BX 5129 .P9 pt.3 Pusey, E. B. 1800-1882. Is healthful reunion impossible? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/ishealthfulreuniOOpuse EIRENICON. Part III. LONDON: GILBEET AND EIVINGTON, TRINTEES, ST. JOIIN'S SQUAEE. IS HEALTHFUL REUNION IMPOSSIBLE? A SECOND LETTER TO THE VERY EEV. J. H. NEWMAN, D.D. BY THE EEV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. EEGITJS PEOFESSOB OB HEBEEW, AND CANON OF CUEIST CHUECU, OXFORD. SOLD BY JAMES PARKER & CO., OXFORD, AND 377, STEAND, LONDON J RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON, HIGH STEEET, OXFORD, AND TEINITY STEEET, CAMBEIDGE. 1870. CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction 1 Identity of principle as to authority of the Church ... 3 Grounds of hopes of reunion of Christendom .... 4 Prima facie difficulties ........ 7 What concessions are impossible, what are not .... 8 Appeals to Rome said now to be disused . . . . .10 Nominations to Bishoprics may be settled by Concordats . . 11 " Explanations " are not " concessions " . . . . .12 Card. Wiseman and Bossuet on value of explanations . . .13 Lutheran explanation of prayers to saints accepted by Bossuet . 15 Statements of Veron and English Roman Catholics on invocation of saints 18 Preliminary difficulties 21 Roman and Eastern Church met at Ferrara as portions of the one Church 24 Bossuet's moderation ......... 27 He proposed to proceed by way of explanation or elucidation . 28 English Articles easier to be explained than Lutheran . . .30 Bossuet's hopes of agreement with Calvinists . . . .31 We, in Church of England, teach an inherited faith . . .35 Why, and how far, not receiving Council of Trent as authority, we yet agreed with it . . . . . . .30 We may be morally certain what Rome would admit . . .38 Probable reaction from removed prejudices . . . . .39 Practical evils popularly feared from Rome . . . . .40 ft) Eucharistic Sacrifice, as stated by Molanus . . . .41 Accepted by Bossuet 44 Bossuet's own explanation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice to the Calvinist, M. Ferry ib. vi Contents. PAGE h) Necessity of " intention " to validity of Sacraments in Molanus and Bossuet ......... 48 Card. Pallavicini : what " intention " is necessary to the validity of the Sacraments ........ 50 Catharin and Vazquez on the same ...... 54 Aquinas on the doctrine of " intention " . . . . .56 Molanus on justification ........ 57 Bossuet accepts his statement ....... 58 c) Statement on justification which, Bossuet thought, might he offered and accepted ........ 59 1. That justification is a free gift, or gratis . . . . ih. 2. On works and merits following justification . . . .61 3. Of the gratuitous promise and of the perfection and accept- ance of good works ........ 62 4. Of the fulfilling of the law 63 5. Of merits which the}' call " ex condigno " . . . .64 6. On justifying faith ........ 65 7. Of the certainty of justifying faith 67 8. Of grace and the co-operation of free-will . . . .68 d) Doctrine of satisfaction or making amends . . . .69 Protestant doctrine same as Roman, except in name . . .70 e) Adoration of our Lord present in the Holy Eucharist . . 73 f) Bossuet on limitation of cultus of images . . . .74 g) Doctrine of the " Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist " . .75 Tridentine statement of the doctrine 76 What is meant by "substantia"? 79 " Substance " need not have Aristotelic sense . . . .81 The " species " have a real existence 82 Accident of " weight " implies existence of matter . . .83 Eucharistic " accidents " no illusion of the senses . . . .84 The Church is committed to no human philosophy . . .85 English ritual implies Sacramental change 86 Disclaimers of popular statements by Veron . . . .87 li) On the number of the Sacraments. Eminence of those two which came from the Side of Christ 91 Universal essentialness of two Sacraments 92 Other Sacraments implied by our formularies . . . .93 Unction for the sick : restored health prayed for both in Roman and Greek rituals 94 i) The intermediate state. Roman statements of sufferings after death mostly one-sided, yet they own the peace of all who are departed in grace. We dwell on the bright side only . 96 Contents. vii PAGE Faber's summary of the darker side . . . . . .99 Scholastic doctrine of Purgatory ...... 100 S. Paul on suffering after death ....... 101 Suffering inseparable from the Day of Judgment .... 102 Points as to Purgatory, declared by Veron and the Do Walen- burchs not to be de fide 104 S. Catherine of Genoa : picture of the unutterable bliss in Pur- gatory '. 106 Benefits which would result from its authoritative statement . 109 Relief to minds from a belief in a preparatory intermediate state 110 S. Catherine's doctrine, as stated by S. Francois de Sales . . 112 S. Catherine's doctrine taught her through her own sufferings ; depreciated at first ; admitted slowly ..... 114 An intermediate preparation for seeing God, held by Protestants . 118 Fullest force so given to the words of Holy Scripture . . . 120 " Purgatory of Desire " held by some ...... 121 ]c) Deutero-canonical Books. Probability that S. Jerome and S. Augustine meant the same in regard to them . . . 122 S. Augustine's distinction within his larger Canon . . . 124 He defends a passage in the Book of Wisdom as a Divine Testi- mony 126 S. Jerome calls the two Books of Wisdom Divine Scripture, and cites them with other Scripture ..... 130 Quotation of Deutero-canonical Books hy early writers who held the stricter Canon . . 132 Quoted by Origen even as to doctrine . . ... 133 Canon of Old Testament in Eusebius 137 His quotations from Wisdom ....... 138 Canon of St. Athanasius 139 Two Books of Wisdom quoted by St. Athanasius .... 140 S. Hilary's Canon and quotations ...... 141 S. Cyril of Jerusalem's strict Canon and quotations . . . 142 S. Epiphanius's lists of Holy Scripture 143 His quotations of Deutero-canonical Books ..... 144 S. Gregory of Nazianzus : his Canon and quotations . . . 145 S. Amphilochius 146 S. Chrysostom's Synopsis of Holy Scripture. .... 147 His quotations of Deutero-canonical Books 148 Anglican Article on the Canon, and quotations of Deutero-cancnical Books in the Homilies correspond to these Fathers . . 150 Quotations of Deutero-canonical Books in the Homilies . . 152 viii Contents. PAGE Nothing- said in the Council of Trent as to the degree of inspira- tion of the Deutero-canonical Books ..... 150 /) Of the Primacy of the See of Rome. Ordinary jurisdiction alone denied to See of Rome under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth . 15S Bossuct claims the identity of Gallican liberties with the practice of the ancient African Church . . . . . . 1G0 Writers before the Council of Constance held Council to be above the Pope ; decree of that Council not repealed . . . 1G2 Council of Trent purposely left things as they were before . . 164 Different meanings given to the Canon of the Council of Florence . 165 Bossuet : the authority of the Pope limited by the Council of Florence to what was contained in the Canons . . . 1GG Its meaning determined by the previous claims of, and conferences with the Greeks, viz. that the authority of the Pope was limited by the Canons 168 Bossuet's defence of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy, that the authority of the Pope was to be ruled (modcrandum) by the Canons 172 Sayings of Popes, on the supreme authority of the Canons, binding on themselves ......... 174 Bossuet: even in the tenth century, acts of Popes against the Canons were resisted . 176 " Pragmatic Sanction " of S. Louis ...... 179 The ground of holding the superiority of General Council to a Pope, was the infallibility of the Council, fallibility of the Pope . . .180 Card, de Turrecremata and Eugenius IV. held a General Council to be above the Pope in matters of faith .... 182 S. Antoninus and Card. Jacobatius held that the Pope might err in matters of faith ........ 184 Cases of Popes who have erred as to the faith .... 186 1. Judgment of S. Jerome and S. Hilary as to Liberius . . 187 Extent of his fall . . . . ' . . . . . .188 2. Honorius used his authority to suppress truth . . . 189 Sergius and Sophronius formally apply to Honorius, who con- curs with the heretic Sergius against Sophronius . . 190 Honorius adopts what the Lateran Council under Martin I. condemned 192 Inconsistency, had he not been condemned .... 193 Repeated condemnation of him in Vlth General Council . 194 If Honorius had not been guilty of heresy, the Church had been guilty of one long-repeated false-witness . . . 196 < Contents. ix PAGE 3. Error of Gregory II. in formally allowing polygamy, admitted by Bellarmino 200 4. Error of Stephen II. on Marriage and Baptism . . . 201 5. Error of Nicholas I. on baptizing in the name of Christ only 203 6. Annulling of real Orders by Stephen VI. and Sergius III. . 204 7. Error of Celestine III., that heresy or apostasy dissolved . Christian marriage ........ 206 8. Error of predecessors of Alexander III. as to what constitutes marriage .......... 208 9. Error of Innocent III. as to revealing confession . . . 209 10. Contradictory Bulls about the nature of the poverty taught and practised by our Lord . . . . . . 210 John XXII. declared unjust and heretical what Nicholas III. praised as perfect. Both decretals were published as matters of faith 212 11. Error of John XXII. on delay of the vision of God until after the Day of Judgment ...... 215 Cases in which Popes censured what was right or acquitted what was wrong . . . . . . . . .218 1. Zosimus takes the side of the heretic Cselestius against the African Bishops ; overlooks plain heresy in his statement, which he accepts ; better instructed by the African Bishops 219 Facundus on his mistake 225 2. Constitution of Vigilius contradicted by the Vth General Council 227 3. Hormisdas formally appealed to as to proposition " Unus ex Trinitate crucifixus est," carefully stated by Scythian monks, censures them ; but their statement prevails in the whole Church 228—237 Bossuet : cases in which Popes spoke of their own fallibility . . 237 1. John XXII ib. 2. Gregory XI 239 3. Pius IV 240 Re-consecrations by Stephen IV. ...... 241 Nicolas II. held " sensualiter " to be part of faith in H. Eucharist 242 Innocent III. taught law, other than moral, in Deuteronomy to be binding . . . . . . j . 243 Confusion in instruction of Eugenius IV. to the Armenians on the matter and form of Sacraments 244 Mistakes of Sixtus V. in correcting Vulgate held to endanger Papal infallibility 246 Evidence from General Councils 247 X Contents. PAGE Councils of Nice and Constantinople 248 Nestorius condemned in Roman Council; S. Cyril's Epistle ap- proved by S. Celestine, submitted to C. of Epbesus . 249 — 251 Condemnation of Nestorius and his Epistle reconsidered by Council, condemned by its authority ; Roman legates held its proceedings regular 252 — 257 S. Celestine on the office of the Council 257 S. Leo I. holds the judgment of General Council fuller than his own; obtains previous judgment of the West . . . 258 The Bishops receive his Epistle as agreeing with the faith of the Fathers ; teach that it agrees with the three former General Councils ; pronounce as judges .... .262 — 265 Vth General Council ascertains that Illrd and IVth pronounced nothing without examination . . . . . 266 Councils examined Epistles of Popes or of heretics . . . 268 Retractation of Pope Vigilius 269 Mgr. Maret on his retractation, the acceptance of Pope Agatho's letter, and the condemnation of Macarius . . . 270 — 274 Letter of Adrian I. submitted to the Vllth General Council, and approved on examination ....... 274 In the time of Council of Frankfort infallibility not held to be in the Pope and a particular Council 276 Bossuet's summary of the eight first General Councils . . 277 Principles of Bossuet well suited to the character of the English . 280 Statements of Mgr. Maret and Ferraris on Italian theory of Papal authority ......... 281 — 283 The "Civilta:" Christian life and faith from the Pope; Roman picture of the existing Papal system ; von Liafio ; authors of Der Papst und das Concil, by Janus . . .288 — 294 Gallican tradition unbroken 289 Card, de la Luzerne . . . 290 Mgr. Maret on Gallicanism and its opponents . . . . ib. Ultramontanism alleged to be Catholic Christianity . . . 292 Mgr. Maret : effects of denning Papal Infallibility . . . 294 Mgr. Maret : moral holiness, which was, during series of Popes, not possessed by Popes, a condition of Infallibility . . . 300 Large range of statements in the past, which declaration of Papal Infallibility would convert into matter of faith . . . 305 Mgr. Maret : conditions to Papal Infallibility must be delusive . 306 Papal Infallibility has not been confined to formal decrees . . 310 Power to depose kings, absolve from oaths, &c, would become matter of faith 311 Contents. xi TAGE Deep mistrust in English minds engendered by the claim. Tbat claim disowned in view of civil privileges to Roman Catholics 315, 316 Difficulties as to forgiveness of sins beforehand in Bulls of Crusades 317 Later explanation 320 Is it wise to encumber faith with defence of Crusades ? . . 321 Death in Crusades taught to be martyrdom . . . . ib. Hincmar, difficult to obey Decretals, for contradictory . . . 323 Papal infallibility would affect statements of Roman doctrine or practice, on Transubstantiation, marriage of brother's wife, title of Universal Bishop, Papal authority, Immac. Cone. ofB. V 324 Matters of discipline, being such, need create no difficulty . . 327 Marriage of Clergy ib. The Cup : its special grace 328 Prayers in our own tongue 331 Oakeley's statement of certain result of nomination or approbation of our Bishops by the Pope . . . . . . ib. Our central difficulty in the system as to the B. V. . . ' . ib. 1. Is the B. V. more easy of approach than Jesus ? . . . ib. 2. Is the B. V. the way to Jesus, as Jesus to the Father ? . 332 Joy at reception of disclaimer of certain statements . . . 336 Personal explanations ......... 337 Hopes 342 Note A. — Ante-Tridentine statements as to the Canon of the Old Testament, from Bishop Cosin 345 LETTER II. on the possibility of corporate reunion, and of explanation on the part of rome. My dearest Friend, Two years, as you see, have passed since I concluded my former Letter to you. I was en- gaged in substituting the evidence on the Ira- maculate Conception, which Cardinal de Turre- cremata was commissioned to collect on his side, for that which I had previously selected from Dc Bandelis, when I broke off the work, unable, for the time, to continue the labour of verifying, as far as I could, or supplementing that evidence. I did not resume it, thinking it hopeless at present to attempt any thing, amid the disdain or con- demnation with which some among you in England received the far-off suggestions of reconciliation, and the storm which some among us were attempt- ing to raise against those who believe as I do. The disdain has not been mitigated ; the effort to raise a storm is aggravated. What will be the A 2 Occasion of this second Letter. issue, He Alone knows, who " ruleth the raging of the sea, and the noise of his waves, and the mad- ness of the people." Yet, in view of the Council which is to be held among you at the close of next year, I have thought it not amiss to continue to put together the evidence on the Immaculate Conception which Cardinal de Turrecremata was prevented by the confusion of the times from pre- senting to the Council of Basle, and which, al- though originally published with the sanction of Pope Paul III., is, I suppose, now with difficulty to be procured, though at Rome, I suppose, you have access to every thing. But in order to do justice to the evidence at all, it has been necessary to produce it at such length (considering also what has been opposed to it) that what, in its com- mencement, I intended to be only " a brief explana- tion " to yourself, has become a volume, and neces- sarily wears a controversial appearance. And so, since you tell me that you can have no possible objection to my introducing any statement on con- troverted points into my Letter to you, if only I say (what you think truly that I also should say) that, supposing that the Church declared and defined those controverted points in one particular way, you would receive such doctrines as part of the original faith, I thankfully begin again. For there is no one now on earth, to whom I would more readily write on such subjects, than yourself ; no one (on what I must, alas ! speak of as your side) Identity qf principle as to authority of Church. 3 to whom I should so gladly write on the ultimate pacification of Christendom. In principle, as you say, we should agree; only that I should " define the Church differently," or rather, I should follow the definition of the Church as I learnt it of those whom I early reverenced, representing, as I believe, the Communion in which my lot was cast. But in principle I agree, that upon any point which a General Council, received by the whole Church, should pronounce to be "de fide," private judgment is at an end. Private judgment has no place there. It is for the Church to decide upon the evidence, whether from Holy Scripture or from unbroken tradition from the first. She, not individuals, is the judge of that evidence ; for she, not individuals apart from her, has our Lord's promises. Whatever she should decide, I should not only accept, but it has long been my habit of mind, " implicite " to accept it beforehand. I mean that, while of course I believe all which I know that the Church has defined, I believe, with my inmost will, whatever she holds, whether I know it or no. I do indeed hope, on different grounds, that the Roman Church will not define, as matters of faith, the specific instances which you mention, viz., " that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible, or that the Augustinian or the Dominican view of predestination is not the true one; or that S. John Baptist, by a special privilege, was preserved from venial sin." But, if 4 Grounds of hopes of the whole Church, including the Greek and Anglican Communions, were to define these or any other points, to be "de fide," I should hold all further inquiry as to evidence to be at an end. In whatever way they should rule any question, how- ever contrary to my previous impressions^ I should submit to it, and hold it, as being, by r.uch uni- versal consent of the whole Church, proved to be part of the Apostles' faith. I have ever submitted my credenda to a power beyond myself. We have differed, then, and must differ, upon a point of fact — what are the component parts of that Church, whose reception of any doctrine saves us from all further inquiry, and rules that doctrine for us ; not as to the principle, whether any such power exists. This, then, premised, I will not hesitate to write to you about my hopes as to the future reunion of Christendom. That reunion has now for some time been the object of thought, of preaching, and, above all, of prayer. The thought, as you well remember, penetrates our public prayers. Whenever we celebrate the Holy Eucharist, we pray, priests and people, that God would " inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord;" and "that all they that do confess " His "Holy Name may agree, in the truth of" His " Holy Word, and live in unity and Godly love." We pray twice a day for the Holy Church, as one ; reunion of Christendom. 5 " for the good estate of the Catholic Church ;" yet we pray, also, that "it may be so guided and governed by " God's " good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith, in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteous- ness of life." We pray that the whole Church may be so guided by the Holy Spirit of God, that all individuals upon whom Christ's Holy Name is called may hold " the faith," — the one faith, " in unity of spirit and the bond of peace." God has heard these prayers in part. For when, on the striking of a chord, there is a deep and wide vibration in the hearts of men, one can- not doubt that those hearts have been secretly attuned beforehand ; else they would not so re- spond. And when the note, to which they so respond, is one of peace and love, then their souls must have been brought into unison by His hal- lowing influence, Who is Alone " the Author of peace and lover of concord." The name of re- union has been but named ; some hints have but been given of away, in which, in our belief, a health- ful re-union might be effected, and forthwith the thought finds entrance where we would least have hoped it ; it is entertained, weighed, dwelt upon, hoped for, by many ; and if, by more, to whose minds the difficulties are more present than the mode of obviating those difficulties, it is called " a beautiful dream," still the heart says it is 6 Hopes of reunion of Christendom. " beautiful," and by acknowledgment of its beauty, does, when speaking of a sacred thing, acknowledge that it is Divine. For its beauty, if not that of a Divine truth, must be that of a delusive meteor ; which were shocking and impossible. It could not but be, that the earnest conception of the idea of re-union should stir men's hearts in their very depth. For since that Organic Union which must ever subsist in the Church, being wrought by the One indwelling Spirit and the common Sacra- ments, is an union of nature, corresponding to the Union of the Father and the Son, then that sub> jective unity, too, which is the result of human but God-given love and the harmony of human wills, must be a primary duty and a condition of our well-being, not to be sacrificed, except un- willingly, as a necessity involved in the conditions required. This response has been the more remarkable, because the chord was touched so slightly and in- cidentally. I was writing no treatise on Christian unity or on the re-union of Christendom ; still less was I attempting any heart-stirring appeal to men's hearts or principles. I was but writing a defence of the English Church (which it had been put upon me to write), against a root-and-branch attack upon it on the Roman side. I could not point out our agreement on great matters of faith, without pointing out also what I believed to justify our state of isolation. I could not conscientiously Prima facie difficulties. 7 dwell on the causes of isolation, without pointing to a gleam, which I hoped I saw beyond — a way in which I trusted that all Christendom might be united, on the basis of what all the Churches hold to be of faith, and which is primitive, apart from those things which, however widely held, are not " de fide." God, I hope, put it into my heart to change what was begun, at the instance of others, as a mere defence, into suggestions of re-union. But the vaguer and more incidental the hints of the possibility of the re-union and of its possible terms were, the more manifestly was the response, not to my poor disjointed words, but to the great thought itself — the re-union of Christendom. I wished but to awaken hopes, that a healthful re- union was possible, a re-union which should in- volve no sacrifice of truth. If hope should be awakened, then that icy hindrance to prayer, de- spondency as to the possibility of what we pray for, would be dissolved. Men would pray, God would hearken, and do what and as He sees best. There are, of course, prima facie difficulties and objections against such hopes ; else the actual state of things would not be what it is. I only suggested that such difficulties are not insurmountable. Those difficulties have been represented much in this way ; that re-union itself is a beautiful dream, but impracticable: 1) on account of the immuta- bility of Rome, which, it is said, could not make any concessions, without giving up its belief in the 8 What "concessions " impossible; infallibility of the Church ; 2) on account of the actual indisposition of the English Church, that her people would never accept the terms which alone Rome could give ; 3) much the same is said of the alleged stiffness of the Greek and Russian Church. 1) But the term " concessions " is ambiguous. If by " concessions " were meant the declaration that that is not " de fide " which has been declared to be " de fide," " concessions " in this sense, would, of course, be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Roman Church, or to its claims to be alone the Church, whose decisions would consequently be infallible. But in all matters of discipline, " concessions " might be made without any violation of principle on your part. Nay, it is said, that to some Easterns in communion with Rome a married priesthood is permitted, and (which is a very deep feeling among some of us) the gift of the Cup; or (which touches more on matters of faith) they are allowed, it is said, the use of the unaltered Creed of Nice and Constantinople, without the word " Filioque," which yet, as was agreed at the Council of Florence, expresses the common faith of the East and the West, although it has, for cen- turies, been understood in a wrong sense in the East. Owing, I suppose, to an almost invincible prejudice, sedulously instilled by Photius, and transmitted from generation to generation, that the word " Filioque " involved the heresy of two 'Apxou what are not. in the Divine Nature, it is said to have been allowed to them to retain the unaltered Creed, Rome being - , I suppose, satisfied on her side, that their mislike of the word does not arise from any rejection of the doctrine, that, in the language of their forefathers the great Greek Fathers, God the Holy Ghost eternally proceedeth from the Father (Sux tov Tiov) through the Son. This, if true, is the graver, on account of the reverence to the All- Holy Trinity, Whose Eternal mode of existence is thus spoken of. Again, as to one ground of the original rejection of King Henry VIII. or Queen Elizabeth, "and their adherents " respectively, the election of our Bishops, or the right of appeals in all ecclesiastical causes to Rome, it has been said by an able and candid Jesuit writer that appeals to Rome are almost 1 The following passage in the " Etudes Religieuses," &e. (March, 1866, No. 39, pp. 388, 389), will be read with great interest : — " Since the beginning of this century, very few suits have been carried to Rome in appeal, from Trance, Belgium, Holland, the Rhine Provinces, England, Scotland, Ireland, the United States, Canada. Very certainly there have not been, in all, more than some ten cases from these different countries which have been terminated in the last instance at Rome. The Council of Trent, and the Popes who have reigned since, have reduced processes in the Roman Curia to the narrowest limits. The Council of Trent (sess. 24. c. 20) forbad the intro- duction of processes in the first instance. Extra-judicial appeals have been, so to say, fundamentally extirpated by the Popes Clement VIII., Gregory XV., Urban VIII., Benedict XIII., and especially Benedict XIV., in the Constitution Ad militantis of March 30, 1742. The same Council was not less 10 Appeals to Rome now disused; nomination universally disused. The nomination to bishoprics has been the subject of Concordats with different severe in regard to appeals called ' interlocutory,' and to all by- ways of hindering condemnations. There remain judicial appeals from definitive sentences. The ancient Concordats of France restricted these to ' causae majores ' and to those of monasteries immediately subject to the Holy See ; and it is known that Innocent X. declared null of full right any thing done against the Concordats. Many religious have been for- bidden by Popes, under the severest penalties, to appeal outside their Orders. But what, more than all the rest, has reduced appeals and processes almost to nothing, is, that ambition and avarice have almost disappeared from the Catholic Clergy, purified by the Eevolutions. At least, very few ecclesiastics would now sacrifice their conscience or their repose to these vices. Processes, then, are detested. The priests leave them- selves to the equity of their Bishops ; and, if any unusual difficulties present themselves, Bishops and priests betake themselves to the Boman Congregations, who examine and decide, summarily and without expense, the question of right at issue. Processes, then, are fallen into such desuetude, that probably, in all Prance, Belgium, Holland, England, and the Bhine Provinces, not one would be found capable of conducting any other ecclesiastical processes than processes in nullity of marriage. " If Dr. P. will allow me to say so to him, he lives far too much in old books. He has seen that appeals, both in the civil and ecclesiastical forum, readily give occasion to abuses, and, consequently, that there have been always very grave complaints on this subject. But what he has not seen is, that the Council of Trent and the Popes have done all which is possible for man to cut short these grievances. Does Mr. P. believe that we are still amongst the misdoings of the 15th and of the first half of the 16th century ? And if he does, why does he not become acquainted with the present state of affairs among Catholics, as the celebrated Protestant historian Leo, who declared not long ago, that Protestantism never would have of Bishops may be 'provided by Concordats. 11 Roman Catholic powers. And yet, to judge by the, I must say, unintelligent tumult which was raised on the ground of the appointment of English Roman Catholic Prelates, instead of the Apostolic legates by whom the Roman Catholics in England used to be governed, this is a matter of consider- able feeling among the English people. I say, " unintelligent," because although, as relates to the English Church, it was a very grave change, and does much embarrass the subject of corporate re- union, the feeling awakened among the English people had nothing to do with the Church, but originated perhaps in the transmitted memory of ancient wrongs ; any how, it was a dislike of the distribution of our English territory, even for pur- poses purely religious or ecclesiastical, by one whom they held to be a "foreign potentate 2 ." It was been brought about, had there, in the 16th century, been a discipline like that which nourishes now, and which is the fruit of the Couucil of Trent." In answer to this last appeal, I would say here, that I spoke of the past because my subject related to the past. I spoke of appeals, only on the defensive, that the Church of Englaud, in consenting to the suppression of appeals, had not gone against auy thing of Divine right. If I spoke of the evils in times past, it was because, in the absence of Concordats, those evils justified the suppression of the cause of them. 2 While writing this, I see that a Wesleyan, Mr. Jackson, says, " Nor will we, as John Wesley's sons in the Gospel, ever consent that the power vested in the Crown of England should be shared with an Italian priest " (Letter read at Wesleyan Conference). Yet he might as well have spoken of " the 12 Value of Concordats Jo?- us. resented simply as an insult to the English sove- reign, and the tumult was allayed by an un- scrupulous politician, who promised to the people of England that the dignity of the Crown should be maintained in a way which he knew to be nugatory, and attempted to turn their indignation upon those who believe as myself. During the solemn farce of the debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, one could only look on with amazement, how intelligent men could maintain with so much earnestness an enactment, of which they must have known, from past experience, that at the moment it became part of the English law, it would also become a dead letter. It reminded one of Cicero's expression of wonder, how Augurs could look with a grave face at one another. But the more un- reasonable and unreasoning the tumult was, the more it illustrated the strength of the underlying feeling, and the value of Concordats for our insular people, whenever other matters should be so ar- ranged that there would be any scope for them. But the graver and deeper question relates, not to " concessions " at all, but to explanations. 2) Yet "explanations," such as I stated that, power vested in the Crown of England" being "snared with the Wesley an Conference," since the Crown has no more authority over the Wesleyans than it has over English Roman Catholics. In the case of either, the civil courts would, if appealed to, adjudge as to any question of property, and unless appealed to by one who held himself aggrieved, the civil magistrate would equally interfere with neither. " Explanations " are not " concessions" 13 judging from eminent writers in the Roman Com- munion, I believe that you could give and we could receive, are not " concessions." To ask for " ex- planations " as to the meaning of terms, e. g. (as I have instanced), what is the meaning of the word "substantia panis " in the Holy Eucharist; or to in- quire whether this or that is involved in the terms of such or such a declaration of faith; or whether such or such a belief held dear among us, as the doctrine of justification for the merits of Christ Alone, be inconsistent with any Roman doctrine — this, though the multiplicity of such explanations may be even wearisome, is not to ask for " con- cessions." It is only to ask that terms, used by the Council of Trent, should be cleared up to us. It is, in truth, only to ask what it is which is proposed to our belief, when we are called upon to accept that Council as the condition of re-union. This, if there was any reasonable (or, I might say, any unreasonable) doubt, the charity of the Church would, I should have thought, at no time have refused. The far-sighted Cardinal Wiseman himself sug- gested this, when, on occasion of your own most eventful tract, he laid down as a first principle, " 3 We must explain to the utmost." With his remarkable foresight, he saw for your Tract XC. an office which you did not yourself contemplate. He called it " a demonstration that such an in- 3 Letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury. 14 Cardinal Wiseman and Bossuet, terpretation may be given to the most difficult of the XXXIX Articles, as will strip them of all contradiction to the Tridentine Synod." He praised " the plan " (as he thought) " which the eventful Tract No. XC. has pursued," of "bringing their [our] doctrines into accordance with ours [yours] by explanation." Cardinal Wiseman also praised Bossuet's observation, that " Providence had allowed so much Catholic truth to be retained in the Augsburg Confession : that full advantage © © 9 © should be taken of the circumstance ; that no re- tractation should be demanded, but an explanation of the Confession in accordance with Catholic doctrine'." But "explanation" is almost neces- sarily mutual. For to say, that formularies, if explained to mean this or that, do not contravene the Tridentine Synod, is virtually to say, that the meaning thus accepted, is an adequate meaning of the terms of this Svnod. Bossuet states (as he has been quoted), that "Nothing will ever be done, either by the Roman Pontiff or by any Catholic whatever, by which the Tridentine decrees of faith can be shaken." But he immediately subjoins, " 5 There remains one way, that all things should be composed in the way of declaration." I may then, at least in the outline of what I have ventured to suggest, shelter ©O 1 myself under the shadow of that great name. 4 Letter to Earl of Shrewsbury, p. 3S. 5 T. xxvi. p. 36. on value of explanations. 15 What he states to be impossible, I have admitted to be so. I have suggested only what Bossuet states to be " one way " which " remains," — " declaration," viz. of the meaning of the Roman Church. He sums up his acknowledgment about the Lutheran Confession, " 6 It will be most con- venient that scarcely any new decrees need be framed, but that, by that way of exposition and declaration, fit and consistent interpretations should be brought, so that the defenders of the Confession of Augsburg should seem of their own mind to have come to themselves, and to have explained their own constitutions." This explanation Bossuet did not conceive of as simply interpreting the Lutheran formula} in a Roman sense ; he admitted also of the introduction of clauses which should limit popular Roman expressions. Thus, on the crucial question of " the Invocation of saints," the Lutheran Abbot of Lokkum asked (in part in language whose inaccuracy Bossuet pointed out) for a recognition of the principle, which many of your writers have laid down, that, even when things are asked directly of the saints, nothing more is intended than by the simple " Ora pro nobis." He wished it to be stated, that what- ever be the language employed, they are not asked as though it were in their own power to grant any 0 De Profess. Conf. Aug. P. 3. art. 4, et ult. T. xxvi. p. 80. 1G Lutheran explanation of prayers to saints thing, but only to pray our Lord with us, that He would grant it. The Lutheran's proposition was 7 , — " If the Roman Catholics say publicly that they have no other trust toward the saints, than that which they feel towards the living, whose intercessions they implore ; that they under- stand all and each of the prayers directed to them, in what words or forms soever conceived, no otherwise than interces- sionally, — as when they say ' Sancta Maria, libera me in hora mortis,' the meaning is, ' Holy Mary, intercede for me with thy Son, that He free me in the hour of death,' — the peril alleged by Protestants as to the Invocation of Saints will cease. If, moreover, the Romans from time to time teach their people that the Invocation of Saints is not simply enjoined, but by the force of the Council of Trent is placed at every one's choice, whether he would direct his prayers to the saint or to God Himself ; that the saints ought not to be invoked rashly and needlessly on every occasion, but then, when one, fearing the wrath of God for some atrocious sin, for humility dared not to raise his eyes or direct his prayers immediately to God; that prayer directed to God is much more efficacious, than those directed to departed saints ; that that prayer is the most perfect of all, which, as far as may be. abstracts itself from every creature, and cleaves more profoundly to the Divine attributes." To avoid misunderstanding, I would say more expressly, that I do not adopt all these wishes of the Lutheran. The last expression must have 7 Cogitationes privatse de methodo reunionis Ecclesiae Protestantium cum Ecclesia Eomano-Catholica, a Theologo quodam Augustanse Confessioni sincere addicto, citra cujusvis praejudicium in chartam conjectae, et, superiorum suorum con- sensu, privatim communicata? cum illustrissimo ac reveren- dissimo DD. Jacobo Benigno, S. R. E. Meldensi Episcopo ; in Bossuet, ffiuvres, T. xxv. p. 304. accepted by Bossuet. 17 escaped the writer unawares, since, unless he had been a Socinian, he could not have meant that we were in such wise to " cleave to the Divine attri- butes " as to lose sight of the Humanity of our Divine Redeemer. But further, supposing that it was laid down authoritatively, that in no case are the saints to be asked to do more than to pray for us to our common Lord, I see no ground to limit those requests to the case " where a man fears the wrath of God for some atrocious sin." Rather, by such limitation, the Lutheran seems to me to en- courage the very thought which we most dread, that the saints, and especially the Blessed Virgin, being by reason of their pure human nature nearer to us, may compassionate us more readily than our Dear Lord. For, since He is God, His love is in- finite ; human love can be but finite. But my object in citing this at all, lies in Bossuet's answer, that an additional statement might be introduced, to meet the fears of "Protestants." His reply is,— " 8 These requirements have already been granted voluntarily by the Council of Trent. But lest the Protestants should say that we trust too little in Christ the Mediator, it may be added, that Catholics flee to the prayers of the saints on the ground of the communion of brotherly charity, not because they fear to lift up their eyes to an offended God. For access is open to us through Christ ; yet we own that it is through fear of the Divine anger that we are induced to associate our prayers with 8 T. xxviii. pp. 386, 387. B 18 Statements of Veron and English Roman those of the saints who already enjoy the Divine light and love. That prayer directed to God is more effectual and perfect, may be omitted on account of ambiguity. For the saying, that ' that prayer is most perfect which cleaves to the Divine attri- butes alone,' might be drawn to mean, that we should abstract our minds from the Man Christ. "We should seem also to acknowledge that they who ask for the prayers of living brethren, in a manner depart from God and are imperfect, whereas Paul himself did it ; and, in truth, one who says ' Brethren, pray for me,' does not depart from God, but asso- ciates himself with his brethren in addressing Him. But that the formulae of prayer are to be understood interccssionally is an exposition of the Catholic meaning most true and equitable, worthy of a peace-loving and learned man, and agreeable to the decrees of the Council of Trent." M. Nampon, a Jesuit, in his work " Study of the Catholic Doctrine in the Council of Trent, proposed as a means of Re-union for all Christian Communities," subjoins the statements of Veron on each head of the Creed of Pius IV., as to what questions are not defined as " de fide." Under the head of the Invocation of Saints, are the following-, which are set down, I suppose, to meet the objec- tions of different minds : — " It is not of faith that the saints hear from heaven the prayers which the living address to them (though it is a neces- sary consequence of the dogma which declares their invocation useful), nor that the saints are our mediators with God, and not Jesus Christ Alone ; nor that we are required to invoke them ; nor that any given saint, whom we invoke, e. g. Laurence, Vincent, Gervais, &c, is a saint; nor that the cultus due to saints is a religious act, properly so called." The only points of Catholic doctrine, according Catholics on Invocation of Saints. 19 to Veron, are, " It is permitted to honour the saints who reign with Christ," " It is permitted to invoke them." In the little work which has been so standard a text-book among English Roman Catholics, " Roman Catholic principles in reference to God and the King," which was sent to Pitt as the justification of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, it is laid down, as the sum of the Roman Catholic faith on this point, — " Catholics believe that the blessed saints in heaven, re- plenished with charity, pray for us their fellow-members here on earth; that they rejoice at our conversion; that, seeing God, they see and know in Him all things suitable to their happy state. But God may be inclinable to hear their requests made in our behalf, and for their sakes may grant us many favours ; therefore we believe that it is good and profitable to desire their intercession. Can this manner of invocation be more injurious to Christ our Mediator, than it is for one Christian to beg the prayers of another here on earth ? " Now, to keep to the principle of explanation only, it seems impossible that the Roman Church should, if asked, refuse formally to sanction ex- planations which have been put forth with so much authority as some of these have had, to gain converts or to obtain civil privileges. But prin- ciples so enunciated would remove most of the objections which lie so deep in the English mind (such, I mean, as are not members of the Roman Church, whether members of the English Church or Dissenters), against the invocation. This would B 2 20 Extreme Roman party. remove what has been the special crux to many of us. There are, indeed, those among you, who think that there is no choice between— " 9 Degrading the office of the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of our Redeemer, or ascribing to her the most majestic of those titles [Co-Bedemptress, Co-operatress and helper of Christ in our salvation, &c.], and the most transcendent of those privi- leges which have been found for her in the pious inventions of saintly love ; that the love and cultus of the B. V. must be an extreme or a nullity." Another can find no title but that of Satan 1 for one who is startled at these titles, and who pro- fesses that he is so. But these do not represent, I trust, the body of Roman theologians : there are, among foreign theologians too, those who arc scandalized at the excesses of " books of piety.'' What would satisfy the English Church would, I trust, find concurrence in, and be of value to, the Eoman, in moderating what they, as well as I, believe to be unauthorized excesses. On another point, Bossuet directs attention to " the moderation with which the fathers of Trent defined the subject of indulgences, whence the con- flagration arose," and adds, — 9 Oakeley, p. 20. 1 " Be not weary yet, for the accuser does not easily tire of accusing. To the blessed S. John it was revealed that the accusing spirit accused the brethren by day and by night. He is not silenced even yet." — The Lady Chapel ; or, Dr. Pusey's Peacemaker, by tbe Rev. F. Gallwey, p. 26. Prelim inary difficulties. 21 " 1 Whoever, in pacific mind, will read, not invidious histories, but the decrees of the Councils themselves, will readily under- stand that its authority would avail especially to keep restrained within their limits wanton spirits, which would, among Catholics too, burst out into wrong novelties, so that they should not obtrude their opinions upon others." This is, so far, just what we wish. It is not our business to act as reformers of the Roman Church, or to make ourselves judges of the religious opinions of others. We only wish to be protected from having those opinions taught with a quasi- authority to us and our people. But we are met in the outset by preliminary diffi- culties. 1 ) " Either," it is said, " you submit to the Church, and then you will not want explanations, or you do not submit, and then explanations would be of no use to you." Or again, 2) "To receive the Council of Trent because, if explained as you wish, it agrees with your previous belief, is an act of private judgment ; and an act of private judgment can make no man a Catholic." 1) Now, on the first, your divines would, I think, distinguish between questions of principle and questions as to fact. In regard to the office of the Church, and the consequent duties of indi- viduals towards her in the abstract, the Council of Trent and the Church of England are, I am persuaded, agreed. Both Churches hold and must hold, what Holy Scripture teaches, that the Church - Projet de Reunion, p. 3, art. 3, De Concilio Trident. — (Euvres, xxvi. p. 70. 22 Agreement of principles as to is " the pillar and ground of the truth ;" both agree that she has the office to transmit, guard, preach, propagate that God-given truth ; both must hold, that what has once been infallibly fixed cannot receive any additional certainty (since nothing can add to infallibility), and so, that with regard to all which has been fixed by (Ecumenical Councils, the office of the Church is only to transmit and teach it. Later (Ecumenical Councils did not add authority to the earlier, but entered on their office by the confession of what had been laid down by those before them. And since, as time went on and heresies emerged, more and more matters of faith were thus infallibly fixed, both must agree that, thus far, the office of defining doctrine gradually lessened (since there was less left to define), the office of transmitting what was already defined was proportionably increased. The rich body of floating truth, which tradition bore down, was changed into written truth ; unwritten tradition and written doctrine changed their proportions. We too alike acknowledge, that " the Church has authority in controversies of faith ;" and, if autho- rity, then Divine authority, since no other autho- rity can be binding on the conscience in matters of faith. Both alike recognize those General Councils which have been " received by all men." Both alike acknowledge that it belongs to the Church, whenever occasion emerges, to set forth in new terms any portion of that transmitted truth the authority of the Church. 23 which is contained in Holy Scripture, attested by tradition. Both alike hold, that the Church has no authority to declare any thing as Divine truth which is indeed new, i. e. which has not really a Divine original, derived from the time and from the authority of our Blessed Lord and His Apostles. The Council of Trent is so stringent on this point, that there can be no question about it. On the other hand, as I said at the outset, the Church, not individuals, must be the judge, whether what she proposes as " of faith " does rest on that tradition. All must admit this as to (Ecumenical Councils, i. e. all General Councils received by all. The question is one as to fact, whether the Roman Church be alone the Church, to the ex- clusion of the great Eastern Church and our own widely-spread communion. But the acknowledg- ment of this was not required in any of the great Councils held for the reconciliation of the East and West. To instance the great Council of Florence alone, which had so nearly accomplished that re- union, though there seems to be some obscurity as to the terms upon which the relation of other Churches to Rome was settled. Pope Eugenius, in fixing the Council at Ferrara, set forth the goodness of God towards His Church, that " 3 the Eastern and Western people, who had so long been severed from one another by dis- agreement (dissidio a se invicem sejuncti), hasten 3 Decretum Papa;, Cone. Flor. T. xviii. p. 22. Col. 24 Roman and Eastern Church met to come together into one grace of unity and peace. For as is meet, ill-enduring the being severed by this long discord, they have, after many ages, through His gift, from Whom every good gift cometh, met together in this place, through longing for holy union. It is, then, and we consider it to be, the work of our service and of the whole Church, to endeavour with all our power that these so prosperous beginnings may, by continual and un- ceasing zeal, receive a happy advance and issue, so that we may be found worthy to be fellow-workers with the grace of God." In conformity with this, was the exhortation of the Patriarch read publicly, — " 4 In the Name of the Holy Trinity, the Source of life, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the two parts of the Christians, the Italians and the Greeks, have to-day agreed to proclaim the holy, sacred, (Ecumenical Synod, the holy fathers of the Eastern Church on the one side, the most serene king John Palseologus, and the Patriarch Joseph, and the archbishops, &c, of the Eastern Church ; and on the other side of the Italians, the whole Western holy Church of Eome, and the most blessed Pope, and all his Bishops, we agree and approve that this holy and (Ecumenical Synod be in this city of Eerrara." There was no question raised of one party being schismatic, but of healing a long schism. Even the claim that the Pope should sit in the middle, as the head, was waived 5 ; and, on reference to the ancient synods, the Gospels, as representing our Lord, were placed in the centre 6 , and the Pope, 4 lb. p. 19. 6 lb. p. 15. 6 lb. p. 19. at Ferrara, as portions of one Church. 25 then the Emperor of Germany, then the Cardinals, &c, sat on the north side ; the Greek Emperor and the four Patriarchs on the south side. The very grave subject of the Filioque was discussed freely ; and the discussion was concluded by the mutual explanation, that the Doctors of East and West had each had the same meaning under different terms, and that neither meant what the other had inferred from their expression 1 . There were no reproaches for the past ; no designation of the great Greek Church as Photians or schismatics ; but their Patriarchs were, antecedently to the reconciliation, recognized as an integral part of the Church of Christ. The hoped-for reconciliation , was the meeting together of the members of a divided family, not the incorporation into the one body of Christ of members who were severed from that body. It was in harmony at least with these Acts of the Council, that Cardinal Julian seemed ready to give up what the Latins had held to be the 8th General Council, that in which Photius had been condemned. For his words, " 8 as to the 8th Council we have no concern," though simple in themselves, come with weight from the President of the Council in formal answer to the objections of Mark of Ephesus. He also formally promised, Cl nothing shall be recited out of that Council, viz. 7 Collat. xxii. p. 1146. Col. 8 Cone, riorent. Sess. vi. T. xviii. p. 88. Col. 26 Readiness to admit C. of Florence as Eighth. the 8th." As the Council was not on matters of faith, it was, I suppose, in the power of the Church to ignore it ; and but for mismanagement, the title of the 8th General Council, given prematurely to the Council of Florence by its publisher, with approbation of the Pope might have stood. The Latin Church would, of course, not have receded from any thing which it had declared "of faith." The title would only have expressed this — that the whole Church being now, it was hoped, reunited in visible communion, the Koman Church was willing to drop all mention of those Councils which had not had so wide a reception as the first seven Councils had had, or, as it was hoped, the Council of Florence would have. I do not mean to urge the precedent of the Council of Florence for more than it is worth. It is true that we are not united among ourselves, as the Greeks are. I only mean this — that should we, through prayer to God and the operation of 9 As expressed in the " Privilegium editionis " given by Clement VII. to Abraham of Crete. Neither the Acts nor Decrees of the Council, nor the diplomas of Eugenius TV., Pagi observes, give it that title (ad A. 869, n. 16). Natalis Alexander (H. E. T. xii. Diss. iv. §. 24, p. 297) holds that the Pope was imposed upon ; yet the fact which he alleges, that the Popes were, during the division, bound by oath to maintain the 8th Council also, does not involve the continuance of that obligation, should the disunion be healed. Mansi says that it was in conformity to the custom of the Greeks, whether " schismatic or agreed with the Latins," to call the Council of Florence the 8th Council. Note on Nat. Al. 1. c. Bossuefs moderation. 27 the Holy Spirit, become united among ourselves, corporate reunion is not, on this ground, impossible. II. Nor was the recognition of the decrees of the Roman Church required as an antecedent condition of negotiations for reunion. The Easterns have had and have that inveterate prejudice, that our Western confession of the " Filioque " involves (which would be heresy) that there are two 'Ap-^al in the Divine Nature. The point was dis- cussed and cleared up. In like way, even as to a Protestant body, Bos- suet, in his negotiations with the German Protes- tants, we may be sure, proposed nothing, of which he was not assured that it would have, or had, the sanction of the Roman Church. Yet, while rejecting the Protestant proposal, that the Council of Trent should be held suspended until after the decision of a new Council, he himself proposed that it should not be urged upon the Protestants in the first instance. It was to serve only as the document of the Roman Faith, as, on the other hand, the Lutheran symbolical books were to serve as the authentic documents of the Lutheran belief. It was Bossuet's conviction that the original un- altered Lutheran confessions could be harmonized with the Council of Trent, by the way of mutual explanation. " 1 Do we then, you will say, take our stand on things already 1 Do Profess. Conf. Aug. ad repet. unit. Cathol. disponents. P. i. c. 8. P. ii. Pra3f. T. xxvi. pp. 13—15. 28 Bossuet proposed to proceed judged, and use prescription against the Protestants by the authority of the Council of Trent ? Not so. Our requisitions for peace are more equitable, and we allow the saying of Augustine against Maximine the Arian to hold here. ' 2 Neither ought I to allege the Couucil of Nice, nor yov, that of Aluminum, to prc-judge the question. Neither am I held by the authority of the latter, nor you of the former.' In this way, tbe Councils and Acts on either side are in a manner held suspended, fore-judgments on both sides being removed, in view not of defining but of discussing. For, of strict right, the Arians had no ground for declining the authority of the Nicene Synod, but the Catholics had just grounds for saying that the Synod of Ariminum was, with evil intent, super-induced on matters already judged. That argument, too, of Athanasius, should hold, which is, in sum, ' 3 "What new cause has arisen? why a new synod?' But these things belong, perhaps, to contention, and not equally to peace. Nor do we now urge the Tridentine decrees. Be that synod a witness only of our faith. Out of this, we reject many things falsely imputed to us ; a thing most useful and of primary necessity to the business of peace. We will employ, too, the symbolical books of the Lutheran side, and will show through them that the greatest dissensions not only can be composed, but are already composed, which is the way of clearing up (declaratio) and exposition upon which we have now to enter." " This way of exposition, we have said, consists of two things : first, tbe exposition of our doctrine out of the Council of Trent, and the confession of faith taken therefrom ; then the exposi- tion of the doctrine of the Protestants out of the Confession of Augsburg, and other symbolical (as they call them) or authentic books." Having compared and explained both the Council 2 C. Maximin. ii. 14. 3 De Synodis. n. 3. 5. G. "Works against the Arians, T. i. pp. 75—81. Oxf. Tr. hy way of explanation or elucidation 29 of Trent and the Lutneran symbolical books " on justification and the Articles connected therewith," viz. "that justification is a free gift," "on works and merits following on justification," " the promise gratis and the perfection and acceptance of good works," " the fulfilling the law," " merits which are called ex condigno," "justifying faith," " the cer- tainty of justifying faith," "grace and the co- operation of free-will," he has a separate Article, " why this method of conciliation seems calculated to please." " By these things I think that both parties will be satisfied. For neither would the Catholics have to reject the Tridentine faith, nor the Lutherans the Confession of Augsburg and its apology. We believe that the more moderate Lutherans will be pleased with this, because they would not seem so much to reject as to interpret their own (formularies) and to admit the Tridentine with those elucidations, from which no one, not even the Confession of Augsburg, would dissent. Nor do I doubt that the rest, whatsoever shall be proposed, can equally be eluci- dated by a true, just, and convenient declaration* ." In answer to the " method of re- union " by Molanus, he says, — " 5 If that harsh expression of retractation or abjuration is so much disliked, not by the stronger but by the weaker, or at least by more modest minds, well, let us, after the ex- ample of that excellent man 6 , embrace that which is the mildest, viz. to harmonize the doctrines of faith, upon which we are to agree, by a clear explanation and declaration. But I think 4 lb. Art. 9, pp. 31, 32. 6 N. lxiii. T. xxv. pp. 413, 414. 1 In explic. theorem. 30 English Articles easier to be explained that the whole matter has made such progress, that I could undertake to frame very many, and those the gravest, articles of this declaration, in no other words than those of the very learned man. Let the Tridentine Synod, the Confession of Augsburg, the Apology, other symbolical books of the Luther- ans, be adduced as witnesses of the faith of each party ; let those things in the Council of Trent be selected, which may pave the way to peace ; if there occur any obscurity or diffi- culty, let it be set forth, not as matter of blame, but of eluci- dation ; so, I trust, may all things be arranged peacefully. As an essay thereto, I will proceed to produce some statements on all the articles touched upon by that most distinguished person, leaving to him to polish and to perfect them. This being pre- mised, let us, under His guidance, Who is the Giver of peace, yea, Who is Himself our Peace, begin this blessed undertaking of peace under much such title as this : — " Declaration of orthodox faith, which the maintainers of the Confession of Augsburg could offer to the Eoman Pontiff." Now, since Bossuet could think that the Luther- an symbolical books could be brought into harmony with the Council of Trent, much more, I should think, could the Articles of the Church of England, since our Articles, on the primary subject of justi- fication, have not many difficulties, which the Lutheran system involves. Thus we have in common to explain the doctrine of justification by faith only (which yet can have no difficulty, if we bear in mind that " faith which worketh by love " is the only true faith, and that any thing else is a dead faith, or the faith of devils) ; but we have no statement " about the fulfilling of the law," "of merits said to be ex condigno," and especially "of the certainty of justifying faith," "of the co-operation than Lutheran; Bossuet's hopes as to Calvinists. 31 of free-will " to justify. On one subject only was reconciliation easier to them, that, in the Apology for their Confession, they had admitted the word " Transubstantiation," which we, in a certain sense, have rejected ; yet on this subject, too, " on the presence extra usum," there were very grave dif- ficulties to be removed on the Lutheran side, which we have not. Bossuet, when comparatively young, and Dean of Mctz, had pursued the same course even towards a Calvinist Minister, Ferry. This overture has, I suppose, attracted less attention, because Ferry was not a remarkable man, and the negotiation made no progress. But it is remarkable for the avowal, on Bossuet's part, that the re-union was hindered in good degree by misunderstandings, which explanation would remove. It appears, too (which one felt certain of as to the negotiations with Leibnitz), that Bossuet knew that he should be borne out in his proposal by the Roman Church 1 . 7 This appears iu a letter of M. Maimbourg to Ferry. t: It is true that he [Bossuet] had the goodness to explain the matters to me with great clearness and fairness, and that ho put them in such clear light, that I have no difficulty left on the matters which you have already examined together. After having shown him all the articles of your letter which related to him, he showed me all the papers which he had sent you at Metz or here. I am not surprised, after explanations so im- portant, that you felt yourself obliged to go deeper into these matters, according to all the openings which shall be given you ; and I find, in fact, that never have they explained them- selves so clearly. I showed him, thereupon, that I doubted exceedingly whether he would be owned in all these things ; 32 Bossuet 1 s hopes of agreement with Calvinists. Bossuet's account of the result of several con- ferences with Ferry is, — " 8 We agreed that we were obliged on both sides to labour with all our might to heal the schism which separates us, and to close so great a wound. I said to him on our side, that we were more disposed than ever to apply ourselves to this, and to seek means thereto ; that the most necessary of all was, to explain ourselves lovingly, and that, time and experience having showu that there was much misunderstanding and dispute of words in our controversies, there is reason to hope that through these explanations they will be either ended altogether, or con- siderably diminished. That, on that ground, a great number of theologians were resolved to seek opportunities of conferring with those ministers who were thought to be the most learned, most reasonable, and most inclined to peace ; and that, havhjg always thought him such, it would be a great joy to me, if we could speak with entire openness, as he on his side, expressed the same. We both thought that a century and a half of dis- puting ought to have cleared up many things, that we ought to have come back from extremities, and it was time, more than ever, to see in what we could agree. He thought it good and necessary to examine the principal causes which have alienated from us those of his communion ; and to consider what had to be explained on both sides, in order that they might either altogether return, or at least approximate to us. We agreed that the previous question, which was to be laid as the foundation, was, whether the doctrines for which they left but he laughed at my fears, and asked me, with a smile, ' whether I thought him a man who would expose himself to be disowned.' Then resuming seriously, he told me that he advanced nothing of himself, that, in truth, all did not explain themselves with the same clearness, but that all agreed in the sub- stance, and that, would God the only question was as to [his ex- planation] being owned !" Lett. V. in Bossuet, T. xxv. p. 130. 3 " Eecit de ce qui avait ete traite entre le ministre Ferry et l'abbe Bossuet, dans plusieurs conferences particulieres, qu'ils avaient eues ensemble." Bossuet, T. xxv. pp. 120 — 125. Bossuefs hopes of agreement with Calvinists. 33 us, destroyed, on their principles, the foundation of salvation. Entering into details, he granted to me that the article of the Ileal Presence [realite] in the Eucharist did not destroy this foundation, seeing that neither we nor the Lutherans deny the Presence of Jesus Christ in Heaven, after the ordinary manner of bodies. As to Transubstantiation, he owned that his people maintained to the Lutherans, that our reasoning hereon was more consistent than theirs, and that it was one of the arguments which they employed against them. And for Adoration, he said that he could neither blame nor condemn it in those who believe the Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament. On the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, after the explanations which I gave him in writing, he agreed that there was no more difficulty. And certainly, I advanced nothing which is not universally approved among our people ; and most assuredly the Church will be content that our adversaries should agree therein ; which ought to give great hopes of agreeing on other points, provided there be the will to under- stand one another, since we were able to agree in this, on which he himself had thought that there would be most diffi- culty. In regard to Justification, he also agreed, at first, that, if we understood each other well, the whole question would be reduced either to disputes of words, or to things of very little moment ; so that there would be no difficulty as to this article, which is yet the chief and most essential of all. As to Prayers to the Saints, I reminded him that he had written and taught formally in his Catechism, that they had not prevented our fathers from being saved, provided that they put all their trust in Jesus Christ ; and he agreed that he had so taught. After I had explained to him what the Council of Trent says, that we are not to put our trust in images, nor believe that there is any virtue in them, for which they should be honoured ; but that any honour is paid to them, only in memory of and in relation to those whom they represent, he did not, when we first spoke of it, make much difficulty; but on a second occasion he dwelt a little more upon it, letting me know, however, that we might agree on this article and on that of prayer to the saints, because we recognize no obligation to individuals to practise these things. In fact, it may be seen from this, that we are C 34 Bossuefs Conference with Calvinist Ferry. far removed from placing the essence of religion in these prac- tices, which only enter into religious cultus as far as they relate to God, Who is the essential and last End thereof. We said little of Purgatory and of Prayers for the Dead ; but having recited to him, word for word, the passage of S. Augustine in the Enchiridion 0 to Laurentius and Sermons xvii. 1 and xxxi. 2 on the words of the Apostle in which he explicitly distinguishes three sorts of dead, of whom one is very good and does not need our prayers, another very bad, who can gain no consolation, from them, the third between the two, who receive great help from the prayers and sacrifices of the Church, which is in set terms what we profess, he did not approve this belief. But having asked him whether he would, for this, have separated from the Communion of S. Augustine, he answered, No. " We only spoke of these articles ; and in treating of them, we did not enter into the question whether they ought to be believed or not, but only whether they overthrow the foundation of salvation ; and this having given me occasion to ask him what was the foundation of salvation, he decided dis- tinctly (as he had already in his writings), that it was that of justification and of confidence in God through Jesus Christ Alone ; and on this we repeatedly owned* that we should very easily come to an agreement, provided we wished to understand one another. I adduced to him on this subject some passages of the Council of Trent, wherein it is declared that the Chris- tian has no confidence but in Christ Jesus, and the prayer which we say daily in the sacrifice of the Mass in these words : ' To us sinners too, who hope in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to give some part and society with Thy blessed Apostles and martyrs, into whose fellowship we pray Thee to ad- mit us, not weighing our merits, but granting us pardon through Christ our Lord.' So then, since it is clear that we cannot be accused of denying this foundation of salvation, I think that it is impossible not to avow, that our doctrine does not overthrow this essential principle of the faith and hope of the Christian. 4 c. cix. ex. n. 29, p. 151. Oxf. Tr. 1 Serin. 159, n. s. Ben. p. 785, Oxf. Tr. 2 Serm. 172, n. 2. p. 885, Oxf. Tr. We, in Ch. of Eng., teach an inherited faith. 35 " On this, be having asked me whether, if he and his were agreed that our doctrine does not destroy the foundation of salvation, we thought that they could oblige us thereby to profess it, and consequently to embrace our communion, I answered them distinctly, that I did not at all mean this, and owned that there were two subjects to be considered separately with them : 1) Whether a doctrine was true or false; 2) Whether it overthrew the foundation of salvation or no ; that the ad- mission of this last did not involve the admission of the other, and could not bind them to admit any thing except that such doctrines ought to be endured, but not therefore that they were to be allowed or professed." 2) But, more broadly as to " private judgment " generally, you, at least, will recollect our old faith and our habits of mind enough, to know that we never consciously acted on " private judgment." On the contrary, it was that to which we were ever opposed. We all received an inherited faith, a faith inherited on authority ; we all believed on the authority of the Church ; some of us have, in ripening youth, when unable to see, or to learn from those whom we could consult, the Scriptural authority for some point of faith, continued to believe and hold that faith upon the authority of the Church in the Creeds, until we should be able to see it for ourselves. And believing it in this way, we came in time to see what we believed. We deepened our faith in the writings of the Fathers, because the Church, in which God had placed us, directed us to them and to their consentient teaching. But we studied them, not as critics, but as disciples. Those were happy hours, which we spent in their study. What C 2 36 Why, and how far, not receiving C.of T rent they unanimously taught, we believed ; what they rejected, we rejected. Never did we consciously go against their collective authority. We published our " Library of the Fathers," in order to give to our countrymen a body of Catholic teaching. I have since heard, that eminent persons in the Eoman Communion did not think that we could venture to translate works of the Fathers straight through. But we did, without fear. The quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, itself a rule which we received, not on our private judgment, excluded private judgment. But we were directed to the study of the Fathers, not to the study of the Council of Trent. We came to the study of that Council with our traditional faith deepened, de- fined, made precise, by the study of the Fathers. We compared the Council of Trent with our pre- viously-received faith. We could not receive it on the ground that " its decrees were infallible," because they could only be infallible if the Roman Catholic Church were alone the Church of Christ. And this we had not only not been taught, or been shown grounds to believe, but we had imbibed an opposed belief with our devotions, when, in the words of one whose words did much in framing our devotions, we prayed for " the Universal Church, the Eastern, the Western, our own." Not that we received this on his private autho- rity. In this too he was but the exponent of our Creeds and of our prayers, when we prayed for on authority, we yet agreed with it. 37 Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and therein for our own, when, in all her most solemn prayers, we prayed for that Catholic Church of which our own could hut form a part, or, in the Ember Weeks, we prayed, not for the Bishops of our own Com- munion only, but for those of the " Universal Church which God had purchased to Himself by the Precious Blood of His Dear Son." We could not receive the decrees of the Council of Trent on the authority of the Roman Church alone, be- lieving, as we did, that the Roman Church was a part only of a larger whole, which had not received them — the Universal Church. But we saw in the decrees of that Council much (as the decrees on original sin and on justification) which, without any explanations, and other portions which, with ex- planations, agreed with our inherited faith. This was not private judgment ; it was sight. As to those points which we did not or do not receive, except in a certain sense, we did not or do not receive them otherwise, because they would have been at variance with our inherited faith, which, of course, we believe to have come to us grounded in Scripture and guarded by tradition. But then we believe that the Roman Church could explain those statements in a way which would not contradict our faith, or impose upon us terms inconsistent with our convictions, which have been inworked into our souls. Plainly, neither the Greek nor the English 38 Moral certainty possible, what Rome cel. admit. Church, while yet un-united with the Roman Church, can receive the Council of Trent, " be- cause of its authority," inasmuch as its authority rests on the claim of the Roman Church to be alone the Church ; and to own this would, either on the part of the great Eastern Church or our- selves, be to own ourselves to be no part of the Body of Christ. On this principle, when inter- communion had once been broken or suspended, re-union would be impossible or wrong - , except by the absolute submission of that part of the Church which was not in communion with Rome to that portion which was. But we need be under no un- certainty whether the explanations which we pro- pose would be accepted. We may have a moral conviction that Rome could accede, and, in charity, could not help acceding to the explanations which we desire. For if accredited writers among you have laid down that such and such statements are not " de fide," and that which is " de fide " is this or that only; and if they have held out these statements as grounds why individuals should not hesitate to join the Roman Church, then both truth and charity require that the Roman Church should accept from a whole body or from a Church, as terms of reunion, the same professions of faith which they stated to be adequate in the case of individuals. It was declared for the first time at the Council of Florence, that the term Sia rov Tiov had the same theological meaning as the Probable reaction from prejudices. 39 " Filioque ;" but there was a moral certainty before- hand, that it could be .so pronounced ; else the meeting of East and West in that Council would have been hopeless from the first. In regard to our own people, I believe that their very prejudices against what they call "Popery" may be a help towards reunion hereafter, on this ground; that the English, like all other honest, generous natures, is very capable of reaction when it has found itself unjust. On some such ground the Roman Catholics of old calculated on a certain number of conversions whenever there had been strong declamation against them in a public contro- versy, and they had a right of answering. For, seeing that they were unjustly accused in this or that, it was supposed that they were so in the rest also. This has occurred ofttimes in those brought up in strong anti-Roman teaching : the reaction, when they found so much which they had been taught as to Roman Catholics to be untrue, carried them, without further inquiry, into the Roman Church. Now, I suppose that the most common dread among us, in case of union with Rome, is, that we should be involved in a belief in justification, which would, in some way, substitute or associate our own works for or with the merits of Christ; in idolatry, not only in the cultus of the Blessed Virgin or of the saints, but in that of images, or in the Adoration in the Holy Eucharist, as being, 40 Practical evils popularly feared from Rome. they suppose, an adoration of the Eucharistic symbols; or in a belief in an Eucharistic sacrifice, which should in some way interfere with and obscure the One meritorious Sacrifice on the Cross ; or in a belief that sin might be remitted by absolution, though unrepented or half-repented of, or, as some imagine, even future; or in a Purgatorial fire, the same or like that of hell, in which the departed suffer torments unutterable without any consola- tion; or in indulgences, which should be a great interference with God's judgments in the unseen world, taught for the sake of gain ; or that human traditions should interfere with the supreme autho- rity of God's Word ; or that we should be arbitrarily forbidden the use of Holy Scripture, or the gift of the Cup, or the use of prayers in a language which we understand ; or people dread certain moral evils which they apprehend from a constrained celibacy of the Priesthood, or some interference with Christian liberty from an arbitrary, boundless authority of the Pope ; or, perhaps, some inter- ference with the due authority of a Christian Sovereign in matters temporal. For, to our practical English minds, they are practical evils, real or apprehended, which press upon us; we view things, not so much in them- selves, as in their bearing upon something else which is sacred or dear to us. And of these real or supposed evils, it is plainly of no use to attempt to remove some few. People are inured to their Eucharistic Sacrifice, as stated by Molanus. 41 present evils ; and it is, in itself, a right feeling which would endure whatever, in God's Providence, lie upon us, rather than risk entailing others by any choice of our own. Now of these difficulties it is hopeful as well as instructive to see, how easily some of those, which to some of our people have seemed the most diffi- cult, were composed between Molanus and Bossuet. a) The Eucharistic Sacrifice Molanus placed as first in the class of those which were " verbal con- troversies." " 3 Is the Sacrament of the Altar, or the Eucharist, a sacri- fice ? To decide which, it is to be noted that it is not a question between us and the Koman Catholics, whether the Eucharist can be called a sacrifice, which is granted on both sides ; but whether it is a sacrifice, properly so called, or no ; which con- troversy (as is clear from the term) turns on the mode of speak- ing, since each party pre-supposes, as the foundation of its judgment, its own definition of ' sacrifice.' To the Protestants, nay, to Cardinal Bellarmine himself, 'a sacrifice is properly called of a living thing,' according to the language of the Old Testament (from which the doctrine of sacrifices is naturally to be sought), 'when an animal or animate substance is destroyed to the honour of God, by Divine precept ;' in which sense the Roman Church simply denies that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, being, as well as we, most rightly persuaded that a sacrifice in that sense cannot be completed without a fresh shedding of blood and a fresh slaying ; in one, and that an Ecclesiastical, word, that it is an * unbloody sacrifice.' So far is it from wish- ing to define, according to our and Bellarmine's definition, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, properly and strictly so called. But when the Eoman Church calls the Eiicharist a sacrifice properly so called, they then take the word either in opposition 3 Cogit. de Meth. Eeunionis, &c.,in Bossuet, xxv. 276 — 271). 42 Agreement as to Eucharistic Sacrifice, to sacrifices yet less properly so called, as of the lips, heart, hostile 4 , loud crying, &c, or having regard to the material substance of the Sacrifice properly so called, viz. that in the Eucharist that same identical Sacrifice which was given for us, that same identical Blood which was shed for us, is really, yea, most really, made present, and is, not by faith only, but by the mouth of the body — not indeed in a carnal and Capharnaitic way, yet properly, — eaten and drunken, and so, on this ground alone, the Sacrament of the Altar deserves to be called a Sacri- fice properly so called. According to this definition on the Roman side, the Protestants could grant that the Eucharist is a sacrifice properly so called. Whence it is clearer than noon- day, that this controversy is not as to the thing itself, but of words only, and that in it the parties are agreed, ' that Christ is not anew slain in the Eucharist, but is present and His Body is really eaten, and thereby a memorial or representation is instituted of the Sacrifice once offered for us on the Cross, and in this way not to be repeated ;' and that, according to the different acceptance of the term it is so called [a sacrifice] properly or improperly. Well says Matthew Galen, a Catholic writer (Catech.xiii. p. 422, ed.Leyden), ' We might confess that our sacrifice is not indeed a sacrifice properly and strictly so called, but that it altogether deserves the name of a sacrifice, because it is an imitation or representation of that first Sacri- fice which Jesus Christ offered to His Eather.' I will add, ex abundanti, but without prejudice to any one and saving the judgment of more learned men, since the holy fathers generally, and among them Cyril of Jerusalem, did not hesitate to call the Eucharist ' 6 a most true and singular Sacrifice,' S. Cyprian, ' 6 a sacrifice full of God, venerable, awful, and all-holy,' it 4 This looks like a misprint, since mention of "the host" hasno place here. It is omitted in Bossuet's translation. Ib. 326. 6 " Catech. xxiii." S. Cyril's words are, " The spiritual sacri- fice, the bloodless service upon that sacrifice of propitiation." Ib. n. 8, p. 275, Osf. Tr. 6 " Ep. 63." Often as S. Cyprian speaks of Eucharistic sacri- fice, he does not happen to use the epithets alleged. as stated by Molanus. 43 would, perhaps, be granted further, that the Eucharist is not only a sacrifice, commemorative of that Bloody Sacrifice whereby Christ once offered Himself on the Cross for us to God the Father, and, in this sense, according to the definition of the Protestants, is a sacrifice improperly so called, but is also an incomprehensible oblation of the Body of Christ, once delivered to death for us, and, in this sense is a true, or (if you prefer so to speak) in a certain way a sacrifice properly so called. Gregory of Nyssa says expressly (de Kes. Christi Orat. i.), 'By a secret kind of sacrifice, invisible to man, He offers Himself a Sacrifice for us, and immolates a Victim, being at once a Priest and the Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world. "When did He this ? When He gave His Body to His assembled disciples to be eaten and His Blood to be drunk ; then He openly declared that the sacrifice of the Lamb was already perfect ; for the body of the victim is not fit to eat, if it be animate ; wherefore, when He gave His Body to be eaten and His Blood to be drunk by His disciples, the Body was already immolated in a secret and invisible manner, as it should please the power of Him Who completed the sacrifice for a mystery of Himself 7 . S. Irenaeus 8 , 'The oblation of the Church, which the Lord taught to be offered in the whole world, is accounted a pure sacrifice by God and accepted by Him. But there were oblations there too, oblations also here too, sacrifices in the people, in the Church ; but the species alone was changed ; since it is offered no longer by servants, but by the free.' " S. Augustine, ' 9 In place of all the sacrifices and oblations ' of the Old Testament, ' now in the New Testament His Body is offered and is administered to communicants.' 7 I have translated the Latin of Molanus, which is accurate enough, in order to preserve the statement of Molanus exactly as it was sent to Bossuet. The passage is translated in my " Doctrine of Keal Presence," pp. 631, G38. • iv. 34 [18. n. 1, 2]. 9 De Civ. Dei, xvii. 20 [T. vii. p. 481]. 44 Bossuet accepts Molanui statement ; " The second Council of Nice, ' 1 Never did the Lord or the Apostles call the unbloody sacrifice an image, but His very Body, His very Blood.' " Nicolas Cabasilas, in the Exposition of the Liturgy, ' 2 It is not a figure of a sacrifice or image of blood, but truly a slaying and a sacrifice.' " If the Protestants shall decide, for the future, so to speak of the Sacrifice with the holy Fathers, I see nothing besides which can thus far any more hinder peace." Bossuet's brief answer is, — " 3 Is the Eucharist a sacrifice ? If the other Protestants agree with this learned man, we think the matter concluded." In his earlier negotiations with the French Cal- vinist, M. Ferry, it was equally agreed that, grant- ing the doctrine of the Real Presence, there was no further difficulty in regard to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. I will set down first Bossuet's "further explanation," because it meets most dis- tinctly the ordinary objections to the doctrine. " 4 The essence of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist consists precisely in the consecration, whereby, in virtue of the words of Jesus Christ, His Body and precious Blood are placed really on the holy Table, mystically separated under the species of bread and wine. By this action taken precisely, and with- out any thing added by the priest, Jesus Christ is really 1 Act. 6. 2 c. 32. 3 De Scripto, cui tit. Cogit. priv. de Meth. Ee-un., &c. Ib. p. 375. 4 Nouvelle explication donnee par l'Abbe Bossuet au ministre Eerry, sur le sacrifice de l'Eucharistie. Bossuet, t. xxv. pp. 112—114. his own explanation to M. Ferry. 45 offered to His Father, inasmuch as His Body and His Blood are placed before Him, actually clothed with the signs repre- senting His Death." " As this consecration is done in the Name, in the Person, and through the words of Jesus Christ, it is He in truth Who both consecrates and offers, and the priests are only simple ministers. " The prayer which accompanies the consecration, whereby the Church declares that she offers Jesus Christ to God by those words ' offerimus ' and the like, does not belong to the essence of the Sacrifice, which can absolutely subsist without that prayer. " The Church only explains, by this prayer, that she unites herself to Jesus Christ, Who continues to offer Him- self for her, and that she offers herself to God, with Him ; and herein the priest does nothing especial, which the whole people does not do conjointly ; with this only difference, that the priest does it as public minister, and in the name of the whole Church. " This being well understood, it appears that this real obla- tion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a consequence of the doctrine of the Beal Presence [la realite], and that the Church is not to be asked to produce any other commission to 'offer' than that which is given her to consecrate, since the oblation in its essence consists in the consecration itself. " I say no more of the relation of this oblation to that of the Cross, because I think that I have sufficiently explained it in my former writing. Only it is necessary to avoid any ambiguity as to the word ' offer,' as was remarked, and to be quite assured that one cannot depart more from the intention of the Church, than by believing that she seeks in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist any thing to supplement any defect in the Sacrifice of the Cross, which she knows to be of an infinite merit perfection and virtue, so that all which is done subsequently tends only to apply it to us. " AYhcn the Catholic Church uses these words ' we offer,' and the like, in her liturgy, and by these words offers Jesus Christ, present on the holy table, to His Father, she does not mean 46 Bossuef s fuller explanation of the doctrine by this oblation to present to God, or to make to Him a new payment of the Price of her salvation, but only to employ the merits and intercession of Jesus Christ with Him, and the Price which He has once paid for us on the Cross." Bossuet entered more into the positive benefits of the Eucharistic sacrifice in his first explanation, the chief objects of the second having been to remove every objection ordinarily raised against the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and this, by direct denial of what was alleged. " "We believe that, by the words [' This is My Body ; this is My Blood ;'] not only does Jesus Christ place Himself actually on the holy table, but that He places Himself, clothed with signs representative of His Death. This shows us that His intention was to place Himself there as slain ; and it is on this ground we say that this table is also an altar. " We believe that this action, whereby the Son of God is placed upon the holy table under signs representative of His Death, viz., the consecration, carries with it the recognition of the high sovereignty of God, in that Jesus Christ, present, renews in them the memory of His obedience even to the Death of the Cross, and in some sort perpetuates it. " We believe, also, that this same action makes God propi- tious to us, because it sets before His Eyes the voluntary Death of His Son for sinners, or rather, His Son, clothed, as was said, with the signs representative of that Death whereby He has been appeased. " On this ground we say that Jesus Christ still offers Him- self in the Eucharist ; for having once given Himself for us to be our Victim, He does not cease to present Himself to His Eather, as the Apostle says that ' He appears before God for us.' " There should be no dispute about the word. If by ' offer ' is meant the oblation made through the death of the Victim, it is true that Jesus Christ offers Himself no more. But He of the Eucharistic Sacrifice to M. Ferry. 47 offers Himself in that He appears for us, presents Himself for us to God, sets before His Eyes His Death and obedience, as is here explained. " We believe, then, that His Presence on the holy altar, in this figure of death, is a continual oblation which He makes of Himself, of His Death and His merits, for the human race. "We unite ourselves to Him in this condition, and we offer Him as He offers Himself, protesting that we have nothing to present to God but His Son and His merits. So that, seeing Him by faith present on the altar, we present Him to God as our only Propitiation through His Blood ; and at the same time we offer ourselves with Him, as living sacrifices, to the Divine Majesty. " It is not good reasoning to say, that the Oblation of the Cross is not sufficient, supposing that Jesus Christ still offers Himself in the Eucharist, any more than it would be to say that, because He continues to intercede for us in heaven, His Inter- cession on the Cross was imperfect and insufficient for our salvation. " All this, then, does not prevent its being very true that Jesus Christ offered Himself once only ; because, although, as the Apostle says, when He came into the world He offered Himself to be a Sacrifice for us, although we believe that He ceases not to present Himself for us to God, not only in Heaven, but also on the holy table, still all refers to that great Oblation, whereby He offered Himself once upon the Cross, to be put in our place, and to suffer the death which was due to us. And we know that the whole merit of our redemption is in such wise attached to this great Sacrifice of the Cross, that there is nothing left for us to do in that of the Eucharist, than to celebrate its memory and to apply to us its virtue. " Moreover, let us not think that the Victim, which we pre- sent in the Eucharist, is to be there in truth anew destroyed ; because the Son of God has once most abundantly satisfied this obligation by the Sacrifice of the Cross, as S. Paul the Apostle proves divinely in his Epistle to the Hebrews. In such wise that, the sacrifice of the Eucharist being established in com- memoration, we ought to seek therein only a mystical death and destruction, wherein the effectual Death, which the Son of God once suffered for us, is represented. 48 Necessity of intention to validity " Such is the sacrifice of the Church, a spiritual sacrifice, where the Blood is shed in mystery only, where death intervenes only in mystery ; still a very true sacrifice, in that Jesus Christ, Who is the Victim, is really contained there under this figure of death ; hut a commemorative sacrifice, which subsists only through its relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross, and derives therein all its virtue. b) The second instance of " questions of words " in Molanus is, — " 5 The question is raised between Roman Catholics and Pro- testants, ' Whether to the validity of the sacrament the inten- tion of the minister is required ? ' The Tridentines enjoin the affirmative under anathema, whom the Protestants, from the beginning till now, vehemently contradicted. In my poor opinion, the strife would be composed, if the terms were rightly explained, and the controversy rightly put. I say then with Becanus, that the intention of the minister as to the sacrament may be threefold : 1) of uttering the words of institution and doing the outward action. 2) The intention of making the sacra- ment, or at least a confused intention of doing what the Church either does or intends. This intention Becanus says rightly, is either actual, when any one, making the sacrament, at that time actually thinks of making the sacrament ; or habitual, i. e. a readiness to make the sacrament, gained by frequent acts, such as even one asleep may have ; a third virtual, when the actual intention, through the distraction of the understand- ing, is not present ; but it was present, and in virtue thereof the work takes place. 3) The intention of conferring the fruit or the effect of the sacrament. Becanus concludes, that between us and the Romans there is no question of the third kind of intention, but of the two first ; and from these things presupposed the aforesaid Jesuit rightly concludes, — " 1) To the validity of the sacrament habitual intention sufficeth not, and actual is not of necessity required ; but in the minister there is required, or at least sufficeth, a virtual 6 lb. pp. 279—281. of Sacraments in Molanus and Bossuet. 49 intention of doing not only the outward act, but of making the sacrament, or at least confusedly of doing what the Church doth ; and — " 2) To the validity of the sacrament there is not required an express intention of conferring the fruit and effect of the sacrament : which thing being thus explained, it is clear that the controversy was not about the thing itself, but only of the word ; and that the Protestants, when denying the [necessity of the] intention of the minister to the validity of the sacrament, had in view the intention of conferring the fruit and effect, which the Roman Catholics, according to the doc- trine of Becanus, with us deny to be required ; but that these, when they require the intention of the minister to the validity of the sacraments, spake of the intention, virtual at least, if not actual, of doing the external act, or of doing what in such case the Church doth. Which intention the Protestants will with both hands grant to the Eoman Church to be requisite." Bossuet saith on this, — " 6 This controversy not only can be easily composed, but is already composed; since it is a most common opinion among Catholics that the intention, which is necessary to the validity of the sacrament, consists herein, that the minister wills to perform seriously the outward acts prescribed by the Church, and not to do any thing which betrays a contrary intention, which intention he himself too could not make void by any secret intention whatever. But Card. Pallavicini, in his history of the Council of Trent, and others, attest that the sacred Council did not will to define any thing more. As to the distinction of actual, virtual, habitual intention, which the learned author approves, there is no controversy." We both remember how the doctrine, supposed to be contained by the words, was urged "ad invi- diam " against Roman sacraments, as if it would render all administration of the Sacraments pre- carious, since God only can know the hearts of 0 lb. n. 21, p. 375. D 50 Card. Pallavicini, what intention men. I know not how lonv(xi<; or nature, including all those properties of which the senses are cognizant, and with them, or among them, the natural power of supporting and nourishing our bodies." For although the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not authori- tative, yet it has, I suppose, more authority than any individual Doctor, or than many Doctors ; and it distinctly asserts, that " by this name " [bread] " the Eucharist has been called, because it has the appearance and still retains the quality natural to bread, of supporting and nourishing." Whatever may have been the value of the Aristotelian philo- sophy to Christian Theology, it has, I think, in this particular instance, introduced needless diffi- culty into the Divine mystery ; difficulty which relates, not to the mystery declared by our Lord, but attaching to the use of the word " substance." For while affirming that the substance of the bread had ceased to be, they, following that philosophy, for the most part, assumed that the power of nourishing ceased also ; and that it was restored by miracle, for which miracle there is no authority in our Lord's words which are the foundation of the mystery, nor has the Church ever laid down any thing upon it. But if the species, i. e. that which the Roman Church also believes to remain as the outward veil of our Blessed Lord's Presence, F 82 Tlie " species " have a real existence. retains those natural powers of nourishing and re- freshing, then, as I have for many years said, I can see no contradiction ; there is nothing, the existence of which the Church of England, while she says that " the bread and wine remain in their very natural substances," can mean to affirm,*the existence where- of the Council of Trent can mean to deny, when it affirms "the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood." For, in addition to those qualities, which, in philosophic language, were termed "accidents," the Catechism of Trent in- cludes a property which is not cognizable by sight, or touch, or taste — that whereby the body is strength- ened and refreshed. This, whatever it be, is liable to corruption, for (as a Dominican father observed to me, when I spoke to him of our English dread of admitting any illusion of the senses in the things whereof the senses are cognizant) it is acknowledged by the Roman Church also, that when the sacramental species are corrupted, the Presence of our Lord ceases. However, then, in ordinary controversy or ex- planations, we seem to be almost hopelessly met with the contrast of " substance " and " accidents," yet the contrast belongs to the schools, not to the Church. The word " substantia," having first been used in Christianity of the simple Essence of God, does not in itself involve the contrast of accident, Accident of "weight" implies existence of matter. 83 which cannot be in God : its Greek equivalent ovaCa \ or, as formed from it, //.eroucricocri?, would not, I suppose, to the mind of Eastern theologians suggest the contrast of the Aristotelic accidents. Even as to accidents themselves, Peter Lombard 2 , (whom I have observed to be followed by the great Canonist, Card. Henri de Segusio \) includes "weight" among things which remain. "If it be asked, of what sort that conversion is, whether formal or substantial, or of another sort, I am not equal to define ; yet I know that it is not formal, because the species of things, which were before, remain, and taste and weight." And it is plain that "weight" is an accident, since a man remains the same man, although emaciated by illness ; and even when there is no personal identity, as in inanimate substances, things have their weight accidentally lessened under different circumstances, and yet arc the same. A tree, though decayed ; a step, though worn by those who have knelt upon it ; bread, when it loses its moisture, are, respectively, the same tree, step, bread. But since " the variation of weight," physicists tell us, " depends on the greater or less density of the body, i. e. as the particles are 1 Theodoret, who is quoted as contrasting ovaia with £iy/./3e- (3r]K6<; (" The body is to be called ovala, and the disease and health accident." — Iuconf. p. 22. ed. Sch.), used the word of something incidental to the body, not of any ena of the body itself. 2 IV. dist. xii. init. 3 Super iii. Deer, de celcbr. miss. c. vi. n. 8. f> 1G3. Ven. 1581. F 2 84 Eucharistic "accidents" not illusion of the senses. packed more or less closely, their sameness of weight involves the sameness of density of the particles," which is, I suppose, what we mean by "matter." I am glad to be informed that the proposition, " 4 The Eucharistic accidents are not real accidents, but mere illusions and ocular deceptions," was con- demned among you in 1649, and that at least one held in good repute among you (whose work also, he tells us, has been thoroughly revised by a dis- tinguished Dominican theologian) says, " 5 It seems that, according to theologians, it is necessary to hold that the species are real. In the Holy Eucha- rist, then, it appears that there are certain qualities remaining after the conversion of the bread, over and above the affections caused by them." Tournely, I observe, uses still stronger language ; that " G the holy Fathers, disputing against the Eutychians, supposed, as a thing certain, that, after the consecration, there remains some real and physical ens distinct from the Body of Christ." It has also been pointed out to me how Perrone denies that the Church is committed to any ex- planation of her terms by human philosophy. 4 " The sacred congregation in 1649 condemned the fol- lowing proposition: 'Accidentia Eucharistica non sunt acci- dentia realia, sed merse illusiones, et prasstigia oculoruui.' " — Dalgairns' " The Holy Communion," Note F. p. 420. 6 Id. Ib. 6 De Euch. qu. ii. art. v. pp. 210 sqq. quoted in the fitudes Euligieuses, Ser. iv. T. i. p. G5. The Churchis committed to no human philosophy. 85 In answer to the objection, — " 7 It is of no avail to answer with S. Thomas, that the acci- dents which, after the destruction of the substance of bread and wine, subsist by miracle without a subject, produce those same effects which the substance used to produce, whether by pas- sion or action, because they subsist by the mode of a substance: for the theory as to absolute accidents is rejected as well by physics as by sound philosophy, since the species are nothing else than modes or affections of nature, which therefore cannot, even by the will of God, be separated from it, just as volitions cannot be separated from the will;" Perrone says, — " 8 We put aside the whole argument. For faith teaches us to believe the Real Presence of Christ, but not either the abso- lute accidents of the Peripatetics, or any other philosophical system whatsoever. Faith is ever simple ; the additions of men are for the most part involved and difficult." He says more at length, that " the difficulties raised by the unbelieving or by heretics," as if the doctrine of the Eeal Presence were contrary to right reason, " might be solved alike, according to the Aristotelian, or the Cartesian philosophy, or that of Boschowich." Plainly then, in his conviction, the Church is in no way bound to the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents. But the Church of England is in no way com- mitted or concerned to deny any " sacramental change." Her office for Holy Communion involves a belief in it; for when giving That, upon which the 7 Tract, de Euch. n. 114. Pra>l. Theol. vi. p. 20G. 8 lb. n. ]19, quoting Emm. Maiguan Minim. Philosophiu Sacra, T. i. c. 22. SC English Ritual implies Sacramental change. consecrating words have been pronounced, she uses a translation of the ancient formula of the Sarum Ritual, " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." The old words" (as we have so often said) must have the old meaning ; and, although our Blessed Lord in His glorious Body intercedes for us in heaven with the Father, His Body Itself has no special office for us except that of which He Himself speaks, " Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinkcth My Blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last Day." But since before the Consecration, it was " mere " bread and wine, then, in the language of S. Athanasius, " when the great and wonderful prayers have been completed over it, then the bread becomes the Body, the cup, the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." But since the philosophy as to substance and accidents forms no part of the Roman faith, the Church of England, having premised that under the 'species,' which the Council of Trent speaks of as remaining, she understood nothing illusive or unreal, but the (fyvais or "nature," including the power of supporting and nourishing, of which Pope S. Gelasius speaks, could say, that the substance which was changed was the essence or ovoria thereof, according to the prayer in S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, " Send down Thy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts lying here, and make this bread that Precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in the Cup the Blood of Thy Christ, Disclaimers of popular statements hy Veron. 87 changing (/xexa/SaXa;^) [them] by Thy Spirit. And since this assertion that the Holy Eucharist, besides what are called accidents, still " retains the quality natural to bread, of supporting and nourish- ing'' is the doctrine of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Church of Rome must, I suppose, accept it as an admissible explanation. There must altogether be much confusion as to the belief allowed by the Roman Church, since I have uniformly found both surprise and joy ex- pressed, when I have read to non-theologians who were previously unacquainted with them, the fol- lowing statements of Veron : — "°The true, real, and substantial presence of the Body Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ being admitted, one may, without injury to the faith, say, that the Body, under the Eucharistic symbol, is spiritual, and that Jesus Christ Himself is there as a quickening Spirit, according to the meaning which the Apostle gives to those words, 1 Cor. xv. 4. " One may say, with Vazquez, that the Body of Christ is there, 'entire in the whole and entire in each part, as if it were Spirit,' that it is present in a spiritual manner, and not in an animal or corporal manner. " One may say in like way, that It is received spiritually or in a spiritual manner, and not carnally or in a carnal manner. " One cannot say that the Body of Christ is in the Holy Eucharist as in a place. It is not of faith that He is present there with His quantity or extension. 9 I give his words as they are given in a B. C. and Jesuit Eirenicon, " Etude de la Doctrine Catholique dans le Concile de Trente, proposee comme moyen de reunion de toutes les communions Chretiennes," par M. Nampon, p. 708. 88 Disclaimers by Veron and the de Walenburchs, " Vazquez thinks that the Body of Jesus Christ, with or ac- cording to its extension, could not be present at the same time in different places. " It is to speak a language inexact, rather than conformable to faith, to say that by the consecration, It is produced aneiv, or preserved, or hrought thither, or that it descends from heaven on the Altar, as if It quitted heaven and traversed the atmo- sphere. " Nor is it of faith that the bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ, as the bread which we eat is changed into the substance of our body ; " Nor that, by transubstantiation the Body of Jesus Christ is produced anew, or preserved, or endowed with a manner of being, which expels, by a sort of incompatibility, the substance of bread and wine ; " Nor that by It the bread and wine are annihilated." And to add here to what I have above extracted from Bossuet, the disclaimers by Veron and the De Walenburchs. In regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice, Veron uses language which would leave open almost every question, so hotly debated among contro- versialists. " Although it is of faith, that the sacrifice of the Mass is a true sacrifice, and properly so called, yet it is not of faith that it is an absolute and not a commemorative sacrifice only. The Eeal Presence of Jesus Christ upon the altar representing, by the way in which the consecration is performed, His Bloody Death, and, by this representation, honouring and rendering sensible the supreme dominion of God and His right over His creatures for life and death, suffices to constitute a sacrifice properly so called, notwithstanding that His Death is only figured there. " The Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory in the same degree and in the same manner as the Sacrifice of the Cross, as to popular statements on the H. Eucharist. 89 The Sacrifice of the Cross merited our redemption ; that of the Mass, like the sacraments, faith, good works, is an instrument which applies to us that Merit. " This sacrifice does not apply to us the merits of the Cross immediately, like the Sacrament of Penitence, nor according to a definite law, nor ex opere operato, but by means of our prayers. It is not of faith, says Vazquez, but certain, that it remits immediately, certainly, and always, the penalty due to the living and the dead for their sins ; to the living, according to their disposition ; to the dead, according to the good pleasure of God. " It is not of faith that the value of this sacrifice is in- finite." On the Adoration Veron says, using the same illustration as Bossuet's, — " It is false and calumnious to say that we adore in the Eucharist any thing but Jesus Christ, veiled under the species of bread and wine. The adoration which we render to the Holy Sacraments is an absolute worship, in as far as it has for its object Jesus Christ present under the symbols. It would be a relative worship, if it referred to the symbols themselves, as become by the consecration inseparable from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. One might, in that case, say of this relative worship all which one says of the worship of images. But one may deny that we render any worship whatsoever to these Eucharistic symbols; and if we happen to say that we adore them, we then employ the figure of speech, called synec- doche, a figure which takes the thing containing for That which is contained. We adore Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, as we honour the king ivrapped in his mantle or home in his carriage.'''' And, in like way, the Dc Walcnburchs, — " 1 All Catholics believe that Christ Jesus is to be adored 1 De Christ. Eccl. L. xi. P. 2, c. 1, T. ii. p. 321. De W. supports this further, " Nor is any thing further mentioned in 90 Popular effect of such disclaimers. with the worship of Latreia in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist : for so the Council of Trent says most plainly in the Canon adduced. WJioever believes this prayer, is in this point a Catholic, nor is be obliged among Catholics to believe or to do any thing more." If such statements as these were authenticated by the Roman Communion, so that, while others should be left free to think as they have been wont to think, or not to think at all on these subjects, we, if united to them, should be left free, not to have any thing contrary to this enforced on our faith, I believe that the way in which even the un- instructed among us approach the subject of the Roman doctrine on the Holy Eucharist would be essentially changed. the Council in the Canon alleged above, because the question there relates to absolute adoration, which cannot be imagined to be twofold, so that the one should end in Christ, the other in the species, because the Council infers the absolute adora- tion from the Real Presence through Transubstantiation," " there being, therefore, no doubt ; because the Council says, ' That the cultus of Latreia, which is due to the true God, is exhibited to this Sacrament,' but it is certain that that cultus of Latreia is absolute; since it is certain that that absolute cultus is due to Christ only, not to the species, and because the Council declares that that cultus was paid to Christ by the Magi and the Apostles, which worship was absolute, relating to Christ Himself. Therefore there is no mention there of the adoration of the symbols. "When, then, the Council says that the most holy Sacrament is to be adored, we understand by ' the Sacrament ' nothing else than Christ Himself, "Who, in the Sacrament, is the sign and cause of grace, as He is also the Substance Itself of the Sacrament. Vid. Veron, Epit. Controv. T. i. p. 301 ; T. iii. p. 748, Reg. general, p. 26." Eminence of ^Sacraments,wh. came from Xt.' 's Side. 01 h) On the Number of the Sacraments. In regard to the eminence of the two great sacraments, Baptism and the Holy. Eucharist above the rest, there will be, I imagine, no difficulty. The one we acknowledge, on both sides, to be the re-birth of God the Holy Ghost, the grafting into Christ, whereby we are taken out of our state of nature, and our supernatural life in Christ is begun in us : the Holy Eucharist is eminently our life, the crown of the Christian being, our closest union with Christ, the great invention of our Blessed Lord's love, to make Himself present to us and in us, as He is nowhere besides in this earth. Of its emi- nence there can be no question, since the Council of Trent condemns those who say that the . seven sacraments are in such wise equal one to the other, that in no respect is one more worthy than another z . Reverencing, as you do, primitive and unbroken tradition, you too could not hesitate to esteem above all the rest the two sacraments which flowed from the Side of Christ :i . These two are essential to " Sess. vii. cap. 4. 3 This is dwelt upon by writers of the Latin as well as of the Greek Church. In the West from the first, in Tertullian (de Bapt. c. 16, p. 163), then S. Ambrose (in S. Luc. 1. x. n. 135), S. Augustine (in S. Joann. Tract, cxx. n. 2 ; de lucta Jacob, Serm. 5. T. v. p. 30, and in general terms in S. Joann. Tract, ex. n. 10 ; xv. n. 8 ; De Civ. Dei, xv. 26 ; xxii. 17. c. Faust, xii. 39), S. Paulinus of Nola (Bp. 42 Blorent. n. 4), the author of the De Symbolo](L. ii. c. 6) and of the De Cata- 92 Universal essentialness of two Sacraments; the Christian life. Confirmation enlarges the gift of Baptism, and was counted of old a supplement to it, or almost a part of it. The sacrament of Penitence were not needed, if we ever kept faithfully the gift in Baptism : it is but a second plank given to us by the mercy of God after shipwreck. The sacrament of Matrimony hallows an allowed, yet not the highest, state of the Christian. Orders are directly but for one class ; although that class was insti- tuted for the good of all, and its offices are neces- sary to all. The Unction of the Sick is not held to be necessary to salvation. But Baptism clothes us with Christ, and in the Holy Eucharist He is Himself our Food. On the other hand, there cannot even be a ques- tion that in Orders and Confirmation the Church of England prescribed the use of an outward sign, and speaks of an inward grace. In Penitence it has preserved the essential words of the ancient ritual. clysmo (c. iv.) in S. Aug. T. vi. In the Greek Church S. Chry- sostom (in S. Joann. Horn. 85), the author of the Testim. de Adventu Dom. in S. Gregory of Nyssa (T. ii. pp. 161, sqq.), probahly Apollinarius (ad loc. in Corderii Cat.), S. Cyril of Alexandria (ad loc.), S. John Damascene (De Fid. Orthod. iv. 9). The original and vivid language of S. Isaac the Great witnesses to an independent tradition of the Syriac-speaking Churches : — " Faith came to me, and called to me, and said to me that the sacraments of the Church came forth from the opened side of Christ " (Serm. de fide in Assem. B. O. i. 243). This and other passages of the Greek and Latin fathers are discussed iu my "Scriptural Doctrine of Holy Baptism," pp. 294—297. other Sacraments implied by our formularies. 93 For Christian Marriage it requires the benediction of the Priest, and directly calls it a " sacrament 4 ." Of Absolution the Homilies say that " it hath the inward grace of forgiveness of sins," and speaks of " the visible sign, which is imposition of hands," although they advert to the fact (in distinction from Baptism and the Holy Eucharist) that that forgiveness is " not, by express words of the New Testament, annexed and tied to it." They only say that " neither Orders, nor any other sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and Com- munion are." The Article itself, which distin- guishes the five from the two, virtually declares them to be in some sense sacraments, since it says only that they " have not the like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper V These things we have in fugitive words taught for full thirty years ; and have, I suppose, been scarcely contradicted. This teaching has been part of a popular interpretation of the Articles. The young have been accustomed to it as much as they were, before, to that traditional misinterpreta- tion of certain Articles, which your own Tract XC. stripped off from them G . It will now, I hope (as embodied in a thoughtful exposition of the Articles, 4 Homilies, Sermon of Swearing, P. 2. 5 Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. 0 It is very characteristic of the imperceptible change which has gone on in the Church of England, that, although Tract XC. had been so long out of print, its principles of interpretation, when I was kindly permitted to republish it, were recognized at 94 Unction for the Sick ; restored health as a whole 7 ), have a permanent and systematic influence upon the English Church. In one case only, the Unction of the Sick, the superstition of the people 8 , who seem to have dreaded it as though it were a herald of death, has produced a change which is a loss to us, both as to doctrine and practice. Our Article condemns only that practice which was almost forced on the clergy by the extreme unwillingness of the people to receive the Unction. It is strange that we, who so desire to build on Holy Scripture, should have laid aside a practice which has such distinct and almost peremptory authority from S. James 9 . But on that very ground, one may the rather hope that there may be no ultimate difficulty in its restoration, whensoever it shall be made clear that one object at least of it is restoration to health, if once by those relatively young, as the principles which they had always received and held. 7 Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, by A. P. Forbes, Bp. of Brechin, Art. xxv. 8 lb. p. 470 sqq. 9 Dean Alford, e. g., on James v. 14, states that the words "in the name of the Lord" belong to the word "anointing;" and that, "thus joined, they show that the anointing was not a mere human medium of cure, but had a sacramental character ;" comparing the use of " the same words, ' in the name ' or ' into the name of," (Matt. 28. 19 ; Acts 2. 38 ; 10. 48 ; 19. 5 ; 1 Cor. 1. 13, 15). And yet he declaims against the Boman use of the passage in defence of the practice of Extreme Unction [i. e. the last in life, not an unction in extremis] on the ground apparently of its being used when there is no hope or almost possibility of recovery. prayed for both in Roman and Greek ritual. 95 God so will. Meanwhile, we have for ourselves this comfort, that it is (as I said) not counted by any necessary to salvation 10 ; that by Absolution God forgives our sins, and that our souls are fortified for their last struggle by the Body and Blood of Christ. In regard to doctrine, we know that our Article condemns only a practice which is contrary alike to the prayers of the Latin 1 as well as the Greek 2 ritual, since both pray for the restoration of the sick to health, and in principle in no way differ from that of our first English Prayer Book 3 , which was omitted through an unhappy temporizing, in the attempt to win those who would not be won, and has not yet been restored. I have spoken elsewhere 4 of the difficulty of attaching a definite meaning to the Tridentine statement about " the remains of sin," or what sins remain to be remitted by " Extreme Unction " after Confession and Absolution. But, in case of re- union, possibly a general acknowledgment of mean- ing whatever S. James means, might suffice; and that the more, since Roman theologians have not come, as yet, to any agreement upon it. 10 " Extreme Unction, or Confirmation, which are neither of necessity of salvation," &c. S. Thorn. Aq. in iv. dist. 23, q. 1. art. i. fin. 1 Translated in the Bp. of Brechin's Explan. pp. 4G8, 4G9. 2 Translated, "Eirenicon," p. 227. 8 See at length ibid. pp. 221, 222. 4 "Eirenicon," pp. 223—227. 96 Rom. statements of suffering after death one-sided. i) The Intermediate State. In regard to the Intermediate State, we have been, as it were, looking on the two sides of the shield — we, on " the joy and felicity " of those who " are delivered from the burden of the flesh," the " blessedness " of " the dead which die in the Lord," their " rest from their labours," and their being with God ; the writers and preachers before the Reformation dwelt, as far as we are ac- quainted with them, upon sufferings " which gave no rest." The Council of Trent (to which you drew attention formerly, as illustrating the meaning of our Arti- cles) reformed some abuses, and, so, owned that there were abuses to be reformed. " 5 Among the rude people let more difficult and more subtle questions, and which make not for edification, and from which mostly there arises no accession to piety, be set aside from popular sermons. Let them [the Bishops] not permit things uncertain, or which have the semblance of falsehood, to be pub- lished or preached. But those things, whose aspect is to a sort of curiosity or superstition, and which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful." But, apart from abuses, I suppose that it has been common among your writers to dwell exclu- sively upon the sufferings, whether of the temporary 5 Sess. xxv. init. Yet peace of all departed in grace is owned. 97 privation of God, or of fire — of which Bellarminc says, " it is the common mind of theologians, that it is true and proper fire, and of the same species with our element," and appeals in illustration to the eruptions of fire in Mount iEtna r '. It is true that, in answer to an objection of Calvin, who urged S. Augustine's saying, " All souls, when they depart from the world, have different recep- tions: the good have joy, and the evil torments," Bellarmine admits very distinctly that "joy and rest are given immediately upon death to all who depart in charity. For presently all become certain of their eternal salvation, which brings great joy ; yet that joy is not given in the same way, but diversely, according to the diversity of merits ; for to some it is given without admixture of dolour, to some not without admixture of temporal sufferings, as the same S. Augustine very often teaches V It is true, too, that in the Canon of the Mass the Church of Rome presupposes that those for whom she prays 0 De Purg. ii. 11. 7 lb. i. 9. n. 5. In another place Bellarmine quotes and approves S. Bonaventura's teaching (in iv. d. 20, art. 1. q. 2) " 1. That the ' pain of loss' in purgatory is not greater than all pain, whether of Purgatory or of this life. 2. That the pains of Purgatory are greater than the pains of this life, in this sense only, that the greatest pain of Purgatory is greater than the greatest pain of this life, although some pain of Pur- gatory be less than some pain of this life." " This opinion," Bellarmine subjoins, " approves itself to me ; for though the absence of the Supreme Good in itself generates supreme sorrow in the soul, yet in Purgatory this sorrow is mitigated and G 98 Neither side bears in mind the case of the other. are " in peace." " Remember, Lord, Thy servants and Thy handmaidens, which have gone before us with the seal of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace." Still, I suppose, that in the doctrine of purgatory, as ordinarily inculcated, the sufferings are almost exclusively dwelt upon ; certainly, as it reaches us, the one idea which we have, is of unendurable suffering, and that suffering chiefly physical; and that, like the fire of hell. The belief that Purgatory is held to be this horrible unmiti- gated suffering, equal to the pains of hell except in duration, is, I suppose, almost universal among us. Controversy brings out this side exclusively, and that of necessity ; for the very question at issue is as to sufferings of the saved after this life. Those on our side dwell on the passages of Holy Scripture or the Fathers which speak of or imply the peace or rest of the departed; those on your side have to vindicate the belief in a state of suffering. And in so doing, neither side seems to bear in mind the case of the other. Even S. Francois de Sales, who spoke orally so touchingly and lovingly of the consolation, speaks in his controversy only of the suffering 8 ; for it was the thing which he had to speak on. The Bibliotheque des Predicateurs, again °, which, relieved in great part on account of the certain hope of obtaining that Good : for that most certain hope brings incredible joy, and the nearer the end of that exile approaches, so much the more does that joy increase" (de Purg. ii. 14). 8 Controverses, Discours 72 — 80. 5 Art. Purgatoire, T. viii. Faber's summary of the austere side. 09 though belonging to the early part of last century, is, I understood, used as a suggestive manual for preachers, insists, in an article of some seventy quarto pages, on many aggravations of the suffer- ings, gives some most harrowing descriptions of physical sufferings, but does not allude to any con- solations. Even the love of God in those detained there, it speaks of only as aggravating the intensity of the suffering (as indeed it must be) of being kept away from the sight of Him. But I need not rest on my own imperfect know- ledge of your writers on this subject. Faber although he says that " there have always been two views of purgatory prevailing in the Church," states fully that this austere view — " Is met with in by far the greater number of the lives and revelations of Italian and Spanish saints, the works of the Germans of the middle ages, and the popular delineations of purgatory in Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, and elsewhere. It is embodied in the terrible sermons of the Italian Quaresi- mali and those wayside pictures which so often provoke the fastidiousness of the English traveller. It loves to represent purgatory simply as a hell which is not eternal. Violence, confusion, wailing, horror, preside over its descriptions. It dwells, and truly, on the terribleness of the pain of sense which the soul is mysteriously permitted to endure. The fire is the same fire as that of hell, created for the single and express purpose of giving torture. Our earthly fire is as painted fire compared to it. Besides this, there is a special and undefinable horror to the disembodied soul in becoming the prey of this material agony. The sense of imprisonment, close and in- 1 All for Jesus, c. 9. pp. 335—337. G 2 100 Scholastic doctrine of Purgatory. tolerable, and the intense palpable darkness are additional features in the horror of the scene, which prepare us for that sensible neighbourhood to hell, which many saints have spoken of as belonging to purgatory. Angels are represented as active executioners of God's awful justice. Some have even held that the demons were permitted to touch and harass the spouses of Christ in those ardent fires. Then to this terrible- ness of the pain of sense is added the dreadfulness of the pain of loss. The beauty of God remains in itself the same im- mensely desirable object it ever was. But the soul is changed. All that in life and in the world of sense dulled its desires after God, is gone from it, so that it seeks Him with an impetuosity which no imagination can at all conceive. The very burning excess of its love becomes the measure of its intolerable pain. To these horrors we might add many more, which depict it simply as a hell not eternal 2 ." "This view," Faber adds, ''seems to have been borne out in its minutest details by the conclusions of scholastic theologians, as may be seen at once by referring to Bellarmine, who, in each section of his treatise on Purgatory, compares the revelations of the saints with the consequences of theology. — Many theolo- gians have said, not only that the least pain of Purgatory was greater than the greatest pain on earth, but greater than all the pains of earth put together. This, then, is a true view of Purgatory, but not a complete one." But this aspect of the doctrine shows what was meant by our Article when it rejected the "Romish" doctrine. It rejected it at first (you remember) as "the doctrine of the schoolmen;" and Faber speaks of the minutest details of this view being borne out by the conclusions of scholastic theologians. He savs indeed that the other view was always held, but his earliest authority for it is S. Catherine of - These traits recur in the extracts from different sermons in the " Bibliotheque des Predicateurs." S. Paul on suffering after death. 101 Genoa. Apart from those extremest horrors, the onesidedness of the statements has, I think, per- petuated the alienation of minds from the whole subject. The revulsion from the belief that they whom we love " are in rest and felicity " to the thought of their being simply in pain equal, as was said, to those of hell except in duration, is so great that men's deepest affections were enlisted against the reception of such a belief. And so we dwelt upon what is true, and what you too acknowledge in your prayers, that the faith- ful departed not only " rest from their labours," and that the strife with sin is over, but that they are "in peace;" and we rejected, as inconsistent with it, what your writers had dwelt upon so ex- clusively that it seemed to exclude our true belief. In this way it has come to pass that our people have been scared from dwelling on the plain text of St. Paul, who does, so almost unmistakably, de- clare that, for some at least, there shall be suffering in the Day of Judgment, when he speaks of those who build " 3 wood, hay, stubble " upon the One Foundation, which is Christ, and whose " work shall be burned," and they themselves " shall escape, yet so as by fire." This passage of St. Paul seems to me absolutely to require the belief that there will be suffering for the imperfect good in the Day of Judgment, setting aside for the moment whether that Day be 3 1 Cor. iii. 11—15. 102 Suffering inseparable from that of the Particular or of the General Judgment ; when God shall bring every secret thing into judg- ment, which we have done in the body, whether it be good or bad. People, I think, could not doubt it, if they were not so indisposed to it by fear of con- sequences, that they turn away to any thing rather than own it to themselves. The question, whether S. Paul is speaking of teachers or of the taught, upon which some have gone off, is so utterly ir- relevant. The question is one of principles, whether S. Paul does or does not speak of sufferings after death to some who shall be saved. If he does speak of such sufferings as to any, it would follow, on the principles of Divine holiness and justice, that the like suffering would befall those whose moral failure was the same. Whatever might be the moral or religious defect of the teachers, which brought on them those sufferings, analogous defects in the taught would bring on them like sufferings. Almost all are agreed now, that " the day " which shall- " make manifest " of what sort each man's work is, is the Day of Judgment; that, on that Day, there will be those who, " having held to and built on the One foundation, Jesus Christ," shall be saved, yet shall be deprived of their reward for those works. And this in itself involves unutterable anguish ; anguish, compared to which no imaginable temporary suffering could be of the least account. Worse than any of those most terrific descriptions of Purgatory which men most dread, must be the the Day of Judgment. 103 suffering of this irremediable loss of what men had thought well done in this life, of what, if well done, would have had an everlasting reward. For all, except eternal suffering, must come to an end; the loss of reward is an eternal loss of so much capacity of the love of God, Who has said, "I am thine exceeding great Reward." No thoughtful person would imagine himself hesitating' to cast himself into Hell (if he could, retaining there his love for God), there to remain for whatever time God might see fit, if so he could win back any of the capacity of eternally loving God which we forfeit by those perishing, unrewarded works. But it may not be. Growth in grace is only here, where there is risk of failure. We are to be rewarded for " the deeds done in the body." The good deeds might have been done and were not, or fell manifoldly short of what by God's grace they might have been, and the loss is irreparable. Can any suffering, short of Hell, be like this ? Nor do I think that, but for that dread of consequences, any could doubt that to "escape so as by" or "through fire" (and that, when "fire" has just been used of the awful Day of Judgment), can mean any thing short of most exceeding suffering. If men would bring themselves to face S. Paul's words, they would, I think, see that his words imply that those sufferings of the Day of Judgment (whether they believe them to relate to the Judgment of God upon each soul on parting out of life, or the General Judg- 104 Points as to Purgatory declared by Veron ment at the end) may very probably be more or less prolonged ; and that, when every second will seem like a century. One who could look on with in- difference as to the meaning, instances this text as one in which — " 4 Protestants are obliged to deny appearances which seem to favour some particular tenets of Roman Catholicism." Now I believe that the points which Veron speaks of as not being defined, include most of the subjects which indispose our people to look at such a passage in the face, or make them take up with some inadequate explanation of it. If any one calls to mind what statements of the sufferings of Purga- tory are pronounced by the following declarations of Veron not to be " de fide," he would feel what a mass of repugnance would be rolled off, if those declarations should, as matter of charity, be made authoritative. " 5 It is not of faith, 1) That there is in purgatory a material fire ; nor, 2) That purgatory is in such or such a definite place ; nor, 3) That the intensity of the pains endured there are such or such." Other objections would be removed by the two remaining statements, which are opposed to the notion of " lucrativeness," which writers among us impute to the doctrine of Purgatory. 4 " Essays and Reviews," On the Interpretation of Scripture, p. 366. 11 In P. Nampon, p. 710, and the De Walenburchs not to be de fide. 105 " It is not of faith that, 5) The Sacrifice of the Mass always remits to souls in purgatory the pains which they suffer, and that according to a definite law and in virtue of a Divine pro- mise, or, in scholastic language, ex opere operato ; nor, 6) That there is a certain law, according to which the prayers of the living benefit the dead." For we carry our human feelings even into the province of the awful holiness of God ; and an un- spiritual and mechanical undevout bargaining with God is more likely to find room, where any thing which we do on earth is supposed to have an as- signed or fixed value with God. The two eminent, peace-loving brothers, the Bishops De Walenburch, make the like limitation as to what is " de fide " thereon : — " 6 We and Protestants agree, 1) That all souls do not, after this life, undergo the punishment of Purgatory ; and so, that some souls after a man's death go up straight to heaven, others are sent straight to hell. 2) That after the Day of Judgment there will be no more Purgatory, and only two perpetual places, heaven and hell. 3) That in the other life souls cannot bo reconciled to God by grace, if they have departed this life in mortal sin without such reconciliation. 4) That Christ is the cleansing from our sins, ' 7 making [having made] a cleansing of sins ;' where the question is as to the Person Who cleanseth, not of the place of cleansing. 5) That tribulations of this life, as also death, may be called the ' cleansing of sins,' whence it is clear that there are various meanings of the word ' purgatorium,' and which belongs to this place. 6 De Unit. Eccl. L. 13, Tract, v. contr. i, n. 4, 5. T. ii. p. 274. 7 Heb. i. 3. 106 S. Catherine of Genoa; picture " It is uo question of faith between us and the Protestants, 1) Where Purgatory is ; 2) How long souls are detained there ; 3) Of what sort its fire will be- — whether corporeal, or of the same kind as our fire, or different ; 4) Whether the fire of Pur- gatory is equally hot, burning, and afflictive as the fire of hell ; 5) How that fire acts on the disembodied soul ; 6) Whether the pain of Purgatory is. distinguished in duration only from the pains of hell ; 7) How grave the pains are which souls suffer there. Por these and the like questions, although they are at times treated of usefully and fruitfully (the bond of charity un- impaired) among scholastic doctors, as may be seen in Bellar- mine and others, yet the Council of Trent 8 guards against such questions being curiously raised among the rude or simple people, commanding that those things should be proposed and treated of, which are most certain and labour under no appear- ance of falsehood." But, most of all, I cannot but think that S. Catherine of Genoa must have been raised up by God, and carried through those unutterable suffer- ings which were penetrated with that unspeakable, God-infused love, in order to exhibit in a new light that preparation for the sight of God, whereby im- perfect souls, amid inexpressible joy and felicity, are taught by an unendurable pining for Him, amid the temporary delay of that sight, what a misery it is for the soul to have had any object but the Living God. The point of difference between her exhibition of the doctrine, and that common at the time of the Reformation, does not relate to the question whether sufferings in the intermediate state be " the pain of loss '.' (i. e. the delay of the vision of 3 Sess. 25. of the unutterable bliss in Purgatory. 1 07 God, the bliss of which the soul, having at its judgment beheld the Face of Christ, must in some measure know), or whether there be further " pain of sense," hinted at by the word "fire." It is rather that the doctrine, as commonly exhibited in prae- Reformation writers, was, as Faber admitted that it is, " not a complete one." It exhibits only the dark side of the doctrine, the awfulness of sin and the strict justice of God. The representation of S. Catherine of Genoa combined vividly the belief of the inex- pressible joy and felicity of the most imperfect soul which yet, by the mercy and longsuffering of God, is saved, and yet of suffering. Such souls, according to her doctrine, even while unadmitted to the sight of God, have unspeakable joy — joy beyond all pos- sible joy in this present life, from the certainty of their salvation, from their being confirmed in grace and love, from the impossibility of their ever again, by the very slightest motion of their will, willing any thing but the all-holy Will of God, and from the unspeakable love infused into them by God. They know that, by the immutable decree of God, they shall be admitted to see and love God, and to be filled with His love, and that for eternity, of which thev know something, because thev arc already in it. The soul knows also that this delay is devised by the mercy of God, because she is not yet fit to "endure that excessive Goodness and that exquisite Justice." And so it is not content only, but full of joy. " I do not believe," she says, " that 108 Unspeakable joy of the departed. it is possible to find a contentment to compare with that of the soul in Purgatory, unless it be the con- tentment of the saints in Paradise. This content- ment increases daily through the influx of God into those souls, and this influx increases as the impedi- ment is consumed and worn away. Indeed, so far as the will is concerned, we can hardly say that the pains are pains at all, so contentedly do the souls rest in the ordinance of God, to whose will their love unites them." The prayers also for them, and especially the remembrance of them at the Altar, are represented by her, not only as hastening the time when they shall behold God, but as a present consolation — agreeing herein with S. Anselm's prayer (as it is thought ') in the " Prseparatio ad Missam, — " We pray Thee also, 0 Lord, Holy Father, for the spirits of the faithful departed, that this great Sacrament of piety may be to them salvation, health, joy, and refreshment. 0 my God, he there to them this day a great and full Feast of Thee, the Living Bread, Who earnest down from Heaven and givest life to the world, of Thy Holy and Blessed Flesh, the Lamb with- out spot, Who takest away the sins of the world, which was taken from the holy and glorious womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was conceived of the Holy Ghost ; and of that Fountain of piety which, through the soldier's lance, flowed 9 The Benedictine Editors pronounce it not to be S. Am- brose's (Opp. T. ii. App. col. 489, 490), whose name it bears in the Boman Missal and Breviary ; and Gerberon ascribes it to S. Anselra, on the authority of a number of MSS., " non igno- bilioris notse," and on the ground of identity of style. Censura Orationis xxix. prefixed to S. Anselm's works. Benefits from its authoritative statement. 109 from Thy most Sacred Side, that, thence recreated and satiated, refreshed and comforted, they may exult in Tby praise and glory." Such a full conviction of their peace and joy — peace and joy passing every conceivable joy in this world, for which, if it were the Will of God, any would most thankfully exchange any condition in this world, enables us to contemplate without horror any consequences of God's awful Holiness. We cannot wish God to be less holy than He is. And our own consciences may tell us that, our repentance for our sins having been very imperfect, and our own longings for the sight of God, amid this whirl of duties and religious interests, such as we do not like to think of, we are not fit to behold Him. This, perhaps, more than the direct dread of hell, is the source of the fear of death to many. They trust in God's mercy in Christ, that they shall be saved ; but they feel themselves unfit to enter into His Presence. To be admitted into any vesti- bule of His Presence, where they can sin no more, and, by longing for that Beatific Vision, may be for ever freed from the slough which has clung to them in this life, — this is not too high for their hopes ; the thought of this unspeakably allays their fears '. As often happens, it is the imperfect exhibition of a doctrine, which creates the prejudice 1 It would be expected of such a humble soul as that of the Author of the Christian Tear, that the prospect of such a pre- paration was an unspeakable comfort to him within a year of his death. He expressed it both to myself and to others. 110 Relief to minds from a belief against it. The omission causes it, as it is pre- sented to men's minds, to be out of harmony with something stated in Holy Scripture, or to make it unnatural. If once that same authority, which insists on the sufferings in the intermediate state, will also lay down with equal distinctness and promi- nence, that the most imperfect soul, which yet parts from this world in a state of grace, has, after the suspense, it may be, of the Day of Judgment, un- speakable joy, even while through its sins and negligences it has brought upon itself unspeakable, though temporary suffering, I believe that Purga- tory would no longer be one of those chords which are struck by anti-Roman controversialists, and vibrate through the deepest depths of the human heart. On the contrary, I think that, while that belief would check the flatteries bestowed on the deceased, whereby people shut their eyes to the antecedents of their whole life, and dwell upon some word, or look, or sign on the death-bed, it would to very many be an unspeakable relief. Now, our people seem to have only the choice of thinking that those they love are in paradise or hell, or a hell-like purgatory (for as such it has been exhi- bited to them); and so, shrinking back from the two last, they imagine their friends translated by the mere fact of death to the Beatific Vision ; or, if they have misgivings as to their being at once fitted for this bliss of eternity, they have only in their ears the awful words, "Depart, ye cursed." in a preparatory intermediate state. Ill Wc must all know many souls, the brightness of whose joy has been overclouded for years by the doubt as to some loved brother, "Was he saved?" The thought has been an ever-returning spectre, haunting them. If the Church of .Rome would boldly cast aside the fear that, should the living come to think of the imperfect souls departed as in a state of less unmitigated suffering, or, notwith- standing those sufferings, as being in joy and felicity and peace unspeakable, they would be less careful to pray for them, or to obtain for them the remembrance at the Altar, they would have, in this respect, thrown down, as far as in them lay, the barrier between us. This office of removing the difficulties of " Pro- testants " has been aforetime contemplated as intended by the Providence of God for the work of S. Catherine of Genoa. The pious Archbishop of Paris, Hardouin Perefixe, towards the close of the seventeenth century, is quoted by the Bollandist fathers as saying of that work, — " 2 It is a rare effusion of the Spirit of God into this soul, so pure and burning with love, and an admirable monument of the tender care of God in governing His Church. For, fore- seeing that the doctrine of purgatory and of the suffrages for the dead would be attacked by the heresy of Luther and Calvin — He revealed secrets of the sublimest truth to a Matron 3 Preface to a French work on ' Christian piety to the de- parted,' quoted in the Life of S. Catherine of Genoa, " Acta Sanctorum Sept." T. v. p. 127. 112 S. Catherine's doctrine of extraordinary virtue and piety, whom, among those who lived in this century, He selected to that end — to defend the truth of faith against heretics, and to instruct Catholics. — The method in which she wrote is so worthy of the majesty of God and the sublimity of our religion, that it cannot hut he that those who read that tract will admire Sis Providence Who is pleased to conceal His secrets from the wise and prudent of this world, and reveals them to the humble, and sometimes elevates the weaker sex to a knowledge of the loftiest truths, &c. And to show the conformity of the mind of the great Beata with the sayings of the Fathers, it is related in few words what S. Bernard says of Purgatory in some places of his works, &c." S. Francois de Sales was, so to speak, a disciple of S. Catherine, through the study of her devout works, and is reported to have spoken of her with titles 3 expressive of admiration of her wisdom and burning love. His own disciple, M. de Belley, who studied her work at S. Fr. de Sales' advice, gave the doctrine, I suppose, a wider circulation than it had through S. Catherine's own writings. M. de Belley employed it successfully to remove the objec- tions of French Protestants. He writes, — " 4 His [S. Prancis'] opinion was, that we might derive more ground of consolation than apprehension from the thought of Purgatory. Most of those (he said) who so fear Purgatory do so in view of their own interest and of their self-love, rather than for the interest of God. What causes this, is that preachers who speak of it ordinarily represent the sufferings of 3 u Cherubim, Seraphim, Phcenix, and Bird of Paradise." Acta S. Ib. p. 128, from Parpera, " B. Catherina illustrata." 4 Esprit de S. Fr. de Sales, P. xvi. c. 9. as staled by S. Francois de Sales, 113 that place, not the happiness and peace enjoyed by the souls there. " It ia true that its torments are so great that the extremest dolours of this life cannot be compared with them, but also the inward satisfactions there are such, that no prosperity or contentment on earth can equal them. " 1. Souls there are in continual union with God. " 2. They are in perfect submission to His Will ; or, rather, their will is in such wise transformed into that of God, that they can only will what God wills ; so that, if Paradise were open to them, they would rather pluuge themselves into hell than appear before God with the stains which they still see in them- selves. " 3. They embrace their purifying voluntarily and lovingly, since such is the Divine good-pleasure. " 4. They will to be there, in what manner it shall please God, and for as long as it shall please Him. " 5. They are impeccable, and cannot have the slightest movement of impatience, or commit the least imperfection. " 6. They love God more than themselves or than any thing, with a love perfected, pure, and disinterested. " 7. They are there comforted by the Angels. " 8. They are there assured of their salvation, in a hope which cannot be confounded in its expectation. " 0. Their very bitter grief is in midst of a very deep peace. " 10. If it is a sort of hell as to dolour, it is a paradise as to the sweetness which charity diffuses in their heart ; charity, stronger than death and mightier than hell, whose lamps arc all of fire and flames. " 11. Blessed state, to be desired rather than dreaded, since those flames are flames of love and charity. " 12. To be dreaded notwithstanding, since they delay the end of all consummation, which is, to see God and to love Him ; and, through this fear aud this love, to praise and glorify Him through the whole extent of eternity. " On this subject he strongly counselled to read the admirable treatise on Purgatory by S. Catherine of Genoa. At his advice I have often read and re-read it attentively, and never without fresh pleasure and fresh light ; and I own that I never read any II 114 S. Catherine's doctrine taught her by her thing which so entirely satisfied me. I have even invited some Protestants to read it, who were very well satisfied with it ; one, who was a very learned man, declared to me that if this treatise had been shown him before his conversion, he should have been more moved by it than by all disputations which he had had on the subject. "'If this is so,' I shall be asked, 'why then so recommend the souls in purgatory ?' " Because, notwithstanding these advantages, the condition of these souls is very dolorous and truly worthy of our com- passion ; and, besides, the glory which they will render to God in heaven is delayed. These two motives ought to induce us to obtain for them a speedy deliverance by our prayers, our fasts, our alms, and all kinds of good works, but particularly by the offering of the Sacrifice of the holy Mass." The special character of the work of S. Catherine was recognized also in the Carthusian preface to the translation of her life : — " Of two things, which the common and universal faith teacheth to be united in the piacular fire, viz. love and punish- ment, she is silent about punishment, as being more common and necessary for weak and imperfect minds, and considers the love only, chiefly as attaining its stupendous effects." And this peculiar representation of those suffer- ings all who dwell upon it speak of as unfolded to her by God through her own sufferings. " From the comparison of the Divine fire which she expe- rienced in herself, she understood of what sort is that piacular fire, and in what way the souls live in it, contented and tor- mented." And " 5 in the old life of her, the ' Via Antica ' examined by theologians in 1670, and approved in the Roman process of her 5 Faber, "All for Jesus," p. 349. siifferings; depreciated at first. 115 canonization, and which was composed by Marabotto, her con- fessor, and Vernazza, her spiritual son, it is said ; " Verily it seems that God set up this His creature as a mirror and an example of the pains of the other life which souls suffer in purgatory. It is just as if He had placed her upon a high wall, dividing this life from the life to come ; so that, seeing what is suffered in that life beyond, she might manifest to us, even in this life, what we are to expect when we have passed the boundary." Yet her work was one of the instances, where the value of what is done for God in this life is not recognized until long afterwards. " Serit arbores quae alteri prosint saeculo." The first translation of her works (which was into French) was eighty- eight years after her death ; a Latin translation followed, twenty-eight years later. In this country it was translated only eleven years ago. Alban Butler, who mentions the work, yet gives no account of it, and only says, " These treatises [this and the Dialogue on the Love of God] are not writ for the common class of readers." Louis Venegas, who, a.d. 162G, wrote the "Ap- probation " of her life, and who calls it " a golden book," still speaks as deprecating possible, though unfounded, censure : — " 0 Although I have found many things which at first sight will seem harsh to theologians, I have found none which do not admit of a sound sense, and which may not be turned to the benefit and spiritual profit of the readers." 8 Quoted in the Acta S. Ib. p. 126. H 2 116 S. Catherine's doctrine Baillct, in his (I suppose) somewhat popular lives of the saints, still followed, probably, a current opinion about her, when he imputed to her life, untruly, a tendency to favour quietism, although he ascribes it to her biographers, and recommends the study of her own works as correcting it 1 . The title of the book, as first published, implies that there was something so special in the form of the doctrine as to partake of the character of a revelation from God. " 8 It is entitled, ' A book of the admirable doctrine of Bl. Catherine of Genoa, in which is contained an useful and Catholic de- monstration and declaration of Purgatory.' In the title-page the saint is represented kneeling before our Lord on the Cross, with the words in S. Mat- thew, ' I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.' " The treatise on Purgatory was omitted in the Venice editions 11 , as well as in a later Spanish translation, in which the treatise on Divine love was included 1 . Probably owing to the small number printed, Sticker, the Bollandist writer of her life, could not obtain a sight of any of the old 7 In his l - Table Critique" prefixed to the lives. T. iii. col. xvi. xvii. 8 Parpera in B. Cath. illustrata. Pt. c. 1. u. 8. Act. Sanctor. 1. c. p. 125. 9 A.D. 1590, 1601, 1615. It was in the Florence edd., 1568, 1580, 1589. 1 A.D, 1617. slowly admitted. 117 editions 2 . It seems also agreed that its larger influence dates from S. Francois de Sales' enthusi- astic commendation of it. But it was in the latter part of the next century that it received the approval of the Sorbonne (A. 16G6); the authentic approba- tion of the work by the Congregation of rites at Rome was not until 1675. Bellarmine. although he extols the Beata personally in his " 3 De Arte Moriendi," takes no notice of her doctrine of Purga- tory. Since the time of S. Fr. de Sales it has had influence even outside the Roman communion. Perrone traces to it the confession of Leibnitz, — " 4 Almost all agree in a fatherly chastisement or purifying after this life (of whatsoever sort it be) which the souls them- selves, on their departure from the body, being illumined, and seeing thoroughly then the imperfection of their past life and the foulness of sin, touched with exceeding sorrow, invite to themselves willingly, and would not wish to attain in any other way to the summit of beatitude. For many have excellently noted that this purifying affliction of the soul, thinking over its acts, is voluntary ; among others there is a remarkable passage of [Luis] of Grenada, which brought great consolation to Philip II. in his last illness." Perrone himself lays down in much the same terms as Veron and the De Walenburchs the points which are alone de fide and what are not de fide ; among 2 Acta S. 1. c. 8 Praef. fin. * System. Theol. p. 350, quoted by Perrone, " De Deo Crea- tore," P. 3. c. G. art. 2, p. 309, note. He subjoins, "These things he seems to have drawn from that most beautiful tract which S. Catherine of Genoa wrote on Purgatory." 118 An intermediate preparation for seeing the alternative allowed beliefs is that of S. Cathe- rine, — " 5 As to Purgatory, these two points only are " de fide j" 1) its existence ; 2) the benefit of suffrages. All then which relate to place, duration, quality of punishment, do not at all belong to the Catholic faith, or have not been defined by the Church. "Whether there is any determined place or no ; where it is ; whether souls are to be detained in purgatory a short or long time ; whether the fire of purgatory is material or meta- phorical, i. e. whether it consists in a certain sadness of the soul, arising from the consideration of the past life, the foulness of sin, or other causes, on ground of which this purifying affliction is voluntary and much longed for by them." In this aspect, I think that the doctrine of a temporary delay after death, in which the soul should be prepared for the sight of God, would commend itself to the consciences of any who had ever meditated on the greatness and holiness of God. We are, up to the last moment upon earth, how unlike God ! Could we bear, amid our unlike- ness, to gaze on His All-Holiness, before Whom the Seraphim hide their faces ? True that God could " in an instant," as S. Macarius thought, " c sever death from the soul (for this is not difficult for Him), and take thee to His Bosom and to light." But our own consciences mostly will not let us think it. Hence Perrone observes that — " Protestants admitted a purgatory, or state of ' expiation,' which they call ' a school of preparation.' " "If you mention 6 1. c. p. 308. 0 Horn. 26. Eeep. 20. Gall. vii. 99, 100. God, held by Protestants. 119 Purgatory to any Protestant, he kindles up ; but if you ask the same person, whether or no a state of ' expiation,' ' epuration,' or ' a school of preparation, expectation,' &c. can be admitted, he will readily grant it you ; yea, sometimes he contends vehemently that such a state is to be admitted 7 . Such is the power of words." Yet surely the difference is not of words only. The word " Purgatory " recalls to our mind that picture of unmitigated, unconsoled suffering, which Faber speaks of as " not complete." And the Church of Rome is not asked to reject the word " Pur- gatory," but to explain it, as it has been explained by some of her accredited writers, as a condition " in which souls at the «same time experience the greatest happiness and the most excessive pain; and the one does not prevent the other." If this one-sided representation were removed, I think that our people would be more open, not only to the meaning of that passage of S. Paul, but to a further meaning of others, of which we accept a traditional interpretation, which does not give " 1. c. p. 319. Perrone alleges "Koeppen Philosophia Christian- ismi, Vol. ii., who transcribes entire texts of Planck from his Verba, Pads, Horst, from his Mysteriosophia, Meyer, &c, whom Hollaz Examen Theol., p. 1221, and Quenstaedt Theol. Did. T. iv. p. 377 sqq. and Hoist, Warum beten ivir fur die Verstorbenen ? and others, had preceded. " But all " (he adds) " agree in saying, that it is too violent to admit at once into heaven all those who only repented of their past evil life at the end, or who indulged too much in the sensualities of this life, since 'nothing defiled' enters there ; also it is too harsh to assign all such to eternal torments." 120 Fullest force so given to words of H. Scr. their words apparently their fullest force. For when our Lord says, " I say that thou shalt not go forth thence, until thou hast paid the very last mite s ,'' the word " until " seems to suggest that there will be a time when such shall go forth. And when S. John tells us that " 9 All creatures, in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth," join in that ascription of " blessing, and honour, and glory, and might to Him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb," surely those are right who include in that chorus of thanksgiving, " the departed spirits," who are not yet, like the angels, and martyrs, and glorified saints, in heaven And if so, then from both alike, though not equally, there ascends the song of adoring thanksgiving. I should add that it has been pointed out to me, that Bellarmine 2 regards as " not improbable " the doctrine involved in a vision related by Bede, H. E., v. 137, as "not improbable," which vision Bellarmine says is " very probable, and Bede him- self hesitated not to believe it. In it there was shown to a soul which afterwards returned to the body, besides hell and purgatory, and the kingdom of heaven, as it were a meadow very flowery, full of light, fragrant, pleasant, in which souls 8 S. Luke xii. 58. 9 Eev. v. 13. 1 So Dean Alford, too: "the departed spirits in Hades" as distinct from those in heaven ; " the angels and the glorified saints." — Ad loe. 2 De Purg. ii. 7. " Purgatory of desire" as held by some. 121 lived, which suffered nothing, but yet remained there, as not being yet fit for the Divine vision. To which revelation Denvs, the Carthusian, adduces many other conformable (De Judicio Particulari, art. 31), and S. Gregory (Dial. iv. 36)." Beliar- mine thinks that this place is " the mildest part of Purgatory ; and, as it were, a sort of senatorial and honourable prison." Also that " Bail, whose book is well known and well recommended," says, " 3 Some souls are not 3 S. Thomas en Meditation, T. v. (Des Sacram. Med. 33.) p. 265. Elsewhere Bail says, "Consider that, according to some, purgatory has two parts, one, in which the souls suffer the pains of sense through the fire which torments them, and that pain of loss, because they are deprived of the vision of God. The other is that, in which the souls are only tormented by the pain of loss, and are greatly afflicted at the privation of the vision of God, which they desire with inexpressible desires. The Exstatic Doctor puts this as a controverted point ; and, adducing many proofs on both sides, is unwilling to resolve it affirmatively, feeling, on the one side, a difficulty in asserting any thing positively against the common opinion of doctors who make no mention of this second part of purgatory, and on the other, being unable to call fantastic or lying the revelations and visions which sanction this purgatory, so long as the Church pronounces nothing ; because, he says, those who have taken down and approved these visions were very learned and very religious men, and some of them wise doctors in Theology. But others have held it to be certain, calling this part of pur- gatory an earthly Paradise or purgatory of desire, where souls sigh for the vision of God with a very ardent desire, which causes them to suffer marvellously at seeing themselves kept from reaching this Sovereign Good." Then, having mentioned the visions in S. Gregory and Bede, he dwells on the state- ment of S. Brigit, who " divides purgatory, as it were, into 122 Probable that S. Aug. and S. Jerome meant otherwise punished than by the grief which they feel at the delay and retarding of their felicity ; of which S. Brigit cites an instance." k) Deutero- Canonical Books. In regard to the Old Testament, our Sixth Article follows, not a mere insulated saying of S. Jerome, but one which embodies in the main a good deal of tradition before him, and which has been accepted by writers of acknowledged weight to the very verge of the Council of Trent *. The three stages, of which the first is filled with horrible torment and terrible creatures which torment the souls ; the second, where they are punished with a certain weakness, until they be delivered by the prayers of their friends or the suffrages of the Church ; the third, in which there is no other pain than the desire of arriving at the presence of God and the beatific vision of Him. Here many of those who, in the world, had not a perfect desire to arrive at the presence of God and the beatific vision of Him, remain very long ; and she adds that few of those who have lived well escape this last." Then, having dwelt on the examination of S. Brigit's visions at the Council of Constance, and Bellarmine's defence of this last division, he says, "The thing appears very probable in itself; for one does not pass from one extremity to the other without passing through some middle. And as the purgatory, in which there is pain, both of sense and loss, contains pains very grievous and very like to those of the damned, except their duration, it is very probable that souls do not pass from this rigorous purgatory to the bliss of heaven, without previously passing through this terrestrial Paradise or purgatory of desire, where there is only the pain of loss." — De la Kes. gen., Med. 3. T. v. pp. 344—346. 4 See note A at the end. the same as to the Deutero- Canonical books. 123 Council of Trent, following S. Augustine, enume- rates together the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Deutero-Canonical books written after the order of prophets closed in Malachi. Yet there is and priori probability that there could be no radical difference between the meaning of those two great fathers, because none ever comes into sharp contrast, and both ways of counting the books continued down to the Council of Trent. The Council of Trullo received at the same time the Council of Laodicea, which includes in the Canon of the Old Testament those books only which were in the Hebrew Canon, and the Council of Carthage, which includes in the Canonical Scriptures the Deutero-Canonical Books also. But it would not have received together two contradictory Canons of Scripture. S. Augustine also, who, with the Council of Carthage, includes the Deutero-Canonical Books under the common title of Divine Scriptures which were to be read, elsewhere makes a distinction between some at least of the Deutero-Canonical Books and the Canon which our Lord sealed by His own authority 5 . He r ' " It is our business, as the Apostle admonisheth, to prove all things, to hold fast the things which are good, to keep us from all evil appearance. And this Scripture, entitled of the Mac- cabees, the Jews have not, as they have the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony, as His witnesses, saying, 'All things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning Me ;' but which was received in the Church, not without benefit, if it be read and heard soberly, and chiefly for the sake of those Maccabees, who, for the law of God, as true 124 Distinction within the books of the larger Canon challenged the Donatists to " e demonstrate their Church in the commands of the Law, in the pre- dictions of the Prophets, in the canticles of the Psalms, in the words of Himself the One Shepherd, and in the preaching and labours of the Evangelists ; i.e. in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books. In two places, also, in which he mentions the Maccabees, he assigns the same reason why the Church had received them into the Canon, as S. Jerome gave for the Deutero-Canonical Books generally, viz. the edifying histories of the martyr- dom of the Maccabees 7 . Singularly the two books martyrs, suffered from the persecutors such unworthy and horrible things; that hence, too, the Christian people might observe that ' the sufferings of this time are not worthy [to be accounted of] in regard of the future glory which shall be revealed in us, for whom Christ suffered,' if they endured so great things most patiently for the law which God gave through a servant to those to whom He not yet given the Son " (S. Aug. con. Ep. Gaud. Donat. i. 31, T. ix. 655, G56). In his Epistle to Duleitius (Ep. 204, n. 6. T. ii. 7G6) he speaks of the Maccabees in a somewhat disparaging tone. " But, it must be confessed, that, as to that elder Razius, whom, straitened by the most extreme destitution of examples, they, after having minutely searched all Ecclesiastical authorities, scarcely at length boast that they have found in the books of the Maccabees an autho- rity for the wickedness whereby they destroy themselves, I remember I have never yet answered them." 0 Ep. c. Donat. c. 18, n. 47, T. ix. 371. 7 " The reckoning of the Jews (from the restoration of the Temple) is found, not in the Holy Scriptures, which are called ' canonical,' but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees which, not the Jews, but the Church has counted canonical, on account of some vehement and wonderful passions in S. Augustine. 125 do not occur in the Greek copies of the Canon of the 3rd Council of Carthage s , though they do occur in S. Augustine's enumeration of the whole Canon of Scripture. In the Council of Carthage, again, the emphasis is as to the hooks which were " to be read." The Canon closes, " n Let this be made known to our brother and fellow-Bishop, Boniface, or other Bishops of those parts, for confirming that Canon, because we have received from the fathers, that these things were to be read in the Church." The Canon adds further, " Be it lawful for the Passions of the martyrs to be read, when their anniversaries are to be celebrated. S. Augustine distinguishes, as you know, the three books of Solomon from Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, stating that these had been of old received into authority, " chiefly by the Western Church ;" and then, after of martyrs, who, before Christ came in the flesh, strove even unto death for the law of God, and endured most grave and horrible ills." — De Civ. Dei, xviii. 36, T. vii. 519, and ab. Note 5. 8 "The Greek copies of this Canon, those of Zonarae, Balsamon, and one MS. of the Canons of the Greek Church, the ed. Tillii, A. 1546, and the two Greek, also, of Binius, and the ed. regia, omit the two books of the Maccabees." " They are not in the Colbert MS. or ours, but they are in the Codex Pithoean., aud in Augustine (De Doct. Xt. ii. 8 Ketract. ii. 4), who was also present at this 3rd Council of Carthage. See too De Civ. Dei, xviii. 36." 9 Cone. Carth. iii. 47, inserted in the Cod. Eccl. Afr. A. 419, but without the clause about the Passions of the Martyrs. 126 S. Augustine defends passage in the Book alleging the picture of the conspiracy of the wicked against the just, as a prophecy of the Passion of our Lord, he adds, in language which reminds us of S. Jerome, " But against gainsayers those things are not adduced with so much firmness, which are not written in the Canon of the Jews." Yet he believed that in some sense they were a Divine authority. It was reported to him that the semi-Pelagians had said, " 1 That attestation which thou hast put down, ' He was taken away, lest wickedness should change his understanding,' they define ought to be omitted, as not canonical." He does not assert, in answer, that it was canonical, in the sense in which the objectors meant. He justifies the saying as true in itself. "This then being so, this saying of the Book of Wisdom ought not to be rejected, which [book] hath merited during so long a period to be recited in the Church of Christ from the place of Readers of the Church of Christ, and to be heard by all Christians, by Bishops to the lowest of the faithful laity, peni- tents, catechumens, with the veneration of Divine authority." He appeals to them, that they would listen to " 2 those who treated on the Divine Scriptures before them ; that they ought to prefer this Book of Wisdom to all those writers, since those excellent writers nearest to the times of the Apostles, preferred it to them- 1 Hilarii Ep. (136 inter Aug. Opp. ii. 827, and x. 789). 3 De Prsedesfc. Sanctt. nn. 27—29. of Wisdom, as a Divine Testimony. 127 selves, and, employing it as a testimony, believed that they were employing no other than a Divine testimony." He explains S. Cyprian's quotation of the passage, to which he had alluded ; shows the meaning to be indisputable ; " nor, on ground of that saying, ought the Book of Wisdom, which for such a number of vears has merited to be read in the Church of Christ, in which book this too is read, because it resists those who exalt wrongly human merits." He again appeals to the evident truth involved in the saying, since otherwise "it would nowise have benefited those who die having lapsed, had they died before, which no Christian would dare to say. Wherefore our brethren, who contend with us for the Catholic faith against the pernicious Pelagian error, ought not so far to favour the Pelagian opinion, that the grace of God is given ac- cording to our merits, as to endeavour (which those cannot venture on) to overthrow a sentiment alto- gether true and Christian of old, and to build up what I suppose no one would — I say not, believe, but — even dream of, that the dead would each be judged according to those things which he would have done, had he lived." So, I think, would not S. Augustine have main- tained the authority of any passage of the primary Canon. I can hardly think that S. Augustine would have said of books in the highest sense Divine, " since, however, they have merited to be received among the authoritative books, they must be classed 128 S. Augustine, distinction of books among the prophetical," or " it had merited to be recited during so long a period of years by the readers in the Church of Christ;'' or that "the Books of the Maccabees, although not considered by the Jews in the same light as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave His testimony, had been received by the Church, not without advantage, if read and heard discreetly." Again, in his classical passage, in which he speaks of books more or less received, yet comprehended in the Canon in its largest compass (totus Canon) he seems to me, from some expressions, to refer chiefly to the Deutero-Canonical Books. He says,— " 3 He will be the most skilled investigator of the Diviue Scriptures, who should first read and become acquainted with all and each (totas) at least by reading, if not as yet by full understanding ; those, at least, which are called Canonical. For the rest he will read with less risk when instructed in the faith of truth, lest they should pre-occupy his mind while yet weak, and, deceiving by dangerous falsehoods and phantasms, should pre-judge any thing against sound understanding. But in the Canonical Scriptures let him follow the authority of most Catholic Churches, among which are those which were found worthy to have Apostolic Sees and to receive Epistles. He will then adhere to this method in the Canonical Scriptures, to prefer those which are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some do not receive ; but in those which are not received by all, let him prefer those which the more and graver receive to those which fewer Churches and of less authority hold. But if lie discover some to be held by more, others by 3 De Doctr. Christ, ii. S. within the "whole Canon''' 129 graver (although he prohably will not find this), I think that they should be held to be of equal authority. " The iclwle Canon of Scripture, in which we say that this consideration ought to be employed, is contained in these books, Genesis," &c. For although the Epistle to the Hebrews would come under one of these classes, since S. Augustine says of it, " 4 Most say that it is the Apostle Paul's, but some deny it," the rule which he lays down shows that he held more to be in question than one single book; and there was in his time no doubt as to the Revelation, of which he says simply " 5 the same John the Evangelist, in the book which is called Apocalypse." And the extreme caution which he gives, and the danger which he apprehends from an unripe study of the books, fall in with what he savs elsewhere as to the Books of the Maccabees, and the need that they should be read soberly, since the example of Eazis was pleaded for the excesses of the fanatical Donatists. If this be so, S. Augustine employs the term " the Canonical Scriptures " of a smaller portion than he includes in the term "the whole Canon," in which he in- cludes the Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament. The division of sacred books in S. Jerome corre- sponds to this distinction in S. Augustine. Both agree as to what books are read in the Church ; both have a distinction within that larger Canon 4 De Civ. Dei, xvi. 22, fin. 6 lb. xx. 7. 1. 130 S. Jerome calls Deutero- Canonical books of books which are to be read ; and both, I think, use the title "Canonical Scriptures" in a more limited sense, including therein those books only upon which our Lord set His seal. To take one passage only, wherein the words of our Article occur. Having spoken of the two Books of Wisdom, "the book of Jesus, son of Sirach, and another wrongly-entitled, which is inscribed ' the Wisdom of Solomon,' which some of the old writers affirm to be Philo the Jew," he adds, — " c As, then, tbe Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the Canonical Scriptures, so she may read these two volumes for the edifica- tion of the people, not to confirm the authority of dogmas of the Church." Yet, although he adhered to this distinction, in not alleging these books to establish the great central doctrines of the faith, yet he quotes the two Books of Wisdom, as Scripture or Divine Scripture 7 , and frequently cites them indiscriminately with the Canonical Books s ; he calls the writers of them 6 Prol. ii. lib. Salom. T. ix. col. 1293. 7 Ecclesiasticus, as "Divine Scripture" (Ep. 118, ad Julian, n. 1. T. 1. p. 786 Vail.); "Sacred Scripture," in proof that no one may be called happy before death (in Is. L. ii. c. 3. T. iv. p. 57): Wisdom, "audiamus Scripturam monentem," with the Psalms (in Is. L. xvi. c. 56 v. fin. Ib. p. 663). He quotes Eccle- siasticus as among "our books" with Proverbs, in contrast to the Greek poets, " illud in nostris libris legimus " (in Is. L. ii. c. 3. ib. p. 50). 8 Ecclesiasticus is quoted with the formula " scriptum est " (not to provoke the sinner by answering him) with the Psalms Divine Scripture, and cites them with other Scr.1'31 prophets ; ' ; he speaks of the commands which we have in Ecclesiasticus 1 ; alleges it repeatedly in proof of the use of charity to purify the soul 2 . He (in Is. xi. c. 7. T. iv. 458) ; " de quibus scriptum est " (that the great should be humble) with words of our Lord in S. Luke (in Ezek. L. vi. c. 18. T. v. p. 207) ; "scriptum est" (of the depth of the wisdom of God) with Eomans (ib. L. xiii. c. 43. p. 526) ; '"in alio loco scriptum est" (of the use of the right and the left for good and bad) with Ezekiel (ib. c. 4 p. 42) ; " in alio loco scribitur " (on trials in serving God) after S. James, and then " rursum idem Jacobus loquitur " (adv. Jovin. ii. 3. T. ii. p. 326). He quotes it with S. Luke (Ep. 118 ad Julian, n. 4. T. i. p. 788), and the same passage in proof that fasting was an occasion of temptation " secundum illud " (in Matt. L. i. c. 4. T. vii. 20). He joins it and a Psalm (of detraction falling on the detractor's head) " illudque completur, — et alibi" with Prov. (Ep. 125. ad Eustic. Mon., n. 19. T. i. p. 940). He sub- joins to our Lord's words (on humility) " et in alio loco sermo ad sanctos dirigitur " (in Soph. ii. 3. T. vi. p. 697). Wisdom he quotes with Proverbs, " scriptum est" (in Is. L. ii. c. 3 T. iv. p. 48), and " de istiusmodi anima dicitur," " et in alio loco legimus" as the same teaching as Hosea (in Os. L. ii. c. 9. T. vi. p. 102) and in explanation of Jeremiah (in Jerem. L. v. c. 28 T. iv. p. 1042) and the same passage, " Salomone testante" (perhaps thinking of the like passage in Prov. xx. 29, which he blends with it in Is. L. ii. 1. c.) Ep. 50 ad Paullin. T. i. p. 317. 0 Of Ecclesiasticus, " Quod aliis verbis Propheta demonstrat " (Pra;f. in L. xvi. in Is. T. iv. p. 666). Of Wisdom, " Alio pro- pheta loquente " (in Jerem. i. 7. ib. p. 838). 1 " Dato nobis itaque pracepto quod dicit, — servemus man- data ut panem et vinum spiritualia invenire poterimus " in Eccl. ix. 7. T. iii. 462 ; with a law of Moses, " nec servant illud Mosaicum," then of Ecclus. vii. 6, " aliudque mandatum " in Is. L. ii. c. 3. T. iv. p. 55. 2 With the formula, " sciens scriptum," Ep. 66 ad Pam- mach. n. 5. T. i. p. 395 ; " although it is much to have practised / 2 132 Quotation of Deutero- Canonical books combines the Wisdom of Solomon with " that pro- phetic and Apostolic saying " (Ps. cxvi. 11, Rom. iii. 4) to prove that man cannot fulfil the law suffi- ciently 3 . He instances it as showing that " the Spirit " alone may signify the Holy Spirit *, and that the Holy Spirit flees the sinful soul 5 ; he quotes it as declaring that God hateth nothing which He made fi , and, together with our Lord's words, that much will be expected where much has been given 7 . I may quote here in illustration, not for you but for ourselves, the practice of Origen, Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Hilary, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, S. Am- philochius, S. Chrysostom, as writers who have left catalogues of the books, who all own no book of the Old Testament (except the Epistle of Jere- miah and the Book of Baruch) besides those in the' Hebrew, as belonging to the Christian Canon. It these " [almsgivings] " de quibus dicitur " (Ep. 79 ad Salvin. n. 5. T. i. 497), and with our Lord's words, Matt. v. 7, Luke xvi. 9, 12, and Dan. iv. (Ep. 108 ad Eustoch. n. 16. lb. 701). 3 " Et nesciat scriptum alio loco." Dial. c. Pelag. ii. 11. T. ii. 710. 4 " De quo alibi scribitur " (with S. Paul). In Ep. ad Gal. L. i. c. 3. T. vii. 420. 5 In Is. L. xvii c. 63, T. iv. 763, although, in this same place, he says that it is not Solomon's ; " in Sapientia quaa nomino Salomonis inscribitur." 6 " Dicitur quippe ad Deum." In Ep. ad Eph. L. i. c. 1. T. vii. 552. 7 "De quibus scriptum est," in Is. L. 1. c. i. 24. T. iv. 27, and as the "sententia Salomonis," lb. L. xviii. c. 65. p. 791. by Fathers, who held the stricter Canon. 133 is the result of an investigation which I made almost forty years ago, when inquiring whether the Church did or did not admit, that the Deutero- Canonical Books were written under a secondary or limited degree of inspiration. Origen is the first writer who has left an account of the received Canon of Scripture, whose own works have also been preserved. In that Canon the Epistle of Jeremiah was the only Deutero-Canonical Book admitted 8 ; others are, in different places, expressly excepted against 9 . Yet there is scarce a form in which Scripture could have been quoted, in which some of the Deutero-Canonical Books are not alleged and that not for moral precepts only, 8 In Ps. i. T. ii. p. 528. Also in Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 9 As, that " the Hebrews do not use Tobit and Judith, and have them not even among the Apocrypha in Hebrew, although Tobit was used by the Church " (Ep. ad Afric. n. 13. T. i. p. 2G). And of the Song of the Three Children in Daniel, he says, " they marked it with an obelus, as not being in the Hebrew, and those of the circumcision speak against the Book of Tobit, as not being in the Canon " (De Orat. n. 14. T. i. p. 220). Of " The Wisdom which is called Solomon's," he says that it was " not held of authority among all " (De Princip. iv. 33. T. i. p. 192), and again quotes a passage from it with the clause, (I Tts irpoaUrai koi to (In Joann. Tom. 28. n. 13. T. iv. p. 388). 1 In the citations from Origen, I have avoided the use of any doubtful authorities, as the extracts from Catena? ; and of those which only exist in the translation of Rufinus, I have employed only what he has professed to have translated lite- rally, the Homilies on Joshua, Judges, and on Ps. 36 — 38 ; and even here I have omitted such as " sicut dicit Scriptura," which are occasionally inadvertently inserted in Latin translations, but only a comment. See, e. g. T. i. pp. 97 and 123, Ruffin. Interpr., 134 Quotation of Deutero- Canonical books or for the regulation of the mind with reference to God, but sometimes for doctrines also. Wisdom 2 where the Greek has been preserved. The same has often taken place in Latin translations of the Fathers. 2 Thus the "Wisdom of Solomon is twice quoted as. "That writer of Divine "Wisdom saith " (Cant. L. iii. p. 82), in proof that the invisible things of God may be understood from those which are seen ; for which (p. 81) he alleged St. Paul. It is alleged among the passages of "Divine "Scripture" (De Princip. ii. 6. T. i. p. 82) ; among different directions relating to prayer with St. Paul (De Orat. n. 31. T. i. pp. 2G6, 267.) ; with the formula ' de quibus scriptum est ' (Horn. 20 in Num. T. ii. p. 348), as is the Wisdom of Sirach, I who read it written of Wisdom ' (lb. Horn. 28. p. 384), as what was said by 'him who was full of the wisdom of God.' (ib. Horn. 12. p. 312). It is said, that to yeypa/i- /neVov 7repi croc^ia? l(f>apij.6al (with 1 Pet.) : he cites it (ib. vi. 7. p. 634) with Proverbs as 'Upa ypdp.fj.aTa, in proof that the Divine word (6 Ottos Aoyos) urged to the study of philosophy ; and as comprised in 6 Aoyos, i. e., the revealed word (Ib. iv. 12, p. 508) ; with the formula?, ylypawrat yap (Tom. 16. in Matt. T. iii. p. 724. Tom. 32. in Joann. n. 14. T. iv. p. 442) ; " quia scriptum est " (De Princip. iv. 26. T. i. p. 189) ; -n-dXiv dAAaxoC Xiyerai (Horn. 12. in Jerem. n. 13. T. iii. p. 203 with 1. Cor.) ; "alibi scriptum est" (in Ps. 38. n. 3. T. ii. p. 691. with Prov.) ; " denique scriptum est" (Horn. 21. in Num. n. 2. T. ii. p. 353). He speaks also, in reference to this book, of persons " forgetting Divine Scripture, which says " (in Ps. 37. n. 1. T. ii. p. 686), "let us keep the precept — which is said," "which is written" (Horn. 24. n. 2. in Jos. T. ii. p. 453. Tom. 28. in Joann. n. 3. T. iv. p. 372 [with Prov.] Horn. 5. in Ezek. n. 4. T. iii. p. 375). He alleges another passage with the formula " non legisti?" (Horn. 8. in Num. T. ii, p. 295) ; and again, of the necessity of suffering in the way of righteousness, he says, " Hear the Apostle Paul, who con- firms this (2 Tim.) ; but Solomon also speaks similarly" (Horn, ii. in Jos. n. 2. T. ii. p. 425). He adduces it also to prove that there is not one evil spirit only, but as many as there are human beings who do the works of the devil (together with St. Luke and a Psalm) Horn. 15. in Jos. T. ii. p. 435, where he mentions " a certain book, called the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, but as not in the Canon," apparently as not pos- sessing the authority which he ascribes to Ecclesiasticus. He speaks of the author also as a prophet, though aware that he was not such in the usual sense of the term, " per Prophetam describit Sapientia (Prophetam etenim eum dico)," in Ps. 38. n. 7. T. ii. p. 698. 13G Origen quotes Deut.-Can. books as to doctrine. formulae used in adducing Scripture, and indis- criminately with it. Origen even argues, more than once, on the relation of the Son to the Father from the description of Wisdom, which he also says should he united in the inquiry as to the meaning of the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews 4 , as he does once also of the nature of the Holy Spirit in believers 5 . Of other books the quotations are much rarer; yet he alleges Tobit, under the name of " Scripture," in proof that (not the angels in Heaven only, who rejoice over one sinner that repenteth, but) the souls of holy men who are fallen asleep pray with those who pray aright G . For the same purpose he there quotes the Second Book of Maccabees, as he does in two other passages; on one occasion with a formula, used in citing Scrip- ture 7 . The examples of the seven Martyrs are also alleged as from Scripture s , and the creation from nothing proved out of it 9 ." Judith is quoted twice 4 Tom. 13. in Joann..n. 25. T.iw pp. 235, 236. in Ep. ad Hebr. ib. p. 697. Tom. 15 in Matt. n. 10. T. iii. p. 665, comp. Comm. in Prov. T. iii. p. 2 and De Priucip. L. 1. n. 5—10. T. 1. pp. 55 — 57, where be uses the phrases "divine Scr." "language of Scr." ■' Horn. 6. in Is. n. 5. T. iii. p. 119. 0 De Orat. n. 11. T. pp. 213, 214. 7 In Cant. L. 3. T. iii. p. 71. Tom. 13. in Joann. n. 57. T. iv. p. 273. 8 De Exhort, ad Martyr, n. 23 and 27. T. i. pp. 288, 290. 9 " Ut etiam ex Scripturarum auctoritate hsec ita se habere credamus, audi quomodo in Machabseorum libris — de hoc dogmate coufirmatur " (De Priucip. ii. 1. n. 5. T. i. p. 79). Canon of 0. T. in Eusebius. 137 only, once with an usual formula of citation in the other case, in regard to the trials by which God proves man, he says, " Judith speaks not to the elders of her own time only, but to all who read her writing 2 . Baruch he quotes once with the usual formula 3 . The frequent union of some of these books by Origen with those which occupy the corresponding place in the Christian system, which has been observed by Lardner 4 , throws mutual light upon both ; and though he gives his opinion that one of these, Hennas, is divinely inspired, it seems scarcely probable from his language in other places, that he thought it so in an equal degree with the Evangelic and Apostolic Scriptures. Eusebius. besides citing the Catalogues of i CO Josephus 5 and Melito 6 , which contain no Deutero- 1 Kara to, in Jerem. xxiii. 29. T. iii. pp. 302, 303. 2 De Orat. n. 29. T. i. p. 257. 3 yzypaincu h> tu Bapou^, in Jerem. xxxi. 1G. T. iii. p. 306. 4 Art. Origen. n. 23. 5 He quotes Josephus's authority as relating to the Old Tes- tament. " In the first of these books he sets down, as from ancient tradition, the number of the Canonical Scriptures of that which is called the Old Testament, which are uncontra- dicted among the Hebrews, in these words." (H. E. iii. 9). In that he calls it the Old Testament, it is plain that he is citing it in reference to Christians, who alone count it as the " Old Testament." 6 Melito says that he obtained his catalogue in Palestine. " Having gone up to the East, and having come to the place where these things were done and preached, and having learned 138 Eusebius's quotations from Wisdom. Canonical Book, and Origen, who has only the Epistle of Jeremiah, notices that Clement of Alexandria " 7 quoted contradicted books : Wisdom, called Solomon's, and that of Jesus, son of Sirach, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of Barnabas, and Clement and Jude ;" he says that the Maccabees " s are not received among the Divine Scriptures ;" asserts that there is no Divine book continuing the history from Zorobabel to the time of the Saviour !) ; and he, as well " 1 as Origen, Apollinarius, and other Ecclesiastical men and doctors of Greece, owned that these visions [the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon] did not exist among the Hebrews; nor had they any obligation to answer Porphyry for these things, which yield no authority of Holy Scripture." From the nature of his works, he had less occa- sion to quote Apocryphal books; his argument confining him, even in the work in which he most quotes Holy Scripture, almost exclusively to pro- phetical Scripture. Yet even here he quotes the same passage of Wisdom which Origen employed with regard to the Divinity of God the Son, as an oracle instructing concerning Him to which obedi- accurately the books of the 0. T., I subjoin and send them you." Eus. iv. 26. 7 H. B. vi. 13, p. 272. 8 In Chron. ad Olymp. 116. 4. in S. Jer. viii. 538. jjrts rmv fxtv OeoTrvevcrTtjyv ovk ecrrt in Syncell., p. 218. 9 Dem. Ev. viii., p. 368, D. 1 S. Jerome, Pref. to Daniel, Opp. v. 619. Canon of S. Athanasius. 139 ence was to be paid 2 . In the Prseparatio Evan- gelica, although he speaks expressly of the author of this book as distinct from those of Solomon * he quotes it as the "divine oracle which we have," and as Scripture 4 , as he does in his commentary on the Psalms \ S. Athanasius, in his Paschal Epistle, " G at the exhortation of true brethren, thought good to set forth in order what were transmitted as canonical, and accredited to be Divine Books." He then gives their number as twenty-two, counting in only the Epistle to Jeremiah. " These," he says, having enumerated all of the N. T., " are the fountains of salvation, that he who is athirst may be filled with the oracles therein. In these alone is taught the doc- trine of godliness ; let no one add thereto or diminish 2 yjjxiv aveiprjTai SouAeuovcri A.oyiu) 7rai8evovTL irepl avrov, Dem. Ev. v. 1. p. 216, B. comp. iv. 3. p. 147. C. 8 " So says Solomon in the Proverbs, and these things are somewhere said in his person." vii. 12, p. 321 B. (quoting Wisdom vi. 24, vii. 22— 2G, viii. 1). to Trap rjp.iv Oiiov Xoyiov to (jiauKOV, i. 9. p. 30. C. ravra fi.kv 7] ypalM, with 1 Pet. intervening; and Ep. 3. ad Serap. n. 4. p. 693, with the Ps. ovtw yap xal yeypairrai. 0 With the Ps. and St. Paul. Orat. 2. c. Arian. n. 45, p. 513. S. Hilary's Canon and quotations. 141 appeals to it as Scripture, which taught long ago its phrensied invention, and speaks of it as a witness The only other book which he quotes is Tobit, in a single passage 2 . All these are quoted as Scripture by Bishops of Thcssalonica and Egypt, whose letters arc contained in his works 3 . S. Hilary also, having spoken of the distribution of the 119th Psalm into twenty-two eights, says, " 1 This is the reason that the law of the Old Testament is arranged under twenty-two books, in order to agree with the number of the letters. These are so arranged according to the traditions of the ancients." Then, having enumerated the books, with the addition of the Epistle of Jere- miah only, he adds, " Some have thought good, adding Tobit and Judith, to count twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters." S. Hilary does not cite any Deutero-Canonical Book, except Baruch 5 , for any of the main Chris- 1 av^Oev Kal irph ttoWov Trpoe&iScKTKev ■>) ypatj)rj and «rt fidprvpi T7j ypatfrrj, Orat. c. Gentes, n. 11. pp. 11, 12. 2 cTrei&r] yiypairTai, Apol. ad Constant, n. 17. p. 305. 3 rj Upa cjirjo-L ypacpr], Ep. Alexandri, in Apol. c. Arianos, D. G(3, p. 1S3 (quoting Ecclus.) to eV reus dyi'ms y^at^cus yeypa/M- fievov, of Proverbs and Wisdom, by the Eg. and Libyan Synod (lb. n. 3, p. 125), which also quotes Tobit with the formula, yeypawrai, ib. n. 11, p. ]33. 4 Prol. in Lib. Psalm, n. 15, p. 10. Baruch iii. 3G (so often cited by the Fathers) is alleged as Jeremiah, with Moses and Isaiah. De Trin. V. ult. p. 852 ; and again in Ps. Ixviii. n. 19, p. 225. 142 S. Cyril of Jerusalem. tian doctrines. Yet he quotes Tobit 6 , as did Origen, in proof that there are angels who present our prayers to God, and with the same formula with which he had just quoted St. John ; he cites also Ecclcsiasticus with Deuteronomy r , Wisdom as Solomon's indiscriminately with Proverbs 8 , and as prophetic words, or as spoken by a prophet p . S. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks very strictly. Read the two and twenty books of these Scriptures, and have nothing- to do with the uncertain books. Those only study earnestly, which we read con- fidently even in Church. Far wiser than thou, 6 " Secundum Paphaelem ad Tobiarn loquentein." S.Hilary bad just before spoken of other ministries of angels, " secundum Joannem ;" of others, " Moyse testante ;" and of others, "Domino docente." In Ps. cxxix. n. 7. p. 439. 7 In an allegorical interpretation of the centurion mentioned in Matt. viii. 5. sqq., be says that he is "the chief of the nations who should believe ;" and adds, " Quis hie princeps sit, cui subjecti sunt plures, qui volet scire, Moysi in Deutero- nomio canticum et Salomonis librum Ecclesiasticum, ubi de dispersione gentium quondam locuti sunt, legat." In Matt, cap. 7. p. 641. He quotes it also with the formula, " secundum id quod dictum est" (Prol. in Ps. n. 20. p. 12). In anotber place (in Ps. cxl. n. 5. p. 536) he cites Ecclus. as " a book with us [the Latins] entitled Solomon's, but accounted tbe Wisdom of Sirach among the Greeks and Hebrews," with the formula " ita monemur." 8 In Ps. exxvii. n. 9. p. 427. 9 " Docet Propheta dicens, ' Spiritus Dei replevit orbem terrarum ;' " just after the Acts, and again " rursum Propheta," in Ps. cxviii. lit. 2. n. 8. p. 254; "secundum Prophetam." Ib. lit. 19. n. 8. p. 355; and "propheticae voces." de Trin. i. 7. p. 770. 1 Lect. iv. 22. n. 35, p. 50. Oxf. Tr. Canon of S. Epiplianius. 143 and more devout, were the Apostles and the ancient Bishops, the rulers of the Church, who have handed down these : thou, therefore, who art a child of the Church, trench not on their sanctions. And of the 0. T., as hath been said, study the two and twenty books." These then he enumerates, adding only Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, as forming one book with Jeremiah and the Lamentations. Copious as his quotations from Holy Scripture are, he made very little use of Deutero-Canonical Books beyond what he probably received as portions of the text of the Canon — the additions to Daniel, besides Baruch. He uses their language, but only quotes Wisdom xiii. 5, a passage much employed by the Fathers to prove that from the greatness and beauty of created things men might be raised to a higher conception of the Creator. He calls the book Solomon's 2 , and argues upon the word dva\6yo)<;. Of the lists of the sacred books in S. Epiplianius the first is avowedly the Canon of the Jews, which he alleges against the heathen philosophers. Yet he sums up, " these are the twenty-seven books which were given by God to the Jews." He adds, 3 There are other two books, questioned among them, the Wisdom of Sirach, and that of Solomon, besides some other books Apocryphal." In a second place he appeals to Aetius, who was 2 Cateches. ix. 2. p. 91. 0. T. 3 Adv. Hser. v. G. T. i. p. 19. 144 Deut.- Can. books as quoted by S. Epiphanius, harping on expressions not in Holy Scripture, and making heretical inferences from them. " 4 Thou ou^htest to have gone through from the creation of the world to the times of Esther, in the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, numbered as twenty-two, and the four holy Gospels, &c. (enumerating all the books of the N. T.), and in the Wisdoms of Solomon and the son of Sirach, and, in fine, all the Divine Scriptures, to condemn thy- self." In the third place, he uses much the same distinction as S. Jerome. Having enumerated the twenty-two Hebrew books, he sums up, " 5 Thus the twenty-two books, according to the number of the twenty-two Hebrew letters, are completed;" and adds, " But the two books, that of Solomon, called 7) IlavdpeTos, and that of Jesus, son of Sirach, descendant of the Jesus who wrote ' the Wisdom ' in Hebrew, which Jesus his descendant translated into Greek ; these too are beneficial and useful, but are not placed in the number of Scriptures. Where- fore also they were not laid up in the ark." He does not prove any of the great Christian doctrines from the books which he had thus spoken of as detached from the rest; yet he acknow- ledged the truths contained in them, as authorita- tive and as coming from God. He refers to them as the "testimony of Scripture 6 ;" he speaks "of 4 Hser. Ixxvi. c. 5. p. 941. 5 De Pond. c. 4. T. ii. 162. 0 Of Ecclus. is koX 7] ypa4>rj Curcv, Haer. sxiv. 6. T. i. p. 72. and S. Gregory of Nazianzus. 145 the Holy Spirit declaring truth in Wisdom for men of former and succeeding generations 7 ;" he appeals to it in proof of the indestructibleness of the world s , the immortality for which God created man n , the trials of the righteous the admission of children who die early to eternal bliss 2 , and of the duration of human child-bearing 3 . S. Gregory of Nazianzus gives his list, " 4 that thy mind may not be misled by strange books." He enumerates the twenty-two. Then, having gone through those of the N. T., he sums up, " Thou hast all; but if there be any out of these, it is not among the genuine." But although in this catalogue he expressly mentions " three books of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song, Proverbs," and gives no ground to think that he included Baruch in Jeremiah, he adduces ex- to Btiov ypd/x/xa of Scripture, including Ecclus. User. lxix. 57. p. 781. 7} 6ua ypa7/, Ancorat. n. 18 (Ecclus. amid other Scr.), T. ii. p. 23. to OCwv ypd/x^a, Anc. n. 12. T. ii. p 17. Wisdom is quoted, iir avrw TrXrjpovTai to ttp-q/xevov, H;cr. lxv. 1. T. i. p. G07. r)a-l rj ypa(f>i], Ancor. u. 2. T. ii. p. 7. 7 ■KpoQtrjTrL'QiDV to " hyiov Xlvev^a Kai 8ia tovs Trptsrqv kcli /xcTtTreiTa. Hseres. xxvi. 15. T. i. pp. 97, 98. 8 Hfcr. lxiv. 81. p. 554 (with Eom.). 9 lb. n. 19. p. 543. the immortality of the soul. lb. n. 3G. p. 559, where it is said to be taught by the Lord both by Himself (in S. Luke) and by Solomon. 1 lb. n. 48 (with Ps.), p. 573. 2 User, lxvii. n. 4. p. 713, where Solomon is appealed to as Trpo^Ttui' ixa.KapU ypa(j)rjs. — Orat. iv. (in Julian.) 12, p. 83. He also quoted Ecclus. in proof that mourning for the dead was permitted (with Prov. x. 7. and with the formula 4>r)al), — Orat. vii. 1, p. 199. He quotes it again with the formula fao-l, — Orat. xxxii. 21, p. 593, and with other Scriptures, — Orat. xxxvii. G, p. 649. S. Amphilochius, S. Chrysostom. 147 books." He too counts three books of Solomon, and sums up, " This is the most true Canon of the inspired Scriptures 1 ." Having alleged Isaiah, in proof that God was to be manifest to man in a higher way than to Abra- ham by angels, or to Moses by fire in the bush, or to Isaiah by the Seraphim, or to Ezekiel by the Cherubim, he subjoins, " Whence do we accredit this ? From that other voice of the prophet, saying " (quoting Baruch iii. 38 2 ). S. Chrysostom. Montfaucon has, I think, shown clearly that the introduction to the Synopsis of Holy Scripture, which he published among S. Chrysostom's works, is his 3 . In this, the irpodeupia, the first, the historical division (of which it pro- fesses to give a complete account), makes no mention of any of the Deutero-Canonical Books 4 . In the second, the preceptive, it names one only, the Wisdom of Sirach 5 , with the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles. In the third, the prophetic, it does not mention Baruch or the Epistle of Jere- miah; but there must be some corruption, Ruth being named a second time ,; , with the sixteen Prophets and the Psalms 7 . Even the insertion of 1 Ep. Iamb, ad Selenium, vv. 252—320, pp. 130—134. 2 In Christi Nat. p. 4. The same passage is interwoven in S. Deip. p. 38. 3 Opp. vi. 308—313. 4 lb. 315. 5 lb. 310. 0 '¥ov6 might possibly be a corruption of Bapov^, but it is too uncertain to argue from. 7 Both MSS. of the Synopsis are of the middle of the K 2 148 Quotation of Deut.- Canon, books the Wisdom of Sirach is inconsistent with S. Chry- sostom's belief, that the Scriptures were burnt at the Babylonish captivity, that God inspired Ezra to put them together from the fragments, that Christ received them at His coming, and that the Apostles diffused them 8 . Yet S. Chrysostom gives the name of Scripture or Divine Scripture often to Ecclesiasticus, and, less frequently, to the Wisdom of Solomon. They are quoted against pride, undue speculation, of the government of speech ; or, more devotionally, Eccle- siasticus is quoted as to trials in the commencement of the Christian course 9 , of the office of charity to fifteenth century, but that of the -n-poOewpia is by a good scribe from a good MS. ; the second, the Leyden MS., is by an inferior scribe. This contains Synopses of Tobit, Judith, "Wisdom of Solomon, as well as of Leviticus, the Chronicles, the Third Book of Esdras (which now too is not in the Canon), Esther, Job, Proverbs. But the additional matter is mostly identical with the Synopsis, which, it is agreed, is not S. Athanasius's. In this, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and of Sirach are mentioned as external to the Canon. It is improbable that the author of the Synopsis in S. Athanasius, which is complete, should have taken as from S. Chrysostom those only which are peculiar to this single MS. Whereas it is probable enough that the late and not very skilful copyist should have filled out his MS. from the Synopsis in S. Athanasius. None of these Synopses, which are common to this MS. and the Synopsis in S. Athanasius, have any of those marks which Montfaucon points out as characteristic of S. Chrysostom. 8 Horn. 8 in Ep. ad Hebr. n. 4. T. xii. p. 90. 0 " Hast thou not heard what Scripture saith ?" Adv. Jud. viii. 6. T. i. p. 683. The passage is again quoted as ns bs, ad Stag. i. G. T. i. p. 170; also with the word ^rjcrlv, T. ii. P. 17; kgu 7raAti', after S. Paul, i. 721, iii. 284. in S. Chrysostom. 149 purify the soul from sin that man may not justify himself before God 2 ,. against presuming on God's mercy, to sin 3 . Wisdom he quotes, in proof that Satan fell before the creation of man, as Scripture 4 . Although most commonly alleged with the formula " he, or, it saith," " one " or " a certain wise man," Ecclesiasticus is quoted directly as Scripture 5 , or after other Scripture 6 , or as " the Prophet 7 ," or the " Old Testament V Wisdom is also quoted as Scripture 9 and " Divine Scripture V' under the same formula as S. Paul, in proof that some 1 Eccl. iii. 30 foal Horn. 31 in Gen. nit. T. iv. p. 315. Horn. 7 [6] in Joanu. n. s. fin. T. viii. p. 47. Horn. 9. in Hebr. n. 4. T. xii. p. 99, "hear what Divine Scripture saith," quoting S. Luke xi. 2, then Prov. xvi. 6, then Eccl. iii. 30, each with ko.1 ttolXlv. 2 Eccl. vii. 5 as Solomon's, in ill. Vidi Dom. Horn. iii. 1. T. vi. 113. 3 Eccl. v. 6 as Scripture. Horn. 15 in Ep. ad Eph. n. 2. T. xi. p. 30. 4 Wisd. ii. 24. Horn. 22 in Gen. n. 2. T. iv. p. 195. "Scrip- ture teacheth us otherwise, that," &c, "as also "a certain wise man saith." 6 Besides the places quoted, T. i. p. 348 ; T. vii. 537 ; T. xi. 125, and 145. 0 After Ps. and Isa. T. ii. p. Ill ; as e'rcpos, T. v. pp. 101 110. 313. 432. 434, x. 602 ; and with the formula? aAAos crocks Tts avYjp, xi. 73, dXAa^oJ foalv, X. 130. 292, /ecu erepuiOi tt&Xiv, in the midst of Scriptures, xii. 90. 7 T. iv. 194. 397. 8 rj TraAcua, T. vii. 223. 764 (with Prov.) ix. 87, iv rfj TraXcua r)), as Theodoret of Alabanda of Caria (1393), o-vp.(f>u>vovo-r)-crvvat.vC>. 8 Polychronius of Epiphania of Cilicia (col. 1385), " in the faith of the 318 of Nice and the 150 at Constantinople we were both baptized and baptize, and finding," &c, John of Germanicia (1377). In every case the reference is to previous faith, with which that set forth by S. Leo was identical. Neoptolemus of Corna in Lycaonia, says, " Our country, from the first pure from heretical diseases, had not been exercised by such questions, and we have believed more simply, following the faith of the fathers, set forth at Nice, which Cyril of blessed memory subsequently interpreted, and again the most holy Archbishop Leo of Eorne ; and we do not oppose these expositions" (1389). In much the same way Paul of Derbe in Lycaonia (1392). Florefftius, of Adrianopolis of Pisidia, says, " "We have so believed before the exposition of S. Cyril and Leo" (1389). Some put the Epistles of Cyril and Leo together as agreeing ; Julian of Celenderis (1388) ; Eomanus of Myra (1389) ; Eunomius of Nicomedia speaks of S. Leo as having carefully followed (i£aKo\ov0rjv, Dokimasius of Maronea Rhodop. (1377) ; tKptva, Eusebius of Dorylseum (1365) ; c8oKiixa.a-ap.ev, Acholius of Laranda (1392). 1 Tre-!rXr]po(j>6prjij.at. Constantius of Melitene of the Second Armenia (col. 1364) ; "having persuaded myself (ip.avr6v TrX-qpo- oprj(ra%) from many things," Erontinianus of Sagalassus (1389) ; ^Etherius of Pompeiopolis, Tr\rjpo(popy]6(U (1369) ; Philip of Lysias Phryg. (1392). 2 Seven Bishops of the Eirst Macedonia, seven of Hellas, five of old Epirus, two of new Epirus, four of Crete, and six Metropolitans, Tliessalonica, Corinth, Nicopolis, Dyrrhachium, Larissa, and Gortyne (col. 1380, 1381). 1 Dictated by Marcian, Bishop of Jotapa, in the name of fifteen Bishops of Palestine (ib. col. 1380. 1384). 2G6 Vtk Gen. Council ascertains that Illrd IVth Christ, but of one and the same Lord, the Son of God,' ' wherefore we have agreed and have subscribed the tome. We believe that they too now, if they be invited by your greatness, will confess the same for the benefit of the whole world.' All the aforesaid most reverend Bishops said, ' We have all said the same things, and agree therewith.' " Bossuet cites to the same effect the adhesion of Eusebius of Milan with a Council of nineteen other Bishops, who having, after the Council, received the Epistle of S. Leo r said to him, — ■ " 4 It was evident that it shone forth, full of the simplicity of faith, and that through evidences from the prophets, autho- rities of the Gospels, and testimonies of the Apostolic doctrine, it radiates with a pure light and brightness of truth ; and, in all its meanings, agrees with what Bl. Ambrose, moved by the Holy Ghost, inserted in his books on the mystery of the Incar- nation of the Lord. And since all things agree in all purity with the faith of our forefathers, it seemed good to us all — that those who think impiously of the mystery of the Incarna- tion of the Lord, should, by their consent too, meet with the befitting condemnation, the sentence of your authority preceding." S. Leo himself speaks of the strength which the faith had gained through the concurrence of the 600 Bishops of the Council and of the whole world. " 6 Now there is no excuse of ignorance or difficulty of understanding left to any, since this very Synod of 600, our brethren and fellow-Bishops, allowed no art of reasoning, no eloquence of discussion, to breathe against the foundation of faith, since, through exertions of our brethren and vicars, aided by the grace of God, it appeared fully and evidently, not only 4 Ep. Euseb. Mediol. post Ep. 52 Leon. L, Cone. iv. 583. Col. 6 Ep. 52, Episc. Gall. Cone. iv. 581. Col. pronounced nothing without examination. 267 to all the priests of Christ, but also to the Christian princes and powers, and to all clergy, peoples, orders, that this is truly the Apostolic faith, flowing from the fountain of Divine piety, which, as we have received, so we preach, pure and free from the dregs of error, and maintain, the whole world now agreeing therein." All this is summed up in the Vth General Council, in which, having been assembled a cen- tury after the IVth, inquiry was had — " 6 How writings on the faith were approved in the Third and Fourth Councils. After examination of the Acts as to the Epistles of S. Cyril and S. Leo, the holy Synod said: 'From what has been recited, it is manifest how sacred Synods are wont to approve what is produced in them. For great as was the renown of those holy men who wrote those Epistles recited, yet they did not pass the approbation of those Epistles simply or without examination, unless they had first 7 known that they throughout agreed with the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which comparison was made.' "As to the Epistle of Ibas," says Bossuet, "it was clear from the Acts that this was not so done. They concluded, then, very rightly that that Epistle was not approved. So, then, it was certain from the Third and Fourth Synods, as the Fifth defined and understood, that Epistles approved by the Apostolic See, as that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were not received by the sacred Synods simply or without inquiry. "Again, in the same Fifth Synod, what was done against the Epistle of Nestorius was read, wherein the fathers of Ephesus pronounce distinctly that the Epistle of Xestorius is ' 8 no wise consonant to the faith set forth at Nice.' So that Epistle too was rejected, not simply ; but, as was meet, inquisition had, 6 Boss. vii. 19. 7 Cone. Const, ii. (gener. v.) collat. vi. T. v. 541. 8 lb. 268 Councils examined writings of Popes or heretics. Ibas was condemned, ' 9 who said tbat Nestorius was con- demned in the Council of Ephesus without examination and inquiry.' " The fathers proceed to do what the Bishops of Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken to examine the Epistle of Ibas. They compare tbat Epistle with the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Which being done, 1 the sacred Synod said, ' The comparison made shows manifestly, that the Epistle which Ibas is said to have written is throughout contrary to the definition which the Synod of Chalcedon pronounced for the right faith.' All the Bishops exclaimed, ' We all say this; the Epistle is heretical.' " Thus, then, according to the fifth Synod, our holy fathers in the (Ecumenical Councils pronounce in the same way that the Epistles, whether of Catholics or heretics, or even of Koman Pontiffs, even when written on the faith, were orthodox or heretical, having investigated and thus ascertained the truth by lawful cognizance, and then giving judgment thereon. " But, you will say, did they make no difference and keep their minds evenly balanced in both cases ? I have said, and will often say, that there was a presumption in favour of orthodox Pontiffs ; but in (Ecumenical Councils, where judg- ment was to be given in matters of faith, they must needs act, not on presumption, but on a clear perception of truth." The contradiction of the Constitutum of Vigilius by the Vth General Council, and the condemnation of Honorius by the Vlth have occurred already. I would, however, subjoin Mgr. Maret's abridgment of the Decretal Epistle, in which Vigilius accepted the condemnation of the three chapters, which he had before rejected, and had come under the general condemnation of the Council, of their ' lb. coll. viii. cap. xiv. col. 578. 1 lb. coll. vi. col. 54:8. Retractation of Pope Vigilius. 269 defenders, and of those who have written or write in their defence 2 . " 3 Six months after the close of the Council, Vigilius gave a decretal to confirm its sentence. It is addressed to the Patri- arch Eutychius and the Council of Constantinople. " The Pope begins by affirming that it is the devil, enemy of the human race and of the Church of Jesus Christ, who, by his artifices, succeeded in separating him from his brothers and co-Bishops of the Council, those brothers who profess an equal and inviolable faith in the four general Councils. Under this unhappy influence, he who was of one mind in one faith, had despised brotherly love, and had been led away to discord. But Jesus Christ, our God, "Who is the true Light, had removed all confusion from his mind ; and, to restore peace to the Church, had ' taught him, after careful research, what he ought to define.' He declares then to his brethren, that with them he venerates the four Councils. Then, recalling the trouble which had arisen about the three Chapters, and what various things had been done and said thereon, he says that he had thought it his duty to re-examine these questions ; and, after the example of S. Augustine and other fathers, who reviewed, corrected, supplemented their writings, he had with the greatest care sought the truth on all these matters. The result of this examination had been to discover to him the errors of Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas. He concludes with these words, ' We condemn and anathematize the three impious chapters, i. e. the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his impious writings, and what Theodoret wrote impiously, and the Epistle said to have been written by Ibas, wherein the aforesaid profane blasphemies are contained.' Vigilius enume- rates the errors of Ibas in the terms which the Council had 2 Cone. Const, ii. collat. 8. Cone. vi. 206. Col. 3 Du Concile general et de la paix religieuse, T. i. p. 263. Mgr. Maret entertains no doubt of the genuineness of the Epistle of Vigilius, as, indeed, I see not what can be alleged against it. See De Marca's Diss., Cone. vi. 245, sqq. 270 Mgr. Maret on retractation of VigUius employed. He ends, as did the Council, by subjecting to ana- thema all the defenders of the three Chapters, and he annuls (evacuamus) all which he had himself written in their defence." "It cannot be doubted," says Mgr. Maret subsequently 4 , "that the Constitutum was a solemn judgment of the Holy See, a judgment invested with all its authority. " At the commencement of this act Vigilius recalls the right of his see to give his sentence first. The decree bears on matters of faith or dogmatic facts. It had for it the adhesion of a minority of Bishops. It contains the most formal orders, and is addressed to a Council, which regards itself as general. " Some respectable theologians have objected, however, that this decree lacked one of the conditions of solemn and irre- fragable judgment of the Apostolic See, since it did not pro- nounce excommunication on the refractory. " Without entering into the question whether excommuni- cation is a rigorously necessary condition of the dogmatic judgment of the Holy See, we would say to these theologians, that if they had read the Constitutum carefully, they might have counted in it sixty-one anathemas. Excommunication, then, occurs in it sixty-one times. This last condition, then, of solemn judgments of the Holy See exists superabundantly. It is true, however, that the last excommunication alone is directed against the adversaries of the Epistle of Ibas. But does not one excommunication suffice to fulfil the required condition ? " The Council, we saw, regarded this act of Yigilius as not happened ; and its sentence, in a capital point, differed essen- tially from that of Yigilius. The Council declared that letter of Ibas, which the Pope had declared orthodox, to be impious and heretical ; and the sentence of the Council prevailed over the sentence of the Pope, since the Pope withdrew and annulled his own to confirm that of the Council. " 5 As it was not the judgment of the Pope which became law, but that of the Council ; as the majority did not go to the 4 Du Concile general et de la paix religieuse, T. i. p. 26S. 5 lb. p. 270. and acceptance of Pope Agatkd's letter. 271 Pope, but the Pope to the majority ; as the Council brought over the Pope to its mind, it was proved on this solemn occa- sion, more than, perhaps, it had ever been, that a legitimate Council possesses a light and an authority peculiar to itself, and which is not lost on account of a passing disagreement with a Pope. " It was proved that the Council may enlighten the Pope, and that the union and unity of the Episcopate and the Holy See may be established by the deference of the Pope towards the Bishops, as well as by that of the Bishops towards the Pope." In the Vlth General Council, besides the con- demnation of Honorius, there occurred the recep- tion, after examination, of the dogmatic letter of Pope Agatho, the mode of whose reception is illus- trated by the corresponding condemnation of Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, and his doctrine. I will again give both in the words of Mgr. Maret. " 6 What is of most importance to appreciate, is the manner in which the Council accepted the Pontifical letter which had been read in the fourth session. " The Pontifical letter, having been written scarcely a year before, could not have the adhesion of the universal Church ; and the Vlth Council, like the preceding, had the right to examine whether this letter was a faithful exposition of the faith. " At the end of the seventh session, and when all the authori- ties on both sides had been produced, the legates demanded of the Patriarchs, George of Constantinople, Macarius of Antioch, and the Bishops of their Patriarchates, ' 7 whether they agreed 0 Du Concile general et de la pais religieuse, T. i. pp. 282, sqq. 7 Cone. Const, iii. p. 724. 272 Mgr. Maret on acceptance of Agatha? s letter with the tenour of the two suggestions which had been read, i. e. of Agatho the most holy Pope of the Apostolic See, and of the Council under him.' The Patriarchs and their Bishops answered, ' We ask for copies of the aforesaid suggestions. For, going over them and comparing the testimonies of the approved holy fathers in them with the MSS. of the Patri- archal library, we shall in the next session give a competent answer 8 .' This request was granted instantly." " Three weeks afterwards the eighth session was held, in which were proclaimed the result of the examination and the votes. The Emperor, with the consent of the legates, solemnly put this question to the Patriarchs and their Bishops, ' Do you agree with the sense of the suggestions of Agatho and his Council?' 9 " "The Patriarch George answered, — " ' Having inspected the whole bearing of the relation sent by Agatho,. the most holy Pope of the elder Some, and his Synod ; and having searched the books of the holy and ap- proved fathers, laid up in my Patriarchate, I found all the testimonies of the holy and approved fathers contained in those relations agreeing, and in nothing differing therefrom, and I agree therewith, and so I confess and believe.' " All the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople except one, who raised a difficulty which he afterwards with- drew, opined in the same sense and almost the same words as the Patriarch. " This vote was followed with the usual acclamations in honour of the Emperor, the Pope, the Patriarch of Constanti- nople, the Senate. " The Council afterwards asked that Macarius should make his profession of faith-as to the two wills of Jesus Christ." On his denying this, the Council said, — " Since he does not consent to the force of the orthodox 8 Cone. Const, iii. p. 725, s lb. 729. and condemnation of Macarius. 273 relations sent by Agatho — which have been read before your Piety, which also we have all gladly received, agreeing there- with, we judge that he should leave his seat, having to answer for this V " In the course of his interrogation every means of explaining and defending himself was given him, every effort made to bring him back from his error. At last, aban- doned by his Bishops, convicted of having mutilated the passages of the fathers which he cited in his behalf, he was condemned and deposed'. " The consequences of these facts are grave, and fully con- firm the preceding conclusions. " First, it is evident, from the conduct of the Vlth Council towards the Monothelites, and especially to Macarius, Patri- arch of Antioch, that these sectaries, who were certainly in error and already condemned by an authority worthy of the greatest respect, were not definitively banished from the Church, save by the sentence of the Council. " In the second place, it is as clear as the day, that the acceptance of the letter of Pope S. Agatho by the Vlth Coun- cil was the fruit of a free judicial examination. This liberty of examination shows itself there yet more signally than at Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is not a minority, it is the great majority, almost the totality of the Bishops, who, before ad- hering to the doctrine of Agatho, demands to examine, not only the citation, but the sense and whole contents of the Apostolic letter. Could the intention of not accepting a decision without cognizance of the case be possibly ex- pressed more precisely than did the Patriarch George ? The Episcopal examination might last three weeks, and the difference of the results of this examination is a new proof of its freedom. The result of the examination of George and his Bishops was the acceptance of the letter of Agatho. The result 'of the examination of Macarius was its rejection. It will never be shown that the examinations of both Patriarchs were not of the same nature, equally free. They differed only 1 Cone. Const, iii. Cone. vii. 767. Col. 5 lb. 787. S 27 '4 Letter of 'Pope submitted to Vllth Gen. Council, in their consequences. Although belonging to the Monothelite party before the Council, George, inspired by the love of truth alone, recognized his error. Macarius, the most obsti- nate of men, persisted in his. " Be it remarked too, that not the letter of Agatho alone, but that of the Roman Synod, became the object of the examination of the Council. Certainly no one will say that this last letter ought to have been accepted by the Council without a free examination. Well, then, it is indisputable that the Council, in regard to the examination, made no difference between the two letters. " Certainly, if the examination of the Pontifical letter had, as a respectable school would have it, been purely confirmatory, the Council, instead of suspending its adhesion for three weeks, would have begun by an act of submission to Pontifical autho- rity, under condition, if you will, of confirming its adhesion subsequently by a learned discussion. Nothing of the kind ; the acceptance and submission were the fruit of the examina- tion, and did not precede it. This fact, patent by the Acts of the Council, is expressly confirmed by the Emperor in the letter which he wrote to Pope Leo II., to announce to him the conclusion of this grave matter." " 3 After the words of the Gospels and Apostles had been weighed, and what had been defined by holy universal Councils had been compared with it [the Epistle], and the testimonies adduced in it had, moreover, been compared with the books of the fathers, nothing was found not consonant therewith, and the character of a true confession was found in it, wholly unchanged." In the Vllth General Council the practice of the IVth was continued, that letters of the Pope were read, and formally approved as being consonant to Holy Scripture and the inherited faith. Bossuet says, — " 4 When Adrian I. had, according to the custom of former 3 Sacra Constant, ad Leon. Cone. vii. 1137. 4 Def. vii. 30. and approved on examination. 275 Pontiffs, expounded in letters to the Seventh Synod the true doctrine of the relative cultus of images of Christ and of the saints, the fathers also, after the custom of their forefathers, examined those letters synodically. For, when two letters of the holy Pontiff had been read, the one to the Emperor, the other to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople 6 , the Legates of the Apostolic See inquired, ' Let the most holy Patriarch, Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, say, whether he agrees with the letters of the most holy Pope of elder Rome ?' Tarasius, thus asked, professes that he does agree : ' 6 For we too have searched, examining the Scriptures, and taught by the doctrine of the Fathers ', and proving by deduction ; so, what we have confessed, we do and will confess : we agree and confirm the force of the Epistles read.' " It is clear, then, that the Epistles of Adrian were approved by Tarasius in such wise, that he himself, weighing the matter, felt and, after inquisition, understood ' that they were in con- formity with the Scriptures, tradition, and that faith which he had received of old.' After which words of Tarasius the sacred Synod said, ' The whole most sacred Synod so believes, so thinks, so dogmatizes.' By which words the whole Synod declares that it consents to Adrian, the author of the Epistles, and to Tarasius, who, after understanding and weighing the grounds, approved them. And, to make this clearer, the Synod was asked by the Apostolic legates in this form ; ; * Let the holy Synod tell us whether it admits the Epistle3 of the most holy Pope of elder Eome or no.' An inquiry which neither right reason nor faith allows as to a matter on which an irre- fragable judgment has been passed. To this question the sacred Synod said, ' We follow, and receive, and admit.' " Whence, after the matter had been weighed with the 5 Epist. Adr. I. ad Imp. et ad Taras. Cone. vii. act. ii. Cone, vii. 99, sq. 122, sq. 6 lb. col. 127. 7 Boss, notices that this clause is in the old version, as well as in the Greek. 8 Cone. vii. act. vii. defin. col. 130. S 2 276 Infallibility at time of Council of Frankfort deepest attention, a Synodal definition is made, resting on the consent and authority, not of the one Roman Pontiff, hut of the whole Catholic Church." They say, "'Christ, having espoused unto Himself His holy Catholic Church, not having spot or wrinkle, promised that He would preserve her, saying, ' I am with you always.' But this promise He gave, not to them only, but to us also, who through them have believed in His Name." " 1 This promise they lay as a foundation, not the definition of the Roman Pontiff, however venerable, about which they deliberate. "Wherefore they subjoin immediately, ' Wherefore the Lord our God hath of His goodness called together from all sides us, the chiefs of the priesthood, that the deific tradition of His Catholic Church may receive firmness by a common decree ;' which words show clearly that the force of ecclesiastical judgments lay in that consent. ' 2 We add nothing, we take away nothing ' (viz. from the common and universal tradition), ' but keep unmutilated all which belongs to the Catholic Church.' " " 3 Having laid down this, they conclude thus : ' This being so, keeping to the track of the royal road and following the authority of our divinely-inspired Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, which we know to be that of the Holy Spirit which indwelleth her, we define in all certainty and diligence,' &c. Whence it appears that that supreme and indisputable certainty lies in the consent of the Catholic Church; yea, in the authority of the Holy Spirit, Who teacheth the universal Church." The subsequent history brings out the fact which lay in the previous examination of documents approved by or emanating from the Pope, that not only was the personal infallibility of the Pope no matter of belief, but also that that other theory was not held, that infallibility lay in the united 9 Cone. vii. act. vii. defin. col. 551. 1 Boss. diss, praev. n. 62. s lb. 554. ! Boss. vii. 30. not held to be in Pope and particular Council. 277 voice of a Pope and a particular Council. For those letters of the Pope which were so examined, had already heen accepted by Roman Councils. The Westerns were probably misinformed as to the meaning of the Second Council of Nice, and so resisted its decree, as holding it to contradict the second commandment. But, in matter of form, both the Council of Frankfort and the writers of the Caroline books claimed, as Sismundi says, that they were opposed, not to an (Ecumenical Council, but " to a Council which still lacked the adherence of so many provinces, and almost of the whole West 4 ." The fact that the Pope had been the author of the letters which the Council accepted, and had accepted the Council itself, did not hinder the French Bishops from considering it as an open question, or, with the leave of Eugenius II., sending him " collections from the books of the holy Fathers to aid him in answering the inquiries of the Greeks 5 ." The VHIth General Council, as the Westerns count it, was on no matter of faith ; but still the same forms were preserved. Bossuet sums up the result of his examination of the eight first Councils thus : — " 0 We have seen this tradition deduced from the Apostles 4 Sismund. adn. ad oau. ii. Cone. Francof. Cone. vii. 1055, in Boss. vii. 31. 5 Boss, from the Common. Lud. Pii. Cone. vii. 1548, 1519. • lb. vii. 33. 273 Bossuefs summary of the to the eight first General Councils. "Which eight General Councils are the foundations of the whole Christian doctrine and discipline; the four first of which the Catholic Church, after S. Gregory 7 , venerates no otherwise than the four Gospels. Nor is less observance shown to the rest, since, acted upon by the same Spirit, they have the same authority. Which eight Councils, with a great and unanimous consent, placed the irrefragable force of defining in nothing else than the consent of the fathers. The sk last [rather iii. — vii.] sub- jected to a legitimate examination the promulged judgment of the Roman Pontiff even as to faith, with the approbation of the Apostolic See, the question being put thus, 1 Are these decrees right or no ?' as we read in "the Aets. " Let Stapleton then, and the authors quoted in the treatise, ' The Doctrine of Louvain,' and the anonymous author on the Gallican liberties 8 who follows them, hold their peace, who pro- nounce thus against the truth of the Acts.: ' In all those Coun- cils, the fore-judged sentence of the Roman Pontiff was held to be the norm and rule of faith ;' and, which is the same, ' that a dogmatic Epistle of the Apostolic See to the Synod held the place of a full and unquestionable tradition ;' whereby alone they attest that they never read thoroughly with attention or sound judgment the Acts of the Synods, since these contain a legitimate consideration and examination of dogmatic Epistles. " We have never seen the judgments df a General Council so reconsidered, but all at once readily obeyed ; nor after that examination was any new inquiry allowed to any one, but punishment was inflicted. So Constantine; so Marcian ; so Celestine ; so Leo ; so all the rest, whom we have seen in the Acts. The Christian world acknowledged all this as certain and unshaken. "Add that saying of S. Gelasius, an excellent Pontiff, <9 A good and Christian Synod, once passed, cannot and ought not to be discredited by any reiteration of a new Synod.' And 7 Greg. M. Epp. i. 25 (Opp. ii. 515), and iii. 10. Ib. 632, &c. 8 See Doct. Lov. and Tract, de Libert. &c, vii. 4 and 5. • Gelas. Ep. 13. ad Episc. Dard. Cone. iv. 1204, 1205. eight first General Councils. 279 again, ' There is no ground why a good Synod should be re- considered by another Synod, lest the re-considering itself should detract from the firmness of its enactments.' Those things, then, which are settled by the ultimate and certain judgment of the Church stand irrefragable. For the judgment of the Holy Spirit is discredited, whensoever it is reconsidered by a new judgment. But a judgment propounded by a Roman Pontiff is of such sort, that it was reconsidered by a new judg- ment. It was not then that last and ultimate judgment of the Church. " Nor is that declaration of Gregory the Great less clear, wherein he compares the four General Councils to the four Gospels, recording the reason, ' 1 since they were con- stituted with universal consent, whoever presumes either to loose what they bind, or to bind what they loose, destroys himself, not them.' " Now, then, our question is finished by the tradition of the ancient Councils and of the Fathers. All ought to be satisfied with this power of the Roman Pontiff, explained according to the decree of the Council of Florence from the practice of General Councils. The vast difference between the judgment of a Council and of the Pontiff is manifest, since after the judgment of a Council no question remained, but only the obedience of the subjugated understanding; but the judgment is, after examination, so approved in such wise, that, if occasion were, it could be disapproved 2 ." I have occupied your attention, my dearest friend, with these long extracts from Bossuet's memorable Defence of the Declaration of the Gal- lican Clergy, on different aspects of the Pontifical authority, with a view partly to the actual, partly to a possible state of things. 1 Epp. L. i. ep. 25. 8 Greg. M. Epp. i. 25. 280 The principles of Bossuet well adapted Bossuet, of course, could not but have disapproved, under any circumstances, our present state of isolation from the Roman See. But if the autho- rity of the Roman See in the time of Henry VIII. had only been that which Bossuet speaks of as the legitimate exercise of that authority — enforcing - the observance of the canons, but regulated and limited by them, leaving the right of appointment to ecclesiastical offices to those in whom they were of old canonically vested, as they were secured in France by the Pragmatic Sanction — there would have been no room for the abuses which were complained of for centuries and unremedied, and which furnished an excuse, to which Henry VIII. appealed. And now too, I believe that the recognition of the principles of Bossuet would remove the objec- tions both of people and Clergy. We English — whether from our Saxon cha- racter, or from our national institutions, which are its outgrowth and which have re-acted upon us, or from a right instinct as to human frailty, or from past experience, or from all mingled together — have a great dread of irresponsible power. We have never known of the Papacy as any other ; our historians relate how, during centuries, our fore- fathers groaned under the pecuniary exactions of the Court of Rome, and the intrusion of foreign Bishops, who understood not the language of their flocks, and did not know their sheep. Or at a to the character of the English. 231 later time, fruitless as it was, we remember the deposition of two sovereigns, the freeing of their subjects from their allegiance, and the giving away of England to a foreign invader, if any had been found willing to accept the gift which the Pope bestowed so freely. The hereditary oath, very gratuitously required of us who have no tempta- tion to hold what is disavowed, as to the power of the Pope, direct or indirect, over the realms whose Sovereigns he excommunicates, has im- pressed this on successive generations of English- men. This, which we remember in history, is still a living system among you. In your communion too, as in our own, that saying seems to have its fulfil- ment, "Two nations are in thy womb;" and which shall have the ascendancy, and expel or absorb the other, none knows save He in Whose hands are the hearts of His creatures. Mgr. Maret, in his recent work, states the two opposite systems of the Italian and Gallican schools; and this, although belonging himself to the Gal- lican school, he does with great reverence and tenderness for the authority of the Pope. " A celebrated school, worthy of respect, hesitates not to recognize that the Bishops are not simple vicars of the Pope ; that they are ' true princes,' possessing an authority which specially belongs to them, and, in part, of Divine origin. The theologians of this school own that the Pope could not sup- press the Episcopate and govern the Church by Vicars Apos- tolic. They agree that the Bishops may participate in tho 282 Mgr. Maret and Ferraris' statements general government of the Church, in the measure which the Pope determines 3 . " Notwithstanding these acknowledgments and concessions, it is not less evident, that, in the system of this school, the Pope possesses a monarchy pure, indivisible, absolute, unlimited. He possesses a pure monarchy, since he sees nothing in the Church by his side or above him; an indivisible monarchy, since he knows no necessary sharing of his sovereignty ; an absolute monarchy, since he alone makes the law, and imposes an absolute obedience to the law which he makes ; an un- limited monarchy, since he is responsible to God alone for the use of his authority. In despite of all the formulae which affirm its tempered character, the Pontifical monarchy remains then a power, which has no counterpoise but the sacred duties of Christian faith and virtue 4 ." "A pure and absolute monarchy, in which all jurisdiction is of Divine right, derived from the Pope alone ;" " absolute, separate, personal infalli- bility " absolute superiority even over general Councils ;" " absolute authority over canons " or ecclesiastical law- "absolute personal irresponsi- bility" except to the judgment-seat of Christ; " absolute personal infallibility " — these are, in barest language, the claims of the Italian School for the Pope 5 . " c The one single source of the jurisdiction of Bishops and of their power of government, whether without or within the Councils, the Pope, to the extreme school, becomes the abso- lute master of Episcopal jurisdiction. For he, the only true 3 " Du Concile general et de la Paix religieuse," i. 130, 131. 4 The Italian School and Bellarmine. 6 Stated and answered by Bishop Maret, 1. iv. 6 lb. T. ii. p. 10. of Italian theory of Papal authority. 283 legislator, remains ever superior to the disciplinary laws which he makes ; he may, without being bound by any legal prescription, but consulting his conscience only — which some- times comes to acting according to his sole pleasure — give or refuse canonical institution, extend or limit Episcopal autho- rity, modify the extent of dioceses, create new bishoprics, transfer, judge, suspend, depose Bishops, even causelessly. In a word, he can do every thing to the Episcopate, if not rightly yet validly, except decree its complete abolition. All these consequences are accepted and proved, in their manner, by the extreme theologians V Mgr. Maret speaks only of the unlimited extent of the power ascribed to the Pope. Ferraris, in a book whose nature excludes declamation, and so whose words are to be taken strictly, a digest or summarv of Pontifical law, follows the older Canonists, the great upholders of Pontifical power, in describing, in startling terms, the ground of that unlimited authority. " 8 The Pope is of such dignity and exaltedness that he is not simple man, but, as it were, God and Vicar of Christ. The Pope, for the excellence of his supreme dignity, is called Bishop of Bishops ; also Bishop of the universal Church ; also Bishop or Diocesan of the whole world ; also Divine Monarch and Supreme Emperor and King of kings. Tea, the excellence and power of the Roman Pontiff is not simply about things in heaven and earth and under the earth, but even above angels, of whom he is greater. So that, if it were possible that angels should err in faith or be minded against the faith, they could be judged or excommunicated by the Pope. Whatsoever the 7 " All these theses may be seen in the treatise ' De Episcopo ' of the Abbe Bouix." Paris, 1859. " Mgr. Maret." * Ferraris Biblioth. Jurid. v. Papa. 284 " Civilta;" Xtian life faith are from the Pope. Pope doth, seemeth to proceed out of the mouth of God. The Pope is, as it were, God upon earth, the one Prince of Christ's faithful people, the supreme King of all kings, containing the plenitude of power, to whom is entrusted by Almighty God the governance both of the earthly and heavenly empire." The idea of the hypothetical excommunication of Angels has, indeed, been censured by an editor, as an absurd hyperbole ; the doctrine would, if taken literally, contradict the faith. But such imagina- tions illustrate the character of the theory from which they proceed. Even this passage, in some respects, does not reach the force of the article in the Civilta, some of which, apart from the context, might be thought to relate to God the Holy Ghost. " 9 It is not enough that the people should know that he [the Pope] is the head of the Church and of the Bishops ; he ought to understand that from him proceeds his own faith, from him his own religious life ; in him resides the band which unites Catholics together, the force which consolidates them, the guide which directs them : that he is the dispenser of spiritual graces ; he, the promoter of the benefits which religion imparts ; he, the conservator of righteousness ; he, the protector of the oppressed." Again, — " 1 The treasures of this revelation, the treasures of truth, the treasures of righteousness, the treasures of spiritual graces, have been by God deposited on earth in the hands of a man who is the sole dispenser and guardian — this man is the Pope. This 3 Civilta, 1867, T. xii. p. 86; quoted in the original in Der % Papst u. das Concil, p. 41. 1 lb. 1868, T. iii. p. 259 ; quoted ib. p. 43. R. C. picture of the existing Papal system. 285 is evidently included in his title of Vicar of Christ. Since he sustains in earth the place of Christ, this means that he con- tinues in the world the work of Christ, and, in respect of us, is that which Christ would be, if by Himself and visibly He governed the Church." We, then, are not surprised to hear such voices as that of a pious Spanish nobleman, writing in Germany and German, — " 2 As Savigny denied to the deeply disordered time any call to secular legislation, we must do the same in the pro- vince of the Church, and that, in reference to that so exceed- ing sickly condition of the Church, such as the holy Pope Gregory the Great described : ' 3 Since in those days the Church, weakened by a sort of old age, could no longer bear sons through preaching, she remembers her ancient fruitfulness.' " For what a diametrically opposite conception of the Church prevails. According to it, the Pope is absolute monarch ; of course, vice-monarch (yet so that often mention is scarce made of the true Monarch), and the other Bishops, or rather the Bishops, are his vicars, his delegates, a sort of prefects of this monarch, whom he has set over the provinces of his kingdom. They receive his commands (so they are called unreservedly and without any remaining shame, both there whence they are issued and there where they are received, however little this fits with the well-known words of our Lord 4 and of the holy Apostle Peter 6 , and with the whole history of the Church) ; and those Bishops who receive such commands, act unreservedly according to them, or, if they make any reserves, they are coerced in every conceivable way ; 2 Die Kirche Gottes und die Bischofe, von H. St. A. von Liafio, pp. 39 — 41. 3 Moral, in Job xxix. ; c. 12. L. xix. Opp. i. 613. 4 "Luke xxii. 25 — 27, and in many other places." 6 1 Pet. v. 1—4. 286 German Roman Catholic picture yea, the ideal aimed at is, that in such case they can be, without more ado, deposed, or de facto replaced by a so-called coad- jutor, who should leave them the name only of that exalted office, to which the Holy Ghost called and appointed them ; and those Bishops in their turn can, and do in fact, act in like way with the Priests of the second order, who are associated with the Bishops in the unspeakably great office of repre- senting the Lord, and with the Deacons and inferior Clergy; except when a Priest should be maintained against his Bishop, if the Bishop should not obey unconditionally and blindly enough, and, as a warning example, shall triumph over him." The bold and powerful writers of Catholic Germany, commenting on the passage which I have given from the Civilta, say, — " 6 From this it needs but one step to declare the Pope himself to be an Incarnation of God. " Ultramontanism is accordingly essentially Papalism. Its first principle is, that the Pope in all instructive decisions, not only on questions of faith, but also in the province of morals, as to the relations of religion to society, of the Church to the State, nay, as to State institutions also, is infallible, that every decision of that sort demands, on the part of all Catholics, unconditional, unreserved submission and reception. So then the power of the Pope over the Church is to him purely monarchical, which owns and tolerates no limitation. The Pope is to be an absolute and sole Euler : all beside him are only his empowered servants ; really, directly or indirectly, only the executors of his directions, whose power he can, at pleasure, limit or withdraw. The condition of the Church is, according to Ultramontane view, the more normal and healthy, as, in all its parts and national subdivisions, it is, to the minutest point, ruled, administered, supervised, and regu- lated by Rome. Some is to subsist and operate as a gigantic machine of ecclesiastical government, a hundred-armed Briareus, Der Papst, Ac, pp. 43—48. of Ultramontane system. 287 which decides every thing in the last instance, every where presses in with reproaches, censures, and manifold means of repression, and provides for entire uniformity. For the eccle- siastical ideal of the Ultramontanes is the Romanizing of all particular Churches, and the utmost possible suppression of every thing special in the life of national Churches. Nay they contemplate it as an aim and duty of conscience for all nations as much as possible to conform their life to the specific way of thinking and feeling of the Italian Clergy. And this must be right, since the Civilta announces straight out, t7 As formerly the Jews were the people of God, so in the new Covenant is the Roman. It has a supernatural dignity.' " The Ultramontane accordingly knows nothing higher than Roman usage and Roman ordinance. For him Rome is an Ecclesiastical Inquiry and Address Office, or rather a standing Oracle — the Civilta calls him summum Oraculum — which has at hand an infallible solution for every doubt, for every scientific or practical misgiving. Where others, in judging of events or of facts, let themselves be guided by their moral and religious consciousness, as developed in their Church-life, 7 T. iii. p. 11, T. i. p. 862. " The end for which God preserves the Roman State being supernatural, supernatural in some mea- sure is evidently the dignity of that people." " These panegyrics of the so-called Roman people, which properly does not exist (for it is only an ever-fluctuating multitude of Italians, and specially of Italian Clergy from all parts of the peninsula), appear however to be standing phrases, inherited from of old. So, e. g., as early as 1626, the Provost and Professor at Padua, Carrerio, expresses himself: ' The Italians may exalt themselves above all nations on account of the distinguished mercy which God showed them, in that in the Pope He gave them a spiritual monarch, who has cast down from their thrones great kings and yet mightier Emperors, and set others in their place; to whom the mightiest realms this long time pay tribute, the like of which was never seen elsewhere, and who distributes among his courtiers wealth so great, as no king, no Emperor ever had to bestow.' " Der Papst, p. 44, note. 288 German Roman Catholic picture with the Ultramontanes Roman authority, and the normal pattern of morals and practice there, take the place of eccle- siastical and moral law. If at Eome a Jewish pair is violently robbed of their son to be educated as a Christian, the Ultra- montane holds this quite in order, that the natural rights of man should yield to Roman ordinances, however late-devised ; although else theologians maintain, that natural right is also Divine right, and so stands higher than mere human Church-ordinance. If now-a-days the Inquisition in the States of the Church proclaims excommunication to every son and daughter, if they neglect to denounce and deliver up to prison their parents who ate flesh or food with milk on a fast-day, or read a forbidden book, the Romanist knows how to justifv this. If the Roman Government, through the lottery openly managed by the priests, promotes the passion of gaming and the ruin of whole families, the Civilta forthwith writes an apology for the lottery, although Alexander Y\l. and Benedict XIII. forbad it, under pain of excommunication. If in Rome the Clergy (the so-called preti di piazza) stand in public places, waiting till some one hire them for a Mass, this, in the eyes of the Romanist, is as little offensive as the sale of indulgence-billets, which the guides at Rome, having made him acquainted with all the sights and enjoyments of the place, end by pointing out to the stranger. At least too he finds it very excusable that the system of dispensations and indulgences is there used, to make the utmost possible gain, as a source of finance ; that, e. g., 'Altar-privileges ' are sold to Churches at a scudo a-piece, and so the grossest superstition in regard to the deliverance of souls from Purgatory is produced ; that for high payments certain marriage-dispensations are granted to the rich, which are refused to the ill-endowed ; that not long ago in a German State it was attempted, against the clear literal meaning of treaties, to draw a class of matrimonial causes to Rome, and thereby to compel the citizens to expensive processes at a great distance ; which fresh invasion seemed even to the Bishops there to be too strong, so that they addressed earnest repre- sentations thereon to Rome, in consequence whereof the requisition was given up for a while, and the question was left undetermined. of Ultramontane system. 289 "Kome, on its side, omits nothing to confirm the whole Catholic world in this clerico-Italian way of thinking and feeling. More than nine-tenths of the congregations and courts of law of the Roman Curia are composed of Italians, who administer them under their tutelage by the prescrip- tions and decisions, spun out into the minutest and pettiest details, issued in the name of the Pope. Every breath of reli- gion is to be drawn according to rule specially Italian. Bishoprics out of Italy are, if possible, to be filled with men whose Catholicism has been gained in Rome, or, at least, has been formed by the Jesuits and their pupils. " The more questions a country or a diocese directs to Rome, the more abundantly dispensations, indulgences, altar-privi- leges, consecrated objects, &c, are drawn from Rome : the more money-presents are sent thither, the more are they praised for their piety and their genuine Catholic mind. What is called Catholicity is, in the eyes of the Curia, only to be attained thereby, that, in every thing connected with religion, he should translate himself and his ideas into Italian. If, then, the German, Frenchman, Englishman — in cases where the Italian form, or view, or practice, or devotion, is at variance with his national feeling, or tries to displace that which is native and suits him better — would repel the foreign form, he is thereby at once on a wrong road, is no longer a ' genuine Catholic,' but only a ' liberal Catholic ;' for so does the Society of Jesus designate the difference which we express by ' Ultra- montane ' or simply ' Catholic' " On the other hand, the Gallican tradition is not broken. The State, indeed, betrayed the confidence which the Church reposed in it, and the secular aspect of Gallicanism has disappeared. But the tradition which Bossuet defended was, as you know, after the return from nineteen years of exile, maintained in 1821 by the "learned and pious s " 8 " M. de la Luzerne, Bishop of Langres, was one of the T 290 Card, de la Luzerne : Mgr. Maret Cardinal de la Luzerne 9 : it has recently been main- tained by Mgr. Maret. But it is now apparently scarcely tolerated among you. " The doctrine which we present in this work," says Mgr. Maret " thanks he to God, is not personal to ourselves. "We believe firmly that it is that of the ancient, universal, true, tradition of the Church. This doctrine, taught by so many great saints and great men of all ages and nations, has been most learned and formidable adversaries of the schism brought about by the ' Civil Constitution ' of the Clergy. He passed nineteen years in exile. This long period was occupied in study and the exercise of the most exalted charity. Created Cardinal in 1817, he published his work in 1821. The mortal remains of the pious and learned Cardinal repose, &c." Mgr. Maret, " Du Concile," &c, ii. 223, note 1. 3 " Sur la Declaration de l'Assemblee du Clerge de Trance en 1682, par le Cardinal de la Luzerne, ancien Eveque de Langres." The brief preface of the Cardinal in 1821 was, " This work had been written eight or ten years ago, during the emigration ; my object had been to answer Card. Orsi, who had undertaken to refute Bossuet. On my return to France, in 1821, I had thought that its publication was useless, and that, under existing circumstances, it was good that the question of Gallican principles against the maxims of the Eoman Court should not be agitated. In consequence, I abstained from printing the work ; but Ultramontane ideas having been main- tained and published by very estimable authors, whose talent and virtue T honour, I think it indispensable to publish it as an answer to their maxims, and to maintain among us the precious and salutary doctrine of the Gallican Church." Bossuet's work seemed to me so exhaustive, that I do not remember finding any thing new in that of the Cardinal de la Luzerne, except that which was his object in writing it, the refutation of Card. Orsi. 1 1. c. Pref. i. xxiv — xxvi. on Gallicanism and its opponents. 291 specially preserved in France, where, in the last ages, the rival theological schools were formed. From the bosom of one of the schools the accusation of ' Gallicanism ' will certainly arise against this book. "We must here make the completest and most open explanation. " For some years, and especially in these last times, a violent clamour against Gallicanism has arisen from the religious press. Insult and outrage have been cast against the past of our Church, against the wisdom of our fathers, the glory of our greatest doctors, of our confessors and martyrs. All this violence redoubles at the approach of the opening of the holy Council. Men have dared to write and to say that ' Gallicanism is a heresy ; Bossuet is a heresiarch.' It has been thought a token of ability, to detach the French Clergy from all integrity with its predecessors, its fathers and masters. Gallicanism, they allege, has only been a passing and unhappy incident in the history of our Church. The more learned make it go back to Gerson and Peter d'Ailly. Without root in the past, with- out adhesion in the present, Gallicanism has been nothing but an aberration, which must be stricken with the anathemas of the Church. Men venture to say that the declaration of 1682 legitimates and necessitates the new definition of Pontifical in- fallibility which they ask of the Council. And thus, in a spirit of justice and of peace, and for the greater edification of the world, they would turn the future Council against France, its Church, its past. " In presence of these travesties of truth and of history, of these odious accusations and sinister menaces, we should deem ourselves wanting to all our duties of filial piety, or of a French Bishop, if we gave not utterance to the protestation of an indignant conscience. Who can find it amiss that, out of the bosom of the faculty of Theology at Paris, of that our old Sorbonne, a voice should arise to defend our Church ? " Yes, theological Gallicanism, the Gallicanism of the French Episcopate, contains a basis of eternal and necessary truth. Without identifying ourselves with all the doctrines which have received that name, or with any assembly or any declara- tion, and professing all the respect due to the decisions and T 2 292 Ultramontanism alleged bulls of Sixtus IV. 2 , Alexander VIII. 8 , Clement XI. 4 , and Pius VI. 5 , we adhere to the doctrines which appear to us true, and which never have been nor could be censured, the doctrines which affirm the character of Pontifical monarchy effectually tempered by Episcopal aristocracy; the complexity of the elements which compose the spiritual sovereignty and doc- trinal infallibility, the necessity of the concurrence of these two elements to establish the absolute rule of faith." To us the title " monarch " is itself startling : to the Ultramontanes it seems inadequate without the addition "absolute," "irresponsible," "sole," "in- fallible." It is melancholy that the assailants of Gallicanism should think it necessary to asperse the memory of the great man to whom, both in his own day and till now, the Church has been so much indebted 6 . The maxim that " 7 Ultramon- tanism is precisely Catholic Christianity " is, it seems, to be taken in its most rigid exactness ; and 2 Condemnation of Peter d'Osme. 3 Bull Inter multiplices. 4 Bull Vineam Domini. 5 Bull Auctoremfidei. 0 " M. l'Abbe Beaume, who professes to be a disciple of M. l'Abbe Bouix, has recently published a life of Bossuet. It is to be regretted, not for Bossuet, but for his historian, that the Canon of Meaux was unable better to understand or to inter- pret the genius of that great man" (Mgr. Maret, ii. 344). " Our great Bossuet, the most devoted defender, the most determined champion of the certain rights and legitimate privileges of the Holy See — Bossuet himself is not spared! Neither his immortal genius nor his immense love for the Church have enabled him to find grace before the cruel severi- ties of Mgr. Manning" (" L'ultra-Catholicisme en Angleterre," par M. l'Abbe A. de Saint Pol, p. 4). 7 Quoted by the Abbe de S. Pol, p. 15, from Archbishop Manning's Pastoral on the Centenary, p. 55. to be true Christianity. 293 we are told that " the right to absolve those who maintain the Gallican doctrine has been gravely questioned 8 ." It is consistent. "If," says M. l'Abbe de S. Pol 9 , or whoever (if it be so) shields himself under that name from personal controversy — "If Ultramontanism and Catholicism are one and the same doctrine, one and the same institution, it follows, whoever is not Ultramontane is not Catholic. But, then, what place is to be assigned to all those theologians, all those doctors and fathers of the Church, all those Bishops, all those Cardinals, nay, even all those Popes, who, very far from being Ultramon- tanes, were altogether and precisely the contrary ? Would men venture to make them to have been schismatics and heretics ? Assuredly they will not go to this extremity. And yet, in this system, there is no mean ; Ultramontane or out of the Church. If this axiom is true, the monstrous consequence must be accepted: all these great men and all these saints must be regarded as the enemies of God, of Jesus Christ and His Church, and anathematized. Men will not dare." I have, in this long discussion, used, as far as I could, the words of Bossuet, in memory of his long and persevering labours to restore union to Western Christendom, and because it seems to be certain that he had the highest authority to bear out the terms which he suggested. Had I, when I began it, foreseen or known the prevailing attitude of 8 lb. p. 20. Archbishop Manning's words are: — "It has been a question, whether they who defend the four Articles, after the repeated Pontificals and condemnations, are capable of Sacramental Absolution." 0 lb. p. 16. 294 Mgr. Maret : Effects of defining minds towards us, I should perhaps not have had the heart to do it. And yet, come of it what may, it is something to have removed some stumbling- blocks in the way of a healthful reunion hereafter. I think that the acceptance of propositions founded on Bossuet's statements, accompanied with the declaration of what we pass over as not being " de fide," and also of what we actually reject as erro- neous (if your theologians also should think it to be so), would be an immense advance towards such reunion, and would dispose minds far and wide towards it. On the other hand, I can hardly imagine any thing more fatal to it, than the declaration of Papal Infallibility. Even writers of yours speak of it as " changing the constitution of the Church. But in changing the constitution, vou are obliged to change also the doctrine ; and it will be necessary hereafter to chant in the holy sacrifice, Credo Papam, instead of Credo Ecclesiam 1 ." " 2 If the new definition which a school more ardent than wise calls for, were possible ; if it were carried, it would necessarily result that the Church would become, de jure as well as de facto, a monarchy, pure, indivisible, absolute. " This transformation would be an essential revolution in the constitution of the Church. For an aristocratic monarchy, a monarchy essentially tempered with aristocracy, a monarchy essentially deliberative, is an institution entirely different from a monarchy pure, indivisible, absolute, consultative. They could not be identified or confounded without wounding reason or wronging common sense. 1 Mgr. Maret, ii. 375. 2 lb. 371. Papal Infallibility. 295 " "Were this revolution effected, then the constitution of the Church would cease to be what it has been de jure during nearly nineteen centuries; it would change its nature radi- cally, essentially. " But what is truly divine is immovable. If the constitution of the Church be divine, it cannot change. If it changes, it cease3 to be divine. Doubtless, the constitution of the Church, as well as dogmas, may develope. But, like dogma, it cannot change. In the words of his Holiness Pius IX. on an ever-memorable occasion, development of doctrine must ever be made from the same to the same, crescat in eodem sensu, in eadem sententia 3 . " These words apply to Divine institutions as well as to doctrine. But in this case the development would be in alio sensu, in alia sententia. This development is then impossible ; it is contrary to the inmost constitution of Christianity. It would be the denial of its divinity. " Were it possible, were it effected, what a triumph for all the enemies of Christianity and of the Church ! Those enemies would raise against Catholicism the protestation of ages and of history, they would overwhelm it under a mass of accusing testimonies; they would bring Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils, to appear as witnesses against it. God will certainly spare the world and the faith of the faithful this extreme trial. " 4 It is a matter of principle that a new dogmatic definition ought to be necessary and brought about by imperative grounds, the defence of the faith, the good of souls. " In these days, it is not only the authority of the Church and its head which are disputed, denied. The negations are radical, but in another way. They bear on the first and most necessary truths, which a false science audaciously attacks ; the very notion of God ; the Divinity of Jesus Christ ; the whole supernatural order. These are chiefly the dangers of the faith and of souls. To bring back souls to the feet of the Saviour, is the sure way to make them confess the authority of His 3 Bull, Ineflabilia Deus. 4 lb. § 0, p. 380. 296 Mgr. Maret : Effects of defining Vicar. The first, most pressing, need of souls who doubt or deny, is not then a new definition of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. This definition, on the contrary, by the unlimited increase of power wbicb it would ascribe to the Pope, would become a new and perhaps invincible obstacle to the return of souls which are under the influence of anti- Christian science. " 5 Without real benefit to those who believe, full of stumbling-blocks to those who doubt, the new definition would attest to the world, that, up to 1870, the Catholic Church did not exactly know in whom resides the sovereign authority which is to govern her. "After 18 centuries, 20 General Councils, 258 Popes, we should have to own to the world that we do not yet know with an entire certainty, whether the Church is a monarchy, pure, indivisible, absolute, or composite and tempered ! We should have to own that we are still ignorant, whether the Bishops are purely and simply the subjects of the Pope, or whether they participate, under his authority, in the spiritual sovereignty! We should have to confess, lastly, that the sure and certain conditions of infallibility are still unknown to us ! "The men of authority, they who maintain in the world respect and trust in it, would be obliged to confess publicly, that they have not known completely to this day, the authority invested with the supreme and irrefragable right to command them. " What a spectacle we should offer to the world, to the men of science, politicians ! Should we not become their fable, and while we wished to elevate above measure the authority of the sovereign Pontiff, should we not compromise the sacred cause of authority itself ? " There are other inconveniences. We have shown that the new definition would transform the constitution of the Church, and would make the ecclesiastical rule the most rigorous, most absolute, most unlimited monarchy, which ever existed. " Now, saving the case, happily very rare, when a dictator- 6 lb. p. 381. Papal Infallibility. 297 ship becomes necessary, monarchy pure and absolute, as an ordinary and lasting system of government, is an institution full of miseries and perils, and ought to be regarded as one of the most faulty forms of government. Tet Bellarmine himself teaches, that the government of the Church, being of Divine origin, ought to be the best of governments ; and he hesitates not to make this superiority of ecclesiastical regimen to consist in a sort of admixture of the three forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy. True, that, in developing his system, he entirely sacrifices the two last elements to the first. But, despite of these inconsistencies, his principle, that the ecclesiastical government ought to be the best of govern- ments, subsists ; and this principle destroys his system. Never will reason and conscience admit (and at this day doubtless less than ever), that pure and absolute monarchy, as an ordi- nary system of government, is the best of all. To maintain this desperate thesis, one must entirely ignore the instructions of history and experience. Let it not be said, that it is an imitation of the Divine Monarchy. Does humanity admit of this absolute participation in the Divine attributes ? " Without approving all the political theories produced in modern times, without amnestying in any way all the revolu- tions which have been made, it may be affirmed that, in the society issued from the Gospel, there is not a tendency more imperative, more durable, or more invincible than that which would prescribe bounds to power, which seeks for counter- poises and counterforts to power. In the midst of this Christian society, so deeply troubled by this need of regulating power, is the Apostolic See to proclaim as a new dogma of faith, that God has established in His Church a monarchy, pure, absolute, indivisible, because it is the best of governments ? What gain would there be to faith in placing itself in opposi- tion so direct with the surest results of experience and reason ? " And this opposition, would it not become a new leaven of mistrust and hatred against the Church ? What politician, what statesman, what sovereign, would behold without alarm at the head of the Catholic Church a power which should, in the inmost constitution of that Church, find no limit, no really 298 Mgr. Maret : Effects of defining efficacious barrier against the abuses, the excesses, the errors which human nature cannot always avoid ? The divine promises made to the Church and to its head cannot here be pleaded ; for the question is, what are the true conditions of the realization of those promises ? If the Divine Master did not will to make His Church a Monarchy pure and absolute, has one a right to plead the Divine promises in favour of that institution? In vain too should we say with Joseph de Maistre 6 , that, in the nature of things, every tiling would serve to limit the absolute power of the Pope ; for what abso- lute power is there which this ' nature of things ' has preserved from the gravest faults ? " What satisfactory explanation, what serious guarantee could be offered to the powers of this world, who should choose to see in the Pontifical power, such as these would make it, a rival or rather a master — a formidable master, capable of carry- ing trouble into States as well as into consciences ? " To avoid these misunderstandings, an attempt would doubtless be made to restrain Papal infallibility within the most narrow limits. But would not the opinion of the masses extend it to every thing ? In the prestige of the Pope, infal- lible, singly and alone, the man would disappear. All the words of the Pontiff would be oracles for the main body of Catholics ; all his wills would be laws. Would not these new perils occasion the aggravation of all the laws which restrict the liberty of the Church ? Would not the most difficult complications, the greatest misfortunes, occur at the end of this perilous journey ? One may, at least, fear that the abolition of Concordats, and a violent separation of Church and State, would be a prompt result of the new regime. " Yes, if the designs of extreme spirits could succeed, if the new dogma, which they long for, could be proclaimed, the whole Church would be in the Pope, as the State is in the abso- lute monarch. What good could result from this transformation? The Pope is mostly an aged man, as venerable from his years as from his virtues. Human passions have doubtless little empire 5 "Da Pape," i. 8. Papal Infallibility. 299 over his soul. Still he is man : and if his brethren, the Bishops, owed him an absolute and blind obedience ; if they never had the right or duty to counsel, warn, or act, under the like circumstances, as the Vth General Council did in regard to Pope Vigilius ; the Vlth., Vllth., Vlllth., in regard to Pope Honorius — if the Pope needed none but himself to govern the Church of God — if he were bound to take counsel only as far as he should judge convenient — is it not evident that he would be exposed to the gravest temptations which could assail human weakness ? And would the government of the Church be always directed with all the insight, wisdom, consistency, and firmness which the great interests at stake demand ? " In the transformation which this would bring about, the authority of Bishops would lose all, which that of the Pope would gain. The rights which the Bishops have used in and out of Councils, would become for ever inapplicable. The weakening of the authority of the Bishops, already so fatal to the Church, would then be an evil without limit and without remedy. " Whether, then, one views the Church in its relation to public reason, to modern society and its tendencies, to govern- ments and peoples, or whether one considers it in itself and relatively to its Divine mission and the spiritual good of the faithful, the new dogma, far from offering any advantage, would present only dangers and threatenings. " One last consideration. " The divisions which exist in the bosom of Christendom are one of the most active causes of its weakness and its in- ability to work the general transformation of the world and the perfect accomplishment of its mission. " If idolatry still reigns over half the globe, if Mohammedan- ism desolates Christian countries, once nourishing, if a dis- guised atheism ravages the Christian world itself, one of the most powerful causes of so many moral miseries, of so many social sorrows, of so much humiliation and shame, is in that unhappy interior rending of Christianity, which constitutes schism and heresy. If the Eastern Churches were, at length, to re-unite with the mother Church ; if our brethren, separated from unity by the violent revolutions of the sixteenth century, 300 Mgr. Maret: Moral Holiness, often not possessed returned at length into that unity ; what new power of trans- formation, of conquest, and of victory would not Christianity, purified aud united — Christianity reuniting in one magnificent hand all the living forces, all the elements of progress of a renewed science and civilization, develope in the world ! Then would come upon earth the reign of God and of His Christ. " "Whatever then could place any obstacle to this return, to the reconciliation of hearts and minds, to pacification and religious unity, ought to he regarded as the greatest of evils, since it is the obstacle to the greatest of goods. " "We fear not to say that the new definition, dangerous, useless, contrary to the true theological principles, would alienate for ever from the Church our separated brethren. " May God vouchsafe to shed His light over His Church, and to inspire, in all, the designs most conformable to the needs of humanity!" With these touching words of Mgr. Maret I would gladly have concluded, but that there is one topic of his which I do not remember in other discussions of this subject ; I would also say a few words as to the way in which it would probably affect our English people. The topic of Mgr. Maret is the connexion of "dogmatic infallibility and moral holiness." To abridge what he says, — " 7 In the Italian system, infallibility, as we have seen, is at- tributed, not to the man, but to the Pontiff. Still, since the man cannot be separated from the Pontiff, since the Pontiff is a man, even in the most solemn exercise of his supreme charge, it necessarily results that the infallibility of the Pontiff becomes that of the man. According to that system, the man, qua Pontiff, is infallible : what, then, is affirmed, is the infallibility of the man-Pontiff. 7 L. iv. c. 13, p. 235, sqq. by Popes, a condition of Infallibility. 301 "But that a man should be infallible, i.e. that he should become partaker of one of the attributes of God, a real miracle is required. " Let us measure the extent of the miracle necessary to elevate the individual, the man-Pontiff, to this sublime attri- bute of personal infallibility. The highest sanctity does not confer it; for the greatest saint may be mistaken: A very especial ordering of Divine Providence is necessary here. " In order to be preserved from all doctrinal error in his dogmatic judgments, the Pope, at the moment when he pro- nounces his sentence, must be safe from all ignorance, all prejudices, all prepossession, all forgetfulness, all distraction, all precipitation, all weakness, all passion ; in a word, he must be endued with philosophic impeccability. " But this is not all. If one would examine the deepest depth of man's judgment, one cannot but recognize that moral holiness, although it does not by itself confer infallibility, is logically a condition of philosophic infallibility. The irregular passions of the heart of man, his egoism, pride, ambition, interest, all those depraved inclinations which engender sin, do they not often exercise a preponderating influence over doc- trinal judgments, wherein some personal elements almost always mix themselves up ? " May one not also say that the moral purity of the supremo head of the Church is of as much moment to the spiritual good of the faithful as the exactness or orthodoxy of his doctrine ? May one not say that the scandal of a bad Pope will be almost as injurious to the Church as an error in his instruction ? " So, then, the connexion between moral holiness and in- fallibility has been thought so natural, that from the time when we see the system of personal infallibility make its appearance, we see also that of the essential holiness of the Pope have its birth. " This last system is mentioned, in plainest terms, in the Dictatus falsely attributed to Pope Gregory VII. *, and in many writers of that age, especially Otho of Freisingen. 8 " That the Eoman Pontiff, if he be canonically ordained, by the merits of the Bl. Peter, is indubitably rendered holy, as 302 Mgr. Maret: Moral Holiness, often not possessed " But this system could not maintain itself before tlie evi- dence of facts. I will not quote Mgr. Maret's brief summary of those facts. They have been but too often dwelt upon among us in self-defence. He sums up, — " s In the historical sketch which we have just given, we set ourselves to produce only such facts as are certain and gene- rally owned by Catholic writers, who think themselves obliged to be silent on, dissemble or dispute the faults of Popes. Though I have confined myself within narrow limits, I have said enough to establish, that history has not only re- proaches to make to ' two or three Popes,' as their systematic apologists would have it ; but that it has the sorrow of proving that, in the long life of the Papacy, there have been very real periods of declension. We have seen in the Xth, Xlth, XlVth, XVth, and XVIth centuries, during considerable periods, series of faults and of scandals, bearing the same character ; and it is very evident that the series of Popes whose memory we have recalled did not faithfully fulfil all its duties in those unhappy times. " The scandals which I have been obliged to specify have been deplored before me by holy Popes ; my language does not approach to the energy of that which Adrian VI. employed in a celebrated letter addressed to the Emperor, Charles V. K " I know all that can and ought to be said to show that these disorders did not injure the holiness of the Catholic Church. In those days of trial, the universal Church and the Eoman S. Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia, attests, many holy Bathers favouring this, as is contained in the decrees of the Bl. Pope Symmachus." Labbe, Cone. x. 111. ' ' lb. p. 251. 1 " We know that in this Holy See there were some time ago many abominable things, abuses in spirituals, excesses in man- dates, and, in fine, every thing perverted." Instructio Adriani VI. in Eainald. xx. 365. by Popes, a condition of Infallibility. 303 Church itself included saints who, hy the good savour of their virtues, corrected the deleterious effects of the evil examples issuing from that holy place, whence public edification should alone emanate. We know that the unworthiness of the minister injures not the efficacy of the holy ministry. I know well that, in several of the Popes who may be gravely reproached, great and good qualities gleamed forth in the midst of their disorders and of their faults, and that they often did acts useful to the Church, honourable to their memory. In the history of the Papacy the good superabounds : it forms its general character. But the dissonance of the evil is but the more vivid and striking. It has also been observed, that none of the bad Popes whom we have named fell into heresy, or at all favoured it. And this fact is a proof of the assistance which God grants His Church in its most evil days. " This apology for the holy See and for the Church, under the reign of the bad Popes, is full of truth and reason. But it leaves a fact absolutely certain. This is, that moral holiness is not a gift necessarily granted to each Pope, and that there have been and may be Popes very scandalous, very blamablc, very criminal. Prom this fact we must necessarily conclude that, on the hypothesis of personal infallibility, that infallibility is separate from holiness in the Pope. The Pope possesses, by a Divine privilege, philosophic impeccability or dogmatic in- fallibility, and he does not possess moral impeccability or holiness. " Yet I think I have proved that the second impeccability is logically a condition of the first. To consult logic only, should one not say that in order to be infallible, one ought to be truly holy, i. e. free from all the passions and irregular affections which exercise so much influence over the judgment, especially in moral matters ? " It is true, and I have stated it, holiness, although it seems a condition of infallibility, does not of itself confer it. A saint is not, by sanctity alone, protected against a crowd of errors. "To render a holy Pope personally infallible, God must work a great miracle, the extent of which I have measured. To render a sinful Pope personally infallible, He must work a much greater miracle, since this miracle will produce infalli- 304 Moral Holiness a condition of Infallibility. bility in the bosom of sin, since this miracle will separate holiness from infallibility, i. e. will bring about an effect without the concurrence of a cause which seems natural to its evolu- tion. This miracle is, beyond doubt, possible to God; but its effect, the separation of infallibility and holiness, it must be owned, astounds and confounds the reason. Is it not repug- nant to reason and to conscience to believe and to affirm that a John XII. was infallible ? or that a Benedict IX. was infal- lible ? or that an Alexander VI. was infallible ?" The answer to the objection that " the efficacy of the Sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the ministers who confer them," Mgr. Maret answers, — " Does the unworthy minister of the Divine Sacraments contain in himself and in his person the grace which the Sacraments confer? He has the power to complete and administer the Sacraments, and this power is independent of his moral state. But they are the Sacraments which contain and communicate the sanctification. The minister is but the instrumental cause, the principal cause is the Holy Spirit Himself, so that sanctification is never separated from the grace which produces it. " It would not be so in the unworthy Pontiff, if his personal infallibility had to be admitted. The unworthy Pontiff would not be a simple instrument, a cause purely instrumental, of infallibility. It would reside truly in his thoughts, in his judgments, his wills. God would work on the personal faculties of the unworthy Pontiff a real miracle, to preserve him from error, while leaving the principal causes of that error in existence; and so really in him infallibility would be separated from holiness. " God is, beyond doubt, Master of His gifts ; but is such a miracle according to the analogy of the ordinary path of His supernatural Providence ? " And this prodigious miracle, which should change the indi- vidual conditions of human nature — this prodigious miracle, Wide and undefined range of Papal Infallibility. 305 w hich should separate what of its own nature seems inseparable — this prodigious miracle, which should make a sinner, perhaps a castaway, a partaker of one of the most glorious of the Divine attributes — would be an useless miracle ; for God, in the order which He has established for His Church, gives the Pope an assured means of not being deceived in his dogmatic judgment, if he wills to make use of that means" [viz. consulting a General Council, or the whole Church], Mgr. Maret has naturally dwelt upon the future. We English, and all, probably, not in the Roman Communion, would naturally look back also to the past. Heretofore, the Church, in decreeing any Article of Faith, had one definite question before it. In the great General Councils, the Church assembled to declare that such and such was their inherited faith ; or even if the Church had to decide upon several points of doctrine, or to guard the same doctrine in many aspects, each question was tangibly before her. The doctrine of Papal infal- libility is one, but it goes backwards as well as forwards. It not only lays down, that all which Popes shall hereafter declare, under certain con- ditions (whatever they may be), will be the voice of God, to be obeyed at the peril of the loss of the soul, but that all which in these 1800 years has been, or has been supposed to be, declared by Popes under those conditions, is already matter of faith. For the first time in the Church of Christ a whole mass of Articles of Faith would be enacted, without individual consideration of their wording, without their being precisely in terms before the U 306 Mgr. Maret: conditions to Papal Council which enacted them ; Articles, the extent or nature of which none but the most learned could have any conception of ; about which even the most learned must be in doubt, whether they would become real Articles of Faith, because the most learned are at issue upon what conditions the infallibility of any declarations of the Pope depends. It would need an infallible authority to declare what Popes here- tofore have infallibly declared. But, in truth, those conditions would practically vanish. Although those conditions are employed to account for those cases in which Popes are acknowledged to have taught wrongly, they cannot be practically applied, for they would leave every thing as uncertain as before. To use again the language of Mgr. Maret, — " 5 Bellarinine hesitates not to affirm that the Pope, con- sidered in this point of view [' as Pontiff, i. e. as a public person, as pastor and doctor of all Christians, and in the in- struction which he addresses to the universal Church touching faith and morals ' j is infallible. Tet he seems, at first sight, to annex certain conditions to this infallibility. So he would that the Pope, pronouncing his sentence in the Council, or out of the General Council, should always proceed with maturity, after a serious examination of the questions,.and taking counsel of the learned persons around him. The illustrious theologian, without doubt, is very far from placing infallibility in the coun- cillors of the Pope : it resides in him alone, he says. But he affirms at the same time that the Pope is bound to take all the human means which wisdom suggests, to inform himself and arrive at the truth. 2 L. iv. c. 4, T. ii. p. 66. Infallibility, delusive. 307 " If he neglected these means, and did not bring into his supreme decisions the knowledge, wisdom, and prudence which they require, Bellarmine owns that he would be liable to error. Yet, since this conditional infallibility might be disputed and easily disappear, he adds that ' 3 It is impossible that a Pope should make a definition rashly ; for God, Who has willed the end, wills also the means necessary to the end.' " ' It would V says Bellarmine, ' be of little use to know that the Pontiff would not err when he does not define rashly, unless we also knew that the Providence of God will never permit that he should make rash definitions.' Observe, before going further, that Bellarmine puts in the thesis the point at issue, and falls into a real 1 petitio principii.' The question is, whether God has really willed to grant to the Sovereign Pon- tiff infallibility, absolute and separate ; to presuppose this will in God, is not to resolve the question. " Through this supposition, the conditions which Bellarmine seeks at first to annex to Pontifical infallibility disappear for the Christian public, Bishops as well as people. No one has a right to ascertain whether these conditions have been observed; no one has a right to raise the slightest doubt about it. The conditional infallibility of the Pope becomes really and practically absolute infallibility. It is equal in all points to that of the Church itself, to that infallibility absolutely certain and un- questionable, which carries its conditions with it. " Does the Pope possess this absolute infallibility as the head of the Church and of the first pastors as he forms a moral unity, with the first pastors ? Or does he, by virtue of the Divine promises, derive it from himself alone, so that infalli- bility flows down from the Pope to the Council and the whole Church. " On this capital point Bellarmine is very explicit, when he affirms that ' the whole strength (Jirmitateiri) of legitimate Councils is from the Pontiff, not part from the Pontiff, part from the Council 5 .' 3 De Bom. Pont. iv. 2. 4 lb. 5 De Eom. Pont. iv. 3. U 2 308 Mgr. Maret : conditions to Papal " I will not examine here, whether Bellarmine is always very consistent with himself, or whether the idea which he gives of General Councils, in his book ' On Councils,' can easily be recouciled with the doctrine which makes their infallibility depend upon the Pope 6 . Auy how, he teaches this doctrine very clearly in his treatise ' On the Eoman Pontiff.' " So, then, according to Bellarmine and his school, the Pope, considered apart from the Episcopal body, apart from the General Council, and separate from it, possesses by himself alone the Divine privilege of infallibility. The Pope then enjoys the privilege of separate, as well as that of absolute, infallibility. " I do not affirm that all the theologians of the Italian school profess on this point doctrines as absolute and ex- clusive as those of Bellarmine. My only subject now, is the theory of the illustrious Cardinal. " Does this absolute and separate infallibility, which Bel- larmine attributes to the sovereign Pontiff, extend to all the acts, all the decisions, all the decrees which emanate from the Pontifical authority ? The result of a long dissertation on the errors attributed to thirty-five Popes 7 , is, that the Eoman Theologian only claims infallibility for the instruction which he calls 'clearly Apostolic and ex cathedra*? " What is to be understood by this instruction ex cathedra ? The theologians of the Italian school are known not to be agreed as to the conditions and signs of that instruction. Some say that instruction ex cathedra is that which is conform- able to Scripture and tradition. Others, that it is that which proceeds from mature examination and wise counsels. These require that the Pope should enjoy entire liberty of spirit, and should pray fervently before pronouncing his sentence. Those will that he should encompass it with great solemnity, employ certain formulae, and anathematize opposers. — Here we are 8 De Conciliis, ii. 1, and elsewhere. 7 De Eom. Pont. iv. 8—14. 8 " Plane Apostolicum et ex cathedra." — lb. iv. 14. Infallibility, delusive. 309 only occupied in obtaining a just and complete opinion of the system of Bellarmioe. " We have seen that the great theologian, — while recognizing that the Pope, before pronouncing his decisions, ought to take all human means to know the truth, — does not make Pontifical infallibility depend on its being ascertained that these wise rules have been observed. Infallibility for him would become un- certain, consequently useless, if there could be the slightest doubt whether the Pope had observed all the rules of prudence. To maintain consistency with his own rigorous system, Bel- larmine can only distinguish judgments ex cathedra by the objects of those judgments. In other words, Bellarmine admits and must admit that there is a judgment ex cathedra on all occasions in which the Pope instructs the whole Church in matters of faith and morals 9 . Most of the conditions and formalities required for judgments ex cathedra by the theolo- gians of the Italian school, tending in their nature to make every one judge of the judgments of the Pope, cannot enter into the system of Bellarmine. He will often have recourse to those conditions and formalities to escape the grave difficulties which have been raised against several decretals and Bulls of Sovereign Pontiffs. But the spirit of his system will always bring him back to his absolute affirmations. " We can now, I hope, form an exact idea of what we mean by the absolute and separate infallibility of the Pope. ' Abso- lute infallibility ' is unconditional infallibility, or infallibility with conditions which no one can or ought to verify. ' Separate infallibility' is the ascription of this Divine privilege to the Pope, apart from any concurrence of the Bishops with the Pontifical decision, whether this concurrence is antecedent, con- comitant, or subsequent, express or tacit. "This absolute and separate infallibility, being attached, not to the human person, to the Pope as man, but to the Pontifical person, to the Pontiff (as we have seen), becomes, in this sense personal. Absolute and separate infallibility is then, at the same time, personal." lb. iv. 3 and 5. 310 Papal Infallibility has not been confined The limitation (as Mgr. Maret has pointed out) framed to meet particular cases, cannot, in the nature of the case, be applied to any other. For it would involve an unlimited private judgment, sit- ting as arbiter whether the conditions were fulfilled, whereon infallibility is asserted to depend. This would be to build up infallibility with the one hand, and undermine it with the other. This is our security in submitting at once to the Creed of the Church or to the (Ecumenical Councils, in which the whole Church, East and West, were united, that we know that we are submitting to an infallible authority. This is our safety in taking as our rule of faith the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, that we know that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church." The infallibility of the Pope would he a per- plexity rather than a guide, if it suffered any exceptions. This has practically been the case, and must be so hereafter, if (quod absit !) that doctrine should be declared. Innocent I. has been alleged as an authority for the larger Canon of Scripture, not as a testimony of that time, but as a Pope, notwithstanding that (if the list be his) he premises, at the beginning of his letter, that he gave " the answer on each matter proposed to him, according to the capacity of his understanding '," 1 " Consulenti tibi, quid dc proposita specie unaquaque sen- tireni, pro captu intelligent^ mea? respondi." — Ep. 3 ad Exup., init. Cone. iii. 13, Col. to formal decrees. Deposition of kings. 311 which is any thing but an assertion of infallibility. It is not alleged — and it is every way impro- bable — that the errors of Sixtus V., in correcting the Vulgate, should have touched upon any matter of faith or morals ; we have seen how the fact was suppressed, for fear of the shock which might be given to the belief in the infallibility of the Pope. In regard to Papal infallibility — taking us nation- ally, whether members of the ^nglican Church or Dissenters — I suppose that nothing would touch the English more universally, than what would, I suppose, be necessarily involved in its decision, viz. that Popes can of Divine right depose kings, release subjects from their allegiance, give away kingdoms, claim a temporal sovereignty over them. For all this is contained, as you know, in the decrees of Gregory VII. There could hardly be any thing more formal than the deposition of Henry in Gregory's third Roman Council. " 2 To me by thy [S. Peter's] favour is given by God the power of binding and loosing in heaven and earth. Relying then on this confidence, for the defence and honour of thy Church, on the part of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by thy power and authority, I interdict to king Henry, son of that Emperor Henry, who, with pride unheard of, rose against thy Church, the government of the whole realm of the Germans and of Italy, and I absolve all Christians from the bond of the oath, which they have made or shall make to him, and forbid any one to serve him as king. — In thy stead I bind him with anathema, and so bind him out of confidence in thee, 2 Cone. Horn. iii. A. 1076. Cone. sii. 599, 600, Col. 312 Power to depose kings, absolve from oaths, fyc, that the nations may know and approve that thou art Peter, and on thy rock did the Son of the living God build the Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I will add but the instances given by Bossuet, in which Gregory threatens only, but by threatening declares that he had the power of making subjects rebel against their sovereign. It is not the ques- tion as to the rightfulness of the cause, or whether he might not have denied him communion, as S. Ambrose did the Emperor Theodosius, but simply whether he had the power which none before him used. He says to his Legates, — " 'Do ye, if need be, resist in our stead, and, interdicting the government of the ivhole realm, separate both him and all who agree with him from the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ." " 4 Either shall the king himself [Philip] repudiating the foul merchandise of the sitnoniacal heresy, permit fit persons to be advanced to the sacred rule, or the French shall certainly, unless they choose to reject the Christian faith, being stricken with the sword of a general anathema, refuse to obey him further." And to the French Bishops, — " 6 But if neither by such severity [the interdiction of the public celebration of every public office throughout all Prance], he will to repent, we would not have it concealed or doubtful to any one, that in all ways, by the help of God, we will endea- vour to wrest the kingdom of France from his occupation." There is no use in going over the well-known 3 Greg. VII. Epp. iv. 23 and 24. 4 Id. i. 35. 6 Id. ii. 5, in Boss. Def. Deck i. 1. 7. involved in Papal Infallibility. 313 tales. There can be no question that the Popes pronounced these depositions, or absolved subjects and gave away kingdoms to others, as Popes. Gregory VII., when asked what answer could be given to those who said that the Pope could not absolve any one from his oath of allegiance, made what answer he could G . Innocent III. declares that God " 7 placed the Supreme Pontiff of the Apos- tolic See, whom He ordained in S. Peter as a Vicar to Himself, over kingdoms and nations, bestowing on him the power over all nations and kingdoms to root out and to destroy, to disperse and to dissipate, to build and to plant, saying to him in the Prophet Jer. i. 10." " 8 Being set above kings and kingdoms by the pre-eminence of Divine power, we dispose of them as we think fit," said Boniface VIII. to James king of Arragon, when bestowing Sardinia and Corsica upon him, on the yearly payment of 2000 marks. I do not, of course, mean that the Popes were not most often in the right, and the Emperors in the wrong ; and plenty of things have been done in order to maintain " the balance of power," as unjust as the worst things done by bad Popes. But Divine authority was not claimed for civil 6 See Boss. Def. i. 1. 7, 8. 7 Bullar. Eom. Cherubini, i. 37, to the king of Bulgaria (re- peated to King John, a.d. 1215. Matt. Paris, p. 224), quoting also the usual texts from the N.T. The Pope proceeds to appoint one (with his successors) king of the Bulgarians, " who had long been alienated from their mother's breast." 8 Bullarium Bom. Cocquelines, T. iii. p. 3, p. 82. 314 Power to depose kings, absolve from oaths, §c, wrongs. Further, the decree of Papal infallibility would involve, I suppose, that it is matter of faith, that Popes may not only depose kings judged to be sinful or heretical, but may give away the lands of the unoffending heathen 9 . And if the Bull itself is infallible, all the details in it must be so, deposition of the king, absolution of his subjects from oaths of allegiance, the forbidding to observe them more, command to his subjects to rise in arms against him and drive him from his kingdom, requisition to princes to make war against him, to seize the property of his accomplices, and to make his subjects, residing abroad, slaves I do not mean, that the English have not done actuallv worse, who judicially murdered one king and ex- pelled another ; nor that the Pope's deposition of Henry VIII. (as far as his power went), and absolu- tion of his subjects from their oaths, was worse than the forced abdication of James II. by his subjects, contrary to their oaths. This alone would be the question with the English, " Is this involved in the decree of the Pope's infallibility ?" These depositions were attempted at intervals during some five centuries 2 , from the deposition of 0 Buli. 2 Alex. VI. ad Freder. Hisp. Reg. in Bull. Rom. T. i. p. 467. Lugd. 1655, quoted Boss. Def. i. 1. 15, p. 269. 1 Bull against Henry VIII. Cherubim, Bullar. Rom. T. ii. p. 701, also in Burnet's Records, T. i. B. 3, n. 9. - The following list of Prof. Hussey, as I am told, " contains all of importance except the cases which occurred in Naples and Aragon, to which the Popes had a sort of feudal claim, and involved in Papal Infallibility. 315 the Emperor Henry IV. by Gregory VII. to that of Elizabeth by Pius V., and its renewal by Sixtus V. 3 , 1588. It must require a great change in the mind of Europe before they could become effective. Still, when the relief of Roman Catholics from civil disabilities was sought in the last century, although three centuries had passed since its exercise, and then it had fallen " telum imbelle sine ictu," it was the chief ground alleged, why those disabilities were continued, so ingrained was the mistrust in the English mind. At the time, Bossuet says,— " 4 No Catholic prince paid any deference to the declaration that of Philip the Fair, for whom Boniface VIII. had prepared his Bull of deposition, -when he was seized," the day before it was to be published. The Emperor Henry IV. by Gregory VII. a.d. 1076 (Mansi, xxi. 467), continued by succeeding Popes (Mansi, xxi. 277) ; the Emperor Erederic I. by Alexander III. a.d. ]168 (Mansi, xxii. 34) ; the Emperor Otto IV. by Inno- cent III. a.d. 1210 (Mansi, ib. 813), and King John, a.d. 1212 (Matt. Paris, p. 195) ; the Emperor Erederic II. by Gregory IX. a.d. 1238 (Mansi, xxiii. 78), and Innocent IV. a.d. 1215 (Ib. 613) ; Louis of Bavaria, by John XXII. a.d. 1333 (Trithem. Chron. ii. 515) ; Henry VIII. by Paul III. a.d. 1535 (Cheru- bini Bullar. ii. 704) ; Elizabeth by Pius V. a.d. 1569 (Collier, Eccl. H. ii. 521). " Eise of the Papal Power," pp. 173—175. 3 C. Butler's Historical Memoirs, T. ii. p. 3, ed. 3. 4 Def. iv. 23, p. 98. " What good or harm did it do, that Henry VIII. was deposed by Paul III., Elizabeth by Pius V. ? Waste paper as to temporals, they were held of no account either by heretics or Catholics. Treaties, alliances, commerce, business went on. The Eoman Pontiffs knew it would be so, and yet the Curia by vain formula; gave sanction to a vain title. U16 Popes civil authority disowned in last century. [of Pius V.] or abstained from acknowledging Elizabeth as Queen. Xor did the Pontiff obtain any other result, than to have seemed to have impelled to arms English Catholics who were certain to perish, with either none or a doubtful title to martyrdom, since they were put to dreadful deaths as traitors." At the time of the Spanish Armada, notwithstanding the revival of the deposition by Sixtus Y., his absolution of her subjects from their allegiance, and his command to them to employ all their forces against her, many English Eoman Catholics supported her 5 . You are familiar with the fact of the rejection of the Pope's civil authority in England, and of his power to dispense subjects from their allegiance, by the Sorbonne, the Universities of Louvain. Douai, Alcala, Salamanca, obtained by the English Roman Catholics, and presented to Pitt fi . " The Pope's claim to temporal power by Divine right," says C. Butler r , 4i has not perhaps at this time a sino-le advocate.'' The celebrated tract, ' ; Eoman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King 5 ," — of which thirty-five editions were published between 1748 and 1813, and "a copy was pre- sented to Pitt by a Committee of English Eoman Catholics 9 ," — expressly disclaimed the Pope's direct This meanwhile was the gain of heretics, that the Catholics suffered, not as Catholics, but as public enemies, ready to rise against the king, whenever it so pleased the Koman Pontiff." Ib. pp. 103, 104. E Butler, ii. 10, 11. 1 Butler, iv. 13. The questions and answers are given at length. Ib. i. 439—482. 7 lb. ii. 222. 5 Beprinted in Butler's Memoirs, iii. 497 — £09. » Butler, iv. 491. Forgiveness of sins beforehand to Crusaders. 317 or indirect authority over the temporal power and jurisdiction of princes, or his power to absolve or dispense subjects from their allegiance. It has been suggested to me bv Roman Catholics to bring the fact to the remembrance of the English Roman Catholics, that it would involve a great scandal, if what was so often repudiated, in order to remove their civil disqualifications, should, after they had gained them, be indirectly made matter of faith. I will set down only one difficulty more involved as to the past, which I think that the English would feel. It is as to some of the Crusades. One of the things most commonly urged against confession is, that people sin in the hope of future pardon. We know this to be false ; and that, to take the worst case, it is more hopeful if a person breaks off his sins before an Easter Confession and Com- munion than if he never interrupted them at all. Faint as the gleam may be, it is still some light on the soul, shining in its darkness, some idea of what repentance is, some fewer sins to do dishonour to Almighty God, a memory of a temporary exemption from the thraldom of sin, which may by God's grace be the forerunner of real repentance. Now Bulls as to the Crusades do in the letter contain forgiveness for sins not yet committed, on the condition, in some cases, of contrition and con- fession, but still beforehand. It must have occurred to many, that one great 318 Difficulties as to forgiveness of sins beforehand, reason of the failures of the Crusades (besides the jealousies of the great among the Crusaders) lay in the class of men who were thus drawn to them. Doubtless some were really converted. But S. Bernard, I fear, was over-sanguine when he rejoiced that — " 1 Very few in such a multitude of men flow thither, save men flagitious and ungodly, robbers and sacrilegious, homicides, perjured, adulterers, at whose departure, as there is manifestly a double good, so there is also a double joy, since they gladden their people at their departure, and those whom they haste to succour by their arrival." The point, however, for which I refer to them here, is, that I see no way of explaining language which occurs in several of these Bulls, inviting Christians to join the Crusades, short of being a conditional forgiveness beforehand of sins not yet committed, which, I suppose, would be held con- trary to the true faith. My only solution has been, that, Crusades being accounted a holy war, death in them was accounted a sort of martyrdom ; and a true martyrdom, we know, was ever accounted " a Baptism of blood." Still this is not the language. And, since they were proclaimed with the whole Papal authority, and were addressed to all Chris- tians, they seem to come under the most common conditions of being said " ex cathedra ;" and would, in case of a decree of the personal infallibility of the Pope, become an additional embarrassment. 1 Exhort, ad mil. templi, c. 5, Opp. i. 555. and promise of heaven to Crusaders. 319 The first given by Amort is that granted by Gregory VII. to the supporters of Rudolf of Suabia against Henry IV., whom he had deposed. " 2 Writing to Belgium he thus decrees, ' That Eudolf may rule and defend the kingdom of Germany, on your fealty, I give, bestow, grant to all who cleave faithfully to him absolu- tion of all sins.' " 3 A. 1095. Urban, in the city of Clermont, held a great Council, when he said, ' Jerusalem seeks to be freed : from you chiefly it seeks for succour. Take then this way for the remission of your sins, secure of the unfading glory of the kingdom of Heaven? " 4 Pope Gelasius to the army of Christians keeping Sara- gossa, and to all who cherish the Catholic faith. ' Since ye have decided to expose yourselves and your property to extremest perils, if any of you, having received penance for his sins, die in this expedition, we, by the merits of the saints and the prayers of the Catholic Church, absolve him from the bands of his sins.' " Calixtus II., in the Lateran Council 5 , A. 1122, 'To those who set out to Jerusalem, and give effectual aid to defend the Christian people and put down the tyranny of the infidels, Ave grant remission of their sins.' " 8 Eugenius [III.] to Louis and all the faithful of God throughout France, 'We admonish you all in the Lord, request, instruct, and enjoin for the remission of sins, that they who are God's — and especially the more powerful — bo zealous so to meet the multitude of the infidels, which boast that it has gained a time of victory over us, and so to defend the Eastern Church, which was freed by such effusion of the blood of your fathers from their tyranny — that the dignity of 2 A. 1084. In Amort's Hist. Indulg. P. 1. S. 2, p. 54. 3 lb. n. 3, p. 5G. 4 lb. n. 4, from Baronius, A. 1118, n. 18. 6 Can. 2 in Amort, n. 6. 0 A. 1145, in Amort, n. 7. 320 Later explanation. the Christian name may be increased in your time. We, then, with paternal solicitude, providing for your quiet and the desti- tution of the said Church, do, by the authority granted to us by God, concede and confirm to those who shall determine to undertake and carry through so hol} r and most necessary a work of labour and toil in view of devotion, that remission of sins which our predecessor, Pope Urban, instituted. "We, ac- cording to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, do, by the authority of Almighty God and of S. Peter, prince of the Apostles, given to us by God, grant such remission and abso- lution of sins, that whoso shall devoutly begin and carry through so holy a journey, or if he dies there, shall obtain absolu- tion of all his sins, of which with contrite and humble heart he undertakes confession, and receive from the Eewarder of all the fruit of everlasting retribution.' " It is not necessary to multiply these. Others include remission of penance ; yet these and others look like the absolute remission of the sins them- selves. Any how, the language needs explanation ; and in these days, in which faith is so manifoldly assaulted, it seems to be the part of charity not to multiply them. Later writers of authority 7 have entirely sepa- rated the idea of forgiveness of sins from indul- gences. They deny that indulgences can even concur towards the remission of the sins them- selves ; they say that Urban's promise that they "would have the fruit of eternal reward," was conditioned by " the sacramental confession which necessarily brings with it absolution, remitting 7 Theodosius in Sp. S. de Indulg. P. i. c. 5. I am told that he is the highest authority on the subject. Death, in Crusades taught to be martyrdom. 321 sins;" that Pope Gelasius, when he said, "we absolve from the bands of their sins," meant " the band of punishment, not of guilt ;" and that, if any indulgences had the clause, " remission of guilt and punishment," these words were either fraudulently inserted by the vendors, or they only signified a most full indulgence, as exciting persons to repentance, whereby they obtained remission of guilt, or, finally, that the words signified "absolution in reserved cases also." The doctrine then is clear at present. The only question is, whether it is well to encumber it with defences as to the past. It would be very difficult to persuade people that the quarrel between Rudolf and Henry IV. was such, that to die for Rudolf was martyrdom. The Crusades themselves had not the blessing of God upon them ; and all Christendom now seems tacitly to condemn them, since, whereas it requires but one united will on the part of Christendom to accomplish their avowed end, that will now exists not : the object of all this bloodshed has not seemed even an object of desire. At that time, to fight for the Holy Land, and to die in so fighting, was taught by Popes to have the reward of martyrdom. " 3 He[TTrbau],grieving that the Saracens had seized Jerusalem the holy city, and the sepulchre of the Lord, wishing to rescue 8 Chron. Casaur. A. 1097, L. v. init. in Murat. Scriptt. rerr. Ital. ii. 2, p. 872. 322 Deatk in Crusades taught to be martyrdom. it from the hands of the ungodly, and to restore it to its former liberty, preached remission of sin, and, by the vicegerency given him by God, gave it to all, whoever should go to Jeru- salem, and free the city and land beyond sea, possessed by the Saracens. Adding this, moreover, that whoever, whether in journey or in battle, should die for Christ, being absolved from all their sins, should be counted among the martyrs. And since the whole world ran after him, eager to receive remission of sins, and to be in the number of the Holy Martyrs," &c. A defence of the Crusades, prepared at the command of Gregory X. for the Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274, answered the objection from the loss of Christian life. " 9 The end of Christianity is to fill, not the world, but Heaven. What matter then, if Christians are minished in this world through the death which they undergo for God, seeing that through such deaths they go to heaven, and perhaps they would not go there in any other way?" It mentions also a saying ascribed to S. Louis that he could say at the Day of Judgment, that he too had been taken and maltreated for Him, as He for him. Innocent III., who promised increase of ever- lasting reward, appealed far and wide : — " " Whoso in such necessity refuses his fealty to Christ, what will he say when he stands to be judged at His tribunal ? 9 Opusc. tripartit. L. i. c. 12, in Brown, Fasc. Rer. expet. ii. 193, and (shorter) Mansi, Cone. xxiv. 114. 1 lb. c. 17. 2 Epist. deer. L. i. Narbonensi Archiep. &c. et univ. Pop. in Narbon. Opp. ii. 212. Sent also to the Archbishops of Lyons Would it be expedient to uphold all Crusades ? 323 What can he answer as his excuse ? If God suffered death for man, shall man hesitate to suffer death for God ? " Innocent speaks of the evil lives of former Crusaders as a ground of their failure 3 . S. Bernard speaks of the sort of persons who were attracted to his Crusade. If forgiveness of all sins, and heaven, were promised beforehand on such easy terms, who wonders that such persons fell into such excesses ? There is the further question, whether it is for the furtherance of peace, to declare that the Pope was infallibly right, when he directed or urged Crusades, not only for the recovery of the Holy Land, but against the heathen in the North of Europe, the Sclaves, Lithuanians, Livonians ; against the Albigenses, the Hussites, and " the Schismatic Greeks," the Sicilian rebels, or his own enemies, Manfred, or the Colonnas. Hincmar puts the difficulty of obeying the decretals more broadly. His words picture vividly what might be the difficulty, if every saying of Popes, addressed to the Church, were declared infallible truth : — and Vienna, and to all in the kingdoms of France, England, Hungary, and Sicily. 3 "If ye walk in the law of the Lord, not following their steps, who, going after vanity, became vain, who voluptuously gave themselves to gluttony and drunkenness, and did those things beyond seas, which, in the land of their birth, they would not dare to do without much infamy," etc. — lb. p. 214. X 2 324 Cases in which Papal Infallibility would " 4 How great is the difference between those Councils which he decreed were to be kept and received, and which the Catho- lic Fathers thenceforth wished to remain firm and unshaken, and those Epistles which were given at divers times, for the consolation of divers persons, which, he says, are to be received with reverence — no one, practised in Ecclesiastical dogmas, is ignorant. Eor, if we begin to wish to hold and practise some of those things which are contained in some of those Epistles, we shall begin to act against many other things of those Epistles. And, again, if we begin to hold and keep other things, contrary to what we had done, we shall do against those things which we before desired to keep, and shall deviate from the Sacred Councils, which are by us ever to be received, held, guarded, and followed; nay, we shall depart most injuriously from the custom which the Catholic Church had, from the time when our Fathers met at the sacred Nicene Council, who still, as Leo says, live with us in their constitutions, and, holding nothing certain, we shall stumble upon the sect of those who defined that all things were uncertain." In some things, I suppose, the declaration of Papal infallibility would not embarrass us, but would rather modify the existing theology among you. As when Pope S. Gelasius (in a book 5 quoted by S. Fulgentius 6 , about A.D. 507, eleven years after the decease of S. Gelasius, as written by " Pope Gelasius of blessed memory ") says, — " Certainly the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is a Divine thing ; wherefore also we are by the same made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet the 4 Hincmar Opusc. capp. -55 adv. Hincmar. Laudun. c. 25. Opp. ii. 482, 483. 6 De duabus in Christo Naturis, adv. Eutychen et Nestorium, B. P. viii. 703. • In the De 5 quaestt. ad Ferrand. B. P. ix. 187. affect ordinary statements of Roman doctrine. 325 substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is then shown to us very clearly, that we must think of Christ the Lord Himself the same which we profess, celebrate, and receive in His image, that as they [the elements] pass into this, viz. the Divine Substance (the Holy Spirit perfecting this), yet abiding in their own proper nature, so they show that that chief Mystery itself, the efficiency and virtue whereof they truly represent to us, doth from those [two Natures] whereof He is properly abiding, abide One Christ, because Perfect and True." If the words " substantia vel natura" represent fyvcns only, still the reception of this as infallible truth, would materially modify sayings of the schoolmen. Or again (to set down briefly what I have dwelt on before), when S. Gregory the Great, in a formal answer to S. Augustine of Canterbury, how to pro- ceed with his newly-converted English, said 7 , — " Marriage with a sister-in-law is also [as well as with a mother-in-law] forbidden, who by her former union became the brother's flesh. For which also John Baptist was beheaded and crowned with martyrdom." Or when Innocent III. grants that in the degrees of consanguinity forbidden by the Divine law [i. e. by Leviticus], dispensation cannot be given [" in illis dispensari non possit 8 "]. Or when Gregory the Great refused the title of Universal Pope 9 , alleging that "whatsoever is given 7 Epp. L. xi. Ind. xi. Ep. 6, Int. 6, col. 1154. 8 Deer. Greg. II. 18. 6 Epp. viii. 30, ad Eulog. 326 Roman doctrine modified by Papal Infallibility. to another more than reason requires, is so much taken away from yourself." " 1 For, if one (as he [John of Const.] thinks) is universal, it remains that you are not Bishops." And Leo IX., when he said 2 , — " The humility of those venerable Pontiffs [the Bishops of Borne], worthy of all imitation, considering that the chief of the Apostles himself is not found called ' universal Apostle,' wholly rejected that proud title, whereby a like dignity seemed to be withdrawn from all, when it was totally arrogated to the one." Again, it must in one way much limit the authority of the Pope, that some Popes have said, "I cannot undo the Ecclesiastic Canons," and the like, or that Pope Leo III. repudiated the thought that he could alter the terms of the Creed, as being against the Fathers of Chalcedon 3 . Or Popes have spoken of their own fallibility 4 . Or Pope Clement VI. said that the gift of the Cup was " for the greater increase of grace 5 ." The decree as to the Immaculate Conception would surely have to be modified in view of the sayings of four Popes, — " 0 How much less is it to be believed that His Soul could come from the propagation of a sinner [peccatricis]." 1 lb. ix. 68, ad Euseb. See more fully "Eirenicon," P. I. pp. 309—314. 2 Leo IX. Ep. 1 ad Michael. Const, n. 9. Cone. xi. B. 22, Col. 3 See ab. p. 174. * See ab. pp. 237—240. See below, p. 330. 6 Epistle of Pope Zosimus in S. Aug. Ep. 100 ad Opt. n. 24, Discipline, Celibacy of Clergy." 327 " 7 The earth of human flesh — in this Birth Alone, from the Blessed Virgin yielded a Blessed Fruit, and alien from the fault of His race." " 8 When we see no one is excepted." " 9 That one [Eve] was produced without fault, but pro- duced unto fault ; but this one [Mary] was produced in fault, but produced without fault." And now my task is done. I have not thought it necessary to speak either of the Communion in both kinds or of a married Clergy, because both are accounted among you to be matters of discipline, and so they need present no difficulties to you. The Marriage Service in our Prayer Book implies that the celibate is the higher state ; for it speaks of " the gift of continency :" much more in those who are called " to spend and to be spent " for Christ — who have to teach others to despise all things for love of Him Who loved them and gave Himself for them ; that we are here but for a little while, exiles from our home with God, strangers and pilgrims more fully in "Eirenicon," P. II. p. 96. The passage is very often urged by Card, de Turrccremata. 7 S. Leo I. De Nat. Dom. 4, n. 3. See more fully " Eireni- con," P. II. p. 125. 8 Pope S. Gelasius, Ep. vii. Cone. v. 302 — 304, given fully " Eirenicon," P. II. p. 128. 9 Innocent III. in Solemn. Assump. glor. semper Virg. Serm. ii. Opp. i. 351. The Abbe Migne thought the passage to be contrary to the definition of the Imm. Cone. " So could Pope Innocent think as to a matter, not as yet defined by the Church, which now is of faith." See more fully, "Eirenicon," P. II. pp. 195, 196. 328 Bishops at Council of Trent held that on the earth, with no other real end of our being than, by the grace of God, to become that for which He in His eternal love willed each of us to become. But God Alone knows to whom or on how many He bestows that "gift of continency," or whether He bestows it so largely, that the celibacy of the Clergy can be enforced without risk to the souls of men, or of those terrible scandals which in mediaeval times the Church groaned under, but could not remedy. God is, among us, drawing more and more to that better part, to which, my dearest friend, He drew you while with us ; and so one may hope that, while it is left free to the Clergy also to be married or unmarried, " as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness," God will con- tinue His work, and give us continually more, whose Portion He Alone shall be — He, the ex- ceeding great Reward of His own. The Cup we wish to retain, not as doubting that they receive Christ wholly who receive Him under one kind, but because it would seem to us to be questioning His wisdom, to deny that there must be some special gift in the Cup also. You know in what glowing words the Church of old spoke of " the living Blood," " the life-giving Blood," " the Precious Blood," " the atoning Blood," " the saving Blood," "the Blood of our Redeemer;" "the Cup of Salvation ;" of our " drinking our Ran- som;" of drinking, "not water from the rock, but Blood from His Side." The words with the Cup has Its own special grace. 329 which It is administered among us, " The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto ever- lasting life," were translated from the existing Ritual. Among you still, Lugo notes that the priest, after receiving the Body, and before receiving the Cup, prays that the Blood which he wishes to receive " may preserve his soul unto everlasting life," which, too, cannot take place unless it produce something in the soul. I said, eighteen years ago, in a book now forgotten 1 : "Vazquez 2 and Lugo 3 both admit that it is the more probable opinion that there is some special gift in the Cup. Lugo says that ' Franc. Blanco, Archbishop of Compostella, who was present at the Council of Trent, said, that such was the unanimous opinion of the fathers [there], but that they were unwilling to define it inopportunely, lest an occasion of outcry should be given to the heretics ; wherewith agree the words of the Council itself (Sess. xxi. c. 3), where it is cautiously said, " As pertains to the fruit, they are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation, who receive one kind only." It did not say absolutely " no grace," but " no grace necessary to salva- tion," where, not without reason, that expression appears to have been added, " no grace necessary ;" ' and this, Vazquez adds, ' on the ground that the command to communicate was fulfilled by the reception of one kind only.' He notices, also, that this Council, although it says, ' Christ, whole and entire, is received under one kind only,' does not say that ' the entire (integrum) sacrament,' but ' a true (verum) sacrament is received;' and he sums up this part by sayiug : — 'We grant that, according to this our opinion, the laity, to whom one kind 1 "Letter to the Bishop of London," 1851, pp. 217 sqq. 2 In 3 P. Disp. 215. ' De Sacr. Euch. Disp. xii. S. 3. 330 Lugo : special gift of grace in the Cup. is denied, are deprived of some grace, yet not necessary to salva- tion, and that this the Council did not mean to deny.' " They cite, moreover, Clement VI. (A.D. 1341), who granted the Cup to a king of France, ' ad majorem gratias aug- mentum,' ' to the greater increase of grace ;' ' therefore,' adds Lugo, ' because both kinds give more grace than one.' " Lugo dwells upon our Lord's own words, in which He speaks not of His Flesh only, but of His Blood. ' Christ said not, " My Flesh is truly satisfying, or nourishment generally," but " is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed," to indicate that to His Body, received under the form of bread, belonged those effects spiritually, which the natural bread worketh [naturally], as the Council of Florence said, in the Decree of Eugenius ; and to the Blood, under the form of wine, belonged those effects spiritually, which natural wine worketh [natu- rally] ; so then a certain effect correspondeth to the Cup, i. e. to drink spiritually, which no wise belongs to the Bread ; and, contrariwise, spiritual feeding no wise comes from the Cup, but from the Bread.' " Again he urges, ' It is not credible that the Apostles, when, after Supper, they were invited by Christ to drink the Cup, did not receive some fruit from that reception, but only a more explicit sign of the fruit which they had before already received ; yea, from the very mode of giving the Cup, Christ seemeth to have invited them by some hope of spiritual fruit, and by the same hope to invite us, too, to the Cup, after receiving the Body.' " He quotes also Arnoldus, Abbot of Bonneval (about A.D. 1162, a friend of S. Bernard), who, speaking of the Cup, says, ' Christ Himself gave this Cup, and taught that we should not only be outwardly bedewed with His Blood, but that inwardly, too, the soul should be guarded by Its Almighty sprinkling; and that the power of so mighty a medicine, penetrating all things, should disperse whatever there was hard within, and renew and heal whatsoever disease clave to the flesh, or where- with the corruption of the former life had stained the spirit.' " He adds, ' In this sense it is commonly said, that this Cup spiritually inebriateth him who receiveth it, which cannot be understood without some efficiency. In this sense, too, Christ Prayers in our own tongue ; choice of Bishops. 331 is said to have given to the mournful the Cup of His Blood 4 , i. e. to cause joy to them by that Drink, which also cannot take place without efficiency.' " The use of prayers, even of the . Eucharistic Liturgy, in our own language would not, I trust, form a difficulty, since, whatever changes languages may have undergone, the Liturgy must at first have been in the language of the people; and now, too, I suppose that an Italian or Spanish, or even a French peasant, must be able to follow Latin devotions much more than any Saxon people. The nomination of our Bishops by internal autho- rity, in any primitive mode of election, would leave us what we wish to remain — English, not Italian or Spanish Catholics. Oakeley says that — " If the Pope is to exercise in a re-united England the power which he claims all over the world, of controlling the appointments to the Episcopate, it is quite certain that Bishops so nominated, or at least accepted by him, will, with the priests who are their subjects, be the instruments of flooding England with the devotions to which Dr. Pusey conscientiously objects 5 ." Yet, why so ? The devotions which I spoke of as our difficulties, are no matters of faith. Though transplanted into England, they are not of English growth ; they do not (as you pointed out) represent the theology of the old English Roman Catholics. I took them as I found them in an English dress. 4 In the hymn of Corpus Christi, — " Dedit fragilibus Corporis ferculum, Dedit et tristibus Sanguinis poculum." G Letter to the Mo3t Eev. W. E. Manning, p. 53. 332 Our central difficulties in I am thankful to have heard, on Roman authority, that De Montfort's work, which was introduced to us on such high authority, " as having been minutely examined at Rome, in view of the writer's canonization," and which so startled me by its new theology 6 , was "very incorrectly translated." I have been told that "De Montfort does not say some of the things which are most startling in the English." But then, surely, your authorities should have it corrected; for they are supposed to have publications under their control in a way which ours have not, and so are more responsible for them. For these things drive us back inexpres- sibly. We make ourselves acquainted with the Council of Trent; we see in what sense — and that a sense approved by some of your own writers — we could receive it ; and then we are bewildered with a teaching, in which there is one central figure, which (although one could not exaggerate the love due to her whom Jesus so loved and loves) is not Jesus, our God. Where we should expect to find the Name of Jesus, we find Mary, or, at the best, Jesus and Mary, as joint, although in a disparate degree, dispensers of graces — He, as having them in Him- self to give; His Mother, as being entrusted or delegated by Him to give them. If we complain of this, we are (at least by foreign ecclesiastics) frankly told of the " exaggeration " of the " livres de piete." And yet, on the other hand, these e " Eirenicon," P. I. pp. 164, 165. the system as to the B. V. 333 devotions seem to be employed as the easiest way of drawing the hearts of those to whom our Redeemer — as He Who shall come to be our Judge — is an object of awe. The devotion of women seems to expand itself most easily towards her, who, although " blessed above all women," was yet a woman. The name of Mother has the most sacred tenderness of all human (though still human) affec- tions ; and children seem to be taught to love her as a Mother, even before they learn of Jesus as their Redeemer, or God as their Father. And this, we are told, is continually growing. "A happy hurrying force 7 ," the Benedictines of Solesme told us about ten years ago 8 , "impels souls more and more towards the mother of mercies. How many hearts are there who did not know God some years ago, and who now live by the life of grace, because Mary has deigned to cast down upon them the looks of her maternal tenderness. In the centre of the capital (Paris) prodigies of grace emanate unceasingly from the sacred heart of Mary, who has chosen for the centre of her influences the Church of ' Our Lady of Victories,' that trophy of our ancient faith over heretics." We know to Whom you look as the Life of all those who live the life of grace, Whom you love, as " drawing all men to Himself," Him Whose you are, in Whom you are, Who has been to you the Way, as He will be evermore your Life. But why, in books of your communion, does the Blessed 7 Entrainement. * " La Triple Couronne de la Mere de Dieu," par Poire. Publie par les ER. PP. Benedictins de Solesmes. Pref. pp. v, vi. Paris 1858. 334 Our central difficulties in Mother of God so often stand where we should expect to find her Son ? Why, even in books which withdraw so much of the teaching- which startles us, do we still find the love towards Mary contrasted with that to Jesus, as being " pure love," " unmingled with fear 9 ," and herself " ap- ' " Jesus Christ is the tender Father of the Christian family, wishing sincerely the salvation of all His children. However, in Him the two attributes of mercy and justice are equally to be acknowledged, so that He is both God of Mercy and God of Justice. Though we behold in Him the Son of God, taking the form of a servant and assuming our humanity, still we see in Him His Divinity and Infinite Majesty, which terrifies. We see Him as our dear Father, but not without the robe of judge punishing the guilty children ; so that a Christian heart feels for Jesus Christ a love mixed with fear and awe — not a pure love, not that love which a child feels in the bosom of his mother. Our blessed Saviour therefore, from the Cross, wishing to give to Christians an object of love alone, without any mixture of fear, gave them Mary for their spiritual mother, in luJiose sweet maternity a Christian would find nothing but mere mercy, unaccompanied either by the fear of majesty (she not being God), nor by terror of judgment (she not being judge), but all meekness and compassion for his miseries, and endowed with the power, by the virtue of her Divine Son, to succour him. Hence a Christian throws himself at her feet, with a full confidence to find in her peace, comfort, and pure love, without any hindrance whatever to followits attractions." — Melia, "Mary the Object of Veneration, Confidence, and Imitation to all Christians," p. 260. This cannot be literally meant ; for Mary (being a creature, through the first of created beings) can only love with a finite love. Jesus loves us with an infinite love. And where would be the attractiveness of His love, "Who, being God, became Man and died for us, if the sinner could not with more loving trust, cast himself at His Sacred Feet, and with S. Mary Magdalene entwine himself around His Cross ? the system as to the B. V. 335 pointed by Jesus Christ," as " the means to reach God, His grace, His glory 1 " ? 1 " What is, indeed, the good we covet ? It is God, His grace, His glory. Bat Mary is appointed by Jesus Christ to he the means to reach such a good, as through her we may arrive at the possession both of Divine grace and glory. Such is the mission of Mary, and it shall be demonstrated in the next chapter. "We only observe here, that Mary is the break of day, bringing the repentant sinner from the night of sin to the light of Divine grace," &c. — Melia, ib. p. 264. Of course, there is no question with us about the intercession of Mary, as of all the blessed saints in heaven, or that Jesus hears them. But M. Melia's analogy from earthly things, is precisely that which to us too represented this side of the devotions to Mary, and the very ground on which we dreaded them. "If the first Minister in a temporal kingdom is considered the most proper person to solicit favours from the Sovereign, will Mary not be con- sidered the proper and fit person in the kingdom of heaven to present there, before the throne of the Most High, both public and private supplications, and obtain for us the graces we require? It is for this reason, that in the 'Salve Begina' we say," &c, — p. 290. The question with us is not about the presenting of our prayers. In the Bevelation we know that angels present prayers of the Church. It is, in brief, this: As Jesus is "the Way" to the Bather, and no one cometh to the Bather save by Him, is Mary the way to Jesus ? As one who wants to obtain a temporal favour of the Sovereign, would go, not to the Queen, but to the Brime Minister, is it taught that the way to obtain Divine graces is to go, not to Jesus, but to Mary ? This is what seems to us to be incul- cated in " The Glories of Mary," and the analogy exactly expresses it. It seems to us, that, practically, the Office of our Lord's Humanity is, whenever Mary is spoken of, withdrawn from sight, and she, as the Mediatrix with the Mediator, with Whom she is certain to prevail, occupies the same place as our Blessed Lord does with the Bather, only without His awefulness. And yet, since Jesus died for us, and His love is an infinite 336 Response to disclaimer of certain statements. But I would not again wound your loving heart by setting forth what wounds mine. Eather I would express my joy, that your strong protest, in which — without committing yourself to any opinion, whether any of the statements which I cited occurred in any authorized work, or whether, if they or any thing resembling them, should so occur, they had the meaning which I attached to them — you altogether repudiated them, has found a response in religious hearts in the Roman communion. Even at my own cost, I am thankful to see in a work recommended by a preface of your Bp. Ullathorne, the passage, — " 2 Many will probably be surprised to learn tbat sbe [Mother Margaret] was far from liking the extravagant phrase- ology adopted in some books of devotion. She intensely admired Dr. Newman's celebrated ' Letter,' and was only deterred by timidity from writing him her thanks ; but when, as it was read aloud to her, the reader came to that page in which he enumerates in order to condemn certain exaggerated and preposterous expressions, culled by a Protestant contro- versialist out of various foreign writers {some of them on the Index), she stopped her ears, and desired that they might be passed over in silence." I am more thankful than I can say for this, how- ever little the biographer of the good Religious knew of me or of my acts. Of the expressions which you rejected, one only occurred in a book on love, who would not look with more trust in Him as His Judge, than to any mere human being, however tender ? 2 " Life of Mother Margaret Hallahan, with a Preface by Bp. TJUathorne," p. 320. its satisfactoriness to us. 337 the Index ; nor does the fact that a book is on the Index imply the condemnation of all which is in it (for Card. Bellarmine's learned work on Contro- versies was, we are informed, for two years on the Index); nor did I "cull passages out of various foreign writers." I mostly took either what had been naturalized among us in repeated editions, or what was brought to me by persons who were perplexed with them ; and as to all, my central wish was, that, not being of faith, they might be rejected, as you have so energetically rejected many of them 3 . One word in conclusion of what, I hope, will be my farewell to Roman controversy, except as far as I have promised to discharge the ungracious, and to me hateful, task of answering some strictures upon former works of mine 4 . Some of your con- troversialists have pictured me much in the light of a well-known politician, who professed to have " educated " his party. They imagine that I have had an ulterior object in what I wrote as an "Eire- nicon," viz. of forming a new front, as it were — teaching our controversialists what points to aban- don, what to strengthen, and how to strengthen them ; that I wished to show the Evangelicals espe- cially that I was not so Romanizing as they may 3 See in detail " Eirenicon," P. II. pp. 14—18. 4 If this is delayed, it will be that my soul is wearied of controversy, and that I loathe this, which concerns none but myself, and, for my sake, a few friends, and would gladly, after all this labour of controversy, breathe a freer air. Y 338 Personal explanations. have thought me ; in a word, that, while professing peace, I was concentrating our ranks for war. They have in this ascribed to me talents which I have not, and denied to me sincerity of heart and purpose, which, by God's mercy and grace, I trust I have. I never was a party leader. I never acted on any system. My name was used first to designate those of us who gave themselves to revive the teaching of forgotten truth and piety, because I first had occasion to write fully on Baptismal Regeneration. But it was used by opponents, not by confederates. We should have thought it a note against us, to have deserved any party name, or to have been any thing but the followers of Jesus, the disciples of the Church, the sons and pupils of the great Fathers, whom He raised up in her. I never had any temptation to try to form d, party, for it was against our principles. We rejoiced more to see any neglected truth revived, outside of our own large circle of friends, than at any results which God gave to our own labours. We watched with deep interest the gradual rising of the waters every where, as God the Holy Ghost brooded over them, secure that as they filled and overflowed their banks, they would meet in one. We rejoiced to see any one rising above his system, or receiving truths inconsistent with it, trusting that, as God gave strength to the soul encased within it, it would, chrysalis-like, burst its bonds Personal explanations. 339 and soar into the free atmosphere of full evangelic truth. We saw that the work around us was not of man, but of God ; and so had no temptation to cramp, or limit, or restrain His work. Then, personally, I was the more exempt from this temp- tation, because God has given me neither the peculiar organizing abilities which tempt men to it, nor any office (as that of an Archdeacon) which would entitle me directly to counsel others. Had I had any authority to speak or to advise, many things would not have been done which have been and arc; many things might have been done which have not. If I had any special gift of God, it was, I should think, energy; to do what, in detail, I saw could be done on each occasion ; and, what- ever my hand found to do, to do it with all my might. My life, contrary to the character of party- leaders, has been spent in a succession of insulated efforts ; bearing, indeed, upon our one great end, the growth of Catholic truth and piety among us, or contrariwise, resistance to what might hinder, retard, or obscure it ; but still, insulated. I have looked on with regret at many things which have been done ; extravagances which have been com- mitted ; truth exhibited in a way to repel rather than to attract ; stiffness and pedantry or dry- ness, at times, in proposing it ; hardness, con- tempt, and want of charity, which could not but injure the cause in which they were shown. The old Tractarians have had to bear the obloquy for Y 2 340 Personal explanations. things which they would have, or actually did, dis- advise. They have had the sorrow of seeing hearts retained in their alienation who might have been won. I have lived on into a time when the days of our prime and our best energies are, by some at least, looked down upon. It became a saying among a younger school, " The Tractarians were well enough for their day;" and most thankful should I be, if " all the Lord's people were pro- phets," and the younger generation were as much wiser than those of our youth as they think them- selves to be \ For the " Eirenicon " itself, I could not even conjecture what its effects would be. I could only commit it to God, Who, I hoped, had taught me to turn into an Eirenicon what, at the earnest desire of others, I had begun as a defence. Only, I felt certain of this, that the Evangelicals, with whom mv defence of the common faith had gained me popularity for the time, would be alienated. Amid the kindness shown me at the Norwich Congress (the "Eirenicon " had but just been published), I felt that I was throwing away my temporary popu- larity with my own hands. But God had, I trusted, put it into my heart to do it, and my only pain at the parting was, lest they should be repelled from truth which I had hoped they might one day receive. 6 I ought not to say this without expressing my thankful- ness for the efforts and results of the recent Mission services. Personal explanations. 341 I should not have been guilty of this egoism even to vou, but that I am anxious to disclaim the influence which loving hearts in the Roman Communion are apt to attribute to me. "While my name is forgotten here, and the newest, most unpopular name of reproach for us all (ritualists or non-ritualists) is " Ritualist," those who abroad look at the work of God here with interest and love, ascribe to me an influence which I never sought, never had, and, least of all, have now. And this it seems honest to say now. For I wish, in this new " Eirenicon," to be under- stood as speaking in the name of no one but my single self. I have consulted no one. The one whom I ever consulted, with whom I was ever one, who was deeply interested in whatever might promote healthful reunion, to whom, in his last days, the hope was a subject of joy c , can now only pray for it, but, perhaps, does more for us there. I write, then, in the name of no party. But I do write in the full confidence that I express the feelings of thousands upon thousands of English hearts, both here and in the United States, when I say, that if, not individual, but accredited, Roman authority could say, " Reunion would involve your professing your belief in this, and that, and that, but it would not involve your receiving such and such opinions, or practices, or devotions, or matters of dis- cipline," I believe that the middle wall of partition which has existed so long in, as we believe, the one 5 The Author of the " Christian Year." 342 Hopes. fold of Christendom would be effectually shattered. As it is, whenever reunion is thought of, certain sub- jects start up like spectres, and motion us away. We should have to remodel our devotional habits of mind, if we were to have to conform them to the devotions of " La triple Couronnc de Marie," or of " La Sainte Vierge d'apres les Peres " (as the writer thought it to be). But we are children of common fathers, of those who, after having shone with the light of God within them upon earth, and set on a candlestick which shall never be hid the clear light of their inherited faith, now shine like stars in the kingdom of their Father. Sons of the same fathers, we must in time come to understand each other's language. I need not commit this to your deep personal love and large-hearted charity. To others in your communion I would only say through you, that neither in this nor in my former work have I thought to speak against any thing which is " of faith " among you ; one only desire I have had, if it were possible to such as me, to promote a solid, healthful, lasting peace. Evil days and trial-times seem to be coining upon the earth. Faith deepens, but unbelief too becomes more thorough. Yet what might not God do to check it, if those who own one Lord and one faith were again at one, and united Christendom should go forth bound in one by Love — the full flow of God's Holy Spirit unhemmed by any of those breaks, or jars, or manglings — to win all to His Love Whom we all Hopes. 343 desire to love, to serve, to obey. To have removed one stumbling-block would be worth the labour of a life. But He Alone, the Author of peace and the Lover of concord, can turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers. " 0 Lord, in the midst of the years revive Thy work : in the midst of the years make known : in wrath remember mercy." May God hear your prayers, and reward your love ! Your most affectionate Friend, E. B. PUSEY. CintisT CnuRciT, Feast of All Saints, 18G9. Note A, on p. 122. The following Epitome is taken from Bishop Cosin's laborious book on the Canon. In the Greek Church, the Council of Laodicea, which, in the twenty-two books, counts Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah alone as one book, to the ex- clusion of the other Apocryphal books, was formally received by the Council of Chalcedon. Of individuals, Anastasius Sinaita says, " the whole O. T. consisted of twenty-two books " (Ilexaem. L. vii. B. P. ix. 886), as does Leontius, counting three books of Solomon, and expressly saying that the twenty- two books of the O. T. were those canonized in the Church, and were received also by the Hebrews (de Sect. act. 2. Gall, xii. 627) ; for which he is corrected in the Index Expurg. as having " wrongly omitted Tobias, Judith, Esther, "Wisdom, Ecclus., Maccabees." S. John Damascene states the books of the O. T. to be twenty-two (de Fid. orthod. iv. 18). Antiochus, a learned Greek monk, about A. 630, compared the books of Scripture with the sixty queens of the Canticles; i.e. twenty- seven of the N. T., and (counting the minor Prophets as twelve, not as one) thirty-three instead of twenty-two of the O. T., still excluding the Deutero-Canonical books [B. P. xii. 217, as did Philip the Solitary, A.D. 1145, Dioptra iv. 19. B. P. xii. P. i. p. 731, Col. 1618]. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Const. A.D. 820, counts the Deutero-Canonical books of the O. T. as " books spoken against " in contrast with those "received by the Church and canonized," i.e. the books of the Hebrew Canon (Chronograph. Compend. p. 419, Paris, 1652). Zonaras follows S. Athanasius, S. Greg. Naz., S. Amphiloch. (in Can. Cone. Carth. can. 27, p. 415), as does Balsamon (in Cone. Carth. can. 27, p. 656). Isicephorus Callistus counts these books as twenty-two in all ; twelve genuine historical books, and " all besides spurious " (Synops. Script, in Cyr. Theod. Prodromi Epigr. Bas. 1536). 346 Ante-Tridentine statements In the "Western Church the Prologus galeatus of S. Jerome, which distinguished the Canonical from the Apocryphal books, continued (Cosin observes, n. 88) to be prefixed to all Bibles, " not the catalogue of S. Augustine, or the Canon of Carthage, or the (supposed) decree of Gelasius." Of individual writers, Cassiodorus mentions both S. Jerome's and S. Augustine's catalogues, and says that the Apocryphal books were com- mented upon by Bellator, on the same grounds as were assigned by S. Jerome ; Primasius supposed the twenty-four books of the O. T. to be indicated by the twenty-four wings of the Apocalyptic animals (in Apoc. c. 4, B. P. x. 296), as do the Commentaries ascribed to Victorinus (Gall. iv. 5G), and to S. Aug. (App. iii. 164), and Bede (Opp. v. 771), and using another mystical interpretation, in Lib. Keg. L. iv. (the com- mentary formerly ascribed to S. Eucherius ; but, as Cosin notices, by a Briton, in L. iii. Beg. c. 22). Ambr. Ansbert. finds them marked by the twenty-four elders in the Apoc. (c. iii. p. 101) ; Peter de la Cello, in another mystical meaning, adding that " plenary instruction of souls is foretasted from this number of books" (de panib. L. ii. B. P. xxiii. 728). Thomas Aug], counts them as twenty-four or twenty-two, as S. Jerome (in Apoc. c. 4). The number of twenty-two books is retained to designate the books of Divine authority in the O. T. by Agobard, A. 835 (de priv. et jure sacerd. n. G, Gall. xiii. 434) ; by Anastasius Biblioth., who at Borne follows Tsicephorus, whom he translates (in Pithceus Opusc. p. 16) ; by Abbot Giselbert (Altera Syn. ct Eccles. c. 1 fin;) ; by Peter Maurice, enumerating them and proving their Divine authority against the Petrobusians (Ep. c. Petr. Bibl. Clun. col. 1088) ; by Hugo de S. Victore (de Script, ct Scriptor. sacris, c. 6, and in four other places enumerating them), and Bich. de S. Vict. (Excerpt, ii. 9; P. i. p. 320) ; and Peter Comestor (Prasf. in Hist. Josh. Hist. Schol. f. 82, Lugd.) ; by John Beleth (de div. off. c. 60, f. 516) ; by John of Salisbury (Ep. 172. B. P. xxiii. 46S) ; by the Glossa ordiuaria, "but whatever is external to these (I speak of the O. T.), as Jerome says, is to be placed among the Apocryphal" (Pra?f. c. 3, sub fin.). Card. Hugo de S. Caro commented upou them as a distinct and different class. Of writers who specifically rejected particular books, Pope on the Cation of Scripture. 347 S. Gregory speaks of the Maccabees as uot canonical, but set forth for the edification of the Church, as S. Jer. (Mor. in Job xix. 21, n. 34, Ben. ; the book on Job was finished and sent to Leandcr, Bishop of Seville, after he was Pope, Baron. A. 58G, n. 2G; A. 595, n. 71). The Maccabees arc excluded also by the writer of the de Mirabil. S. Ser. (c. 34 ; S. Aug. App. iii. 2G). Hermann Contract, closes the history of "Divine Scripture" with the times of Nehemiah, ranking the Maccabees with Josephus and Africanus, as did Euseb., S. Jerome, Bede (Chron. in Canis. Thes. iii. p. 203). Pope S. Gregory counts three books of Solomon only (Procem. in Cant. Opp. T. iii. 2, col. 401). Alcuin rejected a passage of Ecclus., when alleged for the heresy of Elipantus, " because S. Jerome and Isidore attest undoubtingly that it is to be put among Apocryphal Scriptures " (adv. Elipant. Opp. i. 940, 941). Ealph of Fulda, A. 910, says that "Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, though they are used for the instruction of the Church, yet have not perfect authority" (in Lev. lib. xiv. init. p. 203). Bupertus says of the "Wisdom of Solomon, that it is not of the Canon, nor Canon. Scripture (in Gen. iii. 31, p. 48). Peter Maurice, Abbot of Clugny, having counted the twenty- two, says, " after these authentic books of H. Scr. there remain six, not to be passed in silence ; "Wisd., Ecclus., Tob., Jud., and Mace., which, although they could not attain the dignity of the preceding, yet for their praiseworthy and very necessary teaching deserved to be received by the Church" (Bibl. Clun. col. 1142). Hugo de S. A^ictore says, "they are read indeed, but are not written in the Canon" (de Scripturis et Scriptor. Sacris, c. 6) ; " in the canon of authority " (in Spec. Eccl. c. 8) ; "are Apocryphal, yet are read and belong to the O. T., but are not confirmed in the Canon" (de Scr. c. 12) ; and are likened to writings of <: holy fathers and doctors, which are not computed in the list of Divine Scriptures " (lb. c. G). Eichard de S. Victore follows him (Excerpt, ii. 9). Peter Comestor says that " Tobit is in no class [of the O. T.], that S. Jerome used Hagiographa in a wider sense, so as to include Apocrypha too" (Praef. in hist. Tob. Hist. Eccl. f. 146), and calls the history of Bel and the Dragon a fable (Prsef. iu Dan. c. 1, f. 151). Joh. Beleth counts four Apocryphal books; Tobit, 348 Ante-Tridentine statements Maccabees, Philo (i.e. Wisd. of Sol)., Ecclus. "These four the Church does not indeed receive, but approves them as having the same subject-matter as the books of Solomon, though not certainly and truly knowing their authors" (de Div. Off. c. 60). John of Salisbury expressly follows S. Jerome, that Wisdom, Ecclus., Judith, Tobit, and the Shepherd, as be asserteth, are not accounted in the Canon, nor the books of the Maccabees (Ep. 172). The Ordinary Gloss censures those " many " (plerique) who, " because they bestow not mucli pains on H. Scr., suppose that all the books contained in the Bible are to be received and reverenced with like veneration, being unable to distinguisb between the Canonical and tbe non- Canonical books, which tbe Hebrews separate from the Canon and the Greeks account among ' the Apocryphal.' " " "We then have here distinguished them and counted them separately (distincte) ; first the Canonical, then the non-Canonical books, between which there is as much difference as between certain and doubtful. For the Canonical were written, the Holy Spirit dictating; the non-Canonical or Apocryphal, it is not known when or by whom they were written. But since they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the Canonical, therefore the Church reads them, and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and reformation of manners. Yet their authority is not esteemed adequate to prove those things which are doubted or denied, or to confirm the authority of the doctrines of the Church, as S. Jerome says. But the Canonical books are of such autho- rity, that, whatever is contained there, it holdeth firmly and imquestioningly " (Bibl. Sacra, una cum gloss, ordin. et interim. T. i. ad princ). It subjoins severally to the third and fourth books of Esdras, Tobit, Judith, and each book of the Maccabees, the words "whicb is not in the Canon" (ed. Basle, 150(5. The words were omitted in several later editions). Card. Hugo includes "the Shepherd" with Ecclus., "Wisd., the two Mace, Judith, Tobias, as " Apocrypha, doubtful, not num- bered in the Canon ; but, because they chant truth, the Church receives them" (Prol. in Jos. T. i. f. 172). On S. Jerome's Prologus galeatus, he says, " This Prologue defends H. Scr. against those who introduce Apocrypha for true. But a book on the Canon of Scripture. 349 is called Apocryphal in two ways, either because its author is not known, but its truth is clear (and those the Church receives, not for the proving of the faith, but for instruction of manners), or because the truth is doubted, and these the Church does not receive" (Postill. i. f. 208). S. Thomas Aq. shows that in the time of Dionysius "the book of Wisdom was not yet accounted among the Canonical Scriptures" (on Dionys. de Div. nom. c. 4, lect. 9) ; and S. Antoninus quotes the 2 a . 2*. with De Lyra on Tobit, " that these books are not of such authority, that their sayings can be effectively argued from in matters of faith, as can other books of Holy Scripture, whence, perchance, they have the like authority, as have the sayings of saints approved in the Church" (Summa, P. iii. tit. 18, c. 6, T. iii. p. 189. The passage does not now occur in S. Thomas, but may have been omitted, like so many of dif- ferent writers on the Cone, of the B. V. in orig. sin). In the gloss on the Decretals by Teutouicus the six books are said " to be called Apocryphal ; and yet they are read, but perhaps not generally" (inc. Canones Dist. xvi. p. 62, Par. 1561). John Balbus in his " Catholicon " repeated S. Jerome's distinction (quoted by S. Antonin. P. iii. tit. xviii. c. 6, n. 3), as does " the sea of histories," or the Rudimentum (p. 317, Lubec. 1475), and Brito in his Comm. on S. Jerome's Prologus, quoted by De Lyra, and De Lyra himself (Prsef. in Tobit, T. ii. col. 1499, in 1 Esr. c. i. col. 1280), Ocham (Dial. Par. iii. Tract, i. L. iii. c. 16), and Thomas Waldensis (Doctrinal. Fid. T. i. L. ii. art. 2, c. 22), S. Antoninus (Sum. Hist. P. i. tit. iii. c. 4), Alph. Tostatus, A. 1458, who adds that "the Church does not know that their writers dictated them, inspired by the H. Spirit; obliges no one necessarily to believe what is contained there, and is not clear whether every thing in them is true," yet " it does not find in them any thing false or exceedingly suspected of falsehood, but rather there is in them a doctrine copious, holy, and devout" (Prsef. in S. Matt. q. 1 and 3, and Prsef. in lib. Paral. q. 7, Opp. viii. f. 15), though in contrast with the Jews he says that "the Church receives and reads them" (Comm. in Prol. Gal. q. 28, Opp. vi. 15, 16). Dionysius a Eickel (who died 1471, and was highly esteemed by Eugenius IV.) followed S. Jerome (in Gen. Art. 4, f. 4), and denies specifically that 350 Ante- Trident in e .statements Ecclesiasticus (Prol. in Eccl. f. 203), Tobit (Prol. f. 132), the Maccabees (in Mace. c. i. f. 183), or that Susanna, or Bel and the Dragon (in Dan. xiv. f. 429) belong to Canonical Scripture, but expressed his belief of the truth of Tobit, the Maccabees, Sus., and Bel. Card. Ximenes continued the distinction (Bibl. Coinpl. T. ii. prol. 2; the work was formally approved by Leo X. T. i. princ), as did Job. Picus, Count of Mirandula, stating, " his (S. Jer.'s) authority is held most sacred by the Church " (de ord. cred. theor. v. T. ii. pp. 181, 182), and Jas. Faber Stapulens., saying that " they are not of the Canon, nor in the first and supremo authority of the Church" (Prsef. in lib. Trium viror. et Virg. Spirit.), and Jodoc. Clichtov. on Damascene, " these books, being accounted of less authority and weight than those twenty-two books of the 0. T., were not placed in the ark, but only the Canonical books " (in Damas- cen. iv. 18). Ludov. Vives still said, " The book of Wisdom is believed to be Philo's, who lived in the times of the Apostles, whose friend he also was (in S. Aug. de Civ. D. xvii. 20), rejected the hist, of Sus. and Bel as Apocrypha, with the third and fourth book of Esdras (lb. xviii. 31. 3G), and also counted Tobit and Judith Apocrypha (de trah. discipl. L. v.). Fr. Greorgius, A. 1501, still counted twenty-four books only (in harm, mundi, f. 451 ; Paris, 1515), and " asserted that Tobit was not in the Canon" (Probl. T. vi. sect. 5). Lastly, Card. Cajetan strongly adhered to S. Jerome, twenty years before the Council of Trent (in Hebr. i., and in Esther c. iii., and even in his dedicatory Epistle to Clement VII.), as did John Driedo (who was employed to write against Luther), de Eccl. Scriptt. et Dogm. L. 1, c. 4, ad diffic. iii. S. Isidore of Seville, on the other hand, after enumerating the Hebrew Canon in the three classes, says, " We have a fourth class of the O. T., of those books which are not in the Hebrew Canon" — Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, Judith, two of the Maccabees — " which, although the Jews separate among the Apocryphal books, the Church of Christ both venerates and speaks of among Divine books " (Etymol. vi. 1). Of Ecclus. he says, " It is clear that this book was both written by Jesus, son of Sirach, and was held in the same vene- ration as the other books of Holy Scripture" (Prooein. in on the Canon of Scripture. 351 lib. v. and N. T. n. 41). Eabanus Maurus follows him (Opp. vi. p. 3G). There seem to be great difficulties as to the autho- rities for the larger Canon — the Council of Carthage, Innocent I., Gelasius. As to the Council of Carthage, its date, " Csesariq et Attico Conss.," is A.D. 307; but this was the thirteenth year of Siricius. Tet, in the body of the Canon, it is proposed, " Let this be made known to our brother and fellow-Bishop Boniface, or other Bishops of those parts, that we have received from the fathers that these things are to be read in Church." But Boniface was not Bishop of Rome until A. 418. And the next, the 47th Canou, speaks of consulting " our brethren aud fellow-Bishops Siricius and Simplician." Then, as to the Epistle of Innocent I., it is improbable that Exuperius, Bishop of Thoulouse, should have consulted about the Canon, since S. Hilary had a clear knowledge of the Canon some fifty-five years before ; aud this part of Innocent's Epistle — if written by him — must have been little known, since the Council of Carthage consulted Boniface and other Italian Bishops about the Scriptures read of old among them, some years afterwards. In the Breviatio Canonum, also, by Ferrandus (A. 530), tit. 22S, there is a heading, " That nothing besides Canonical Scriptures be read in the Church." But the Council of Laodicea, c. 57, and Council of Carthage, c. 45, are alone quoted. The Breviarium Canonum of Cresconius, having the same Canon as that of Ferrandus (Can. 299), alleges only the Council of Carthago, although quoting Pope Innocent in many other places for other objects. In regard to the decree of S. Gelasius, Pearson 1 observes that in the collection of Pontifical decrees by Dionysius Exiguus, there are other decrees of Gelasius, but not this. And yet Dionysius wrote in the very year which has, apparently, been taken from him for the supposed Eoman Council, "the consulship of Asterius and Prasidius," i.e. A. 494. The argument from the omission in the Collection of Canons by Cresconius and Ferrandus holds equally against the Canon 1 Vindiciffl Epistt. S. Ignatii, i. 4, in Cotel. Patres Apost. T. ii. App. p. 27G, sqq. 352 Doubtfulness of Canon of Pope Gelasius. of Gelasius; neither Pope certainly was their authority for the Canon of Holy Scripture. It seems also incouceivable that Pope Gelasius should have written, " After those books of the Old and New Testament which we regularly receive, the holy Bornan Church, forbids not to receive these writings also, i.e. the holy Council of Nice," &c., enumerating the four first general Councils, which, if they had not received, they would have been heretics ; which having been received by the whole Church, it depended not upon them to receive or not to receive them. Bp. Pearson notices that Ivo, A.D. 1117, gives the list of the Canonical books without the name of Gelasius (P. iv. c. 61), and the decree about books approved or disapproved, with his name, after an interval (c. 64). This decree as to books ap- proved or disapproved is also what is chiefly quoted. Thus, of the writers referred to, Lupus of Ferrara (A.D. 830) refers to it only; "Gelasius, with seventy most learned Bishops, laying down what writers were or were not to be received " (De 3 Qusestt. fin. B. P. xv. 57). Pope Nicolas (A.D. 865) quotes it as authority, that the Decretal Epistles were to be received, and that great care was to be taken about reading acts of martyrs : he refers to Pope Innocent alone for the Canon, and so probably knew nothing about the list attri- buted to Gelasius (Epist. ad univ. Episc. Gallia? in Concil. Bom. A. 1065). The Chronicon Centulense (in D'Achery Spicileg. iv. p. 484) simply mentions among their books, " Gelasii Papa? de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis." Aldhelm (A.D. 896) says (without mentioning any name) that " the judgment of the orthodox Fathers sanctioned, by decretal writings, wholly to abdicate and eliminate afar all the other phrenziesof Apocryphas as horrible-sounding thunder of words" (De Laud. Virg. c. ii. B. P. xiii. 37). Atto (A.D. 915), in his Capitulare, quotes from the decrees of Gelasius two sentences only, one " that all opuscula and tractates of divers Fathers who in no way deviated from the fellowship of the Holy Eoman Church might be read," the other, as to the care with which acts of martyrs were to be read (Mai Scriptt. Vett. Nova Coll. T. vi. P. ii. p. SI), which occur in the latter part of the decree. The whole is however spoken of by Hincmar (A.D. 845) under the name of Gelasius, in his Opusc. 55 Capp. adv. Hincmar. Doubtfulness of Canon of Pope Oelasius. 353 Laudun., c. 25, Opp. ii. The list is also given by Burchard (A. 1057) and Ivo (A. 1117), both from Isidore Mercator, with the difference that Ivo gives only " three books of Solomon," Burchard, in the present text, has "five books of Solomon," ascribing to him, not " Wisdom " only, but Ecclesiasticus. The copy from which the Boman Council of A. 494 was derived, agrees with neither, having "three books of Solomon," as Ivo, but adding "item Sapientise liber unus, Ecclesiasticus liber unus," which Ivo has not. Gratian, who ascribes the latter part of the decree to " Gelasius, in a Council held at Borne with seventy Bishops," has not the Canon 2 . It seems probable that (as still in Ivo), the portion about the Ecclesiastic writers approved or disapproved, was independent of the catalogue of Holy Scripture. Bp. Bearson notices, that "the Codex Jurensis," published by Chiffiet, in the decretal of Hormisdas, premises the Ordo of the books of Holy Scripture, but alters the words of the decree, that it may refer to the Ordo. Eor whereas in other MSS. it stands simply " After the Prophetic, and Evangelic, and Apostolic Scripture," this substitutes, " After all these Prophetic, and Evangelic, and Apostolic Scriptures, which we have alove •produced ;" and for " We have regularly received," puts " We have above regularly enumerated." The Ballerini, in their " Dissertation " de Ant. Collect. Can. (P. ii. c. xi. pp. clii. — clix.), mention other MSS., in which either form is used, according as the decree was or was not connected with the Catalogue. They themselves think, that the decree as to Ecclesiastical books belongs to S. Gelasius (p. civ.) ; that the Catalogue of Holy Scripture does not belong to him ; but that, being found in the addition to the Spanisli Collection of Canons, and in those additions ascribed to Hormisdas, and those additions being, they hold, genuine, that Catalogue was sent by Hormisdas to Spain, who also put the Apostolic Canons among the Apocrypha (ib. clvi., clvii.). The main question is, however, not as to the greater or less extent of the Canon, but in what sense the word " the Canon " was used, whether a smaller Canon of books, upon 1 Dist. xv. c. 3. 354 Were there not two Canons ? which our Lord set His seal, was acknowledged, as well as a larger Canon, the " totus Canon " of S. Augustine, including the later books, which were written after the primary Canon was closed, which was read for edification of life. THE END. GILBERT AND RIVINGTON PRINTERS, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE, LONDON. TO THE BINDER. This volume is to have an Appendix in answer to Mr. Harper's strictures. J