and sea.\n\nWe should all, without exception, break the commandment were we to take it\nin the Protestant sense. Have you not at home the portraits of living and\ndeparted relatives? And are not these the likenesses of persons in heaven\nabove and on the earth beneath?\n\nWestminster Abbey, though once a Catholic Cathedral, is now a Protestant\nhouse of worship. It is filled with the statues of illustrious men; yet no\none will accuse the English church of idolatry in allowing those statues\nto remain there. But you will say: The worshipers in Westminster have no\nintention of adoring these statues. Neither have we any intention of\nworshiping the statues of the Saints. An English parson once remarked to a\nCatholic friend: \u201cTom, don\u2019t you pray to images?\u201d \u201cWe pray before them,\u201d\nreplied Tom; \u201cbut we have no intention of praying to them.\u201d \u201cWho cares for\nyour intention,\u201d retorted the parson. \u201cDon\u2019t you pray at night?\u201d observed\nTom. \u201cYes,\u201d said the parson; \u201cI pray at my bed.\u201d \u201cYes; you pray to the\nbed-post.\u201d \u201cOh, no!\u201d said the reverend gentleman; \u201cI have no intention of\ndoing that.\u201d \u201cWho cares,\u201d replied Tom, \u201cfor your intention.\u201d\n\nThe moral rectitude or depravity of our actions cannot be determined\nwithout taking into account the intention.\n\nThere are many persons who have been taught in the nursery tales, that\nCatholics worship idols. These persons, if they visit Europe and see an\nold man praying before an image of our Lord or a Madonna which is placed\nalong the wayside, are at once confirmed in their prejudices. Their zeal\nagainst idols takes fire and they write home, adding one more proof of\nidolatry against the benighted Romanists. If these superficial travelers\nhad only the patience to question the old man he would tell them, with\nsimplicity of faith, that the statue had no life to hear or help him, but\nthat its contemplation inspired him with greater reverence for the\noriginal.\n\nAs I am writing for the information of Protestants, I quote with pleasure\nthe following passage, written by one of their own theologians, in the\n_Encyclop\u00e9die_ (Edit. d\u2019Yverdun, tom. 1, art. _Adorer_):\n\n\u201cWhen Lot prostrates himself before the two angels it is an act of\ncourtesy towards honored guests; when Jacob bows down before Esau it is an\nact of deference from a younger to an elder brother; when Solomon bows low\nbefore Bethsabee it is the honor which a son pays to his mother; when\nNathan, coming in before David, \u2018had worshiped, bowing down to the\nground,\u2019 it is the homage of a subject to his prince. But when a man\nprostrates himself in prayer to God it is the creature adoring the\nCreator. And if these various actions are expressed\u2014sometimes by the word\n_adore_, sometimes by _worship_ or _prostration_\u2014it is not the bare\nmeaning of the word which has guided interpreters in rendering it, but the\nnature of the case. When an Israelite prostrated himself before the king\nno one thought of charging him with idolatry. If he had done the same\nthing in the presence of an idol, the very same bodily act would have been\ncalled idolatry. And why? Because all men would have judged by his action\nthat he regarded the idol as a real Divinity and that he would express, in\nrespect to it, the sentiments manifested by adoration in the limited sense\nwhich we give to the word. What shall we think, then, of what Catholics do\nto show honor to Saints, to relics, to the wood of the cross? They will\nnot deny that their acts of reverence, in such cases, are very much like\nthose by which they pay outward honor to God. But have they the same ideas\nabout the Saints, the relics and the cross as they have about God? I\nbelieve that we cannot fairly accuse them of it.\u201d\n\nA gentleman who was present at the unveiling of Clay\u2019s statue in the city\nof Richmond informed me that as soon as the curtain was uplifted, and the\nnoble form of the Kentucky statesman appeared in full view, the immense\nconcourse of spectators instinctively uncovered their heads. \u201cWhy do you\ntake off your hat?\u201d playfully remarked my friend to an acquaintance who\nstood by. \u201cIn honor, of course, of Henry Clay,\u201d he replied. \u201cBut Henry is\nnot there in the flesh. You see nothing but _clay_.\u201d \u201cBut my intention,\nsir,\u201d he continued, \u201cis to do honor to the original.\u201d He answered\ncorrectly. And yet how many of the same people would be shocked if they\nsaw a man take off his hat in the presence of a statue of St. Peter! It is\nnot, therefore, the making of the image, but its worship, that is\ncondemned by the Decalogue.\n\nHaving seen the lawfulness of sacred images, let us now consider the\nadvantages to be derived from their use.\n\nFirst\u2014_Religious paintings embellish the house of God._ What is more\nbecoming than to adorn the church, which is the shadow of the heavenly\nJerusalem, so beautifully described by St. John?(276) Solomon decorated\nthe temple of God with images of cherubim and other representations. \u201cAnd\nhe overlaid the cherubim with gold. And all the walls of the temple round\nabout he carved with divers figures and carvings.\u201d(277) If it was meet and\nproper to adorn Solomon\u2019s temple, which contained only the Ark of the\nLord, how much more fitting is it to decorate our churches, which contain\nthe Lord of the Ark? When I see a church tastefully ornamented it is a\nsure sign that the Master is at home, and that His devoted subjects pay\nhomage to Him in His court.\n\nWhat beauty, what variety, what charming pictures are presented to our\nview in this temple of nature which we inhabit! Look at the canopy of\nheaven. Look at the exquisite pictures painted by the Hand of the Divine\nArtist on this earth. \u201cConsider the lilies of the field.... I say to you\nthat not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these.\u201d If\nthe temple of nature is so richly adorned, should not our temples made\nwith hands bear some resemblance to it?\n\nHow many professing Christians must, like David, reproach themselves for\n\u201cdwelling in a house of cedar, while the ark of God is lodged with\nskins.\u201d(278) How many are there whose private apartments are adorned with\nexquisite paintings, who affect to be scandalized at the sight of a single\npious emblem in their house of worship? On the occasion of the celebration\nof Henry W. Beecher\u2019s silver wedding several wealthy members of his\ncongregation adorned the walls of Plymouth church with their private\npaintings. Their object, of course, in doing so was not to honor God, but\ntheir pastor. But if the portraits of men were no desecration to that\nchurch, how can the portraits of Saints desecrate ours?(279) And what can\nbe more appropriate than to surround the Sanctuary of Jesus Christ with\nthe portraits of the Saints, especially of Mary and of the Apostles, who,\nin their life, ministered to His sacred person? And is it not natural for\nchildren to adorn their homes with the likenesses of their Fathers in the\nfaith?\n\nSecond\u2014_Religious paintings are the catechism of the ignorant_. In spite\nof all the efforts of Church and State in the cause of education a great\nproportion of the human race will be found illiterate. Descriptive\npictures will teach those what books make known to the learned.\n\nHow many thousands would have died ignorant of the Christian faith if they\nhad not been enlightened by paintings! When Augustine, the Apostle of\nEngland, first appeared before King Ethelbert to announce to him the\nGospel, a silver crucifix and a painting of our Savior were borne before\nthe preacher, and these images spoke more tenderly to the eyes than his\nwords to the ears of his audience.\n\nBy means of religious emblems St. Francis Xavier effected many conversions\nin India; and by the same means Father De Smet made known the Gospel to\nthe savages of the Rocky Mountains.\n\nThird\u2014By exhibiting religious paintings in our rooms _we make a silent,\nthough eloquent, profession of our faith_. I once called on a gentleman in\na distant city, some time during our late war, and, on entering his\nlibrary, I noticed two portraits, one of a distinguished General, the\nother of an Archbishop. These portraits at once proclaimed to me the\nreligious and patriotic sentiments of the proprietor of the house.\n\u201cBehold!\u201d he said to me, pointing to the pictures, \u201cmy religious creed and\nmy political creed.\u201d If I see a crucifix in a man\u2019s room I am convinced at\nonce that he is not an infidel.\n\nFourth\u2014By the aid of sacred pictures _our devotion and love for the\noriginal are intensified, because we can concentrate our thoughts more\nintently on the object of our affections_. Mark how the eye of a tender\nchild glistens on confronting the painting of an affectionate mother. What\nChristian can stand unmoved when contemplating a picture of the Mother of\nSorrows? How much devotion has been fostered by the Stations of the Cross?\nObserve the intense sympathy depicted on the face of the humble Christian\nwoman as she silently passes from one station to another. She follows her\nSavior step by step from the Garden to Mount Calvary. The whole scene,\nlike a panoramic view, is imprinted on her mind, her memory and her\naffections. Never did the most pathetic sermon on the Passion enkindle\nsuch heartfelt love, or evoke such salutary resolutions, as have been\nproduced by the silent spectacle of our Savior hanging on the cross.\n\nFifth\u2014The portraits of the Saints stimulate us to the _imitation of their\nvirtues_; and this is the principal aim which the Church has in view in\nencouraging the use of pious representations. One object, it is true, is\nto honor the Saints; another is to invoke them; but the principal end is\nto incite us to an imitation of their holy lives. We are exhorted to \u201clook\nand do according to the pattern shown us on the mount.\u201d(280) Nor do I know\na better means for promoting piety than by example.\n\nIf you keep at home the likenesses of George Washington, of Patrick Henry,\nof Chief Justice Taney, or of other distinguished men, the copies of such\neminent originals cannot fail to exercise a salutary though silent\ninfluence on the mind and heart of your child. Your son will ask you: \u201cWho\nare those men?\u201d And when you tell him: \u201cThis is Washington, the Father of\nhis Country; this is Patrick Henry, the ardent lover of civil liberty; and\nthis is Taney, the incorruptible Judge,\u201d your boy will imperceptibly\nimbibe not only a veneration for those men, but a relish for the civic\nvirtues for which they were conspicuous. And in like manner, when our\nchildren have constantly before their eyes the purest and most exalted\nmodels of sanctity, they cannot fail to draw from such contemplation a\ntaste for the virtues that marked the lives of the originals.\n\nIs not our country flooded with obscene pictures and immodest\nrepresentations which corrupt our youths? If the agents of Satan employ\nmeans so vile for a bad end; if they are cunning enough to pour through\nthe senses into the hearts of the unwary the insidious poison of sin, by\nplacing before them lascivious portraits, in God\u2019s name, why should not we\nsanctify the souls of our children by means of pious emblems? Why should\nnot we make the eye the instrument of edification as the enemy makes it\nthe organ of destruction? Shall the pen of the artist, the pencil of the\npainter and the chisel of the sculptor be prostituted to the basest\npurposes? God forbid! The arts were intended to be the handmaids of\nreligion.\n\nAlmost every moment of the day the eye is receiving impressions from\noutward objects and instantly communicating these impressions to the soul.\nThus the soul receives every day thousands of impressions, good or bad,\naccording to the character of the objects presented to its gaze.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, over-estimate the salutary effect produced upon us\nin a church or room adorned with sacred paintings. We feel, while in their\npresence, that we are in the company of the just. The contemplation of\nthese pious portraits chastens our affections, elevates our thoughts,\nchecks our levity and diffuses around us a healthy atmosphere.\n\nI am happy to acknowledge that the outcry formerly raised against images\nhas almost subsided of late. The epithet of _idolaters_ is seldom applied\nto us now. Even some of our dissenting brethren are beginning to recognize\nthe utility of religious symbols and to regret that we have been\npermitted, by the intemperate zeal of the Reformers, to have so long the\nmonopoly of them. Crosses already surmount some of our Protestant churches\nand replace the weather-cock.\n\nA gentleman of Richmond recently informed me that during the preceding\nHoly Week he adorned with twelve crosses an Episcopal church in which,\neleven years before, the sight of a single one was viewed with horror by\nthe minister.\n\nMay the day soon come when all Christians will join with us not only in\nvenerating the sacred symbol of salvation, but in worshiping at the same\naltar.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XVI.\n\n\nPURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.\n\n\nThe Catholic Church teaches that, besides a place of eternal torments for\nthe wicked and of everlasting rest for the righteous, there exists in the\nnext life a middle state of temporary punishment, allotted for those who\nhave died in venial sin, or who have not satisfied the justice of God for\nsins already forgiven. She also teaches us that, although the souls\nconsigned to this intermediate state, commonly called purgatory, cannot\nhelp themselves, they may be aided by the suffrages of the faithful on\nearth. The existence of purgatory naturally implies the correlative\ndogma\u2014the utility of praying for the dead\u2014for the souls consigned to this\nmiddle state have not reached the term of their journey. They are still\nexiles from heaven and fit subjects for Divine clemency.\n\nThe doctrine of an intermediate state is thus succinctly asserted by the\nCouncil of Trent: \u201cThere is a Purgatory, and souls there detained, are\nhelped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable\nSacrifice of the Altar.\u201d(281)\n\nIt is to be noted that the Council studiously abstains from specifying the\nnature of the expiating sufferings endured therein.\n\nIs it not strange that this cherished doctrine should also be called in\nquestion by the leveling innovators of the sixteenth century, when we\nconsider that it is clearly taught in the Old Testament; that it is, at\nleast, insinuated in the New Testament; that it is unanimously proclaimed\nby the Fathers of the Church; that it is embodied in all the ancient\nliturgies of the Oriental and the Western church, and that it is a\ndoctrine alike consonant with our reason and eminently consoling to the\nhuman heart?\n\nFirst\u2014It is a doctrine plainly contained in the Old Testament and piously\npracticed by the Hebrew people. At the close of an engagement which Judas\nMachabeus had with the enemy he ordered prayers and sacrifices to be\noffered up for his slain comrades. \u201cAnd making a gathering, he sent twelve\nthousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for\nthe sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the\nresurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should\nrise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the\ndead.... It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the\ndead, that they may be loosed from sins.\u201d(282)\n\nThese words are so forcible that no comment of mine could render them\nclearer. The passage proved a great stumbling-block to the Reformers.\nFinding that they could not by any evasion weaken the force of the text,\nthey impiously threw overboard the Books of Machabees, like a man who\nassassinates a hostile witness, or like the Jews who sought to kill\nLazarus, lest his resurrection should be a testimony in favor of Christ,\nand pretended that the two books of Machabees were apocryphal. And yet\nthey have precisely the same authority as the Gospel of St. Matthew or any\nother portion of the Bible, for the canonicity of the Holy Scriptures\nrests solely on the authority of the Catholic Church, which proclaimed\nthem inspired.\n\nBut even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the Books of Machabees\nwere not entitled to be ranked among the canonical Books of Holy\nScripture, no one, at least, has ever denied that they are truthful\nhistorical monuments, and as such that they serve to demonstrate that it\nwas a prevailing practice among the Hebrew people, as it is with us, to\noffer up prayers and sacrifices for the dead.\n\nSecond\u2014When our Savior, the Founder of the New Law, appeared on earth, He\ncame to lop off those excrescences which had grown on the body of the\nJewish ecclesiastical code, and to purify the Jewish Church from those\nhuman traditions which, in the course of time, became like tares mixed\nwith the wheat of sound doctrine. For instance, He condemns the Pharisees\nfor prohibiting the performance of works of charity on the Sabbath day,\nand in the twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew He cites against them a\nlong catalogue of innovations in doctrine and discipline.\n\nBut did our Lord, at any time, reprove the Jews for their belief in a\nmiddle state, or for praying for the dead, a practice which, to His\nknowledge, prevailed among the people? Never. On the contrary, more than\nonce both He and the Apostle of the Gentiles insinuate the doctrine of\npurgatory.\n\nOur Savior says: \u201cWhosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it\nshall be forgiven him. But he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost it\nshall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to\ncome.\u201d(283) When our Savior declares that a sin against the Holy Ghost\nshall not be forgiven in the next life, He evidently leaves us to infer\nthat there are some sins which will be pardoned in the life to come. Now\nin the next life, sins cannot be forgiven in heaven, for, nothing defiled\ncan enter there; nor can they be forgiven in hell, for, out of hell there\nis no redemption. They must, therefore, be pardoned in the intermediate\nstate of Purgatory.\n\nSt. Paul tells us that \u201cevery man\u2019s work shall be manifest\u201d on the Lord\u2019s\nday. \u201cThe fire shall try every man\u2019s work of what sort it is. If any man\u2019s\nwork abide,\u201d that is, if his works are holy, \u201che shall receive a reward.\nIf any man\u2019s work burn,\u201d that is, if his works are faulty and imperfect,\n\u201che shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by\nfire.\u201d(284) His soul will be ultimately saved, but he shall suffer, for a\ntemporary duration, in the purifying flames of Purgatory.\n\nThis interpretation is not mine. It is the unanimous voice of the Fathers\nof Christendom. And who are they that have removed the time-honored\nlandmarks of Christian faith by rejecting the doctrine of purgatory? They\nare discontented churchmen impatient of the religious yoke, men who\nappeared on the stage sixteen hundred years after the foundation of\nChristianity. Judge you, reader, whom you ought to follow. If you want to\nknow the true import of a vital question in the Constitution, would you\nnot follow the decision of a Story, a Jefferson, a Marshall, a Taney,\njurists and statesmen, who were the recognized expounders of the\nConstitution? Would you not prefer their opinion to that of political\ndemagogues, who have neither learning, nor authority, nor history to\nsupport them, but some selfish end to further? Now, the same motive which\nyou have for rejecting the opinion of an ignorant politician and embracing\nthat of eminent jurists, on a constitutional question, impels you to cast\naside the novelties of religious innovators and to follow the unanimous\nsentiments of the Fathers in reference to the subject of purgatory.\n\nThird\u2014I would wish to place before you extended extracts from the writings\nof the early Fathers of the Church bearing upon this subject; but I must\ncontent myself with quoting a few of the most prominent lights of\nprimitive Christianity.\n\nTertullian, who lived in the second century, says that \u201cthe faithful wife\nwill pray for the soul of her deceased husband, particularly on the\nanniversary day of his falling asleep (death). And if she fail to do so\nshe hath repudiated her husband as far as in her lies.\u201d(285)\n\nEusebius, the historian (fourth century), describing the funeral of\nConstantine the Great, says that the body of the blessed prince was placed\non a lofty bier, and the ministers of God and the multitude of the people,\nwith tears and much lamentation, offered up prayers and sacrifice for the\nrepose of his soul. He adds that this was done in accordance with the\ndesires of that religious monarch, who had erected in Constantinople the\ngreat church in honor of the Apostles, so that after his death the\nfaithful might there remember him.(286)\n\nSt. Cyril of Jerusalem, fourth century, writes: \u201cWe commemorate the Holy\nFathers, and Bishops, and all who have fallen asleep from amongst us,\nbelieving that the supplications which we present will be of great\nassistance to their souls, while the holy and tremendous Sacrifice is\noffered up.\u201d He answers by an illustration those that might be disposed to\ndoubt the efficacy of prayers for the dead: \u201cIf a king had banished\ncertain persons who had offended him, and their relations, having woven a\ncrown, should offer it to him in behalf of those under his vengeance,\nwould he not grant a respite to their punishments? So we, in offering up a\ncrown of prayers in behalf of those who have fallen asleep, will obtain\nfor them forgiveness through the merits of Christ.\u201d(287)\n\nSt. Ephrem, in the same century, says: \u201cI conjure you, my brethren and\nfriends, in the name of that God who commands me to leave you, to remember\nme when you assemble to pray. Do not bury me with perfumes. Give them not\nto me, but to God. Me, conceived in sorrows, bury with lamentations, and\ninstead of perfumes assist me with your prayers; for the dead are\nbenefited by the prayers of living Saints.\u201d(288)\n\nSt. Ambrose (same century), on the death of the Emperors Gratian and\nValentinian, says: \u201cBlessed shall both of you be (Gratian and\nValentinian), if my prayers can avail anything. No day shall pass you over\nin silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honor you. No night shall\nhurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In every one of\nthe oblations will I remember you.\u201d On the death of the Emperor Theodosius\nhe offers the following prayer: \u201cGive perfect rest to Thy servant\nTheodosius, that rest which Thou hast prepared for Thy Saints. May his\nsoul return thither whence it descended, where it cannot feel the sting of\ndeath.... I loved him and therefore will I follow him, even unto the land\nof the living. Nor will I leave him until, by tears and prayers, I shall\nlead him ... unto the holy mountain of the Lord, where is life undying,\nwhere corruption is not, nor sighing nor mourning.\u201d(289)\n\nSt. Jerome, in the same century, in a letter of condolence to Pammachius,\non the death of his wife Paulina, writes: \u201cOther husbands strew violets\nand roses on the graves of their wives. Our Pammachius bedews the hallowed\ndust of Paulina with balsams of alms.\u201d(290)\n\nSt. Chrysostom writes: \u201cIt was not without good reason _ordained by the\nApostles_ that mention should be made of the dead in the tremendous\nmysteries, because they knew well that they would receive great benefit\nfrom it.\u201d(291)\n\nSt. Augustine, who lived in the beginning of the fifth century, relates\nthat when his mother was at the point of death she made this last request\nof him: \u201cLay this body anywhere; let not the care of it in anyway disturb\nyou. This only I request of you, that you would remember me at the altar\nof the Lord, wherever you be.\u201d\n\nAnd that pious son prays for his mother\u2019s soul in the most impassioned\nlanguage: \u201cI therefore,\u201d he says, \u201cO God of my heart, do now beseech Thee\nfor the sins of my mother. Hear me through the medicine of the wounds that\nhung upon the wood.... May she, then, be in peace with her husband.... And\ninspire, my Lord, ... Thy servants, my brethren, whom with voice and heart\nand pen I serve, that as many as shall read these words may remember at\nThy altar, Monica, Thy servant....\u201d(292)\n\nThese are but a few specimens of the unanimous voice of the Fathers\nregarding the salutary practice of praying for the dead.\n\nYou now perceive that this devotion is not an invention of modern times,\nbut a doctrine universally enforced in the first and purest ages of the\nChurch.\n\nYou see that praying for the dead was not a devotion cautiously\nrecommended by some obscure or visionary writer, but an act of religion\npreached and inculcated by all the great Doctors and Fathers of the\nChurch, who are the recognized expounders of the Christian religion.\n\nYou see them, too, inculcating this doctrine not as a cold and abstract\nprinciple, but as an imperative act of daily piety, and embodying it in\ntheir ordinary exercises of devotion.\n\nThey prayed for the dead in their morning and evening devotions. They\nprayed for them in their daily office, and in the Sacrifice of the Mass.\nThey asked the prayers of the congregation for the souls of the deceased\nin the public services of Sunday. On the monuments which were erected to\nthe dead, some of which are preserved even to this day, epitaphs were\ninscribed, earnestly invoking for their souls the prayers of the living.\nHow gratifying it is to our Catholic hearts that a devotion so soothing to\nafflicted spirits is at the same time so firmly grounded on the tradition\nof ages!\n\nFourth\u2014That the practice of praying for the dead has descended from\nApostolic times is evident also from the _Liturgies_ of the Church. A\nLiturgy is the established formulary of public worship, containing the\nauthorized prayers of the Church. The Missal, or Mass-book, for instance,\nwhich you see on our altars, contains a portion of the Liturgy of the\nCatholic Church. The principal Liturgies are the Liturgy of St. James the\nApostle, who founded the Church of Jerusalem; the Liturgy of St. Mark the\nEvangelist, founder of the Church of Alexandria, and the Liturgy of St.\nPeter, who established the Church in Rome. These Liturgies are called\nafter the Apostles who compiled them. There are, besides, the Liturgies of\nSt. Chrysostom and St. Basil, which are chiefly based on the model of that\nof St. James.\n\nNow, all these Liturgies, without exception, have prayers for the dead,\nand their providential preservation serves as another triumphant\nvindication of the venerable antiquity of this Catholic doctrine.\n\nThe Eastern and the Western churches were happily united until the fourth\nand fifth centuries, when the heresiarchs Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches\nwithdrew millions of souls from the centre of unity. The followers of\nthese sects were called, after their founders, Arians, Nestorians and\nEutychians, and from that day to the present the two latter bodies have\nformed distinct communions, being separated from the Catholic Church in\nthe East, just as the Protestant churches are separated from her in the\nWest.\n\nThe Greek schismatic church, of which the present Russo-Greek church is\nthe offspring, severed her connection with the See of Rome in the ninth\ncentury.\n\nBut in leaving the Catholic Church these Eastern sects retained the old\nLiturgies, which they use to this day, as I shall presently demonstrate.\n\nDuring my sojourn in Rome at the Ecumenical Council I devoted a great deal\nof my leisure time to the examination of the various Liturgies of the\nschismatic churches of the East. I found in all of them formulas of\nprayers for the dead almost identical with that of the Roman Missal:\n\u201cRemember, O Lord, Thy servants who are gone before us with the sign of\nfaith, and sleep in peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ\ngrant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light and peace, through\nthe same Jesus Christ our Lord.\u201d\n\nNot content with studying their books, I called upon the Oriental\nPatriarchs and Bishops in communion with the See of Rome, who belong to\nthe Armenian, the Chaldean, the Coptic, the Maronite and Syriac rites.\nThey all assured me that the schismatic Christians of the East among whom\nthey live have, without exception, prayers and sacrifices for the dead.\n\nNow, I ask, when could those Eastern sects have commenced to adopt the\nCatholic practice of praying for the dead? They could not have received it\nfrom us since the ninth century, because the Greek church separated from\nus then and has had no communion with us since that time, except at\nintervals, up to the twelfth century. Nor could they have adopted the\npractice since the fourth or fifth century, inasmuch as the Arians,\nNestorians and Eutychians have had no religious communication with us\nsince that period. Therefore, in common with us, they received this\ndoctrine from the Apostles. If men living in different countries drink\nwine having the same flavor and taste and color, the inference is that the\nwine was made from the same species of grape. So must we conclude that\nthis refreshing doctrine of intercession for the dead has its root in the\nApostolic tree of knowledge planted by our Savior.\n\nFifth\u2014I have already spoken of the devotion of the ancient Jewish church\nto the souls of the departed. But perhaps you are not aware that the Jews\nretain to this day, in their Liturgy, the pious practice of praying for\nthe dead. Yet such in reality is the case.\n\nAmid all the wanderings and vicissitudes of life, though dismembered and\ndispersed like sheep without a shepherd over the face of the globe, the\nchildren of Israel have never forgotten or neglected the sacred duty of\npraying for their deceased brethren.\n\nUnwilling to make this assertion without the strongest evidence, I\nprocured from a Jewish convert an authorized Prayer-Book of the Hebrew\nchurch, from which I extract the following formula of prayers which are\nprescribed for funerals: \u201cDeparted brother! mayest thou find open the\ngates of heaven, and see the city of peace and the dwellings of safety,\nand meet the ministering angels hastening joyfully toward thee. And may\nthe High Priest stand to receive thee, and go thou to the end, rest in\npeace, and rise again into life. May the repose established in the\ncelestial abode ... be the lot, dwelling and the resting-place of the soul\nof our deceased brother (whom the Spirit of the Lord may guide into\nParadise), who departed from this world, according to the will of God, the\nLord of heaven and earth. May the supreme King of kings, through His\ninfinite mercy, hide him under the shadow of His wing. May He raise him at\nthe end of his days and cause him to drink of the stream of His\ndelights.\u201d(293)\n\nAmong the many-sided merits of Shakespeare may be mentioned his happy\nfaculty of portraying to life the manners and customs and traditional\nfaith of the times which he describes. How deep-rooted in the Christian\nheart in pre-Reformation times, was the belief in Purgatory, may be\ninferred from a passage in Hamlet who probably lived in the early part of\nthe eighth century. Thus speaks to Hamlet the spirit of his murdered\nfather:\n\n\n      \u201cI am thy father\u2019s spirit,\n    Doom\u2019d for a certain time to walk the night;\n    And for the day confin\u2019d too fast in fires,\n    Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature\n    Are burnt and purg\u2019d away.\u201d(294)\n\n\nI am happy to say that the more advanced and enlightened members of the\nEpiscopalian church are steadily returning to the faith of their\nfore-fathers regarding prayers for the dead. An acquaintance of mine, once\na distinguished clergyman of the Episcopal communion, but now a convert,\ninformed me that hundreds of Protestant clergymen in this country, and\nparticularly in England, have a firm belief in the efficacy of prayers for\nthe dead, but for well-known reasons they are reserved in the expression\nof their faith. He easily convinced me of the truth of his assertion,\nparticularly as far as the Church of England is concerned, by sending me\nsix different works published in London, all bearing on the subject of\nPurgatory. These books are printed under the auspices of the Protestant\nEpiscopal church; they all contain prayers for the dead and prove, from\nCatholic grounds, the existence of a middle state after death and the duty\nof praying for our deceased brethren.(295)\n\nTo sum up, we see the practice of praying for the dead enforced in the\nancient Hebrew church and in the Jewish synagogue of today. We see it\nproclaimed age after age by all the Fathers of Christendom. We see it\nincorporated in every one of the ancient Liturgies of the East and of the\nWest. We see it zealously taught by the Russian church of today, and by\nthat immense family of schismatic Christians scattered over the East. We\nbehold it, in fine, a cherished devotion of three hundred millions of\nCatholics, as well as of a respectable portion of the Episcopal church.\n\nWould it not, my friend, be the height of rashness and presumption in you\nto prefer your private opinion to this immense weight of learning,\nsanctity and authority? Would it not be impiety in you to stand aside with\nsealed lips while the Christian world is sending up an unceasing _De\nprofundis_ for departed brethren? Would it not be cold and heartless in\nyou not to pray for your deceased friends, on account of prejudices which\nhave no grounds in Scripture, tradition or reason itself?\n\nIf a brother leaves you to cross the broad Atlantic, religion and\naffection prompt you to pray for him during his absence. And if the same\nbrother crosses the narrow sea of death to pass to the shores of eternity,\nwhy not pray for him then also? When he crosses the Atlantic his soul,\nimprisoned in the flesh, is absent from you; when he passes the sea of\ndeath his soul, released from the flesh, has gone from you. What\ndifference does this make with regard to the duty of your intercession?\nFor what is death? A mere separation of body and soul. The body, indeed,\ndies, but the soul \u201clives and moves and has its being.\u201d It continues after\ndeath, as before, to think, to remember, to love. And do not God\u2019s\ndominion and mercy extend over that soul beyond the grave as well as as\nthis side of it? Who shall place the limits to God\u2019s empire and say to\nHim: \u201cThus far Thou shalt go and no farther?\u201d Two thousand years after\nAbraham\u2019s death our Lord said: \u201cI _am_ the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and\nof Jacob. He _is_ not the God of the dead, but of the living.\u201d(296)\n\nIf, then, it is profitable for you to pray for your brother in the flesh,\nwhy should it be useless for you to pray for him out of the flesh? For\nwhile he was living you prayed not for his body, but for his soul.\n\nIf this brother of yours dies with some slight stains upon his soul, a sin\nof impatience, for instance, or an idle word, is he fit to enter heaven\nwith these blemishes upon his soul? No; the sanctity of God forbids it,\nfor \u201cnothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.\u201d(297) Will you\nconsign him, for these minor transgressions, to eternal torments with\nadulterers and murderers? No; the justice and mercy of God forbid it.\nTherefore, your common sense demands a middle place of expiation for the\npurgation of the soul before it is worthy of enjoying the companionship of\nGod and His Saints.\n\nGod \u201cwill render to every man according to his works,\u201d\u2014to the pure and\nunsullied everlasting bliss; to the reprobate eternal damnation; to souls\nstained with minor faults a place of temporary purgation. I cannot recall\nany doctrine of the Christian religion more consoling to the human heart\nthan the article of faith which teaches the efficacy of prayers for the\nfaithful departed. It robs death of its sting. It encircles the chamber of\nmourning with a rainbow of hope. It assuages the bitterness of our sorrow,\nand reconciles us to our loss. It keeps us in touch with the departed dead\nas correspondence keeps us in touch with the absent living. It preserves\ntheir memory fresh and green in our hearts.\n\nIt gives us that keen satisfaction which springs from the consciousness\nthat we can aid those loved ones who are gone before us by alleviating\ntheir pains, shortening their exile, and hastening their entrance into\ntheir true country.\n\nIt familiarizes us with the existence of a life beyond the grave, and with\nthe hope of being reunited with those whom we cherished on earth, and of\ndwelling with them in that home where there is no separation, or sorrow,\nor death, but eternal joy and peace and rest.\n\nI have seen a devoted daughter minister with tender solicitude at the\nsick-bed of a fond parent. Many an anxious day and sleepless night did she\nwatch at his bedside. She moistened the parched lips, and cooled the\nfevered brow, and raised the drooping head on its pillow. Every change in\nher patient for better or worse brought a corresponding sunshine or gloom\nto her heart. It was filial love that prompted all this. Her father died\nand she followed his remains to the grave. Though not a Catholic, standing\nby the bier she burst those chains which a cruel religious prejudice had\nwrought around her heart, and, rising superior to her sect, she cried out:\n_Lord, have mercy on his soul_. It was the voice of nature and of\nreligion.\n\nOh, far from us a religion which would decree an eternal divorce between\nthe living and the dead. How consoling is it to the Catholic to think\nthat, in praying thus for his departed friend, his prayers are not in\nviolation of, but in accordance with, the voice of the Church; and that\nas, like Augustine, he watches at the pillow of a dying mother, so like\nAugustine, he can continue the same office of piety for her soul after she\nis dead by praying for her! How cheering the reflection that the golden\nlink of prayer unites you still to those who \u201cfell asleep in the Lord,\u201d\nthat you can still speak to them and pray for them!\n\nTennyson grasps the Catholic feeling when he makes his hero, whose course\nis run, thus address his surviving comrade, Sir Bedivere:\n\n\n    \u201cI have lived my life, and that which I have done\n    May He within Himself make pure; but thou,\n    If thou shouldst never see my face again,\n    Pray for my soul. More things are wrought by prayer\n    Than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice\n    Rise like a fountain for me night and day.\n    For what are men better than sheep or goats\n    That nourish a blind life within the brain,\n    If knowing God they lift not hands of prayer\n    Both for themselves and those who call them friend?\n    For so the whole round earth is every way\n    Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.\u201d(298)\n\n\nOh! it is this thought that robs death of its sting and makes the\nseparation of friends endurable. If your departed friend needs not your\nprayers, they are not lost, but, like the rain absorbed by the sun, and\ndescending again in fruitful showers on our fields, they will be gathered\nby the Sun of justice, and will fall in refreshing showers of grace upon\nyour head: \u201cCast thy bread upon the running waters; for, after a long\ntime, thou shalt find it again.\u201d(299)\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XVII.\n\n\nCIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.\n\n\nA man enjoys _religious_ liberty when he possesses the free right of\nworshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of\npracticing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God.\nEvery act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled\nreligious intolerance. This religious liberty is the true right of every\nman because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon\nhim.\n\nA man enjoys _civil_ liberty when he is exempt from the arbitrary will of\nothers, and when he is governed by equitable laws established for the\ngeneral welfare of society. So long as, in common with his\nfellow-citizens, he observes the laws of the state, any exceptional\nrestraint imposed upon him, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, is\nso far an infringement on his civil liberty.\n\nI here assert the proposition, which I hope to confirm by historical\nevidence, that the Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of\nreligious and civil liberty; and that whenever any encroachments on these\nsacred privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the\nCatholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church,\nwere committed in palpable violation of her authority.\n\nHer doctrine is, that as man by his _own free will_ fell from grace, so of\nhis _own free will_ must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are\ntwo terms that can never be reconciled. It has ever been a cardinal maxim,\ninculcated by sovereign Pontiffs and other Prelates, that no violence or\nundue influence should be exercised by Christian princes or missionaries\nin their efforts to convert souls to the faith of Jesus Christ.\n\nPope Gregory I. in the latter part of the Sixth Century, compelled the\nBishop of Terracina to restore to the Jews, the synagogue which he had\nseized, declaring that they should not be coerced into the Church, but\nshould be treated with meekness and charity. The great Pontiff issued the\nsame orders to the Prelates of Sardinia and Sicily in behalf of the\npersecuted Jews.\n\nSt. Augustine and his companions, who were sent by Pope Gregory I. to\nEngland for the conversion of that nation, had the happiness of baptizing\nin the true faith King Ethelbert and many of his subjects. That monarch,\nin the fervor of his zeal, was most anxious that all his subjects should\nimmediately follow his example; but the missionaries admonished him that\nhe should scrupulously abstain from violence in the conversion of his\npeople, for the Christian religion should be voluntarily embraced.\n\nPope Nicholas I. also warned Michael, king of the Bulgarians, against\nemploying force or constraint in the conversion of idolaters.\n\nThe fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633, a synod of great authority in\nthe Church, ordained that no one should be compelled against his will to\nmake a profession of the Christian faith. Be it remembered that this\nCouncil was composed of all the Bishops of Spain, that it was assembled in\na country and at a time in which the Church held almost unlimited sway,\nand among a people who have been represented as the most fanatical and\nintolerant of all Europe.\n\nPerhaps no man can be considered a fairer representative of the age in\nwhich he lived than St. Bernard, the illustrious Abbot of Clairvaux. He\nwas the embodiment of the spirit of the Middle Ages. His life is the key\nthat discloses to us what degree of toleration prevailed in those days.\nHaving heard that a fanatical preacher was stimulating the people to deeds\nof violence against the Jews as the enemies of Christianity, St. Bernard\nraised his eloquent voice against him, and rescued those persecuted people\nfrom the danger to which they were exposed.\n\nPope Innocent III. in the Thirteenth Century promulgated the following\nDecree in behalf of the Hebrews: \u201cLet no Jew be _constrained_ to receive\nbaptism, and he that will not consent to be baptized, let him not be\nmolested. Let no one unjustly seize their property, disturb their feasts,\nor lay waste their cemeteries.\u201d\n\nOther succeeding Pontiffs, notably Gregory IX. and Innocent IV., issued\nsimilar instructions.\n\nNot to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful\nletter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King\nJames II. of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his\nown heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church,\nof which he was a distinguished ornament. \u201cAbove all,\u201d he writes, \u201cnever\nforce your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the\nimpenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never\npersuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to\nall, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with\npatience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men\nby mild persuasion.\u201d(300)\n\nIt is true, indeed, that the Catholic Church spares no pains and stops at\nno sacrifice in order to induce mankind to embrace her faith. Otherwise\nshe would be recreant to her sacred mission. But she scorns to exercise\nany undue influence in her efforts to convert souls.\n\nThe only argument she would use, is the argument of reason and persuasion;\nthe only tribunal to which she would summon you, is the tribunal of\nconscience; the only weapon she would wield, is \u201cthe Sword of the Spirit,\nwhich is the Word of God.\u201d It is well known that the superior advantages\nof our female academies throughout the country lead many of our dissenting\nbrethren to send their daughters to these institutions. It is also well\nknown that so warm is the affection which these young ladies entertain for\ntheir religious teachers, so hallowed is the atmosphere they breathe\nwithin these seats of learning, that they often beg to embrace a religion\nwhich fosters so much piety and which produces lilies so fragrant and so\npure. Do the sisters take advantage of this influence in the cause of\nproselytism? By no means. So delicate is their regard for the religious\nconscience of their pupils, that they rarely consent to have these young\nladies baptized till, after being thoroughly instructed in all the\ndoctrines of the Church, they have obtained the free permission of their\nparents or guardians.\n\nThe Church is, indeed, intolerant in this sense, that she can never\nconfound truth with error; nor can she admit that any man is\nconscientiously free to reject the truth when its claims are convincingly\nbrought home to the mind. Many Protestants seem to be very much disturbed\nby some such argument as this: Catholics are very ready now to proclaim\nfreedom of conscience, because they are in the minority. When they once\nsucceed in getting the upper hand in numbers and power they will destroy\nthis freedom, because their faith teaches them to tolerate no doctrine\nother than the Catholic. It is, then, a matter of absolute necessity for\nus that they should never be allowed to get this advantage.\n\nNow, in all this, there is a great mistake, which comes from not knowing\nthe Catholic doctrine in its fulness. I shall not lay it down myself, lest\nit seem to have been gotten up for the occasion. I shall quote the great\ntheologian Becanus, who taught the doctrine of the schools of Catholic\nTheology at the time when the struggle was hottest between Catholicity and\nProtestantism. He says that religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler\nwhen it would do more harm to the state or to the community to repress it.\nThe ruler may even enter into a compact in order to secure to his subjects\nthis freedom in religious matters; and when once a compact is made it must\nbe observed absolutely in every point, just as every other lawful and\nhonest contract.(301) This is the true Catholic teaching on this point,\naccording to Becanus and all Catholic theologians. So that if Catholics\nshould gain the majority in a community where freedom of conscience is\nalready secured to all by law, their very religion obliges them to respect\nthe rights thus acquired by their fellow-citizens. What danger can there\nbe, then, for Protestants, if Catholics should be in the majority here?\nTheir apprehensions are the result of vain fears, which no honest mind\nought any longer to harbor.\n\nThe Church has not only respected the conscience of the people in\nembracing the religion of their choice, but she has also defended their\n_civil_ rights and liberties against the encroachments of temporal\nsovereigns. One of the popular errors that have taken possession of some\nminds in our times is that in former days the Church was leagued with\nprinces for the oppression of the people. This is a base calumny, which a\nslight acquaintance with ecclesiastical history would soon dispel.\n\nThe truth is, the most unrelenting enemies of the Church have been the\nprinces of this world, and so-called Christians princes, too.\n\nThe conflict between Church and State has never died out, because the\nChurch has felt it to be her duty, in every age, to raise her voice\nagainst the despotic and arbitrary measures of princes. Many of them\nchafed under the salutary discipline of the Church. They wished to be rid\nof her yoke. They desired to be governed by no law except the law of their\nlicentious passions and boundless ambitions. And as a Protestant American\nreviewer(302) well said about forty years ago, it was a blessing of\nProvidence that there was a spiritual Power on earth that could stand like\na wall of brass against the tyranny of earthly sovereigns and say to them:\n\u201cThus far you shall go, and no farther, and here you shall break your\nswelling waves\u201d of passion; a Power that could say to them what John said\nto Herod: \u201cThis thing is not lawful for thee;\u201d a Power that pointed the\nfinger of reproof to them, even when the sword was pointed to her own\nneck, and that said to them what Nathan said to David: \u201cThou art the man.\u201d\nShe told princes that if the people have their obligations they have their\nrights, too; that if the subject must render to C\u00e6sar the things that are\nC\u00e6sar\u2019s, C\u00e6sar must render to God the things that art God\u2019s.\n\nYes; the Church, while pursuing her Divine mission of leading souls to\nGod, has ever been the defender of the people\u2019s rights.\n\nSt. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, affords us a striking instance of the\nstrenuous efforts made by the Catholic Church in vindicating the interests\nof the citizen against the oppression of rulers.\n\nA portion of the people of Thessalonica had committed an outrage against\nthe just authority of the Emperor Theodosius. The offence of those\ncitizens was indeed most reprehensible; but the Emperor requited the\ninsult offered to him by a shocking and disproportioned act of\nretribution, which has left an indelible stain upon his otherwise\nexcellent character. The inhabitants were assembled together for the\nostensible purpose of witnessing a chariot race, and at a given signal the\nsoldiery fell upon the people and involved men, women and children in an\nindiscriminate massacre, to the number of about seven thousand. Some time\nafter the Emperor presented himself at the Cathedral of Milan; but the\nintrepid Prelate told him that his hands were dripping with the blood of\nhis subjects, and forbade him entrance to the church till he had made all\nthe reparation in his power to the afflicted people of Thessalonica.\n\nPeople affect to be shocked at the sentence of ex-communication\noccasionally inflicted by the Church on evil-doers. Here is an instance of\nthis penalty. Who can complain of it as being too severe? It was a\nsalutary punishment and the only one that could bring rulers to a sense of\nduty.\n\nThe greatest bulwark of civil liberty is the famous _Magna Charta_. It is\nthe foundation not only of British, but also of American constitutional\nfreedom. Among other blessings contained in this instrument it establishes\ntrial by jury and the right of _Habeas Corpus_, and provides that there\nshall be no taxation without representation.\n\nWho were the framers of this memorable charter? Archbishop Langton, of\nCanterbury, and the Catholic Barons of England. On the plains of\nRunnymede, in 1215, they compelled King John to sign that paper which was\nthe death-blow to his arbitrary power and the cornerstone of\nconstitutional government.\n\nTurning to our own country, it is with no small degree of satisfaction\nthat I point to the State of Maryland as the cradle of civil and religious\nliberty and the \u201cland of the sanctuary.\u201d Of the thirteen original American\nColonies, Maryland was the only one settled by Catholics. She was, also,\nthe only one that raised aloft over her fair lands the banner of liberty\nof conscience, and that invited the oppressed of other colonies to seek an\nasylum beneath its shadow.\n\nLest I should be suspected of being too partial in my praise of Maryland\ntoleration, I shall take most of my historical facts from Bancroft, a New\nEngland Protestant clergyman.\n\n\n    NOTE\u2014The first edition of Bancroft\u2019s History was published in\n    1834. From that date till nearly half a century afterward upwards\n    of twenty editions were issued, all of which retain the passages I\n    have cited on Maryland toleration. Early in the 80s a new edition\n    was given out, which omits or abridges some of the passages quoted\n    in this chapter. I may add that all of Bancroft\u2019s eulogies of Lord\n    Baltimore\u2019s benevolent administration are borne out by the\n    original documents, and by McMahon, Bozman and McSherry, and other\n    historians of Maryland.\n\n\nLeonard Calvert, the brother of Lord Baltimore and the leader of the\nCatholic colony, having sailed from England in the _Ark_ and the _Dove_,\nreached his destination on the Potomac in March, 1634.\n\n\u201cThe Catholics took quiet possession of the little place, and religious\nliberty obtained a home, _its only home_ in the wide world, at the humble\nvillage which bore the name of St. Mary.\u201d(303)\n\n\u201cThe foundation of the colony of Maryland was peacefully and happily laid.\nWithin six months it had advanced more than Virginia had done in as many\nyears.... But far more memorable was the character of the Maryland\ninstitutions. Every other country in the world had persecuting laws; but\nthrough the benign administration of the government of that province, no\nperson professing to believe in Jesus Christ was permitted to be molested\non account of religion. Under the munificence and superintending mildness\nof Lord Baltimore, a dreary wilderness was soon quickened with the\nswarming life and activity of prosperous settlements; the Roman Catholics\nwho were oppressed by the laws of England were sure to find a peaceful\nasylum in the quiet harbors of the Chesapeake; and there _too, Protestants\nwere sheltered against Protestant intolerance_. Such were the beautiful\nauspices under which Maryland started into being.... Its history is the\nhistory of benevolence, gratitude and toleration.\u201d\n\n\u201cMaryland was the abode of happiness and liberty. Conscience was without\nrestraint. A mild and liberal proprietary conceded every measure which the\nwelfare of the colony required; domestic union, a happy concert between\nall the branches of government, an increasing emigration, a productive\ncommerce, a fertile soil, which heaven had richly favored with rivers and\ndeep bays, united to perfect the scene of colonial felicity. Ever intent\non advancing the interests of his colony, Lord Baltimore invited the\nPuritans of Massachusetts to emigrate to Maryland, offering them lands and\nprivileges and free liberty of religion; but Gibbons, to whom he had\nforwarded the commission, was so wholly tutored in the New England\ndiscipline, that he would not advance the wishes of the Irish Peer, and so\nthe invitation was declined.\u201d(304)\n\nOn the 2d of April, 1649, the General Assembly of Maryland passed the\nfollowing Act, which will reflect unfading glory on that State as long as\nliberty is cherished in the hearts of men.\n\n\u201cWhereas, the enforcing of conscience in matters of religion hath\nfrequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in those\ncommonwealths where it has been practiced, and for the more quiet and\npeaceable government of this province, and the better to preserve mutual\nlove and unity amongst the inhabitants, no person whatsoever within this\nprovince professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall from henceforth be\nanyways troubled or molested for his or her religion, nor in the free\nexercise thereof, nor anyway compelled to the belief or exercise of any\nother religion against his or her consent.\u201d(305)\n\nUpon this noble statute Bancroft makes the following candid and judicious\ncomment: \u201cThe design of the law of Maryland was to protect freedom of\nconscience; and some years after it had been confirmed the apologist of\nLord Baltimore could assert that his government had never given\ndisturbance to any person in Maryland for matter of religion; that the\ncolonists enjoyed freedom of conscience, not less than freedom of person\nand estate, as amply as ever any people in any place of the world. The\ndisfranchised friends of Prelacy from Massachusetts and the Puritans from\nVirginia were welcomed to equal liberty of conscience and political rights\nin the Roman Catholic province of Maryland.\u201d(306)\n\nFive years later, when the Puritans gained the ascendency in Maryland,\nthey were guilty of the infamous ingratitude of disfranchising the very\nCatholic settlers by whom they had been so hospitably entertained. They\n\u201chad neither the gratitude to respect the rights of the government by\nwhich they had been received and fostered, nor magnanimity to continue the\ntoleration to which alone they were indebted for their residence in the\ncolony. An act concerning religion forbade liberty of conscience to be\nextended to \u2018Popery,\u2019 \u2018Prelacy,\u2019 or \u2018licentiousness of opinion.\u2019 \u201d(307)\n\nI shall also quote from \u201cMaryland, the History of a Palatinate,\u201d by\nWilliam Hand Browne.(308) Mr. Browne was a graduate of the University of\nMaryland. For several years he was editor of the Maryland Archives, and of\nthe Maryland Historical Society. He became afterward Professor of English\nLiterature in the Johns Hopkins University. He devoted his long life to\nthe Colonial history of Maryland, and is justly recognized as a standard\nauthority on that subject. I may add that he cannot be suspected of undue\npartiality, as he was not a member of the Catholic Church.\n\nSpeaking of Calvert, the Proprietary of the Maryland Colony, the author\nremarks that \u201cwhile as yet there was no spot in Christendom where\nreligious belief was free, and when even the Commons of England had openly\ndeclared against toleration, Calvert founded a community wherein no man\nwas to be molested for his faith. At a time when absolutism had struck\ndown representative government in England and it was doubtful if a\nParliament of freemen would ever meet again, he founded a community in\nwhich no laws were to be made without the consent of the freemen.\n\nThe _Ark_ and the _Dove_ were names of happy omen. The one saved from the\ngeneral wreck the germs of political liberty; and the other bore the olive\nbranch of religious peace.\u201d(309)\n\nWhen the rule of the Catholic Proprietary was overthrown and the Puritans\nhad gained the ascendency in the Province, the new Commissioners issued\nwrits of election to a general assembly\u2014writs of a tenor hitherto unknown\nin Maryland. No man of the Roman Catholic faith could be elected as a\nburgess, or even cast a vote. The Assembly obtained by this process of\nselection, justified its choice. It at once repealed the Toleration Act of\n1649 and created a new one, more to its mind, which also bore the title:\n\u201cAn Act concerning Religion,\u201d but it was toleration with a difference. It\nprovided that none who professed the Popish religion should be protected\nin the Province, but were to be restrained from the exercise thereof.\n\nFor Protestants it provided that no one professing faith in Christ was to\nbe restrained from the exercise of his religion, \u201cprovided that this\nliberty be not extended to Popery, or Prelacy, nor to such as under the\nprofession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness. That is,\nwith the exception of the Roman Catholics and churchmen, together with the\nBrownists, Quakers, Anabaptists, and other miscellaneous Protestant sects,\nall others might profess their faith without molestation.\u201d(310)\n\nAfter the overthrow of the Puritan authority, and the advent to power of\nthe members of the Church of England, the second act of the Assembly was\nto make the Protestant Episcopal Church the established church of the\nProvince.\n\nThe Act imposed an annual tax of forty pounds of tobacco per poll on all\ntaxables for the purpose of building churches, and maintaining the clergy.\nIn 1702 it was re-enacted with a toleration clause: \u201cProtestant Dissenters\nand Quakers were exempted from the penalties and disabilities, and might\nhave separate meeting-houses, provided that they paid their forty pounds\nper poll to support the Established Church. As for the \u2018Papists,\u2019 it is\nneedless to say that there was no exemption nor license for them.\u201d(311)\n\nThe author then sets before us the three kinds of toleration, like three\nportraits, so that their distinctive features appear in bold relief.\n\n\u201cWe may now,\u201d he says, \u201cplace side by side the three tolerations of\nMaryland.\u201d\n\nThe toleration of the (Catholic) Proprietaries lasted fifty years, and\nunder it all believers in Christ were equal before the law, and all\nsupport to churches or ministers was voluntary.\n\nThe Puritan toleration lasted six years, and included all but Papists,\nPrelatists and those who held objectional doctrines.\n\nThe Anglican toleration lasted eighty years, and had glebes and churches\nfor the Establishment, connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for\nCatholics, and for all, the forty per poll.\n\nIn fact, an additional turn was given to the screw in this year; the oath\nof \u201cabhorrency,\u201d a more offensive form of the oath of supremacy, being\nrequired, beside the oath of allegiance, and for one thing, no Catholic\nattorney was allowed to practise in the Province.(312)\n\nWhen the members of the Constitutional Convention declared in 1787, that\n\u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or\nprohibiting the free exercise thereof,\u201d it is worthy of note that they\nwere echoing the sentiments, and even repeating the language of the\nMaryland Assembly of 1649, which declared that \u201cNo person whatsoever\nwithin this Province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from\nhenceforth be any ways molested for his or her religion, nor in the free\nexercise thereof.\u201d\n\nWe may therefore affirm that Lord Baltimore\u2019s Toleration Act of 1649 was\nthe bright dawn that ushered in the noon-day sun of freedom in 1787. And\nwe have every reason to believe that the Proprietary\u2019s charter of liberty\nwith its attendant blessings, served as an example, an incentive, and an\ninspiration to some at least of the framers of the Constitution, to extend\nover the new Republic, the precious boon of civil and religious liberty.\n\nIt is proper to also observe that the Act of 1649 was not a new\ndeclaration of religious freedom on the part of Lord Baltimore\u2019s\nadministration, but was a solemn affirmation of the toleration granted by\nthe Catholic Proprietary from the beginning of the Settlement in 1634.\n\nI will close this subject in the words of a distinguished member of the\nMaryland Historical Society: \u201cHigher than all titles and badges of honor,\nand more exalted than royal nobility is the imperishable distinction which\nthe passage of this broad and liberal Act won for Maryland, and for the\nmembers of that never-to-be-forgotten session, and sacred forever be the\nhallowed spot which gave it birth.\u201d(313)\n\nWhat shall I say of the prominent part that was taken by distinguished\nrepresentatives of the Catholic Church in the cause of our American\nIndependence? What shall I say of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who, at\nthe risk of sacrificing his rich estates, signed the Declaration of\nIndependence; of Rev. John Carroll, afterward the first Archbishop of\nBaltimore, who, with his cousin Charles Carroll and Benjamin Franklin, was\nsent by Congress to Canada to secure the co-operation of the people of\nthat province in the struggle for liberty; of Kosciusko, Lafayette,\nPulaski, Barry and a host of other Catholic heroes who labored so\neffectually in the same glorious cause? American patriots without number\nthe Church has nursed in her bosom; a traitor, never.\n\nThe Father of his Country was not unmindful of these services. Shortly\nafter his election to the Presidency, replying(314) to an address of his\nCatholic fellow-citizens, he uses the following language: \u201cI presume that\nyour fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in\nthe accomplishment of their revolution, and the establishment of their\ngovernment; or the important assistance they received from a nation in\nwhich the Roman Catholic faith is professed.\u201d\n\nAnd the Catholics of our generation have nobly emulated the patriotism and\nthe spirit of toleration exhibited by their ancestors. They can neither be\naccused of disloyalty nor of intolerance to their dissenting brethren. In\nmore than one instance of our nation\u2019s history our churches have been\ndesecrated and burned to the ground; our convents have been invaded and\ndestroyed; our clergy have been exposed to insult and violence. These\ninjuries have been inflicted on us by incendiary mobs animated by hatred\nof Catholicism. Yet, in spite of these provocations, our Catholic\ncitizens, though wielding an immense numerical influence in the localities\nwhere they suffered, have never retaliated. It is in a spirit of just\npride that we can affirm that hitherto in the United States no Protestant\nhouse of worship or educational institution has been destroyed, nor\nviolence offered to a Protestant minister by those who profess the\nCatholic faith. God grant that such may always be our record!\n\nIt is just because the Church has ever resisted the tyranny of kings, in\ntheir encroachments on the sacred rights of conscience, that she has\nalways been the victim of royal persecution. In every age, in the language\nof the Psalmist, \u201cthe kings of the earth rose up, and the princes\nassembled together against the Lord and against His Christ.\u201d(315) The\nbrightest and most thrilling pages of ecclesiastical history are those\nwhich record the sufferings of Popes and Prelates at the hands of temporal\nsovereigns for conscience\u2019 and for justice\u2019 sake.\n\nTake, for instance, St. John Chrysostom, the great Archbishop of\nConstantinople in the fifth century, and the idol of the people. He had\nthe courage, like John the Baptist, to raise his eloquent voice against\nthe lasciviousness of the court, and particularly against the Empress\nEudoxia, who ruled like another Jezabel. He was banished from his See,\ntreated with the utmost indignity by the soldiers, and died in exile from\nsheer exhaustion and ill-treatment.\n\nWitness Pope Gregory VII., the fearless Hildebrand, in his life-long\nstruggle with the German Emperor, Henry IV. Gregory directed all the\nenergies of his great mind towards reforming the abuses which had crept\ninto the church of France and Germany in the eleventh century. In those\ndays the Emperor of Germany assumed the right of naming or appointing\nBishops throughout his Empire. This sacred office was commonly bestowed on\nvery unworthy candidates, and very often put up at auction, to be sold to\nthe highest bidder, as is now the case with the schismatic Greek church in\nTurkey.\n\nThese Bishops too often repaid their imperial benefactor by pandering to\nhis passions and by the most servile flattery. The intrepid Pope partially\nsucceeded in uprooting the evil, though the effort cost him his life. The\nEmperor invaded Rome and drove Gregory from his See, who died uttering\nthese words with his last breath: \u201cI have loved justice and hated\niniquity, and therefore I die in exile.\u201d\n\nFor the same cause Thomas \u00e0 Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was slain at\nthe altar by the hired assassins of Henry II., of England.\n\nObserve how Pius VII. was treated by the first Napoleon in the beginning\nof the present century. The day-dream of Napoleon was to be master of\nEurope, and to place his brothers and friends on the thrones of the\ncontinent, that they might revolve, like so many satellites, around his\nthrone in France. Napoleon makes two demands on the venerable Pontiff:\nFirst\u2014That he dissolve the marriage which had been contracted between the\nEmperor\u2019s brother, Jerome, and Miss Patterson, of Baltimore. His\nostensible reason for having the marriage dissolved was because Miss\nPatterson was a Protestant, but his real motive was to secure a royal\nbride for his brother instead of an American lady. Second\u2014That he close\nhis ports against the commerce of England, with which nation Napoleon was\nthen at war, and make common cause with the Emperor against his enemies.\nThe Pope rejected both demands. He told the Emperor that the Church held\nall marriages performed by her as indissoluble, even when one of the\nparties was not a Catholic; and that, as the common father of Christendom,\nhe could close his port against no Christian power. For refusing to comply\nwith this second demand the Pope was arrested and sent into exile, where\nhe lingered for years.\n\nAt this very moment the old conflict between the Church and despotic\ngovernments is raging fiercely throughout Europe. The scene enacted by\nJohn and Herod is today reproduced in almost every kingdom of the old\nworld. It is the old fight between brute force and the God-given rights of\nconscience.\n\nIn Russia we see the Bishop of Plock exiled for life from his See to\nSiberia. His only offence is his refusal to acknowledge that the Emperor\nAlexander is the head of the Christian Church.\n\nIf we pass over into Italy we see religious men and women driven from\ntheir homes; their houses and libraries confiscated\u2014libraries which pious\nand learned men had been collecting and consulting for ages. The only\ncrime of those religious is that they have not the power to resist brute\nforce.\n\nCross the Alps into France and there you will see that many-headed\nmonster, the Commune, assassinating the Archbishop of Paris and his\nclergy, solely because he and they were the representatives of law and\norder.\n\nIn the Republic of Switzerland Bishop Mermillod is expelled from Geneva\nwithout the slightest charge adduced against his character as a citizen\nand a Christian Prelate. Faithful clergymen are deprived by the government\nof their parochial rights and renegade Priests are intruded in their\nplace. The shepherd is driven away and wolves lay waste the fold.\n\nGo to Prussia; what do you behold there? A Prime Minister flushed with his\nrecent victories over France. He is not content with seeing his master\nwear the imperial crown of Germany; he wants him to wear also the tiara of\nthe Pope. Bismarck, like Aman, the minister of King Assuerus, is not\nsatisfied with being second in the kingdom so long as Mardochai, that is\nthe Church, refuses to bow down and worship him.\n\nHe fines the venerable Archbishop of Gnesen-Posen and other Prussian\nPrelates again and again, sells their furniture and finally sends them to\nprison for a protracted period. St. John Chrysostom beautifully remarks\nthat St. Paul, elevated to the third heaven, was glorious to contemplate;\nbut that far more glorious is Paul buried in the dungeons of Rome. I can\nsay in like manner, of Archbishop Ledochowski of Posen, that he was\nconspicuous in the Vatican Council among his peers; but he was still more\nconspicuous sitting solitary in his Prussian prison.\n\nThe loyalty of the Prussian clergy is above reproach. The Bishops are\nimprisoned because they insist on the right of educating students for the\nministry, ordaining and appointing clergy, without consulting the\ngovernment. They are denied a right which in this country is possessed by\nFree Masons and every other human organization in the land.\n\nPerhaps a simple illustration will present to you in a clearer light the\nodious character of the penal laws to which I have alluded. Suppose the\ngovernment of the United States were to issue a general order requiring\nthe clergy of the various Christian denominations to be educated in\ngovernment establishments, forcing them to take an oath before entering on\nthe duties of the ministry, and forbidding the ecclesiastical authorities\nto appoint or remove any clergyman without permission of the civil power\nat Washington. Would not the American people rise up in their might before\nthey would submit to have fetters so galling forged on their conscience?\nAnd yet this is precisely the odious legislation which the Prussian\ngovernment is enacting against the Church. And the Catholic Church, in\nresisting these laws, is not only fighting her own battles, but she is\ncontending for the principle of freedom of conscience everywhere.\n\nBut, thank God, we live in a country where liberty of conscience is\nrespected, and where the civil constitution holds over us the \u00e6gis of her\nprotection, without intermeddling with ecclesiastical affairs. From my\nheart, I say: America, with all thy faults, I love thee still. Perhaps at\nthis moment there is no nation on the face of the earth where the Church\nis less trammelled, and where she has more liberty to carry out her\nsublime destiny than in these United States.\n\nFor my part, I much prefer the system which prevails in this country,\nwhere the temporal needs of the Church are supplied by voluntary\ncontributions of the faithful, to the system which obtains in some\nCatholic countries of Europe, where the Church is supported by the\ngovernment, thereby making feeble reparation for the gross injustice it\nhas done to the Church by its former wholesale confiscation of\necclesiastical property. And the Church pays dearly for this indemnity,\nfor she has to bear the perpetual attempts at interference and the\nvexatious enactments of the civil power, which aims at making her wholly\ndependent upon itself.\n\nSome years ago, on my return from Rome, in company with the late\nArchbishop Spalding I paid a visit to the Bishop of Annecy, in Savoy. I\nwas struck by the splendor of his palace and saw a sentinel at the door,\nplaced there by the French government as a guard of honor. But the\nvenerable Bishop soon disabused me of my favorable impressions. He told me\nthat he was in a state of gilded slavery. I cannot, said he, build as much\nas a sacristy without obtaining permission of the government.\n\nI do not wish to see the day when the Church will invoke or receive any\ngovernment aid to build our churches, or to pay the salary of our clergy,\nfor the government may then begin to dictate to us what doctrines we ought\nto preach. If it is a great wrong to muzzle the press, it is a greater\nwrong to muzzle the pulpit. No amount of State subsidy would compensate\nfor the evils resulting from the Government censorship of the Gospel, and\nthe suppression of Apostolic freedom in proclaiming it. St. Paul exults in\nthe declaration that, though he is personally in chains, the word of God\nis not enchained.(316)\n\nAnd moreover, in proportion as State patronage would increase, the\nsympathy and aid of the faithful would diminish.\n\nMay the happy condition of things now existing among us always continue,\nin which the relations between the clergy and the people will be direct\nand immediate, in which Bishops and Priests will bestow upon their\nspiritual children their voluntary labors, their tender solicitude, their\npaternal affection, and pour out like water their hearts\u2019 blood, if\nnecessary; and in which they will receive in return the free-will\nofferings\u2014the devotion and gratitude of a filial people.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XVIII.\n\n\nCHARGES OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Spanish Inquisition.\n\n\nBut did not the Spanish Inquisition exercise enormous cruelties against\nheretics and Jews? I am not the apologist of the Spanish Inquisition, and\nI have no desire to palliate or excuse the excesses into which that\ntribunal may at times have fallen. From my heart I abhor and denounce\nevery species of violence, and injustice, and persecution of which the\nSpanish Inquisition may have been guilty. And in raising my voice against\ncoercion for conscience\u2019 sake I am expressing not only my own sentiments,\nbut those of every Catholic Priest and layman in the land.\n\nOur Catholic ancestors, for the last three hundred years, have suffered so\nmuch for freedom of conscience that they would rise up in judgment against\nus were we to become the advocates and defenders of religious persecution.\nWe would be a disgrace to our sires were we to trample on the principle of\nliberty which they held dearer than life.\n\nWhen I denounce the cruelties of the Inquisition I am not standing aloof\nfrom the Church, but I am treading in her footprints. Bloodshed and\npersecution form no part of the creed of the Catholic Church. So much does\nshe abhor the shedding of blood that a man becomes disqualified to serve\nas a minister at her altars who, by act or counsel, voluntarily sheds the\nblood of another. Before you can convict the Church of intolerance you\nmust first bring forward some authentic act of her Popes or Councils\nsanctioning the policy of vengeance. In all my readings I have yet to find\none decree of hers advocating torture or death for conscience\u2019 sake. She\nis indeed intolerant of error; but her only weapons against error are\nthose pointed out by St. Paul to Timothy: \u201cPreach the word; be instant in\nseason, out of season; reprove, entreat; rebuke with all patience and\ndoctrine.\u201d(317)\n\nBut you will tell me: Were not the authors of the Inquisition children of\nthe Church, and did they not exercise their enormities in her name?\nGranted. But I ask you: Is it just or fair to hold the Church responsible\nfor those acts of her children which she disowns? You do not denounce\nliberty as mockery because many crimes are committed in her name; neither\ndo you hold a father accountable for the sins of his disobedient children.\n\nWe should also bear in mind that the Spaniards were not the only people\nwho have proscribed men for the exercise of their religious belief. If we\ncalmly study the history of other nations our enmity towards Spain will\nconsiderably relax, and we shall have to reserve for her neighbors a\nportion of our indignation. No impartial student of history will deny that\nthe leaders of the reformed religions, whenever they gained the\nascendency, exercised violence toward those who differed from them in\nfaith. I mention this not by way of recrimination, nor in palliation of\nthe proscriptions of the Spanish government; for one offence is not\njustified by another. My object is merely to show that \u201cthey who live in\nglass houses should not throw stones;\u201d and that it is not honest to make\nSpain the scapegoat, bearing alone on her shoulders the odium of religious\nintolerance.\n\nIt should not be forgotten that John Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the\nstake for heresy; that the arch-reformer not only avowed but also\njustified the deed in his writings; and that he established in Geneva an\nInquisition for the punishment of refractory Christians.\n\nIt should also be remembered that Luther advocated the most merciless\ndoctrine towards the Jews. According to his apologist Seckendorf, the\nGerman Reformer said that their synagogues ought to be destroyed, their\nhouses pulled down, their prayer-books, and even the books of the Old\nTestament, to be taken from them. Their rabbis ought to be forbidden to\nteach and be compelled to gain their livelihood by hard labor.\n\nIt should also be borne in mind that Henry VIII. and his successors for\nmany generations inflicted fines, imprisonment and death on thousands of\ntheir subjects for denying the spiritual supremacy of the temporal\nsovereign. This galling Inquisition lasted for nearly three hundred years,\nand the severity of its decrees scarcely finds a parallel in the Spanish\nInquisition. Prescott avows that the administration of Elizabeth was \u201cnot\na whit less despotic and scarcely less sanguinary than\u201d(318) that of\nIsabella. The clergy of Ireland, under Cromwell, were ordered, under pain\nof death, to quit their country, and theological students were obliged to\npursue their studies in foreign seminaries. Any Priest who dared to return\nto his native country forfeited his life. Whoever harbored a Priest\nsuffered death, and they who knew his hiding-place and did not reveal it\nto the Inquisitors had both their ears cut off.\n\nAt this very moment not only in England, but in Ireland, Scotland and\nHolland, Protestants are worshiping in some of the churches erected by the\npiety of our Catholic forefathers and wrested from them by violence.\n\nObserve, also, that in all these instances the persecutions were inflicted\nby the express authority of the _founders_ and _heads_ of Protestant\nchurches.\n\nThe Puritans of New England inflicted summary vengeance on those who were\nrash enough to differ from them in religion. In Massachusetts \u201cthe Quakers\nwere whipped, branded, had their ears cut off, their tongues bored with\nhot irons, and were banished upon pain of death in case of their return\nand actually executed upon the gallows.\u201d(319)\n\nWho is ignorant of the number of innocent creatures that suffered death in\nthe same State on the ridiculous charge of witchcraft toward the end of\nthe seventeenth century? Well does it become their descendants to taunt\nCatholics with the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition!\n\nIn the religious riots of Philadelphia in 1844 Catholic churches were\nburned down in the name of Protestantism and private houses were sacked. I\nwas informed by an eyewitness that owners of houses were obliged to mark\non their doors these words, _This house belongs to Protestants_, in order\nto save their property from the infuriated incendiaries. For these acts I\nnever heard of any retaliation on the part of Catholics, and I hope I\nnever shall, no matter how formidable may be their numbers and tempting\nthe provocation.\n\nIn spite of the boasted toleration of our times, it cannot be denied that\nthere still lurks a spirit of inquisition, which does not, indeed, vent\nitself in physical violence, but is, nevertheless, most galling to its\nvictims. How many persons have I met in the course of my ministry who were\nostracized by their kindred and friends, driven from home, nay,\ndisinherited by their parents, for the sole crime of carrying out the very\nshibboleth of Protestantism\u2014the exercise of private judgment, and of\nobeying the dictates of their conscience, by embracing the Catholic faith!\nIs not this the most exquisite torture that can be inflicted on refined\nnatures?\n\nAh! there is an imprisonment more lonely than the dungeon; it is the\nimprisonment of our most cherished thoughts in our own hearts, without a\nmember of the family with whom to communicate.\n\nThere is a sword more keen than the executioner\u2019s knife; it is the\nenvenomed tongue of obloquy and abuse. There is a banishment less\ntolerable than exile from one\u2019s country; it is the excommunication from\nthe parental roof and from the affections of those we love.\n\nHave I a right to hold the members of the Episcopal, Lutheran,\nPresbyterian and Congregationalist churches responsible for these\nproscriptive measures to which I have referred, most of which have been\nauthorized by their respective founders and leaders? God forbid! I know\nfull well that these acts of cruelty form no part of the creed of the\nProtestant churches. I have been acquainted with Protestants from my\nyouth. They have been among my most intimate and cherished friends, and,\nfrom my knowledge of them, I am convinced that they would discountenance\nany physical violence which would be inflicted on their fellow-citizens on\naccount of their religious convictions. They would justly tell me that the\npersecutions of former years of which I have spoken should be ascribed to\nthe peculiar and unhappy state of society in which their ancestors lived,\nrather than to the inherent principles of their religion.\n\nFor precisely the same reasons, and for reasons still more forcible,\nProtestants should not reproach the Catholic Church for the atrocities of\nthe Spanish Inquisition. The persecutions to which I have alluded were for\nthe most part perpetrated by the founders and heads of the Protestant\nchurches, while the rigors of the Spanish tribunal were inflicted by\nlaymen and subordinate ecclesiastics, either without the knowledge or in\nspite of the protests of the Bishops of Rome.\n\nLet us now present the Inquisition in its true light. In the first place,\nthe number of its victims has been wildly exaggerated, as even Prescott is\nforced to admit. The popular historian of the Inquisition is Llorente,\nfrom whom our American authors generally derive their information on this\nsubject. Now who was Llorente? He was a degraded Priest, who was dismissed\nfrom the Board of Inquisitors, of which he had been Secretary. Actuated by\ninterest and revenge, he wrote his history at the instance of Joseph\nBonaparte, the new King of Spain, and, to please his royal master he did\nall he could to blacken the character of that institution. His testimony,\ntherefore, should be received with great reserve. To give you one instance\nof his unreliability, he quotes the historian Mariana as his authority for\nsaying that two thousand persons were put to death in one year in the\ndioceses of Seville and Cadiz alone. By referring to the pages of Mariana\nwe find that author saying that two thousand were put to death _in all\nSpain during the entire administration of Torquemada, which embraced a\nperiod of fifteen years_.\n\nBefore beginning to examine the character of this tribunal it must be\nclearly understood that the Spanish Inquisition was not a purely\necclesiastical institution, but a mixed tribunal. It was conceived,\nsystematized, regulated in all its procedures and judgments, equipped with\nofficers and powers, and its executions, fines and confiscations were\ncarried out by the royal authority alone, and not by the Church.(320)\n\nTo understand the true character of the Spanish Inquisition, and the\nmotives which prompted King Ferdinand in establishing that tribunal, we\nmust take a glance at the internal condition of Spain at the close of the\nfifteenth century. After a struggle of eight centuries the Spanish nation\nsucceeded in overthrowing the Moors, and in planting the national flag\nover the entire country. At last the Cross conquered the Crescent, and\nChristianity triumphed over Mahometanism. The empire was consolidated\nunder the joint reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.\n\nBut there still remained elements of discord in the nation. The population\nwas composed of three conflicting races\u2014the Spaniards, Moors and Jews.\nPerhaps the difficulties which beset our own Government in its efforts to\nharmonize the white, the Indian and the colored population, will give us\nsome idea of the formidable obstacles with which the Spanish court had to\ncontend in its efforts to cement into one compact nation a conquering and\na conquered people of different race and religion.\n\nThe Jews and the Moors were disaffected toward the Spanish government not\nonly on political, but also on religious grounds. They were suspected, and\nnot unjustly, of desiring to transfer their allegiance from the King of\nSpain to the King of Barbary or to the Grand Turk.\n\nThe Spanish Inquisition was accordingly erected by King Ferdinand, less\nfrom motives of religious zeal than from those of human policy. It was\nestablished, not so much with the view of preserving the Catholic faith,\nas of perpetuating the integrity of his kingdom. The Moors and Jews were\nlooked upon not only as enemies of the altar, but chiefly as enemies of\nthe throne. Catholics were upheld not for their faith alone, but because\nthey united faith to loyalty. The baptized Moors and Israelites were\noppressed for their heresy because their heresy was allied to sedition.\n\nIt must be remembered that in those days heresy, especially if outspoken,\nwas regarded not only as an offence against religion, but also as a crime\nagainst the state, and was punished accordingly. This condition of things\nwas not confined to Catholic Spain, but prevailed across the sea in\nProtestant England. We find Henry VIII. and his successors pursuing the\nsame policy in Great Britain toward their Catholic subjects and punishing\nCatholicism as a crime against the state, just as Islamism and Judaism\nwere proscribed in Spain.\n\nIt was, therefore, rather a royal and political than an ecclesiastical\ninstitution. The King nominated the Inquisitors, who were equally composed\nof lay and clerical officials. He dismissed them at will. From the King,\nand not from the Pope, they derived their jurisdiction, and into the\nKing\u2019s coffers, and not into the Pope\u2019s, went all the emoluments accruing\nfrom fines and confiscations. In a word, the authority of the Inquisition\nbegan and ended with the crown.\n\nIn confirmation of these assertions I shall quote from Ranke, a German\nProtestant historian, who cannot be suspected of partiality to the\nCatholic Church. \u201cIn the first place,\u201d says this author, \u201cthe Inquisitors\nwere royal officers. The Kings had the right of appointing and dismissing\nthem.... The courts of the Inquisition were subject, like other\nmagistracies, to royal visitors. \u2018Do you not know,\u2019 said the King (to\nXimenes), \u2018that if this tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it is from the\nKing it derives it?\u2019\n\n\u201cIn the second place, all the profit of the confiscations by this court\naccrued to the King. These were carried out in a very unsparing manner.\nThough the _fueros_ (privileges) of Aragon forbade the King to confiscate\nthe property of his convicted subjects, he deemed himself exalted above\nthe law in matters pertaining to this court.... The proceeds of these\nconfiscations formed a sort of regular income for the royal exchequer. It\nwas even believed, and asserted from the beginning, that the Kings had\nbeen moved to establish and countenance this tribunal more by their\nhankering after the wealth it confiscated than by motives of piety.\n\n\u201cIn the third place, it was the Inquisition, and the Inquisition alone,\nthat completely shut out all extraneous interference with the state. The\nsovereign had now at his disposal a tribunal from which no grandee, no\nArchbishop, could withdraw himself. As Charles knew no other means of\nbringing certain punishment on the Bishops who had taken part in the\ninsurrection of the _Communidades_ (or communes who were struggling for\ntheir rights and liberties), he chose to have them judged by the\nInquisition....\n\n\u201cIt was in spirit and tendency a political institution. _The Pope had an\ninterest in thwarting it, and he did so_; but the King had an interest in\nconstantly upholding it.\u201d(321)\n\nThat the Inquisition acted independently of the Holy See, and that even\nthe Catholic hierarchy fell under the ban of this royal tribunal, is also\napparent from the following fact: After the convening of the Council of\nTrent, Bartholomew Caranza, Archbishop of Toledo, was arrested by the\nInquisition on a charge of heresy, and his release from prison could not\nbe obtained either by the interposition of Pius IV. or the remonstrance of\nthe Council.\n\nIt is true that Sixtus IV., yielding to the importunities of Queen\nIsabella, consented to its establishment, being advised that it was\nnecessary for the preservation of order in the kingdom; but in 1481, the\nyear following its introduction, when the Jews complained to him of its\nseverity, the same Pontiff issued a Bull against the Inquisitors, as\nPrescott informs us, in which \u201che rebuked their intemperate zeal and even\nthreatened them with deprivation.\u201d He wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella that\n\u201cmercy towards the guilty was more pleasing to God than the severity which\nthey were using.\u201d\n\nWhen the Pope could not eradicate the evil he encouraged the sufferers to\nflee to Rome, where they found an asylum, and where he took the fugitives\nunder his protection. In two years he received four hundred and fifty\nrefugees from Spain. Did the Pontiff send them back, or did he inflict\nvengeance on them at home? Far from it; they were restored to all the\nrights of citizens. How can we imagine that the Pope would encourage in\nSpain the legalized murder of men whom he protected from violence in his\nown city, where he might have crushed them with impunity? I can find no\nauthenticated instance of any Pope putting to death, in his own dominions,\na single individual for his religious belief.\n\nMoreover, sometimes the Pope, when he could not reach the victims,\ncensured and excommunicated the Inquisitor, and protected the children of\nthose whose property was confiscated to the crown.\n\nAfter a struggle he succeeded in preventing the Spanish government from\nestablishing its Inquisition in Naples or Milan, which then belonged to\nSpain, so great was his abhorence of its cruelties.\n\nTo sum up: I have endeavored to show that the Church disavows all\nresponsibility for the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, because\noppression forms no part of her creed; that these atrocities have been\ngrossly exaggerated; that the Inquisition was a political tribunal; that\nCatholic Prelates were amenable to its sentence as well as Moors and Jews,\nand that the Popes denounced and labored hard to abolish its sanguinary\nfeatures.\n\nAnd yet Rome has to bear all the odium of the Inquisition!\n\nI heartily pray that religious intolerance may never take root in our\nfavored land. May the only king to force our conscience be the King of\nkings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or\nmisbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience; and may our only motive\nfor embracing truth be not the fear of man, but the love of truth and of\nGod.\n\n\n\n\nII. What About The Massacre Of St. Bartholomew?\n\n\nI have no words strong enough to express my detestation of that inhuman\nslaughter. It is true that the number of its victims has been grossly\nexaggerated by partisan writers, but that is no extenuation of the crime\nitself. I most emphatically assert that the Church had no act or part in\nthis atrocious butchery, except to deplore the event and weep over its\nunhappy victims. Here are the facts briefly presented:\n\nFirst\u2014In the reign of Charles IX. of France the Huguenots were a\nformidable power and a seditious element in that country. They were under\nthe leadership of Admiral Coligny, who was plotting the overthrow of the\nruling monarch. The French King, instigated by his mother, Catherine de\nMedicis, and fearing the influence of Coligny, whom he regarded as an\naspirant to the throne, compassed his assassination, as well as that of\nhis followers in Paris, August 24th, 1572. This deed of violence was\nfollowed by an indiscriminate massacre in the French capital and other\ncities of France by an incendiary populace, who are easily aroused but not\neasily appeased.\n\nSecond\u2014Religion had nothing to do with the massacre. Coligny and his\nfellow Huguenots were slain not on account of their creed, but exclusively\non account of their alleged treasonable designs. If they had nothing but\ntheir Protestant faith to render them odious to King Charles, they would\nnever have been molested; for, neither did Charles nor his mother ever\nmanifest any special zeal for the Catholic Church nor any special aversion\nto Protestantism, unless when it threatened the throne.\n\nThird\u2014Immediately after the massacre Charles despatched an envoy\nextraordinary to each of the courts of Europe, conveying the startling\nintelligence that the King and royal family had narrowly escaped from a\nhorrible conspiracy, and that its authors had been detected and summarily\npunished. The envoys, in their narration, carefully suppressed any\nallusion to the indiscriminate massacre which had taken place, but\nannounced the event in the following words: On that \u201cmemorable night, by\nthe destruction of a few seditious men, the King had been delivered from\nimmediate danger of death, and the realm from the perpetual terror of\ncivil war.\u201d\n\nPope Gregory XIII., to whom also an envoy was sent, acting on this garbled\ninformation, ordered a \u201cTe Deum\u201d to be sung, and a commemorative medal to\nbe struck in thanksgiving to God, not for the massacre, of which he was\nutterly ignorant, but for the preservation of the French King from an\nuntimely and violent death, and of the French nation from the horrors of a\ncivil war.\n\nSismondi, a Protestant historian, tells us that the Pope\u2019s nuncio in Paris\nwas purposely kept in ignorance of the designs of Charles; and Ranke, in\nhis _History of the Civil Wars_, informs us that Charles and his mother\nsuddenly left Paris in order to avoid an interview with the Pope\u2019s legate,\nwho arrived soon after the massacre; their guilty conscience fearing, no\ndoubt, a rebuke from the messenger of the Vicar of Christ, from whom the\nreal facts were not long concealed.\n\nFourth\u2014It is scarcely necessary to vindicate the innocence of the Bishops\nand clergy of France in this transaction, as no author, how hostile soever\nto the Church, has ever, to my knowledge, accused them of any complicity\nin the heinous massacre.\n\nOn the contrary, they used their best efforts to arrest the progress of\nthe assailants, to prevent further bloodshed and to protect the lives of\nthe fugitives. More than three hundred Calvinists were sheltered from the\nassassins by taking refuge in the house of the Archbishop of Lyons. The\nBishops of Lisieux, Bordeaux, Toulouse and of other cities offered similar\nprotection to those who sought safety in their homes.\n\nThus we see that the Church slept in tranquil ignorance of the stormy\nscene until she was aroused to a knowledge of the tempest by the sudden\nuproar it created. Like her Divine Spouse on the troubled waters, she\npresents herself only to say to them: \u201cPeace be still.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nIII. Mary, Queen of England.\n\n\nI am asked: _Must you not admit that Mary, Queen of England, persecuted\nthe Protestants of the British realm_? I ask this question in reply: _How\nis it that Catholics are persistently reproached __ for the persecutions\nunder Mary\u2019s reign, while scarcely a voice is raised in condemnation of\nthe legalized fines, confiscations and deaths inflicted on the Catholics\nof Great Britain and Ireland for three hundred years\u2014from the\nestablishment of the church of England, in 1534, to the time of the\nCatholic emancipation?_ Elizabeth\u2019s hands were steeped in the blood of\nCatholics, Puritans and Anabaptists. Why are these cruelties suppressed or\nglossed over, while those of Mary form the burden of every nursery tale?\nIs it because persecution becomes justice when Catholics happen to be the\nvictims, or is it because they are expected, from long usage, to be\ninsensible to torture?\n\nIf we weigh in the scales of impartial justice the reigns of both sisters,\nwe shall be compelled to bring a far more severe verdict against\nElizabeth.\n\nFirst\u2014Mary reigned only five years and four months. Elizabeth\u2019s reign\nlasted forty-four years and four months. The younger sister, therefore,\nswayed the sceptre of authority nearly nine times longer than the elder;\nand the number of Catholics who suffered for their faith during the long\nadministration of Elizabeth may be safely said to exceed in the same\nproportion the victims of Mary\u2019s reign. Hallam asserts that \u201cthe rack\nseldom stood idle in the tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth\u2019s\nreign;\u201d(322) and its very first month was stained by an intolerant\nstatute.(323)\n\nSecond\u2014The most unpardonable act of Mary\u2019s life, in the judgment of her\ncritics, was the execution of Lady Jane Grey. But Lady Jane was guilty of\nhigh treason, having usurped the throne of England, which she occupied for\nnine days. Elizabeth put to death her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, after a\nlong imprisonment, on the unsustained charge of aspiring to the English\nthrone.\n\nThird\u2014Mary\u2019s zeal was exercised in behalf of the religion of her\nforefathers, and of the faith established in England for nearly a thousand\nyears.\n\nElizabeth\u2019s zeal was employed in extending the new creed introduced by her\nfather in a moment of passion, and modified by herself. Surely, the\ncoercive enforcement of a new creed is more odious than the rigorous\nmaintenance of the time-honored faith of a nation.\n\nMary, therefore, insisted on perpetuating the established order of things;\nElizabeth on subverting it.\n\nFourth\u2014The elder sister was propagating what she believed to be the\nunchangeable and infallible doctrines of Jesus Christ; the younger sister\nwas propagating her own and her father\u2019s novel and more or less uncertain\nopinions.\n\nFifth\u2014While Mary had no private or personal motives in oppressing\nProtestants, Elizabeth\u2019s hostility to the Catholic Church was intensified,\nif not instigated, by her hatred of the Pope, who had declared her\nillegitimate. Her legitimacy before the world depended on the success of\nthe new religion, which had legalized her father\u2019s divorce from Catherine.\n\nSixth\u2014Hence as Macaulay says, Mary was sincere in her religion; Elizabeth\nwas not. \u201cHaving no scruple about conforming to the Romish Church when\nconformity was necessary to her own safety, retaining to the last moment\nof her life a fondness for much of the doctrine and much of the ceremonial\nof that Church, she yet subjected that Church to a persecution even more\nodious than the persecution with which her sister had harassed the\nProtestants. Mary ... did nothing for her religion which she was not\nprepared to suffer for it. She had held it firmly under persecution. She\nfully believed it to be essential to salvation. Elizabeth, in opinion, was\nlittle more than half a Protestant. She had professed, when it suited her,\nto be wholly a Catholic.... What can be said in defence of a ruler who is\nat once indifferent and intolerant?\u201d(324)\n\nAn intelligent gentleman in North Carolina once said to me tauntingly,\nWhat do you think of bloody Mary? Did you ever hear, I replied, of her\nsister\u2019s cruelties to Catholics? He answered that he never read of that\n_mild_ woman persecuting for conscience\u2019 sake. I was amazed at his words,\nuntil he acknowledged that his historical library was comprised in one\nwork\u2014_D\u2019 Aubign\u00e9\u2019s History of the Reformation_. That _veracious_ author\nhas prudently suppressed, or delicately touched, Elizabeth\u2019s peccadilloes\nas not coming within the scope of his plan. How many are found, like our\nNorth Carolina gentleman, who are familiar from their childhood with the\nname of _Smithfield_, but who never once heard of _Tyburn_!\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XIX.\n\n\nGRACE\u2014THE SACRAMENTS\u2014ORIGINAL SIN\u2014BAPTISM\u2014ITS NECESSITY\u2014ITS EFFECTS\u2014MANNER\nOF BAPTIZING.\n\n\nThe grace of God is that supernatural assistance which He imparts to us,\nthrough the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation. It is called\n_supernatural_, because no one by his own natural ability can acquire it.\n\nWithout Divine grace we can neither conceive nor accomplish anything for\nthe sanctification of our souls. \u201cNot that we are sufficient,\u201d says the\nApostle, \u201cto think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves; but our\nsufficiency is from God.\u201d(325) \u201cFor it is God who worketh in you, both to\nwill and to accomplish\u201d(326) anything conducive to your salvation.\n\u201cWithout Me,\u201d says our Lord, \u201cyou can do nothing.\u201d(327) But in order that\nDivine grace may effectually aid us we must co-operate with it, or at\nleast we must not resist it.\n\nThe grace of God is obtained chiefly by prayer and the Sacraments.\n\nA Sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Christ by which grace is\nconveyed to our souls. Three things are necessary to constitute a\nSacrament, viz.\u2014a visible sign, invisible grace and the institution by our\nLord Jesus Christ.\n\nThus, in the Sacrament of Baptism, there is the outward sign, which\nconsists in the pouring of water and in the formula of words which are\nthen pronounced; the interior grace or sanctification which is imparted to\nthe soul: \u201cBe baptized, ... and you shall receive the gift of the Holy\nGhost;\u201d(328) and the ordinance of Jesus Christ, who said: \u201cTeach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost.\u201d(329)\n\nOur Savior instituted seven Sacraments, namely, Baptism, Confirmation,\nEucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders and Matrimony, which I shall\nexplain separately.\n\nAccording to the teachings of Holy Writ, man was created in a state of\ninnocence and holiness, and after having spent on this earth his allotted\nterms of years he was destined, without tasting death, to be translated to\nthe perpetual society of God in heaven.(330) But in consequence of his\ndisobedience he fell from his high estate of righteousness; his soul was\ndefiled by sin; he became subject to death and to various ills of body and\nsoul and forfeited his heavenly inheritance.\n\nAdam\u2019s transgression was not confined to himself, but was transmitted,\nwith its long train of dire consequences, to all his posterity. It is\ncalled _original_ sin because it is derived from our original progenitor.\n\u201cWherefore,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cas by one man sin entered into this world,\nand by sin death, and so death passed unto all men, in whom all have\nsinned.\u201d(331) And elsewhere he tells us that \u201cwe were by nature children\nof wrath.\u201d(332)\n\n\u201cWho,\u201d says Job, \u201ccan make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed,\u201d\nor, as the Septuagint version expresses it: \u201cThere is no one free from\nstain, not even though his life be of one day.\u201d(333) As an infant one day\nold cannot commit an actual sin, the _stain_ must come from the original\noffense of Adam. \u201cBehold,\u201d says David, \u201cI was conceived in iniquities, and\nin sins did my mother conceive me.\u201d(334) The Scripture also tells us that\nJeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before their birth, or\npurified from sin, and, of course, at that period of their existence they\nwere incapable of actual sin. They were cleansed, therefore, from the\noriginal taint.\n\nThese passages clearly show that we have all inherited the transgression\nof our first parents, and that we are born enemies of God. And it is\nequally plain that these texts apply to every member of the human\nfamily\u2014to the infant of a day old as well as to the adult.\n\nIndeed, even without the light of Holy Scripture, we have only to look\ninto ourselves to be convinced that our nature has undergone a rude shock.\nHow else can we account for the miseries and infirmities of our bodies,\nthe blindness of our understanding, the perversity of our will\u2014inclined\nalways to evil rather than to good\u2014the violence of our passions, which are\nconstantly waging war in our hearts? How well does the Catholic doctrine\nexplain this abnormal state. Hence, Paschal truly says that man is a\ngreater mystery to himself without original sin than is the mystery\nitself.\n\nThe Church, however, declares that the Blessed Virgin Mary was exempted\nfrom the stain of original sin by the merits of our Savior Jesus Christ;\nand that, consequently, she was never for an instant subject to the\ndominion of Satan.\n\nThis is what is meant by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.\n\nBut God, in passing sentence of condemnation on Adam, consoled him by the\npromise of a Redeemer to come. \u201cI will put enmities,\u201d saith the Lord,\n\u201cbetween thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush\nthy head.\u201d(335) Jesus, the seed of Mary, is the chosen one who was\ndestined to crush the head of the infernal serpent. And \u201cwhen the fulness\nof time was come God sent His Son, made of a woman, ... that He might\nredeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of\nsons.\u201d(336)\n\nJesus Christ, our Redeemer, came to wash away the defilement from our\nsouls and to restore us to that Divine friendship which we had lost by the\nsin of Adam. He is the second Adam, who came to repair the iniquity of the\nfirst. It was our Savior\u2019s privilege to prescribe the conditions on which\nour reconciliation with God was to be effected.\n\nNow He tells us in His Gospel that Baptism is the essential means\nestablished for washing away the stain of original sin and the door by\nwhich we find admittance into His Church, which may be called the second\nEden. We must all submit to a new birth, or regeneration, before we can\nenter the kingdom of heaven. Water is the appropriate instrument of this\nnew birth, as it indicates the interior cleansing of the soul; and the\nHoly Ghost, the Giver of spiritual life, is its Author.\n\nThe Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for all, for infants as well\nas adults, and her doctrine rests on the following grounds:\n\nOur Lord says to Nicodemus: \u201cAmen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be\nborn again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nGod.\u201d(337) These words embrace the whole human family, without regard to\nage or sex, as is evident from the original Greek text, for \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, which is\nrendered _man_ in our English translation, means any one\u2014mankind in its\nbroadest acceptation.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul, although containing\nonly a fragmentary account of the ministry of the Apostles, plainly\ninsinuate that the Apostles baptized children as well as grown persons. We\nare told, for instance, that Lydia \u201cwas baptized, and her household,\u201d(338)\nby St. Paul; and that the jailer \u201cwas baptized, and all his family.\u201d(339)\nThe same Apostle baptized also \u201cthe household of Stephanas.\u201d(340) Although\nit is not expressly stated that there were children among these baptized\nfamilies, the presumption is strongly in favor of the supposition that\nthere were. But if any doubt exists regarding the Apostolic practice of\nbaptizing infants it is easily removed by referring to the writings of the\nprimitive Fathers of the Church, who, as they were the immediate\nsuccessors of the Apostles, ought to be the best interpreters of their\ndoctrines and practice.\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the\nEvangelist, says: \u201cChrist came to save all through Himself; all, I say,\n_who are born anew_ (or baptized) through Him\u2014infants and little ones,\nboys and youths, and aged persons.\u201d(341)\n\nOrigen, who lived a few years later, writes: \u201cThe Church received the\ntradition from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants.\u201d(342)\n\nThe early church of Africa bears triumphant testimony in vindication of\ninfant baptism. St. Cyprian and sixty-six suffragan Prelates held a\ncouncil in the metropolitan city of Carthage, in the year 253. While the\nCouncil is in session a Prelate named Fidus writes to the Fathers, asking\nthem whether infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day succeeding\ntheir birth, or on the eighth day, in accordance with the practice of\ncircumcision. The Bishops unanimously subscribe to the following reply:\n\u201cAs to what regards the baptism of infants, ... we all judged that the\nmercy and grace of God should be denied to no human being from the moment\nof his birth. If even to the greatest delinquents the remission of sins is\ngranted, how much less should the infant be repelled, who, being recently\nborn according to Adam, has contracted at his first birth the contagion of\nthe ancient death.\u201d(343) The African Council asserts here two prominent\nfacts\u2014the universal contagion of the human race through Adam\u2019s fall, and\nthe universal necessity of Baptism without distinction of age.\n\nUpon this decision, I will make two observations: First\u2014Fidus did not\ninquire about the necessity of infant baptism, which he already admitted,\nbut about the propriety of conferring it on the eighth day, in imitation\nof the Jewish law of circumcision. Second\u2014The Bishops assembled in that\nCouncil were as numerous as the whole Episcopate of the United States,\nwhich contains about five thousand Priests and upwards of six millions of\nCatholics. We may therefore reasonably conclude that the judgment of the\nAfrican Council represented the faith of several thousand Priests and\nseveral millions of Catholics.\n\nSt. Augustine, commenting on this decision, justly observes that St.\nCyprian and his colleagues made no new decree, but maintained most firmly\nthe faith of the Church. And this is the unanimous sentiment of tradition\nfrom the days of the Apostles to our own times.\n\nIs it not ludicrous as well as impious to see a few German fanatics, in\nthe sixteenth century, raising their feeble voice against the thunder\ntones of all Christendom, by decrying a practice which was universally\nheld as sacred and essential? In judging between the teachings of\nApostolical antiquity on the one hand and of the Anabaptists on the other,\nit is not hard to determine on which side lies the truth; for, what\nbecomes of the Christian Church, if it has erred on so vital a point as\nthat of Baptism during the entire period of its existence?\n\nOriginal sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is,\ntherefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam\u2019s disobedience.\nNow, the Scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of\nheaven.(344) Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as\nessential for the infant as for the full grown man, in order to attain the\nkingdom of heaven.\n\nI said that regeneration is necessary for all. But it is important to\nobserve that if a man is heartily sorry for his sins, if he loves God with\nhis whole heart, if he desires to comply with all the Divine ordinances,\nincluding Baptism, but has no opportunity of receiving it, or is not\nsufficiently instructed as to its necessity, God, in this case, accepts\nthe will for the deed. Should this man die in these dispositions, he is\nsaved by the _baptism of __ desire_, as happened to the Emperor\nValentinian who died a Catechuman: \u201cI lost him whom I was about to\nregenerate,\u201d says St. Ambrose, \u201cbut he did not lose that grace he sought\nfor.\u201d Or, if an unbaptized person lays down his life for Christ, his death\nis accepted as more than an equivalent for baptism; for he dies not only\nsanctified, but he will wear a martyr\u2019s crown. _He is baptized in his own\nblood._\n\nBut is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven\nso many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this\nI reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all? And is\nnot God the supreme Wisdom and Justice and Mercy? I am sure, then, that\nthere can be nothing cruel or unjust in God\u2019s decrees. The province of\nreason consists in ascertaining that God has spoken. When we know that He\nhas spoken, then our investigation ceases, and faith and obedience begin.\nInstead of impiously criticising the Divine decree, we should exclaim with\nthe Apostle: \u201cO! the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of\nGod! how incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His\nways! For, who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His\ncounsellor?\u201d(345)\n\nLet us remember that heaven is a place to which none of us has any\ninherent right or natural claim, but that it is promised to us by the pure\nfavor of God. He can reject and adopt whom He pleases, and can, without\ninjustice, prescribe His own conditions for accepting His proffered boon.\nIf your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does\nit no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any\ninalienable title. If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful\nfor the gift.\n\nIt is proper here to state briefly what the Church actually teaches\nregarding the future state of unbaptized infants. Though the Church, in\nobedience to God\u2019s Word, declares that unbaptized infants are excluded\nfrom the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are\nconsigned to the place of the reprobate. None are condemned to the\ntorments of the damned but such as merit Divine vengeance by their\npersonal sins.\n\nAll that the Church holds on this point is that unregenerate children are\ndeprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which\nconstitutes the essential happiness of the blessed.\n\nNow, between the supreme bliss of heaven and the torments of the\nreprobate, there is a very wide margin.\n\nAll admit that the condition of unbaptized infants is better than\nnon-existence. There are some Catholic writers of distinction who even\nassert that unbaptized infants enjoy a certain degree of natural\nbeatitude\u2014that is, a happiness which is based on the natural knowledge and\nlove of God.\n\nFrom what has been said you may well judge how reprehensible is the\nconduct of Catholic parents who neglect to have their children baptized at\nthe earliest possible moment, thereby risking their own souls, as well as\nthe souls of their innocent offspring. How different was the practice of\nthe early Christians, who, as St. Augustine testifies, hastened with their\nnew-born babes to the baptismal font that they might not be deprived of\nthe grace of regeneration.\n\nIf an infant is sick, no expense is spared that its life may be preserved.\nThe physician is called in, medicine is given to it, and the mother will\nspend sleepless nights watching every movement of the infant; she will\nsacrifice her repose, her health; nay, she will expose even her own life\nthat the life of her offspring may be saved. And yet the supernatural\nhappiness of the child is too often imperiled without remorse by the\ncriminal postponement of Baptism.\n\nBut if they are to be censured who are slow in having their children\nbaptized, what are we to think of that large body of professing Christians\nwho, on principle, deny Baptism to little ones till they come to the age\nof discretion? What are we to think of those who set their private\nopinions above Scripture, the early Fathers of the Church and the\nuniversal practice of Christendom?\n\nWe may smile indeed at a theological opinion, no matter how novel or\nerroneous it may be, so long as it does not involve any dangerous\nconsequences. But when it is given in a case of life and death, how\nterrible is the responsibility of those who propagate doctrines so\nerroneous!\n\nThe opposite practice of the Catholic and the Baptist churches, in their\ntreatment of the newborn infant, may be well compared to the conduct of\nthe true and the false mother who both claimed the child at the tribunal\nof Solomon. The king exclaimed: \u201cDivide the living child in two, and give\nhalf to the one and half to the other.\u201d The pretended mother consented,\nsaying: Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. \u201cBut the woman\nwhose child was alive, said to the king (for her bowels were moved upon\nher child): I beseech thee, my lord, give her the child alive, and do not\nkill it.\u201d While the Baptist church is willing that the child should die a\nspiritual death, the true mother, the Catholic Church, cries out: Keep the\nchild, provided its spiritual life is saved, even at your hands. Let it be\nclothed with the robe of innocence even by a stranger. Let it be nursed at\nthe breasts even of a step-mother. Better it should live without me than\nperish before my face. I will still be its mother, though it know me not.\n\nAh! my Baptist friend, you think that Baptism is not necessary for your\nchild\u2019s salvation. The old Church teaches the contrary. You admit that you\nmay be wrong, and it is a question of life and death. Take the safe side.\nGive your child the benefit of the doubt. Let it be baptized.\n\nBaptism washes away _original sin, and also actual sins_ from the adult\nwho may have contracted them. The cleansing efficacy of Baptism was\nclearly foreshadowed by the prophet Ezechiel in these words: \u201cI will pour\nupon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness.\nAnd I will give you a new heart and will put a new spirit within\nyou.\u201d(346)\n\nWhen the Jews asked St. Peter what they should do to be saved the Apostle\nreplied: \u201cRepent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus\nChrist for the remission of your sins.\u201d(347)\n\nAnd Ananias said to Saul, after his conversion: \u201cRise up and be baptized,\nand wash away thy sins.\u201d(348)\n\n\u201cWe were by nature,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cchildren of wrath,\u201d but by our\nregeneration, or new birth in Baptism, we become _Christians and children\nof God_. \u201cFor, ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.\nFor as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on\nChrist.\u201d(349) We are adopted into the same family with Jesus Christ. What\nHe is by nature we are by grace\u2014children of God, and consequently brethren\nof Christ. Nay, our union with Jesus is still more close. We become true\nmembers of His mystical body, which is His Church, and His Divine image is\nstamped upon our soul.\n\nBaptism also clothes us with the _garment of sanctity_, so that our soul\nbecomes a fit dwelling-place for the Holy Ghost. The Apostle, after giving\na fearful catalogue of the vices of the Pagans, says to the Corinthians:\n\u201cAnd such some of you were; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but\nye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit\nof God.\u201d(350)\n\nBaptism, in fine, makes us _heirs of heaven_ and co-heirs with Jesus\nChrist. \u201cWe ourselves also,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cwere sometimes unwise,\nincredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in\nmalice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the goodness\nand kindness of God our Savior appeared, ... He saved us by the laver of\nregeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom He hath poured forth\nabundantly upon us, through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified\nby His grace, we may be heirs, according to the hope of life\neverlasting.\u201d(351)\n\nHere we plainly see that the forgiveness of sin, the adoption into the\nfamily of God, the sanctification of the soul and the pledge of eternal\nlife are ascribed to the due reception of Baptism\u2014not, indeed, that water\nor the words of the minister have any intrinsic virtue to heal the soul,\nbut because Jesus Christ, whose word is creative power, is pleased to\nattach to this rite its wonderful efficacy of healing the soul, as He\nimparted to the pool of Bethsaida the power of healing the body.(352)\n\nFrom what has been said, I ask you candidly what are you to think of the\ndecision rendered in 1872 by the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal\nChurch, who, in their convention in Baltimore, declared that by the word\n_regeneration_ we are not to understand _a moral change_. If no moral\nchange is effected by Baptism, then there is no change at all; for\ncertainly Baptism produces no physical change in the soul.\n\nIs it no change to pass from sin to virtue, from a \u201cchild of wrath\u201d to be\na \u201cchild of God;\u201d from corruption to sanctification; from the condition of\nheirs of death to the inheritance of heaven? If all this implies no moral\nchange, then these words have lost their meaning.\n\n_Modes of baptizing._ The Baptists err in asserting that Baptism by\nimmersion is the only valid mode. Baptism may be validly administered in\neither of three ways, viz: by _immersion_, or by plunging the candidate\ninto the water; by _infusion_, or by pouring the water; and by\n_aspersion_, or sprinkling.\n\nAs our Lord nowhere prescribes any special form of administering the\nSacrament, the Church exercises her discretion in adopting the most\nconvenient mode, according to the circumstances of time and place.\n\nFor several centuries after the establishment of Christianity Baptism was\n_usually_ conferred by immersion; but since the twelfth century the\npractice of baptising by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as\nthis manner is attended with less inconvenience than Baptism by immersion.\n\nTo prove that Baptism by infusion or by sprinkling is as legitimate as by\nimmersion, it is only necessary to observe that, though immersion was the\nmore common practice in the Primitive Church, the Sacrament was frequently\nadministered even then by infusion and aspersion.\n\nAfter St. Peter\u2019s first discourse three thousand persons were\nbaptized.(353) It is not likely that so many could have been immersed in\none day, especially when we consider the time occupied in instructing the\ncandidates.\n\nOn reading the account of the Baptism of St. Paul and the jailer the\ncontext leaves a strong impression on the mind that both received the\nSacrament by aspersion or by infusion.\n\nEarly ecclesiastical history records a great many instances in which\nBaptism was administered to _sick persons_ in their beds, to _prisoners_\nin their cells, and to persons on _shipboard_. The Fathers of the Church\nnever called in question the validity or the legitimacy of such Baptisms.\nNow, it is almost impossible to believe that candidates in such situations\ncould receive the rite by immersion.\n\nWe have seen, moreover, that Baptism has always been declared necessary\nfor salvation. It is reasonable, hence, to believe that our Lord would\nhave afforded the greatest facility for the reception of so essential a\nSacrament.\n\nBut if Baptism by immersion only is valid, how many sick and delicate\npersons, how many prisoners and seafaring people, how many thousands\nliving in the frigid zone, or even in the temperate zone, in the depth of\nan inclement winter, though craving the grace of regeneration, would be\ndeprived of God\u2019s seal, or would receive it at the risk of their lives!\nSurely God does not ordinarily impose His ordinances upon us under such a\npenalty.\n\nMoreover, if immersion is the only valid form of Baptism, what has become\nof the millions of souls who, in every age and country, have been\nregenerated by the infusion or the aspersion of water in the Christian\nChurch?\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XX.\n\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION.\n\n\nConfirmation is a Sacrament in which, through the imposition of the\nBishop\u2019s hands, unction and prayer, baptized persons receive the Holy\nGhost, that they may steadfastly profess their faith and lead upright\nlives.\n\nThis Sacrament is called _Confirmation_, because it _confirms_ or\nstrengthens the soul by Divine grace. Sometimes it is named _the laying on\nof hands_, because the Bishop imposes his hands on those whom he confirms.\nIt is also known by the name of _Chrism_, because the forehead of the\nperson confirmed is anointed with chrism in the form of a cross.\n\nFrequent mention is made of this Sacrament in the Holy Scripture. In the\nActs it is written that \u201cWhen the Apostles who were in Jerusalem had heard\nthat Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and\nJohn, who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive\nthe Holy Ghost; for He was not yet come upon any of them, but they were\nonly baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on\nthem, and they received the Holy Ghost.\u201d(354)\n\nIt is also related that the disciples at Ephesus \u201cwere baptized in the\nname of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had imposed his hands upon them the\nHoly Ghost came upon them and they spoke tongues and prophesied.\u201d(355)\n\nIn his Epistle to the Hebrews St. Paul enumerates Confirmation, or the\nlaying on of hands, together with Baptism and Penance, among the\nfundamental truths of Christianity.(356)\n\nTo the Corinthians he writes: \u201cHe that confirmeth us with you in Christ,\nand that hath anointed us, is God; who also hath sealed us and given the\npledge of the Spirit in our hearts.\u201d(357) God _confirmeth_ us in faith; He\nhath _anointed_ us by spiritual unction, typified by the sacred chrism\nwhich is marked on our foreheads. He hath _sealed_ us by the indelible\ncharacter stamped on our souls, which is indicated by the sign of the\ncross impressed on us. He hath given the _pledge_ of the Holy Ghost in our\nhearts, by the testimony of a good conscience, as an earnest of future\nglory. The Bishop performs the external unction, but God, \u201cwho worketh all\nin all,\u201d sanctifies the soul by His secret operation.\n\nIt cannot be asserted that the laying on of hands and the graces which\nfollowed from it, as recorded in the Acts, were not intended to be\ncontinued after the Apostles\u2019 times, for there is no warrant for such an\nassumption. This function of imposing hands formed as regular and\nimperative a part of the Apostolic ministry as the duties which they\nexercised in preaching, baptizing, ordaining, etc. Hence the successors of\nthe Apostles in the nineteenth century have precisely the same authority\nand obligation to confirm as they have to preach, to baptize or to ordain.\n\nThose who were confirmed by the Apostles usually gave evidence of the\ngrace which they received by prophecy, the gift of tongues and the\nmanifestation of other miraculous powers. It may be asked: Why do not\nthese gifts accompany now the imposition of hands? I answer: Because they\nare no longer needed. The grace which the Apostolic disciples received was\nfor their personal sanctification. The gift of tongues which they\nexercised was intended by Almighty God to edify and enlighten the\nspectators, and to give Divine sanction to the Apostolic ministry. But now\nthat the Church is firmly established, and the Divine authority of her\nministry is clearly recognized, these miracles are no longer necessary.\nSt. Gregory illustrates this point by a happy comparison: As the sapling,\nhe says, when it is first planted is regularly watered by the gardener,\nwho softens the earth around it, that the sun and the moisture may nourish\nits roots until it takes deep root and it no longer requires any special\ncare, so the Church in her infancy had to be nourished by the miraculous\npower of God. But after it had taken root in the hearts of the people and\nspread its branches over the earth it was left to the ordinary agencies of\nProvidence.\n\nSt. Augustine writes also on the same subject: \u201cIn the first days (of the\nChurch) the Holy Ghost came down on believers, and they spoke in tongues\nwhich they had not learned.... These were miracles suited to the times....\nIs it now expected that they upon whom hands are laid should speak with\ntongues? Or, when we imposed hands on these children, did each of you wait\nto see whether they would speak with tongues?... If, then, there be not\nnow a testimony to the presence of the Holy Spirit by means of these\nmiracles, whence is it proved that he has received the Holy Spirit? Let\nhim ask his own heart; if he loves his brother, the Spirit of God abides\nin him.\u201d(358)\n\nFollowing in the footsteps of the Apostles we find the Fathers of the\nChurch, from the earliest age, recognizing Confirmation as a Divine and\nsacramental institution and proclaiming its salutary effects.\n\n\u201cThe flesh,\u201d says Tertullian, \u201cis _anointed_, that the soul may be\nconsecrated; the flesh is marked, that the soul may be fortified; the\nflesh is overshadowed _by the imposition of hands_, that the soul may be\nenlightened with the Spirit.\u201d(359)\n\nSt. Cyprian, speaking of the Christians baptized in Samaria, says:\n\u201cBecause they had received the legitimate baptism, ... what was wanting,\nthat was done by Peter and John, that prayer being made for them and hands\nimposed, the Holy Ghost should be invoked and poured forth upon them.\n_Which now also is done amongst us_, so that they who are baptized in the\nChurch are presented to the Bishops of the Church, and by our prayer and\nimposition of hands they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the\nseal of the Lord.\u201d(360)\n\nSt. Cyril of Jerusalem compares the sacred Chrism in Confirmation to the\nEucharist: \u201cYou were anointed with oil, being made sharers and partners of\nChrist. And see well that you regard it not as mere ointment; for, as the\nbread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no\nlonger mere bread but the body of Christ, so likewise this holy ointment\nis no longer common ointment after the invocation, but the gift of Christ\nand of the Holy Ghost, being rendered efficient by His Divinity. You were\nanointed on the forehead, that you might be delivered from the shame which\nthe first transgressor always experienced, and that you might contemplate\nthe glory of God with an unveiled countenance.... As Christ, after His\nbaptism and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, going forth overcame\nthe adversary, so you likewise, after holy baptism and the mysterious\nunction, clothed with the panoply of the Holy Ghost, stand against the\nadverse power and subdue it, saying: \u2018I can do all things in Christ, who\nstrengtheneth me.\u2019 \u201d(361)\n\nSt. Ambrose, commenting on these words of the Apostle, \u201cGod ... hath given\nus the pledge of the Spirit,\u201d (II. Cor. i. 22) expressly applies the text\nto the seal of Confirmation. \u201cRemember,\u201d he says, \u201cthat you have received\nthe spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of\ncounsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, the spirit of\nholy fear. God the Father hath sealed you; Christ the Lord hath\n_confirmed_ you, and hath given the pledge of the Spirit in your hearts,\n_as you have learned from the lesson read from the Apostle_.\u201d(362)\n\nSt. Ambrose here speaks of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost which are\nreceived in Confirmation, and every Bishop in our day invokes these same\ngifts on those whom he is about to confirm.\n\n\u201cDo you know,\u201d writes St. Jerome against the sect of Luciferians of his\ntime, \u201cthat it is the practice of the churches that the imposition of\nhands should be performed over baptized persons and the Holy Ghost thus\ninvoked? Do you ask where it is written? In the Acts of the Apostles; but\nwere there no Scriptural authority at hand the consent of the whole world\nin this regard would have the force of law.\u201d(363)\n\n\u201cYou willingly understand,\u201d says St. Augustine, \u201cby this ointment the\nSacrament of Chrism, which, indeed, in the class of visible seals is as\nsacred as Baptism itself.\u201d(364)\n\nThe Oriental schismatic churches recognize Confirmation as a Sacrament,\nand administer the rite as we do, by the imposition of hands and the\napplication of chrism. Now, some of these churches have been separated\nfrom the Catholic Church since the fourth and fifth centuries. This fact\nis an eloquent vindication of the Apostolic antiquity of Confirmation, and\nis an ample refutation of those who would ascribe to it a more recent\norigin.\n\nProtestantism, which made such havoc of the other Sacraments, did not fail\nto abolish Confirmation in its sweeping revolution.\n\nThe Episcopal church retains, indeed, the name of Confirmation in its\nritual, and even borrows a portion of our prayers and ceremonial. But, in\nopposition to the uniform teaching of the Catholic, as well as of all the\nOriental churches, both orthodox and schismatic, it declares Confirmation\nto be a mere rite and not a Sacrament.\n\nIn violation of the practice of all antiquity it mutilates the rite by\nomitting the sacred unction. It retains the shadow without the substance.\n\nIt raises, indeed, its hands over the candidates; but they are not the\nanointed hands of Peter or John, or Cyprian or Augustine, to whom it is\nsaid: \u201cWhatsoever thou shalt bless, let it be blessed; whatsoever thou\nshalt sanctify, let it be sanctified.\u201d(365) Their hands were lifted up\nwith authority and clothed with supernatural power; but the hands of the\nEpiscopal Bishops are spiritually paralyzed by the suicidal act of the\nReformers, and they expressly disclaim any sacramental efficacy in the\nrite which they administer.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XXI.\n\n\nTHE HOLY EUCHARIST.\n\n\nAmong the various dogmas of the Catholic Church there is none which rests\non stronger Scriptural authority than the doctrine of the Real Presence of\nJesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. So copious, indeed, and so clear are\nthe passages of the New Testament which treat of this subject that I am at\na loss to determine which to select, and find it difficult to compress\nthem all within the compass of this short chapter.\n\nThe Evangelists do not always dwell upon the same mysteries of religion.\nTheir practice is rather to supplement each other, so that one of them\nwill mention what the others have omitted or have touched in a cursory\nway. But in regard to the Blessed Eucharist the sacred writers exhibit a\nmarked deviation from this rule. We find that the four Evangelists,\ntogether with St. Paul, have written so explicitly and abundantly on this\nsubject that one of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the\ndogma without taking them collectively.\n\nThese five inspired writers gave the weight of their individual testimony\nto the doctrine of the Eucharist because they foresaw\u2014or rather the Holy\nGhost, speaking through them, foresaw\u2014that this great mystery, which\nexacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our\n\u201cunderstanding unto the obedience of Christ,\u201d(366) would meet with\nopposition in the course of time from those who would measure the\ninfallible Word of God by the erring standard of their own judgment.\n\nI shall select three classes of arguments from the New Testament which\nsatisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed\nSacrament. The first of these texts speaks of the promise of the\nEucharist, the second of its institution and the third of its use among\nthe faithful.\n\nTo begin with the words of the promise. While Jesus was once preaching\nnear the coast of the Sea of Galilee He was followed, as usual, by an\nimmense multitude of persons, who were attracted to Him by the miracles\nwhich He wrought and the words of salvation which he spoke. Seeing that\nthe people had no food, He multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such\nan extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and\nchildren.\n\nOur Lord considered the present a favorable occasion for speaking of the\nSacrament of His body and blood, which was to be distributed, not to a few\nthousands, but to millions of souls; not in one place, but everywhere; not\nat one time, but for all days, to the end of the world. \u201cI am,\u201d He says to\nHis hearers, \u201cthe bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert\nand died.... I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man\neat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give\nis My flesh for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, disputed among\nthemselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus\nsaid to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son\nof Man and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you. He that eateth\nMy flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him\nup on the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood drink\nindeed.\u201d(367)\n\nIf these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had\nbeen among the number of our Savior\u2019s hearers on that occasion, would you\nnot have been irresistibly led, by the noble simplicity of His words, to\nunderstand Him as speaking truly of His body and blood? For His language\nis not susceptible of any other interpretation.\n\nWhen our Savior says to the Jews: \u201cYour fathers did eat manna and died,\n... but he that eateth this (Eucharistic) bread shall live forever,\u201d He\nevidently wishes to affirm the superiority of the food which He would\ngive, over the manna by which the children of Israel were nourished.\n\nNow, if the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of\nbeing superior, it would be really inferior to the manna; for the manna\nwas supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a\nnatural, earthly food.\n\nBut the best and the most reliable interpreters of our Savior\u2019s words are\ncertainly the multitude and the disciples who are listening to Him. They\nall understood the import of His language precisely as it is explained by\nthe Catholic Church. They believed that our Lord spoke literally of His\nbody and blood. The Evangelist tells us that the Jews \u201cdisputed among\nthemselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?\u201d Even His\ndisciples, though avoiding the disrespectful language of the multitude,\ngave expression to their doubt in this milder form: \u201cThis saying is hard,\nand who can hear it?\u201d(368) So much were they shocked at our Savior\u2019s\npromise that \u201cafter this many of His disciples went back and walked no\nmore with Him.\u201d(369) They evidently implied, by their words and conduct,\nthat they understood Jesus to have spoken literally of His flesh; for, had\nthey interpreted His words in a figurative sense, it would not have been a\nhard saying, nor have led them to abandon their Master.\n\nBut, perhaps, I shall be told that the disciples and the Jews who heard\nour Savior may have misinterpreted His meaning by taking His words in the\nliteral acceptation, while He may have spoken in a figurative sense. This\nobjection is easily disposed of. It sometimes happened, indeed, that our\nSavior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took\ncare to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by\nstating His meaning in simpler language. Thus, for instance, having told\nNicodemus that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of\nheaven, and having observed that His meaning was not correctly apprehended\nby this disciple our Savior added: \u201cUnless a man be born again of water\nand the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.\u201d(370) And again,\nwhen he warned His disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and\nfinding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from His word, He\nimmediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrine of the\nPharisees.(371)\n\nBut in the present instance does our Savior alter His language when He\nfinds His words taken in the literal sense? Does He tell His hearers that\nHe has spoken figuratively? Does He soften the tone of His expression? Far\nfrom weakening the force of His words He repeats what He said before, and\nin language more emphatic: \u201cAmen, amen, I say unto you, Unless ye eat the\nflesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in\nyou.\u201d\n\nWhen our Savior beheld the Jews and many of His disciples abandoning Him,\nturning to the chosen twelve, He said feelingly to them: \u201cWill ye also go\naway? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast\nthe words of eternal life.\u201d(372) You, my dear reader, must also take your\nchoice. Will you reply with the Jews, or with the disciples of little\nfaith, or with Peter? Ah! let some say with the unbelieving Jews: \u201cHow can\nthis man give us His flesh to eat?\u201d Let others say with the unfaithful\ndisciples: \u201cThis is a hard saying. Who can hear it?\u201d But do you say with\nPeter: \u201cLord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.\u201d\n\nSo far I have dwelt on the words of the Promise. I shall now proceed to\nthe words of the Institution, which are given in almost the same\nexpressions by St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke. In the Gospel according\nto St. Matthew we read the following narrative: \u201cAnd while they were at\nsupper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave to His disciples\nand said: Take ye and eat. This is My body. And taking the chalice, He\ngave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is My\nblood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of\nsins.\u201d(373)\n\nI beg you to recall to mind the former text relative to the Promise and to\ncompare it with this. How admirably they fit together, like two links in a\nchain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which He made! Could\nany idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is My body; this\nis My blood?\n\nWhy is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants?\nIs it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? By no means;\nbut simply because they do not comprehend how God could perform so\nstupendous a miracle as to give His body and blood for our spiritual\nnourishment.\n\nIs, then, the power or the mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule\nof the human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything\nexcept what we can sanction by our reason? Is a thing to be declared\nimpossible because we cannot see its possibility?\n\nHas not God created the heavens and the earth _out of nothing_ by the fiat\nof His word? What a mystery is this! Does He not hold this world in the\nmidst of space? Does He not transform the tiny blade into nutritious\ngrain? Did He not feed upwards of five thousand persons with five loaves\nand two fishes? What a mystery! Did He not rain down manna from heaven for\nforty years to feed the children of Israel in the desert? Did He not\nchange rivers into blood in Egypt, and water into wine at the wedding of\nCana? Does he not daily make devout souls the tabernacles of the Holy\nGhost? And shall we have the hardihood to deny, in spite of our Lord\u2019s\nplain declaration, that God, who works these wonders, is able to change\nbread and wine into His body and blood for the food of our souls?\n\nYou tell me it is a mystery above your comprehension. A mystery, indeed. A\nreligion that rejects a revealed truth because it is incomprehensible\ncontains in itself the seeds of dissolution and will end in rationalism.\nIs not everything around us a mystery? Are we not a mystery to ourselves?\nExplain to me how the blood circulates in your veins, how the soul\nanimates and permeates the whole body, how the hand moves at the will of\nthe soul. Explain to me the mystery of life and death.\n\nIs not the Scripture full of incomprehensible mysteries? Do you not\nbelieve in the Trinity\u2014a mystery not only above, but apparently contrary\nto, reason? Do you not admit the Incarnation\u2014that the helpless infant in\nBethlehem was God? I understand why Rationalists, who admit nothing above\ntheir reason, reject the Real Presence; but that Bible Christians should\nreject it is to me incomprehensible.\n\nBut do those who reject the Catholic interpretation explain this text to\ntheir own satisfaction: \u201cThis is My body, etc?\u201d Alas! here their burden\nbegins. Only a few years after the early Reformers had rejected the\nCatholic doctrine of the Eucharist no fewer than one hundred meanings were\ngiven to these words: \u201cThis is My body.\u201d It is far easier to destroy than\nto rebuild.\n\nLet me now offer you some additional reasons in favor of the Catholic or\nliteral sense. According to a common rule observed in the interpretation\nof the Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal\nsignification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to\naccept them in a figurative meaning. Now, in the present instance, far\nfrom being forced to employ the words above quoted in a figurative sense,\nevery circumstance connected with the delivery of them obliges us to\ninterpret them in their plain and literal acceptation.\n\nTo whom did our Savior address these words? At what time and under what\ncircumstances did He speak? He was addressing His few chosen disciples, to\nwhom He promised to speak in future, not in parables nor in obscure\nlanguage, but in the words of simple truth. He uttered these words the\nnight before His Passion. And when will a person use plainer speech than\nat the point of death?\n\nThese words: \u201cThis is My body; this is My blood,\u201d embodied a new dogma of\nfaith which all were obliged to believe, and a new law which all were\nobliged to practice. They were the last will and testament of our blessed\nSavior. What language should be plainer than that which contains an\narticle of faith? What words should be more free from tropes and figures\nthan those which enforce a Divine law? But, above all, where will you find\nany words more plain and unvarnished than those contained in a last will?\n\nNow, if we understand these words in their plain and obvious; that is, in\ntheir Catholic, sense, no language can be more simple and intelligible.\nBut if we depart from the Catholic interpretation, then it is impossible\nto attach to them any reasonable meaning.\n\nWe now arrive at the third class of Scripture texts which have reference\nto the use or reception of the Sacrament among the faithful.\n\nWhen Jesus, as you remember, instituted the Eucharist at His last Supper\nHe commanded His disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of\ntime, in remembrance of Him, the ceremony which He performed. What I have\ndone, do ye also \u201cfor a commemoration of Me.\u201d(374)\n\nWe have a very satisfactory means of ascertaining the Apostolic belief in\nthe doctrine of the Eucharist by examining what the Apostles did in\ncommemoration of our Lord. Did they bless and distribute mere bread and\nwine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed, the body\nand blood of Jesus Christ? If they professed to give only bread and wine\nin memory of our Lord\u2019s Supper, then the Catholic interpretation falls to\nthe ground. If, on the contrary, we find the Apostles and their\nsuccessors, from the first to the nineteenth century, professing to\nconsecrate and dispense the body and blood of Christ, and doing so by\nvirtue of the command of their Savior, then the Catholic interpretation\nalone is admissible.\n\nLet St. Paul be our first witness. Represent yourself as a member of the\nprimitive Christian congregation assembled in Corinth. About eighteen\nyears after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the\nApostle Paul, in which the following words occur: \u201cThe chalice of\nbenediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of\nChrist? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body\nof the Lord?... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I\ndelivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was\nbetrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat:\nthis is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the\ncommemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper,\nsaying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as\nye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat\nthis bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until\nHe come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of\nthe Lord unworthily, _shall be guilty of the body and of __ the blood of\nthe Lord_. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread\nand drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily,\neateth and drinketh judgment to himself, _not discerning the body of the\nLord_.\u201d(375)\n\nCould St. Paul express more clearly his belief in the Real Presence than\nhe has done here? The Apostle distinctly affirms that the chalice and\nbread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the\nbody and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of\nthat divine food by eating ordinary bread. Mark these words of the\nApostle: Whosoever shall take the Sacrament unworthily \u201cshall be guilty of\nthe body and blood of the Lord.\u201d What a heinous crime! For these words\nsignify that he who receives the Sacrament unworthily shall be guilty of\nthe sin of high treason, and of shedding the blood of his Lord in vain.\nBut how could he be guilty of a crime so enormous, if he had taken in the\nEucharist only a particle of bread and wine. Would a man be accused of\nhomicide, in this commonwealth, if he were to offer violence to the statue\nor painting of the governor? Certainly not. In like manner, St. Paul would\nnot be so unreasonable as to declare a man guilty of trampling on the\nblood of his Savior by drinking in an unworthy manner a little wine in\nmemory of Him.\n\nStudy also these words: \u201cHe who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and\ndrinketh condemnation to himself, _not discerning the body of the Lord_.\u201d\nThe unworthy receiver is condemned for not recognizing or discerning in\nthe Eucharist the body of the Lord. How could he be blamed for not\ndiscerning the body of the Lord, if there were only bread and wine before\nhim? Hence, if the words of St. Paul are figuratively understood, they are\ndistorted, forced and exaggerated terms, without meaning or truth. But, if\nthey are taken literally, they are full of sense and of awful\nsignificance, and an eloquent commentary on the words I have quoted from\nthe Evangelist.\n\nThe Fathers of the Church, without an exception, re-echo the language of\nthe Apostle of the Gentiles by proclaiming the Real Presence of our Lord\nin the Eucharist. I have counted the names of sixty-three Fathers and\neminent Ecclesiastical writers flourishing between the first and sixth\ncentury all of whom proclaim the Real Presence\u2014some by explaining the\nmystery, others by thanking God for his inestimable gift, and others by\nexhorting the faithful to its worthy reception. From such a host of\nwitnesses I can select here only a few at random.\n\nSt. Ignatius, a disciple of St. Peter, speaking of a sect called Gnostics,\nsays: \u201cThey abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess\nnot that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Savior Jesus\nChrist.\u201d\n\nSt. Justin Martyr, in an apology to the Emperor Antoninus, writes in the\nsecond century: \u201cWe do not receive these things as common bread and drink;\nbut as Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh by the word of God, even so\nwe have been taught that the Eucharist is _both the flesh and the blood of\nthe same incarnate Jesus_.\u201d\n\nOrigen (third century) writes: \u201cIf thou wilt go up with Christ to\ncelebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of benediction,\nHis own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.\u201d\n\nSt. Cyril, of Jerusalem (fourth century), instructing the Catechumens,\nobserves: \u201cHe Himself having declared, _This is My body_, who shall dare\nto doubt henceforward? And He having said, _This is My blood_, who shall\never doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water\ninto wine, which is akin to blood; and is He undeserving of belief when He\nturned wine into blood?\u201d He seems to be arguing with modern unbelief.\n\nSt. John Chrysostom, who died in the beginning of the fifth century,\npreaching on the Eucharist, says: \u201cIf thou wert indeed incorporeal, He\nwould have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without\ncovering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in\nthings perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the\nunderstanding. How many nowadays say: \u2018Would that they could look upon His\n(Jesus\u2019) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him,\ntouchest Him, eatest Him.\u2019 \u201d\n\nSt. Augustine (fifth century), addressing the newly-baptized, says: \u201cI\npromised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the\nLord\u2019s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were\nlast night made partakers. You ought to know what you have received. The\nbread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of\nGod, is the body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the\nword of God, is the blood of Christ.\u201d(376)\n\nBut why multiply authorities? At the present day every Christian communion\nthroughout the world, with the sole exception of Protestants, proclaim its\nbelief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.\n\nThe Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the Catholic Church in\nthe fifth century, admit the corporeal presence of our Lord in the\nEucharist. Such also is the faith of the Greek church, which seceded from\nus a thousand years ago, of the Present Russian church, of the schismatic\nCopts, the Syrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and, in short, of all the\nOriental sects no longer in communion with the See of Rome.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXII.\n\n\nCOMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.\n\n\nOur Savior gave communion under both forms of bread and wine to His\nApostles at the last Supper. Officiating Bishops and Priests are always\nrequired, except on Good Friday, to communicate under both kinds. But even\nthe clergy of every rank, including the Pope, receive only of the\nconsecrated bread unless when they celebrate Mass.\n\nThe Church teaches that Christ is contained whole and entire under each\nspecies; so that whoever communicates under the form of bread _or_ of wine\nreceives not a mutilated Sacrament or a divided Savior, but shares in the\nwhole Sacrament as fully as if he participated in both forms. Hence, the\nlayman who receives the consecrated Bread partakes as copiously of the\nbody and blood of Christ as the officiating Priest who receives both\nconsecrated elements.\n\nOur Lord says: \u201cI am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any\nman eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will\ngive is My flesh, for the life of the world.... He that eateth Me the same\nalso shall live by Me. He that eateth this bread shall live forever.\u201d(377)\n\nFrom this passage it is evident that whoever partakes of the form of bread\npartakes of the living flesh of Jesus Christ, which is inseparable from\nHis blood, and which, being now in a glorious state, cannot be divided;\nfor, \u201cChrist rising from the dead, dieth now no more.\u201d(378) Our Lord, in\nHis words quoted, makes no reference to the sacramental cup, but only to\nthe Eucharistic bread, to which He ascribes all the efficacy which is\nattached to communion under both kinds, viz., union with Him, spiritual\nlife, eternal salvation.\n\nSt. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: \u201cWhosoever shall eat this\nbread, _or_ drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of\nthe body _and_ of the blood of the Lord.\u201d(379) The Apostle here plainly\ndeclares that, by an unworthy participation in the Lord\u2019s Supper, under\nthe form of either bread or wine, we profane both the body and the blood\nof Christ. How could this be so, unless Christ is entirely contained under\neach species? So forcibly, indeed, did the Apostle assert the Catholic\ndoctrine that the Protestant translators have perverted the text by\nrendering it: \u201cWhosoever shall eat this bread _and_ drink the chalice,\u201d\nsubstituting _and_ for _or_, in contradiction to the Greek original, of\nwhich the Catholic version is an exact translation.\n\nIt is also the received doctrine of the Fathers that the Eucharist is\ncontained in all its integrity either in the consecrated bread or in the\nchalice. St. Augustine, who may be taken as a sample of the rest, says\nthat \u201ceach one receives Christ the Lord _entire_ under each\nparticle.\u201d(380)\n\nLuther himself, even after his revolt, was so clearly convinced of this\ntruth that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion under one kind.\n\u201cIf any Council,\u201d he says, \u201cshould decree or permit both species, we would\nby no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we\nwould use one form, or neither, and never both.\u201d(381)\n\nLeibnitz, the eminent Protestant divine, observes: \u201c_It cannot be denied_\nthat Christ is received entire by _virtue_ of concomitance, under each\nspecies; nor is His flesh separated from His blood.\u201d(382)\n\nAs the same virtue is contained in the Sacrament, whether administered in\none or both forms, the faithful gain nothing by receiving under both\nkinds, and lose nothing by receiving under one form. Consequently, we\nnowhere find our Savior requiring the communion to be administered to the\nfaithful under both forms; but He has left this matter to be regulated by\nthe wisdom and discretion of the Church, as He has done with regard to the\nmanner of administering Baptism.\n\nOur Redeemer, it is true, has said: \u201cDrink ye all of this.\u201d But it should\nbe remembered that these words were addressed not to the people at large,\nbut only to the Apostles, who alone were also commanded, on the same\noccasion, to consecrate His body and blood in remembrance of Him. Now we\nhave no more right to infer that the faithful are obliged to drink of the\ncup, because the Apostles were commanded to drink of it, than we have to\nsuppose that the laity are required or allowed to consecrate the bread and\nwine, because the power of doing so was at the last Supper conferred on\nthe Apostles.\n\nIt is true also that our Lord said to the people: \u201cUnless ye eat the flesh\nof the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you.\u201d\nBut this command is literally fulfilled by the laity when they partake of\nthe consecrated bread, which, as we have seen, contains Christ the Lord in\nall His integrity. Hence, if our Savior has said: \u201cWhoso eateth My flesh,\nand drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life,\u201d He has also said: \u201cThe\nbread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.\u201d\n\nIt seems to me that the charge of withholding the cup comes with very bad\ngrace from Protestant teachers, who destroy the whole intrinsic virtue of\nthe Sacrament by giving to their followers nothing but bread and wine. The\ndifference between them and us lies in this\u2014that under one form we give\nthe _substance_, while they under two forms confessedly give only the\n_shadow_.\n\nIn examining the history of the Church on the subject we find that up to\nthe twelfth century communion was sometimes distributed in one form,\nsometimes in another, commonly in both.\n\nFirst\u2014St. Luke tells us that the converts of Jerusalem \u201cwere persevering\nin the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communion of bread (as the\nEucharist was sometimes familiarly called), and in prayer.\u201d(383) Again he\nspeaks of the Christian disciples assembled at Troas on the Lord\u2019s day,\n\u201cto break bread.\u201d(384) We are led to conclude from these passages that the\nApostles sometimes distributed the communion in the form of bread alone,\nas no reference is made to the cup.\n\nIt was certainly the custom to carry to the sick only the consecrated\nHost. Surely if there is any period of life when nothing should be\nneglected which conduces to salvation it is the time of approaching death.\nEusebius tells us that the aged Serapion received only the Sacred Bread at\nthe hands of the Priest. In the _Life_ of St. Ambrose we are told that in\nhis last illness the consecrated Host alone was given to Him.\n\nThe Christians in time of persecution, confessors of the faith confined in\nprison, travellers on their journey, soldiers before engaging in battle\nand hermits living in the desert were permitted to keep with them and to\nfortify themselves with the consecrated Bread\u2014as Tertullian, Cyprian,\nBasil, Ambrose and other Fathers of the Church testify.\n\nMoreover, the Mass of the _Presanctified_, celebrated in the Latin church\non Good Friday only, and in the Greek church on every day in Lent, except\nSaturdays and Sundays, the officiating Priest receives the consecrated\nBread alone.(385)\n\nIn all these instances the communicants never doubted that they received\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper in its integrity. Surely the conscientious guides of the\nfaith would sooner withhold altogether the Sacred Host from their flocks\nthan permit them to partake of a mutilated Sacrament.\n\nSecond\u2014In the primitive days of the Church the Holy Communion used to be\nimparted to infants, but only in the form of wine. The Priest dipped his\nfinger in the consecrated chalice and gave it to be sucked by the infant.\nThis custom prevails to this day among the schismatic Christians of all\nOriental rites. In some instances the Sacred Host, saturated in the cup,\nis given to the child.(386)\n\nThird\u2014Public Communion was, indeed, usually administered in the first ages\nunder both forms. The faithful, however, had the privilege of dispensing\nwith the cup and of partaking only of the bread until the time of Pope\nGelasius, in the fifth century, when this general, but hitherto optional,\npractice of receiving under both kinds was enforced as a law for the\nfollowing reason:\n\nThe Manichean sect abstained from the cup on the erroneous assumption that\nthe use of wine was sinful. Pope Gelasius, in order to detect and condemn\nthe error of those sectaries, left it no longer optional with the faithful\nto receive under one or both forms, but ordained that all should\ncommunicate under both kinds.\n\nThis law continued in force for several ages, but towards the thirteenth\ncentury, for various causes, it had gradually grown into disuse, with the\ntacit approval of the Church. The Council of Constance, which convened in\n1414, established a law requiring the faithful to communicate under the\nform of bread only; and in taking this step, the Council was actuated both\nby reasons of propriety and of religion.\n\nThe wide-spread diffusion of Christianity throughout the world had\nrendered it very difficult to supply all the faithful with the consecrated\nwine. Such inconvenience is scarcely felt by Protestant communicants,\nwhose numbers are limited and who ordinarily communicate only on certain\nSundays of each month. The Catholics of the world, on the contrary, number\nabout three hundred millions; and as communion is administered to some of\nthe faithful almost every day in most of our churches and chapels, and as\nthe annual communions in every parish church are generally at least twice\nas numerous as its aggregate Catholic population, the sum total of annual\ncommunions throughout the globe may be estimated in round numbers at not\nless than five hundred millions. What effort would be required to procure\naltar-wine for such a multitude? In my missionary journeys through North\nCarolina I have often found it no easy task to provide for the celebration\nof Mass a sufficiency of pure wine, which is essential for the validity of\nthe sacrifice. This embarrassment would be increased beyond measure if the\ncup had to be extended to the laity, and still more in the coal regions,\nwhere the cultivation of the grape is unknown and where imported wine is\nexclusively used.(387)\n\nIt would be very distasteful, besides, for so many communicants to drink\nsuccessively out of the same chalice, which would be unavoidable if the\nSacrament were administered in both forms. In our larger churches, where\ncommunion is distributed every Sunday to hundreds, there would be great\ndanger of spilling a portion of the consecrated chalice and of thus\nexposing it to profanation.\n\nBut above all, as the Church in the fifth century, through her chief\nPastor, Gelasius, enforced the use of the cup to expose and reprobate the\nerror of the Manichees, who imagined that the use of wine was sinful; so\nin the fifteenth century she withdrew the cup to condemn the novelties of\nthe Calixtines, who taught that the consecrated wine was necessary for a\nvalid communion. Should circumstances ever justify or demand a change from\nthe present discipline the Church will not hesitate to restore the cup to\nthe laity.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXIII.\n\n\nTHE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.\n\n\nSacrifice is the oblation or offering made to God of some sensible object,\nwith the destruction or change of the object, to denote that God is the\nAuthor of life and death. Thus, in the Old Law, before the coming of\nChrist, when the Hebrew people wished to offer sacrifice to God they took\na lamb or some other animal, which they slew and burned its flesh,\nacknowledging by this act that the Lord was the supreme Master of life and\ndeath. The ancients offered to God two kinds of sacrifices, viz., living\ncreatures, such as bulls, lambs and birds; and inanimate objects, such as\nwheat and barley, and, in general, the first fruits of the earth.\n\nAll nations\u2014whether Jews, idolaters or Christians, except Mahometans and\nmodern Protestants\u2014have made sacrifice their principal act of worship. If\nyou go back to the very dawn of creation, you will find the children of\nAdam offering sacrifices to God. Abel offered to the Lord the firstlings\nof his flock, and Cain offered of the fruits of the earth.(388)\n\nWhen Noe and his family are rescued from the deluge which had spread over\nthe face of the earth his first act on issuing from the ark, when the\nwaters disappear, is to offer holocausts to the Lord, in thanksgiving for\nhis preservation.(389) Abraham, the great father of the Jewish race,\noffered victims to the Almighty at His express command.(390) We read that\nJob was accustomed to offer holocausts to the Lord, to propitiate His\nfavor in behalf of his children, and to obtain forgiveness for the sins\nthey might have committed.(391)\n\nWhen Jehovah delivered to Moses the written law on Mount Sinai He gave His\nservant the most minute details with regard to all the ceremonies to be\nobserved in the sacrifices which were to be offered to Him. He prescribed\nthe kind of victims to be immolated, the qualifications of the Priests who\nwere to minister at the altar, and the place and manner in which the\nvictims were to be offered. Hence, it was the custom of the Jewish Priests\nto slay every day two lambs as a sacrifice to God,(392) and in doing this\nthey were prefiguring the great sacrifice of the New Law, in which we\ndaily offer up on the altar \u201cthe Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of\nthe world.\u201d\n\nIn a word, in all their public calamities\u2014whenever they were threatened by\ntheir enemies; whenever they were about to engage in war; whenever they\nwere visited by any plague or pestilence\u2014the Jews had recourse to God by\nsolemn sacrifices. Like the Catholic Church of the present day, they had\nsacrifices not only for the living, but also for the dead; for we read in\nSacred Scripture that Judas Machabeus ordered sacrifice to be offered up\nfor the souls of his men who were slain in battle.(393)\n\nWe find sacrifices existing not only among the Jews, who worshiped the\ntrue God, but also among Pagan and idolatrous nations. No matter how\nconfused, imperfect or erroneous was their knowledge of the Deity, the\nPagan nations retained sufficient vestiges of primitive tradition to\nadmonish them of their obligation of appeasing the anger and invoking the\nblessings of the Divinity by victims and sacrifices. Plutarch, an ancient\nwriter of the second century, says of these heathen people: \u201cYou may find\ncities without walls, without literature and without the arts and sciences\nof civilized life; but you will never find a city without Priests and\naltars, or which has not sacrifices offered to the gods.\u201d\n\nThe Indians of our own country were accustomed to offer sacrifice to the\nGreat Spirit, as Father Jogues and other pioneer missionaries inform us.\nBut all those ancient sacrifices were only the types and figures of the\ngreat Sacrifice of the New Law, from which they derived all their\nefficacy, just as the Old Law itself was the type of the New Law of grace.\nSince the ancient sacrifices were but figures and shadows, they were\nimperfect and insufficient; for \u201cit is impossible,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cthat\nby the blood of oxen and of goats sins should be taken away. Wherefore,\nwhen He (Jesus) cometh into the world, He saith: Sacrifice and oblation\nThou wouldst not, but a body Thou hast fitted to me. Holocausts for sin\ndid not please Thee. Then said I: Behold, I come.\u201d(394) As if He should\nsay: The blood of oxen and of goats is not sufficient to appease Thy\nvengeance, and to cleanse Thy people from their sins; therefore I come,\nthat I may offer Myself an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world.\n\nThe Prophet Isaiah declared that the Jewish sacrifices had become\ndispleasing to God and would be abolished. \u201cTo what purpose,\u201d says the\nLord by His prophet, \u201cdo you offer Me the multitude of your victims?... I\ndesire not holocausts of rams, ... and blood of calves and lambs and\nbuck-goats ... Offer sacrifice no more in vain.\u201d(395)\n\nBut did God, in rejecting the Jewish oblations, intend to abolish\nsacrifices altogether? By no means. On the contrary, He clearly predicts,\nby the mouth of the Prophet Malachias, that the immolations of the Jews\nwould be succeeded by a clean victim, which would be offered up not on a\nsingle altar, as was the case in Jerusalem, but in every part of the known\nworld. Listen to the significant words addressed to the Jews by this\nprophet: \u201cI have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will\nnot receive a gift of your hand. For, from the rising of the sun, even to\nthe going down, My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place\nthere is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a clean oblation; for\nMy Name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.\u201d(396) The\nprophet here clearly foretells that an acceptable oblation would be\noffered to God not by Jews, but by Gentiles; not merely in Jerusalem, but\nin every place from the rising to the setting of the sun. These prophetic\nwords must have been fulfilled. Where shall we find the fulfilment of the\nprophecy?\n\nWe may divide the inhabitants of the world into five different classes of\npeople, professing different forms of religion\u2014Pagans, Jews, Mohammedans,\nProtestants and Catholics. Among which of these shall we find the clean\noblation of which the prophet speaks? Not among the Pagan nations; for\nthey worship false gods, and consequently cannot have any sacrifice\npleasing to the Almighty. Not among the Jews; for they have ceased to\nsacrifice altogether, and the words of the prophet apply not to the Jews,\nbut to the Gentiles. Not among the Mohammedans; for they also reject\nsacrifices. Not among any of the Protestant sects; for they all distinctly\nrepudiate sacrifices. Therefore, it is only in the Catholic Church that is\nfulfilled this glorious prophecy; for whithersoever you go, you will find\nthe clean oblation offered on Catholic altars. If you travel from America\nto Europe, to Oceanica, to Africa, or Asia, you will see our altars\nerected, and our Priests daily fulfilling the words of the prophets by\noffering the \u201cclean oblation\u201d of the body and blood of Christ.\n\nThis oblation of the New Law is commonly called _Mass_. The word Mass is\nderived by some from the Hebrew term _Missach_ (Deut. xvi.), which means a\nfree offering. Others derive it from the word _Missa_, which the Priest\nuses when he announces to the congregation that Divine Service is over. It\nis an expression indelibly marked on our English tongue from the origin of\nour language, and we find it embodied in such words as _Candlemas_,\n_Michaelmas_, _Martin-mas_ and _Christmas_.\n\nThe sacrifice of the Mass is the consecration of the bread and wine into\nthe body and blood of Christ, and the oblation of this body and blood to\nGod, by the ministry of the Priest, for a perpetual memorial of Christ\u2019s\nsacrifice on the cross. The Sacrifice of the Mass is identical with that\nof the cross, both having the same victim and High Priest\u2014Jesus Christ.\n\nThe only difference consists in the manner of the oblation. Christ was\noffered up on the cross in a bloody manner, and in the Mass He is offered\nup in an unbloody manner. On the cross He purchased our ransom, and in the\nEucharistic Sacrifice the price of that ransom is applied to our souls.\nHence, all the efficacy of the Mass is derived from the sacrifice of\nCalvary.\n\nIt was on the night before He suffered that our Lord Jesus Christ\ninstituted the Sacrifice of the New Law. \u201cJesus,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cthe\nnight in which He was betrayed took bread, and, giving thanks, broke and\nsaid: Take ye and eat; this is My body which shall be delivered for you.\nThis do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice,\nafter He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My\nblood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of\nMe; for as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, ye\nshall show the death of the Lord until He come.\u201d(397)\n\nFrom these words we learn that the principal motive which our Savior had\nin view in instituting the Sacrifice of the Altar was to keep us in\nperpetual remembrance of His sufferings and death. He wished that the\nscene of Calvary should ever appear in panoramic view before our eyes, and\nthat our heart, memory and intellect should be filled with the thoughts of\nHis Passion. He knew well that this would be the best means of winning our\nlove and exciting sorrow for sin in our soul; therefore, He designed that\nin every church throughout the world an altar should be erected, to serve\nas a monument of His mercies to His people, as the children of Israel\nerected a monument, on crossing the Jordan, to commemorate His mercies to\nHis chosen people. The Mass is truly the memorial service of Christ\u2019s\nPassion.\n\nIn compliance with the command of our Lord the adorable Sacrifice of the\nAltar has been daily renewed in the Church, from the death of our Savior\ntill the present time, and will be perpetuated till time shall be no more.\n\nIn the Acts it is said that while Saul and others were ministering (or, as\nthe Greek text expresses it, _sacrificing_) to the Lord, and fasting, the\nHoly Spirit said to them: \u201cSet apart for Me Saul and Barnabas.\u201d St. Paul,\nin his Epistle to the Hebrews, frequently alludes to the Sacrifice of the\nMass. \u201cWe have an altar,\u201d he says, \u201c\"whereof they cannot eat who serve the\ntabernacle.\u201d(398) The Apostle here plainly declares that the Christian\nchurch has its altars as well as the Jewish synagogue. An altar\nnecessarily supposes a sacrifice, without which it has no meaning. The\nApostle also observes that the priesthood of the New Law was substituted\nfor that of the Old Law.(399) Now, the principal office of Priests has\nalways been to offer sacrifice. Priest and sacrifice are as closely\nidentified as judge and court.\n\nSt. Paul, after David, calls Jesus \u201ca Priest forever, according to the\norder of Melchisedech.\u201d(400) He is named a _Priest_ because He offers\nsacrifice; a Priest _forever_ because His sacrifice is perpetual;\n_according to the order of Melchisedech_ because He offers up consecrated\nbread and wine, which were prefigured by the bread and wine offered by\n\u201cMelchisedech, the Priest of the Most High God.\u201d(401)\n\nTradition, with its hundred tongues, proclaims the perpetual oblation of\nthe Sacrifice of the Mass, from the time of the Apostles to our own days.\nIf we consult the Fathers of the Church, who have stood like faithful\nsentinels on the watch-towers of Israel, guarding with a jealous eye the\ndeposit of faith, and who have been the faithful witnesses of their own\ntimes and the recorders of the past; if we consult the General Councils,\nat which were assembled the venerable hierarchy of Christendom, they will\nall tell us, with one voice, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the centre\nof their religion and the acknowledged institution of Jesus Christ.\n\nAnother remarkable evidence in favor of the Divine institution of the Mass\nis furnished by the Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the\nCatholic Church in the fifth century, and who still exist in Persia and in\nother parts of the East, as well as by the Greek schismatics, who severed\ntheir connection with the Church in the ninth century. All these sects, as\nwell as the numerous others scattered over the East, retain to this day\nthe oblation of the Mass in their daily service. As these Christian\ncommunities have had no communication with the Catholic Church since the\nperiod of their separation from her, they could not, of course, have\nborrowed from her the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; consequently\nthey must have received it from the same source from which the Church\nderived it, viz., from the Apostles themselves.\n\nBut of all proofs in favor of the Apostolic origin of the Sacrifice of the\nMass, the most striking and the most convincing is found in the Liturgies\nof the Church. The Liturgy is the established Ritual of the Church. It is\nthe collection of the authorized prayers of divine worship. These prayers\nare fixed and immovable. Among others we have the Liturgy of Jerusalem,\nascribed to the Apostle St. James; the Liturgy of Alexandria, attributed\nto St. Mark the Evangelist, and the Liturgy of Rome, referred to St.\nPeter. There are various other Liturgies accredited to the Apostles or to\ntheir immediate successors. Now I wish to call your attention to this\nremarkable fact, that all these Liturgies, though compiled by different\npersons, at different times, in various places, and in divers languages,\ncontain, without exception, in clear and precise language, the prayers to\nbe said at the celebration of Mass; prayers in substance the same as those\nfound in our prayer books at the Canon of the Mass.\n\nWe cannot account for this wonderful uniformity except by supposing that\nthe doctrine respecting the Mass was received by the Apostles from the\ncommon fountain of Christianity\u2014Jesus Christ Himself.\n\nIt was such facts as these that opened the eyes of those eminent English\ndivines who, during the present century, have abandoned heresy and schism\nand rich preferments and who have embraced the Catholic faith, though, by\ntaking such a step, they had to sacrifice all that was dear to them on\nearth.\n\nThe following passages from St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Hebrews are\nsometimes urged as an argument against the sacrifice of the Mass: \u201cChrist,\n... neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by His own blood,\nentered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.\u201d \u201cNor\nyet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into\nthe Holies every year.\u201d(402) Again: \u201cEvery Priest standeth, indeed, daily\nministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take\naway sins, but this Man, offering one sacrifice for sin, forever sitteth\nat the right hand of God.\u201d(403)\n\nSt. Paul says that Jesus was offered once. How, then, can we offer Him\ndaily? I answer, that Jesus was offered once in a bloody manner, and it is\nof this sacrifice that the Apostle speaks. But in the Sacrifice of the\nMass He is offered up in an unbloody manner. Though He is daily offered on\nten thousand altars, the Sacrifice is the same as that of Calvary, having\nthe same High Priest and victim\u2014Jesus Christ. The object of St. Paul is to\ncontrast the Sacrifice of the New Law, which has only one victim, with the\nsacrifices of the Old Law, where the victims were many; and to show the\ninsufficiency of the ancient sacrifices and the all-sufficiency of the\nSacrifice of the new dispensation.\n\nBut if the sacrifice of the cross is all-sufficient what need then, you\nwill say, is there of a commemorative Sacrifice of the Mass? I would ask a\nProtestant in return, Why do you pray, and go to church, and why were you\nbaptized, and receive Communion, and the rite of Confirmation? What is the\nuse of all these exercises, if the sacrifice of the cross is\nall-sufficient? You will tell me that in all these acts you apply to\nyourself the merits of Christ\u2019s Passion. I will tell you, in like manner,\nthat in the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the\nsacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy.\nChrist, indeed, by His death made full atonement for our sins, but He has\nnot released us from the obligation of co-operating with Him by applying\nHis merits to our souls. What better or more efficacious way can we have\nof participating in His merits than by assisting at the Sacrifice of the\nAltar, where we vividly recall to mind His sufferings, where Calvary is\nrepresented before us, where \u201cwe show the death of the Lord until He\ncome,\u201d and where we draw abundantly to our souls the fruit of His Passion\nby drinking of the same blood that was shed on the cross?\n\nIn the Old Law there were different kinds of sacrifices offered up for\ndifferent purposes. There were sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to\nGod for His benefits, sacrifices of propitiation to implore His\nforgiveness for the sins of the people, and sacrifices of supplication to\nask His blessing and protection. The Sacrifice of the Mass fulfils all\nthese ends. It is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, a sacrifice of\npropitiation and of supplication; hence that valued book, the \u201c_Following\nof Christ_,\u201d says: \u201cWhen a Priest celebrates Mass he honors God, he\nrejoices the angels, he edifies the church, he helps the living, he\nobtains rest for the dead, and makes himself a partaker of all that is\ngood.\u201d To form an adequate idea of the efficiency of the Divine Sacrifice\nof the Mass we have only to bear in mind the Victim that is offered\u2014Jesus\nChrist, the Son of the living God.\n\nFirst\u2014The Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. If all human\nbeings in this world, and all living creatures, and all inanimate objects\nwere collected and burned as a holocaust to the Lord, they would not\nconfer as much praise on the Almighty as a single Eucharistic sacrifice.\nThese earthly creatures\u2014how numerous and excellent soever\u2014are finite and\nimperfect; while the offering made in the Mass is of infinite value, for\nit is our Lord Jesus, the acceptable Lamb without blemish, the beloved Son\nin whom the Father is well pleased, and who \u201cis always heard on account of\nHis reverence.\u201d\n\nWith what awe and grateful love should we assist at this Sacrifice! The\nangels were present at Calvary. Angels are present also at the Mass. If we\ncannot assist with the seraphic love and rapt attention of the angelic\nspirits, let us worship, at least, with the simple devotion of the\nshepherds of Bethlehem and the unswerving faith of the Magi. Let us offer\nto our God the golden gift of a heart full of love and the incense of our\npraise and adoration, repeating often during the holy oblation the words\nof the Psalmist: \u201cThe mercies of the Lord I will sing forever.\u201d\n\nSecond\u2014The Mass is also a sacrifice of propitiation. Jesus daily pleads\nour cause in this Divine oblation before our Heavenly Father. \u201cIf any man\nsin,\u201d says St. John, \u201cwe have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ\nthe just; and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,\nbut also for those of the whole world.\u201d(404) Hence the Priest, whenever he\noffers up the holy sacrifice, recites this prayer at the offertory:\n\u201cReceive, O holy Father, almighty, eternal God, this immaculate victim\nwhich I, Thy unworthy servant, offer to Thee, my living and true God, for\nmy innumerable sins, offences and negligences, for all here present, and\nfor all the faithful living and dead, that it may avail me and them to\nlife everlasting.\u201d\n\nWhenever, therefore, we assist at Mass let us unite with Jesus Christ in\nimploring the mercy of God for our sins. Let us represent to ourselves the\nMass as another Calvary, which it is in reality. Like Mary, let us stand\nin spirit beneath the cross, and let our souls be pierced with grief for\nour transgressions. Let us acknowledge that our sins were the cause of\nthat agony and of the shedding of that precious blood. Let us follow in\nmind and heart that crowd of weeping penitents who accompanied our Savior\nto Calvary, striking their breasts, and let us say: \u201cSpare, O Lord, spare\nThy people.\u201d Or let us repeat with the publican this heartfelt prayer: \u201cO\nGod, be merciful to me a sinner.\u201d At the death of Jesus the sun was\ndarkened, the earth trembled, the very rocks were rent, as if to show that\neven inanimate nature sympathized with the sufferings of its God. And\nshould not we tremble for our sins? Should not our hearts, though cold and\nhard as rocks, be softened at the spectacle of our God suffering for love\nof us, and in expiation for our offences?\n\nThird\u2014The Sacrifice of the Mass is, in fine, a sacrifice of supplication:\n\u201cFor, if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer being\nsprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled to the cleansing of the flesh, how\nmuch more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Holy Ghost, offered\nhimself without spot to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works to\nserve the living God?\u201d(405) If the prayers of Moses and David and the\nPatriarchs were so powerful in behalf of God\u2019s servants, what must be the\ninfluence of Jesus\u2019 intercession? If the wounds of the Martyrs plead so\neloquently for us, how much more eloquent is the blood of Jesus shed daily\nupon our altars? His blood cries louder for mercy than the blood of Abel\ncried for vengeance. If God inclines His ear to us miserable sinners, how\ncan He resist the pleadings in our behalf of the \u201cLamb of God who taketh\naway the sins of the world.\u201d\n\n\u201cLet us go, therefore, with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may\nobtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.\u201d(406)\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXIV.\n\n\nTHE USE OF RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES DICTATED BY RIGHT REASON.\n\n\nBy religious ceremonies we mean certain expressive signs and actions which\nthe Church has ordained for the worthy celebration of the Divine service.\n\nTrue devotion must be interior and come from the heart, for \u201cthe true\nadorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father\nindeed seeketh such to worship Him. God is a spirit; and they who worship\nHim must worship Him in spirit and in truth.\u201d(407) But we are not to infer\nfrom this that exterior worship is to be contemned because interior\nworship is prescribed as essential. On the contrary, the rites and\nceremonies enjoined in the worship of God and the administration of the\nSacraments are dictated by right reason, are sanctioned by Almighty God in\nthe Old Law, and by Christ and His Apostles in the New.\n\nThe angels, being pure spirits without a body, render to God a purely\nspiritual worship. The sun, moon and stars of the firmament pay Him a kind\nof external homage. In the Prophet Daniel we read: \u201cSun and moon bless the\nLord, ... stars of heaven bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all\nforever.\u201d(408) \u201cThe heavens show forth the glory of God, the firmament\nannounces the work of His hands.\u201d(409) Man, by possessing a soul of\nspiritual substance, partakes of the nature of angels, and by possessing a\nbody partakes of the nature of the heavenly bodies. It is therefore, his\nprivilege, as well as his duty, to offer to God the twofold homage of body\nand soul; in other words, to honor Him by internal and external worship.\n\nGenuine piety cannot long be concealed in the heart without manifesting\nitself by exterior practices of religion; hence, though interior and\nexterior worship are distinct, they cannot be separated in the present\nlife. Fire cannot burn without sending forth flame and heat. Neither can\nthe fire of devotion burn in the soul without being reflected on the\ncountenance and even in speech. It is natural for man to express his\nsentiments by signs and ceremonies, for \u201cfrom the fulness of the heart the\nmouth speaketh;\u201d and as fuel is necessary to keep fire alive, even so the\nflame of piety is nourished by the outward forms of religion.\n\nA devoted child will not be content with loving his father in his heart,\nbut will manifest that love by affectionate language, and by the service\nof his body, if necessary. So will the child of God show his affection for\nhis heavenly Father not only by interior devotion, but also by the homage\nof his body. \u201cI beseech you,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cby the mercy of God, that\nyou present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy pleasing unto God, your\nreasonable service.\u201d(410)\n\nThe fruit of a tree does not consist in its bark, its leaves and its\nbranches. Nevertheless, you never saw a tree bearing fruit unless when\nclothed with bark, adorned with branches and covered with leaves. These\nare necessary for the protection of the fruit. In like manner, though the\nfruit of piety does not consist in exterior forms, it must, however, be\nfostered by some outward observances or it will soon decay. There is as\nclose a relation between devotion and ceremonial as exists between the\nbark and the fruit of a tree.\n\nThe man who daily bends his knee to the Maker, who recites or sings His\npraises, who devoutly makes the sign of the cross, who assists without\nconstraint at the public services of the Church, who observes an exterior\ndecorum in the house of God, who gives to the needy according to his means\nand duly attends to the other practices and ceremonies of religion, will\ngenerally be one whose heart is united to God, and who yields to Him a\nready obedience. Show me, on the contrary, a man who habitually neglects\nthese outward observances of religion and charity, and I will show you one\nin whose soul the fire of devotion, if not quite extinguished, at least\nburns very faintly.\n\nThe ceremonies of the Church not only render divine service more solemn,\nbut also rivet our attention and lift it up to God. Our mind is so active,\nso volatile, so full of distractions, our imagination so fickle, that we\nhave need of some external objects on which to fix our thoughts.\n\nAlmighty God considered ceremonial so indispensable to interior worship\nthat we find Him in the Old Law prescribing in minute detail the various\nrites, ceremonies and ordinances to be observed by the Jewish Priests and\npeople in their public worship. What is the entire book of Leviticus but\nan elaborate ritual of the Jewish church. Not, indeed, that external rites\nare to be compared in merit with interior worship, but because they are as\nnecessary for nourishing internal devotion as food is necessary for our\nanimal life.\n\nOur Savior, though He came to establish a more spiritual religion than\nthat of the Hebrew people, did not discard the outward forms of worship.\nHe was accustomed to accompany His religious acts by appropriate\nceremonies.\n\nIn the garden of Gethsemani \u201cHe fell upon His face\u201d(411) in humble\nsupplication.\n\nHe went in procession to Jerusalem, accompanied by a great multitude, who\nsang Hosanna to the Son of David.(412)\n\nAt the Last Supper He invoked a blessing on the bread and wine, and\nafterward chanted a hymn with His disciples.(413)\n\nWhen the deaf and dumb man was brought to Him, before healing Him, He put\nHis fingers into his ears and touched his tongue with spittle, \u201cand,\nlooking up to heaven, He groaned and said: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou\nopened.\u201d(414)\n\nWhen He imparted the Holy Ghost to His disciples, He breathed on them(415)\nand the same Apostles afterward communicated the Holy Ghost to others by\nlaying hands on them.(416)\n\nThe Apostle St. James directs that if any man is sick he shall call in the\nPriest, who will anoint him with oil.(417)\n\nNow, are not all these acts which I have just recorded\u2014the prostration and\nprocession, the prayerful invocation, the chanting of a hymn, the touching\nof the ears, the lifting up of the eyes to heaven, the breathing on the\nApostles, the laying on of hands and the unction of the sick\u2014are not all\nthese acts so many ceremonies serving as models to those which the\nCatholic Church employs in her public worship, and in the administration\nof her Sacraments?\n\nThe ceremonies now accompanying our public worship are, indeed, usually\nmore impressive and elaborate than those recorded of our Savior; but it is\nquite natural that the majesty of ceremonial should keep pace with the\ngrowth and development of Christianity.\n\nBut where shall we find a ritual so gorgeous as that presented to us in\nthe Book of Revelation, which is descriptive of the worship of God in the\nheavenly Jerusalem? Angels with golden censers stand before the throne,\nwhile elders cast their crowns of gold before the Lamb once slain. Then\nthat unnumbered multitude of all nations, tongues and people, clothed in\nwhite raiment, bearing palms of victory. Virgins, too, with harp and\ncanticle, follow near the Lamb, singing the new song which they alone can\nutter.(418)\n\nHow glorious the pageant! How elaborate in detail!\n\nSurely there ought to be some analogy and resemblance, some proportion and\nharmony between the public worship which is paid to God in the Church\nmilitant on earth, and that which is offered to Him in the Church\ntriumphant in heaven.\n\nStrange would it be if God, who, in the dispensation past and that to\ncome, is seen delighting in external majesty, should have deprived the\nChristian Church (the living link between the past and the future) of all\nexternal glory. \u201cFor,\u201d as St. Paul says, \u201cif the ministry of condemnation\nis glory, much more the ministry of justice aboundeth in glory.\u201d(419)\n\nIt is true that God uttered this complaint against the children of Israel:\n\u201cThis people draw near Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips,\nbut their heart is far from Me.\u201d(420) It is also true that He was\ndispleased with their sacrifices and religious festivals.(421) But He\nblamed them not because they praised Him with their voice, but because\ntheir hearts felt not what their lips uttered. He rejected their\nsacrifices because they were not accompanied by the more precious\nsacrifice of a penitent spirit.\n\nThe same Lord who declares that the true adorer shall adore the Father in\nspirit commands also that public praise be given to Him in His holy\ntemple: \u201cPraise ye the Lord,\u201d He says, \u201cin His holy places.... Praise Him\nwith sound of trumpet. Praise Him with psaltery and harp. Praise Him with\ntimbrel and choir. Praise Him with strings and organs.\u201d(422)\n\nIf He says in one place: \u201cRend your hearts and not your garments,\u201d(423)\nimmediately after He adds: \u201cBlow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast,\ncall a solemn assembly. Gather together the people, sanctify the\nChurch.... Between the porch and the altar the Priests, the Lord\u2019s\nministers, shall weep and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare Thy\npeople!\u201d(424) The Prophet first points out the absolute necessity of\ninterior sorrow and contrition of heart, and then he insists on the duty\nof performing some acts of expiation, penance and humiliation, as you do\nwhen you have your forehead marked with ashes on Ash Wednesday, and when\nyou observe the fast and abstinence of Lent.\n\nWhen St. Paul says that though he speak with the tongues of angels and of\nmen, and distribute all his goods to feed the poor, and deliver his body\nto be burned, and have not the love of God, it profiteth him nothing,(425)\nhe points out the necessity of interior worship. And when he says\nelsewhere that \u201cin the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those that\nare in heaven, on earth and under the earth,\u201d(426) he shows us the duty of\nexterior or ceremonial worship.\n\nWhen political leaders desire to influence the masses in their favor they\nare not content with addressing themselves to the intellect. They appeal\nalso to the feelings and imagination. They have torchlight processions,\naccompanied by soul-stirring music discoursing popular airs. They have\nflags and banners floating in the breeze. They have public meetings, at\nwhich they deliver patriotic speeches to arouse the enthusiasm of the\npeople.\n\nWhat these men do for political reasons the Church performs from the\nhigher motives of religion. Therefore, she has her solemn processions. She\nhas her heavenly music to soften the heart and raise it to God. She\nconsecrates her sacred banners, especially the cross, the banner of\nsalvation. She preaches with a hundred tongues, speaking not only to our\nhead and heart by the Word of God, but to our feelings and imagination by\nher grand and imposing ceremonial.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XXV.\n\n\nCEREMONIALS OF THE MASS.\n\n\nLet us now, dear reader, walk together into a Catholic Church in time to\nassist at the late Mass, which is the most solemn service of the Catholic\nLiturgy. Meantime, I shall endeavor to explain to you the principal\nobjects which attract your attention.\n\nAs we enter I dip my fingers into a vase placed at the church door, and\nfilled with holy water, and I make the sign of the cross, praying at the\nsame time to be purified from all defilement, so that with a clean heart I\nmay worship in God\u2019s holy temple.\n\nThe Church, through her ministers, blesses everything used in her service;\nfor, St. Paul says, that \u201cEvery creature of God is good, ... that is\nreceived with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and by\nprayer.\u201d(427)\n\nBefore Mass begins the Priest sprinkles the assembled congregation with\nholy water, reciting at the same time these words of the fiftieth Psalm:\n\u201cThou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt\nwash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.\u201d\n\nThe practice of using blessed water dates back to a very remote antiquity,\nand is alluded to by several Fathers of the primitive Church.\n\nAs we advance up the aisle you observe lying open on the altar a large\nbook, which is called a _Missal_, or Mass-book, because it contains the\nprayers said at Mass. The office of the Mass consists of selections from\nthe Old and the New Testament, the Canon and other appropriate prayers.\nThe Canon of the Mass never varies throughout the year, and descends to us\nfrom the first ages of the Church with scarcely the addition of a word.\nNearly all the collects are also very old, many of them dating back to a\nperiod prior to the seventh century. I am acquainted with no prayers that\ncan compare with the collects of the Missal in earnestness and vigor of\nlanguage, in conciseness of style and unction of piety. It is evident that\ntheir authors were men who felt what they said and were filled with the\nspirit of God, despising \u201cthe persuasive words of human wisdom,\u201d unlike so\nmany modern prayer-composers whose rounded periods are directed rather to\ntickle the ears of men than to pierce the clouds.\n\nYou are probably familiar with the Episcopal _Book of Common Prayer_, and\nhave no doubt admired its beautiful simplicity of diction. But perhaps you\nwill be surprised when I inform you that this Prayer-Book is for the most\npart a translation from our Missal.\n\nLet us now reverently follow the officiating Priest through the service of\nthe Mass.\n\nYou see him advance from the sacristy and stand at the foot of the altar,\nwhere he makes an humble confession of his sins to God and His saints. He\nthen ascends the altar, and nine times the Divine clemency is invoked in\nthe _Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison_. He intones the sublime doxology,\n_Gloria in Excelsis Deo_, sings the collects of the day, reads the Lesson\nor Epistle and chants the Gospel, after which the sermon is usually\npreached. Next he recites the Nicene Creed, which for upwards of fifteen\ncenturies has been resounding in the churches of Christendom. Then you\nperceive him making the oblation of the bread and wine. He washes the tips\nof his fingers, reciting the words of the Psalmist: \u201cI will wash my hands\namong the innocent and will encompass Thy altar, O Lord.\u201d He is\nadmonished, by this ceremony, to be free from the least stain, in view of\nthe sacred act he is going to perform. The Preface and Canon follow,\nincluding the solemn words of consecration, during which the bread and\nwine are changed by the power of Jesus Christ into His body and blood. He\nproceeds with other prayers, including the best of all, the _Our Father_,\nas far as the Communion, when he partakes of the consecrated Bread and\nchalice, giving the Holy Communion afterward to such as are prepared to\nreceive it. He continues the Mass, gives his blessing to the kneeling\ncongregation, and concludes with the opening words of the sublime Gospel\nof St. John.\n\nHere you have not merely a number of prayers strung together, but you\nwitness a scene which rivets pious attention and warms the heart into\nfervent devotion. You participate in an act of worship worthy of God, to\nwhom it is offered.\n\nBut you are anxious that I should explain to you the reason why the Mass\nis said in Latin. When Christianity was first established the Roman Empire\nruled the destinies of the world. Pagan Rome had dominion over nearly all\nEurope and large portions of Asia and Africa. The Latin was the language\nof the Empire. Wherever the Roman standard was planted, there also was\nspread the Latin tongue; just as at the present time the English language\nis spoken wherever the authority of Great Britain or of the United States\nis established.\n\nThe Church naturally adopted in her Liturgy, or public worship, the\nlanguage which she then found prevailing among the people. The Fathers of\nthe early Church generally wrote in the Latin tongue, which thus became\nthe depository of the treasures of sacred literature in the Church.\n\nIn the fifth century came the disruption of the Roman Empire. New kingdoms\nbegan to be formed in Europe out of the ruins of the old empire. The Latin\ngradually ceased to be a living tongue among the people, and new languages\ncommenced to spring up like so many shoots from the parent stock. The\nChurch, however, retained in her Liturgy, and in the administration of the\nSacraments, the Latin language for very wise reasons, some of which I\nshall briefly mention:\n\nFirst\u2014The Catholic Church has always _one and the same faith_, the same\nform of public worship, the same spiritual government. As her doctrine and\nliturgy are unchangeable, she wishes that the language of her Liturgy\nshould be fixed and uniform. Faith may be called the jewel, and language\nis the casket which contains it. So careful is the Church of preserving\nthe jewel intact that she will not disturb even the casket in which it is\nset. Living tongues, unlike a dead language, are continually changing in\nwords and meaning. The English language as written four centuries ago\nwould be now almost as unintelligible to an English reader as the Latin\ntongue. In an old Bible published in the fourteenth century St. Paul calls\nhimself _the villain of Jesus Christ_. The word _villain_ in those days\nmeant a servant, but the term would not be complimentary now to one even\nless holy than the Apostle. This is but one instance, out of many which I\nmight adduce, to show the mutations which our language has undergone. But\nthe Latin, being a dead language, is not liable to these changes.\n\nSecond\u2014The Catholic Church is spread over the whole world, embracing in\nits fold children of all climes and nations, and peoples and tongues under\nthe sun. How, I ask, could the Bishops of these various countries\ncommunicate with one another in council if they had not one language to\nserve as a common medium of communication? It would be simply impossible.\nA church that is universal must have a universal tongue; whilst a national\nchurch, or a church whose members speak one and the same language, and\nwhose doctrines conveniently change to suit the times, can safely adopt\nthe vernacular tongue in its liturgy.\n\nA few years ago a Convocation was held in England, composed of British and\nAmerican Episcopal Bishops. They had no difficulty in communicating with\none another because all spoke their mother tongue. But suppose they had\nrepresentatives from Spain, France and Germany. The lips of those\nContinental Bishops would be sealed because they could not speak to their\nEnglish brothers; their ears also would be sealed because they could not\ncomprehend what was said to them.\n\nIn 1869, at the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, were assembled Bishops\nfrom all parts of the world speaking all the civilized languages of\nChristendom. Had those Bishops no uniform language to express their\nthoughts, public debates and familiar conversation among them would have\nbeen impracticable. The Council Chamber would have been a confused Babel\nof tongues. But, thanks to the Latin language, which they all spoke\n(except a few Orientals), their speeches were as plainly understood as if\neach had spoken in his native dialect.\n\nThird\u2014Moreover, the Bishops and Clergy of the Catholic Church are in\nfrequent correspondence with the Holy See. This requires that they should\ncommunicate in one uniform language, otherwise the Pope would be compelled\nto employ secretaries speaking every language in Christendom.\n\nBut if the Priest says Mass in an unknown tongue, are not the people\nthereby kept in ignorance of what he says, and is not their time wasted in\nChurch? We are forced to smile at such charges, which are flippantly\nrepeated from year to year. These assertions arise from a total ignorance\nof the Mass. Many Protestants imagine that the essence of public worship\nconsists in a sermon. Hence, to their minds, the primary duty of a\ncongregation is to listen to a discourse from the pulpit. Prayer, on the\ncontrary, according to Catholic teaching, is the most essential duty of a\ncongregation, though they are also regularly instructed by sermons. Now,\nwhat is the Mass? It is not a sermon, but it is a sacrifice of prayer\nwhich the Priest offers up to God for himself and the people. When the\nPriest says Mass he is speaking not to the people, but to God, to whom all\nlanguages are equally intelligible.\n\nThe congregation, indeed, could not be expected to hear the Priest, even\nif he spoke in English, since his face is turned from them, and the\ngreater part of what he says is pronounced in an undertone. And this was\nthe system of worship God ordained in the ancient dispensation, as we\nlearn from the Old Testament and from the first chapter of St. Luke. The\nPriest offered sacrifice and prayed for the people in the sanctuary, while\nthey prayed at a distance in the court. In all the schismatic churches of\nthe East the Priest in the public service prays not in the vulgar, but in\na dead language. Such, also, is the practice in the Jewish synagogues at\nthis day. The Rabbi reads the prayers in Hebrew, a language with which\nmany of the congregation are not familiar.\n\nBut is it true that the people do not understand what the Priest says at\nMass? Not at all. For, by the aid of an English Missal, or any other\nManual, they are able to follow the officiating clergyman from the\nbeginning to the end of the service.\n\nYou also observe _lighted tapers_ on the altar, and you desire to know for\nwhat purpose they are used.\n\nIn the Old Law the Almighty Himself ordained that lighted chandeliers\nshould adorn the tabernacle.(428) Assuredly, that cannot be improper in\nthe New Dispensation which God sanctioned in the Old.\n\nThe lights upon our altars have both a historical and a symbolical\nmeaning. In the primitive days of the Church Christianity was not\ntolerated by the Pagan world. The Christians were, consequently, obliged\nto assemble for public worship in the Catacombs of Rome and other secret\nplaces. These Catacombs, or subterranean rooms, still exist, and are\nobjects of deep interest to the pious stranger visiting the Eternal City.\nAs these hidden apartments did not admit the light of the sun, the\nfaithful were obliged to have lights even in open day. In commemoration of\nthe event the Church has retained the use of lights on her altars.\n\nLighted candles have also a symbolical meaning. They represent our Savior,\nwho is \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d \u201cwho enlighteneth every man that cometh\ninto the world,\u201d without whom we should be wandering in darkness and in\nthe shadow of death.\n\nThey also serve to remind us to \u201clet our light so shine before men (by our\ngood example) that they may see our good works and glorify our Father who\nis in heaven.\u201d\n\nLights are used, too, as a sign of spiritual joy. St. Jerome, who lived in\nthe fourth century, remarks: \u201cThroughout all the Churches of the East,\nbefore the reading of the Gospel, candles are lighted at mid-day, not to\ndispel darkness, but as a sign of joy.\u201d\n\nYou also noticed the Priest incensing the altar. Incense is a striking\nemblem of prayer, which should ascend to heaven from hearts burning with\nlove, just as the fragrant smoke ascends from the censer. \u201cLet my prayer,\u201d\nsays the Royal Prophet, \u201cascend like incense in Thy sight.\u201d(429) God\nenjoined in the Old Law the use of incense: \u201cAaron shall burn\nsweet-smelling incense upon the altar in the morning.\u201d(430) Hence we see\nthe Priest Zachariah \u201coffer incense on going into the temple of the Lord.\nAnd all the multitude were praying without at the hour of incense.\u201d(431)\n\nYou perceive that the altar is decorated today with _vases and flowers_\nbecause this is a festival of the Church. There is one spot on earth which\ncan never be too richly adorned, and that is the sanctuary in which our\nLord vouchsafes to dwell among us. Nothing is too good, nothing too\nbeautiful, nothing too precious for God. He gives us all we possess, and\nthe least we can do in return is to ornament that spot which He has chosen\nfor His abode upon earth. The Almighty, it is true, has no need of our\ngifts. He is rich without them. \u201cThe earth is the Lord\u2019s and the fulness\nthereof.\u201d Nevertheless, He is pleased to accept our offerings when they\nare bestowed upon Him as a mark of our affection, just as a father\njoyfully receives from his child a present bought with his own means. Our\nSavior gratefully accepted the treasures of the Magi, though he could have\ndone without such gifts. Some persons, when they see our sanctuary\nsumptuously decorated, will exclaim: Would it not have been better to give\nto the poor the money spent in purchasing these things? So complained\nJudas (though caring not for the poor(432)) when Mary poured from an\nalabaster vase the precious ointment on the feet of an approving Savior.\nWhy should not we imitate Mary by placing at His feet, around His\nsanctuary, our vases with their chaste and fragrant flowers, that the\nChurch may be filled with their perfume, as Simon\u2019s house was filled with\nthe odor of the ointment?\n\nDoes not the Almighty at certain seasons adorn with lilies and flowers of\nevery hue this earth, which is the great temple of nature? And what is\nmore appropriate than that we should on special occasions embellish our\nsanctuary, the place which He has chosen for His habitation among us? It\nis sweet to snatch from the field its fairest treasures wherewith to\nbeautify the temple made with hands.\n\nThe _sacred vestments_ which you saw worn by the officiating Priest must\nhave struck you as very antique and out of fashion. Nor is this\nsurprising, for if you saw a lady enter church today with a head-dress\nsuch as worn in the days of Queen Elizabeth, her appearance would look to\nyou very singular. Now, our priestly vestments are far older in style than\nthe days of Queen Elizabeth; much older even than the British Empire.\nEusebius and other writers of the fourth century speak of them as already\nexisting in their times. It is no wonder, therefore, that these vestments\nlook odd to the unfamiliar eye.\n\nIn the Old Law God prescribed to the Priests the vestments which they\nshould wear while engaged in their sacred office: \u201cAnd these shall be the\nvestments which they shall make (for the Priest): a rational and an ephod,\na tunic and a straight linen garment, a mitre and a girdle. They shall\nmake the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may\ndo the office of priesthood unto Me.\u201d(433) Guided by Heaven, the Church\nalso prescribes sacred garments for her ministering Priests; for it is\neminently proper and becoming that the minister of God, while engaged in\nthe sacred mysteries, should be arrayed in garments which would constantly\nimpress upon him his sacred character and remind him, as well as the\ncongregation, of the sublime functions he is performing.\n\nThe vestments worn by the Priest while celebrating Mass are an amict, or\nwhite cloth around the neck; an alb, or white garment reaching to his\nankles, and bound around his waist by a cincture; a maniple suspended from\nhis left arm; a stole, which is placed over his shoulders and crossed at\nthe breast; and a chasuble, or large outer garment.\n\nThe chasuble, stole and maniple vary in color according to the occasion.\nThus, _white_ vestments are used at Christmas, Easter and other festivals\nof joy, also on feasts of Confessors and Virgins; _red_ are used at\nPentecost and on festivals of Apostles and Martyrs; _green_ from Trinity\nSunday to Advent, on days having no special feast; _purple_ during Lent\nand Advent, and _black_ in Masses for the dead.\n\nOne more word on this subject. Only a few years ago the whole Protestant\nworld was united in denouncing the use of floral decorations on our\naltars, incense, sacred vestments, and even the altar itself, as\nabominations of Popery. But of late a better spirit has taken possession\nof a respectable portion of the Protestant Episcopal church. After having\nexhausted their wrath against our vestments, and vilified them as the rags\nof the wicked woman of Babylon, the members of the Ritualistic church\nhave, with remarkable dexterity, passed from one extreme to the other.\nThey don our vestments, they swing our censer, erect altars in their\nchurches and adorn them with flowers and candle-sticks.\n\nThese Ritualists are, however, easily discerned from the true Priest.\nShould one of them ever appear before the Father of the faithful in these\nill-fitting robes the venerable Pontiff would exclaim, with the Patriarch\nof old: \u201cThe voice indeed is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the\nhands of Esau.\u201d I feel the garment of the Priest, but I hear the voice of\nthe parson.\n\nGod grant that, as our misguided brothers have assumed our sacerdotal\ngarments, they may adopt our faith, that their speech may conform to their\ndress. Then, having laid aside their earthly stoles, may they deserve,\nlike all faithful Priests, to be seen \u201cstanding before the throne, and in\nsight of the Lamb, with white stoles and palms in their hands, ... saying:\n\u2018Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and to the\nLamb.\u2019 \u201d(434)\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXVI.\n\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Divine Institution Of The Sacrament Of Penance.\n\n\nThe whole history of Jesus Christ is marked by mercy and compassion for\nsuffering humanity. From the moment of His incarnation till the hour of\nHis death every thought and word and act of His Divine life was directed\ntoward the alleviation of the ills and miseries of fallen man.\n\nAs soon as He enters on His public career He goes about doing good to all\nmen. He gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, vigor to paralyzed\nlimbs; He applies the salve of comfort to the bleeding heart and raises\nthe dead to life.\n\nBut, while Jesus occupied Himself in bringing relief to corporal\ninfirmities, _the principal object of His mission was to release the soul\nfrom the bonds of sin_. The very name of Jesus indicates this important\ntruth: \u201cThou shalt call His name Jesus,\u201d says the angel, \u201cfor He shall\nsave His people from their sins.\u201d(435)\n\nFor, if Jesus had contented Himself with healing the maladies of our body\nwithout attending to those of our soul, He would deserve, indeed, to be\ncalled our Physician, but would not merit the more endearing titles of\nSavior and Redeemer. But as sin was the greatest evil of man, and as Jesus\ncame to remove from us our greatest evils, He came into the world chiefly\nas the great Absolver from sin.\n\nMagdalen seems to have a consciousness of this. She casts herself at His\nfeet, which she washes with her tears and wipes with her hair, while Jesus\npronounces over her the saving words of absolution. The very demons\nrecognized Jesus as the enemy of sin, for they dreaded His approach,\nknowing that He would drive them out of the bodies of men.\n\nOur Lord makes the healing of the body secondary to that of the soul. When\nHe delivers the body from its distempers His object is to win the\nconfidence of the spectators by compelling them to recognize Him as the\nsoul\u2019s Physician. He says, for instance, to the palsied man, \u201cThy sins are\nforgiven.\u201d(436) The scribes are offended at our Savior for presuming to\nforgive sins. He replies, in substance: If you do not believe My words,\nbelieve My acts; and He at once heals the man of his disease. After he had\ncured the man that had been languishing for thirty-eight years He\nwhispered to him this gentle admonition, \u201cSin no more, lest some worst\nthing may happen to thee.\u201d(437)\n\nAs much as our spiritual substance excels the flesh that surrounds it, so\nmuch more did our Savior value the resurrection of a soul from the grave\nof sin than the resurrection of the body from that of death. Hence St.\nAugustine pointedly remarks that, while the Gospel relates only three\nresurrections of the body, our Lord, during His mortal life, raised\nthousands of souls to the life of grace.\n\nAs the Church was established by Jesus Christ to perpetuate the work which\nhe had begun, it follows that the reconciliation of sinners to God was to\nbe the principal office of sacred ministers.\n\nBut the important question here presents itself: How was man to obtain\nforgiveness in the Church after our Lord\u2019s ascension?\n\nWas Jesus Christ to appear in person to every sinful soul and say to each\npenitent, as He said to Magdalen, \u201cThy sins are forgiven thee,\u201d or did He\nintend to delegate this power of forgiving sins to ministers appointed for\nthat purpose?\n\nWe know well that our Savior never promised to present Himself visibly to\neach sinner, nor has He done so.\n\nHis plan, therefore, must have been to appoint ministers of reconciliation\nto act in His name. It has always, indeed, been the practice of Almighty\nGod, both in the Old and the New Law, to empower human agents to execute\nHis merciful designs.\n\nWhen Jehovah resolved to deliver the children of Israel from the captivity\nof Egypt He appointed Moses their deliverer. When God wished them to\nescape from the pursuit of Pharaoh across the Red Sea, did He intervene\ndirectly? No; but, by His instructions, Moses raised his hand over the\nwaters and they were instantly divided.\n\nWhen the people were dying from thirst in the desert, did God come visibly\nto their rescue? No; but Moses struck the rock, from which the water\ninstantly issued. When Paul, breathing vengeance against the Christians,\nwas going to Damascus, did our Savior personally restore his sight,\nconvert and baptize him? No; He sent Paul to His servant Ananias, who\nrestored his sight and baptized him.\n\nThe same Apostle beautifully describes to us in one sentence of his\nEpistle to the Corinthians the arrangement of Divine Providence in the\nreconciliation of sinners: \u201cGod,\u201d he says, \u201chath reconciled us to Himself\nthrough Christ, _and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation_....\nFor Christ, therefore, we are ambassadors; God, as it were, exhorting\nthrough us.\u201d(438) That is to say, God sends Christ to reconcile sinners;\nChrist sends us. We are His ambassadors, reconciling sinners in His name.\n\nWhen I think of this tremendous power that we possess I congratulate the\nmembers of the Church, for whose benefit it is conferred; I tremble for\nmyself and my fellow-ministers, for terrible is our responsibility, while\nwe have nothing to glory in. Christ is the living Fountain of grace: we\nare but the channels through which it is conveyed to your souls. Christ is\nthe treasure; we are but the pack-horses that carry it. \u201cWe bear this\ntreasure in earthen vessels.\u201d Christ is the shepherd; we are the pipe He\nuses to call His sheep. Our words sounding in the confessional are but the\nfeeble echo of the voice of the Spirit of God that purified the Apostles\nin the cenacle of Jerusalem.\n\nBut have we Gospel authority to show that our Savior did confer on the\nApostles and their successors the power to forgive sins?\n\nWe have the most positive testimony, and our Savior\u2019s words conferring\nthis power are expressed in the plainest language which admits of no\nmisconception. In the Gospel of St. Matthew our Savior thus addresses\nPeter: \u201cThou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.... And I\nwill give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou\nshalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou\nshalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.\u201d(439)\n\nAnd to all the Apostles assembled together on another occasion He uses the\nsame forcible language: \u201cWhatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound\nalso in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed\nalso in heaven.\u201d(440) The soul is enchained by sin. I give you power, says\nour Lord, to release the penitent soul from its galling fetters, and to\nrestore it to the liberty of a child of God.\n\nIn the Gospel of St. John we have a still more striking declaration of the\nabsolving power given by our Savior to His Apostles.\n\nJesus, after His resurrection, thus addresses His disciples: \u201cPeace be to\nyou. As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.... Receive ye the Holy\nGhost; whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins\nye shall retain, they are retained.\u201d(441)\n\nThat peace which I give to you you will impart to repentant souls as a\npledge of their reconciliation with God. The absolving power I have from\nMy Father, the same I communicate to you. Receive the Holy Ghost, that you\nmay impart this Holy Spirit to souls possessed by the spirit of evil. \u201cIf\ntheir sins are as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow; and if\nthey be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.\u201d(442) If they are as\nnumerous as the sands on the seashore, they shall be blotted out, provided\nthey come to you with contrite hearts. The sentence of mercy which you\nshall pronounce on earth I will ratify in heaven.\n\nFrom these words of St. John I draw three important conclusions:\n\nIt follows, first, that the forgiving power was not restricted to the\nApostles, but extended to their successors in the ministry unto all times\nand places. The forgiveness of sin was to continue while sin lasted in the\nworld; and as sin, alas! will always be in the world, so will the remedy\nfor sin be always in the Church. The medicine will co-exist with the\ndisease. The power which our Lord gave the Apostles to preach, to baptize,\nto confirm, to ordain, etc., was transmitted by them to their successors.\nWhy not also the power which they had received to forgive sins, since\nman\u2019s greatest need is his reconciliation with God by the forgiveness of\nhis offences?\n\nIt follows, secondly that forgiveness of sin was ordinarily to be obtained\nonly through the ministry of the Apostles and their successors, just as it\nwas from them that the people were to receive the word of God and the\ngrace of Baptism. The pardoning power was a great prerogative conferred on\nthe Apostles. But what kind of prerogative would it be if people could\nalways obtain forgiveness by confessing to God secretly in their rooms?\nHow few would have recourse to the Apostles if they could obtain\nforgiveness on easier terms! God says to His chosen ministers: I give you\nthe keys of My kingdom, that you may dispense the treasures of mercy to\nrepenting sinners. But of what use would it be to give the Apostles the\nkeys of God\u2019s treasures for the ransom of sinners, if every sinner could\nobtain his ransom without applying to the Apostles? If I gave you, dear\nreader, the keys of my house, authorizing you to admit whom you please,\nthat they might partake of the good things contained in it, you would\nconclude that I had done you a small favor if you discovered that every\none was possessed of a private key, and could enter when he pleased\nwithout consulting you.\n\nI have said that forgiveness of sins is _ordinarily_ to be obtained\nthrough the ministry of the Apostles and of their successors, because it\nmay sometimes happen that the services of God\u2019s minister cannot be\nobtained. A merciful Lord will not require in this conjuncture more than a\nhearty sorrow for sin joined with a desire of having recourse as soon as\npracticable, to the tribunal of Penance; for God\u2019s ordinances bind only\nsuch as are able to fulfil them.\n\nIt follows, in the third place, that the power of forgiving sins, on the\npart of God\u2019s minister, involves the obligation of confessing them on the\npart of the sinner. The Priest is not empowered to give absolution to\nevery one indiscriminately. He must exercise the power with judgment and\ndiscretion. He must reject the impenitent and absolve the penitent. But\nhow will he judge of the disposition of the sinner unless he knows his\nsins, and how will the Priest know his sins unless they are confessed?\nHence, we are not surprised when we read in the Acts that \u201cMany of them\nwho believed came confessing and declaring their deeds\u201d(443) to the\nApostles. Why did they confess their sins unless they were bound to do so?\nHence, also, we understand why St. John says: \u201cIf we confess our sins, He\nis faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all\niniquity.\u201d(444)\n\nThe strength of these texts of Scripture will appear to you much more\nforcible when you are told that all the Fathers of the Church, from the\nfirst to the last, insist upon the necessity of Sacramental Confession as\na Divine institution. We are not unfrequently told by those who are little\nacquainted with the doctrine and history of the Church, that Sacramental\nConfession was not introduced into the Church until 1,200 years after the\ntime of our Savior. In vindication of their bold assertion they even\nintroduce quotations from SS. Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome and\nChrysostom. These quotations are utterly irrelevant; but, if seen in the\ncontext, they will tend to prove, instead of disproving, the Catholic\ndoctrine of Confession. For the sake of brevity I shall cite only a few\npassages from the Fathers referred to. These citations I take, almost at\nrandom, from the copious writings of these Fathers on Confession. From\nthese extracts you can judge of the sentiments of all the Fathers on the\nsubject of Confession. \u201c_Ab uno disce omnes._\u201d\n\nSt. Basil writes: \u201cIn the confession of sins the same method must be\nobserved as in laying open the infirmities of the body; for as these are\nnot rashly communicated to every one, but to those only who understand by\nwhat method they may be cured, so the confession of sins must be made to\nsuch persons as have the power to apply a remedy.\u201d(445) Later on he tells\nus who those persons are. \u201cNecessarily, our sins must be confessed to\nthose to whom has been committed the dispensation of the mysteries of God.\nThus, also, are they found to have acted who did penance of old in regard\nof the saints. It is written in the Acts, they confessed to the Apostles,\nby whom also they were baptized.\u201d(446) Two conclusions obviously follow\nfrom these passages of St. Basil: First, the necessity of confession.\nSecond, the obligation of declaring our sins to a Priest to whom in the\nNew Law is committed \u201cthe dispensation of the mysteries of God.\u201d\n\nSt. Ambrose, of Milan, writes: \u201cThe poison is sin; the remedy, the\naccusation of one\u2019s crime: the poison is iniquity; confession is the\nremedy of the relapse. And, therefore, it is truly a remedy against\npoison, if thou declare thine iniquities, that thou mayest be justified.\nArt thou ashamed? This shame will avail thee little at the judgment seat\nof God.\u201d(447)\n\nThe following passage clearly shows that the great Light of the Church of\nMilan is speaking of confession to Priests: \u201cThere are some,\u201d continues\nSt. Ambrose, \u201cwho ask for penance that they may at once be restored to\nCommunion. These do not so much desire to be loosed as to bind the Priest;\nfor they do not unburden their conscience, but they burden his, who is\ncommanded not to give holy things unto dogs\u2014that is, not easily to admit\nimpure souls to the Holy Communion.\u201d(448)\n\nPaulinus, the secretary of St. Ambrose, in his life of that great Bishop\nrelates that he used to weep over the penitents whose confessions he\nheard.\n\nSt. Augustine writes: \u201cOur merciful God wills us to confess in this world\nthat we may not be confounded in the other.\u201d(449) And again: \u201cLet no one\nsay to himself, I do penance to God in private, I do it before God. Is it\nthen in vain that Christ hath said, \u2018Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth\nshall be loosed in heaven?\u2019 Is it in vain that the keys have been given to\nthe Church? Do we make void the Gospel, void the words of Christ?\u201d(450)\n\nIn this extract how well doth the great Doctor meet the sophistry of those\nwho, in our times, say that it is sufficient to confess to God!\n\nSt. Chrysostom, in his thirtieth Homily, says: \u201cLo! we have now, at\nlength, reached the close of Holy Lent; now especially we must press\nforward in the career of fasting, ... and exhibit a _full_ and _accurate\nconfession of our sins_, ... that with these good works, having come to\nthe day of Easter, we may enjoy the bounty of the Lord.... For, as the\nenemy knows that having confessed our sins and _shown_ our wounds to the\n_physician_ we attain to an abundant cure, he in an especial manner\nopposes us.\u201d\n\nAgain he says: \u201cDo not _confess to me_ only of fornication, nor of those\nthings that are manifest among all men, but bring together also thy secret\ncalumnies and evil speakings, ... and all such things.\u201d(451)\n\nThe great Doctor plainly enjoins here a detailed and specific confession\nof our sins not to God, but to His minister, as the whole context\nevidently shows.\n\nThe same Father, in an eloquent treatise on the power of the sacred\nministry, uses the following words: \u201cTo the Priests is given a power which\nGod would not grant either to angels or archangels; inasmuch that what the\nPriests do below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence\nof His servants. For, He says, \u2018Whose sins you shall retain, they are\nretained.\u2019\n\n\u201cWhat power, I ask, can be greater than this? The Father hath given all\npower to the Son; and I see all this same power delivered to them by God\nthe Son.\n\n\u201cTo cleanse the leprosy of the body, or rather to pronounce it cleansed,\nwas given to the Jewish Priests alone. But to our Priests is granted the\npower not of declaring healed the leprosy of the body, but of absolutely\ncleansing the defilements of the soul.\u201d(452)\n\nAnd again: \u201cIf a sinner, as becomes him; would use the aid of his\nconscience, and hasten to confess his crimes and disclose his ulcer to his\nphysician, who may heal and not reproach, and receive remedies from him;\nif he would speak to him alone, without the knowledge of any one, and with\ncare lay all before him, easily would he amend his failings; _for the\nconfession of sins is the absolution of crimes_.\u201d(453)\n\nSt. Jerome writes: \u201cIf the serpent, the devil, secretly bite a man and\nthus infect him with the poison of sin, and this man shall remain silent,\nand do not penance, nor be willing to make known his wound to his brother\nand master; the master, who has a tongue that can heal, cannot easily\nserve him. For if the ailing man be ashamed to open his case to the\nphysician no cure can be expected; for medicine does not cure that of\nwhich it knows nothing.\u201d(454)\n\nElsewhere he says: \u201cWith us the Bishop or Priest binds or looses\u2014not them\nwho are merely innocent or guilty\u2014but _having heard, as his duty requires,\nthe various qualities of sin_ he understands who should be bound and who\nloosed.\u201d(455)\n\nCould the Catholic doctrine regarding the power of the Priests and the\nobligation of confession be expressed in stronger language than this?\n\nAnd yet these are the very Fathers who are represented to be opposed to\nSacramental Confession! With a reckless disregard of the unanimous voice\nof antiquity our adversaries have the hardihood to assert that private or\nSacramental Confession was introduced at a period subsequent to the\ntwelfth century. They do not, however, vouchsafe to inform us by what Pope\nor Bishop or Father of the Church, or by what Council, or in what country,\nthis monstrous innovation was foisted on the Christian Republic. Surely,\nan institution which, in their estimation, has been fraught with such dire\ncalamity to Christendom, ought to have its origin marked with more\nprecision. It is sometimes prudent, however, not to be too particular in\nfixing dates.\n\nI shall now, I trust, show to the satisfaction of the reader: First\u2014That\nSacramental Confession was not introduced. Second\u2014That it could not have\nbeen introduced into the Church since the days of the Apostles, and\nconsequently that it is Apostolic in its origin.\n\nThat Confession was not invented since the days of the Apostles is\nmanifest as soon as we attempt to fix the period of its first\nestablishment. Let us go back, step, by step, from the nineteenth to the\nfirst century.\n\nIt had not its origin in the present century, as everybody will admit.\n\nNor did it arise in the sixteenth century, since the General Council of\nTrent, held in that age, speaks of it as an established and venerable\ninstitution and Luther says that \u201cauricular Confession, as now in vogue,\nis useful, nay, necessary; nor would I,\u201d he adds, \u201chave it abolished,\nsince it is the remedy of afflicted consciences.\u201d(456) Even Henry VIII.,\nbefore he founded a new sect, wrote a treatise in defence of the\nSacraments, including Penance and Confession.\n\nIt was not introduced in the thirteenth century, for the Fourth Council of\nLateran passed a decree in 1215 obliging the faithful to confess their\nsins at least once a year. This decree, of course, supposes Confession to\nbe already an established fact.\n\nSome Protestant writers fall into a common error in interpreting the\ndecree of the Lateran Council by saying \u201cSacramental Confession was never\nrequired in the Church of Rome until the thirteenth century.\u201d The Council\nsimply prescribed a limit beyond which the faithful should not defer their\nconfession.\n\nThese writers seem incapable of distinguishing between a law obliging us\nto a certain duty and a statute fixing the time for fulfilling it. They\nmight as well suppose that the revenue officer creates the law regarding\nthe payment of taxes when he issues a notice requiring the revenue to be\npaid within a given time.\n\nGoing back to the ninth century we find that Confession could not have had\nits rise then. It was at that period that the Greek schism took its rise,\nunder the leadership of Photius. The Greek schismatic church has remained\nsince then a communion separate from the Catholic Church, having no\nspiritual relations with us. Now, the Greek church is as tenaciously\nattached to private Confession as we are.\n\nFor the same reasons Confession could not date its origin from the fifth\nor fourth century. The Arians revolted from the Church in the fourth\ncentury, and the Nestorians and Eutychians in the fifth. The two\nlast-named sects still exist in large numbers in Persia, Abyssinia and\nalong the coast of Malabar, and retain Confession as one of their most\nsacred and cherished practices.\n\nIn fine, no human agency could succeed in instituting Confession between\nthe first and fourth century, for the teachings of our Divine Redeemer and\nof His disciples had made too vivid an impression on the Christian\ncommunity to be easily effaced; and the worst enemies of the Church admit\nthat no spot or wrinkle had yet deformed her fair visage in this, the\ngolden age of her existence.\n\nThese remarks suffice to convince us that Sacramental Confession _was not\ninstituted since the time of the Apostles_. I shall now endeavor to prove\nto your satisfaction _that its introduction into the Church, since the\nApostolic age, was absolutely impossible_.\n\nThere are two ways in which we may suppose that error might insinuate\nitself into the Church, viz.: suddenly, or by slow process. Now, the\nintroduction of Confession in either of those ways was simply impossible.\n\nFirst, nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that Confession was\nimmediately forced upon the Christian world. For experience demonstrates\nwith what slowness and difficulty men are divested of their religious\nimpressions, whether true or false. If such is the case with individuals,\nhow ridiculous would it seem for whole nations to adopt in a single day\nsome article of belief which they had never admitted before. Hence, we\ncannot imagine, without doing violence to our good sense, that all the\ngood people of Christendom went to rest one night ignorant of the\nSacrament of Penance, and rose next morning firm believers in the Catholic\ndoctrine of auricular Confession. As well might we suppose that the\ncitizens of the United States would retire to rest believing they were\nliving under a Republic, and awake impressed with the conviction that they\nwere under the rule of Queen Victoria.\n\nNor is it less absurd to suppose that the practice of Confession was\nintroduced by degrees. How can we imagine that the Fathers of the\nChurch\u2014the Clements, the Leos, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, the\nJeromes, the Basils and Augustines, those intrepid High Priests of the\nLord, who, in every age, at the risk of persecution, exile and death have\nstood like faithful sentinels on the watch-towers of Israel, defending\nwith sleepless eyes the outskirts of the city of God from the slightest\nattack\u2014how can we imagine, I say, that they would suffer the enemy of\ntruth to invade the very sanctuary of God\u2019s temple? If they were so\nvigilant in cutting off the least withered branch of error, how would they\ntamely submit to see so monstrous an exotic engrafted on the fruitful tree\nof the Church?\n\nWhat gives additional weight to these remarks is the reflection that\nConfession is not a speculative doctrine, but a doctrine of the most\npractical kind, influencing our daily actions, words and thoughts\u2014a\nSacrament to which thousands of Christians have constant recourse in every\npart of the world. It is a doctrine, moreover, hard to flesh and blood,\nand which no human power, even if it had the will, could impose on the\nhuman race. It is only a God that, in such a case, could exact the homage\nof our assent.\n\nIn whatever light, therefore, we view the present question\u2014whether we\nconsider the circumstances of time, place, manner of its introduction\u2014the\nsame inevitable conclusion stares us in the face: that Sacramental\nconfession is not the invention of man, but the institution of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nBut the doctrine of priestly absolution and the private confession of sins\nis not confined to the Roman Catholic and Oriental schismatic churches.\nThe same doctrine is also taught by a large and influential portion of the\nProtestant Episcopal Church of England.\n\nThe Rev. C. S. Grueber, a clergyman of the Church of England, has recently\npublished a catechism in which the absolving power of the minister of God,\nand the necessity and advantage of confession, are plainly set forth. I\nwill quote from the Rev. gentleman\u2019s book his identical words:\n\n_Question._ What do you mean by absolution?\n\n_Answer._ The pardon or forgiveness of sin.\n\n_Q._ By what special ordinance of Christ are sins committed after Baptism\nto be pardoned?\n\n_A._ By the sacrament of absolution.\n\n_Q._ Who is the minister of absolution?\n\n_A._ A Priest.\n\n_Q._ Do you mean that a Priest can really absolve?\n\n_A._ Yes.\n\n_Q._ In what place of the Holy Scripture is it recorded that Christ gave\nthis power to the priesthood?\n\n_A._ In John xx. 23; see also Matt. xviii. 18.\n\n_Q._ What does the prayer-book (or Book of Common Prayer) say?\n\n_A._ In the office for the ordaining of Priests the Bishop is directed to\nsay, \u201cReceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the\nChurch of God. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven.\u201d In the\noffice for the visitation of the sick it is said, \u201cOur Lord Jesus Christ\nhath left in His Church power to absolve all sinners that truly repent and\nbelieve in Him.\u201d In the order for morning and evening prayer we say again,\n\u201cAlmighty God hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare\nand pronounce to His people, being penitent, the absolution and remission\nof their sins.\u201d\n\n_Q._ For what purpose hath Christ given this power to Priests to pronounce\nabsolution in His name?\n\n_A._ _For the consolation of the penitent; the quieting of his\nconscience._\n\n_Q._ What must precede the absolution of the penitent?\n\n_A._ _Confession...._ Before absolution privately given, confession must\nbe made to a Priest privately.\n\n_Q._ In what case does the Church of England order her ministers to move\npeople to private, or, as it is called, to auricular confession?\n\n_A._ When they feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter.\n\n_Q._ What is weighty matter?\n\n_A._ Mortal sin certainly is weighty; sins of omission or commission of\nany kind that press upon the mind are so, too. Anything may be weighty\nthat causes scruple or doubtfulness.\n\n_Q._ At what times in particular does the Church so order?\n\n_A._ In the time of sickness, _and before coming to the Holy Communion_.\n\n_Q._ Is there any other class of persons to whom confession is profitable?\n\n_A._ Yes; to those _who desire to lead a saintly life. These, indeed, are\nthe persons who most frequently resort to it._\n\n_Q._ Is there any other object in confession, besides the seeking\nabsolution for past sin and the quieting of the penitent\u2019s conscience?\n\n_A._ Yes; the practice of confessing each single sin is a great check upon\nthe commission of sin and a preservative of purity of life.(457)\n\nHere we have the Divine institution of priestly absolution and the\nnecessity and advantage of Sacramental confession plainly taught, not in a\nspeculative treatise, but in a practical catechism, by a distinguished\nminister of the Church of England; taught by a minister who draws his\nsalary from the funds of the Protestant Episcopal church; who preaches and\nadministers in a church edifice recognized as a Protestant Episcopal\nchurch, and who is in strict communion with a Bishop of the Protestant\nEpiscopal Church of England.\n\nAnd these doctrines are upheld, not by one eminent Divine only, but by\nhundreds of clergymen, as well as by thousands of the Protestant\nEpiscopalians of England.\n\nWhat a strange spectacle to behold the same church teaching diametrically\nopposite doctrines! What is orthodox in the diocese of Bath and Wells is\ndecidedly heterodox in the diocese of North Carolina. An ordinance which\nRev. Mr. Grueber proclaims to be of Divine faith is characterized by Rt.\nRev. Bishop Atkinson(458) as the invention of men. What Dr. Grueber\ninculcates as a most salutary practice Dr. Atkinson anathematizes as\npernicious to religion. Confession, which, in the judgment of the former,\nis a great \u201ccheck upon the commission of sin,\u201d is stigmatized by the\nlatter as an incentive to sin. \u201cBehold how good and pleasant it is for\nbrethren to dwell together in unity.\u201d(459)\n\nSuppose that the venerable Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina,\nin passing through England, were invited by the Rev. Mr. Grueber to preach\nin his church in the morning, and that the Rt. Rev. Prelate chose for his\nsubject a sermon on confession; and suppose that the Rev. Mr. Grueber\nselected in the evening, as the subject of his discourse, the doctrine\nadvanced by him in his catechism.\n\nLet us imagine some benighted dissenter attending Mr. Grueber\u2019s church at\nthe morning and evening service, with the view to being enlightened in the\nteachings of the Protestant church. Would not our dissenter be sorely\nperplexed, on returning home at night, as to what the Protestant Episcopal\nchurch really _did teach_?\n\nSome Episcopalians are pleased to admit that confession may be resorted to\nwith spiritual profit in certain abnormal cases\u2014for instance, in time of\nsickness. So that, in their judgment, a religious observance which is\nsalutary to a sick man is pernicious to him in good health. For the life\nof me, I cannot see how the circumstances of bodily health can affect the\nmoral character of a religious act.\n\nThat a minister of the Baptist or the Methodist church should deny the\npower of priestly absolution I readily understand, since these churches\ndisclaim, in their confessions of faith, any such prerogative for their\nclergy. But I cannot well conceive why a Protestant Episcopalian should\nrepudiate the pardoning power, which is plainly asserted in his standard\nprayer-book.\n\nWhenever an Episcopalian Bishop imposes hands on candidates for the\nministry he employs the following words, which are found in the Book of\nCommon Prayer: \u201cReceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest\nin the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our\nhands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins\nthou dost retain, they are retained.\u201d(460) If these words do not mean that\nthe minister receives by the imposition of the Bishop\u2019s hands the power of\nforgiving sin, they mean nothing at all. When the Bishop pronounces this\nsentence, either he intends to convey this power of absolution, or he does\nnot. If he intended to confer this power, he could not employ more clear\nand precise language to express his idea; if he did not intend to confer\nthis power, then his language is calculated to mislead.\n\nJust imagine that prelate addressing a candidate for Holy Orders, in the\nmorning, with the words: \u201cWhose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven;\u201d\nand after Divine service saying to the young minister: \u201cRemember, sir, you\nhave no power to forgive sins. The words of ordination are a mere figure\nof speech.\u201d\n\nWhen a Catholic Bishop ordains Priests he uses the precise words which I\nhave quoted, because the Book of Common Prayer borrows them from our\nPontifical. But he means exactly what he says, viz: That the Priest\nreceives through the ministration of the Bishop the power of forgiving\nsins.\n\nTo sum up: We have seen that the Sacrament of Penance and absolution by\nthe Priest is taught in Scripture, proclaimed by the Fathers, upheld not\nonly by Roman Catholics throughout the world, but also by all the\nschismatic Christians of the East. It is inculcated in those old and\ngenuine editions of the _Book of Common Prayer_, which have not been\nenervated by being subjected to the pruning-knife in this country, and the\nsame practice is encouraged by an influential portion of the Protestant\nEpiscopal church in England, and I will add, also, in the United States.\n\nAgain, some object to priestly absolution on the assumption that the\nexercise of such a function would be a usurpation of an incommunicable\nprerogative of God, who alone can forgive sins. This was precisely the\nlanguage addressed by the Scribes to our Savior. They exclaimed: \u201cHe\nblasphemeth! who can forgive sins but God only?\u201d(461) My answer,\ntherefore, will be equally applicable to old and modern objectors. It is\nnot blasphemy for a Priest to claim the power of forgiving sins, since he\nacts as the delegate of the Most High. It would, indeed, be blasphemous if\na Priest pretended to absolve in his own name and by virtue of his own\nauthority. But when the Priest absolves the penitent sinner he acts in the\nname, and by the express authority, of Jesus Christ; for he says: \u201cI\nabsolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost.\u201d Let it be understood once for all that the Priest arrogates to\nhimself no Divine powers. He is but a feeble voice. It is the Holy Spirit\nthat operates sanctity in the soul of the penitent.\n\nNot a few Protestant Episcopalians, I believe, still admit that original\nsin is washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism. If the minister is not\nguilty of blasphemy in being the instrument of God\u2019s mercy, in forgiving\nsins by Baptism, how can a Priest blaspheme in being the instrument of\nDivine mercy, in absolving sinners in the Sacrament of Penance? The same\nLord who instituted Baptism for the remission of original sin established\nPenance for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism. Did not the\nApostles exercise Divine power in raising dead bodies to life, and in\nraising souls that were dead to the life of grace? And yet no one but\nScribes and Pharisees accused them of usurping God\u2019s powers. Cannot the\nAlmighty, without derogating from His own glory, give to men in the\nnineteenth century privileges which He accorded to them in the first age\nof the Church?\n\nFar, then, from dishonoring, we honor God by having recourse to the\nearthly physician whom He has appointed for us, and, like the multitude in\nthe Gospel, we \u201cglorify God, who hath given such power to men.\u201d(462)\n\nOthers object thus: Why confess to a Priest, when you may confess to God\nin secret. I will retort by asking, why do you build fine temples when you\ncan worship God in the great temple of nature? Why pray in church when you\ncan pray in your chamber? Why listen to a minister expounding the Word of\nGod when you can read the Gospel at your leisure at home. You answer that\nthe Lord authorizes these things. So does He authorize priestly\nabsolution. This objection is not new. It is very old.\n\nSt. Augustine, who lived fourteen hundred years ago, will answer the\nobjection for me: \u201cLet no one,\u201d remarks this illustrious Doctor, \u201csay to\nhimself, I do penance to God in private; I do it before God. Is it, then,\nin vain that Christ has said: \u2018Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be\nloosed in heaven\u2019? Is it in vain that the keys have been given to the\nChurch?\u201d The question for us is not what God is able to do, but what _He\nhas willed to do_. God _might_ have adopted other means for the\njustification of the sinner, as He might have created a world different\nfrom the present one. But it is our business to take our Father at His\nword, and to have recourse with gratitude to the system He has actually\nestablished for our justification. Now, we are assured by His infallible\nword that it is by having recourse to His consecrated ministers that our\nsins will be forgiven us.(463)\n\nIt is related in the Book of Kings that Naaman, the Syrian, was afflicted\nwith a grievous leprosy, which baffled the skill of the physicians of his\ncountry. He had in his household a Jewish maid-servant. She spoke to her\nmaster of the great prophet Eliseus, who lived in her native country, to\nwhom the Lord had given the power of performing miracles. She besought her\nmaster to consult the prophet. Naaman, accordingly, set out for the\ncountry of Israel and begged Eliseus to heal him. The prophet told him to\ngo and wash seven times in the Jordan; but Naaman, instead of doing as he\nwas directed, became very angry, and said: \u201cI thought he would have come\nout to me, ... and touched with his hand the place of the leprosy, and\nhealed me. Are not the Abana and the Pharfar rivers of Damascus, better\nthan all the waters of Israel, that I may wash in them, and be made\nclean?\u201d(464) But the servants of Naaman remonstrated with him, and\nbesought him to comply with the prophet\u2019s injunction, telling him that the\nconditions were easy and the Jordan was at hand. Naaman went and washed\nand was cleansed. Our opponents, like Naaman, cry out: \u201cWhy should you go\nto a Priest, a sinner like yourself, when secretly, in your own room, you\ncan approach God, the pure fountain of grace, to be washed from your\nsins?\u201d I answer, because Jesus Christ, a prophet, and more than a prophet,\nhas commanded you to do so.\n\nThe last charge that I will notice is the most serious and the most\noffensive. We are told that private confession is lawless; that the\nconscience soon becomes \u201cenfeebled and chained and starved\u201d by it, and,\nworse and worse, that sins are more readily committed, if followed by an\nabsolution conveying pardon\u2014in other words, that the more attached\nCatholics are to the practice of their holy religion the more depraved and\ncorrupt they become. Or, if they remain faithful to God, this is not by\nreason of, but in spite of, their religious exercises.\n\nSurely, this was not the sentiment of the late Dr. Ives, once Protestant\nBishop of North Carolina, and of many other illustrious converts, who,\nfrom the day of their conversion to the hour of their death never failed\nto receive consolation and strength from the sacred tribunal.\n\nNor is it the sentiment of Rev. Father Lyman, a Catholic Priest, of\nBaltimore, and brother of the assistant Protestant Bishop of North\nCarolina, nor of the present Archbishops of Baltimore and Philadelphia, of\nthe Bishops of Wilmington, Cleveland, Columbus and Ogdensburg, and a host\nof others, both of the Protestant clergy and laity, who within the last\nfifty years have entered the Catholic Church.\n\nIf we compare the Protestant and Catholic systems for the forgiveness of\nsins, the Catholic system will not suffer by the comparison. According to\nthe Protestant system, repentance is necessary and sufficient for\njustification. The Catholic system also requires repentance on the part of\nthe sinner as an indispensable prerequisite for the forgiveness of sin.\nBut it requires much more than this. Before the penitent receives\nabsolution he must carefully examine his conscience and confess his sins,\naccording to their number and kind. He is obliged to have a firm purpose\nof amendment, to promise restitution, if he has defrauded his neighbor, to\nrepair any injury done his neighbor\u2019s character, to be reconciled with his\nenemies and to avoid the occasions of sin. Do not these obligations afford\na better safeguard against a relapse into sin than a simple internal act\nof contrition?\n\nMany most eminent Protestant, and even infidel writers, who were\nconversant with the practical workings of the confessional in the\ncountries in which they lived, bear testimony to the moral reformation\nproduced by it. The famous German philosopher, Leibnitz, admits that it is\na great benefit conferred on men by God that He left in His Church the\npower of forgiving sins.(465)\n\nVoltaire, certainly no friend of Christianity, avows \u201cthat there is not\nperhaps a more useful institution than confession.\u201d(466)\n\nRousseau, not less hostile to the Church, exclaims: \u201cHow many restitutions\nand reparations does not confession cause among Catholics!\u201d(467)\n\nThe Protestant authorities of Nuremberg, in Germany, shortly after the\nestablishment of the reformed doctrines in that city, were so much alarmed\nat the laxity of morals which succeeded after the abolition of confession\nthat they petitioned their Emperor, Charles V., to have it restored.\n\nIt is a favorite custom for the adversaries of the Catholic Church to\nrefer to the alleged loose morals prevailing in France and in other\nCatholic countries as a proof of the inferior standard of Catholic\nmorality. This is a safe, and at the same time not the most honorable,\nmode of attack, as the people of those nations are too far off to defend\nthemselves. For my part, I have spent a considerable time in various\nportions of France, and more edifying Christians I have never witnessed\nthan those I met in that country. For six years I had for my professors\nFrench Priests, whose exemplary lives were a daily sermon to all around\nthem.\n\nI submit that the cosmopolitan city of Paris (waiving, for the present,\nthe enormities of which it is accused), is not to be adduced as a fair\ncriterion of French morality. Let us stay at home and judge of Catholic\nmorals by the examples furnished under our eyes.\n\nThe influence of the confessional has been fairly tested in this country\nsince the foundation of our Republic. Are practical Catholics enfeebled in\nconscience? Is their conscience chained and starved? Has the absolution\nthey received whetted their appetites for more sin? Are they monsters of\nimmorality? I think that an enlightened Protestant public will pronounce a\ncontrary verdict.\n\nI feel that I can say, with truth, that Catholics who frequent the\nconfessional are generally virtuous in their private lives, just and\nhonorable in their dealings with others, and that they cultivate charity\nand good-will toward their fellow-citizens.\n\nIt will not do to reply that it is the system, not the individual, that is\nattacked. How can we judge of a system unless by its practical working in\nthe individual? \u201cBy their fruits ye shall know them,\u201d says our Redeemer.\n\nVices, indeed, we have to deplore among certain classes of our people,\nwhich are often superinduced by their migratory habits and irregular mode\nof life. But they are commonly sins of frailty, and these are not the\npersons that are accustomed to approach the confessional. If they did\ntheir lives would be very different from what they are.\n\nThe best of us, alas! are not what we ought to be, considering the graces\nwe receive. But if you seek for canting hypocrites, or colossal\ndefaulters, or perpetrators of well-laid schemes of forgery, or of\nsystematic licentiousness, or of premeditated violence, you will seek for\nsuch in vain among those who frequent the confessional.\n\nThere is another objection which it is difficult to kill. It dies hard\nand, like Banquo\u2019s ghost, it will not down. If you drive it from the city,\nit will fly to the town. If you expel it from the town, it will take\nrefuge in the village. If you eject it from the village, it will hide\nitself like some noxious animal, in some desert place until it makes its\nrounds again.\n\nI allude to the charge that a price has to be paid for remitting sins.\n\u201cYou have only (say these slanderers) to pay a certain toll at the\nconfessional gate, and you can pass the biggest load of sin.\u201d\n\nIt is hard to treat these objections seriously. I have been hearing\nconfessions for fifty years, and of all who have come to me, not one has\nhad the sense of duty to offer me any compensation for absolving them, and\nthis is true of every Priest with whom I have been acquainted. The truth\nis, the Priest who would solicit a fee for absolution knows that he would\nbe guilty of simony, and would be liable to suspension.\n\nBut we are told that confession is an intolerable yoke, that it makes its\nvotaries the slaves of the Priests.\n\nBefore answering this objection, let me call your attention to the\ninconsistency of our adversaries, who blow hot and cold in the same\nbreath. They denounce confession as being too hard a remedy for sin and\ncondemn it, at the same time, as being a smooth road to heaven. In one\nsentence they style it a bed of roses; in the next a bed of thorns.\n\nIn a preceding objection it was charged that the votaries of confession\nhad no moral constraint at all. Now it is said that their conscience is\nbound in chains of slavery. Surely, confession cannot be hard and easy at\nthe same time.\n\nI have already refuted, I trust, the former charge. I shall now answer the\nsecond. I am not aware in what sense our people are less independent than\nthose of any other class of the community. The only restraint, as far as I\nknow, imposed on Catholics by their Priests is the yoke of the Gospel, and\nto this restraint no Christian ought to object. In my estimation, no body\nof Christians enjoys more Apostolic freedom than those of the Catholic\ncommunion, because they are guided in their conduct, not by the\never-changing _ipse dixit_ of any minister, but by the unchangeable\nteachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.\n\nBut if to love their Priest, to reverence his sacred character, to obey\nhis voice as the voice of God; if to be willing to make any sacrifice for\ntheir spiritual father; if, I say, you call this slavery, then our\nCatholic people are slaves, indeed, and, what is more, they are content\nwith their chains.\n\nEven our Manuals of Devotion have not escaped the lash of wanton\ncriticism. They have excited the pious horror of some modern Pharisees\nbecause they contain a table of sins for the use of those preparing for\nconfession. The same flower that furnishes honey to the bee supplies\npoison to the wasp; and, in like manner, the same book that gives only the\nhoney of consolation to the devout reader has nothing but moral poison for\nthose that search its pages for nothing else.\n\nHow can anyone object to the table of sins in our prayer-books and\nconsistently advocate the circulation of the Bible, which contains\nincomparably plainer and more palpable allusions to gross crimes than are\nfound in our books of devotion? Let us not forget the adage, \u201c_Honi soit\nqui mal y pense._\u201d\n\nI may be permitted, in concluding this subject, to add the testimony of my\nown experience on the beneficent influence of the confessional; for, like\nmy brethren in the ministry, I am, in the language of Dryden,\n\n\n    \u201cOne bred apart from worldly noise,\n    To study souls, their cures, and their diseases.\u201d\n\n\nSince the time of my ordination up to the present hour I have been\naccustomed to hear confessions almost every day. I have, therefore, had a\nfair opportunity of ascertaining the value of the \u201csystem.\u201d The\nimpressions forced upon my mind, far from being peculiar to myself, are\nshared by every Catholic Priest throughout the world charged with the care\nof souls. The testimony of ten experienced confessors ought, in my\nestimation, to have more weight in enabling men to judge of the moral\ntendencies of the confessional than the gratuitous assertions of a\nthousand individuals who have no personal experience of it, but who draw\non their heated imaginations or on the pages of sensational novels for the\nstatements they offer.\n\nMy experience is that the confessional is the most powerful lever ever\nerected by a merciful God for raising men from the mire of sin. It has\nmore weight in withdrawing people from vice than even the pulpit. In\npublic sermons we scatter the seed of the Word of God; in the confessional\nwe reap the harvest. In sermons, to use a military phrase, the fire is at\nrandom, but in confession it is a dead shot. The words of the Priest go\nhome to the heart of the penitent. In a public discourse the Priest\naddresses all in general, and his words of admonition may be applicable to\nvery few of his hearers. But his words spoken in the confessional are\ndirected exclusively to the penitent, whose heart is open to receive the\nWord of God. The confessor exhorts the penitent according to his spiritual\nwants. He cautions him against the frequentation of dangerous company and\nother occasions of sin, or he recommends special practices of piety suited\nto the penitent\u2019s wants.\n\nHence missionaries are accustomed to estimate the fruit of a mission more\nby the number of penitents who have approached the sacred tribunal than by\nthe number of persons who have listened to their sermons.\n\nOf all the labors that our sacred ministry imposes on us, there is none\nmore arduous or more irksome than that of hearing confessions. If I may\nmake a revelation of my own life, I deferred receiving Holy Orders for two\nyears, from a sense of the dread responsibility connected with the\nconfessional. It is no trifling task to sit for six or eight consecutive\nhours on a hot summer day, listening to stories of sin and sorrow and\nmisery. It is only the consciousness of the immense good he is doing that\nsustains the confessor in the sacred tribunal. He is one \u201cwho can have\ncompassion on the ignorant and erring, because he himself is also\nencompassed with infirmity.\u201d(468)\n\nI have seen the man whose conscience was weighed down by the accumulated\nsins of twenty winters. Upon his face were branded guilt and shame,\nremorse and confusion. There he stood by the confessional, with downcast\ncountenance, ashamed, like the Publican, to look up to heaven. He glided\ninto the little mercy-seat. No human ear will ever learn what there\ntranspired. The revelations of the confessional are a sealed book.\n\nBut during the brief time spent in the confessional a resurrection\noccurred more miraculous than the raising of Lazarus from the tomb\u2014it was\nthe resurrection from the grave of sin of a soul that had long lain\nworm-eaten. During those precious moments a ray from heaven dispelled the\ndarkness and gloom from that self-accuser\u2019s mind. The genial warmth of the\nHoly Spirit melted his frozen heart, and the purifying influence of the\nsame Spirit that came on the Apostles, \u201clike a mighty wind from heaven,\u201d\nscattered the poisonous atmosphere in which he lived and filled his soul\nwith Divine grace. When he came out there was quickness in his step, joy\non his countenance, a new light in his eye. Had you asked him why, he\nwould have answered: \u201cBecause I was lost, and am found. Having been dead,\nI am come to life again.\u201d(469)\n\n\n\n\nII. On The Relative Morality Of Catholic And Protestant Countries.\n\n\nIt has been gravely asserted that the confession of sin and the doctrine\nof absolution tend to the spread of crime and immorality. Statistics are\nproduced to show that murder and illegitimate births are largely in excess\nin countries under Catholic influence, and that this prevalence of\nwickedness is the _result of confession and easy absolution_.\n\nIf our system of absolving those only who both repent and _confess_ leads\nto laxity of morals, how much more must the Protestant system, which omits\nthat which is most humiliating and admits the sinner to reconciliation on\ncondition of mere interior dispositions? As all our catechisms teach, and\nas every Catholic knows, there is no pardon of sin without sorrow of heart\nand purpose of amendment. It is a great mistake to suppose that the most\nignorant Catholic believes he can procure the pardon of his sins by simply\nconfessing them without being truly sorry for them. The estimate which so\nmany Protestants set on the virtue of even the lower classes of Roman\nCatholics is clearly enough evinced in the preference which they\nconstantly manifest in their employment of Catholics\u2014practical\nCatholics\u2014Catholics who go to confession. I maintain, therefore, that\nconfession, far from being an incentive to sin, as our adversaries have\nthe hardihood to affirm, is a most powerful check on the depravity of men\nand a most effectual preventive of their criminal excesses.\n\nBut is it true that crimes, especially murder and illegitimacy, are more\nprevalent in Catholic than in Protestant countries? I utterly deny the\nassertion, and also appeal to statistics in support of the denial. Whence\ndo our opponents derive their information? Forsooth, from Rev. M. Hobart\nSeymour\u2019s \u201cNights Among Romanists\u201d and similar absolutely unreliable\ncompilations, the false statements of which have been again and again\nrefuted.\n\nRev. Mr. Seymour gives the following list of the number of murders in\nEngland, France and Ireland:\n\nIreland: 19 homicides to the million of inhabitants\nFrance: 31\nEngland: 4\n\nThe reader of the above might well draw back in astonishment and exclaim,\n\u201cTruly moral atmosphere of England!\u201d But how do these statements compare\nwith the official records which I submit to the unprejudiced reader?\nRecent returns from the \u201cHand-Book\u201d for France, and \u201cThom\u2019s Official\nDirectory for England and Ireland, 1869,\u201d are as follows:\n\n                     Convictions (and   Executions.\n                     sentences to\n                     death).\n1864.--France                       9             5\n1867.--England and                 27            10\nWales\nIreland                             3             0\n\nThese figures, which are from authenticated sources, do not bear out our\naccusers in their assertion that murders are more prevalent in Catholic\nthan in Protestant countries. The statistics of this crime are limited, or\nthey are not in very general circulation. But we have more extensive\ninformation in reference to the other great crime which, it is charged,\nprevails to a much more alarming extent in countries under Catholic\ninfluence, viz., illegitimacy. Here again we shall meet statistics with\ncounter-statistics to refute unjust declarations. We do not wish to be\nunderstood as advocating the immaculateness of Catholic communities. We\nfrankly admit and heartily deplore the disorders which Catholics commit,\nbut we deny that they are worse than their Protestant neighbors; and still\nmore emphatically do we deny that the Church is responsible for their\ndisorders.\n\nThe Journal of the Statistical Society of London, of the years 1860, \u201962,\n\u201965, \u201967, gives the number of illegitimate births in England and Wales as\n6-1/2 in every hundred, whilst in the Catholic kingdom of Sardinia the\nnumber is slightly over two in the hundred, and in Ireland three in every\nhundred. If the test of illegitimacy is a correct index of the morality of\na country, how refreshing to pass from Protestant England across to\nCatholic Ireland or to the Continent and visit Sardinia! The moral\natmosphere of these countries, compared with England, must be as a\nhealthful breeze to a pestilential marsh.\n\nThat we may see at a glance the real condition of European countries in\nreference to this species of crime, I will here insert as correct a table\nas can be made from the latest reports. (Vid. _Catholic World_, Vol. XI.,\np. 112.)\n\nPercentage Of Illegitimacy In Protestant And Catholic Countries Of Europe.\n\nProtestant.            Per cent.\nHolland                      4.0\nSwitzerland                  5.5\nPrussia (Protestant)        10.0\nEngland and Wales            6.5\nSweden and Norway            9.6\nScotland                    10.1\nDenmark                     11.0\nGerman States               14.8\nWurtemburg                  16.4\n\nCatholic.\nItaly                        5.1\nSpain                        5.5\nFrance                       7.2\nPrussia (Catholic)           6.5\nBelgium                      7.2\nAustria                     11.1\nIreland                      3.0\n\nWe have divided Prussia into Protestant and Catholic because statistics\nare kept according to the religious creed of the people; and we discover\nthat, whilst among the Catholic portion of the empire there is but a\npercentage of six and a half of illegitimate births, among the Protestants\nit runs up to ten per cent. And the same remark is applicable to Ireland.\n\nThe _Scotman_, whose statements are based on the report of the British\nRegistrar-General, publishes the following statistics:\n\n\u201cThe proportion of illegitimate births to the total number of births is in\nIreland 3.8 per cent.; in England the proportion is 6.4; in Scotland 9.9;\nin other words, England is nearly twice, and Scotland nearly thrice worse,\nthan Ireland. Something worse has to be added, from which no consolation\ncan be derived. The proportion of illegitimacy is very unequally\ndistributed over Ireland, and the inequality rather humbling to us as\nProtestants, and still more as Presbyterians and Scotchmen. Taking Ireland\naccording to the registration divisions, the proportion of illegitimate\nbirths varies from 6.2 to 1.3. The division showing this lowest figure is\nthe western, being substantially the Province of Connaught, where about\nnineteen-twentieths of the population are Celtic and Roman Catholic. The\ndivision showing the highest proportion of illegitimacy is the\nnorth-eastern, which comprises, or almost consists of, the Province of\nUlster, where the population is almost equally divided between Protestants\nand Roman Catholics, and where the great majority of Protestants are of\nScotch blood and of the Presbyterian church. The sum of the whole matter\nis, that semi-Presbyterian and semi-Scotch Ulster is fully three times\nmore immoral than wholly Popish and wholly Irish Connaught\u2014which\ncorresponds with wonderful accuracy to the more general fact that\nScotland, as a whole, is three times more immoral than Ireland as a\nwhole.\u201d\n\nIt is worthy, too, of notice, that in the tabular statement above\npresented the percentage of illegitimacy in Holland and Switzerland, where\nthere are large Catholic minorities, is lower than in any other Protestant\ncountry.\n\nWe have at hand evidences, furnished by Protestant writers, of the hideous\nimmoralities of certain European nations that are more thoroughly\nProtestantized than England itself. Thus, Mr. Laing writes: \u201cOf the 2,714\nchildren born in Stockholm, 1,577 were legitimate, 1,137 illegitimate;\nmaking only a balance of 440 chaste mothers out of 2,714; and the\nproportion of illegitimate to legitimate children not as one to two and\nthree-tenths, but as one to one and a half.\u201d\u2014_A Tour in Sweden in_ 1838.\n\nBut we are not disposed to parade these monstrous vices, no matter by whom\ncommitted. We allude to them with feelings of shame, not of pleasure; and\ngive them a passing notice merely in self-defence against the gratuitous\nassertions of our adversaries. We certainly do not wish to excuse or\npalliate the evil deeds of Catholics, who, with all the blessed aids which\ntheir religion affords, ought to be much better than they are. Yet we will\nadd, quoting the words of the _Catholic World_: \u201cIf we are not very much\nbetter than our neighbors, we are not any worse; and are not to be hounded\ndown with the cry of vice and immorality by a set of Pharisees who are\nconstantly lauding their own superiority and thanking God they are so much\nbetter than we poor Catholics.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXVII.\n\n\nINDULGENCES.\n\n\nThere are few tenets of the Catholic Church so little understood, or so\ngrossly misrepresented by her adversaries, as her doctrine regarding\nIndulgences.\n\nOne of the reasons of the popular misapprehension of an Indulgence may be\nascribed to the change which the meaning of that term has gradually\nundergone. The word Indulgence originally signified _favor, remission or\nforgiveness_. Now, it is commonly used in the sense of unlawful\ngratification, and of free scope to the passions. Hence, when some\nignorant or prejudiced persons hear of the Church granting an Indulgence\nthe idea of license to sin is at once presented to their minds.\n\nAn Indulgence is simply a remission in whole or in part, through the\nsuperabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints, of the temporal\npunishment due to God on account of sin after the guilt and eternal\npunishment have been remitted.\n\nIt should be borne in mind that, even after our guilt is removed, there\noften remains some temporal punishment to be undergone, either in this\nlife or the next, as an expiation to Divine sanctity and justice. The Holy\nScripture furnishes us with many examples of this truth. Mary, the sister\nof Moses, was pardoned the sin which she had committed by murmuring\nagainst her brother. Nevertheless, God inflicted on her the penalty of\nleprosy and of seven days\u2019 separation from the people.(470)\n\nNathan, the prophet, announced to David that his crimes were forgiven, but\nthat he should suffer many chastisements from the hand of God.(471)\n\nThat our Lord has given to the Church the power of granting Indulgences is\nclearly deduced from the Sacred Text. To the Prince of the Apostles He\nsaid: \u201cWhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven;\nand whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in\nheaven.\u201d(472) And to all the Apostles assembled together He made the same\nsolemn declaration.(473) By these words our Savior empowered His Church to\ndeliver her children (if properly disposed) from every obstacle that might\nretard them from the Kingdom of Heaven. Now there are two impediments that\nwithhold a man from the heavenly kingdom\u2014sin and the temporal punishment\nincurred by it. And the Church having power to remit the greater obstacle,\nwhich is sin, has power also to remove the smaller obstacle, which is the\ntemporal punishment due on account of it.\n\nThe prerogative of granting Indulgence has been exercised by the teachers\nof the Church from the beginning of her existence.\n\nSt. Paul exercised it in behalf of the incestuous Corinthian whom he had\ncondemned to a severe penance proportioned to his guilt, \u201cthat his spirit\nmight be saved in the day of the Lord.\u201d(474) And having learned afterwards\nof the Corinthian\u2019s fervent contrition the Apostle absolves him from the\npenance which he had imposed: \u201cTo him, that is such a one, this rebuke is\nsufficient, which is given by many. So that contrariwise you should rather\npardon and comfort him, lest, perhaps, such a one be swallowed up with\nover-much sorrow.... And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For,\nwhat I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have\ndone it in the person of Christ.\u201d(475)\n\nHere we have all the elements that constitute an Indulgence. First\u2014A\npenance, or temporal punishment proportioned to the gravity of the\noffence, is imposed on the transgressor. Second\u2014The penitent is truly\ncontrite for his crime. Third\u2014This determines the Apostle to remit the\npenalty. Fourth\u2014The Apostle considers the relaxation of the penance\nratified by Jesus Christ, in whose name it is imparted.\n\nWe find the Bishops of the Church, after the Apostle, wielding this same\npower. No one disputes the right, which they claimed from the very first\nages, of inflicting canonical penances on grievous criminals, who were\nsubjected to long fasts, severe abstinences and other mortifications for a\nperiod extending from a few days to five or ten years and even to a\nlifetime, according to the gravity of the offence. These penalties were,\nin several instances, mitigated or cancelled by the Church, according to\nher discretion; for a society that can inflict a punishment can also remit\nit. Our Lord gave His Church power not only to bind, but also to loose.\nThis discretionary prerogative was often exercised by the Church at the\nintercession of those who were condemned to martyrdom, when the penitents\nthemselves gave strong marks of fervent sorrow, as we learn from the\nwritings of Tertullian and Cyprian.\n\nThe General Council of Nice and other Synods authorize Bishops to\nmitigate, or even to remit altogether, public penances, whenever, in their\njudgment, the penitent manifested special marks of repentance. Now, in\nrelaxing the canonical penances, or in substituting for them a milder\nsatisfaction, the Bishops granted what we call an Indulgence. This\nsentence of remission on the part of the Bishops was valid not only in the\nsight of the Church, but also in the sight of God. Although the Church\nimposes canonical penances no longer, God has never ceased to inflict\ntemporal punishment for sin. Hence Indulgences continue to be necessary\nnow, if not as substitute for canonical penances, at least as a mild and\nmerciful payment of the temporal debt due to God.\n\nAn Indulgence is called plenary or partial, according as it remits the\nwhole or a part of the temporal punishment due to sin. An Indulgence, for\ninstance, of forty days remits, before God, so much of the temporal\npunishment as would have been expiated in the primitive Church by a\ncanonical penance of forty days.\n\nAlthough the very name of Indulgence is now so repugnant to our dissenting\nbrethren, there was a time when the Protestant Church professed to grant\nthem. In the canons of the Church of England reference is made to\nIndulgences, and to the disposition to be made of the money paid for\nthem.(476)\n\nFrom what I have said you may judge for yourself what to think of those\nwho say that an Indulgence is the remission of past sins, or a license to\ncommit sin granted by the Pope as a spiritual compensation to the faithful\nfor pecuniary offerings made him. I need not inform you that an Indulgence\nis neither the one nor the other. It is not a remission of sin, since no\none can gain an Indulgence until he is already free from sin. It is still\nless a license to commit sin; for every Catholic child knows that neither\nPriest nor Bishop nor Pope nor even God Himself\u2014with all reverence be it\nsaid\u2014can give license to commit the smallest fault.\n\nBut are not Indulgences at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, since\nthey appear to be a mild and feeble substitute for alms-giving, fasts,\nabstinences and other penitential austerities, which Jesus Christ\ninculcated and practised, and which the primitive Church enforced?\n\nThe Church, as every one must know who is acquainted with her history,\nnever exempts her children from the obligation of doing works of penance.\n\nNo one can deny that the practices of mortification are more frequent\namong Catholics than among Protestants. Where will you find the\nevangelical duty of fasting enforced, if not from the Catholic pulpit? It\nis well known that, among the members of the Catholic Church, those who\navail themselves of the boon of Indulgences are usually her most\npractical, edifying and fervent children. Their spiritual growth far from\nbeing retarded, is quickened by the aid of Indulgences, which are usually\naccompanied by acts of contrition, devotion, self-denial and the reception\nof the Sacraments.\n\nBut, do what we will, we cannot please our opponents. If we fast and give\nalms; if we crucify our flesh, and make pilgrimages and perform other\nworks of penance, we are accused of clinging to the rags of dead works,\ninstead of \"holding on to Jesus\" by faith. If, on the other hand, we\nenrich our souls with the treasures of Indulgences we are charged with\nrelying on the vicarious merits of others and of lightening too much the\nsalutary burden of the cross. But how can Protestants consistently find\nfault with the Church for _mitigating_ the austerities of penance, since\ntheir own fundamental principle rests on _faith alone without good works_?\n\nBut have not Indulgences been the occasion of many abuses at various\ntimes, particularly in the sixteenth century?\n\nI will not deny that Indulgences have been abused; but are not the most\nsacred things liable to be perverted? This is a proper place to refer\nbriefly to the Bull of Pope Leo X. proclaiming the Indulgence which\nafforded Luther a pretext for his apostasy. Leo determined to bring to\ncompletion the magnificent Church of St. Peter, commenced by his\npredecessor, Julius II. With that view he issued a Bull promulgating an\nIndulgence to such as would contribute some voluntary offering toward the\nerection of the grand cathedral. Those, however, who contributed nothing\nshared equally in the treasury of the Church, provided they complied with\nthe essential conditions for gaining the Indulgence. The only\nindispensable conditions enjoined by the Papal Bull were sincere\nrepentance and confession of sins. D\u2019Aubigne admits this truth, though in\na faltering manner, when he observes that \u201cin the Pope\u2019s Bull something\nwas said of the repentance of the heart and the confession of the\nlips.\u201d(477) The applicants for the Indulgence knew well that, no matter\nhow munificent were their offerings, these would avail them nothing\nwithout true contrition of heart.\n\nNo traffic or sale of Indulgences was, consequently, authorized or\ncountenanced by the Head of the Church, since the contributions were\nunderstood to be voluntary. In order to check any sordid love of gain in\nthose charged with preaching the Indulgence, \u201cthe hand that delivered the\nIndulgence,\u201d as D\u2019Aubigne testifies, \u201ccould not receive the money: that\nwas forbidden under the severest penalties.\u201d(478)\n\nWherein, then, was the conduct of the Pope reprehensible? Certainly not in\nsoliciting the donations of the faithful for the purpose of erecting a\ntemple of worship, a temple which today stands unrivalled in majesty and\nbeauty!\n\n\n    \u201cBut thou of temples old, or altars new,\n    Standest alone, with nothing like to thee;\n    Worthiest of God, the holy and the true,\n    Since Sion\u2019s desolation, when that He\n    Forsook His former city, what could be\n    Of earthly structures, in His honor piled,\n    Of a sublimer aspect? Majesty,\n    Power, Glory, Strength, and Beauty, all are aisled\n    In this eternal ark of worship undefiled.\u201d(479)\n\n\nIf Moses was justified in appealing to the Hebrew people, in the Old Law,\nfor offerings to adorn the tabernacle, why should not the Pope be equally\njustified in appealing for similar offerings to the Christian people,\namong whom he exercises supreme authority, as Moses did among the\nIsraelites?\n\nNor did the Pope exceed his legitimate powers in promising to the pious\ndonors spiritual favors in exchange for their donations. For if our sins\ncan be redeemed by alms to the poor,(480) as the Scripture tells us, why\nnot as well by offerings in the cause of religion? When Protestant\nministers appeal to their congregations in behalf of themselves and their\nchildren, or in support of a church, they do not fail to hold out to their\nhearers spiritual blessings in reward for their gifts. It is not long\nsince a Methodist parson of New York addressed these sacred words to\nCornelius Vanderbilt, the millionaire, who had endowed a Methodist\ncollege: \u201cCornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are had in\nremembrance in the sight of God.\u201d(481) The minister is more _indulgent_\nthan even the Pope, to whom were given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven;\nfor the minister declares Cornelius absolved without the preliminary of\nconfession or contrition, while even, according to D\u2019Aubigne, the\ninflexible Pope insisted on the necessity of \u201crepentance of the heart and\nconfession of the lips\u201d before the donor\u2019s offering could avail him to\nsalvation.\n\nJohn Tetzel, a Dominican monk, who had been appointed the chief preacher\nto announce the Indulgence in Germany, was accused by Luther of exceeding\nhis powers by making them subservient to his own private ends. Tetzel\u2019s\nconduct was disavowed and condemned by the representative of the Holy See.\nThe Council of Trent, held some time after, took effectual measures to put\na stop to all irregularities regarding Indulgences and issued the\nfollowing decree: \u201cWishing to correct and amend the abuses which have\ncrept into them, and on occasion of which this signal name of Indulgences\nis blasphemed by heretics, the Holy Synod enjoins in general, by the\npresent decree, that all wicked traffic for obtaining them, which has been\nthe fruitful source of many abuses among the Christian people, should be\nwholly abolished.\u201d(482)\n\n\n\n\n\n                             Chapter XXVIII.\n\n\nEXTREME UNCTION.\n\n\nExtreme Unction is a Sacrament in which the sick, by the anointing with\nholy oil and the prayers of the Priests, receive spiritual succor and even\ncorporal strength when such is conducive to their salvation. This unction\nis called _Extreme_, because it is usually the last of the holy unctions\nadministered by the Church.\n\nThe Apostle St. James clearly refers to this Sacrament and points out its\nefficacy in the following words: \u201cIs any man sick among you; let him bring\nin the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him\nwith oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the\nsick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they\nshall be forgiven him.\u201d(483)\n\nSeveral of the ancient Fathers allude to this Sacrament. Origen (third\ncentury) writes: \u201cThere is also a remission of sins through penitence,\nwhen the sinner ... is not ashamed to declare his sin to the Priest of the\nLord, and to seek a remedy ... wherein that also is fulfilled which the\nApostle James saith: \u2018_But if any be sick among you, let him call in the\nPriests of the Church, and let them impose hands on him, anointing him\nwith oil in the name of the Lord_.\u2019 \u201d(484)\n\nSt. Chrysostom (fourth century) says: \u201cNot only when they (the Priests)\nregenerate us, but they have also power to forgive sins committed\nafterward; for he says: \u2018Is any man sick among you; let him call in the\nPriests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil\nin the name of the Lord.\u2019 \u201d(485)\n\nPope Innocent I. (fifth century), in a letter to a Bishop named Decentius,\nafter quoting the words of St. James, proceeds: \u201cThese words, there is no\ndoubt, ought to be understood of the faithful who are sick, who can be\nanointed with the holy oil, which, having been prepared by a Bishop, may\nbe used, not only for Priests, but for all Christians.\u201d(486)\n\nThe Sacramentary, or ancient Roman Ritual, revised by Pope St. Gregory in\nthe sixth century, prescribes the blessing of oil by the Bishop, and the\nprayers to be recited in the anointing of the sick.\n\nThe venerable Bede of England, who lived in the eighth century, referring\nto the words of St. James, writes: \u201cThe custom of the Church requires that\nthe sick be anointed by the Priests with consecrated oil and be sanctified\nby the prayer which accompanies it.\u201d(487)\n\nThe Greek Church, which separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the\nninth century, says in its profession of faith: \u201cThe seventh Sacrament is\nExtreme Unction, prescribed by Christ; for, after He had begun to send His\ndisciples two and two (Mark vi. 7-13), they anointed and healed many,\nwhich unction the Church has since maintained by pious usage, as we learn\nfrom the Epistle of St. James: \u2018Is any man sick among you,\u2019_ etc._ The\nfruits proper to this Sacrament, as St. James declares, are the remission\nof sins, health of soul, strength\u2014in fine, of body. But though it does not\nalways produce this last result, it always, at least, restores the soul to\na better state by the forgiveness of sins.\u201d This is precisely the Catholic\nteaching on this subject. All the other Oriental churches, some of which\nseparated from Rome in the fifth century, likewise enumerate Extreme\nUnction among their Sacraments.\n\nSuch identity of doctrine proclaimed during so many ages by churches so\nwide apart can have no other than an Apostolic origin.\n\nThe eminent Protestant Leibnitz makes this candid admission: \u201cThere is no\nroom for much discussion regarding the unction of the sick. It is\nsupported by the words of Scripture, the interpretation of the Church, in\nwhich pious and Catholic men safely confide. Nor do I see what any one can\nfind reprehensible in that practice which the Church accepts.\u201d(488)\n\nProtestants, though professing to be guided by the Holy Scripture,\nentirely disregard the admonition of St. James. Luther acted with more\nconsistency. Finding that the injunction of the Apostle was too plain to\nbe explained away by subtlety of words, he boldly rejected the entire\nEpistle, which he contemptuously styled \u201ca letter of straw.\u201d(489)\n\nIt is sad to think that our separated brethren discard this consoling\ninstrument of grace, though pressed upon them by an Apostle of Jesus\nChrist; for, surely, a spiritual medicine which diminishes the terrors of\ndeath, comforts the dying Christian, fortifies the soul in its final\nstruggle, and purifies it for its passage from time to eternity, should be\ngratefully and eagerly made use of, especially when prescribed by an\ninspired Physician.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXIX.\n\n\nTHE PRIESTHOOD.\n\n\nThe Apostles were clothed with the powers of Jesus Christ. The Priest, as\nthe successor of the Apostles, is clothed with their power. This fact\nreveals to us the eminent dignity of the priestly character.\n\nThe exalted dignity of the Priest is derived not from the personal merits\nfor which he may be conspicuous, but from the sublime functions which he\nis charged to perform. To the carnal eye the Priest looks like other men,\nbut to the eye of faith he is exalted above the angels, because he\nexercises powers not given even to angels.\n\nThe Priest is the _ambassador of God_, appointed to vindicate His honor\nand to proclaim His glory. \u201cWe are ambassadors for Christ,\u201d says the\nApostle; \u201cGod, as it were, exhorting by us.\u201d(490) If it is esteemed a\ngreat privilege for a citizen of the United States to represent our\ncountry in any of the courts of Europe, how much greater is the\nprerogative to represent the court of heaven among the nations of the\nearth! \u201cAs the Father hath sent Me,\u201d says our Lord to His Apostles, \u201cI\nalso send you.\u201d(491) \u201cGoing, therefore, teach ye all nations, ... teaching\nthem to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold,\nI am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.\u201d(492) The\njurisdiction of earthly representatives is limited, but the authority of\nthe ministers of God extends over the whole earth. \u201cGo ye into the whole\nworld and preach the Gospel,\u201d says Christ, \u201cto every creature.\u201d(493)\n\nNot only does Jesus empower His ministers to preach in His name, but he\ncommands their hearers to listen and obey. \u201cWhosoever will not receive\nyou, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake off\nthe dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable\nfor the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that\ncity.\u201d(494) \u201cHe that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you\ndespiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.\u201d(495)\n\nGod requires not only that His Gospel should be heard with reverence, but\nthat the persons of His Apostles should be honored. As no greater insult\ncan be offered to a nation than to insult its representative at a foreign\ncourt, so no greater injury can be offered to our Lord than to do violence\nto His representatives, the Priests of His Church. \u201cTouch not My anointed,\nand do no evil to My prophets.\u201d(496) God avenged the crime of two and\nforty boys who mocked the prophet Eliseus by sending wild beasts to tear\nthem in pieces. The frightful death of Maria Monk, the caluminator of\nconsecrated Priests and Virgins, who ended her life a drunken maniac on\nBlackwell\u2019s Island, proves that our religious institutions are not to be\nmocked with impunity.\n\nWhen an ambassador is accredited from this country to a foreign court, he\nis honored with the confidence of the President, from whom he receives\nprivate instructions. So does Jesus honor His ambassadors with His\nfriendship and communicate to them the secrets of heaven: \u201cI will not now\ncall you servants; for, the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth. But I\nhave called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of My\nFather I have made known to you.\u201d(497)\n\nWhat a privilege to be the herald of God\u2019s law to the nations of the\nearth! \u201cHow beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth\ngood tidings and that preacheth peace: of him that showeth forth good,\nthat preacheth salvation, that saith to Sion: Thy God shall reign.\u201d(498)\nHow cherished a favor to be the bearer of the olive branch of peace to a\nworld deluged by sin; to be appointed by Heaven to proclaim a Gospel which\nbrings glory to God, and peace to men; that Gospel which strengthens the\nweak, converts the sinner, reconciles enemies, consoles the afflicted\nheart and holds out to all the hope of eternal salvation!\n\nI have often reflected on a remark made to me by Senator Bayard of\nDelaware: \u201cYou of the clergy,\u201d he said, \u201chave a great advantage as public\nspeakers over us political men. You enjoy the confidence of your hearers.\nYou can speak as long as you please, you can admonish and rebuke as much\nas you please, without any fear of contradiction; while we are constantly\nliable to interruption.\u201d\n\nO! what a tremendous power is wielded by the Catholic preacher! Hundreds\nof souls are hanging on his words; hundreds are sustained by him in\nspiritual life, and leave the Church depending on him whether they go\nforth fortified with the Bread of life, or famished and disappointed. I\ncan say of every Priest what Simeon said of our Lord, \u201cThis man is set for\nthe fall and the resurrection of many in Israel.\u201d\n\nNot only are Priests the ambassadors of God, but they are also the\n_dispensers of His graces_ and the almoners of His mercy. \u201cLet a man so\nregard us,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cas ministers of Christ and dispensers of\nthe mysteries of God.\u201d(499)\n\nHow can he be called a dispenser of God\u2019s mysteries whose labors are\nconfined to preaching? But he is truly a dispenser of Divine mysteries who\ndistributes to the faithful the Sacraments, the mysterious symbols and\nefficient causes of grace.\n\nAs St. John Chrysostom observes, it was not to angels or archangels, but\nto the Priests of the New Law that Christ said: \u201cWhatsoever you shall bind\non earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on\nearth shall be loosed also in heaven.\u201d To them alone He gave the power to\nforgive sins, saying: \u201cWhose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven.\u201d\nTo them alone He gave the power of consecrating His Body and Blood and\ndispensing the same to the faithful. He has empowered the Priests of the\nNew Law to impart the grace of regeneration in Baptism. He has assigned to\nthem the solemn duty of preparing the dying Christian for his final\njourney to eternity: \u201cIs any man sick among you? Let him bring in the\npriests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil,\nin the name of the Lord.\u201d(500)\n\nAs far as heaven is above earth, as eternity is above time, and the soul\nis above the body, so far are the prerogatives vested in God\u2019s ministers\nhigher than those of any earthly potentate. An earthly prince can cast\ninto prison or release therefrom. But his power is over the body. He\ncannot penetrate into the sanctuary of the soul; whereas the minister of\nGod can release the soul from the prison of sin, and restore it to the\nliberty of a child of God.\n\nTo sum up in a few brief sentences the titles of a Catholic Priest:\n\nHe is a _king_, reigning not over unwilling subjects, but over the hearts\nand affections of his people.\n\nHis spiritual children pay him not only the tribute of their money, but\nalso the tribute of their love which royalty can neither purchase nor\nexact.\n\nHe is a _shepherd_, because he leads his flock into the delicious pastures\nof the Sacraments and shelters them from the wolves that lie in wait for\ntheir souls.\n\nHe is a _father_, because he breaks the bread of life to his spiritual\nchildren, whom he has begotten in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.(501)\n\nHe is a _judge_, whose office it is to pass sentence of pardon on\nself-accusing criminals.\n\nHe is a _physician_, because he heals their souls from the loathsome\ndistempers of sin.\n\nSt. John, in his Apocalypse, represents the Church under the figure of a\ncity. \u201cI saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven,\nfrom God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.\u201d(502) Our Savior is\nthe Architect and Founder of this celestial city. The Apostles are its\nfoundation. The faithful are the living stones of the edifice. The\nanointed ministers of the Lord are the workmen chosen to adjust and polish\nthese stones, that they may reflect the beauty and glory of the sun of\njustice that perpetually illumines this city. The Priests are engaged in\nadorning the interior of the heavenly Jerusalem by enriching, with virtue,\nthe precious souls entrusted to their charge. \u201cGod gave some, indeed,\nApostles, and some Prophets, and others Evangelists, and others Pastors\nand Doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the\nministry, for the building up of the body of Christ,\u201d(503) which is His\nChurch. What an honor is this to the Priest of the New Law! Surely God\n\u201chath not done alike to every nation, and His judgments He hath not made\nmanifest to them.\u201d(504)\n\nWith how much more force may we apply to the successors of the Apostles\nthe words which God spoke to the Priests of the Old Law: \u201cHear, ye sons of\nLevi. Is it a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated\nyou from all the people and joined you to Himself, that ye should serve\nHim in the service of the tabernacle, and should stand before the\ncongregation of the people and minister unto Him?\u201d\n\nOur Savior affectionately puts this question three times to Peter: \u201cSimon,\nlovest thou Me?\u201d And three times Peter answers Him, \u201cLord, Thou knowest\nthat I love Thee.\u201d What proof of love, then, does Jesus exact of Peter?\nDoes He say: If thou lovest Me, chastise thy body by fasting and stripes,\nprophesy, work miracles, lay down thy life for Me? No, but \u201cfeed My\nlambs,\u201d \u201cfeed My sheep.\u201d This was to be the closest bond of Peter\u2019s\ndevotion to his Master, and of the Master\u2019s affection for His disciple.\n\nAnd our Lord declares that the reward of His disciples would be\ncommensurate with the dignity of their ministry: \u201cBehold,\u201d says Peter, \u201cwe\nhave left all things and have followed Thee. What, therefore, shall we\nhave? And Jesus said to them, Amen, I say to you that you who have\nfollowed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the\nseat of His majesty, you shall also sit on twelve seats, judging the\ntwelve tribes of Israel.\u201d And immediately after He adds that the worthy\nsuccessors of the Apostles shall share in their felicity: \u201cAnd every one\nthat hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or\nwife, or children, or lands for my name\u2019s sake shall receive a hundredfold\nand shall possess life everlasting.\u201d(505)\n\nI know that there are many in our days who deny that Priests possess any\nspiritual power\u2014as if God could not communicate such power to men. I\nunderstand why atheists and rationalists, who reject all revelation,\nshould deny all supernatural authority to the ministers of God. But that\nprofessing Christians who accept the testimony of Scripture should share\nin this unbelief passes my comprehension.\n\nHas not the Almighty, in numberless instances recorded in Holy Writ, made\nman the instrument of His power? Did not Moses convert the rivers of Egypt\ninto blood? Did he not cause water to issue from the barren rock? Did not\nthe prophets predict future events? Did not the sun stand still in the\nheavens at the command of Josue? Did not Eliseus, the prophet, raise the\ndead to life? Why do we believe all these prodigies? Because the\nScriptures record them. Does not the same Word of God declare that the\nApostles received power to confer the Holy Ghost by the imposition of\nhands, to forgive sins, to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.\nIs not the New Testament as worthy of belief as the Old? Has not Jesus\nChrist solemnly promised to be always with the ministers of His Church,\n\u201ceven to the consummation of the world,\u201d strengthening them to repeat\nthose miracles of mercy that were wrought by His first disciples? Can the\nGod of truth be unfaithful to His promises? Is He not as strong and\nmerciful now as He was in days of the Prophets and Apostles, and are not\nwe as much in need of the Holy Ghost as the primitive Christians were? If\nGod could make feeble men the ministers of His mercy then, why not now?\n\nBut should a Priest consider himself greater than other men because he\nexercises such authority? Far from it. He ought to humble himself beneath\nothers when he reflects to what weak hands God assigns power so\ntremendous. He should remember what our Savior said to the seventy-two\ndisciples, who, returning with joy from their first mission, cried out to\nHim: \u201cLord, even the devils are subject to us in Thy name.\u201d But Jesus\nchecked their vain-glory, saying: \u201cI saw Satan like lightning fall from\nheaven. Behold, I have given you power ... but rejoice not in this, that\nspirits are subject to you; but rejoice in this, that your names are\nwritten in heaven.\u201d(506) The Priest does not forget that \u201cthe most severe\njudgment shall be for them that bear rule,\u201d(507) and that \u201cjudgment should\nbegin at the house of God.\u201d(508) The words of the Apostle are present to\nhis mind: \u201cWhat hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast\nreceived, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?\u201d(509) As\nwell might the vessel that is filled with precious liquor boast of being\nsuperior to the vessel that is filled with water. The Priest knows full\nwell that the powers he has received from God are given to him not to feed\nhis own vanity, but to enrich the hearts of the faithful; and that, though\ninstrumental in pointing out to others the way to heaven, he himself,\nunless adorned with personal virtues, will become a reprobate, like those\nunhappy Priests of Jerusalem who directed the Magi to Jesus in Bethlehem,\nbut did not go thither themselves.\n\n\u201cI have planted,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cApollo watered, but God gave the\nincrease. Therefore, neither he that planteth is anything, nor he that\nwatereth, but God that giveth the increase.\u201d(510) We perform the outward\nceremony; God alone supplies the grace.\n\nThe obligations of the minister of God are, therefore commensurate with\nhis exalted dignity.\n\nThe Priest is required to be a man of profound learning and of solid\npiety. \u201cThe lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they (the people)\nshall seek the law at his mouth.\u201d(511) The Lord denounces the Priests of\nthe Old Law because they neglected to study the Sacred Sciences: \u201cBecause\nthou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do\nthe office of priesthood for Me, and thou hast forgotten the law of thy\nGod, I will also forget thy children.\u201d(512)\n\n\u201cTo you,\u201d says our Lord to His Apostles, \u201cit is given to know the mystery\nof the Kingdom of God, to the rest, in parables.\u201d The Priests of the New\nLaw, like the Apostles, are the custodians of the mysteries of religion.\n\nNow we know that the knowledge of God\u2019s Kingdom is not imparted to us by\ninspiration or revelation. Christ does not personally teach us as He\ntaught His Apostles. It is by hard study that the knowledge of His law is\nacquired by us. He does not lift us up on Angels\u2019 wings to the spiritual\nParnassus. It is only by the royal road of earnest labor that we can\nattain those heights which will enable us to contemplate the Kingdom of\nheaven and describe it to others.\n\nAs physician of the soul, he must be conversant with its various\ndistempers and must know what remedy is to be applied in each particular\ncase. If society justly holds the unskilful physician responsible for the\nfatal consequences of his malpractice, surely God will call to a strict\naccount the spiritual physician who, through criminal ignorance,\nprescribes injudicious remedies to the souls of the patients committed to\nhis charge.\n\nAs judge of souls, he must know when to bind and when to loose, when to\ndefer and when to pronounce sentence of absolution. If nothing is so\ndisastrous to the Republic as an incompetent judge, whose decisions,\nthough involving life and death, are rendered at hap-hazard and not in\naccordance with the merits of the case, so nothing is more detrimental to\nthe Christian commonwealth than an ignorant priesthood, whose decisions\ninjuriously affect the salvation of souls.\n\nThe advocate in our courts of justice feels bound in conscience and in\nhonor to study the case of his client with the utmost diligence, and to\ndefend him before the jury with all the eloquence he can master. And yet\nthe suit may not involve more than a brief imprisonment or even a limited\nfine.\n\nBut the Priest, like Moses, stands before God to intercede for His people,\nand before the people to advocate the cause of God. He not only ascends\ndaily the altar to plead for the people and to cry out with the prophet,\n\u201cSpare, O Lord, spare Thy people, and give not Thy inheritance to\nreproach;\u201d but every Sunday he mounts the pulpit to vindicate the claims\nwhich God has on His subjects. Certainly, if an attorney is bound to study\nhis client\u2019s cause before he defends it, no matter how trifling the issue,\nhow much more imperative is the obligation of the Priest to study well his\ncase, when he reflects that an immortal soul is on trial, and before men\nwho are often the worst enemies of their own soul. He has to convince the\npeople that the narrow road, which their inclinations abhor, is to be\nfollowed; and that the broad road, which their self-love and their\npassions tend to pursue, is to be abandoned. Conviction in this case\nrequires rare tact as well as eloquence and learning.\n\nBut the minister of religion has to defend the soul not only against the\ncorruptions of the heart, but also against those doctrinal errors that are\ndaily springing up in every direction, and which are plausibly preached by\nfalse teachers, who bring to their support the most specious arguments,\ncouched in the most attractive language. To refute these errors often\nrequires the most consummate skill and a profound knowledge of history and\nthe Holy Scripture.\n\nIt is no wonder, then, that the Church insists that her clergy be educated\nmen. Hence our ecclesiastical students are usually obliged to devote from\nten to fourteen years to the diligent study of the modern and ancient\nlanguages, of history and philosophy, of the great science of theology and\nHoly Scripture, before they are elevated to the sacred ministry.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that, owing to the rapidly-increasing demand for\nclergy in the United States, our Bishops have hitherto been sometimes\ncompelled to abridge the course of studies of the candidates for the\nministry; but now that the Church is more thoroughly organized, and that\nseminaries are multiplied among us, they are happily enabled to extend to\ntheir young levites the advantages of a full term of literary and\ntheological training.\n\nIf the Priest should be eminent for his learning, he should be still more\nconspicuous for his virtues, for he is expected to preach more by example\nthan by precept. If in the Old Law God charged His Priests with the\nadmonition: \u201cBe sanctified, ye that carry the vessels of the Lord,\u201d(513)\nhow much more strictly is holiness of life enjoined on the Priests of the\nNew Dispensation, who not only touch the sacred vessels, but drink from\nthem the Precious Blood of the Lord?\n\n\u201cPurer,\u201d says St. Chrysostom, \u201cthan any solar ray should that hand be\nwhich divides that flesh, that mouth which is filled with spiritual fire,\nthat tongue which is purpled with that most awful blood.\u201d\n\nIn order to foster in us the spirit of personal piety, we are constantly\nadmonished by the Church to be men of prayer. The Priest should be like\nthose angels whom Jacob saw in a vision, ascending to heaven and\ndescending therefrom on the mystical ladder. He is expected to ascend by\nprayer and to descend by preaching. He ascends to heaven to receive light\nfrom God; he descends to communicate that light to his hearers. He ascends\nto draw at the Fountain of Divine grace, he descends to diffuse those\nliving waters among the faithful, that their hearts may be refreshed. He\nascends to light his torch at the ever-burning furnace of Divine love; he\ndescends to communicate the flame to the souls of his people.\n\nThe Church, indeed, considers prayer so indispensable to her clergy that,\nbesides the voluntary exercises of piety which their private devotion may\nsuggest, she requires them to devote at least an hour each day to the\nrecitation of the Divine Office, which chiefly consists of the Psalms and\nother portions of Holy Scripture, the Homilies of the early Fathers and\nprayers of marvelous force and unction.\n\n\n\n\n\n                               Chapter XXX.\n\n\nCELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.\n\n\nThe Church requires her Priests to be pure in body as well as in soul, and\nto \u201cpresent their bodies a living victim, holy, well-pleasing unto\nGod.\u201d(514)\n\nOur Savior and His Apostles, though recognizing matrimony as a holy state,\nhave proclaimed the superior merits of voluntary continency, particularly\nfor those who consecrate their lives to the sacred ministry. \u201cThere are\neunuchs who have made themselves such for the Kingdom of Heaven\u2019s sake. He\nwho can take it, let him take it.\u201d(515) Our Lord evidently recommends here\nthe state of celibacy to such as feel themselves called to embrace it, in\norder to attain greater perfection.\n\nSt. Paul gives the reason why our Savior declares continency to be a more\nsuitable state for His ministers than that of matrimony: \u201cHe who is\nunmarried careth for the things of the Lord\u2014how he may please God. But he\nwho is married is solicitous about the things of the world\u2014how he may\nplease his wife\u2014and he is divided.\u201d(516)\n\nJesus Christ manifestly showed His predilection for virginity, not only by\nalways remaining a virgin, but by selecting a Virgin-Mother and a\nvirgin-precursor in the person of St. John the Baptist, and by exhibiting\na special effection for John the Evangelist, because, as St. Augustine\ntestifies, that Apostle was chosen a virgin and such he always remained.\n\nNot only did our Lord thus manifest while on earth a marked predilection\nfor virgins, but He exhibits the same preference for them in heaven; for\nthe hundred and forty-four thousand who are chosen to sing the New\nCanticle and who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth are all virgins,\nas St. John testifies. (Apoc. xiv.)\n\nThe Apostle of the Gentiles assures us that he led a single life, and he\ncommends that state to others: \u201cI say to the unmarried, and to the widows\nit is good for them if they so continue, even as I.\u201d(517)\n\nThere is no evidence from Scripture that any of the Apostles were married\nexcept St. Peter. St. Jerome says that if any were married they certainly\nseparated from their wives after they were called to the Apostolate. Even\nSt. Peter, after his vocation, did not continue with his wife, as may be\ninferred from his own words: \u201cBehold, we have left all things, and\nfollowed Thee.\u201d(518) Among \u201call things\u201d must be reckoned the fellowship of\nhis wife, for he could hardly say with truth that he had left all things\nif he had not left his wife. Our Savior immediately after enumerates the\nwife among those cherished objects, the renunciation of which, for His\nsake, will have its reward.(519)\n\nSt. Paul declares that \u201ca Bishop must be sober, just, holy,\ncontinent.\u201d(520) And writing to Timothy, whom he had consecrated Bishop,\nhe says: \u201cBe thou an example to the faithful ... in charity, in faith, in\n_chastity_.\u201d(521) In another place, he enumerates chastity among the\nvirtues that should adorn the Christian minister: \u201cIn all things let us\nexhibit ourselves as the ministers of God in much patience, ... in\nchastity.\u201d(522)\n\nAlthough celibacy is not expressly enforced by our Savior, it is, however,\ncommended so strongly by Himself and His Apostles, both by word and\nexample, that the Church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law.\n\nThe discipline of the Church has been exerted from the beginning in\nprohibiting Priests to marry _after_ their ordination. St. Jerome observes\nthat \u201cBishops, Priests and Deacons are chosen from virgins or widowers,\nor, at least, they remain perpetually chaste after being elevated to the\npriesthood.\u201d(523) To Jovinian he writes: \u201cYou certainly admit that he\ncannot remain a Bishop who begets children in the episcopacy; for, if\nconvicted, he will not be esteemed as a husband, but condemned as an\nadulterer.\u201d(524) Again he says: \u201cWhat will the churches of the East, of\nEgypt and of the Apostolic See do, which adopt their clergy from among\nvirgins, or if they have wives, they cease to live as married men.\u201d(525)\n\nSt. Epiphanius declares that \u201che who leads a married life is not admitted\nby the Church to the order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-Deacon.\u201d(526)\n\nIn the primitive days of the Church, owing to the scarcity of vocations\namong the unmarried, married men were admitted to sacred orders, but they\nwere enjoined, as we learn from various canons, to live separated from\ntheir wives after their ordination.\n\nThis discipline, it is true, was relaxed to some extent in favor of a\nportion of the clergy of the Oriental Church, who were permitted to live\nwith their wives if they happened to espouse them before ordination; but,\nlike the Priests of the Western Church, the Eastern clergy were forbidden\nto contract marriage after their ordination. It is important also to\nobserve that the unmarried clergy of the East are held in much higher\nesteem by the people than the married Priests.\n\nIt cannot, indeed, be denied that at certain epochs of the Church\u2019s\nhistory, especially in periods of disordered society, there were too many\ninstances of the violation of clerical celibacy. But the repeated\nviolations of a law are no evidence of its non-existence. Whenever the\nvoice of the Church could be heard it always spoke in vindication of the\nlaw of priestly chastity.\n\nLet me now call your attention to the propriety and advantages of clerical\ncelibacy.\n\nFirst\u2014The Priest is the representative of Jesus Christ. He continues the\nwork begun by his Divine Master. It is his duty to preach the word, to\nadminister the Sacraments, and, above all, to consecrate the Body and\nBlood of Christ and to distribute the same to the faithful. Is it not\nbecoming that a chaste Lord should be served by chaste ministers?\n\nIf the Jewish Priests, while engaged in their turn in offering the\nsacrifice of animals in the Temple, were obliged to keep apart from their\nwives, should not the Priests of the New Law, who offer daily the\nsacrifice of the Immaculate Lamb, practise continual chastity?\n\nIf David and his friends were not permitted to eat the bread of\nProposition till he had avowed that for the three preceding days they had\nrefrained from women,(527) how pure in body and soul should be the Priest\nwho daily partakes of that living Bread of which the bread of Proposition\nwas but the type; and if the people at Mount Sinai were forbidden to come\nnear their wives for three days before receiving the Law,(528) should not\nthey whose office it is to preach the Law at all times abstain altogether?\n\nThorndyke, an eminent Protestant Divine, in his work entitled, _Just\nWeights and Measures_, makes the following observation: \u201cThe reason for\nsingle life for the clergy is firmly grounded, by the Fathers and canons\nof the Church, upon the precept of St. Paul, forbidding man and wife to\ndepart unless for a time, to attend unto prayer (I. Cor. vii. 5). For,\nPriests and Deacons being continually to attend upon occasions of\ncelebrating the Eucharist, which ought continually to be frequented; if\nothers be to abstain from the use of marriage for a time, then they\nalways.\u201d(529)\n\nSecond\u2014Writers frequently discuss the secret cause of the marvelous\nsuccess which marks the growth of the Catholic Church everywhere in spite\nof the most formidable opposition. Some ascribe this progress to her\nthorough organization; others to the far-seeing wisdom of her chief\npastors. Without undervaluing these and other auxiliaries, I incline to\nthe belief that, under God, the Church has no tower of strength more\npotent than the celibacy of her clergy. The unmarried Priest, as St. Paul\nobserves (1 Cor. vii.), is free to give his whole time undivided to the\nLord, and can devote his attention not to one or two children, but to the\nentire flock whom he has begotten in Christ Jesus, through the Gospel;\nwhile the married minister is divided between the cares of his family and\nhis duties to the congregation. \u201cA single life,\u201d says Bacon, \u201cdoth well\nwith churchmen; for, charity will hardly water the ground where it must\nfirst fill a pool.\u201d(530)\n\nThird\u2014The world has hitherto been converted by unmarried clergymen, and\nonly by them will it continue to be converted. St. Francis Xavier and St.\nFrancis de Sales could not have planted the faith in so many thousands of\nsouls if they were accompanied on their journeys by their wives and\nchildren. Of all the gems that adorn the priestly diadem, none is so\nprecious and indispensable in the eyes of the people as the peerless jewel\nof chastity. Without this pearl the voice of a Hyacinthe \u201cbecomes as\nsounding brass and a tinkling cymbal;\u201d with it, the humblest missioner\ngains the hearts of multitudes.\n\nEverybody is aware of the numerous conversions to Christianity effected by\nSt. Francis Xavier in Japan in the sixteenth century. After the lapse of\nmany years from the death of St. Francis, when a French squadron was\npermitted to enter the Japanese ports, a native Christian, named Peter,\nhaving learned that French Priests were on board, put their faith to the\ntest by proposing to them these three questions: \u201cAre you followers of the\ngreat Father in Rome? Do you honor Mary, the Blessed Virgin? Have you\nwives?\u201d The French priests having satisfied their interrogator on these\npoints, and especially on the last, Peter and his companions fell at the\nmissioners\u2019 feet, exclaiming with delight \u201cThanks, thanks! they are\nvirgins and true disciples of our Apostle Francis.\u201d(531)\n\nA contemporary writer has wittily remarked that \u201cperhaps the most ardent\nadmirer of hymeneal rites would cheerfully admit that he could not\nconceive St. Paul or St. John starting on a nuptial tour, accompanied by\nthe latest fashions from Athens or Ephesus, and the graceful brides whom\nthey were destined to adorn. They would feel that Christianity itself\ncould not survive such a vision as that. Nor could the imagination, in its\nwildest moods, picture the majestic adversary of the Arian Emperor\nattended in his flight up the Nile by Mistress Athanasius, nor St. John\nChrysostom escorted in his wanderings through Phrygia by the wife of his\nbosom arrayed in a wreath of orange-blossoms. Would Ethelbert have become\na Christian if St. Augustine had introduced to him his lady and her\nbridesmaids?\u201d(532)\n\nWe frequently hear of unmarried Bishops and Priests laying down their\nlives for the faith in China and Corea and imprisoned in Germany. Heroic\nsacrifices such as these are, however, too much to be expected from men\nenjoying the domestic luxury and engrossed by the responsibility of a wife\nand children.\n\nBut does not St. Paul authorize the marriage of the clergy when he says:\n\u201cHave we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest\nof the Apostles?\u201d(533) The Protestant text mis-translates this passage by\nsubstituting the word _wife_ for _woman_. It is evident that St. Paul does\nnot speak here of his wife, since he had none; but he alludes to those\npious women who voluntarily waited on the Apostles, and ministered to them\nin their missionary journeys.\n\nIt is also objected that the Apostle seems to require that a Bishop be\n\u201cthe husband of one wife.\u201d(534) The context certainly cannot mean that a\nBishop must be a married man, for the reason already given, that St. Paul\nhimself was never married. The sense of the text, as all tradition\ntestifies, is that no candidate should be elected to the office of Bishop\nwho had been married more than once. It was not possible in those days\nalways to select single men for the Episcopal office. Hence the Church was\noften compelled to choose married persons, but always with this\nrestriction, that they had never contracted nuptials a second time. They\nwere obliged, moreover, if not widowers, to live separated from their\nwives.\n\nOthers adduce against clerical celibacy these words of St. Paul: \u201cIn the\nlast times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of\nerror, ... forbidding to marry.\u201d(535) This passage, however, alludes to\nthe Ebionites, Gnostics and Manicheans, who positively taught that\nmarriage is sinful. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that\nmatrimony is not only a lawful state, for those who are called to embrace\nit, but that it is also a Sacrament, and that the highest degree of\nholiness is attainable in conjugal life.\n\nSome go so far as to declare continency impracticable. Our dissenting\nbrethren in the ministry are so uxoriously inclined that, perhaps, for\nthis reason they dispute the possibility, as well as the privilege, of\nPriests to remain single. But in making this assertion they impugn the\nwisdom of Jesus Christ and His Apostle, who lived in this state and\nrecommended it to others; they slander consecrated Priests and nuns, and\nthey unwittingly question the purity of their own unmarried sisters,\ndaughters and sons. How many men and women are there in the world who\nspend years, nay, their whole lives, in the single state? And who shall\ndare to accuse such a multitude of incontinency?\n\nNor should any one complain of the severity of the law of clerical\ncelibacy, since the candidate voluntarily accepts the obligations after\nmature consideration.\n\nFinally, it cannot be urged against celibacy that it violates the Divine\nprecept to \u201cincrease and multiply;\u201d for this command surely cannot require\nall marriageable persons to be united in wedlock. Otherwise, bachelors and\nspinsters would also be guilty of violating the law. The number of men and\nwomen consecrated to God by vows of chastity forms but an imperceptible\nfraction of the human family, their proportion in the United States, for\ninstance, being only one individual to about every four thousand.\nMoreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that the population increases\nmost in those countries in which the Catholic clergy exercise the\nstrongest influence; for there married people are impressed with the idea\nthat marriage was instituted not for the gratification of the flesh, but\nfor the procreation and Christian education of children.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Chapter XXXI.\n\n\nMATRIMONY.\n\n\nMatrimony is not only a natural contract between husband and wife, but it\nhas been elevated for Christians, by Jesus Christ, to the dignity of a\nSacrament: \u201cHusbands,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201clove your wives, as Christ also\nloved the Church and delivered Himself up for it, ... so also ought men to\nlove their wives as their own bodies.... For this cause shall a man leave\nhis father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife and they shall be one\nflesh. This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the\nChurch.\u201d(536)\n\nIn these words the Apostle declares that the union of Christ with His\nChurch is the type or model of the bond subsisting between man and wife.\nNow the union between Christ and His Church is supernatural and sealed by\nDivine grace. Hence, also, is the fellowship of a Christian husband and\nwife cemented by the grace of God. The wedded couple are bound to love one\nanother during their whole lives, as Christ has loved His Church, and to\ndischarge the virtues proper to the married state. In order to fulfil\nthese duties special graces of our Savior are required.\n\nThe Fathers, Councils and Liturgies of the Western and the Oriental\nChurches, including the Coptic, Jacobite, Syriac, Nestorian and other\nschismatic bodies, which for upwards of fourteen centuries have been\nseparated from the Catholic communion, all agree in recognizing Christian\nmarriage as a Sacrament.\n\nHence the Council of Trent, speaking of Matrimony, says: \u201cChrist Himself,\nthe Institutor and Perfector of the venerable sacraments, merited for us\nby His passion the grace which might perfect that natural love, and\nconfirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the married; as the Apostle\nPaul intimates, saying: \u2018Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved\nthe Church, and delivered Himself for it;\u2019 adding shortly after: \u2018This is\na great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.\u2019 (Ephes. v.)\nWhereas, therefore matrimony, in the evangelical law, excels in grace,\nthrough Christ, the ancient marriages; with reason have our holy Fathers\nand Councils and the tradition of the universal Church always taught that\nit is to be numbered among the sacraments of the new law.\u201d(537)\n\nThe Gospel forbids a man to have more than one wife, and a wife to have\nmore than one husband. \u201cHave you not read,\u201d says our Savior, \u201cthat He who\nmade man in the beginning made them male and female? And He said, for this\ncause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto _his\nwife, and they two shall be in one flesh_. Wherefore they are no more two,\nbut one flesh.\u201d(538) Our Lord recalls marriage to its primitive\ninstitution as it was ordained by Almighty God. (Gen. ii.) Now, marriage\nin its primitive ordinance was the union of one man with one woman, for\nJehovah created but one helpmate to Adam. He would have created more, if\nHis design had been to establish polygamy. The Scripture says that \u201cman\nshall adhere to his _wife_,\u201d\u2014not _his wives_. It does not declare that\nthey shall be three or more, but that \u201cthey shall be two in one flesh.\u201d\n\nHence Mormonism, unhappily so prevalent in the United States, is at\nvariance with the plain teachings of the Gospel, and is consequently\ncondemned by the Catholic Church. Polygamy, wherever it exists, cannot\nfail to be a perpetual source of family discord and feuds. It fosters\ndeadly jealousy and hate among the wives of the same household; it\nderanges the laws of succession and primogeniture and breeds rivalry among\nthe children, each endeavoring to supplant the other in the affections and\nthe inheritance of their common father.\n\nMarriage is the most inviolable and irrevocable of all contracts that were\never formed. Every human compact may be lawfully dissolved but this.\nNations may be justified in abrogating treaties with each other; merchants\nmay dissolve partnerships; brothers will eventually leave the paternal\nroof, and, like Jacob and Esau, separate from one another. Friends, like\nAbraham and Lot, may be obliged to part company. But by the law of God the\nbond uniting husband and wife can be dissolved only by death. No earthly\nsword can sever the nuptial knot which the Lord has tied; for, \u201cwhat God\nhath joined together, let no man put asunder.\u201d\n\nIt is worthy of remark that three of the Evangelists, as well as the\nApostle of the Gentiles, proclaim the indissolubility of marriage and\nforbid a wedded person to engage in second wedlock during the life of his\nspouse. There is, indeed, scarcely a moral precept more strongly enforced\nin the Gospel than the indissoluble character of marriage validly\ncontracted.\n\n\u201cThe Pharisees came to Jesus, tempting Him and saying: Is it lawful for a\nman to put away his wife for every cause? Who, answering, said to them:\nHave ye not read that He who made man from the beginning made them male\nand female? And He said: For this cause shall a man leave father and\nmother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.\nTherefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath\njoined together let no man put asunder. They say to Him: Why, then, did\nMoses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? He said to them:\nBecause Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to\nput away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to\nyou, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,\nand shall marry another committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her\nthat is put away committeth adultery.\u201d(539) Our Savior here emphatically\ndeclares that the nuptial bond is ratified by God Himself, and hence that\nno man, nor any legislation framed by men, can validly dissolve the\ncontract.\n\nTo the Pharisees interposing this objection, if marriage is not to be\ndissolved, why then did Moses command to give a divorce, our Lord replies\nthat Moses did not command, but simply _permitted_ the separation, and\nthat in tolerating this indulgence the great lawgiver had regard to the\nviolent passion of the Jewish people, who would fall into a greater excess\nif their desire to be divorced and to form a new alliance were refused.\nBut our Savior reminded them that in the primitive times no such license\nwas granted.\n\nHe then plainly affirms that such a privilege would not be conceded in the\nNew Dispensation, for He adds: \u201cI say to you: whosoever shall put away his\nwife and shall marry another committeth adultery.\u201d Protestant commentators\nerroneously assert that the text justifies an injured husband in\nseparating from his adulterous wife and in marrying again. But the\nCatholic Church explains the Gospel in the sense that, while the offended\nconsort may obtain a divorce from bed and board from his unfaithful wife,\nhe is not allowed a divorce _a vinculo matrimonii_, so as to have the\nprivilege of marrying another.\n\nThis interpretation is confirmed by the concurrent testimony of the\nEvangelists Mark and Luke and by St. Paul, all of whom prohibit divorce _a\nvinculo_ without any qualification whatever.\n\nIn St. Mark we read: \u201cWhosoever shall put away his wife and marry another\ncommitteth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her\nhusband and be married to another she committeth adultery.\u201d(540)\n\nThe same unqualified declaration is made by St. Luke: \u201cEvery one that\nputteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he\nthat marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth\nadultery.\u201d(541) Both of these Evangelists forbid either husband or wife to\nenter into second wedlock, how aggravating soever may be the cause of\ntheir separation. And surely, if the case of adultery authorized the\naggrieved husband to marry another wife, those inspired penmen would not\nhave failed to mention that qualifying circumstance.\n\nPassing from the Gospels to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we\nfind there also an absolute prohibition of divorce. The Apostle is writing\nto a city newly converted to the Christian religion. Among other topics he\ninculcates the doctrine of the Church respecting Matrimony. We must\nsuppose that as an inspired writer and a faithful minister of the Word he\ndischarges his duty conscientiously, without suppressing or extenuating\none iota of the law. He addresses the Corinthians as follows: \u201cTo them\nthat are married not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not\nfrom her husband. And if she depart that she remain unmarried, or be\nreconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his\nwife.\u201d(542) Here we find the Apostle, in his Master\u2019s name, commanding the\nseparated couple to remain unmarried, without any reference to the case of\nadultery. If so important an exception existed, St. Paul would not have\nomitted to mention it; otherwise he would have rendered the Gospel yoke\nmore grievous than its Founder intended.\n\nWe must, therefore, admit that, according to the religion of Jesus Christ,\nconjugal infidelity does not warrant either party to marry again, or we\nare forced to the conclusion that the vast number of Christians whose\nknowledge of Christianity was derived solely from the teachings of Saints\nMark, Luke and Paul were imperfectly instructed in their faith.\n\nNor can we suppose that St. Matthew gave to the married Christians of\nPalestine a privilege which St. Paul withheld from the Corinthians; for\nthen the early Christian Church might have witnessed the disedifying\nspectacle of aggrieved husbands seeking in Judea for a divorce from their\nadulterous wives which they could not obtain in Corinth, just as\ndiscontented spouses, in our times, sue in a neighboring State for a legal\nseparation which is denied them in their own. Christ is not divided, nor\ndo the Apostles contradict one another.\n\nThe Catholic Church, following the light of the Gospel, forbids a divorced\nman to enter into second espousals during the life of his former partner.\nThis is the inflexible law she first proclaimed in the face of Pagan\nEmperors and people and which she has ever upheld, in spite of the\npassions and voluptuousness of her own rebellious children.\n\nHenry VIII., once an obedient son and defender of the Church, conceived in\nan evil hour, a criminal attachment for Anne Boleyn, a lady of the queen\u2019s\nhousehold, whom he desired to marry after being divorced from his lawful\nconsort, Catherine of Arragon. But Pope Clement VII., whose sanction he\nsolicited, sternly refused to ratify the separation, though the Pontiff\ncould have easily forseen that his determined action would involve the\nChurch in persecution, and a whole nation in the unhappy schism of its\nruler. Had the Pope acquiesced in the repudiation of Catherine, and in the\nmarriage of Anne Boleyn, England would, indeed, have been spared to the\nChurch, but the Church herself would have surrendered her peerless title\nof Mistress of Truth.\n\nWhen Napoleon I. repudiated his devoted wife, Josephine, and married Marie\nLouise, of Austria, so well assured was he of the fruitlessness of his\nattempt to obtain from the Holy See the sanction of his divorce and\nsubsequent marriage that he did not even consult the Holy Father on the\nsubject.\n\nA few years previously Napoleon appealed to Pius VII. to annul the\nmarriage which his brother Jerome had contracted with Miss Patterson of\nBaltimore. The Pope sent the following reply to the Emperor: \u201cYour majesty\nwill understand that upon the information thus far received by us it is\nnot in our power to pronounce a sentence of nullity. We cannot utter a\njudgment in opposition to the rules of the Church, and we could not,\nwithout laying aside those rules, decree the invalidity of a union which,\naccording to the Word of God, no human power can sunder.\u201d\n\nChristian wives and mothers, what gratitude you owe to the Catholic Church\nfor the honorable position you now hold in society! If you are no longer\nregarded as the slave, but the equal of your husband; if you are no longer\nthe toy of his caprice and liable to be discarded at any moment, like the\nwomen of Turkey and the Mormon wives of Utah; but if you are recognized as\nthe mistress and queen of your household, you owe your emancipation to the\nChurch. You are especially indebted for your liberty to the Popes who rose\nup in all the majesty of their spiritual power to vindicate the rights of\ninjured wives against the lustful tyranny of their husbands.\n\nHow opposite is the conduct of the fathers of the so-called Reformation,\nwho, with the cry of religious reform on their lips, deformed religion and\nsociety by sanctioning divorce.\n\nHenry VIII. was divorced from his wife, Catherine, by Cranmer, the first\nReformed Primate of England.\n\nLuther and his colleagues, Melanchthon and Bucer, permitted Philip,\nLandgrave of Hesse, to have two wives at the same time.(543) Karlstadt,\nanother German Reformer, justified polygamy.(544)\n\nModern Prussia is now reaping the bitter fruits of the seeds that were\nthen sown within its borders. Seventy-five per cent. of the marriages now\ncontracted outside of the Catholic Church in Berlin are performed without\nany religious ceremony whatever. A union not bound by the strong ties of\nreligion is easily dissolved.\n\nThis subject excites a painful interest in our own country, in consequence\nof the facility with which divorce from the marriage bond is obtained in\nmany of our States. We have here another exemplification of the dangerous\nconsequences attending a private interpretation of the sacred text. When\nLuther and Calvin proclaimed to the world that \u201cit was not wise to\nprohibit the divorced adulterer from marrying again,\u201d(545) they little\ndreamed of the fruitful progeny which was destined before long to spring\nfrom this isolated monster of their creation. There are already about\nthirty causes which allow the conjugal tie to be broken, some of which are\nof so trifling a nature as to provoke merriment were it not for the\ngravity of the subject, which is well calculated to excite alarm for the\nmoral and social welfare of our country.\n\nPersons are divorced by the courts not only for infidelity, but also\nwithout even the shadow of Scripture authority\u2014for alleged cruelty,\nintemperance, desertion, prolonged absence, mental incapacity, sentence to\nthe penitentiary, incompatibility of temper and _such other causes as the\ncourt, in its discretion, may deem sufficient_.\n\nFor the year ending June, 1874, seventeen hundred and forty-two\napplications for divorce were presented in the State of Ohio. If such is\nOhio\u2019s record, what must be the matrimonial condition of Indiana, which is\ncalled the paradise of discontented spouses.\n\nIn Connecticut there were, in 1875, four thousand three hundred and\neighty-five marriages, and four hundred and sixty-six divorces from the\nmarriage bond. The number of divorces obtained in the same State during\nthe last fifteen years has reached five thousand three hundred and\nninety-one. This is the record of a State whose public school system is\nconsidered the most thorough and perfect in the country. The statistics\ngiven of Ohio and Connecticut will enable us to form some idea of the\nfearful catalogue of divorces annually obtained in the United States.\n\nThere are some who regard the Catholic Church as too severe in proclaiming\nthe absolute indissolubility of marriage. But it should be borne in mind\nthat it is not the Church, but the Divine Founder of the Christian\nreligion, that has given us the law. She merely enforces its observance.\n\nThe law, how rigorous soever, is mercy itself, when compared with the\ncruel consequences which follow from the easy concession of divorce.\n\nThe facility with which marriage is annulled is most injurious to the\nmorals of individuals, of the family and of society. It leads to\nill-assorted and hasty marriages, because persons are less circumspect in\nmaking a compact which may be afterwards dissolved almost at will. It\nstimulates a discontented and unprincipled husband or wife to lawlessness,\nquarrels and even adultery, well knowing that the very crime will afford a\npretext and legal grounds for a separation. It engenders between husband\nand wife fierce litigations about the custody of their offspring. It\ndeprives the children of the protecting arm of a father, or of the gentle\ncare of a mother, and too frequently consigns them to the cold charity of\nthe world; for the married couple who are wanting in conjugal love for one\nanother are too often destitute also of parental affection. In a word, it\nbrings into the household a blight and desolation which neither wealth nor\nluxury can repair.\n\nThere is but one remedy to this social distemper, and that is an absolute\nprohibition of divorce _a vinculo_, in accordance with the inflexible rule\nof the Gospel and of the ancient Church. In Catholic countries divorces\nare exceedingly rare, and are obtained only by such as have thrown off the\nyoke of the Church. If the sacred laws of Matrimony are still happily\nobserved by so large a portion of the Protestant community, the purity of\nmorals is in no small measure due to the presence among them of the\nCatholic religion, which exercises a beneficial influence even over those\nwho are outside the pale of her communion, like the sun, whose benignant\nlight and heat are felt even in those secluded spots which his rays can\nbut obliquely and dimly penetrate.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nAbraham, dear to Jehovah, 37.\n\nAbstinence on Friday explained, 2.\n\nAdoration and reverence compared, 202.\n\nA\u2019Kempis compared with Bunyan, 20.\n\nA\u2019Kempis\u2019 \u201cFollowing of Christ\u201d recommended, 20;\n  Protestant edition mutilated, 20.\n\nAlbertus Magnus on Faith quoted, 15.\n\nAmerican Independence and Catholic Church, 240.\n\nAngel Raphael and young Tobias, 155.\n\nAngels labor for man\u2019s salvation, 160.\n\nAnglican Church began with Henry VIII., 44.\n\nAnne, Queen, praised by Thomas Arundel, 92.\n\nApostolate of Sisterhoods\u2014Consecrated Virgins, 23.\n\nAppeals, a proof of Papal Supremacy, 109.\n\nApostles commissioned to teach, 29;\n  transmit infallibility to successors, 65;\n  not commanded to write, 80;\n  ordered to teach and to preach, 81;\n  received power to forgive sins, 342.\n\nApostolic teaching was infallible, 65;\n  weapons, 26;\n  missionaries sent by Popes, 115.\n\nApostolicity defined, 38;\n  a note of the true Church, 39;\n  claims of tested, 40, et seq.\n\nArticles of Faith\u2014consequences of denial of, 10.\n\nArian heresy and the Church, 53, et seq.\n\nArianism and Protestantism paralleled, 55, et seq.\n\nAstolphus, King, threatens Rome, 140.\n\nAttila and Pope Leo the Great, 139.\n\nAttributes of Christ\u2014objects of Church\u2019s teaching, 16.\n\nAttributes or Notes of the Church imply infallibility, 65.\n\nAuthority of the Church derived from God, 65;\n  absence of, causes dissensions, 97;\n  authorized versus private interpretation, 81;\n  of the Book of Machabees, 214.\n\nBarbarians attack Rome, 139.\n\nBancroft\u2019s History cited, 233.\n\nBaptism essential for remission of original sin, 268;\n  necessary for all, 268;\n  must not be delayed, 273;\n  effects, 21;\n  remits all sin, 275;\n  makes us heirs of heaven, 276.\n\nBaptism of desire or martyrdom substitutes for Baptism, 272.\n\nBaptizing, modes of, 277.\n\nBartholomew, Archbishop of Braga, directs crusade, 27.\n\nBecanus teaches value of religious liberty, 230.\n\nBede, Venerable, translated Bible into Saxon, 91.\n\nBible, venerated by the Jews, 77;\n  requires the living authority of the Church, 77;\n  interpreted by the Sanhedrim, 77;\n  expounded by the priests, 78;\n  a babel among reformers, 86;\n  itself unchanging, it causes ever-changing tenets, 87;\n  guardian and depository of, is the Catholic Church, 90;\n  translated into Saxon by Venerable Bede, 91;\n  in English, Sir Thomas More on, 92;\n  editions prior to Luther, 92;\n  early editions in English, 92;\n  use of, recommended by Pope Pius VI, 93;\n  in seminary, 93, et seq.;\n  basis of Papal Infallibility, 125, et seq.;\n  infallible, not sufficient, 133, et seq.;\n  not ordered to be multiplied, 78.\n\nBiblical interpretation on\n    Deuteronomy, quoted, 78;\n    associations never converted nation, 80;\n  authorization claimed by Mormons, 88;\n  restrictions as to garbled versions, 92.\n\nBishops, priests and deacons among Protestants, 10;\n  first bishop of Rome, was St. Peter, 106;\n  of Rome, heirs to St. Peter\u2019s supremacy, 108;\n  convoked councils, 114;\n  presided at councils, 114.\n\nBishop Short on Anglicanism, 44.\n\nBond of Union\u2014Catholic, compared to that of secret orders, 36.\n\nBond\u2014Nuptial, ratified by God, 411.\n\nBooks of Piety adapted to wants, 19;\n  of Machabees, same authority as other Scriptures, 214.\n\nBride or Spouse of Christ, applied to the Church, 8.\n\nBrownson, Dr., appreciates stand of Church on civil liberty, 231.\n\nBunyan compared with A\u2019Kempis, 20.\n\nButler\u2019s \u201cLives of the Saints\u201d and Foxe\u2019s \u201cBook of Martyrs\u201d compared, 20.\n\nByron, Lord, lauds St. Peter\u2019s Church in Rome, 381.\n\nCaranza Bartholomew arrested by the Inquisition, 257.\n\nCarroll, Charles, in American Independence, 240.\n\nCarroll, Rev. John, in American Independence, 240.\n\nCatacombs abound in sacred images, 196;\n  earliest churches, 137.\n\nCatechism, Episcopal, treats of Absolution, 354, et seq.\n\nCatholic bond of union and that of the secret orders compared, 36;\n  barons and Archbishop Langton, 233;\n  idea of infallibility reasonable and satisfactory, 135;\n  priest obliged to read Scriptures, 94;\n  priest preaches Christ and Him crucified, 18;\n  literature favored by Episcopal clergyman, 20;\n  missionaries wherever English is spoken, 35;\n  churches burned by Protestants, 251.\n\nCatholics number three hundred millions, 10;\n  exhorted to study the Word of God in their homes, 19;\n  not all holy, 23;\n  sometimes are sources of scandal, 23;\n  and free will, 23;\n  consciences not forced, 23;\n  Washington addresses, 241;\n  persecuted by Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, 250,\n    by the Puritans, 251.\n\nCatholicity\u2014prominent attribute of the Church, 29;\n  evidences of, in Apostles\u2019 Creed, 29;\n  defined, 29;\n  foreshadowed by the Psalmist, 29;\n  foreseen by Prophet Malachy, 29;\n  not found in the separate sects, 32.\n\nCeremonial of the Mass, 328, et seq.\n\nCeremonies\u2014religious, defined, 320;\n  described, 327;\n  prescribed by God, 332;\n  necessary, 322.\n\nChrist\u2019s life portrayed, 17, et seq.;\n  teachings versus Book of Homilies, 67, et seq;\n  words and private interpretation, 79;\n  divinity not proved solely by Scripture, 79, et seq.;\n  honored virgins in a special manner, 400;\n  instituted matrimony, 409;\n  contained entire under each form, 300.\n\nChristian\u2014a title of nobility, 17;\n  obligations it imposes, 17;\n  defined as another Christ, 17;\n  communions claim perpetuity, 51;\n  unity endorsed, 119.\n\nChurch teaches one God, 1;\n  unity of, 5;\n  government requires unity, 6;\n  needs visible head, 6;\n  a kingdom, 6;\n  Christ founded only one, 6;\n  Christ\u2019s spiritual kingdom, 7;\n  government compared to that of state, 7;\n  of Christ, a sheepfold, 7;\n  likened to the sheepfold, 7;\n  one chief pastor, one chief shepherd, 7;\n  likened to human body, 7;\n  compared to a vine, 8;\n  bride or spouse of Christ, 8;\n  unity as taught by common sense, 8;\n  harmony, 8;\n  needs common doctrine, 9;\n  uniform government, 9;\n  of England ruled by sovereign, 9;\n  alone possesses unity, 10;\n  temple of faith, 10;\n  her creed identical with past ages, 11;\n  faith and government similar, 11;\n  does not meddle with political tenets, 10;\n  teaches one faith everywhere, 10;\n  explains and declares truths implicitly believed, 15;\n  authority to decide disputes, 15;\n  holiness an attribute of, 16;\n  a society, 16;\n  established for man\u2019s sanctification, 16;\n  only one founded by Christ, 6;\n  inculcates valuable lessons of divine perfection, 16;\n  invites to a holy life, 17;\n  enforces the inculcation of divine precepts, 18;\n  affords motives and means of sanctification, 20;\n  encourages communion with God, 20;\n  a watchful mother\u2014supplies us at each step, 21;\n  fruitful in saints, 22;\n  still produces saints and apostles, 22;\n  has her martyrs in our day, 22;\n  still numbers confessors in her ranks, 22;\n  saves sinners, 24;\n  refuge of the poor, 24;\n  her inheritance\u2014the afflicted, 25;\n  possesses means of reform, 27;\n  cosmopolitan, 30;\n  Catholic in name and reality, 34;\n  gaining numerically at present, 35;\n  apostolical, 38;\n  built upon foundation of the Apostles, 38;\n  derives her origin from the Apostles, 48;\n  indestructible, 51;\n  and the barbarous hordes, 53;\n  and Mohammedanism, 53;\n  and the Arian heresy, 53, et seq.;\n  and the Irish people, 54;\n  and state, 57;\n  her relation to other religious bodies, 58;\n  does not need temporal power for preservation, 58;\n  and modern progress, 59;\n  benefited by scientific appliances and inventions, 59;\n  fosters intellectual progress, 60;\n  encourages scientific investigation, 60;\n  science indebted to her\u2014has no fear from human liberty, 61;\n  outlasts all other governments, 61, et seq.;\n  authority comes from God, 65;\n  her teaching directed by the Holy Ghost, 65;\n  her infallibility proved from Scripture, 66, et seq.;\n  Christ\u2019s promise in favor of the, 70, 73;\n  her doctrines incapable of reform, 73;\n  her doctrinal decrees irrevocable, 76;\n  divinely appointed teacher of revelation, 76, 77;\n  guardian and depository of the Bible, 90;\n  requires a head, 97;\n  unity maintained by supreme head, 77;\n  only one founded by Christ, 100;\n  built on Peter, 100;\n  revealed Word of God her Magna Charta, 124;\n  exhorts all to honor Mary, 187;\n  her practice proves existence of purgatory, 214, et seq.;\n  Fathers of the\u2014unanimous in praying for the dead, 217;\n  has always promoted civil liberty, 226;\n  defends civil rights and liberties, 231;\n  conflict with state, 231;\n  and American Independence, 240;\n  desires no governmental aid, 246;\n  does not sanction persecution or bloodshed, 249;\n  disavows the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, 258;\n  her practice and the procedure of the Supreme Court compared, 130;\n  organization\u2014American system of, 246;\n  her doctrine on unbaptized infants, 273;\n  perpetuates Christ\u2019s work, 341;\n  grants indulgences, 376.\n\nChurches\u2014earliest Christian were Catacombs, 137;\n  fallible\u2014consequences, 70.\n\nClement of Alexandria bears witness to spread of Christianity, 31.\n\nClerical celibacy\u2014necessity, 399;\n  propriety and advantages of, 402.\n\nClement VII, Pope, refused to sanction divorce of Henry VIII, 414.\n\nCommunion with God encouraged by Church, 20.\n\nCommunion under both forms given by Christ, 300.\n\nCommunion under form of bread, 303, et seq.\n\nCommunion of Saints\u2014a comforting thought, 160.\n\nConfession of sins obligatory, 345;\n  various views, 366;\n  sacramental, of divine institution, 346, et seq.\n\nConfirmation\u2014graces of, 21;\n  defined, 280;\n  signs that follow, 282;\n  described by St. Augustine, 282;\n  abolished by the Protestants, 285.\n\nConstantine gives peace to the Church, 137.\n\nContinence\u2014voluntary, superior to matrimony, 399.\n\nCross\u2014held in reverence, 3;\n  instrument of the crucifixion, 3;\n  adorns our sanctuaries, 3;\n  surmounts our Churches, 3;\n  emblem of salvation, 3.\n\nCross\u2014sign of the, ancient and pious practice, 3;\n  how made, 3;\n  taught by tradition, 3;\n  profession of faith, 3;\n  salutary act of religion, 3.\n\nD\u2019Aubigne on Protestant Reformation, 264\u2014comments on divorce of Henry\n            VIII.\n\nDavid and Nathan, 376.\n\nDeacons, priests and bishops in Protestant sects, 10.\n\nDeath does not dissever love among friends, 161.\n\nDecrees in doctrinal matters irrevocable, 77.\n\nDe Maistre quoted on name Protestant, 55.\n\nDeuteronomy quoted on Biblical interpretation, 78.\n\nDevotion\u2014true, is interior, 320;\n  manuals of, criticised, 366.\n\nDivine perfections sources of valuable lessons, 16.\n\nDivine power manifested on Easter Sunday, 3.\n\nDivinity of Christ not proved solely by Scripture, 79, et seq.\n\nDivorce never allowed\u2014separation sometimes, 412.\n\nDivorce prohibited by St. Paul, 413.\n\nDivorced man may not marry during wife\u2019s lifetime, 414.\n\nDivorce\u2014legal, causes, 416;\n  cruel consequences of, 417.\n\nDoctrinal decrees of the Church are irrevocable, 76.\n\nDoctrines of the Church cannot be reformed, 73;\n  the same everywhere, 10;\n  new definitions do not impair unity of faith, 11, et seq.\n\nDogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated, 171.\n\nD\u00f6llinger, Dr., anathematized, 10.\n\nDuties to God\u2014first lessons taught us, 18.\n\nEastern churches allow a married clergy, 402.\n\nEcumenical councils vindicate papal supremacy, 113;\n  defined, 114.\n\nElias dear to Jehovah, 37.\n\nElizabeth, Queen, and Henry VIII. persecuted Catholics, 250.\n\nElizabethan and Marian persecutions compared, 262, et seq.\n\nEpiscopal clergyman favors Catholic books, 20.\n\nEvangelical Alliance failed\u2014had no common platform, 119.\n\nExodus, Book of, and sacred images, 200.\n\nExtreme Unction defined, 384;\n  effects, 21;\n  supported by ancient authority, 386.\n\nFaith, hope and charity necessary for Catholics, 37.\n\nFaith, temple of, the Church, 10;\n  Albertus Magnus quoted, 15.\n\nFaith, unity of, required, 5;\n  progress in, does not change truth, 15.\n\nFathers of the Church on Confirmation, 283;\n  echo the words of St. Paul on the Eucharist, 297;\n  they are unanimous on praying for the dead, 217.\n\nFenelon favors liberty of conscience, 228.\n\nFounders of various religious denominations, 46.\n\nFoxe\u2019s Book of Martyrs and the Lives of the Saints contrasted, 20.\n\nFree-will\u2014Catholics enjoy, 23.\n\nGarbled versions of the Bible restricted, 92.\n\nGibbon quoted on triumphs of the Church, 53.\n\nGod\u2014infinite in knowledge, power and goodness, 1;\n  governs by His Providence, 1;\n  created all things by His Omnipotence, 1;\n  three persons in One, 1;\n  persons equal, 1.\n\nGod commands the making of images, 301.\n\nGod requires that His ministers be respected, 388.\n\nGod works through his representatives, 341, et seq.\n\nGod\u2019s judgment impressed on the child mind, 19.\n\nGospel ministers are ordained and commissioned, 39.\n\nGovernment\u2014state and church compared, 7.\n\nGovernmental aid not desired for Church, 246.\n\nGrace defined, 265;\n  necessary for sanctification, 265.\n\nGraces imparted by Holy Orders and Matrimony, 21.\n\nGraces needed by married couple, special, 408.\n\nGreat Spirit worshiped by American Indians, 309.\n\nGregory II, Pope, writes about images, 140.\n\nHabeas Corpus, 223.\n\nHail Mary explained, 174, et seq.\n\nHamlet, Shakespeare\u2019s, advised by the dead, 221.\n\nHebrews believed in intercessory prayer, 159.\n\nHenry VIII. excommunicated, 10;\n  divorce refused, 44.\n\nHenry VIII and Elizabeth persecuted Catholics, 250.\n\nHeresy and schism opposed to unity, 5;\n  likened to murder and idolatry, 5;\n  heresy defined, 5;\n  and the Church, 54;\n  a crime against church and state, 255.\n\nHoly Eucharist\u2014St. Paul\u2019s testimony on, 295.\n\nHoliness a mark of the Church, 16.\n\nHolmes, Oliver Wendell, praises Mary, 179.\n\nHoly Ghost sent by Christ, 3;\n  on Pentecost, 3;\n  guides the Church\u2019s teaching, 65.\n\nHoly Scripture\u2014depository of God\u2019s Word, 77.\n\nHoly Orders and Matrimony\u2014graces of, 21.\n\nImage\u2014Making commanded by God, 201.\n\nImages, Sacred\u2014advantages of, 204, et seq.;\n  and the Reformers, 198;\n  and the Council of Trent, 198, et seq.;\n  and the Book of Exodus, 200;\n  veneration of, 196;\n  Catacombs abound in, 196.\n\nImmaculate Conception implied in Scripture, 171;\n  in our earliest history, 173;\n  dogma formulated in 1854, 171.\n\nIndestructibility of the Church due to finger of God, 57.\n\nInfallible Bible not sufficient 133, et seq.\n\nInfallibility a special guidance of the Holy Ghost, 65;\n  implied in the attributes of the Church, 65;\n  of Apostolic teaching, 65;\n  proved from Scripture, 66, et seq.;\n  transmitted by Apostles to successors, 65;\n  blessings attendant on\u2014for the faithful, 72;\n  Catholic idea of, reasonable and satisfactory, 135;\n  misapprehended, 121;\n  what it does not mean, 121, et seq.;\n  what it is, 123;\n  founded on Bible, 125, et seq.;\n  not a new doctrine, 130.\n\nIncense, its use, 334.\n\nIndians, American\u2014worshiped the Great Spirit, 309.\n\nIndulgence defined, 375;\n  granted by the Church, 376;\n  elements required, 377;\n  classes, 378;\n  does not exempt from doing penance, 379;\n  abused, 380.\n\nInfant Baptism proved from early Doctors, 270;\n  and the Council of Carthage, 270;\n  not to be delayed, 273.\n\nInquisition, Spanish\u2014cruelties, 248;\n  its true character, 254;\n  explained, 254;\n  excesses disavowed by the Church, 258.\n\nInventions and scientific appliances beneficial to Church, 59.\n\nInvocation of the Saints defined, 152.\n\nIreland and the Ancient Church, 54.\n\nIrish clergy persecuted by Cromwell, 250.\n\nJeremiah, after death, prays for Jewish people, 159.\n\nJesus Christ, second person of Blessed Trinity, 1;\n  perfect God and perfect man, 1;\n  assumes human nature, 1;\n  born on Christmas Day, 1;\n  led a life of obscurity at Nazareth, 1;\n  commences public career, 1;\n  associates with his Apostles, 2;\n  doing good, 2;\n  preaches new gospel, 2;\n  crucified on Mount Calvary, 2;\n  purchases our redemption, 2;\n  is our Saviour and Redeemer, 2;\n  example to be imitated, 2;\n  manifested Divine power on Easter Sunday, 3;\n  raised Himself to life, 3;\n  ascended into heaven, 3;\n  spends forty days on earth, 3;\n  sends Holy Ghost, 3;\n  requires unity of faith, 5;\n  prays for unity, 5;\n  mission evidenced in unity of Church, 5;\n  speaks of His Church, not churches, 6;\n  our model, 17;\n  wrote no line of Scripture, 80;\n  established supreme head of the Church, 98, et seq.;\n  founded but one Church, 100;\n  the one Mediator, 161;\n  came on earth to wash away sins, 268;\n  our Victim in the Mass, 317;\n  a Physician and Savior, 340.\n\nJesus\u2019 prayer is always heard, 126;\n  name implies His mission, 339;\n  example a means of sanctification, 16;\n  moral lessons tend to sanctification, 16.\n\nJews ordered by Christ to obey constituted teachers, 79;\n  pray for their dead, 220;\n  venerate the Bible, 77;\n  were released from religious persecution by St. Bernard, 228;\n  appealed to the Sanhedrim for the settlement of disputes, 77;\n  their priests expounded Bible, 78;\n  their High Priest and the Roman Pontiff compared, 95.\n\nJob intercedes for his friends, 157.\n\nJohn, Abbot of Constantinople, appeals to Pope Gregory I, 112.\n\nJudea a hallowed soil, 164.\n\nJurisdiction of God\u2019s ministers unlimited, 388.\n\nLaity contain many Saints, 23.\n\nLangton, Archbishop, and Catholic barons, 233.\n\nLeibnitz taught that Christ is entire under each species, 302.\n\nLeo the Great, Pope, and Attila, 139.\n\nLeo the Isaurian desires spiritual jurisdiction, 139;\n  destroys paintings, 140;\n  wars on images, 197.\n\nLepanto\u2014victory of 1571, 53.\n\nLiberty, religious, explained, 226;\n  ever promoted by the Catholic Church, 226;\n  taught by Becanus, 230;\n  favored by Fenelon, 228;\n  and civil rights defended by the Church, 231;\n  human not feared, 61.\n\nLights on the altar\u2014meaning, 333.\n\nLiterature, Catholic, favored by Episcopal clergyman, 20.\n\nLlorente, historian of Spanish Inquisition, 253;\n  who he was, 253, et seq.\n\nLongfellow refers to Mary\u2019s influence and intercession, 189.\n\nLoyalty to Christ implies veneration of His representative, 106.\n\nLuther advocated Communion under one form, 301;\n  accused John Tetzel, 382.\n\nLutheranism founded by Luther, 44;\n  rise and progress of, 54.\n\nMagna Charta\u2014great bulwark of liberty, 233.\n\nMagna Charta, the Church\u2019s\u2014the revealed Word of God, 124.\n\nMarriage law violated by Henry VIII, 10;\n  indissoluble, 410;\n  contract\u2014most inviolable and irrevocable, 410;\n  forbidden to priests after ordination, 400.\n\nMarried couple need special graces, 408.\n\nMary singularly honored by Jesus Christ, 165;\n  Mother of God\u2014meaning, 166;\n  not mother of divinity\u2014Mother of God, 167;\n  truly and really Mother of God, 167;\n  of surpassing dignity and excellence, 168;\n  always a virgin, 168;\n  loves men, 190;\n  exempted from original sin, 267.\n\nMary\u2019s soul never subject to sin, 171;\n  her soul needed a redeemer, 171;\n  prerogatives, 174;\n  honor redounds to God, 181;\n  honor founded on Scriptural sanction, 186;\n  honor encouraged by the Church, 187;\n  intercession superior to that of the Angels and the Saints, 188;\n  influence and intercession referred to by Longfellow, 189-193;\n  invoked by Edgar Allan Poe, 191.\n\nMary Magdalen experienced the mercy of Jesus, 340.\n\nMaryland\u2014cradle of civil and religious liberty, 233;\n  land of the Sanctuary, 233;\n  religious toleration explained, 234, et seq.;\n  changes effected by Puritans, 237;\n  tolerations\u2014three, 238, et seq.\n\nMass is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, 311;\n  instituted, 312;\n  a perpetual oblation, 313, et seq.;\n  of Apostolic origin, 314;\n  its ceremonial, 328, et seq.;\n  why said in Latin, 329, et seq.\n\nMatrimony defined, 408;\n  instituted by Christ, 409;\n  imparts ample and suitable graces, 21.\n\nMissionaries, Catholic, wherever English is spoken, 35;\n  Apostolic\u2014sent by Popes, 115.\n\nMohammedanism, rise and conquests, 53;\n  and the Church, 53.\n\nMonica, St., requests prayers for the repose of her soul, 216.\n\nMorality of Catholic and Protestant countries contrasted, 369;\n  lax among Catholics\u2014accusation answered, 364;\n  Christ\u2019s lessons tend to sanctification, 16;\n  inculcated by the Church, 18;\n  moral law standard of perfection, 18.\n\nMore, Sir Thomas, quoted on Bible in English, 92.\n\nMormons claim Biblical authorization for polygamy, 88.\n\nMormonism at variance with Gospel, 410.\n\nMysteries, principal, incentive to holiness, 17;\n  proposed by the Church, 17;\n  surround us everywhere, 293.\n\nNaaman the Syrian cured, 361.\n\nNapoleon\u2019s demands on Pope Pius VII, 242, et seq.\n\nNathan and David, 376.\n\nNuptial bond ratified by God, 411.\n\nOnias, after death, prays for the people of God, 159.\n\nOracles, rashness of following discordant, 72.\n\nOrigen bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31.\n\nOriginal sin, all men born in, 267;\n  Blessed Virgin alone exempted, 267;\n  universal, 272.\n\nPagans retained primitive traditions about sacrifices, 309.\n\nPapal Jurisdiction\u2014examples, 109, et seq.\n\nPapal states a convenience for the Holy Father, 145.\n\nPaul, St. on heresy and schism, 5, et seq.;\n  asks intercession, 158.\n\nPenance\u2014effects of Sacrament, 21.\n\nPentecost\u2014Christ sends Holy Ghost, 3.\n\nPerpetuity of the Church, 50;\n  defined, 50;\n  foretold in the Scriptures, 50.\n\nPersecutions lasted 280 years, 52.\n\nPersecution and bloodshed not sanctioned by the Church, 249.\n\nPersecutions by Queen Mary of England, 261;\n  compared with those under Elizabeth, 262, et seq.\n\nPepin, King of the Franks, defeats Lombards, 141.\n\nPeter, St., primacy of, 95;\n  foundation of the Church, 100;\n  first Bishop of Rome, 106;\n  supremacy handed down, 108;\n  and Washington compared, 108;\n  oracle of the Apostles, 126, et seq.\n\nPhotius appeals to Pope Nicholas I to confirm his election to the\n            Patriarchate of Constantinople, 112.\n\nPlebescitum, Roman, explained, 146.\n\nPlutarch declares: \u201cNo nations without priests and altars,\u201d 309.\n\nPoe, Edgar Allan, invokes Mary, 191.\n\nPontiff, Supreme, is commander-in-chief of the Church, 117.\n\nPope is Vicar of Christ, 129;\n  father and doctor of Christians, chief pastor of the Church, 130;\n  confirms or rejects decrees of councils, 131;\n  a prisoner in his own house, 145.\n\nPopes succeed to Peter\u2019s supremacy, 108;\n  send Apostolic missionaries, 115;\n  go to confession regularly, 122;\n  oracles of the early Church, 128, et seq.,\n  recognized in all ages as infallible teachers, 132.\n\nPrayer for unity, 5;\n  and Sacraments\u2014means of sanctification, 20;\n  a duty binding in conscience 20;\n  of Jesus Christ, always heard 126;\n  for the dead, consoling, 225.\n\nPriest, Catholic obliged to read word of God, 94;\n  ambassador of God, 387;\n  dispenser of God\u2019s graces, 390;\n  titles, 391;\n  physician of souls, 396;\n  must be man of prayer, 398.\n\nPriestly obligations, 395;\n  stands before God, intercessor for his people, 396;\n  experience in sacred ministry, 367, et seq.\n\nPrimacy of St. Peter, 95;\n  promised, 98, et seq.;\n  and supremacy similarly demonstrated, 109.\n\nProgress, Modern, and the Church, 59;\n  intellectual fostered by the Church, 60;\n  cannot destroy the Church, 59.\n\nProphecies of Christ fulfilled by spread of Christianity, 30.\n\nProtestant sects make no claim to Catholicity, 32;\n  Episcopalians sometimes usurp the title of Catholic, 33;\n  inconsistency between teaching and practice, 82, et seq.\n\nProtestantism not traceable to Apostolic times, 47;\n  and Arianism paralleled, 55, et seq.\n\nProtestants differ in belief among themselves, 9;\n  sects do not possess unity, 9;\n  combat the perpetual virginity of Mary, 169, et seq.;\n  their objections answered, 169, et seq.;\n  burned Catholic churches, 251;\n  abolished confirmation, 285.\n\nPuritans effected changes in Maryland, 237;\n  persecuted others for conscience\u2019s sake, 251.\n\nRanke quoted on Spanish Inquisition, 256.\n\nRaphael Archangel and young Tobias, 155.\n\nReal presence founded on scripture, 288;\n  proved from the New Testament, 288, et seq.\n\nReformation of morals effected, 26.\n\nReformers made a babel of the Bible, 86;\n  and sacred images, 198;\n  guilty of violence towards others, 250.\n\nRegeneration, necessary to all, 272.\n\nReligious denominations and their founders, 46.\n\nRepentance\u2014Catholic and Protestant systems contrasted, 362.\n\nRevelation\u2014church divinely appointed teacher of, 76.\n\nReverence for the Cross, 3;\n  and adoration compared, 202.\n\nRites and ceremonies prescribed by God, 322.\n\nRitual described in Revelation, 324.\n\nRodriguez, \u201cChristian Perfection\u201d recommended, 20.\n\nRoman Pontiff and Jewish High Priest, compared, 95.\n\nRoman Plebescitum explained, 146.\n\nRome, St. Peter, first Bishop of, 106.\n\nRome, St. Peter\u2019s residence in, proved, 107;\n  testified by eminent writers, 107.\n\nSacramental confession of divine institution, 346, et seq.\n\nSacraments and prayers are means of grace, 265;\n  defined, 265;\n  constituent elements, 265;\n  seven, instituted by Christ, 266.\n\nSacred images\u2014advantages, 204, et seq.;\n  and the Reformers, 198;\n  and the council of Trent, 198, et seq.\n\nSacrifices, defined, 307;\n  offered by all peoples, 307;\n  early, 307, et seq.;\n  various, in Old Law, 317.\n\nSt. Alphonsus, a distinguished reformer, 27.\n\nSt. Ambrose describes Mary\u2019s life, 194;\n  confronts the Emperor Theodosius, the Great, 232;\n  on the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost, 284.\n\nSt. Athanasius appeals to Pope Julius I against a Decree of the Eastern\n            Bishops, 111.\n\nSt. Augustine quoted about truth, 12;\n  on false claims to Catholicity, 33;\n  on Apostolicity, 49, 56;\n  describes confirmation, 282;\n  on Chrism ointment, 285;\n  on secret confession, 360.\n\nSt. Basil of C\u00e6serea has recourse to Pope Damasus, 111.\n\nSt. Bartholomew\u2019s Day\u2014massacre, 259;\n  church not interested in, 259;\n  facts stated, 259, et seq.\n\nSt. Bernard released Jews from religious persecution, 228.\n\nSt. Charles Borromeo, the reformer, 27.\n\nSt. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine, 111.\n\nSt. Francis de Sales\u2019 writings recommended, 20.\n\nSt. Hilary of Arles and papal supremacy, 111.\n\nSt. Ignatius Loyola, conspicuous reformer, 27.\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31.\n\nSt. Jerome\u2019s edition of the Scriptures, 91;\n  edits the vulgate, 91.\n\nSt. John Chrysostom appeals to Pope Innocent I, 111.\n\nSt. Justin, martyr, witness of Catholicity in second century, 31.\n\nSt. Paul invokes intercession of the Ephesians, 158;\n  testimony on the Holy Eucharist, 295;\n  granted indulgences, 376;\n  prohibited divorce, 413.\n\nSt. Peter\u2019s primacy, 95;\n  first bishop of Rome, 106;\n  residence in Rome proved, 107;\n  supremacy handed down, 108;\n  Oracle of the Apostles, 126, et seq.\n\nSt. Philip Neri, apostle of modern Rome, 27.\n\nSt. Vincent of Lerins on doctrine and practice, 15.\n\nSaints\u2014many among laity, 23.\n\nSanctity\u2014examples witnessed, 23.\n\nSanhedrim settled disputes for the Jews, 77;\n  explained Bible, 77.\n\nScandals do not invalidate Church\u2019s claims to sanctify, 26.\n\nSchism and heresy oppose unity, 5;\n  schism defined, 5.\n\nSchismatic Churches have no claims to Catholicity, 32.\n\nScripture, Holy, depository of, God\u2019s Word, 77;\n  no line of, written by Christ, 80;\n  does not contain all truth, 89;\n  alone, not sufficient guide and rule of faith, 89;\n  perpetuated by the Church, 91, et seq.;\n  St. Jerome translates, 91.\n\nSects\u2014conflicting in North Carolina, 9;\n  Protestant do not possess unity, 9.\n\nSign of the Cross\u2014ancient and pious practice, 3;\n  how made, 3;\n  Tertullian quoted on, 3;\n  taught by tradition, 3;\n  profession of faith, 3;\n  salutary act of religion, 3.\n\nSigns following confirmation, 17.\n\nSin includes guilt and punishment, 375;\n  original\u2014all men born in, 267;\n  Most Blessed Virgin alone excepted, 267.\n\nSmithfield and Tyburn compared, 264.\n\nSocrates quoted on papal supremacy, 111.\n\nSolomon and Judas as warnings, 19.\n\nSpain\u2014condition of, during the Inquisition, 255.\n\nSpanish Inquisition\u2014cruelties, 248;\n  Llorente, historian, 253;\n  excesses disavowed by the Church, 258.\n\n\"Spiritual Combat\" recommended, 20.\n\nSupremacy of St. Peter\u2014Popes succeed to, 108;\n  Socrates quoted on, 111;\n  and Primacy similarly demonstrated, 109.\n\nSupreme Court procedure and Church practice compared, 130.\n\nSupreme Head of the Church maintains unity, 98;\n  established by Christ, 98;\n  is commander-in-chief of the Church, 117.\n\nTeachers\u2014constituted, to be obeyed, 79.\n\nTeaching of Christ versus Book of Homilies, 67, et seq.\n\nTeaching of Apostles infallible, 65.\n\nTeaching of the Church guided by the Holy Ghost, 65.\n\nTemporal power\u2014end and aim, 144;\n  not necessary to Church\u2019s preservation, 58.\n\nTennyson\u2019s Sir Belvidere asks prayers for his soul, 225.\n\nTestament, Old\u2014teaches existence of Purgatory, 211, et seq.\n\nTestimony of St. Paul on the Holy Eucharist, 295.\n\nTertullian bears witness to the spread of Christianity, 31;\n  treats of the Apostolicity of the Church, 49.\n\nTetzel, John, accused by Luther, 382.\n\nTheodoret appeals to St. Leo, Pope, 112.\n\nTheodosius the Great confronted by St. Ambrose, 232.\n\nThomas Arundel praised Queen Anne, 92.\n\nTitles of the Catholic priest, 391.\n\nTobias, Young, and the Archangel Raphael, 155.\n\nToleration, Religious, in Maryland, 234, et seq.\n\nTransubstantiation a mystery, 292.\n\nTriumphs of the Church according to Gibbon, 53.\n\nTrent, Council of\u2014great reformatory tribunal, 27;\n  on sacred images, 198, et seq.;\n  asserts doctrine of Purgatory, 210.\n\nTruth unchangeable, 12.\n\nTyburn and Smithfield compared, 264.\n\nTyndall on debt of science to the Church, 60.\n\nUnity of the Church, 5;\n  heresy and schism opposed to, 5;\n  required by Jesus Christ, 5;\n  of faith required, 5;\n  Jesus Christ prays for it, 5;\n  prayer of Christ for, 5;\n  an evidence of Christ\u2019s mission, 5;\n  in government it is essential, 6;\n  not found in Protestant sects, 9;\n  found in Catholic Church alone, 10;\n  Catholic, in what it consists, 10;\n  of government and faith, 11;\n  safeguard of government, 11;\n  of faith not impaired by new doctrinal definitions, 11;\n  of the Church maintained by supreme head, 98;\n  Christian, endorsed, 119;\n  implies recognition of pope\u2019s headship, 119.\n\nUnbaptized Infants\u2014Church\u2019s teaching regarding, 273.\n\nValidity of the Pope\u2019s title to the papal states, 141.\n\nVariation in Biblical interpretation, 87.\n\nVatican Council assembled from all nations, 332;\n  Ecumenical, 34;\n  all countries represented, 34;\n  all systems represented, 34.\n\nVeneration of images, 196.\n\nVestments\u2014their meaning, 335;\n  their colors symbolical, 337.\n\nVicar of Christ is the Pope, 129.\n\nVictim in the Mass is Jesus Christ, 317.\n\nVictor Emmanuel, the modern Achab, 144.\n\nVirgins, Consecrated\u2014Apostolate of Sisterhoods, 23.\n\nVirgins especially honored by Christ, 400.\n\nVirginity, Perpetual\u2014of Mary, combated by Protestants, 169, et seq.\n\nVoltaire bears testimony to the good use of Church temporalities, 138.\n\nVulgate\u2014edited by St. Jerome, 91.\n\nWarfare on Church\u2014foreign and domestic, 51.\n\nWashington and St. Peter compared, 108.\n\nWashington\u2019s Address to the Catholics, 241.\n\nWesley, John, founds Methodist Church, 44.\n\nWestminster Abbey has many statues of heroes, 201.\n\nWordsworth on \u201cMother\u2019s Love and Maiden Purity,\u201d 168, 180;\n  tribute to Mary, 175.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Dryden, _Hind and Panther_.\n\n    2 Matt. xvi. 26.\n\n    3 II. Cor. iv. 17.\n\n    4 Rom. ix. 5.\n\n    5 Athanasian Creed.\n\n    6 Matt. xi.\n\n    7 Acts iv. 12.\n\n    8 Isaiah liii. 5.\n\n    9 Luke ix. 23.\n\n   10 II. Cor. iv. 10.\n\n   11 Gal. vi. 14.\n\n   12 De Corona, C. iii.\n\n   13 Mark xvi. 15.\n\n   14 Luke x. 16.\n\n   15 Symb. Constantinop.\n\n   16 John xvii. 20, 21.\n\n   17 Gal. v. 20, 21.\n\n   18 Ephes. iv. 3-6.\n\n   19 Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n   20 Luke i. 32, 33.\n\n   21 Matt. xii. 25.\n\n   22 John x. 16.\n\n   23 Rom. xii. 4, 5.\n\n   24 John xv. 5.\n\n   25 Apoc. xxi. 9.\n\n   26 I. Cor. xiv. 33.\n\n   27 Job xxxviii. 11.\n\n   28 Heb. xiii. 8.\n\n   29 De Civitate Dei, Lib. 16, Cap. ii., No. 1.\n\n   30 I. Pet. ii. 9.\n\n   31 Heb. i. 3.\n\n   32 Exod. xxv. 40.\n\n   33 Lev. xix. 2.\n\n   34 Matt. v. 48.\n\n   35 Eph. v. 1.\n\n   36 Ephes. iv. 11, 13.\n\n   37 Deut. vi. 6, 7.\n\n   38 Apoc. iii. 7.\n\n   39 Matt. xvi. 26.\n\n   40 Gal. iii. 27.\n\n   41 Eph. v. 25-27.\n\n   42 Heb. xi. 37.\n\n   43 Coloss. iii. 3.\n\n   44 I. Tim. i. 15.\n\n   45 Matt. xi. 5.\n\n   46 Matt. xiii. 24-37.\n\n   47 Ibid. xiii. 47.\n\n   48 II. Tim. ii. 20.\n\n   49 Dial. contra Lucif.\n\n   50 Hom. 12, in Evang.\n\n   51 In Ps. viii., ii. 13.\n\n   52 Cant. vi. 9.\n\n   53 I. Cor. i.\n\n   54 I. Cor. v.\n\n   55 Luther, Zuinglius, and Knox had been ordained priests. Calvin had\n      studied for the priesthood, but did not receive Orders.\n\n   56 Ps. xii.\n\n   57 Mal. i. 11.\n\n   58 Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n   59 Mark xvi. 15.\n\n   60 Acts i. 8.\n\n   61 Rom. x. 18.\n\n   62 Rom. i. 18.\n\n   63 Adv. H\u00e6r., i. 1.\n\n   64 Apologet. c. 37.\n\n   65 St. Aug. de Ver. Rel., c. 7. n. 12.\n\n   66 Does not this fact conclusively demonstrate the truth that the\n      Catholic Church can subsist under every form of government? And is\n      it not an eloquent refutation of the oft repeated calumny that a\n      republic is not a favorable soil for her development?\n\n   67 Apoc. v. 9.\n\n   68 Malachy i. 11.\n\n   69 Ps. lxxxiii.\n\n   70 Eph. ii. 20.\n\n   71 Gal. i. 8.\n\n   72 II. Tim. ii. 2.\n\n   73 Heb. v. 4.\n\n   74 Rom. x. 15.\n\n   75 Acts xiv. 22.\n\n   76 Tit. i. 5.\n\n   77 Acts xiii. 2, 3.\n\n   78 Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n   79 Luke xxii. 32.\n\n   80 John xxi. 15.\n\n   81 Thess. ii. 13.\n\n   82 Acts xv. 28.\n\n   83 Gal. i. 8.\n\n   84 Matt. vi. 17.\n\n   85 Acts xiii. 2.\n\n   86 Acts xiv. 22.\n\n   87 I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35.\n\n   88 Acts viii. 17.\n\n   89 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.\n\n   90 I. Cor. x. 16.\n\n   91 John xx. 28.\n\n   92 II. Cor. v. 18.\n\n   93 James v. 14.\n\n   94 Mark x. 11, 12.\n\n   95 I. Cor. vii, 10, 11.\n\n   96 I. Cor. vii.\n\n   97 History of the Church of England, by Thomas. V. Short, Bishop of St.\n      Asaph\u2019s, p. 44.\n\n   98 Book of Homilies.\n\n   99 Lib. de Pr\u00e6scrip., c. 32.\n\n  100 Psal. contra part Donati.\n\n  101 Luke i. 32, 33.\n\n  102 Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n  103 Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n  104 Except some Oriental sects dating back to the fifth and ninth\n      centuries.\n\n  105 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxvii, p. 450.\n\n  106 Du Pape, 1, 2, c. 5.\n\n  107 Psalm cii. 5.\n\n  108 Psalm ii. 1-4.\n\n  109 Daniel, iii.\n\n  110 Tyndall, Study of Physics.\n\n  111 Psalm ci. 27-29.\n\n  112 Eph. ii. 19, 20.\n\n  113 Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n  114 See Gal. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 13.\n\n  115 Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n  116 Matt. vii. 24, et seq.\n\n  117 John xx. 21.\n\n  118 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n  119 Mark xvi. 15.\n\n  120 Acts i. 8.\n\n  121 Matt. x. 14, 15.\n\n  122 Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n  123 Mark xvi. 16.\n\n  124 Luke x. 16.\n\n  125 John xiv. 16; xvi. 13.\n\n  126 Matt. xxviii. 18-20.\n\n  127 Ex. iii. 12; Jer. xv. 20, etc.\n\n  128 Eph. iv. 11-14.\n\n  129 Heb. xi. 6.\n\n  130 Tim. iii. 7.\n\n  131 Isaiah xxxv. 8.\n\n  132 Ps. cxxxii.\n\n  133 Matt. xviii. 3.\n\n  134 Pet. ii. 2.\n\n  135 Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.\n\n  136 Mal. ii. 7.\n\n  137 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.\n\n  138 John v. 39.\n\n  139 Except when He directed St. John to write the Apocalypse, i. 11.\n\n  140 Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n  141 Mark xvi. 15.\n\n  142 Luke x. 16.\n\n  143 Mark xvi. 20.\n\n  144 I. Tim., ii. 4.\n\n  145 Martinet, Religion in Society, Vol. II., c. 10.\n\n  146 II. Pet., iii. 16.\n\n  147 Ibid., i. 20.\n\n  148 Acts, viii. 31.\n\n  149 Except, perhaps, Rev. H. W. Beecher. who thinks that God is\n      glorified by the variety of sects.\n\n  150 See John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.\n\n  151 III. Kings xiv. 19.\n\n  152 Dialog. 3, 14.\n\n  153 Deut. xvii.\n\n  154 I. Cor. x. 11.\n\n  155 Prov. viii. 15.\n\n  156 Matt. xvi. 13-19.\n\n  157 Rev. i. 18.\n\n  158 John xxi. 15-17.\n\n  159 Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 14.\n\n  160 Acts iii.\n\n  161 Acts ii.\n\n  162 Acts x.\n\n  163 Acts i.\n\n  164 Acts xv.\n\n  165 Acts xii.\n\n  166 Gal. ii. 11.\n\n  167 Gal. i. 18.\n\n  168 Socrates\u2019 Ecclesiastical History, B. II., c. xv.\n\n  169 Epist. 113.\n\n  170 See Butler\u2019s Lives of the Saints\u2014St. Olave, July 29th.\n\n  171 Ps. lii.\n\n  172 Gen. xi. 4.\n\n  173 Numb. xxiv. 5.\n\n  174 Conc. Vat. Const. _Pastor \u00c6ternus_, c. 4.\n\n  175 Conc. Vat. Const. _Dei Filius_, cap. 4; Coloss. ii. 8.\n\n  176 Matt. xvi.\n\n  177 Matt. xvi.\n\n  178 Ibid.\n\n  179 Luke xxii. 31, 32.\n\n  180 John xxi. 16, 17.\n\n  181 Matt. viii. 20.\n\n  182 Acts iv. 34, 35.\n\n  183 Sometimes called Stephen II., as Stephen, his predecessor, died\n      three days after his election, whose name is omitted in some\n      calendars.\n\n  184 III. Kings xxi. 3.\n\n  185 II. Kings xii.\n\n  186 I dare say you could have found, a few years since, some persons in\n      the United States who entertained a holy fear lest the Pope should\n      one morning land upon our shores, and take forcible possession of\n      our country. A venerable clergyman once informed me that when he\n      went to pay his respects to President Pierce, who then occupied the\n      White House, his Excellency remarked to him: \u201cI had a visit from a\n      nervous gentleman, who asked me whether I was making any\n      preparations to resist the approach of the Pope. I replied that so\n      far I had taken no steps, but that no doubt I would be prepared to\n      meet the enemy when he arrived. The man retired more composed,\n      though not fully satisfied.\u201d\n\n  187 Some of the evils that were predicted to follow from the occupation\n      of Rome by a foreign power have been too speedily realized. Already\n      several convents and other ecclesiastical institutions have been\n      seized and sold, and their inmates sent adrift. A number of colleges\n      founded and endowed by the piety of foreign Catholics have been\n      confiscated. Public religious processions through the streets of\n      Rome have been prohibited. These and other outrages are perpetrated\n      by a government which solemnly pledged itself to maintain inviolate\n      the sovereign rights of the Holy Father when it took forcible\n      possession of his city in 1870. From the events that have already\n      transpired, we shall not be surprised to see the Pope still more\n      seriously hampered by a monarch who has unscrupulously violated his\n      former guarantees.\n\n  188 Memoir of Pope Sixtus V., by Baron H\u00fcbner, Vol. II., ch. 1.\n\n  189 When these lines were written, Pius IX. was the reigning Pontiff. He\n      died February 7, 1878.\n\n  190 Some time ago, my attention was called to a certain excommunication\n      or \u201ccurse,\u201d then widely circulated by the press of North Carolina.\n      The \u201ccurse\u201d is attributed to the Holy Father, and is fulminated\n      against Victor Emmanuel. In this anathema, _cursing_ and _damning_\n      are heaped up in wild confusion. When this base forgery appeared, an\n      article exposing the falsehood of the production was published. We\n      fear, however, that many who read the slanderous charge did not read\n      its refutation.\n\n  191 Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n  192 I. Cor. xiii. 12.\n\n  193 Gen. xlviii. 16.\n\n  194 Tobias xii. 12.\n\n  195 Luke xv. 10.\n\n  196 I. Cor. iv. 9.\n\n  197 Matt. xxii. 30.\n\n  198 Gen. xxviii.\n\n  199 Exod. xvii.\n\n  200 Baruch i. 13.\n\n  201 Job xlii.\n\n  202 Ibid.\n\n  203 II. Paralip. vii. 15.\n\n  204 II. Mac. xv. 14.\n\n  205 Revel. v. 8.\n\n  206 Zach. i. 12, 13.\n\n  207 I. Tim. ii. 5.\n\n  208 Council of Trent, Sess. xxv.\n\n  209 Prov. xv. 20.\n\n  210 Luke vi. 19.\n\n  211 Matt. ix. 20.\n\n  212 Exod. iv. 12.\n\n  213 Jer. i. 5.\n\n  214 Luke i. 41.\n\n  215 Ibid. i. 15.\n\n  216 John v. 35.\n\n  217 Acts ii.\n\n  218 II Cor. iii. 6.\n\n  219 Acts iii. 15.\n\n  220 Isaiah iii. 11.\n\n  221 Luke i. 26, 27.\n\n  222 Matt. i. 25.\n\n  223 Matt. i. 25.\n\n  224 Book V., ch. xlv.\n\n  225 Gen. viii. 7.\n\n  226 Kings xv. 35.\n\n  227 Ps. cix.\n\n  228 Josue xvii. 1.\n\n  229 Matt. xii. 46; xiii. 55, 56.\n\n  230 Ibid.\n\n  231 Matt xxvii.; Mark xv.\n\n  232 John xix. 25.\n\n  233 Gen. xiii. 8.\n\n  234 Bulla Dogmat. Pii Pap\u00e6 IX.\n\n  235 Ibid.\n\n  236 Gen. iii. 15.\n\n  237 I. Cor. xv. 45.\n\n  238 Bibliotheca Max. Patrum, t. 2, p. 3.\n\n  239 De sac. ordinat., p. 313.\n\n  240 Renaudot. Lit. Orient.\n\n  241 Luke i. 26-35.\n\n  242 I. Cor. xv. 41.\n\n  243 St. Bernard.\n\n  244 Judges, v.\n\n  245 Judith, xiii.\n\n  246 Luke i. 39-45.\n\n  247 Luke i. 46-48.\n\n  248 Oliver W. Holmes.\n\n  249 Luke xi. 27.\n\n  250 Esther vi. 11.\n\n  251 Ps. cxxxviii. (In Protestant version, Ps. cxxxix.)\n\n  252 John xv. 14.\n\n  253 John xii. 26.\n\n  254 Ps. lxxxvi.\n\n  255 Judith xiii.\n\n  256 Eccles. xliii. _et seq._\n\n  257 Luke i.\n\n  258 Ibid.\n\n  259 Luke i. 49.\n\n  260 Gen. xlviii. 16; Tobias xii. 12; Luke xv. 10; Zach. i. 12, 13.\n\n  261 Acts vii. 55.\n\n  262 II. Cor. xii. 4.\n\n  263 Luke ii. 51.\n\n  264 Longfellow\u2019s \u201cGolden Legend.\u201d\n\n  265 Isaiah xlix. 15.\n\n  266 Heb. ii 11.\n\n  267 Luke xv. 7.\n\n  268 Luke xxii. 29, 30.\n\n  269 I. Cor. vi.\n\n  270 Longfellow\u2019s \u201cGolden Legend.\u201d\n\n  271 Luke ii. 51.\n\n  272 Heb. i. 3.\n\n  273 Rom. viii. 29.\n\n  274 Sess. xxv.\n\n  275 Chap. xx.\n\n  276 Apoc. xxi.\n\n  277 III. Kings vi.\n\n  278 II. Kings vii. 2.\n\n  279 At the Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Va., in the\n      _sanctuary of the chapel_, the portrait of an opulent benefactor\n      holds a conspicuous place.\n\n  280 Exod. xxv. 40.\n\n  281 Sess. xxv.\n\n  282 II. Mach. xii. 43-46.\n\n  283 Matt. xii. 32.\n\n  284 I. Cor. iii. 13-15.\n\n  285 De Monogam., n. x.\n\n  286 Euseb., B. iv., c. 71.\n\n  287 Catech., n. 9, 10, p. 328.\n\n  288 Apud Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 162 and seq.\n\n  289 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 176.\n\n  290 Ibid., p. 177.\n\n  291 Ibid., Vol. II.\n\n  292 Confessions, Book ix.\n\n  293 Jewish Prayer Book. Edited by Isaac Leeser, published by Slote &\n      Mooney, Philadelphia.\n\n  294 Act. I.\n\n  295 See Path of Holiness, Rivington\u2019s, London. Treasury of Devotion,\n      Ibid. Catechism of Theology, Masten, London.\n\n  296 Mark xii. 26, 27.\n\n  297 Apoc. xxi. 27.\n\n  298 Morte D\u2019Arthur.\n\n  299 Eccles. xi. 1.\n\n  300 Vie de Fenelon.\n\n  301 Becanus, de Virtutibus Theologicis, c. 16, qu\u00e6st. 4, No. 2.\n\n  302 Dr. Brownson, who was then a Protestant.\n\n  303 Bancroft\u2019s \u201cHistory of the United States,\u201d Vol. I., ch. vii. 20th\n      Edition, 1864.\n\n  304 Bancroft\u2019s \u201cHistory of the United States,\u201d Vol. I., ch. vii.\n\n  305 Bancroft\u2019s \u201cHistory of the United States,\u201d Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide\n      Bacon\u2019s Laws.\n\n  306 Ibid.\n\n  307 Bancroft\u2019s \u201cHistory of the United States,\u201d Vol. I., ch. vii. Vide\n      Bacon\u2019s Laws.\n\n  308 Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1884.\n\n  309 Ibid., Chapter iii.\n\n  310 Ibid., Chap. v.\n\n  311 Ibid., Chap. xi.\n\n  312 Ibid. Chap. xi.\n\n  313 James Walter Thomas.\n\n  314 The original of Washington\u2019s reply is still preserved in the\n      Archives of the Baltimore Cathedral.\n\n  315 Ps. ii.\n\n  316 II. Tim. ii. 9.\n\n  317 II. Tim. iv. 2.\n\n  318 \u201cFerdinand and Isabella,\u201d Vol. III., p. 202.\n\n  319 Blue Laws.\n\n  320 For an impartial account of the Inquisition, the reader is referred\n      to the \u201cLetters on the Spanish Inquisition,\u201d by the Count de\n      Maistre.\n\n  321 \u201cThe Ottoman and Spanish Empires,\u201d by Leopold Ranke.\n\n  322 Constitutional History; Elizabeth, Chap. III.\n\n  323 See Lingard, Vol. VII., pp. 244-5.\n\n  324 Macaulay\u2019s Essays, \u201cReview of Nares\u2019 Memoirs of Lord Burleigh.\u201d\n\n  325 II. Cor. iii. 5.\n\n  326 Phil. ii. 13.\n\n  327 John xv. 5.\n\n  328 Acts ii. 38.\n\n  329 Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\n  330 See Wisdom ii. 23.\n\n  331 Rom. v. 12.\n\n  332 Eph. ii. 3.\n\n  333 Job xiv. 4.\n\n  334 Ps. l. 7.\n\n  335 Gen. iii. 15.\n\n  336 Gal. iv. 4, 5.\n\n  337 John iii. 5.\n\n  338 Acts xvi. 15.\n\n  339 Ibid. xvi. 33.\n\n  340 I. Cor. i. 16.\n\n  341 Lib. II. adr. H\u00e6r.\n\n  342 In Ep. ad Rom.\n\n  343 Epis. ad Fidum.\n\n  344 Apoc. xxi. 27.\n\n  345 Rom. xi. 33, 34.\n\n  346 Ezech. xxxvi. 25, 26.\n\n  347 Acts ii. 38.\n\n  348 Ibid. xxii. 16.\n\n  349 Gal. iii. 26, 27.\n\n  350 I. Cor. vi. 11.\n\n  351 Tit. iii. 3-7.\n\n  352 John v.\n\n  353 Acts ii. 41.\n\n  354 Acts viii. 14-17.\n\n  355 Acts xix. 5, 6.\n\n  356 Heb. vi. 1, 2.\n\n  357 II. Cor. i. 21.\n\n  358 Tract VI. in Ep. Joan.\n\n  359 De Resur. car.\n\n  360 Epist. lxxiii.\n\n  361 Cat. xxi. Mys. iii. De S. Chrism.\n\n  362 De Myst. cvii. n. 42.\n\n  363 Dial. adv. Lucifer.\n\n  364 L. II., contra lit. Petil.\n\n  365 Roman Pontifical.\n\n  366 II. Cor. x. 5.\n\n  367 John vi. 48-56.\n\n  368 John vi. 61.\n\n  369 Ibid. vi. 67.\n\n  370 John iii.\n\n  371 Matt. xvi.\n\n  372 John vi. 68, 69.\n\n  373 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.\n\n  374 Luke xxii. 19.\n\n  375 I. Cor. x. 16, and xi. 23-29.\n\n  376 See \u201cFaith of Catholics.\u201d Vol. II.\n\n  377 John vi. 51, and seq.\n\n  378 Rom. vi. 9.\n\n  379 I. Cor. xi. 27.\n\n  380 Aug. De consec. dist.\n\n  381 De formula Miss\u00e6.\n\n  382 Systema Theol., p. 250.\n\n  383 Acts ii. 42.\n\n  384 Ibid. xx. 7.\n\n  385 Alzog\u2019s Hist., Vol. I., p. 721.\n\n  386 Denziger, Rit. Orientales.\n\n  387 While Protestants consider the cup as an indispensable part of the\n      communion service, they do not seem, in many instances, to be very\n      particular as to what the cup will contain. And the New York\n      _Independent_, of September 21, 1876, relates the following\n      incident: \u201cA late English traveler found a Baptist mission church,\n      in far-off Burmah, using for the communion service Bass\u2019s pale ale\n      instead of wine. The opening of the frothing bottle on the communion\n      table seemed not quite decorous to the visitor, who presented the\n      pastor with a half-dozen bottles of claret for sacramental use.\u201d\n\n  388 Gen. iv.\n\n  389 Gen. viii.\n\n  390 Ibid. xv.\n\n  391 Job. i.\n\n  392 Numb. xxviii.\n\n  393 II. Mac. xii. 43-46.\n\n  394 Heb. x. 4, 7.\n\n  395 Isaiah i. 11-13.\n\n  396 Mal. i. 10, 11.\n\n  397 I. Cor. xi. 23-26.\n\n  398 Heb. xiii. 10.\n\n  399 Ibid. vii. 12.\n\n  400 Ps. cix. 4; Heb. v. 6.\n\n  401 Gen. xiv. 18.\n\n  402 Heb. ix. 25.\n\n  403 Ibid. x. 11, 12.\n\n  404 I. John ii. 1, 2.\n\n  405 Heb. ix. 13, 14.\n\n  406 Heb. iv. 16.\n\n  407 John iv. 23, 24.\n\n  408 Dan. iii. 62, 63. Though this passage is omitted in the Protestant\n      Bible, it is retained in the Book of Common Prayer.\n\n  409 Psalm. xviii. 1.\n\n  410 Rom. xii. 1.\n\n  411 Matt. xxvi.\n\n  412 Ibid. xxi.\n\n  413 Ibid. xxvi.\n\n  414 Mark vii.\n\n  415 John xx.\n\n  416 Acts viii.\n\n  417 James v.\n\n  418 Apocalypse, passim.\n\n  419 II. Cor. iii. 9.\n\n  420 Isaiah xxix. 13.\n\n  421 Ibid. i. 72.\n\n  422 Ps. cl.\n\n  423 Joel ii. 13.\n\n  424 Ibid. ii. 15-17.\n\n  425 I. Cor. xiii.\n\n  426 Phil. ii. 10.\n\n  427 I. Tim. iv. 4.\n\n  428 Exod. xxv. 31, and seq.\n\n  429 Ps. cxl.\n\n  430 Exod. xxx. 7.\n\n  431 Luke i. 9, 10.\n\n  432 John xii. 6.\n\n  433 Exod. xxviii. 4.\n\n  434 Apoc. vii. 9, 10.\n\n  435 Matt. i. 21.\n\n  436 Matt. ix. 2.\n\n  437 John v. 14.\n\n  438 II. Cor. v. 18-20.\n\n  439 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.\n\n  440 Matt. xviii. 18.\n\n  441 John xx. 21-23.\n\n  442 Isaiah i. 18.\n\n  443 Acts xix. 18.\n\n  444 I. John i. 9.\n\n  445 In Reg. Brev., qu\u00e6st, ccxxix., T. II., p. 492.\n\n  446 Ibid., cclxxxviii., p. 516.\n\n  447 See Faith of Catholics, Vol. III., p. 74 and seq.\n\n  448 Apud Wiseman\u2019s Doctrines of the Church.\n\n  449 Hom. xx.\n\n  450 Sermo cccxcii.\n\n  451 Tom. vii. Comm. in Matt.\n\n  452 Lib. iii., De Sacerdotio.\n\n  453 Ibid., Hom. xx.\n\n  454 Comment in Eccles.\n\n  455 Comm. in Matt.\n\n  456 Lib. de Capt. Babyl. cap de P\u0153nit.\n\n  457 See \u201cA Catechism on the Church.\u201d By the Rev. C. S. Grueber,\n      Hambridge, Diocese of Bath and Wells. London: Palmer, 1870.\n\n  458 The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina.\n\n  459 Ps. cxxxii.\n\n  460 The Ordering of Priests.\n\n  461 Mark ii. 7.\n\n  462 Matt. ix. 8.\n\n  463 John xx.\n\n  464 IV. Kings v.\n\n  465 Systema Theol.\n\n  466 Remarques sur l\u2019Olympe.\n\n  467 Emile.\n\n  468 Heb. v. 2.\n\n  469 Luke xv. 32.\n\n  470 Num. xii.\n\n  471 II. Kings xii.\n\n  472 Matt. xvi. 19.\n\n  473 Ibid., xviii. 18.\n\n  474 I. Cor. v. 5.\n\n  475 II. Cor. ii. 6-10.\n\n  476 Articuli pro Clero, A.D. 1584. Sparrow, 194. I admit, indeed, that\n      Protestant canons have but a fleeting and ephemeral authority even\n      among themselves, and that the canons must yield to the spirit of\n      the times, not the times to the canons. I dare say that even few\n      Protestant theologians are familiar with the canons to which I have\n      referred. Some people have a convenient faculty of forgetting\n      unpleasant traditions.\n\n  477 Vol. I. p. 214.\n\n  478 Ibid.\n\n  479 Byron.\n\n  480 Daniel iv. 24.\n\n  481 Acts x. 31.\n\n  482 Sess. xxv. Dec. de Indulgentia.\n\n  483 James v. 14, 15.\n\n  484 Homil. ii. in Levit.\n\n  485 Lib. iii. de Sacred.\n\n  486 Epist. xxv. ad Decentum.\n\n  487 Comment in locum.\n\n  488 Systema Theol., p. 280.\n\n  489 Lib. de Captiv. Babyl.\n\n  490 II. Cor. v. 20.\n\n  491 John xx. 21.\n\n  492 Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n  493 Mark xvi. 15.\n\n  494 Matt. x. 14, 15.\n\n  495 Luke x. 16.\n\n  496 Paralip, xvi. 22.\n\n  497 John xv. 15.\n\n  498 Isaiah lii. 7.\n\n  499 I. Cor. iv. 1.\n\n  500 James v. 14.\n\n  501 I. Cor. iv. 15.\n\n  502 Apoc. xxi. 2.\n\n  503 Eph. iv. 11, 12.\n\n  504 Ps. cxlvii. 20.\n\n  505 Matt. xix. 27-29.\n\n  506 Luke x. 18, 20.\n\n  507 Wisd. vi. 6.\n\n  508 I. Pet. iv. 17.\n\n  509 I. Cor. iv. 7.\n\n  510 Cor. iii. 6, 7.\n\n  511 Malach. ii. 7.\n\n  512 Osee. iv. 6.\n\n  513 Isaiah lii. 11.\n\n  514 Rom. xii. 1.\n\n  515 Matt. xix. 12.\n\n  516 I. Cor. vii. 32, 33.\n\n  517 I. Cor. vii. 8.\n\n  518 Matt. xix. 27.\n\n  519 Ibid., xix. 29.\n\n  520 Tit. i. 8.\n\n  521 I. Tim. iv. 12.\n\n  522 II. Cor. vi. 46.\n\n  523 Ep. ad Pammach.\n\n  524 Adv. Jovin., lib. 1.\n\n  525 Adv. Vigilantium.\n\n  526 H\u00e6res. 59, c. 4.\n\n  527 I. Kings xxi.\n\n  528 Exod. xix.\n\n  529 Page 239.\n\n  530 Essays, p. 17.\n\n  531 Annals of the Propagation of the Faith, March, 1868.\n\n  532 Marshall, Comedy of Convocation.\n\n  533 I. Cor. ix. 5.\n\n  534 I. Tim. iii. 2.\n\n  535 I. Tim. iv. 1-3.\n\n  536 Ephes. v. 25-32.\n\n  537 Sess. xxiv.\n\n  538 Matt. xix. 4-6.\n\n  539 Matt. xix. 3-9.\n\n  540 Mark x. 11, 12.\n\n  541 Luke xvi. 18.\n\n  542 I. Cor. vii. 10, 11.\n\n  543 Bossuet, Variations, Vol. 1.\n\n  544 Audin, p. 339.\n\n  545 American Cyclop., art Divorce. Our Savior declares that he who\n      marrieth an adulteress committeth adultery. Yet Luther and Calvin\n      declare that it is unwise to oppose such a marriage. But \u201cthe\n      foolishness of God is wiser than men.\u201d And Wisdom has said: \u201cI will\n      destroy the wisdom of the wise.\u201d (I. Cor. i.)","title":"The Faith of Our Fathers","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":123896}